SELECTIVE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977 (PL 95-217)
RELATING CHIEFLY TO CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
WITH SUMMARIES
Office of Water Program Operations
Municipal Construction Division
FINAL DRAFT
Prepared by Ralph H. Sullivan
1/10/78
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECI1ON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
-------
pL9s-as 1
-------
I NTRODUCT ION
This volume contains selective legislative histories of specific
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). The
selected items relate primarily to construction grants. A summary of
each of the provisions is included.
The legislative histories are selective in that the full text is
included for (1) the particular segment(s) of the Act pertaining to a
subject, (2) conference comments, and (3) the House and Senate floor
statements on the subject. The House and Senate Reports are reproduced
and referenced where they pertain to a subject. The House and Senate
hearings are not referenced since most of the Congressional deliberations
on the Clean Water Act of 1977 took place in mark-up and conference
sessions. The sprit of the mark-up and conference sessions is incorporated
in the summaries.
This volume is designed to be helpful in interpreting the law and
in preparing regulations and guidelines. For further information on any
particular item, Ralph H. Sullivan, of the Municipal Construction
Division of the Office of Water Program Operations, should be contacted
(telephone: 202/426—8973).
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Training Grants 1
Individual Systems . . . . 5
Combined Step 2/3 Grants . 9
Contract Enforcement . . . 13
Reserve Capacity 17
UserCharges 21
Industrial Cost Recovery and Study 29
State Management Assistance 38
Reimbursement 48
Grant Eligible Categories 53
Requirements for American Materials (Buy America) 61
Determination of Priority 65
Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements
(Ocean Discharges) 68
Innovative and Alternative Technology . 80
Municipal Time Extensions 96
Pretreatment 107
Combined Sewer Overflows Study 115
Sludge Disposal and Utilization of Treated Sludge Study . 118
Section 208 123
Water Treatment Contracting and Bid Shopping . 142 -
DRAFT COPY
Please call Ralph H. Sullivan,
on 426-8973 with any comments.
-------
TRAINING GRANTS
-------
TRAINING GRANTS
This provision will augment the previous grants for sewage treatm nt
facilities for personnel already at treatment facilities. The limit of
these 100 percent grants is raised from $250,000 to $500,000 per State,
with part of this amount available for multi—State facilities if there
is no significant duplication of effort. No support for graduate training
is intended to be funded by this authorization. Non-government personnel
can be trained on a cost—reimbursable basis. Satellite facilities at
more than one treatment works are made possible. Training for on-site
treatment systems is encouraged.
-------
TRAINING GRANTS
LAW TEXT
TRAD.nse cRAires
Sec. 10. (a) Section 109(b) (3) of the Fed.
aral Water POUution Co t;ol Act Li amended
by sulking “srso,oco” slid crIb; in lieu
thereof 3300,000”.
(b) Section 109(b) of lbe Federal Water
PollutIon Control Ac; Is amended by adding
5 5th. end thereof the SolLowtn ; new pain.
graph:
(4) The Administrptor ny exempt a
grant under thi.s section from any require-
mene uocer sectIon 204(a) (3) of thLs Act.
Any grantee who received a grant under this
section prior to enactment of the Clee Water
Ac; of 191’? shall be eligible to have Its grant
inereesed by funds med &,ailAbi, undef
Inch Act.”.
Cc) Section 109(b) (1) of the Federal Water
PollutIon Conned Act Is amended by i nsert.
tag before the period t he following: a 4 for
lb. cost. of other State treatment works
operator training programs. inciuding mobile
• b’aln*ng units. Classroom rintal, specialIzed
tietose, and Inztruct lonal maccrier, S
(d) Section 109(b) (1) of t he Federal Waler
PollutIon ConCTot Act is llnended by sinking
out eon truc o of a u’eaunenc worRa ” inn
• inserting in lieu thereof “Conltrl ic:lon of
ireamient urks .
(c i Section 109(b) (2) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control A t is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new sea.
teece: “t any ease where a grant Li made to
Ieswe two or more State.. the AdmInistrator
Is authorized to moka an additionni grant for
•I supplemental ariuity In each such State. .
DEBATE
CONFERENCE REPORT
- ATN eG GRANTS
house bill
No con iparable provision.
- Senate amend inent
This section amends section 109 of the Act
to’lncrease the limit of a grant for a train-
ing faculty from $250,000 to 0500.000, to ex-
empt and such grant froin the requirements
of section 204, and to Increase the eligible
uses of training grant funds.
Conference substftute
The conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment except that it re-
atriets the exemption to section 204(a) (3)
only. In addition. if a grant is made to serv&
more than one State, an additional grant is
authorized for a supplemental facility in each
of those States.
The only provision under sectIon 204(a) (3)
Trom which training grants are exempted
relates to the priority list requirement.
The amendment in section 10(d) of this
Act which amends section 109(b)(1) of the
Federa) Water Pollution Control Act is in-
tended to allow grants for 100 per centum of
any additional costs of construction of waste
treatment works required for a facility In
train and upgrade waste -treatment works
operational and maintenance personnel. For
example, a given faculty could Include class-.
rooms at a local school and additional lab-
oratory’ or training facilities or other facili-
ties at more than one treatment works. The
school facility would be central to the opers.
tion but satellite facilities at more than one
treatment works would be considered to be
part of an over.aii training site.
Training programs under this section
-would not be limited to employees of State
‘-and brat governments but could also be
msde available, on a cost reimbursable basis,
• to nongovernmental personnel. -
SENATOR MtJSKIE :
- TRAL’rTNG cwrra
This section Increases the limit of a
grant for a training facility from $250.-
CCC to $500,000, exempts any such grant
from the priority list requirement of sec-
tIon 204(a) (3), and Increases the uses of
these funds.
The lang uage which amends section
109(b) (2) of the Federal Water P3Uutlon
Control Act is Intended to authorize the
Administrator In any case where a grant
has already been made for a facility to
serve two or more States to make an. ad-
ditional grant for individual facilities
- within any of the participating States.
These additional facilities would be sup-
plemental to the multi-State facility. It
is not intended that there would be du-
plication of effort. For example, the
States of New Ham shu’?. Mahsachu-
setts, and Maine are planning construc-
tion of training faci1 ties within each of.
their States.
The State facilities would be utilized to
train or retrain personnel alread y oper-
ating at treatment facilities. IU additlon
the six New England States and the State -
of New York are considering the con- -
struction of a regional training facility’
to be utilized by each of the seven Sca:ea
for the training of new operst onal per-
sonnel Thus. under tillS section. the
multi-State facility and indIvidual facIl-
ity ta each State could be funded under
section 109 of tile act U there Is n aigmf-
Icant dupliction of effort ‘ -
These-authorizations do not provide
support for graduate training (nia.ster
an Ph. D. levels) or State agency fel—
lowshsps In water quality control curric- -
ula as authorized us sections 104 a)(l) ’.
104(g) (3)(A), or l04(g) (3) (B). —
Funding authorizations for - water
quality graduate ‘training grants (inns-,
ters and Ph. D. levels) to Institutions of.
higher education and State- agency fel--
lowshlps are Included in section 104(u)
(1). __________
CONG. ROBERTS :
Will-i rescect to sectlon 10 of the con—
erence report. It should be noted el.,tc
the Ad :n nistrator in assist g he States
L’tthe development of tra ningfa ci1tfes
Li expected to encourage trainznq for
on-site treatment_s te’ s,
-3-
-------
SENATE REPORT
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
Occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
TR.UNINO Gn.txrs
SU r )rART
This section amends section 109, Training Grants and Contracts, to
increase the limit of a grant for a training facility from $250,000 to
$500,000 to exempt any such grant from the requirements of section
204, and to increase the eligible uses of training grant funds.
DISCUSSION
The 1972 act restricts the use of 109(b) funds to the construction
of physical facilities for the training of operators of municipal treat-
ment works by a State. The committee reco rnizes the necessity of corn-
prehensive, widely available training opportunities for those who oper-
ate the thousands of treatment works constructed with Federal funds.
The committee believes that substantially improved State training pro-
grams can be developed with the increased flexibility in the use of
funds provided in this amenthnent. The committee expects that con-
struction grant funds would be expended by the States pursua.ut to
this amendment to section 109(b) for such training costs as mobile
training units, classroom rentals, specialized instructors, and instruc-
tional miiterial. - -
—4-
-------
INDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS
-5—
-------
IMDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS
Grants are authorized for privately owned treatment works serving
one or more principal residences or small commercial estabilshnfents
existing on December 27, 1977. A public body must apply on behalf of a
number of such units and certify that public ownership is not feasible.
The public body must certify that the treatment works will be properly
maintained and operated. User charges are required for cost of operation
and maintenance. Commercial users must pay back 100 percen t of the Federal
share of the cost of construction with no moritorium during the ICR study,
and the 25,000 gpd exemption does not apply. The cost of the facilities
must be less than the cost of providing a system of collection and
central treatment. This section is intended to be utilized to construct
alternative or unconventional treatment works for individual residences or
clusters of residences. Alternatives include septic tanks, and other
on-site systems. small systems serving cluster households, and pressure
and vacuum sewers.
—0-
-------
rNoIvrDuAL SYSTE ’S
(See Also: Innovative and Alternative Technology)
LAW TEXT
IND!Vmvai. STS?EMS
Szc. !4 itIon 231 of the Federal Water
PoUutlc ‘trol Act Is amended by adding
at the e ereoL the following new sub-
section:
- may be made Under tbi ’s
section t. 3truct a privately owned treat-
ment wc- arving one or more principal
residenc-. : smaU commercial establish.
-ments C- ;ructed prior to. and inhabited
on. the .3..:c of enactment of this subsection
where the Atht Iv14strasor finds that—
(l) a public body otherwise eligible for
a grant under subsection (g) of this section
has applied on behalf of a number of such
units and certifled that public ownership of
such works Is not feasible;
‘(2) such publlc body has entered Into
an agreement with the Administrator which
guarantees that such treatment works will
be properly operated and maintained and
will comply with all other requirements of
sectIon 204 of this Act and includes a sys-
tem of charges to assure that each recipient
of waSte treatment services under such a
grant will pay its proportionate share of the
coat of operation and maintenance (includ-
ing replacement): and
“(3) the total cast and environmental im-
pact of providing waste treatment services
to such residendes or- commercial establish-
ments will be less than the cast of providing
a system of collection and central treatment
of such wastes.
In the case of any treatment works assisted
under this subsection serving commercial
users, any such agreement under paragraph
(2) shall make provision for the payment to
the united States by the commercial users
Cf the treatment works of that portion of
the coat of construction of such works which
is applicable to the treatment of commercial
wastes to the extent attributable to the- Fed-’
eral share of the cast of construction.”.. -
SENAT’)R MLJSKIE :
- —- iIJnTVmOAr. SYS?ir45
The authority wider this provision 1 5
to be exercised in accordance r1th cost-
effectiveness gwdeUne for the construc-
tie grants program. Alternatwec inciud-
big septic tanks and other onsite sys-
tents, sma1 systems serv:ng cluster
households, pressure and vac’awn sew-
ers and the like should be compared to.
determine re&ative costs and envi r.-
mental Impacts of ea:b. The cost.-eitec-
tive solutao should be chosen.
CoUecUon of moneys under tlu .c pro-
vision for commercial user cost recovery
should be carried out in a manner simi-
lar to the collection of moneys to: uiuus-
trial cost recovery, subject to all the
requu’ersents of sectIon 204. as hmendc- L
by other provisions of the nov amerki-’
ments. There Is. however, no niorato:ium
of this requirement during the perioJ of
the industrial cost recovery st idy. nor
does the 25,000-gallon-per-day exemp-
‘on apply to commercial users of pro-
,‘cts assisted under this authorIty.
DEBATE
CONFERENCE REPORT
nqDrJm sx, srsrzaes
- J1OU bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amend mant
‘This section amends section 201 of the Act
to permit grants for cocstz’uclion of prl.ca-
17-owned treatment works where a public
body applies for such grant on behalf of a
number of such units and will aasure that
such treatment works are properly operated
and maintained, and where such service is
more co3t-e ectiv than collectIon and. can-
teal treatment. -
Con/erence sub. titufe
Same as the Senate amendment e’ccept
that the public body Is re u :ed to certIfy
that public ownership Ia not feasibie. The
• public body must enter into an agreement
with the Aclmlzilacrator that includes a sys-
tem of charges to Insure each recipient of
services will pay its pr000rtionate share of
• operation and malnienacce coats. Such
agreement must also provide or payment to
the tThiied Slates by cor ’.merclaI- users of
that part of tha cost auo llcab le to treatment
of commercial waste att;ib’Jtable to the Fed-
eral share of the ConStruction cost.
Ordinarily this authority will not be used
to construct septic tan s serving single resi-
dences.
This subsection may be used only to con-
struct or acquire waste treatment facUlties.
and not cornmodes or asioriated plumbing.
This section is intended to be utilized to
provide for the construction of alternative o ’
unconventional treatment Works os tndivt-’
dual residences or clusters of residences.
Secondary treatment package plants do not
meet the requirements of this section,
SENATOR WALLOP :
The Conference Comeiuttee also
adopted a Senate sponsored amendment
whzcn should be of parucular intereec Co
very small conimunjtles nt Wyornrng.
The provision permits the awarding of
grants for the construction of pr:vately
owned treatment works where a public
body applies for the grant on behalj of a.
number of the works, and will as. ure that
that the treatment works are properly
• operated and maintained. This amend-
ment is designed to assist extremely
small. rural commun tjes where public
ownership of the treatment works is not
fenaible. arid the private system would
• be more cost-effective than collection
—‘ snd cents-nj treatment of wa,st , -
—7—
-------
Pg 2
SENATOR STAFFORD :
Second. privately owr ed - trea menr.
works o( the t)pe oe cribed in new sec-
t on 2O1 h), subject 01 course, to the
safequards and liznitattor.s i:i 2 l(h,
tniiluding most espec ally tue require-
xa *it that such pnvately owned treat.
ifient works will be properly operated.
and maintained. This essential require-
eae is expected to overcome tne objec-
tions of State health o cials and en-
v;ronmental agency acimnistrators.
There is every reason to believe that on-
site systems, including sept c tanks. will,.
meet health and pollution abater ent
concerns when they are properly de-
signed, operated and maintained in ac-
cordance with a com:nu.iityu.iae pro-
gram. They need not be. as they have,’
been, a haphazard or tern u grary solution.’
SEN TO RANDOLPH :
A major policy change., which I did
propose. permits Federal grants for con---
-struction..eL privately- owned treatment.
works, where a public body, not the per-
son but. a.. publia bod7 applies on behaLf
of a number of such units where we can-
‘be assured, that they are properly oper-
ated and-maintained and will be more-’
cost. effective than the- central systems.
the large massive sysseme. which we have.
lfrthe,citles. which are not-applicable to
the rural sections of the country. - - - -
It. Is not enough iust to. spend money.,
We’ want. to. spend money intelligently..
and. that_is. the- reason, we are “g
.thls change.. Grants of. thi,s type- would..
be Intended to.solte pollution, problems-
.In- the light.Ly populated areas as I said.
where conventional collection and treat- . .
ment systems are not suitable. They are-
available but they are not suitable. They
are not_practical. They are- not reas n—
able.’;- ..
r The’ Appalachian Regional Commis-
slOa_. this Cor n -c-ion wrnclz serves. 13-
States...tlze. State of West Virginia as a
whole and. parts of 12 other States, has
conducted a demonstration program. It-
has- been held. in Boyd. Counts’. my,. and-
we have had the experience of that
project, and It indicates that individual.
- and cluster systems are ’s . realistic means
of meeting the sewage treatment pro—
grams at the rural community level.. -
INDIVIDUAL .SYSTEMS
SENATE REPORT
(Needs to be scre’ened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
INDIVIDC.tL Srsrn zs
SUMMA1IT
This section amends section 201, Purpose, to permit grants for con’
sti’uction of privately-owned treatment works where a public body ap-
plies for such grant on behalf of a number of such units and will as-
umo that such treatment works are properly operated and main-
tained, and where such service is more cost-effective than collection
and central treatment.
DISCUSSION
This amendment extends Federal assistance to communities in rural
or semirural areas whet-c centralized sewage collection and treatment
systems arc not oost-cffective because the population is of lose density.
These areas often havo severe pollution problems but cannot afford
the high cost of rcpl.iceinent, rehabilitation or improvement of their
existing small waste-water treatment and disposal systems without a
Federal grant.
This section amends section 201 of the act to authorize the Adminis-
trator to make grants to construct privately owned treatment works
where the cost-effective solution to an existing pollution problem is a
number of small treatment works serving one or more existing prllnai’y
residences and associated existing small commercial establishments.
Treatment works serving new residences or commercial establishments
øi’ second homes, vacation, hi’ recreation residences are not eligible for
this si, ccial authority.
When the committee refers to alternatives or unconventional treat-
ment works for individual or cluster treatment works it means such
systems as aeration treatment plants, compost toilets, oil flush toilets.
septic tanks, waste-water recycling devices, pressure sewers and other
devices, and appropriate apurtanences for wastewater treatment and
disposal used in a systematic way to provide rural and other areas
with sanitary services through a public. body.
The section requirep that a public body otherwise eligible for a grant
under section 201(g) apply on belialfof a number of such units. This
authority may be used only for treatment works which are pai’tof a
comprehensive plan for orrecting ground or surface water quality
problems. Individual units not part of such a community-wide pro-
gram are not eligible. The municipality’s application for a construc-
tion program for-individual units under this subsection must be placed
on the State priority list before being funded, including any special
list for alternative systems.
The municipality must also enter into an enforceable agreement with
the Administrator to assure that such treatment works are properly
pperatecl and maintained. All other requirements of section 204 of the
act must also be met.
-8-
-------
COMBINED STEP 2/3 GRANTS
-9—
-------
COMBINED GRANTS
Where a treatment works will have a total estimated cost $2 million
or less, a single grant may be awarded for the combined Federal share of
the cost of Step 2 (preparation of plans and specifications) and Step 3
(actual construction). In States with unusually high construction costs,
(Alaska and Hawaii, for example) the total cost of the treatment works may
be $3 million.
-10-
-------
Law Text
COMBINED STEP 2/3 GRANTS
Conference Report
COMenrm GRANTS
Sac. 18. SectIon 203(a) or the Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act Is anienaed by
adding at the end thereof the following new
sentences; “In the ca.se of a treatment works
that has an estimated total coat of 2.0OQ,OQO
or less (as determined by the AdmLwstrator),
and the popuLation of the applicant niunici-
pality Is twenty-S e thousand or less (ac-
cording to the most recent United States
census), upon completion of an approved
tacu ity plan, a single grant may be awarded
zor the combined Federal share bf the gcst
. 0 1 preparIng construction plans and irnecift-
.cattons,.and the building and erectIon of the
taeatment works. If any State is Sound by
‘the Ad 4 I ’ator to b&va Unusually high
-costa c construction, the Administrator may
authorize a single grant Under the preceding
enteace where the estimated total cost of
the treatment works does not exceed 13000-
oo.-.. - - .. -
CONG. ROBERTS:
- - co nwm GRANTS
Another modiftcation. affecting the
a,lm,niet aUon of the title LI construc-
tion grant program permits the combina-
ton In a 8lngie grant award of step 2 arid
step 3 grants—covering preparation of
construction plans and spectilcations.
and the building and erection of thu
treatment works, respectively—for proj -
lots whose total esth ...ated cost Is $2 mu-
lion or less and the population of the
applicant municipailty is 25,000 or less.
This provIsion, section 18 of the con-
ferenre report. Is an outgrowth of the
work of the Subcommittee on Investiga-
tlons and Review, and while seemingly
minor In scope should produce substan-
tial benefis in terms of cost savings and
acceleration of construction.
Recent EPA data demonstrate that
this provision would cover nearly 80 of
prolects involving 30 percent of funds
obligated in any given Iscal year.
Assuming an authorization level of $5 btl-
lion per year, this provision would a ect
projects totaling $L5 billion per year.
If just 8 months were cut off the proc-
easing time for each prolect and we
assume an annual interest rate of 7.5 per-
cent and an annual Inflation rate of
10 percent, the annual ‘yield In savings.
would be in excess of $125 mnilUon.
DEBATE
COMUINED GRANTS
HOuse bill -
SectIon 5 amends section 203 of t e Ac:
to provide that the ACm n1s rator may after
approval of a Step 1 racilty plan which con-
tains estimates of the cost to complete the
project, award a ai gIe grant for nrepar
construction d ma tngs and apeelil:atious
(Step 2) and the butiding end e?ec ion of the
treatment works (Step 3) combined in a
single application, where the total cost of
Steps 2 and 3 for this grant wcuid not ex-
ceed 11,000.000.
Senate amendment
SectIon 18 am ends section 203 of the Act
to authorize the award of a combined step 2
and step 3 grant in the case of a treatment
,works costing less than $2 miilion which
will serve a popu auon of 25,000 or less. In
-States wnlch have unusually high consrnsc-
tion costs, the grant limitation may be in-
creased to $3 million.
Conference bstf tute
The conference Substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment,
The provision for increas ng comnbined
grants !mni $2 million to $3 million is In-
tended for the high construction cost areas
of Alaska and Hawaii,
CONG. CLEVELAND:
C’rTOs, IS- coaisn ao oRAu,-m-,
This set.tion Is intended to exnedite
- construction projects in the smaller mu-
mcipaiitles. The cornbumng of steps 2 and
3 nih speed up the cozi. truction of us
many as 30 pei- ent of projects. Many
rniUions o iniiation looses and Interest
do1lars-cn be saven. This is a progressive
step which wIU—proye helpful to many
State administrators.
—1 ‘I —
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
Pz .4tNs, SPEcIFIcATIONS, EsTuzAr1 s, AND PAYMENm
At present, EPA administratively divides the process of grant ap-
proval for a treatment works into three steps, each subject to a sepiirule
grant application, regnr(llcss of the size of the project; 1)evekiuneiit
of facility plaits (Step 1), preparation of co s(ruction diu ng said
Speeifleatio,is (Step 2), and actual construction (Step 3).
S etion 3 of ILIl. 8199 aiuueiuls section 203 of the ct to provide that
he . d ii must m .tI or laity a fter approval of a Step 1 fitch ity plan which
conta mn estimum:m(cs ui lie ct)bt In enimupkte I lie project, award IL single
grant. foi tej) and Srep 3 eoiuuLmnctl in it single application, wlucic
the total co L. of Steps 2 and 3 for this gi .mut oulti not e cecd
$1 ,Olit),OUO. l uLIglIly ii fon it Ii to a t bird of all projects miattonwide
‘uhI t.tll iLIum (1w $I,00tl.OOt) comubiumed ceiliuug, and would include
coiuupkti sy’ t eiim for small comumiuunities newly iiustitumt ing ticatment or
iL pl;ui ii till f,uei littes, as well as extension o [ cx islung systems in
( uiuuiuutuuiities.
lii imiu t tin,us 1 Sep 11 mate C(HIt I act (fl cont racEs voull be entered into
fur I lie pi epimi .tt ion of detailed plans and SI)eciIicatiolks (Step 2 work)
antI fat ;uctrpu 1 con t i net ion (Step :1 wom Ic). ‘I’lteu e fore, it is not
clIt tLtI that. I his provision will be limlerpi eted iii such a Iiiaiuiitr as
to i ecjuii•e grantees to enter into a single consti uuclion contract where
(hey lu ve received a combined Step 2 and Step 3 grant.
It is e t aunt ed that I hb, new proeedure vouild accelerate the total
giant .t ppiova I process for sniall treat ment orks by four months
to :i year or more, while maintaining assurances that projects meet the
requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and this
N at joimal Eu vu onineuti al Policy Act of 1009.
SU1 EMA fly
This section amends section 203, Plans, Specifications. Estimates
and Payments, to authorize the award of a combined step 2 and step 3
grant in time case of a treatment works costing less than $2 million
which will serve a popuulal ion of 23,000 or less. In States which have
unusually high construction costs, the grunt limitation may be
increace(I to $3 million.
niscuBsioN
This section amends section 203(a) of the act to provide that the
ulinini t.r to may, after approval of a step 1 facility plan, award a
‘iiigle grant for step 2 and step 3 of the proposed treatment works.
The combined Ski) 2 nnd step 3 swant would be allowed only in those
in .tnnces where the total cost of the project does not exceed $2 million
and the population of the grantee municipality is 2 ,000 or less.
‘flu tliiiefl(lIfleiit is iumteiutled to iuitplif ’ grant proees;ulg and paper-
work fm sn ,:illei• projeets :mncl cam’nu,nittcs. ‘Ilus proe ’eduire ‘ ill allow
limited relief from the current s(atntoiy reqinrement that al! grantees
apply for funds in a I Imree—Ftep pr0(: S. Just end, the Aduit a isi rator
vouIcl he perimuitted to make a step 1 grant, then, following iLpl)10V1m1
of the facility plan for the project, award a combined step 9 and sfcp 3
gramilt. Appioval of the plums and specifications prepared by grantee
i ould be requiied, however, before the °rantec could begin construc-
tion. The amendment will have the effect of cutting down on time
number of applications and grants, and reducing the completion Liimie
and paperwork involved in a given project.
EiSA est hImumLtcs that ttpiii ixiimuiitcly 0 percetit of imiLuiticiJ)nl waste—
water tremitiimei it. COumstrtmctioi i grants piujeets will beumelit froumu this
im lmtenc l iiieimL
It should be undeistoocl tlmmmt this nunendnicnt does hot, authoi ize
gmammtecs receiving a couuibincul step 2 and step 3 gu:tnt to eider into it
single coitstruiction coumtrmiet. A. separate eommttuct ov couuti ads would
Imaro to be entet ed into by the grantee for the 1C itVfl1 jolt aiitl phi mis
immiti specifications (step 2). In turn, a separate Contract. Or tontract
wotmiti have to be entered into by the grantee for Lime act mini constrmmc-
thai (step 3). however, construct ion znanagcmimemmt conti acts would be
allowed where a single contractot acts as an agent for the grantee iii
overseeing the woric that has been contracted for under sep.u ate coti-
tracts for step 2 and step 3 work.
‘l’imeso am o the kinds of commnuiiitjes for which the State should net
as coat 1 act manager. Combined grants should only be it cd wheic time
States have demonstrated the cmmpability to mimuiage liteir djstribntion
eiliei ent ly.
‘ [ ‘lie comiminittee lecognizos thmere am some Stateswhiclm hia ve expeli-
enced unusually high cost of construction, such as IIaw,mii mimi Alaska.
Costs in tlmc e areas can iLumi in excess of ‘JO l)Crcent aurnrc than the costs
of ama equivalent comusi ruetion project in the other St:mtcs. Yet, those
l)mojccts arc still, in relative terms, small projects which would other-
wise qualify for a combined single COliStitiction grant.. ‘l’hcse types of
Projects should itot, be requuiicd to fulfill the conditions of steps 2 aml
3 sepamately only because construction costs are ientar.
liistead, foa those high cost areas, ‘the Adntiitistratoi. is authorizeti
to nmal;c combined grants ivhen the ‘projects costs are not cstiumm ted to
be iii excess of $3 million if (lie population of the grantee municipality
does not. CXCCC(i 25,000.
(Need to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
HOUSE REPORT
SENATE REPORT
Co InINEn GnANTS
-12—
-------
CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
-13—
-------
CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
At the request of the grantee, EPA is authorized to provide
technical and legal assistance in the administration and enforcement
of any contract in connection with the treatment works assisted by an
EPA grant, and to intervene in any civil action involving the enforcement
of the contract. EPA is not to be a party to the contract. The authority
applies only after execution of a contract. Nothing in the authority is
to add to, or detract from, existing EPA authorities in the precontract
or negotiation phase. State assistance in this regard is not mentioned
in the final legislation, but see the provision under “State Management
Assistance” that provides that part of the State program that can be
reimbursed is management assistance to small communities.
-14—
-------
CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
LAW TEXT
CONTL cr ENFOaCE zrNT
Sac. 19. Sectloa 203 of the Fede ’J Water
Pollution Control Act is aa eaded by adding
at the end thereoZ the loLlo 1 g new sub-
section: - -
“(e) At the request of a grantee under this
title, the Adm1n’ trntor is aut.liorizeci to pro-
vide t hnicai and legal assistance La the
administration and enforceacot of any con-
tract in coanectioO aith treatmen ork
assisted under this title, and to Intervene in’
ay clvl .t action involvln the enforcement
nf such a contract.”.
CONG. ROBERTS :
COiqTlacr aNroacz2 ’T
Section 19 of the conference report
authorizes the Administrator to provide
technical and legar’ assistance In the
adznnmtratlon and enforcement of any
contract In connection with treatment
works assisted under title I I of the act,
and to 1nterve e in any civil action in-
volving the enforcement of such a eon-
tract. This section does not constitute au-
thority for the Administrator or the
vironniental Protection Agency to be—
‘come a party to any contract. This
‘section grants authority to the admin-
istrator only after the execution ,pf a
contract, and then only at the request of
the grantee. Nothing in the section either
adds to or detracts from other existing
EPA authorities in the precontract or
negotiation phase.
CONG. CLEVELAND :
a zToie i ON’rLICT m,poaC iT
This provl Ion will enable EPA to ren-
der technical and legal assistance to mu-
nicipalities engaged In litigation; a use-
fuL tool which has not been available in
the past. The New am hlre Water
Supply and Pollution Control Cominis-
si ms baa had to provide services to local
government In mattei, of this kind on
occasion from time to time, but was un-
able to Involve EPA which, unfortunately,
was not equipped with clearly defined
authority to assist In situations of this
nature. Nothing In this section adds to or
detracts from existing EPA authority In
tile precontract or negotiating posse.
DEBATE
CONFERE1 ICE REPORT
çareyaaar rroacxsaaNr
ffOu e b iU
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
- This section amencts sectIon 203 of the
Act to authorize EPA or a slate agency to
be made a party to contracts for the oest;n
and/or construction of a treatment words
assisted under title U of the Act.
Conference substitute
The conference substitute amends section
‘203 of the Act to authorize the AIfnIn tra
tor, upen request of the grantee, to proctde
.tecbntcat and aegal assistance in administer-
ing and enforcing any contract La connection
with treatment works assisted under title U,
‘cad to Intervene La any civU action Involving
uhe ènZorcemet t of such a contract,
CONG. ERTEL AND ROBERTS :
Mr. ERTEL, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to commend the chairman for his work
- on this bill, as well as the committee. I
rise In strong support of It.
I would like to ask a clarifying ques-
tion. This section 19 of the conference
report, which relate.s to sectIon 203 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
provides that EPA or the Acalinistrator
- can give technical advice to the grantees.
There was a remark made by one of the
EPA people, and I would like to ouote t,
to make sure this is not a correct inter-
pretation of the section. He stated “The
new section 203ci) authorizes the EPA to
represent communities in negotiation of
- engineering agreements ann to super-
vise the construction on some Jots.” It is
my iinderstan ing that the term “tech-
nical assistance” does not allow the EPA
to negotiate contra.its. Is that true?
• Mr. ROBERTS. If the gentleman will
yield, I certainly agree with the gentle-
man from Pennsyivan a, There is notn-
big In’ section 19 that woiijd give EPA
that authority.
t- Mr. ERTEL. It would be my poslt on
and I hope the position of the chairman
that It is not intended that the agency
act as the grantee’s agent man, Is it
proper for the agency to act as a con-
tractor in negotiation or to provide tech-
nlcal assistance that is normally provided
by private engineering and constructIon
firms, The agency is onJy to give tech-
- nical assistance basically after the con-
tract has been entered into. Is that cor-
rect?
Mr. ROBERTS, I agree with the gen-
tleman from ?enrisylvarJa,
Mr. ERTEL. I thank the genUemai
from Texas.
—15—
-------
SENATE REPORI
(Needs to ... ened thru
CongresSiOr -ions which
occurred 1a: iee Conference
Report state- :s)
Cocr cT E oncz tENT
S MM .flY
This section amends section 20Z, Plans, Specifications, E3tirnates.
- and Payments, to permit a municipality to include the EPA or a State
agency as a party to any contract signed with an engineering or
consulting firm for the purposes of any enforcement action.
DI5CUS9I0 f
The committee received testimony in the public hearings that most
small communities do not have the legal or technical resources to torce
a consulting engineer or a contractor to perform on time or to correct
a design, construction, or operating problem.
flider pre cut procedures. both in the situation of a pro)ect delay
01 nfld qfl;ttO plant opcratioii. EPA or a State agency is not able to
join the municipality in an enforcement action. Direct enforcement
action agaiiist the iuuuic pality, the only available remedy, does not
solve the problem.
‘milavly, in the increasing incidence of new, inoperable or noncom-
I)lYiit treatment works, the EPA and State agency are not able to get
(lIrecthy at the cause of the problem iii many cases—tile engineer or the
contractor. Withholding final, small raiit payment also does not
mprovo the operations of a poorly designed or constructed facility.
In these instances, the committee believes that more rapmd progress
could be made, if the EPA or States could take direct action side by
side with the municipality. The agency and most States have the legal
and technical resources to do so.
This antendln ’!nt would authorize EPA or State agency to be a
party to mimicipal contracts for the design and/or construction of a
treatment works in a small community, in the event that subsequent
action needs be taken against the contractor. -
-16-
-------
RESERVE CAPACITY
—17—
-------
RESERVE CAPACITY
EPA is required, in determining the amount of allowable reserve
capacity, to take into account efforts to reduce the total flow of
sewage and unnecessary water consumption. The amount of reserve capacity
eligible for a grant is to be determined by EPA taking into account the
projected population and associated comrn rcial and industrial establishments
within the jurisdiction of the applicant to be served by the treatment works,
as identified in an approved facility plan, an areawide plan under Section 208,
or an applicable municipal master plan of development.
—18—
-------
RESERVE CAPACITY
(See Also: Innovative and Alternative Technology)
CON EgENçE REPORT
-. assmvz Canary
Sec. 21. Section 204(a) (5) of the Federal
Water PoIjuuou Control Act is amended by
etniung OUt the sem icolon at the end thersot
and Inserting In lieu bereot a comma and
the following: “alter taking into account,
in accordance with regulations Promulgated
by the Administrator efforts to reduce total
flow of sewage and unnecessary water con-
s ption, The amount of resent caoaclty
eligible for a grant under this title ahail be
determfl ed by the Administrator taking into
account the projected population and as-
sociated commercial and industrial establisjs,.
mects within the jurisd lcation of the appli-
esnt to be served by such treatment works
as identided in an approved faciltues plan.
an areawide plan Under section 208. or an
applicable municipal master plan of de-
‘velopmeat For the purpose of this part-
grapit, section 208, and any such plan, pro-
jected population shall be tleterulined on the
basis of the latest inforn,suon available from
the United States Deparunent of Com ,er
or from the Ststes as the Admjnist r by
regulation, determines appropriate.”.
DEBATE
azsnn capacity
House bitt
No comparable provision.
Senater amendment
This sectton adds absw sulsectlon. (c) to
section 202 of the Act to provtde that the
,amount of resent capacity for treatment
worts eligible for Federal assistance l.a to be
limited to that future capactey required to
,serve the users of such treatment works cx-
jpected to exist within the service a:ea of
the project 10-rare train the ttne such treat-
,ment works Is esttma;eg to become open.
tional (oc 0’yeitn in the ctse of interceptor
isewers and associated nOpuflenanosel - The
I proviston r.iso aTtends sectinn 204(a) (5) to
conform to the new paragraph in section 202.
Conference sstbstituts
Amenda section 204(a) (5) of the Act to re-
quire the Administrator in detertntnin,g the
amount o: reserve capacity o take into a:-
count efforts to reduce lola , itew of sewage
and unnecessa,-y water consumotion, The
amount of reserve Ct7actty et.g b’e for a
grant under title I I of the Act shall be deter-
mines by the Administrator ttktn; Into ac-,
count the pro:ected population and asso-
ciated commercial and industrial eSablish
mania within the Jurisd lcuon 01 the apnii-
cant to be served by such trea en: norics
sea Identified In an approved fscllittes pla i,
‘an areawtds plan under section 208 or
‘applicable municipal master plan of davelco..
‘meat, Pbr the purpose of section 204ta)(j),
‘sectIon 208, e.ld any such plan, orol - .
J’PapWacioa shall be determined on ‘the ba,,is
of the latest Information availab i n from the
IDniteis States Departai, nt of Commerce or
Ifrom the States as the Admth i s tor by reg.
‘ulatton, determines appropriate. -
CONG. CLEVELAND:
2 — n caPac ity
fl section gives authority to the Ad..
ministrator to establish capacity Iinuta-
tlons with respect to beatment facilities
as well as Interceptor systen In cony-
tg out this respons bfllty, it will be es-
sential that the Administrator be aware
of the Intent of the Congress as expressed
In the language dealing with reserve ca-
pacity, which LI intended to guarantee
sufficient facility capacity to meet future
known or anticipated needs:
Under Public Law 92—500 EPA, in re-
cent months has exhibited an lnclthaton
to Inject growth control and land use
control by means of guidelines, regula-
‘tions and other procedural reqtilrements,
PEM 77-8 is an example of the Adrnizils-
trator’s attempt to limit EPA pa.rticipa-
- tion In collect ion systen’.s, This trend
was carefully discussed in committee and
resulted In a specific prohibition In the
Clean Water Act which reminds the Ad-
minlstntor not to attempt to use the
Water Pollution Control Act as a devIce
for the achievement ot low populat:cn
or Industrial growth objectives.
- The intent Is that the Administrator -
will. in carrying out his respon,jibth s
under this phase of the statute, be fully
responsive to the need for sizing treat-
ment svor2s, Intercep or , collectors p lu
other appar.enances inrolvea in the cart-
stniction of pollution control project, u ,
order to accommodate for normal
growth, as envisioned by State and local
jur i sdIctions,
If we permit EPA a free band In this
area, projects will be so undersized that
they will be over-taxed Prematurely and
the Congress will then be confronted wita
the prospect of funding p lant expansion
which should have been avoided In the
first ‘Instance, The program cost is a !-
ready high and we cannot allow ouraci yes
to be trdpped by unreaJj, ti ajjy low
growth projections by EPA, Municipali-
ties are not going to absorb the extra cost
of capacity over that which EPA will al-
low but which is truly needed to satisfy
future needs, The result will be early
obsolescence and the ultimate mvest x
could easily reach twice the present esti-
mates. . -
I wo O add in this connection that the
conference specsficalbr rejected language
limiting reserve capactty CC 10 years in
the case of treatment plants and 20 years
for intercepto ,
C O._ROBERT”
at5nt #tap ,c f ly -
Section, 21 amends section 204’s ’ 5)
to reouij’e the Admtntstretor In deter-
mimnc the amount of resenc capnclty to
take Into account efforts to reduec total
how of cerage end unnececfary waer
consurnp: Ion,
The amo’rit or reserve capacity e!i tbe
for a grant under title El of the act shall
be determined by the Adrn!nlstra ’ tah-
Ing into account the projeci.ed popijn;:an
and associated cor.n,ererni ano Lndustrtal
establls?tment,c w thIn trio JurrolctIr of
the applIcant to be e rved t,y sucn treat-
mneni worts as identified In art ai’aro’ ed
fac 1lties plan, an areawirfo plan u,’tder
sect Ion 2’jB. or an spnficcble mzi.izic:paj
master plnn of deveioprnent,
For tho pur3ose of ‘ecuon 204 1 a)t3),
section 208, and any such plan, proJec tea
populatIon shall be determined n’
-basis of the latest Information an 1 dabe
iron thc United Stales D’:pr’r::nen: of
Commerce or from the Staws as the Ad-
ininistrator, by regut1 t on, eeterrnuies
appropriate
LAW TEXT
-------
SENATE REPORT
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later-—See Conference
Report statements)
BESEnVE C tp. crrr
SU flZARY
This section adds a new subsection (c) to section 202, Federal share.
of the act to provide that the amount of reserve capacity for treatment
works eligible for Federal assistance is to be limited to that future
capacity required to serve the users of such treatment works expected
to exist. withm the service area of the project 10 years from the time
such treatment works is estimated o become operational (or 20 years
in the case of interceptor sewers and associated appurtenances). The
-.provision also amends section 204(a) (5) to conform tg the new
paragraph in section 202.
DTScUSSIO?T
• In determining th needs to be served during either the 10-year
period for treatment works or the 20-year period for interceptor sewers
and associated appurtenances, the Administrator must also take into
account the projected increase in use by the population and associated
commercial awl industrial establishments within the proposed service
area for the respective 10-year or 20-year period. Capacity to serve the
needs of new growth beyond that provided by the amendment is to be
funded without Federal assistance.
Under current misinterpretation of existing last reserve capacity
for future growth cleternuned to be cost-effective was considered eli-
gible for Federal funding. resulting in excessive amount of funds be-
ing directed to this purpose. One purpose of this amendment is to
concentrate available funds on correction of existing municipal prob-
lems. It would allow more municipal facilities to be funded and more
serious water pollution problems to be solved.
The “10/20” rule would verve to increase the reliability given to
projections of increased misc in preparation and review of plans for
p il icly owned treatment work. . Municipalities would have an incen-
tive to include capacity beyond that eligible under the “10/20” rule
only where demonstrably necessary and cost-effective. This is intended
to reduce the tendency stimulated by Federal funds to build excess
capacity.
The committee considered an administration proposal which would
have allowed the Administrator to require construction of the most
enst-cffective facility even though the Federal grant would be only for -
that portion which met the very strict Federal limits under reserve
capacity. The committee rejected this approach. The Federal Govern-
ment cannot require a c’ornmunitv to build a larger facility than that
which is eligible for assistance. Otherwise, the effect would be to reduce
the Federal share below 7 percent. The Administrator can approve
such a project. if the applicant so chooses, although the excess reserve
capacity would yield a lower Federal share.
-20-
-------
USER CHARGES
-21—
-------
USER CHARGES
Existing ad valorem systems for the collection of user charges
are authorized for the collection of operation and maintenance costs
for residential users and small nonresidential users, provided that:
-— the user ch ”ges are dedicated as of the date
of the enactment of this Act.
-— there is proportionality between classes.
-— industrial users meet current requirements.
Small nonresidential users can encompass both commercial and industrial
users. In general, where a user’s flow is equivalent to 25,000 gpd or
less per day of sanitary waste, it shall be considered a small nonresidential
user.
A system of charges for residential users may be based on something
other than metering, including ad valorem.taxes, -if the charges are
dedicated, proportionality between and within classes is maintained, and the
residential user is notified as to what portion of the total revenues is
allocated to waste treatment services.
Senator Muskie stated, on the floor, the following:
(1) Metering is required for nonresidential users.
(2) There should be utility-like management of municipal owned
treatment works.
(3) Growth should be financed by the system itself. -
(4) Ad valorem system charges are to be dedicated as of
December 27, 1977, but other requirements can be met
in the year period from December 27, 1977.
-22-
-------
(5) Where a grantee is held at the80 percent payment level now,
the payments may be released, but the approved user charge
system must be established within one yeái’ from December 27, 1977,
or the grant is to be terminated.
(6) Those who apply for grants within one year from December 27, 1977,
must establish an approved user charge system or the grant wfli
be terminated.
(7) EPA is expected to cease making grants of any kind to any grant
recipient who has not, by the end of the current fiscal year,
adopted an approvable user charge system, and EPA is to withhold
the remainder of any grant to any community until the modified
user charge system is implemented.
—23—
-------
USER CHARGES
Pg 1
ws CB aCzs
Sec. 22. (a) Paragraph (1) of ubsectIon
(b) of section 204 of the Federal Water P01-
luilon Control Act is amended—
(1) by striking out In clause (A) “propor-
tionate share’ and inserting in lieu thereof
“proportionate share (except as otherwise
provided in this parligrapl) ”: and
(2) by adding at the end of such par rapli
(1) the following: “In any case where an
applicant which, as of the date of enactment
of th1 sentence, uses a system of dedicated
ad valorem taxes and tile Administrator de-
termines that the applicant has a system of
charges which results In the distribution of
operation and maintenance costs for treat-
meat works within tile applicant’s jurtadic-
ti 9 n. to each user ciaas, in proporrion to tile
contribution to the total cost of operation
and maintenance of such works by each user
class (taking into account total waste water
loading of such works, tile constiluant ele—
menta of the wastes, and Other appropriate
factors), and such applicant i otrier l e In
compliance with clause (A) of this pa:agrapb
with respect to each industrial user, then
such dedicated ad valarem tax system shall
be deemed to he the user charge svsle’a meet-
tog the requirements of claise (A) of this
paragraph for the residential user class and
such smaU non-residential user clasSes as de-
fined by the Administrator. In deaning small
non-residential users, the .tdmlnistrator shall
consider the volume of wastes discharged into
the trentmSnt works by such users and the
conatiblent elements of such wastes as welt
ae such other factors a& ha deems appropri-
ate.”
(b) Subeection (b) of section 204 of the
vedaral Water Pollution Control Act is
imsnded b7 adding at the end thereof the 1
following new paragraph:
“(5) A system of charges which meets tile
requirement of clause (A) of paragraph (1)
of this- subsection may be based on some-
thing other than metering tile sewage or
water supply dow of residential recipients of
wasta treatment services. including ad
vaiore taxes. If tile syeiem of charges Is
based an something other than metering the
Admlnlstimtor shall require (A) the applicant
to establish-a system by which the neceemry -
funds will be available for the proper opera-
tion and maintenance of tao treatment
works; and (3) the applicant to establish a
procedure t .nder which the residential user
wilL be otifled seto that portion of his total
payment which will be allocated to tile cost
of tile waste treatment. servIces, ”.
USES cwaaczs
- House bill
Section 6 amends sectIon 204(b) of the Act
to permit the use of ad valorem taxes as a
method of collecting the costs o operating
and maintainIng a munIcIpal warte treat-
meet works watch was co s:ructed w th the
assistance of a Federal grant provided under
title II of the J 1 ct.
Section 6 provIdes that a grant applicant
which Is us:ng.an ad valorem ta’c system to
collect any municipal revenues at the time of
application for a Federal construction grant
may be çligtble to use this system for tile
purpose of collecting revenues to defray the
costs of operating and maintaining e pro-
posed treatment works. The Adminlatmior
would be required to determine that the ad
valorem tax system would result in a propor-
tIonal distribution of costa between user
classes accordIng to each class’ use of the
treatment work.
In addition. sectIon 6 requires proportion-
ality within the class of industrial users as
dedned by section 502(18) of the Act. Tile
grant apolicant would be required to estab-
lish surcharges to ensure that each industrial
user pays Its proportionate share of the cost
on the basis of volume, strength, and other
relevant factors.
Senata aincizdment
Section 19 amends section 204(b) (1) of the
Act to authorize user charges based on some-
thing other than metering the sewage or
water supply ow of residentiai recipients ol
waste treatment services, including ad valo-
rem taxes. The charges must meet the re-
quirements of subsection 204(b) (1) (A) that
each recipient pay its proportionate share of
coSts of operation and maintenance (includ-
ing replacement) of any waste treatment
services provided.
X I the system of charges is based on some-
thing other than metering, the Administra-
tor muse require the applicant to establish a
system whereby the necessary funds will be
available for operatIon and maintenance of
the treatment works. The Administrator also
must require the applicant to establish a pro-
osdure, to notify the residential user as to
how much of ills total ,payent will be allo-
cated to the operation and maintenance of
treatment works. -
Conference subst it ute
Amends section 04(b) (1) to provide that
In any case where an applicant which, as of
the date of enactment of the sentence uses
a system of dedicated ad falorem taxes and
the Administrator determines that, the ap-
plicaut baa a system of charges which results
In the distribution of operation and main-
tenance costs for treatment works within the
applicant’s )urisdlctioe. to each user class,
In proportion to the contribution to the total
cust of operation and maintenance of such
works by each user class (taking Into account
total waste water loading of euch works and
other appropriate factors), and such appli-
cant is otherwise In compliance with clause
(A) of this paragraph with respect to each
industrial’ user, then such dedicated ad’va-
.lorem tax system shall be deemed to be the
user charge system nieeUng the requirements
of clause (A) of section 204(b) (1) for the
residential user class and such small non-
residential user classes as defined by the Ad-
rnfnlstrat. r In de lng small non.reside-
ttal users, tile Ad Istrato ; shall cor.s ‘icr
the volume of nastes dIscharged Into the
treatment works by such users and the con-
stttucat elements of such aastes as ‘ . l as
such other factors as he deems aDflror:latc.
A system of cna: es whiCh meets tI: reas.. ’:e-
merit of sectIon 204(b) (1) (A) may be cased
on something other than metering t ’e Sew-
age or water supply flow of resiclca:laI re-
cIpients of naste treatment services, Includ-
Ing ad valorem ta,.es I! tile system of charges
is based on something other than metering
the Administrator shall require (I) the ap-
plicant to establish a system by Itich tile
necessary funds will be asailable for the
prcper operatIon and maintenance of the
treatment woras: and (21) the applicant to
establish a procedure uncer nilich the rest’
dential user will be notified as to that por-
tion of his total payment which wll! be al-
located to the costs of tile waste treatment
services.
LAW TEXT
CONFERENCE REPORT
—24—
-------
Pg 2
USER CHARGES (Continued)
DEBATE
CONG. ROBERTS :
Ea CHARG
Section 22 amends the user charge re.
quirement of section 204(b)(I). The
amendment provides that a dedicated ad
valorem tax system may be used to col-
lect operat on and maintenance costs for
the classes of residential users and small
nonresidential users, as defined by EPA,
where:
The grant applicant uses such dedi-
cated ad valorem system as of date of
enactment:
EPA finds that the system of charges
results in a proportional distnbut on of
costs to each user class according to each
class’ contribution to the total operation
and maintenance cotts;
Industrial users meet the reciuxrenient
of current law for user charges:
Irs defining small nonresidential users,
EPA shall consider the volume and con-
stituent elements of the waste.
Tue term “small nonresident aZ user”
encompasses both commercial and mdus-
trial users. Examples of st:ch users in-
clude warehouses, grocery stores, and
small laundromats. Small nonresidential
users are to be defined by the administra-
tor according to the volume and char-
acteristies of their discharges. In most
cases, where the users’ flow into the
treatment works per day Is equivalent -
to 25,000 gallons or less per day of sani-
tazy waste, such user will be considered a
small nonresidential user for the pur-
poses of this section.
To the extent possible, existing ad
valorem tax systems to collect the costs
of treatment works should be allowed to
continue with a minimum of interference.
A system of charges for residential
users tnay be based on something other
than metering, Including ad vaiorein
taxes. If the system is something other
than metering, the grant applicant must
dedicate the funds to operation and
maintenance of the treatment works and
must notify the residential user as to
that portion of his total payment which
Is allocated to costs of waste treatment
services.
SENATOR MU KIE :
esga cx*acrs
The compromise on user charges is, in
many respects, similar to the Senate-
passed nill. It requires each industrial
and commercial user of federally
assisted-waste treatment services to paz ’
its proportionate share of the cost u
operation and maintenance of w s;.e
trea nent. Unlike the Senate iU wn:cn
required all-users to pay operation and
maintenance costs in -proporton to a-
tual use, this bill has an eaception. In
-25-
those cases in which existing s.stems on
date of enactment airuady have systems
of charges for operat:oa and mainte-
nance costs based on the use of dethcat d
levies against property ‘ aiues. that s s-
tens can continue to be applied so lonj
as residential users, as a class, pay no
more than the cost of operation and
maintenance attributable to that, cla.ss of
use.
The grant recipient must show that
this kind of class proportionality exists.
Among all classes of users, it must aLso
show that each individual nonresidential
user, unless exempt by regulation as a
small user, pay its proportionate share.
The grant recipient must show that ma-
jor nonresidential users actually meter
their system input a.s to qUailtit7,
strength and constituents of the waste
contributed.
The need for these aniendinents would
have been lessened had the Adminfstra-
tor not adopted a policy which permitted
partial grants for comznuxuties which re-
fused to adopt user charge systems. The
Agency’s initial determination to ma. e a
grant pending adoption of the system scas
wise. The later determination to make
subsequent grants. withhoIdi ig only a
portion for failure to comply, was not.
The .AdmmLstrator is expected to cease to
make grants at any kind, to any grant
recipient which has not, by the end of the
current fiscal year. adopted an approv-
alil user charge system for all its
sources. And the Administrator must
continue to withhold the remainder of
any grant to any community until the
modified user charge system is Imple-
plemented.
The bill contains a Senate provision
which indicates that metering is not re-
quired for residential users in order to
determine exact proportionality. This
means that metering is required for nozi-
residential users. And. It includes a recog-
rution that, in the past and in the future,
ad valorem taxes can be the basis for
user charge system 11 such taxes meet tile
test of proportionality for each user. It
is recognized that this will be di. cult be-
cause property values bear little, if any.
relationship to sewage treatment needs.
However, ii the Administrator is satisfied
that proportionality among individual
residettial or exempt nonresidential
users does in fact exist, an ad valorem
tax system cars be approved.
Finally, the conference agreement in-
eludes a requirement that eacn recipient
of waste treatment services be nott.fled
as to the cost of the service received. The
purpose of this is twofold: First, to crc -.
ate a public understanding of the cost of
providing adequate water pollution con-
trol; and second, to stimulate conserva-
tion.
The conference agreement stresses wa-
ter conservat on as an important public
value. This is one reason the Senate in-
sisted on maintaining that where there is
a dIrect relationship between cost and
use, there will be the greatest incentive
for water conservaLon.
Finally, the conference compromise
keeps in place a basic objective of the
1972 act: the achievement of utility-like.
management Of publicly-owned treat-
ment systems. It is important mat these
municipal waste treatment systems
operate on a Ltthty-like basis. They must
begin to develop.tne capac;ty to ñnaace
their own e’cpanslon. They must be self-
financing. Tile Federal G cernment can-
not be forever expected to mret. ::ic
needs of growing communities. Ti is act
does not provide funds or new rosvth.
and it s not likely Cong ess will provIde
funds for this purpose in the future.
The 1977 amendments L e tue l9’2
act, are designed to deal primarily with
the backlog of waste treatment needs. It
Is not intended to neal i’.ith trie growuz
-needs of commun tles. Those waste
treatment systems which are operating
on a utility basis will have the nipacity
to finance their own growth. Those
which are operating on art already over-
burdened property tax basis -c’ul be
under constant pressure to seex subi sd es
for future expansion as tao property-tax
‘payers reject increased levies to pay the
ccst of new development.
In this vesa, it should be noted that
any system wh.ich inequstably distributes
operation and maintenance costs among
users, in either the commercial or indus-
trial class, or as between those classe:
and ressaential users, cannot ae ap-
proved.
The user charge system should apply
to charge back selecni ely to a source or
sources discharging into a publicly-.
owned treatment works those increased
costs in the management or eimner e .;u-
ent or sludge caused by the discharge
of any toxic pollutant by such sou:ce or
sources into suca publicly-owned treat-
ment works. Thus, for instance, if an
identifiable source discharges a toxic
pollutant or pollutants whsch nave the
effect of preventing a low cost sludge
management program such as land
spreading and requiring incsnerat on of
sucn sludge, the user charge system ,shail
charge back against tne respons bIe dis-
charge sources me increment of costs
over the land spreading systems to carry,
out such incineration.
The Administrator is authorized to
identify “small . nonresidential users”
which cart be exempt mrr m the actual
use-user charge requirement. ‘flus Is
Intended to provide a mecnanism I cr
eliminating small di.schargers from the
cost of establishing and collecting user
charges. The Conference - agreement
anticipates that tnesa will be commer-
cial and small mdustr a1 establ.shments
which contribute or.ly domestic toilet
and kitchen waste to the syszem r
very small quancsties oi the equivalent
of domestic tcasr.e.
T1 e Administrator is expected to
promulgate these regulations on a cate-
gorical rather than volumetrIc basis sri
order to avoid forcing eacn syitern to
pay the cost of nia insg a determination
of wisether it falls v,itnui L-Iat cate;ory.
Small nonresidential users which could
be excluded from user charge require-
ments by regulatson are tnose v smia
smaller flows of es. 3 entiaiy domest c
waste Examples would be warenouses.
small grocery and dry gccds s:ore . small
laundries, museums, and sma s h teIs
and motels. Large commercial sLa l:sn-
men s (e g .urban trade centers) or “ es -
commercial estabiisnment.s ” (C g., puitO
-------
USER CHARGES (Continued)
Pg 3
1 ’cesslng) would require separate
, terthg. Certainly. service stations.
‘ ,ur shops, and other kinds of estab-
•.unents which have the potential for
.-ittibutfng oil or metals to the system
• ,iild not. Also, small metal nacairac-
trig shops. printing operat:oris and
u r nonresidential users which use
• .ic materials would not be execant..
it should also be noted that any class
category of industrial or commercial
• .er which has avolume and screngui
• i. ,teload which In no way correlates
• proportionate costs of treatment tin-
an ad volorem tax system, either be—
i.ise of the character of the waste or
•use of low waste flow relative to the
hi valorem tax, should not be deter-
ned to be a “small nonres dential
.,er by the Administrator.
No portion of a grant which has. been.
:hheld for noncompliance with this
tion can be made available unless the
ministrntor determines that each new
;wrement.of these amendments was
• splied with pr:or to enactment.
1l recipients being held at the 80 per-
payment level as of enactment of
.s provision must establish an approved
. . er charge system within 1 year of e:i-
:ent of this provision. Likewiie those
o apply for grants within 1 year of
:ictment of this provision must estab-
an approved user charge system by
e end of that year. In both cases the
‘iministrator is to ternunate grants of
se who fail to establish approved usee
arge systems by the end of the year.
tn; the one year period it is expected
..atfull payment will be made on granis.
3egjzuung one year alter enactment of
3 provision, no applicant wnicia has
eived a grant and has not established
a approved user charge system shall
‘ eive a substantial grant.
I! a sy tem In general fuifl.lls the re-
. .cements of the provision as oi enact-
nt of the provision, adjustments can
made to the system within the year
‘i make it comply strictly with the re-
‘..rements of the provision. However.
ad valorem system must be dedicated
‘i enactment. for an ad valorem system
‘ fulfill the user charge req iu ’ement.
Adjustments can barnade within a
“tnnable time (no more than one year)
“,ach.teve full compliance with the re-
zrement of the amendment if the
“intee’s revenue system in general
ts these requirements. Cearly it is
‘ended for example that grantees have
1 “aportunlty to adjust their cnarges to
‘ior Industries and other large non-
“lentlal users to comply with the pro-
•‘tionallty of the requirements of the
‘v amendments. Adjuatnients may also
‘tIece ary to comply with other details.
‘uding the requirements for propor-
“nItty among user classes, but dedica—
• “TI of revenues must exist on enactment.
DEBATE
SENATOR tIOYNIHAN
Au area of great concern to me was
the adniL-usualve burden that was un-
posed on localities by the 19’12 law. Lo-
cal ties were not permitted to use ad
alorem taxes to collect funds (or oper-
ating pubicly owned sewage treatment
plants. I argued during our committee
markup against this provision as arbi-
trari y constraining tkle local implenien-
tation of the lew. I am, therefore.
pleased that Lne conferees agreed to an
amendment that will permit the use of
ad valorein taxes. This new provisicn is
of great importance to local govern-
merits, such as SuffoLk and Nassau Co in-
ties in New York, whose sewage treat-
ment projects would have been jeopar-
dized by the old law.
CONG. ANDERSON (Calif)
V 5 CHA&C a
Section 22 of the conference report
permits municipalities to meet the user
charge requirement of the act by con-
tinuing a system of dedicated ad valorem
• tastes for residential and small nonresi-
dential users, and user charges for in-
dustrial users. In most cases the user
-charge requirement for Industry has been
interpreted as metering.
The county of Los Angeles currently
uses a metering system for Its industrial
users. This emsting system Is not to be
interfered with if Los Angeles should
choose to take advantage of the aciei-
tional flembthty provided In this sect on
to use ad valorem taxes for residential
and nonresidential users.
The term “small nonresidential user”
encompasses both commercial and Indus-
trIal users. Examples of such users in-
c ude warehouses, grocery stores, and
small Iaundromats. Small nonresidez::aJ
users are to be defined by the Adin2us-
tratoy according to the volume and char-
acteristtcs of theIr discharges. In inost
cases. ‘where the user’s flow into the
treatment works per day is equivalent to
25,003 gallons or less per day of sanitary
waste, such user will be consIdered a
small no restdpnttaI user for the pur-
po ea of this section.
With only small moaifcation. existing
ad valorem tax systems to collect tha
costs of treatment works should be a!-
lowed to continue with a minimum of
:nterference, An example of such a sys-
tens is that present:y being utilized cy
use county of Los Angeles.
CONG. CLEVELAND
SEC ’riON :2—cssa CR ’RG S
As we all lmow, there ha been a sub-
stantial amount of dissattsfacrtoa wm 1i
the user charge provisions coc aine i La
Public Law 92—500 Tune after time. EPA
and those of us who have been in touc i
with State agencies and m c pi l r..on-
stituencies have encountered a plea br
the use of ad valorem taxes as a reaso i-
able approach for defraying the cost of
waste disposal.
The ad valoreni system has tradi-
tionally been used by municipalities in
furnishing drinking water supplies, sew-
age treatment, solid waste disposal, plus
a host of other activities which munici-
palities regularly offer their citizens. It
appeared only logical that commun ties
be allowed the opportunity to emuloy
this method provided, of course. thrit t e
charges are equitably airtriouted to the
consum i ng public.
-26-
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
27
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
fNATE REPORT
ME rEnTwa
8UM IARY
This ccLion amends section 204, Limitations and (Jonditions, to pci
mit the use of something other than metering, including ad valorem
taxes, for the collection of user charges from residential users of vaste
treatment services. If metering is not used, there must be assurance of
adequate funds for operation itnd maintenance of the treatment workq,
and each user must be notilied as to the amount to be used for such
costs.
DISCOSSION
This section amends section 204(b) (1) of the nctto authorize user
charges based an something other than nuetering the se vage or water
supply how of residential rccipie tts of waste treatment services, in-
cluding ad valomemn taxes. The chIarL&es must meet the requirements
of suih cction 204(b) (1) (A) that each recipient pay its )rOpottionatC
share of casts of operation and maintenance (including replacement)
of any waste treatment services provided.
If the system of charges is based on samething other than metering;
the Administrator must require the applicant to establish a system
wlIeui .l)y (ho necesrary hinds will be available for operation and niitimi—
tenance of the tieatrnent works. Tie also niui t require the applicant to
ectahli h a procedni e to notify the residential user as to how much of
lmi’ total payment vill be allocated to the operation and maintenance
of ren macnt works.
This nmen(lniemmt recognizes the privilege of local goverinents to
carry out their resluonsibiliticts under the Act in a maimer which is
pn ii icuuluut ly fll)J)IOpri:tte to their citizens. rj hIa auwndm,ient allows siidm
flexibility, while assuiting that time goals of section 20 [ (b) will be
cam ned out.
A systemit of charges based on a flat fee per household or per plumb-
ing fixture (such as a simmlc or toilet) would be authoiized undet this
amendment. A user charge systeun bnsed on a flat Ice for residential
users would save communities the high cost of installation, umainte—
nance, and reading of meters.
Charges levied on residential users in the manner allowed by this
amendment may be collected as part of the ad valoreni taxes or by
souumo other means. Funds so collected must be simflicicnt for the ded-
icated purpose of proper operation and maintenance of the treatment
works. The amendment does not authorize a system which would allow
these funds to be diverted to other uses within the municipality or
withhekl from the treatment works. -
The comnniittce believes that public knowledge of the cost of opera-
timi and mimaintenance of time tretilmnent works to individual residential
usets will promote efficient management of the system and foster a
puiL hic jntt•rest in water comuservumtion amid other uiica ures to teduce
flows and thereby reduce treatment costs.
This h)Lovision is a modification of the user charge piovision of
existing law, which t-et uiies that no coimti uction giant for a uumunicipal
vast a Li calmnent facility many be mmuule after Mitrcli 1, 1973, iinle (be
ilj)plicant hums established a system of charges to insure that cacti user
of tIm facility pays its propoi tiommiute sbtu-e of operation and main—
I cite ace costs (including replacemem it) of services providedl by that
fa ility.
As early as 1960, the problems associatedi with the operation and
maintenance of federally financed waste treatment facilities were i-cc—
ognizud. The major problem was the inability of municipalities to
sustain the costs of operation and maintenance of facilities con-
structed with Federal grant money.
Most facilities were opcratc4 out of municipal budgets and were
thereby subject to the fiscal constraints of municipal budgeting. These
constraints included legal limitations out time aimmoumat of gcuict.il obli—
giltiomi debt, limitations on niummicipal tax sources end time tui .iiig power
oh special districts, and the rapid increase of the denia mid for other
Public services.
‘lime concept of “user charges” was ori innlly proposed as a means
of uc smmring that each federally assisted &cility would lure adequate
operation and maintemmancc funds. In this way, i municipahities could
employ tlmeir limited taxing powers in pm oviding otlmei - forums of 1)ub—
lie set vices, and waste treatment Jucil ities coulçl be operated and
mamumtained diliciently, thereby assuming adequate waste treatment
services and time sound investment of Federal dollars.
Furl her exam inatiomi of time user charge concept revealed additional
benefits. A charge to the “consumer” based on cost of tmeatmmmcnt, would
lie a positive force in encouraging more elhicient muammagemnemit of wastes
dlischitrged throuigh a muimicipal system as ‘ehl as an economic in—
ducemimouit to reduce excessive use.
Under the committee amucmtcimnemmts, greater Ilexil)ihty will be pro-
vided for the asscsbmncnt of user cimmirges smulomig residential users. Time
conlnmmumut.y nmay imse water mactens, sewer nmetei s, flat rates, om ad vtul—
ct-cia taxes, so long as time basic requirement of propoz-tioimality iii tim
distribution of costs among each i ecipient of w:e;tc trcatrm ieiit services
is n uum ed In adopting this aniendmnent., time coumuimmittee did not change
time basic icquncinemits of the law, only provided mimoze options to
coimmmmmmmnities. -
-27-
-------
The proj)oSed unteittlineitt requires the Administrator of EPA to
iml)0SC I C rictioiis on the applicant who establishes a charge system
based on something other than metering. The intent of these rest nc-
tions is to address the reservations raised above. First, the amend-
Ii%enI requhtea the applicant to establish a sy tein which vill assure
the funds necessary for the operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works. Such systems could include a separate iinrd such as an
esci ow account. Second, the applicant is required under the proposed
uIiIt ’IUII II( ’Iit (0 notify tli ifltlividlifll user as to the costs paid by the.
ad tyid u;rl joy the operation and maintenance of the treatment works.
HOUSE REPORT
USER CII.uwEs
section (1 of 11.11. 1199 tunciuls ,ectiQn 204(b) of the Act to permit
tIn’ use of ui aloreni taxes as a method of collecting the costs of oper-
ating and maintaining a municipal waste treatment works which was
constructed with the assistance of a Federal grant provided under Title
11 of th Act. EPA originally ISSI IL ’d regulations which would have
allm ed the LISC of ad valorein taxes, but the Comptroller General ad-
vkL ’d that it would be illegal for EPA to fund new projects in cases
where communities are utilizing ad valorem tax systems to finance
waste water treatment operation ançl maintenance costs.
Stet ion 6 provides that a grant applicant which is using an ad
valorem tax system to collect any municipal revenues at the tirno of
pp ic ion for a Federal construction grant may be eligible to use this
Sy—tiiii for (lie purpose of rollect ing reveiiue to clefra•y the costs of
(ilaral lag and inaiittaiiiing tIn piopowd treatuiieiit WOl ks TlieAdmin—
istrator would be required to (1etermIfl6 h lt the ad val em tax system
would result ma ,roporLioaal dis rjbutioir of costsbeL veen user classes
ncroi illogic ich clit s’ use of i lie icatinejil work.
In add i ma, sect ion 6 reqii ireq n’ opo tioiia hity _ jt l in the class of
uulu’,t ri il riscrsiisdiflne I by s ctioii, i02 (18) of the Act. ‘J’lie grant
appl ica iii would be I equl i ed to (‘ ,t aLl icli sti rcharges to ensure that each
iiiilii’i rial user pays its propoi t ionatc ‘,hiii c of the cost on the basis of
vol iline, ‘ t eng( Ii, a ad other i elevaiit Iia.t ors.
-28-
-------
INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY AND STUDY
-29-
-------
INDUSTR-IAL COST RECOVERY AND STUDY
Where an industrial user has a daily flow of 25,000 gpd or less
of santiary waste and there will be no adverse affect on. the pubicly-owned
treatment works, it may be exempted from industrial cost recovery. Also,
a publicl -owned, multiplant treatment system may be treated as a single
system for the purpose of assessing industrial cost recovery charges.
EPA is required to conduct a study of the efficiency, and need for,
industrial cost recovery systems over a twelve—month period or less,
including an analysis of the impact of industrial cost recovery upon rural
communities, and on industries in economically-distressed areas, or areas of
high un nployment. Industrial cost recovery payments are suspended for an
eighteen—month period, if Conqr ss has not acted, the suspended industrial
cost recovery paymepts may be paid at a yearly rate over the remaining useful
life of the treatment works. Grant recipients will still be required to
establish a system of industrial cost recovery. The cost of developing a
system for industrial cost recovery is an eligible item for the 75 percent
grant.
The House floor statements contain the specific items that should be
included in the study.
-30-
-------
INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY AND STUDY
Pg 1
LAW TEXT
CONFERENCE REPORT
- uruusmza r , cost’ axcov y -
Stc. 24. (a) Section. 2 0 4 (b) (3) (8) of the
Federal Water PoUutjoo. control Act is
amended, by tnser.inq axcr “necessary- for”
the foUowlLg the aclmini.iu-ative costs as-
soctssed with the requirement of paragraph
(1) (B) of this Cubeeedo and”.
(b) Sevticn 204 (b) of the FederaL Water- -
PoUuClon Conizot .4.c is amended by adding
a the end thereol the following new para-
graph:
:(tt) The Ath ’iimtor is. authorized to
exempt from the requtrernznt of paragraph
(11(3) ott subsectionan7lnd t isl r
wttb a flow Into such treatment works pea-
day equivalent to twenty-five thousand gal-
lons or lent’ per day or sanitary waste, if such
industriaL user dce not introciuce into 5Uc1 ?
treatment works any pollutant which Inter-
fares or Is incompatible with, or coatandn-
ates or reduces the. utu.lly of the sludge of
such works,”.
(C) Sestlon 204(b)(I)(3) of the Federal
Water Pountion Control A..t is amended, by
inserting before the semicolon the following:
(which such portion. In tile discretion of
the applicant, may be recovered ?rom lntlu -.
trial users of the rota.! waste treatment S7S -
rem as distinguished frora the treatment
works for Wh Ich the grant Is made) “. -
cosr RECOVERY
house bill
No comparable prortalon.
Senate emcr4ment
— Amencis section 204 of the Act to permit
the exemption of Small discharges (less than
.2.500 gallons a day) from Industrial coat re-
covery requirements, it also peru’.its publicly
owned, multiplant treatment works systems
to be treated as a single system so that Rev-
eral significant economic burdens of in.
dustrial cost recovery are aroided. —
- Conference ubstituje
The Same as the provisIons of the Senate
amendment ercept that the daily flow rate
exemption is set at the equivalent of 25,000
gallons or less of sanitary waste but only If
•the industrhfl user does ant Introduce Into
the works any pollutant which Interferes,
with, or contaminates or reduces the utilIty
of the sludge of the works. This subJect mat-
ter Is further discus d under the center
heading “Cost Recovery Study and Water
Conservation”, -
- ‘ se aaQ y sreuy
Sac. 75. (a) Tile AdminIstrator of the En-
vionmental Protection Agency (hereafter in
this section referred to as tile “Adminiscra-
- to?”) shall study the e ciency of. and the
need for, the payment by .industrial users
of any treatment works of that portion of
the cost of Constructiofl of such treatment
,works (as determined by the Adminrstrator
which La-allocable to tile’treatment of t-
lustrial wa Stes to the extent atnibutable to
e edera ! ahsj’e of the cost of const uctjon,
ich study shall thcluae, but no; be limited
to, in analysis OS the impact of such a
spetem Cf ymsnt upon rural communities
and on. induseriea in economically distressen
asesa or areas of high unemployment. No
Inisr than the last day of the twe ftta,mbntii
which begIns after the date of enactment of
this section. rh, AdministratOr shall 5Ub
mIt a report to the Congress setting forth
the results of such s:udy.
b) Ddring the period beginning on the
da.:e of enactment of mis section arid sri 1 -
tag on the last day Of the eighteenth month
which begins after the date of eno.t.nent
of tills sectIon (both dates inclusivel. no
o cer or emwioyee of tile Federal Oovern-.
meut shall eaforce. or require any recipient
of a grant under sec:loa 2011g)(t) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
5.C. 1284) to enfnrce. any provision in an
,applccatioa for a grant or In a grant agree-,
menl under such section which requires
any payments by IndustriaL users pursuant
to section 204(b)(t)(B) of such Act.
(ii - or purposes of this sectiOn. tne terms.
“industriaL user” acd “treatment worlcSI’
hkve the same meaning given such terms’
In the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(fl) Any payent by an industrial user
which. but for subsection (b) of tills section.
was due and payable during the eighteen-
month Dertod descrined In suca suaaec:lon
shall after such elgnceen.montil period be
paid in accordance with the appItcable pro-
vtsions of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act In equal annual installments pro-
ratd over the remaining useful tife of the
- treatment works with respect to which they
are requested to be paid.
COST erCOVssY ST DT iNO W - ER CONSERVATION
Reuse b l(
Section 21 requcres tile AdministratIon to
study iris edciency of, and need (or. tne par-
meat by the indu :ri I usere of any tr aC.
merit works of that portion of t te :o t of
constructIon of that treatment worca wnich
Is aftocao(e to the treatment of each taclus-
trial users’ waste to the e.ctent atrrhurabts
10.-the Federal share of the cost of construc-
tion.
Section 21 further provides that for a pe-
riod of 18 moatila alter the date of enact-
ment of this sect:on. no o cer or employee
of th Federal Government shalt en , orce. or
require any cectoieric of a co.’istrucr.on grant
to enforce any provision in . a aoa.lramion
for a grant or in a grant agreement which
requires Industrial cost recovery pavmes%ts.
Senate aniendmenf
Section 20 amends aeccton 2041bp (31 to
allow a grantee which recetved a grant prior
to th, enactment or tile C’ean Water Act of
1917 to reduce tile amounts to be paid by
any lnflustrt.ii user wh&ch reduces i’s total
flow of sewage or unriscessa.7 water con-
sumption. The amounts to be pa.d are to be
reduced In proDor::on to th dow reduction
achieved as determIned In accordance with
regulatIons promulgated oy tile Aimsii.-
tr t r.
Section 20 also amends section 204(a) (5)
to require that the amount of reserve ca-
pacity approved by the Administrator shall
take Into account, in accordance with :egtz-
lAtions promulgated by tire .4dmimstrator,
efforts to reduce flow of sewage and unneces-
sary water consumption.
—31—
Conference iubs fifute
The conference substttute con:aina both
the peovisrons of the Eoi.ie bill and tne
amendment to section 04(S) 13) of the Act
in the’ Senate amendment, The tenate
amendment to ec::on 34(s) (i iS
In section 21 of trie c0ri5:mnc! sL ,h trc ,.te.
During toe period of moratorium. toe con-
‘erees e’pect tile Anmi srrntor ta
to make gra.nts and no: to iItano ,d any
funding. Any funds wnich have been with-
held should oe released. Al toe aane mime.
the existence of tn moratorium In no way
ecempc3 any apoitcant or ragl recinr:nt
from the requtrement to Cct’e(op a s:.s:arni
t industrial coat recovery At rile en of
tilS 13-month period. rf Congrea,i hte :iot
changed the law, the grant reciorcic trii.ii.
begin to collect industrial soars of FederaL
grants for aopropr.are Cranributian, The
grant recipteat m.ay ,.pread the nccr.-:ed In-
duat ia! coat irabIiicy over the rerIa:n g t.fe
of the troatmeni wor’ a r order Co avo.d
Large lump sum payments.
DEBATE
SENATOR MOYNIHAN :
T e confere s also recognized the in-
-ordinately large admmirtrat lve burden
of the industria] cost recovery provisions
In seine mImIcipalities the administra-
tive cost of recovery would have exceeded
the recoverable costs. The prov isIon ot
a 12-month study of industr:aI cosl re-
covezy and a 2 S ,OOO-gailon.per .day ex-
emption is a wise one. It will be rinr-
ticularly bene ciaI for large urban are’ts
with several very small businesses, such
as New York City, where industrial cost
- recovery from all discoargers makes I. tUe
sense.
-------
INDUSTRIAL COST ‘- ‘ FRY AND STUDY (Continued )
SENATOR MUSKIE :
iNO St5LU . COST R COVEiY
The Senate conferees a cecled to the
Hou e proposal to declare a moratortuni
on the collection of thcce costs o treat-
ing mdus:riat \laste5 h cn under exist-
ing law are required to be reuirned to
.the Treasury. During the moratorium, a
study Is to be conducted by EPA of the
implications of industrial cost reco”ery.
The study is to be completed within 1
yeitr. with an additional 6 months for
Congress to consider the results of that
study and take any appropriate action.
This moratorium will accomplish t o
purposes. First, it will free u; any with-
held portions of grants to the extent that
portions of grants have been w thnelci
sclrty for the purpo e of oe eIop:n ( at.
industrial cost-recovery sysU m (The bil
does not authorize the payment of ith-
held grants to applicants uh ch have tot
adopted approvable user charge s tem,)
The fact that grants will no longer be
withheld and that repayment ot 50 per-
cent of the cost of treating industrial
‘wastes trill be delayed for ia months in
no way remove; the requirement that the
grant recipient establish a system of iii-
dustrial cost. recovery. The arnenoment
only delays payment to the Treasury
(and possibly recovery to the grant recip-
ient If be so desi.resT for the period of
review and 6-month congiesslonal con-
sideration of any ündings. At the end of
the 18-month period. if Congress has not
acted, the community must imme .iateIY
begin to repay industrial costs, which
sts can be spread out over the remain-
.g useful life of the system. In other
cords. there will be no lump stun pay-
inent requirement.
The conferees did agree that any in-
dustrial user ichich contributed the saw-
tary waste equivalent of 5.00O gallons or
less on a daily basis would not be’ re-
quired to repay the Federal share of the
grant attributable to treatment for that
source. This decision relates in part to
the fact that these kinds of innustrial or
commercial users would ordinarily not.
construct a separate waste treatment
faclttty—.that they are capt:ve to a mu-
nlcipal system. As such,, no inequity oc-
curs among communities by the fact that
the Federal Government is subsidizing
trefltntent of these users’ waste.
It is recognized that the study per-
formed by the Agency may well show
that the 25.000 gallons of sanitary waste
equivalent is too high, and that the Con-
gress should reduce that amount us order
to assure more e cIent cost cecovery. Eut.
no user of a system which contributes
the equivalent of 25,000 gallons of sani-
taiy waste or less per day would in any
way be liable for any costs occurred prior
to a subsequent change in the law.
Also, It is important to note that the
25,000 gal1on exemption applies only to
the eq,ii gTh it of sanitary waste and
would not be available to any source of
Waste regardless of quantity which con-
tributes wastes which are toxic or which
pass through, Interfere with, or con-
‘xnlnate the sludge- of any muxu sipal
tern.
BATE (Continued)
The Er nental P. otec io :4 eacy
is e pec iri’ inte t . C iti.:,. m . i-
dated b:. “e :dment sc q’ uc i ” as
nossihlc. .- re issues tile acnims-
trator sh drct.5 .n this review is -
tile excrr :.i EPA’s ci.rrerit i-eguh-
tions of ‘custry’ from t: c dus-
tiial co - ery requiremcnts. The
Admims .: should look at inc size
of dry z-ir sources l’ Kb are ox-
empt frc i dustrial cost reco er and
their co ’:r aut on to munic:pal systems-
The Gejwai Accounting O ice is ct :r-
reat1y revic’ ing EPA’S implementation
of the industrial cost recovery provision
of existing law. The conferees expect that
this review be completed on a i expe.th-
tious basis so that it c ii be made avaJ-
able to the Administrator in ampie tme
to be of use for the study requ:red by
this act. The results of this GAO review
should be helpful to EPA’s analysis of
the current program and provide a basis
for EPA’s study.
Existing 12w is specific in listing the
type of costs which are to be included in
the “cost of cor.structon’ for the piir-
pose ot industrial cost recovery Ths def-
triiLon has not been changed. The costs
of developing a system for noustr a1 coct
recovery should be included as part of
those contruction costs which tee in-
dustrial contributors may repay. System
development costs would be induced un-
der the defixi.tion of “construction” in
section 212 of the act and ai e therefore
eligible for a 75-percent Federal grant.
Such development costs teen should be
included as part of the cost. of construc-
tion which a participating industry
would be required to repay Failure to
include development costs of industrial
cost recovery aystems for small grarit.s
often results ifl situations where costs
of managing the industrial cost recovery
system exceed the revenues derived.
This amendment spec ficslly provides
for the inclusion of administrative costs
as recoverable costs for the purpose of
industrial cost recovery. This amplifies
current law which would pros ide zor the
recovery f icvelonment anti other costs
whsch were paid for by a 75-percent
Federal grant.
- - addition to the local credit Incen-
tive, FederaL encouragement.oL’local pro—
treatment programs will include,,but ’not
be limited to..enancla1 incentive,—Cund- .
lug of State and local program develop-.
ment cost.s through sectioxs-J0& 201 and.
208. Regulatory incentives, will include.
requlrmg a local - compliance program.;
Construction grant-recipients will be re—
quireci- ta. have- user charge programs.
which. In commnaunn with other- rev-
enue- sources, are- capable of—supportsng
an approved local: preu’ear.inent program..
AI1.construction grant. recipienta w ii
required to have.- approved, local p:e—
treatment. programs, as a condition. oL
their grants. — - - -— -
CONG. CLEVELAND :
COxCL S 3 (
rtconclusi n. you trill recall that rttor
etha. istlle study and nVest:raL r!. t e
Comniis . ion on Water Qu3L1t7 conahicied
in part, as follows, concerning the i.r.sti-
tucioca.l aspects of Ptbl c Law 02-. , 00
mplementation:
Perhaps the major initial delay in
launching a new level of construction
grants under Public Law 92—500 was vir-
;iai Inactwitv for 15 of the first 10
months because of the absence of anal
title LI regulations. For the first 3
mouths. ubligatiocs were prohibited;
during the next 15 months. prcsoeiuve
graur.ees apparently delayed !ormuia ung
prcjeci applications according to the new
requirements until t.he final ruleS were
uiown. while being assured the regua-
tlor.s were L’nnilnent.
Some projects proceeding under the
eresetits of Public Law e4—6( ’) (the
pr :or statute) had to e redeveloned to
comply with the new act, and rn re v t .s
deisy in preparing and approving priority
crttersa and annual State priority Lscs.
The EPA 1 eouty Admin:strator has rern-
porteoiy admitted that he Agency made’
a great mist.aze in not honoring the in
the pipeline projects under tee old
ground rules; tO have let them proceed
to completion under r.ne prior law, how-
ever, m ght have precipitated a ch.illeaze
us court. As late as 1975, EPA was atst
lug that some percentage (of projects)
for which f’ir rn g is now being sough;
a as conceived and p nned before various
requirements of Public Law 92.400 were
apphcable. In region IL for example, up-
wards of 75 percent of the applications
expected through September oi 1077 will
involve such projects. P.l. has said. lssu-
ance of regulations and guiuance has
been conslsteutiy tardy, thereby creating
cor.fus ou and delay.
Late Issuance of regulations was not
the only cause for delay. Sometimes, mul-
tiple revisions of re u1dtions have oc-
cur:ed. Changes in program require-
mvr .r.s ha;e so eumes occurred o m..ny
Luses that EPA regonal personnaL are
reluctant to ask appLc . at . for new or
addltior.al in or:nacion.
Let it be clearly understood that the
clear”intent and determination of the
conference committee is that the deia}s
ountered under ibLc Law 9 —50O
not be repeated with th s 1977 legislatIon.
It n totally es ,teutial chat all ±n the pipe-
hne projects be honored under the eicist-
L’sg ground rules.
—32--
-------
INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY AND STUDY (Continued)
DEBATE
Pg 3
CONG. ROBERTS :
COST RECOV Y
It has long been the intent of Congress
to encourage participation in publicly
owned treatment works by industry. The
conferees are most concerned over the
impact the Industrial cost recovery pro-,
vision of existing law may have on L’idus-
try participation on these public systems.
Accordingly, the Industrial Cost Reco”-
ery Study. section 75. has been Incorpo-
rated In the conference report, and EPA
i s encouraged to submit the results of the
study as soon as possible so that Con-
gress can take actIon on any recoinmen-
dations that are forthcom ng.
It is expected that the administrator
will consult with all interested groups In
conducting this study and that the study
will address at least the following ques-
tions:
First. Whether the Industrial Cost Re-
covery program (ICR) dlscrtminates
against particular industries or Indus-
trial plants in diflerent locations, and do
small town businesses pay more than
their urban counterparts? What is the
combined impact on such industries 01
the user charge and ICR. requirement.s?
Second. Whether the ICR program and
• ‘resultant.user charges cause some corn-
sminities to charge much higher costs for
wastewater treatment than other coin-
enmities in the same geographical area?
(Some communities have indicated that
disparities In ICR. and user charges affect
employment opportunities.) Whether a
mechanism should be provided whereby
a community may lower its user and ICR
charges to a level that is competitive with
other communities in order to restore
,parity?
Third. W ie1her the ICR. program
drives industries out of miinicipcl sys-
tems, the extent’ and the community im-
pact? -
Fourth. Whether industries tying Into
municipal systems pay more or less icr
pollution control than direct discharg-
era?
FIfth. Whether the ICR program en-
courages conservation, the extent and
the economic or eUvlz ’oflmeflLal impact?
Sixth. Whether the 1CR program en-
courages cost effective solutions o water
pollution problems?
Seventh. How much revenue will this
program produce for locaL State and.
.Federal governments, and to what use
will or should these revenues’be put?
Eighth. Deterinintition of the admui-
istrauve costs of thu. program, addition-
al billing costs imposed, costs sssoc atecL
with the monitoring of Industrial efiluerit
for the purpose of calculating the ICR.
charges, ancillary beneftis ascocated
with the monitoring of industrial e:tki-
ent, procedures necessary to take ac-
count of changes in the number of indus-
tries discharging Into municipal plants.
and the Impacts of seasonal or other
changes in the characteristics and quan-
tity of e uent.s dixcharged by individual
industries?
Ninth. Whether small Industries should
be exempted from 1CR? How shou!d
small be defined? Ls there a reasonable
floor that can be established for ICR
based upon percentage flow?
Finally, the conference report Includes’
a prevision, section 24, which snU allow
municipalities to reduce the industr:al
cost recovery charge mr those indusrr:es
which reduce theIr total flow of sewage.
or unnecesary water consumption. It fc
expected that the amciunts to be paid v ll
be reduce j iii proport to the flow re-
u.ict:on achieved..
CONG. CLEVELAND :
SECTiON 24—ixovsniisa COST RECOVERY
This modification is one which should
significantly beneflt many small indus-
tries throughout the States. I know from
our own experience j New Hampshire
that the Industrial cost recovery features
of Public Law 92-500 do not serve to en-
courage. Industries to partIcipate in
municipal treatment works. This not
only results in more treatment plants to’
monitor, but also exacerbates a shortage
of treatment plant operator problems;
moreover, It involves Industry in an
activity for which it has only a second-
ary Interest as opposed to its need to
produce a product with some margin of
profit.
The exemption which Industry can ob-
tain under the 1977 act without exposure
to L-mdustymaj cost recovery obviously will
be of assistance to those small industries
. hich do not produce in excess of 25,000
gallons ner day of waste flow.
smrioiv 75—COST uy sxeu’r
Since there has been considerable dis-
cussion and uncertainty concerning the
impleinent tj n of the ndustrja coat re-
covery’ provision of P bljc Law 02—500,
this, section provides f or an 18-month
moratorium on the iznplemen io of
the present provisions while the 1 ffln
Istrator studies the el”h’fi.n, ’ 7 of and the
need for payment by Industrial users of
works for that ortlon of
the cost of the construction aliocat id to
Industrta waste treatment It . the be-
lieL of many of the members of the con-
ference committee that the need or the
provisions of this secr.lari of the original
act will be found to be unnacesswj.
CO 1G. OBERSTAR :
DCS !AL COST RECOVESY
Secr on 75 of the conference reoors
re it:rcs the Ad instracor :o do a t.dy
on t::a ef :iency of and the neea for L-e
payment by industrial users of ony ::eac-
ment orks of that portion of the F a-
era! contribution to the cost of cor truc-
tion of such works which Is aLoca le to
th t:ea ment works.
Li aedition to looking at the impact on
communitie s, the study should inciude art
assessment of the impact of this recuire-
r.:ent on selected induati,es. such a-s I ocd
proces3ors. Such an assessment should
include an evaluation of the comb ed
e ect on Industries of the user charge
and the industrial cost recovery payment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge enactment of
these necessary amendments.
Mr. ROBE2 TS. Mr. Speaker. I ytel.a 1
minute to the gentleman from ‘ ,n soca -
ir. O3 ssT. s.
(:.Ir. OBERSTAR asked and wa . given
p!rnussior i to revise and extend ma xe-
marks.i
Mr. OEERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I sins
disappoistted that the conference re-
jecte2 the so-called Nelson amendment
to the Clean Water Act banmng phos-
phates In cleaning products sold in the
Great Lakes Basin States. However, our
dLstm ’ .ushed subcomnu ttee churinan,
P . x Rossars. has assured me that. e
would hold hearings on this important
irsue next year. and I want to take this
opportunity to urge him to do so early in
the second session of this 95th Ccnzress.
Tile Nelaon amendment was designed
to e ectxvely eliminate poi:it soUrce c.. s’
charges of phosphorous into the Gcea
Lakes Water Quaimty Agreement with
fill its obhIations under the 1972 Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement with
Canada,
Th 04th Congress enacted the Tox:c
Substances Control Act which set forth
a praceaure to lnvest:;ata and rcgthte
s’ ch substances. ‘The Ada in.xtrn:or of
EPA. Doug Costle. has initiated an in-
ve igatxon of phosphorus which ma cx-
to be completed in March of 1)73.
A Ptiolic Works-Corr ,rnittee hearing on
phosphorus, reviewing the scientt e facts
de elo ed by EPA, early ne.’ct year would
be most appropriate anti timely.
Questions that should be a.r scd
are: Ftr t, whether the phosp!’ate baa
In the Great 1.akes w l! have any stgnif-
—33—
-------
INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY AND STUDY (Continued)
DEBATE (Contin’ied )
Pg 4
icantenvu-on nental benefits: second.
the economic be et ts and co6t . of such
a ban—a recent analysi.s by EPA ’s re-
gion V headquarters ui Ch ca io claims
a net savings to tacpayers of $26 mil-
lion iii the e!ght State Great Lakes re-
gion, from a phosphate han: th rd, the
practicability of a statewide ban: fourth.
technological probiems encountered
In replacing ptioapnates; fltn, the ex-
tent of entroplucation in toe Great
Lakes.
A major portion of Mlctii an lies
within the Great Lakes drainage basin,
and only a small portion of eacn of the
other Great Lakes States is located
within the basin. Therefore, this study
should address the question of limit-
ing the phosphate content of detergents
in the entire region.
• Moreover, - 80 percent of all phos-
phates produced in the United Statos are
used in fertilizers. The balenco—l5 per.
cent to 20 percent—.are used in a va-
riety of products mcludmg foods, vita-
mins. detergents. sanitlzers. and metal
surface treatment prcducts. Farmers
use the largest amount of phosphate
and farnis iocated near bodies of water
probably contribute more paospnate to
water than does any other source. The
• amount of agricultural runoif generally
is not measurable.
However, since readily available
phosphate, u.tually ortho-phosphate.
comprises a major portion of the Great
Lakes pn phate load from all diffuse
land sources—32 percent to 70 percent—.
control of diffuse source phosphorus
must also be consiaered.
Today the sewage facilities In the
Great Ln.ces that can meet EPA phos-
phate e luent objectives—i milligram per
liter—are 64 percent complete and in
operation. They wul be lO ) percent in
operation by 1982. They are aLt funded
and In the construction phase. It Is as-
swned that the most effecttve and least
expensive way to reduce the flow of phos-
iate Is via the sewage treatment process.
Does this approach merit review?
Mr. Speaker, another one of the major
Issues this conference report addresses
is the regulation of toxic poUutant dis-
charges tc the Nations waters. The dis-
aemmation of toxios into our environ-
meat has been of great concern to me far
a number of years as It is to many people
nation-wide. As the number of Izicidences
Involving the discharge of toxic pci-
lutanta into the environment has in-
creased. it has become Increasingly ob-
vious that prevention must be the watch
word, rather than taking ad hoc mess-
ures alter a threat to human health arid
the environment has already been thrust
upon us.
The President addressed the issue of
toxic chemicals In his envt:onmental
message to the Congress last May:
“Rather than cop ng with these hazards
alter they have escaned into our environ-
meat, our primary objective must be to
prevent them from eriteri:ag the environ-
meat at all.” I share his concern for
achieving that ob;e ,tive.
• Coarly, section 53 of the conference
report is an unportarzt first step in this
dire hon with regard ‘o preventing the
discharge of tox:c poLlutants to surface wiM be important to us in our future de-
waters of the tJni ecI Stace.s. The Admia- liheratioiis on thether or not tz e itE
Istritor must promulgate e i ent Limi a-. rec iirement should be niodi ed;
tions for a specific list of tox cs and corn- First. Has thc implementat:on of the
p anco must be ach:cveci ny di.schargera u e. sria.ae arid industrial cc st reco ery
of such pdUuta no i.ster than 3W, 1. re u rements of aecncn 204(b) (1) (.‘.)
1984. How 5ver. ann ) csulted in some communities
that this list is not all inclusive. There ‘charging much higher cosis for waste-
exist many pollutants a’hiOh are actua..iy. v ater treatment. than other communi-
Cr potentially toxic that do riot appear on t:es in the sa:iie geugraph cal area? If so,,
the list. For this reason, the Am nistra— .thould the Congress pros de a mecha-
toris specifically authorized undet’ sec- main iihereby a cornmun ty may Io ’er
t:on 53 to add pollutants to the statutor- its uscr and industrial cost reco cry
117 established List, it is very important c±u rges to a level that is compet tnc
that the Administrator use this author- with the other commuii ttes in oder to
Ity as aggressively as possible U the pre- i-eslo e p& rity? If so, how should parity
venL-.’e approach to controlling to, berestorer .i?
pollutants is to succeed. Second. Does the existing law ericour-
While the Ar ’ni ctraGor may choose age construction of regtonal publicly
to list pollutants on the basis of other owned waste-water treatment fac:lit es?
criteria, at a mmi’ , if so, what is the impact on Industrial
list any pollutant that has evidenced users of su:h erstems compared to in-
carcinogenic, mutagenic. or duatnal users of nonregional systems and
effects in humar.s or in laboratory test- those wb ch construct their own waste
ing, or which has otherwise evidenced a water treatment systems?
s gniflcans degree of Lo’t:cz:y at Third. Are recent reports by the Gen-
posure leveLs so a uaiic organi.w.s eral Accounting Office and the Vertex
systems. Es should then procede to Cor i. valid, which show that the belie-
e uent limztalions for such ;dUutan s fitS of ccastrucuon and operation of ad-
as soon as 2ractzcabie, as required iancect waste treatment systems may
der sectIon 53 of the conference report. not. be worth the cost” If so. snould in-
I am committed to a continuing , dusti’ial users of such systema be re-
view of the problems of toxIc quired to pay user and inaustrial cost
In our environment: I know other - recovery char’es for them?
hers of the Committee on Public - .Ir. RCB .TS. Mr. Speaker, I yield
and Transportation are equaily commit- 1 minute to the gentleman from Wash- -
ted. This coolerence i’eport rs resents an ji 0n (Mr McCoas &c z.
important first step which must be t- r. McCORMAC . Mr. Speaker. I’
lowed 07 sustaIned effort as a’s a rise in support of this legislation. I con-
greater understanding of the effects t ’ntulate the Chairman of the subcom-
toxic pollutants ta our en’,lronaient and tne chairman of the full corn-
develop better means of preventing ri-uttee, and members of both parties for
further d e nation of their participation in this conference
itnaly, Mr. Speaker, section , report on th.s difficult piece of legisla-
Federal W ster Poliuttoc Control ton.
Amendments, as approt’ed o r conference !tr. Speaker, I have a question I would
committee, reqtures the Z A like to ash of the chairman of the Sub-
si-ator to study the e ciency of and coed comm:ttee on Water Resources, the gen-
for the payment of industri al cost i ’s- Usman from Texas (Mr. ROSER’rs: The
covery (tCRi aaset ments by Industrial Acnthustrator will have the authority to
users of publicly-owneti treatment works. extend the July 1, 1977 compliance
The Administrator, date—under section 56c which amends
study, snouts consult with ind’ tfal section 309a. of the Act—under certain
groups most heavily Impacted by cond tior s for certain discharges who
ICR requirement. including have acted in good faith bur the con-
ual firms in the food orccessl .ng Indus- : erence report gives no guidance as to
try and their representat ’re trade asso- the meaning of good faith. Would an
ciatiocis. During our hearings cri 1ndustr al discharger, which, subsequent
3199, we heard from several Industrial to the imuance of its permit, brought
groups, especially Irons food e-oc’-coors proceedings to modify the permit, or
that the combination of sndus’ral seek a variance, or whIch participated
recovery charges and rigid in erpreta- iii other l :tigation appealing the EPA’s
t oa of he proportionate share concept ef uent limitations and which delayed
for caUec zng operation arid maintenance co..s . .ructlon of treatment facthtiies
charges from industrial users has i’s- pending the outcome of such proceedings
suited in some communities ha or litigation, be deemed by reason there-
much higher costa for waste water treat- of not to have acted In good faith?
meat than other communines in the M.. ROB TS. I! the gentleman will -
sante geograph cai area. In a ritten yield. Mr. Speaker, the answer is “No.
Good faith should be judged by the rsa-
many, some communities have vised sonaoler iess of the legal position, the
our commIttee that bUCiL .flsnai’ines In
costs aivertety tfThct local mdustriai do- uncertainties of the statutory interpre-
velopment pro . rarns arid lob opportunt- talions, the lack of dilatory Intent, and
ties. other factors”
• Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN , If the gentle-
It is my further ricommendrtion that man will yield, I just want to state I
the Administrator, in carrying out tais suoscribe to the response of the chair-
study, include in the repor to the Con’ macfor purposes offegisiative history.
grecs his oest response to each of the-
following questions, the answers to which
-34-
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
(Need to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
SENATE REPORT
WATI:n Coxs1 nvAi’IoN
S ThZ EAI i
This section amends section 2O t Limitations and Conditions, to
permit a proportional reduction of industrial cost ecpvery payments
as the industriaL user reduces his flow to the system.
DISCUSS1O
This section amends section 904(b) (3) to allow a grantee that re-
ceived a grant prior to the enactment of the Clean Water Act of 197Z to
ieduce t e amounts to be paid by any industrial user which veThces
its total flow of sewage Or umuiece saiy water consumption. The
ainoi mits to be paid are to be reduced in pr0 1 )oL’tiOfl to the flow reduction
;1LIi wved 9 4 cl ii i muimd in ;iCioi Iniice with regulations promulgated
by the Administrator.
Iimclusti ml users are currently required to pay industrial cost ro—
covety charges on the basis o a system developed by a grantee anuL
approveLl by the Aduministi ator. ‘1’he regulations for the grants pro—
grain requite that this system take into account the factors such as
strciugtli , volunie and dclivciy flow, rote, to the extent they impact the
uoQ of COflSt ruict.iOn of the treatment. woiks. This same system should
be used to calculate how much charges will be reduced for an industrial
user which 1 etlnces its flow into t municipal ti eatmncnt works.
This amncndment. does not apply to grantees that receive a grant
after enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1077. These grautecs a le
e’q)cctcdl to require all potential large industrial users to execute a
binding contract to pay industrial co L rccovcry charges for the full
c. pacity they ieqiuume on the new treatment works in accordance with
liii. )I )vision of I his scetiomi.
‘1’ ii, cctioit also amnen.ls section 20-1(a) (5) to require (list. the
mimnunt of m rbcrvc caj)arity appa ovccl by the A(lmnhmlistm aitor shall take
itul o :ieeouui it, i ii :mccom damir u it Ii r imlat iOiiS 1 iiomnnlgated by I lie Ad—
mumimuist r.utoi , elforis to mi diice how of sewage and uuuuieccS ary vater
COfl iuuli mt.iOfl.
The urment western drought and recent Projections made concern-
ng future watei demand and supply indicate (limit the regLulatmns of
the construction grants program should be mnoclitied so as to encourage
loc:ulitw to reduce ,mter iwe. Federal, State amid local water supply
amid treatment cocts i ouhi be reduced directly through lcsscmwd de—
ma mmd for water. As ii result, coast riuct ion gramit fmnuds would be avail-
able for a larger number of projects, thereby accelerating watcr c uality
inipi ovemmuemit. Emmemgy comisuniption would also be reduced since less
water would have to be’purified in water supply and sewage trcatni nL
worics, and less hot water would be used in residences and commerce.
fledLietion of sewage flows and water eommservattion can b achieved
by a vaiiety of mneasumea, including special pricing policies, water say—
imig appliances and flow reduction devices iii imou . eimuld plumbing
hixtuics.
Less treatment tuid conveyance capacily ‘mll be required where flow
reduction is projected in iwcortlaneu with time niodilied regulations to
be issued by the Adininistralor, These savings should be taken into
accoumit when determining the amount of reserve capacity to be ap-
proved in a treatment works.
INDUSTI 1I.t! COST 1im’covErir
SUli C.tI:Y
This section amnenclssection 204, Limitations and Conditions, to per-
mit the exemaptiomi of small discharges (less than 2,500 gallons a day)
from industrial oost recovery requirements.
DiSCVSSiO i
Section 204(b) (1) (II) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
makes tIme granting of Federal funds for the construction of a publicly
Lreatmnemmt works contingent on tIme recovery of that l)O Lion of
the Federal sluatre which is iii imibutuble to imiduistriuul vsers. Each imiclui —
trial discharger is required to repay that portioum of time Fetleriul ciL )iLuLl
costs that ame proportiomual to its share of USe of thp project assisted.
Section 204(b) (3) (13) requires that, at least 50 percent. of time costs
recovctetl from industrial users be rcturni ’d to the Federal Treasury.
] eccmmt. e pcriemmcc with existing amid proposed imudusi rial cost 1ec(n’ery
sys [ amc imidientes that time requirements of time act maypluec aim adnuimi—
i’ Lrat lye hmmrtlc’im on sonic localities.
Inclumsi rial cost. recovery is particularly burdensommie for those local i-
ties with cmnail industrial discliargers, each of wit ich i epreseni S a smalL
Intl lust i ml fraction of (lie tot ILl flow into the publicly owned tree I mnent
works. There are certain fixed costs—for sampling, billing end col—
lectmon—th,nt ate independemit of the size of the discharge. Thus, for
smell tliccimargcrs, tho cost of recovery may he mis reaL as or e’ cecd
In costs (luau t mire recovci able fmommi the I nd mist m l a I iwcvs.
r1 iie pm oposeti amemuimnent would exempt ft ommi cost recorery thoso
inductriti disclmar cvs with flow rates that (10 not exceed a sticcifieci
aui,nummut. Time beuuelils from time exempt I O u SVC time imimmet ion of a mmew
amid added uimma lmci.Ll burden for small humiiimes— ,c .
—35-
-------
Tue exemption flow rate is 2,500 gallons per day ia the current form
of the amendment. There is, however, uncertainty as to the appropriate
- value for the exempted flow rate. In the resolution of this uncertainty.
regarding the exemption flow rate, two questions must be addressed.
First, what flow rate is characteristic of the small business-establish-
meilt that cannot afford (he added burden of the capital costs of a
publicly owned treatment voiks? SecQncl, at what flow rate does it
become uneconomical to administer the industrial cost recovery
process?
The committee intends that the appropriate level of use will be iden-
tified prior to completion of ac ioii on this legislation.
This anicadment also ri1l l)ermit publicly owned, inuhliplant treat-
ment w’ovks systems to be treated as a single system so that several
significant economic bnrclens of industrial cost recovery are avoided.
A singk-systcm cost recovery analysis would produce a more equita-
ble d ist.ribut loll of costs antqng illdtNLrimll diseliargers. Currently, costs
are allocated according to the proportionate use of the federally
funded 1)01 tion of the treatment system. Due to historical accidents of
site location, this method of cost allocation produces an uneven dis-
ribut ion of costs among industrial (liSehargerS. In large cities with
many industijal waler users (hat discharge into different treatment
plmtii(s, the potential for inequitable cost distributions are particularly
great.
‘rue proposed change would also reduce the administrative costs
that would result from the implementation of an industrial cost recov-
ery system. In allowing the locality to view the Separate Systems as one
large system, (1) the locality can compute the costs to be charged to
disclinrgers based on the percent of total flow for one large system, in.
stead of for several systems, and (2) the locality need not determine
tilC exact locations of dischargers, siiiCC the spatial relationship be-
tween a disclmarger and the trcatmiient plamit would no longer be rele—
v imlt. However, the commit tee e l)ects that in every case the industrial
share of tile specific Federal grant will be repaid.
HOUSE REPORT
CosT Racovnnr STUDy
Section 21 requires tile Administrator to study the efficiency of, and
need for, tile payment by the industrial users of any treatilleilt works
of that p01 t1on of the cost of construction of that treatment works
wllicll is allocable to the treatment of each in(lmmstrial users’ rliSte to
the extent attributable to the federal share of tile cost of construct ion.
This is it SLU(ly of the industrial cost recovery re(Ililrement set forth in
sect iou 204(b) (1) (B) of tile act, which provides for a systelil by
which nil industrial users of the ticatnient works fire lepaying over a
definite period, their portion of tile fedeinl share of coflSLl-mlctioil
costs of the works. Imidustrial cost recovery assessments mire iii piOpor—
tioii to I he ili(iuiStrial liSer vastcwatci chiunctem istics which may in-
clude strengtll. volunie, and delivery flow rate. These costs are lo be
ietoccretl 11%’ tile gramitee in nccordance with the regulations pi ouniul—
giited by (lie l nVironillcuital Protection Agency over the umsifuil life of
the heat mimeuit works but, not to exceed 30 years. ‘Flic graultee is cliii—
gate(l to collect these payments no less often (him auinumumily and to
refumntl 50 percent of (he total amount (plus any imilerest accrued) to
(he U.S. ‘l’measury. 80 perecllt of tile retained li:mi f (40 percent. of (lie
total) iç to ba Lmsccl by (lie applicant for the eligible cost of e peuisa
for m ecoimtruct,jon of facilities associated with (lie projeCt. 20 lielTeult
of time remaining half (10 percent of tile total) calm be used for any
PUrPOSe except construction of industrial pretreatlllent facilities or
rebates to couitrib umliuig indmistiies. ‘l’llere is 110 fedei.t1 mequirement for
recovery of the State or local share of the capit mi en t foi tre utiuwiit of
iiioluisti ml vaste (although State Or local laws amy be so t’mmiicted ).
The Emiviroinmieni at Protect ion Agency i ii inlpliImlent uui the iimdmis—
trial :ost i ecovery requ ii criwnt. lam 1)IOfliulgat ed imguilat bus pm wid—
lag that if municipalities that have received gu ants d i) not pi Oc_eC(1
siibstaiitially to adopt l%(lequultte User cliargi’ ililti liltiliSt cia I cost recoV—
cry iii ovisioui for (lair sewage I riiutiiient ‘ yStei(i, El’A vill stop
gu tilt. atyullemItS for treatmiient works coust cud ion ut either (lie Q
i)( l uiL or 80 percent comn l)let ion level of time piojéct. No intn a luau
fit) pci reiit of time Fetleral Share unity b paid 11111 ii evicleiiru of niiely
dci elOl)II ,o’llt of an i umdu— t inul cost m-ecnverv systeni li us been Sli1)lH itt ed
liy I lie i:i iltei ii uuil 110 lilOIC thu II 80 jIt’iceui(. iuiI be mnmule m lii i ii the
M’steiil is a 1)1)1 oveil. ‘l’he indmmstiial cost recovery system maumst be i)1e
mm red by tin’ grnnttc, approved by time 1 egionai .&tliiitni t rator and
m l ileuiwimted ii ad mum jut a mcd by (he irm antee.
‘i’hma coimmuu,il Ice heard e i ensivu test iniolly that ill certain COmi l IlIlirlI —
ties (lie a in mimi ist dl (ire costs of i rid mistrial cost recovi were exceed m mig
time mci ciluue . Further. (eM iniouiv mmiclkumtcd that fihullOst , 100 miiimumitmpal
it it S it Pit let i i ug P113’lli(tu i S hielil at (lie pci cciii or 80 perccui( level
lfl’C.uui’.c ol lime iiuii is( ru,tl (i) 5t recovery reqmmiu cuinuk.
-36-
-------
Ti order flint the committee might make a full and fair assessment
of the efrectiveness anti need for the industrial cost recovery provision
as well as the experience to date. section 21 provides for a full study
by time admnimstratov which is to be colnl)leted in 12 mouths. Section 21
ftiithet provides that. for a period of 18 months after the date of en-
netmitent of this section, no officer or employee of the Federal govern-
iiicnt shall enforce, or require any rcci 1 )ient of a construction grant to
enforce any provision in an application for a grant or in a grant agree—
nwnt whieli requires iIm(lII trinl cost recoveiy payments. This 18 imiouths
deferral of im, liistrial cost recovery PaYfl ients will millow the adminis—
tinlor to ire are his repoi I amid Coiigi ess to complete its stLmdy of the
I (‘pOrt awl prei i a its legislative respotise, if any. It’s imiost important
that. tIme Adimnist rator submit this report within one year of the date
ol eii:u t niettt. of this sect ion and cail Ic,. if possible. The timiming is
intended to coincide with the scheduled major review of the report of
thi National (1oimmuimi sio,i on Wa I et Qumil m l y mid the Fetlera I Water
Pollution Cont i ol Act.
} ecipients of giants for the construction of publicly—owned (rent— -
fluent, works are cant ioncci to recognize that section 91 is a simple d i ’—
feira I of imid ustria I cost recovery payii ients. Deferred paymueimts absent.
further congi cssioanl act ion will b 0 due and payable 1 f mont Its fi oin
tIme date of tituctimuent of this section. ‘I’lue l mtviioiimemitnl Protection
Agency and griintces are ftirtlu ’v cautioned that the provisions of see—
[ lout O-I(b) (1) (11) are not modified by section 21. The Environnien-
tal Protection Agency must still require the dcve lopnment of indus.
trial cost. i ecovery systeuums consistent ithm the intent of this section.
-37—
-------
STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
-38-
-------
STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
For State management assistance, EPA is authorized to reserve
2 percent, or $400,000, whichever is greater, of each State’s construction
grants allotment programs. Grants may be made from the reserved funds to
cover the reasonable costs to a State for administering aspects of the
construction grants program that pertain to Sections 201, 203, 204 and 212
of the Act, where such activities have been delegated to a State. Where
all of the 2 percent is not used for these activities, the remaining portion
of the 2 percent may be granted to the State for (1) administering an
approved program under Section 402 or 404; (2) a Iministering a Statewide
waste treatment management program under Section 208(b)(4); aod (3) managing
waste treatment construction grants for small communities. The Act is
amended to state: “It is the policy of Congress that the States manage
the construction grants program under this Act and implement the permit
programs under Sections 402 and 404 of this Act.”
The reserved funds are available for making grants only during the
allotment period from which the funds came. Any grant is available for
obligation only during the same period. Reserve funds which are not obligated
during the allotment period will revert to the last allotment to the State.
It is intended that these sums shall not be used to reduce the level of
Federal or State expenditures to administer wastewater pollution programs
in Section 106 of the Act.
-39—
-------
STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
Pg 1
LAW TEXT
STATS MLMACSI NT AS3iTA ICS
Src. 28. (a) Section 205 of the rsaerat
Water PoUutlOn Control Act U amended by
adding after new subsection. (C) the follow-
ing new subsection.
“(g) (1) The Adndnlstrator Is. authorized
to reserve each fiscal yser not to exceed 2 per
centum of the allotment made to etch State
under this section on or after october 1.
1977. or 8400.000 whichever amount Is the
greater. Sums so reserveo slial.i be avRllaQie
for making grants to suc.h Suite under para-
graph (2) of this eub .ectlon for the same
pe sod as sums are .ivallab1e from such allot-
meat under subsection ( c i) of this section.
and any such grant shall be available for
obligation only during such period. Any
grant made from sums reserved under Ib is
subsectiou which has not been obUgaced by
the end of the pertod for which avnil.sble
shalt be added to the amount last allotted
to such State under this section and shall
be Immediately available for obligation In
the same manner ned to the same extent as
such last allotment
“(2) The Administrator Is tutkorized to
grant to any State from amounts reserved
to such Stat. under this suosection. the
Feasonable coats.of administering ang
OC seCtions 20!. 203; 204. And 212 of this Act
the responsibility fox, admlnlst at o of
which the dctinlnlsh’ator hen delegated. to.
such. State. The A ‘ ator may Increase
such, grant to take into account the reason-
able costa of n 1l1Il tertng an soproved pro-
gram under seetlon 40 1 or 405. admlnt tartng
a. statewide waste treatment. T ” ” em.ct;
planning program under section. 208(b) (4),
aDd waste treatment construction
grants for small- communhtiesp
i(b) Se tion 101(b) oLPederaiwaiw. Polio-
on Controt Act Is amended by erttn tm-
ediately after the Szst seatenco th follow.
ing new sentence ‘SIt is the pol icy of Con-
greas .th3t the States manage the construction
grant pzogram under this Act and implement
the permit. programs. under sactfons 402 and
:49 o Aet
CONFERENCE REPORT
erelt ssaM*a lv sassrezcc:
HowebtU --
Adds a ‘aew section 214 to tttle 11 0! the
Act. Under this provision, the Administrator
of SPA mey accept from Stam es qualir ’ing o
‘$ttln.pels. TtLDCaIsone as to their corn-
once with the Act in developing applica-
As for treatment works grants. Qualified
St*I..a are defined as those whose water nohlu.
Zion nntrol agencies have the authon:y. mu-
sponsibility and capabthty to e!ec nil
actions, determinations or approva.s fur
•‘ c c ci ificacion is submitted.
Section 214 a,ithonzes the Admlrtttrator
to accept cet cation by a State thet t e
folioaing Federtl requtrements for a con-
atruction grant award bad been complied
wi th
Eraluation of alternative wa 5tC manage-
ment tec inioues; detgrminatio”t that inc.
proposen :reatmejtwo }:5 will provide for the
aaplicat.oa of toe best practicable waste
trratme:t: technolo v over the life Ci the
wor ’. . ,s nod will allow far the late? aophicatioa
of advanced treatment technology sectlon
20 1’c)(2 1):
The proposed treatment wonce Is not sub-
1 e:t to excessive anAltration 4.ectlon 201(g)
13));
Plans. specifications. and estimates hare
been aubmitted gsec:lon 203 (a )):
Stages of pro ecta may be eligible for a
grant award lsection 203(a));
The proposed works are consistent with
a n1icabte areawice waste treatment manage.
mcat nlans and State water quality pians
(section2Ot(a)(1) and (a)(2fl,
Tiw works are ‘entitled to priority for fund-
in over ciher works in the State (section
204ia) i3) I
Toe grant applicant agrees to pov non-Fed-
eral costs and has made prorismoise for pro,e
ooerauon and maintenance vi the works
(section 04(a) (4)):
The proposed works contains sufficient re-
serve capacity laection 204(a) (5)):
Bid oec:ft:a:lon reaumrements will be cons-
pl ie4 with (e.ction2Od(*hlSflt
The -.iser charee end ic4ustrml cost recor-
cry prnrtnlor.s of the Act have been compliec
with 5ectron 204 (b) (1) and (b 3)l;
‘The proposed treatment works system is
eligIble for a grant ‘under the ‘definition of
trsatment works’ (section 212(2) (B)).
Subject to ‘the Admin)rtra’tor’s 5p ?OV5i.
after public hearinzs. and to 3udicta ! review.
with reenact to cu lifi.- tmoos to conduct a
cerr ,Licanion program. Stales receiving certifi-
catton .au c-sty would ezermee this airthom—
it cerLft’ing to the Administrator that
projects are in compliance with all or a per-
uon Gf legal, ssehnk ’ sJ and ad-
.ministrazive requirements.
- Certification auahority.could becarried m it
by a State for all or a part of the actions,
determinations or aeprovala for which certi-
fication may be accepted as its capabthties
warrant at a given S ImS.
Also, the section provides that the Ad-
mInistrator must detei-mme that the Slate
Is foflowing practices that conform to the
Yederal construction grant zegulaclons san-
der the ACT. .lncludlng a requirement that
any person having a SIgnificant financial in-
.terect in the construction of treatment wo:Zs
win not be a member of any State board or
-body which processes an application for a
grant -ander’tbis ‘title. —
- - Under zection 214. the Aal l IStrat ,oi. Is
required to issue tmp1er ..nttflg regular.sons
wIthin 90 days of the date of the enactment
of the bill, ., -
‘SectIon 214 addresses the posSIbility of
failure by 8tates ‘to meet the requirements
of ‘this secUaO. It, alter public bearing, the
Administrator determines a State as not
meeting ‘the requirements for one or more of
the aenant, determinations. or approvals for
which ,wt1dcatlo is -accepted from that
State ‘the Administrator may suspend aceept.’
sacs for any or all pro)ecta in the State.
La the evens of such sizspesision. the Acintin-
istrator an his daics’eaion may reinstate that
Siav, -es plogram -for any or all pTo )ects ‘upon
rccclsw.g eviden s that abe deucseuclee have
been coreacted, -
The responsibilIties cat the Administrator
under any other Federal law incluthog the
Ntltocal Environmental Policy Act of 19d3
are flOt a ecteu by ‘ I Sis section.
ThU sactton does not changr the AdmuuS-
trator’S resoons.bihi7 to a ard T ceral
-granua- )etther does it aii,ic. the ex ttng
p ocedt .res for ear ronmental assessmentS
Sta:as partt -cinit n :n this p:cg am c.e
perns ted to expend p to two parcec. of
their constritctlon allotments t:om cettlan
2- 5 of the Ac; for the reasoonoce costs of
ct;:y’ng out this responsibility
The aniount Un to 2 percent reserved :0 ?
ttii3 purpose may be granted ny the ‘td-
mtmstrator f’om time to time to a. State :or
ca:r7tng out the certt cation authority. A
grant made from the amount reserved may
be oblIgated by the States in the same
manner as for construction projects and clw-
tag the aamne pertod, as the ajiotmen: from
which the grant is made. Funds so obli pted
shall be available until expended.
This section further requu’es the Adminis-
trator to conduct Interim and final mr,Snec-
tiocs and audlt. for the Stote watar polLu-
tIon control agencies to submit inforniatlon .
data, and reports.
Senate cmendrne’nt
SectIon 22 amends section’ 203 of the Act
to authorize relervatton of up to 2 cerccnt
of a State’s conatructtoa grant allotment, but’
no tCss than 5400,000. for use b7 the State
In admins:ering 5fl7 aspects ox the coost c-
lion grant program. Suco und.a may he in ’
creased to assist an the a in.stertn; of the
402 permit program. statewide 203 planning.
and respoissibility for managing coe.slruc:ioa
grants for small communities.
Paragrape (c) (2) of :h s new subsection
provides that a State assisting the Environ-
mental Protection Agenc7 in the inintsmen ta-
tion of lt respons.biflttes unner sec:.0-s t.
203. and 224 may receive gmnntc to cover the
reasensbls cost of that assiscan e.
The acttvitzes include lnfl.1:atlon studIes.
reveiw of prelinti’iary plans to evaluate the
size and scope of the project, review of ooer-
atton pns maintenance p:os’rems, review of
Pl 503 and specifications. deternunatlon of
consLstenc7 with sectton 208 plans and re-
view Of preoritten.
Seats reserved for making grants under
this provision shall be available :or the same
period as suat.s are a;aiiabie :rom an ailoc-
mean under subsection ib) of sectIon 205 of
the Act, and any grant shall be available zor
obligation oniy during that period. Reserve
funds that are not oollgated oy tee end of
the period (or which they are avatisble will
be added to the amounts Last a,tottael to a
State under suco sechon 205 and aouid be
imntedss:e;7 avaUable for obIsgalto n ta the
same manner and to the Sante extent as
such last allotment
Con/erencesub st lfute -
The conference substitute Is the same en
the Senate amendment except that the grant
eligibilIty Is e’cpanded to include costs of ad-
ministering section 2L2 of the Act.
In additton. section 101(b) of the Act is
amended to declare it the policy of Congre’is
that Sta:e mnuage the construc!on grant
program and implement the sect.ons 402 and
,,40-4 permIt programs.
The conferees intend that the sums made
a aLt.sble under thIs provts:on. should not be
used to rduce the Levol o Federal or State
expenditures to admi ister water pollution
contrOl programs as provided in SectIon 105
of tale Act,
-40-
-------
STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (Continued )
Pg 2
CONG. ROBERTS :
ST T5 MANACEiJZ 4T ASSisTANC
Mr. Sueaker. the State rnana ement
aa ,cistance proviston. sectton 26 of tl e
conference report is a ‘version of State
certl catiOri wilien nouki be fa.njlinr to
mu Members. since it appearod in leg-
Islatton which ta ice passed the House.
This approach represents a House
response to problems which surfaced
early in the administration of the title fl
construction grant program and which
persu .t today, a fa, t documented by the
National Commission on Water Quality.
the Investigations and Review Subcorn—
mittee, and the Subconinuxcee on Water
Resources, of the Committee on Public
Works and ‘razisportation.
This provision re ects the need to em-
phe,size and exter.d the policIes in Public
Law 92—5 1 )0 with respect to the role of
the Stntes in water poliutlon control and
the etftclent administration of the act.
and, to encou.rage effectuat. on of these
policies as set ort.b in section 101(b) and
101 ( 1). Evperiecce has L oi n that, these
policies a.-e not only compatible in con-
cept but . inseparable in irnplementat.on.
There is and has been no doubt that
the Environmental frotecciofl Agency
has the authority to delegate to tne
States the authority to carry out certain
requirements of the act under sections
201, 203. 204. and 212. Indeed. EPA has
begun implementing this authority. But
the conferees have recognized that full
achievement of the potential for State
management and the benefits to be de-
ived therefrom requires further impetus
from the Congress In the form of induce-
ments to both EPA and the States.
Accordlngl, section 2d of the confer-
ence report declares it to be the policy of
the Congress that States man,sge the
construction grant program, and also
Implement the permit programs under
sectIons 402 and 404 of L’is acL The con-
ference eoort .Zurther arovides that 2
percent of a Slate’s construction alloca-
tion—but no less than S400.000 per
year—be reserved to enah!e States to
equip themselves to assume the author-
“Ity to manage these programs.
The Administator is authorized to
grant to any Slate from amounts re-
- served to It the costs of administering
.any aspect of sectIons 201. 203. 204, and
212 of this act to the extent that the
responsibility for administering them is
to be delegated to such State. Once a
State has received a grant in connection
with the assumption of such delegated
responsibility for the construction grant
.,progmm. It may auply for adnitional
wants from such reserved sums as re-
main available within the 2 percent set-
aside for the reasonable costs of admin-
sistering an approveci program under see-
-ton 208, 402 or 404 of the act as
-amended. - -
• However, because construction grant
- funds are involved., it Is clearly the intent
‘of-this provision that first priority be
given to State administration of the con-
etruct,ion grant progranL This can repre-
sent an extensibe iinaertakjn , in that
the States are authorized to administer
any aspect of the sections enumerated
Ei: ibIe expenditures include sta ]ng and
related e, penses ox Slate exercise of red-
dent engineering responsibtht:es on proj-
ects, particularly in smaller communities.
It is the intent of this provision, then,
that the funding provided result Iri an
increase in sta nz z.nd an expansion of
management activity at the State le%el.
Further, the Intent of this provision is
that the sums provided not be used to
reduce the level of Federal or State ex-
penditures to administer water pollution
control programs,
it La particularly and specthcally not
the intent of this provision that con-
struction grant funds be subscituted for
State program funds under section 106
or Public Law 92.—500, for which the
annual level of authorization is increased
by this legislation to tlOO million from
$75 nu.Uion. In combination, these con-
sideratiotis dictate that himthest piioraty
in the use of construction grant funds
set aside be accorded to State manage-
meat of the construction grant i ogramn.
Tne Mlnhin,ctrator will distribute up to
2 percent of the grant funds set aside in
proportion to the functions of the con-
scruction grhnt program that the State
is conducting or proposing to conduct.
I want ‘ o emphasuie the prospective as-
pect of the provision, whereby States can
qualify for funding to staff up and other-
‘wise equip themselves to perform func-
tions which they are not currently per-
forming. -
Proper State administration of the
construction grants program wili depend
In part on continuity of operation. There
Is some risk of disruption In th.tt the
funds for State administration are al-
lotted ‘yearly. It is incumbent on the
Administrator to use the means available
to him to assure continuity of operation
In State programs from one fiscal year
tothenezt, -
I also ‘wish to emphasize that States
can qualify for such grants from the 2-
percent reservation regardless of whether
or not they are Implementing the 402
permit program, whether or not they
have asswried the State permit program
under section 404. whether or not they
have a state tde 208 program, or
whether or r,ot they have developed th
capab hmy to manage construction
grants to small comrnunitlc .
Similarly, States can qualify for such
grants without demonstrating a deter-
mination to acquire the capability to
manage grant awards to small comnmu-
nitles. Thus, nothing in this provision
shall be construed as authorizing the
admInistrator to require States, as a
coi:dition of eligibiity for as istanee
under this provision, to acquire the ca-
pability to become the contract agency
for any engineering, design, or com ruc-
tiori agreemen , It !s one thin; to
strengthen State capability In this and
related areas bu quite another—totally
lacking any basis in the statutory lan-
guage- -to say that States must be re-
-41 - quired to fulfill or perform the functions,
The availability of re erved construc-
tion grant funds for functions in addi-
t.iori to construction grant marugemerit
is riot intended to provide the sdniints-
trator a rnean,s of irducmr States t,o as-
sume resporisioiflties under seCtions 203.
402. or 404 which they would not assume
tn the absence of the State management
iIs ,slstance provision.
The administrator is to base the
size of the grant made to a Suite upon
the States capabthty, or its demon-
stra ted commitment to accluirc the aS:!-
ity, to assume responsibilities under
title IL -
We fully expect EPA to expedite Imp!e-
men atlon of this prOvision, long i n the
process of development and fully fnmil:ar
to the agency. The comnnuttee rJl moni-
tor the pace and extent of EPA’S izni m e-
menratlon of this provision and to hold
hearings promptly if the circumstances
warrant.
I am confident that the procedure of
certifying qualified States will eject a
more e cieifl means for exped tin the
municipal construction pro ran.recuce
duplication of eftort at Federal and State
levels of government, and reduce the
needless drain on the resources of EPA.
The State management assistance Ian-
uage In the conference report th ers
from the original House language to the
extent that the procedural requiremen
for State certilication as contained rn the
House bill was not Incorporated. I wisa to
emphasize that this modi cation was
agreed to by the House conferees in the
interests of more rapid assumption by the
States of delegated respons,bilitie,s for
administering the construction grants
program. Thus it Is manifestly not the
Interit’of the conference substxtute that a
lesser degree of State management occur.
but rather the reverse. it is intended that
at least as many States expressing a de-
sire to do so participate In the manage-
mentof the construction grants program
than would have been the case had the
more structured certification prd ess
been adopted.
SENATOR MUSKIE :
STATE 74ANAGESXENI’ AasxsrAm4CE
The conference agreement adopts the,
Senate amendment hzcti authorizes the
Environmentaj Protection Agency to as-
sist financially the States to whom he
has authorized certain management
functions including the construction
grant program, the 402 program, the 208
program, and small community grants
These funds would be reterved from the
State’s yearly allotment of constructio n
grant program’s funds. In no case would
the funds exceed 2 percent and no State
would be eligible for less than S400.OCO.
The policy of authorizing the States to
manage the construction grai t program
Is being Implemented by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency under existing
statutory’ authority. California alreaay
manages the full program from approval
of design to approvol of selection among
bIdders through disbursement of finds.
Twenty-eight States have tamen over-the
permit program, and States are carryir,g
on statewide 208 planning Other Scatcs
conduct certaIn porticris of the revie-r
-------
STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE Continued )
Pg 3
process ri the cohstruction grant
gram. Because o State rew. ce c’ ri-
straints. they need lunds to perlo;m
these functions on benalf of the Feci-I ii
Go ernment.
The bill authoi ires t e Admtstrwt . .t
to distribute up t ’ 2 pekr’e!tt or t ie g:ant
funds in proportion to tz e tuco c1
the construction crant proc,;a:n ,hat
State is conducting. ‘ , nether Cr ii t t.t
i State has the ‘102 permit progr:’m.
whether or no the State nanages the
permit program, whether or not the
State has a stotewide 208 program. nd
whether or not the State has the ca iu-
bibty to manage construction gr rit,i to
sntafl communities. Each of these unc-
tions requires manpower and experti.52
at the State level, and Federal reiâttrce
should be available in proportion to the
amount of the functions coridui’teci anti
therefore the needs of the prograc .
This provision is similar to a request
by the administration that the bill au-
thorize the Adrninisri’ator tn d strthuts
the funds according to the abo e criteria.
The purpose of certifying the States
and providing commensurate re ources is
to reduce auplicatiot: of erfort y State
and Federal levels of governi ent. a ma-
jor complaint In the progra i. Ic a-ioid
unnecessary enlargement itt uie nunther
of Federal personnel needed fcr prugi-am
Implementation; and to carry o t the
policy In Public Law 92—50p “to :eeog-
mze. preserve, and protect the primary
responsibthties and rights of S:zdes to
prevent, reduce, and eliminate poiluLon.”
The Administrator is expected t3 only
make available the full amount wnen
the State has assumed full capabiI t es.
When a State has taken en their fuil re-
sponsibthties. all the funds Mu rt ri ’ t
be available unless the State can justify
that level of funding.
Sums reserved under this amendment
are available for making the typo of
grants just descriued for the same perrod
as sums are available from an allotment
under subsection (b) of this section. anti
any grant shall be available Icr obligsti3n
• only during that period. l eserve funch
that-are not obligated by the end o th
I period for which they are available w: l
• be added :o Inc amounts last allotted to a,
State under section 205 arid woulca be irs-
• mediately available for obligation :n the
same manner and to the same extent as
such last allotment.
Any reserve funds reverting to a State’s
‘general allotment will remaIn ava lable.
for a reasonable period of-time as d”-
termined by the Administrator throul.h
regulation before reallotmezit. In a aim-
liar vein, it should be noted that tu tho c
cases where a State Is granted le s than
the enttre 2 percent of Its allotment
‘junds for the purposes of this section. the
unobligated funds will revert to the
-State’s general aUotmerit funds as soon
as the Administrator determ:nes what
percent to grant to any Suite in any year.
Further, the intent of thts provision 15
that the sums not be used to redjce ;:ie
level of Federal or State experici!tu; ’s to
administer water pohlut 1 on control p:o-
grams as provided in section lC.’ 01
act. However, a grant under th:s p’ovi ’
sion may require the repropramin; r,f
those amounts of Federal and Stalk tw d
earmarked for management of municipal
facilities construction into other State
program elements such as enforcement
anti monitoring.
P ’i’og:aph Id) (2) of this subsection
provides i-nat a State assisting the En-
viror.menc Protection Agency in the un-
piementactorl of its responsimi,ities under
sections 2 )l, 203, 204. and 212 may re-
ceive grants to cover the reasonable cost
of thar. assistance. The activities include
Infiltration studies, reView of preliminary
plans to evaluate the size and scope of
the project. review of operation and
maintenance programs. revre ’v of plans
and specifications, determinnuon of con-
sistency wicl- section 208 plans and re-
,view of priorities.
Technical assistance and information
for gra.ntees relate to the activitIes out-
lined above.
The dministmtor shali determine the
size of the grant made to a State based
on an assessment of the State’s capabil-
ity to assist with the’ activities outlined
above. The assessment should take into
account factors sucn as ti-ic State’s caps-
b:hity and performance in revtewing (a-
cility plans and design plans and spec .d-
cations. capacity to provide tecrinical as-
sutance, and availability and adequacy
- of necessary technically and proIes-
mcnally cualtfled personnel and ot.’iu
necessary resources. -
Further, it is understood that no grant
would be made under this orovision until
the State has demonstrated a commit-
meat to acq’ulnng the capability to man-
age grant awards to small communities.
This would include acquiring the capa-
bthty to be the contract agency for any
engineering design or construction agree-
ments. Most important, the States would
have accuired resources to review plans
and athise small communities on cost-
effectw alternatives.
The objective of this policy Is to ef-
fect a more e cient means for expediting
the municipal construction program, the
scope and complexity of which has so
increased as to make ts full implementa-
tion at the local level achievaole only
through reliance ott private contractors
woose primary oojectives may not. be
minimizing local short- and long-term
costs while maximizing environmental
be nt i litz.
Two other primazy- responsibilities in
exiztL’tg law which many States have as-
sumed are the permit program and Im-
plementation of statewide section 2t)8
management plans and proerams.
Manaaement of the permit program is
a dithcult responsibility. It requires issu-
ance of nerinics that are consistent with
anpllcable effluent requirements and
water quality standards, review of mon-
itoring reports, arid necessary enforce-
ment, actions. Each of these activities is
resource intensive and requires man-
power.
States are finally beginning to assume
their responsibilities under the section
2C8 program. These activities also are
resource intensive. A State must inte-
grate the section 303 water quality uilor-
matton, develop best management prac-
tices 13r nonpoint sources, diveiop plans
for siting for industrial and municipal
facilities, and review industrial permits
and municipal plants to determne-tneir
consistency with i-ne 2( & e ort.
The Congress expects i-tie State to as-
s’une more and more of toe resootistbth-
ties of i-he water pollution program. It
hi.s therexore fa.thioned a program
whicj’t increase Feceral resources a ,aiL-
able as responsibilities increase.
-42-
-------
CONG. CLEVELAND :
STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (Continued )
Pg 4
CECTIOx :6—anTE MANACEML fD A SIST i(CE
This section of the act, a modification
of the Cleveland-Wright provisions, has
long been ad oacLed as a means ror ac-
celerating the program. The section au-
thorizes the use of 2 percent of each
State’s allotment (or a minimum of
$400000) for adm:nmstering construc-
tion grant activities under the law.
In this connection. I would like to em-
•phaslze the intent of the conference corn-
mittee that EPA proceed to Implement
this program of State management ex-
peditiously for States which express a
desire and have the ability to participate.
• It Is also Intended that EPA wil allocate
fully the funds necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section. Delay in
making these funds available will not be
tolerated_
Your attention is Invited to the fact
that the section also provides for grant
increases within the overall 2 percent re-
served primarily for certification activi-
ties. The intent Is that programs such as
the 208. 402. and 404 would be funded
only after the monetary needs for con-
struction anministration have been fully
funded.
It is further stated that it is the policy
of Congress that the States Implement
the permit programs under sections 402
and 404 of this act. Although States are
afforded the opportunity to assume re-
sponsablllty f r these work functions, it
Is to be emphasized that the intent of
the committee is that no State shall be
obligated to socapt these duties in order
• to qualify for construction certification
duties and funding. Finally, we should
all understahd and appreciate that this
section will permit State pollution con-
teal agencies to accept resident engineer-
ing responsibilities for small projects at
the municipal level.
In New Hampshire this will enal,le the
water supply and pollution control coin-
mission to Implement the resident engi-
• ering responsibilities which were
Initially granted to the Conixmsslon In
• the 1975 session of the legislature and
again renewed in 1977. This aspect alone
will prevent many problems and save
taxpayers countless millions.
‘ Mr. Speaker, one of the sections of
this act, sec on 26, embodies what is
known as the Cleveland-Wright amend-
ment, which Is the State’ certification
program now euphemistically referred to
as the State management assistance pro-
gram. This legislation resulted irons our
hearings that clearly revealed the enor-
mous amount of delay that EPA cranked
Into the system. In spIte of this EPA re-
slated our attempt to enact State certi-
fication to give the States a greater role,
It was resisted at first by EPA and the
environmental groups. I would like to ask
the chairman this question: Can I have
assurance that, if EPA once again goes
back to its old game of trying to delay
and write new regulations, which in ef-
Zect nullify whi t Congress is trying to
‘do under section 26 our committee vail
go back Into action early in 1978 and try
to get some commonsense’jnto EPA?
The same Is the case with State man-
agement assistance, a version of the
State certiñcation piogram which I au-
tnorcd with the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Waicur) and hich pasaed the Con-
gress two times running.
This provides for the delegatIon to the
States of the authority and responsibil-
ity to take over the day-to-day opera-
tion of the construction grant program
and allows the States to use a port :on of
their grant funds to bring their capabil-
ities In this area up to speed.
EPA has had the authority all along
to delegate in this fashion, and Indeed
has done so to a limIted degree But the
Intent of this provision is to put the
Agency on notice that the Congress ex-
pects and Insists on a lot more of t e
same, and Is providing the funds to make
It happen -
So the statutory language is there, and
we will see what EPA does with’it I know
the States are ready to go, and I cannot
conceive of any justification for denying
any State which seeks to participate the
opportunity to participate. -
CONG. ANDERSON (Calif )
- Similarly, small communities such as
those in West Virgin:a and other rural
States i.ll nave a strong interest in the
section of the bill alio vi.ng reservation of
up to 2 percent of a State’s constructIon
gr4nt allotment, with a mizumurn of
$400,000, foi’ a State to use n adrnini. tra-
Lion of an aspect of the coitstrtict ori
groat program. This par:Lcularly can in-
clude dev . loping the capacity arid re-
spor.smbihity for managing cor.srruction
grants for small cornmuriItm
-43-
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
(Need to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later-—See Conference
Report statements)
r
SENATE REPORT
STATz MANAGEMENT AssIs’rA NOE
SUMMAUT
This section amends section 205, Allotment, to authorize reserva-
tion of up to 2 percent of a State’s construction grant allotment, but
no less than $400,000, for use by the State in administering any aspects
of the construction grant program. Such funds may b increased to
assist in the administering of the 409 Permit program, statewide 208
planning, and responsibility for managing construction grants for
small communities.
DISCUSSION
Tho bill authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to finan-
cially assist the States to wham ho has wuthorized certain management
fLinet ions including the construction grant program, the 402 program,
the 20 piogram and small community grants. These funds would be
reserved from that State’s yearly ahlot .iiient of construction grant pro-
gram’s (iiimd . In no case would the funds exceed 2 percent and no
State would be eligible for less than $100,000.
‘l’he policy of authorizing the States to manage the con truetion
grant program is being implemnenteti by (be Environmental Protection
Agency 1 111(1ev existing statirtory authority. California alicacly man-
ages the full progr.uu from approval of design to approval of selection
ninoiig bidders through disbursement of funds; Maryland will shortly
do the same. Twenty-eight States have taken over the permit program
and States are carrying on statewide 208 planning. Other States con-
duct certain portions of the review process in the construction giant
program. Because of State resource constraints, they need funds to
perform these functions on behalf of the Federal Government.
i’hc committee bill authorizes the Administrator to dr l ribute up
to 2 percent. of the grant funds in proportion to the functions of the
construction grant progi’ain that the State is conducting, whet her or
not the State has the 402 perimI. program, whether or not time State
nianages the permit program, whether or not, the State has a state-
wide 208 l)rogra ln, and whether or not the Stale has this capa-
bility to nhmmago construction grants to small communities. Each of
these (mu net ions requires nianpower atmcl expertise at the State level,
and l”eileral resources should be available iii proportion to (lie auiiount
of t lie functions conducted and therefore the needs of the pi ogrLamn.
This provision is similar to a. request by the n(lmInisl ration that
lImo liii) authorize the Administrator to distribute (lie funds accom ding
to (lie above criteria.
‘ [ ‘lie puum pose of certifying the States and providing comnmensumato
resources is to reduce duplication of effort. by State and Federal lc ’e]s
of government, a major complaint in the program; to avoid unneces-
sary enhirgomnemit in the number of Federal 1)CrSonnel needed for pro-
gram implementation; and to carry out the policy in Public Law
92—(iOO “to recognize, preserve and protect t.hio l)LiIu1a1 Y responsibilities
and rights of States to i)l veIut, reduce and eliuiiinate pollution.”
‘l’hie Adniiiiist .rjttor ‘is expected to only make available the lull
amount whcii the State has assumed full capabilities. ‘When a State
has t kcui on their full responsibilities, all the funds should not, be
avaihible unless the State can justify that level of funding.
Sums reserved under this amendment are available for making the
type of grants just. (lescribed for the same l)eriod as sums are avnilabl
from an ahlotimient under subsection (b) of this section, and any grant
shall be available for obligation only during that period. ileservo
funds that are not ohhicriuled by the end of the l)eviodl for which they
are available will be nd& d to the amounts last allotted to a Slate tinder
section 205 and would be immediately available for obligation in the
same mnauiuier and to the same extent as such la t n [ lotmncnt.
The coiuimnittee expects that any rc’,ci u’e funds revei titig to a Slate’s
gcneu al allo tmmicnt tvihl iemnain available for a reasonable period of t itno
as detcuiiiincd by (lie Administrator through regulation befom c rt ’nllot..
nm’nt. In a similar vein it should be noted that iii those eases vhierc a
State is granted less than the entire 2 pe icemit of its allonient funds for
lime puurl)mmseS of this section, or less hum the cimtiio grant of fLuids, the
unexpemicled funds will revert to the State’s general allotment funds
:us SOomi m is the Admnimijstrator detenuines what pci cent to grunt to any
Slate iii any year.
l”uim timer, the intent of this provision is that (lie sums not be used to
taduce flue level of l”eclernl or State expenditures to administer water
Pollul ion control progu niris as provided in Sen ion 106 of the act. How-
ever, u giant nuder I his prOvision may requ ii e time repi ogia in ing of
lhio e aumnouuuit of Federal ant ] State funds ( ‘ILrZiSui kC(l for mmummiiagemciit
of mu huinicij ma I fiuci lit ics construct ion iAito other StIL [ e program elements
such its enforcement and monitoring.
-------
Paragraph (c) (2) of this subsection provides that a State assisting
the EnvironmentaL Protection Agency in the implementatioh of its
responsibilities under seetiou 201, 203 and 201 may receive grants to
Cove’! the reasonable cost of that assistance.
The activities ipcliicla infiltration studies, review of preliminary
plans to evaluate the size and scope of the project, review of operation
and maintenance piograins, review of plans and specifications, deter—
iiaination of consistency with section 208 plans and review of priorities.
‘l’cclmical assistance and infonnation for graiit.ee related to tho
activities outlined above.
‘ihc Administrator shall determine the size of the grant made to a
State based on an asst ’ssinent of the State’s capability to assist vithi the
ctivit.ies outlined above. ‘rho assessment should Lako into account
factors such as LIme Si ate’s capability imaid performance in reviewing
facility plains and design plans and specifications, capacity to Provide
technical assist once, and availability and adequacy of necessary techni—
eally 811(1 pro fessiommally qnuli6ed pcrsoamnel and other necessary
meson ices.
‘I’lie Ailininisti jor may increase the amount of the grant to a State
under this eetion but. in no ease above the ceiling of 2 percent or
$100,000 to take into aecoummt the reamsomuible costs of administering an
approved pmgrumn under section 402, a statewide waste La eatment
lflmtnageimiellt progiamn under section 208, and responsibility for latin-
aging vaiSle trea tument con t ruction grunts for small communities,
l urther, it is understood that, no grant would be made under this
provision until the State tins demonstrated a comniitii ient to acquiring
tli capability to manage grant a vmu mis to small conimnimumities. This
would immelude acquiring the capability to be 1.imo comil met agency for
any engineering, design or CoflSlXiicLiOiL aLgn eIilelitS. Most i Ii i port.o nt,
the. States would have acquired rc’sOiirces to review l)lans and advise
i.nial I coimimuamimu ties cii cost—affective altenuitivcs.
‘rIme objective of this policy is to cIl’cct a more efficient means for
ex l)C4l I ti hg L lie mnunici pal constriictioii program, the SCO C and coin.
phexity of which hums so increased as to make its full implcimmentation at
hi local level achievable only t wough reliance on Imeivitte contract ors
who,e primary objectives may not be minimizing beau shou t— mind long—
lemma co’A s vlmmlei maximizing enviamiunen tal benelits.
Two other primary responsibilities in existing law which many
St ates have assimmeci lire tIm perammit iograua and ian 1 ilemneiitat.ioii of
staie vitle section 208 inienageimmemut plaits amid rog nms. A u additional
vspoimsilihity will accu ue to the States with time delayed eomnpliaimco
iit’mt tlLy I 10 ViSiOn added to this bill.
? ,Lanaaemnent of the permit program is a difficult responsibility. It
requires issuance of pcu ’IaLits that ame consistent with aJ)plienble cilhment
requ i rememit S an(1 water quality stand mn ’d , review of iaioni I nm ing ye—
hiorts, aiid necessary en foreement ad ions. Each of these activities is re-
souitce jut en ’ ivc and requires imuumipower.
StatIcs :mre finally h)eginmting to assunie their respoimsibihilies under
lie section 208 prOgiamul. ‘ [ ‘liese aetivities milso arc resommretu intensive.
A St ale mimimst immte rat a I lie sect loam 30th water quality in format ion,
d.’vt.lop hid managemimemit nacLiees for nonn iiit somimees, develop
l)lim nS for siting for ineliust rial miami iuitiiuicipal faucihil ics, amid review
industrial permits and municipal plants to determine their consistency
with Limo 208 effort. -
In cmirrying out the enforcement responsibilities, a StatQ with the
permit peogram vilL also administer delayed compliance penalties
against noncomplying sources. The determination of these Penalties
will icquirtu adequate resources to ftSSUFC that (ho penalties are con-
sistent and equitable. -
‘I’he committee expects tile State to assumne more anti more o thuo
responsibilities of the water pollution ploglani. it has therefore
fmishiionrd a. program which increase 1”eclcral resources available as
responsibilities increase. -
OLiSE REPORT
CEirri IcATIoN
The new section 214 which is created by section 12 of 11.11. 3199,
l)rovidcs a program for State certification, which gives to the States
the iumthority to carry out certain requirements Lom facility grants.
‘flmis limited legislative response to management. j robiemns mugimlfiamg
tIme EPA’s admmministnmtion of the construction grants pmOgr.mm is in—
teumated to speed imp commst,ruction of vaistewnter tm ea ’Lamment works, haul
down costs, aumiti remugihen the envi monmm meat ad, engineering, and fiscal
Integrity of the pmogmammu.
Section 1 3 increases the operational uiimtlioi ity, mesponsibi lit)’ aimel
fiuimelmimg of State water pollution control agencies in a(lIumilIi Lem ing
the pm ogr imn.
‘l’lma Admiiinistmutor of EPA mnay accept from States, qualifying to
PaLm ’ticilutta, cci i ificat ions as to their comnphiammce wit It the Act in devel—
liping m&h)l)liCiLt ions tot tretitmnemut w ks gaammmts. Qualified stamrcs mam
deimned am-, I Imose wlmose water pollumtion coat aol amgcImcIc lao cc limo
—45-
-------
authority, (esponsil)ility and capability to effect. all ftL tionS, determi—
nntionq or fl 1 ) 1 )rovnh. for winch etitilieation is SIIlUIiit.tO(1.
Sec 1.ion ‘213 authorizes the Auliuuinisl.iãtor to accel)t. a certification by
a Stale that thai following Federal requirenmnts for a construction
grind. aw:urd had been coniplied with: -
Evaluitttion of alternative waste management techniques; deter—
nilnat loll that the propOSed treatment works will provide for the
at ipl icat ion of the best practicable waste ticatlnent. technology
over (lie life of the works antI will allow for the Inter application
of atiranced I reitiment technology (section 201(g) (2) )
‘ilie proposed treatment works is nut subject to excessive in—
filtration (section 201(g) (3))
Phins, specifications, and estimates have been submitted (sec-
tion 203(a));
Stages of projects may be eligible for a grant award (section
203(d));
‘J’ho proposed works are consistent with applicable areawide
waste treat iiiaimt. iiianligcineimt. plans and Slate water qiiidity plans
(section 204 (a) (1) anti (a) (9));
‘the works are entitled to priority for funding over other works
in the State (section 204 (a) (3))
Thu grant applicant. agrees to pay non-Federal costs and has
lflit(lC provi’ ioiis for proper operation au(l maintenance of the
works (section 204(a) (4))
Thu proposed works contains sufficient reserve capacity (sec-
tion 20 . 1(a) (11);
Bid sPCci icatti0fl icqmnieluents will be complied with (section
201 (at) (6));
Tue user charge and industrial cost recovery provisions of the
. •t. i a Imt’t.it (•oliil)I icti t Ii ( cctimi 90 1 (b) (1) and (b) (3))
The l)rohmose(l treatitient. works systeum is eligible fat a grant
nuder the definition of “t restirient. works” (section 219(2) (II)).
Sulijeit. to the Adirtinisti ator’s nppiot’iil. after public lmearing , and
to judicial mevicw, with respect to qualifications to conduct a certifi-
cation program, States receiving certification authority would cx-
em eisa I his nut liorit v by certifying to the Atlmi 11 1511 ator t lint 1)iOICCES
arc in compliance with all or a. portion of legftl, financial, technical,
amid adini itist I at we a e 9 uii -enients.
Certification authority could be carried out l)y a State for all or a
pam t of the ,tctiomms, detcrmmnaiatiomis or ltpprOvllls for which certilicu—
lort immay ha eeep (ed as its capabilities variunt at a given time. Ocr—
tificatmon by [ he States is subject to p ltrtutl or total suspension aift,er
1)111)1 10 beam rings upon a showing of 0OF pcifoi maulce.
A iso. the sect ion provaks (lint the Adimiiimist rat or must detcrniinc
that the State is following practices that conform to the Fcdei.il Con-
struct ion gi nut i egualations under Public Law 92—500, including it
rcqui I emnemit I liii I liii)’ P I Oil having it significant lumamicial interest
iii thu comi im ucticm of treat uiwmmt work will not be a uliellilJCr ot any
St atfo hail rd or hotly which processes an a )plientioil for at grant. imiuder
the, tithe.
hi is aol I lit emitht cI t lad the St a k ’s ha requ ireil to millet laws eqmiiva—
lent to Public Law 09—500. To achieve the purpose of Lime Slate cci Ii .
fication provision, tIme legislation requires only that Staes have the
iuliiiity to accomplish time policies and objectives contained in Public
1411w 92—500. In developing the requireinen L concern lug imuemnbemship
on Stato boards that Ploce s grant applications, it is intended that
EPA wall not require the States to enact. legislation govel ning the
nmembership of such boards.
lliitkm cmi rrent proec•d mm n’s, State mmgencu’s p mi• pate iii itch i, if tint all,
docu nientation routinely in the course of project application develop.
macnt, t ith I”cdeial i iaomm iiel jierfol nillig iluph Rat 1 Vu hull oVerhhI ) Jiflg
functions. This has led to it repetitiee l)mocess 01 m eview, evaluation,
analysis, ltssesstnemmt anti rt ’nssessmmmt ’mit vli mdi hiai’ o ’ei wlid mind (lie pmo.
gramiu with ted tape.
it is im l)or( nut to note flint smil)stant ive rat her t han hlrocedural
coatiphiance is the legislative intent of I his provisloim, whose objectives
are acceleration of project (levelopnment and ci immuinat ion of imnueces—
sary paperwork. Parallel paucedum al meqimim Ciiients would iiici ehy per—
pt!Lmautttm the bitten 11cm attic chaos now crippl 1mg (lie hwogm alit, (rust rating
lie intent t lint. St. t es inailce mmmaximmmuima use of ant hiority delegated to
tlaamu to ct ’i t ify coimmpliammce with recital iemiiemit s in Puibh ic 1 .i w 92—500.
Because this section is so inmpoi (limit, it is pected that the Admin-
istrator will expedite the certification t ogr.imum. A repet it toim of time
v lierielmce of the permit puogramit maimdt ’r sect iou 402 would fly iii time
face of (lie cleat m mt eimt. oft his seetiomi. It fim m thier should lie noted t liatt
the Ad mu imiist ia toi is rc ’qu i red by sect ion 211 to issue ian phcii ient lug
meguuhat ions within 90 clays of the date of emmactmmwnt of t hais hcgisia( iou.
All a tn’iewnig agt ’mieics anti execLative levcl ’ ummu I recngiib e this timmiC
eoiist niiimt. ‘l’lmis period is i)IPSCVilbt’(l in m ecoguilt iou of the preliminary
act iomis t atkcii als-eadv by EPA to develop 1111(1 ilIil)lelamC ’IIt It? illamtiOiis
of at simimi lam mint time, In fact, imi’a rimmgs hu’ld liy t lie aigcmmcy at Icuir loca—
t ions aroumud tlut’ country imi (lie simmiuter of 1975 to t lie ext emit I hiey dealt
wit Ii State ccii ilkatiomt. focused precisely on imimh)leiIIemmtnt iOn issumeS
immaisanuch as the agency has already endorsed State certification
latmiglmaige similar to I bait in section 12.
It. is m ccognizt’d I bait for muiniiy reatsons thmem are vami at iomm a mnong
St at i’s as to tlwi r c’onm muuitmnemmt to the objc.t I vc ” oft 1w A t auit ’l eOmnpe—
tenee of their water pollution control agencies. Proposals Ilimit certifica-
tioim be nmaiidatory or that wider hat it title lie lmao ’ ideci naidea State
cot ii lication mit this juuct iima hate been m-& ’ isI ed. Sinm thai ly , l i0l)O :ilS
weun a ejected I hint, the ccii milent lOll J)I (ivisiOll iii its (ill I ( ‘itt hy limnmted
mi in bc fimmtheu’ mest rated na smul)jectcd to a iiiass of st.ti lit ory guide—
hues whose only result, would be smibstit ut ion of ht ’gi’.lat we tom ad-
ministrative red tape.
Soot iou 214 iudtire es tIme possibihmty of failiim e by St alt’s to mnt ’et. time
meijit ii e,imc ’mits of Iii is sect iomi. If, after pt i h i l Ic lain ri 1mg, tIme A claim I iusLt ,t—
tor dc l ornmimies a Stait e is miot immeet ing thin requui reuimc ’nts for one orumiove
of tIme 1 1(11011S, dc l ermumimiations, oi at h)l) 1Ova Is fom: wha icii coat i ficait ion IS
acct ’lit ed front I hiatt St ate lmo mliai 3 ’ siispeiid aaceipl a iice for itIi Or all
jii ojt ’ci S ill (lie Stat t’. Iii the event of simchm suaspo lis loi l, t hit, A duiuismist sit—
tot at hiis discrct lout immay reinstaute (hiatt St :iI c’s pa o s a iim for Italy Di
at I 1)1 OjOCI S 111)011 receiving et’idt’iiC( t limit thu cleficliuicies liii vu breii
to rri ’e I (‘ii.
—46-
-------
The iesponsibi lilies of I lie Ad ml a isti•atoi• under any other Federal
law including the Nu(ional Eiiviioninenial Policy Act of 1969 re not
affected by this section.
This section does not change the Administrator’s responsibility to
award Federal grants. Neither does it affect tho existing procedures
for en ri ron nientul assessnients.
Stales paiticipating in this prognun are permitted to expend up to
two liel rent. of their eoiistriiction allotments from section 205 of the
ALL for the rt acon:tbla costs of carrying out this responsibility. While
it is not. ant iei 1 )ated that each State will utilize the IflhLXlliuLItfl per—
mi I ed for Iii is purpose, even a full two percent would be more than
ofIsel by savuligs realized (lii oughi )iOjCct acceleration, niini unizi ng the
Pill );lrl of eoii t run iOn cost. i n(reasos.
The aiiioiint up to 2 percelut ieser ed for this purpose may be granted
by time Ailmuiuist rator funiii time to time to a Slate for carrying out the
ctn tific tt ion nuthuoril y. A grunt. 1 1 11 1(10 froumi the amount. n seived may
be obligated by time States in lie sauuic maimer as for COlIStrLlctiOui
v ojects iincl (luring (lie same period as the allotment froni which the
grant is umade. Funds so obligated shah I be ’ avaihuble uuiil il expended.
l ”murt her, lime intent, of his provision is I hut State certification funds
miot. bi used in subsl itmit ion for State program administration gra ots
under sect ion 106 of time Act.
States exernising certification authority may assign personnel funded
nutiler this pm oviskni to on—site nispection.
‘l’o the (‘XteIlt. that. Sluiles pluist’ into certification, EPA manpower
lesOul ces would 1w freed to pei’fornm critically needed audit, iuIspec—
tion, uumountom lug and trouble-shooting functions, wit Ii the result that
the entire program would be managed by increasing numbers of quali-
fied personnel mit State and Federal levels. This multi—bullion dollar
i’eqiuiu’es the highest. levels of control over all fiscal, leg .ul, and
technical aspects, imwluding contractor capability and accounting
i i ’Oced LI res.
‘l’liis ‘..eet ion furl lice requiu vs the Administrator to conduct mntemlmn
and final inSlWctiOilS iumiul audits and fm the State water pollution con—
ml ageumcws to submit iuufoi’unntion. data, and repom ts.
-47-
-------
REIMBURSEMENT
-------
REIMBURSEMENT
A number of projects that had Public Law 84-660 grants at less than
50-55 percent initiated actual construction between Julyl, i972 and
June 30, 1973. Under the provisions of Section 206 of the Act, these
projects were not eligible for having the grants raised to the 50—55 percent
level. The reimbursement provisions in this Act authorize these projects to
-be raised to the 50-55 percent level.
A list of the projects that are planned to be affected is contained
in the House debate of December 15, 1977.
-49-
-------
i’g I
REIMBURSEMENT
LAW TEXT
(NVEStMZNt AND ADVANC CONSTRwC’rroIe
SeC. 29. (a) Subsection (a) of section 206
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
is amended by striking out “July 1, 19 ’72. ”
and inserting In lieu thereof “July 1, 1973,’!.
(b) Notwithstanding section 206(c)-of the
Pederal Waler Pollution Control Act and sec-
tIon 2 of Public Law 93—207, In the case of
publicly owned treatment wor a for whlcl
a giant was made under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the
Water Pollution Control Act Amendracote of
1956 (‘Public Law eso. 84th Congress) befor.
July 1. 1972. and on which constr jon was
Initiated before July 1. 1973. applications for
sedstance under such sectIon 206 shall be
flied not later than the ninetieth day after
the date of enactment of the Clean Water
ct of 1977.
CONFERENCE REPORT
R MDt’a5EMENT A’ D ADvAr czD COPCSTR CTtON
•flov.sebzfl
Section 8 ameflds sectIon 206(a) of the Act
to extend from JUly 1, 1972, to July 1, 1973.
the date by which Initiation of construction
on treatment works prcjects must bare 00-
curreci In order for such projects to oc eligible
for reImbursement grants of 50 to 55 pc-cent
of project costs. ApplIcations for reimburse-
ment for those projects on which consn’uc-
tion was Initiated between July 1. 1972, and
July 1. 1973. must be filed withIn 90 days
after the date of enactment of this eect1on.
Section 8 also amends section 206(e) of the
Act to Increase the authorizatlcn for retm
bureement grants from $2,600,000,000 to
62.950.000,000 for the purpose oz fully reim-
bussing the total eligible grant amount of 50
to 55 percent all those communities whIch
have previously quauned under sectIon 206
(a) and those communlUes which become
eligible under the pros’lsions of this section.
- - Senate amendment
No coteparable provision.
Conference substitutc
The cozerence substitute is the same as
the House provision with the following
exceptions:
(1) construction must have been Initiated
before July 1. 2973,
(2) the grant must have been made under
Public Law 650, 84th Congress. and
(3) the inoreased authorization has been
eliminated.
The purpose of this amendment is to give
equitable treatment to Public Law 84—660
projects which received less than sather their
50 percent or 55 percent eligible grants and
which were unable to initIate construction
by the June 30. 1972 cut-off date to qualify
for reimbursement under sectIon 206(a).
Additional authorizations have no; been
requested as there remains 6209.000.000 Cf
unused authorizations iOi this purpose and
the setimatefi amount needed (or pr.,jects
that would become eligible with this amend-
ment Is 640 millIon.
Tb. term “Initiation of construction” as
used In this setlon means the Issuance to a
construction contractor,of a notic, to pro-
ceed, or, l no such nottce is required, the cx-
ecutien of a construction contract (40 C.F R.
35890).
This section does not affect the term “initi-
ation of construction” as defined by the Ad-
ministrator in 40 C F ,R. 35.905, as presently
In effect
-50-
-------
REIMBURSEMENT
Pg 2
CONG. ROBERTS :
rE T M CRSCMFNt
Section’ 29 amends section 206(a) of
the act to extend from ,July 1, 1972, to
‘July 1, 2073, the date by thicli :n:Lfltun
of conctnict on. as dafined by the admut-
jctrator ;n 40 CFR 35.890 as in eiicct or .
May 1, 1916, on treatment work’ projects
must ha;c occuntd ln order for such
projects to be ehzthlc for rc!mh’.iremcflt
grants o 50 to 55 p?r:er.t of prc ct t costr
Also. In ordcr to be el Igible for a rem-
bursemnent grant under this sect ron, a
pro eet must have already Tee m-ed a con-
• stnictlort grant a’-trd under Public Law
660. 84th Congrers. ApplIcations for re-
imbursement icr such projects on irhich
construction war tnrt!ated between July
‘1, 1972, and July i: 1 )13, must be filed
wtthin 93 days after the date of cnact-
merit of t Ins sectio n.
CONG. GINN :
eet on 29’of the conference report
amends section 205(am of the act con—
cerning reimbursement.
This amendment has Its roots in over-
si;ht hearings conducted by the Sub-
committee on Investigations and Review
in 1973. 1974, and 1975—these hearm.ngl
examined myriad problems encountered
by localitIes and States in applying for
reimbursement and far treatment works
construction grants. 1 was revealed that
deserving communities had been de-,
prived of access to both a Ti-percent
consn’ucnon grant or a 30- to 55-oercens
:cixnaursement grant because of aclmm-
istratt’,’e problems.
Section 209 amends section 206 of the
Water Pollution Ccntrol Act to correct
inequities that have occurred In the tin-
plementation of’ the’ reimbursement
grant program. Sectlorr 206(a , provides
that any treatment storks on which tort-
struct on was initiated after June 33,
1966. but before July 1. 1972. that meets
certain requirements of that section.
wouizt be eligible for reimbursement of
30 or 33 percent of eligible project costs.
The’ cutofi date for qualifyng for a 50-
to 55-percent relrnbursemeat grant was
July 1, 1972. ALter that a community
could not qualify for reutibursement but
could recezve a 73-percent grant for a
new treatazent works. The law was not
enacted tutU October 18. 1972. The first
proposed regulations implementing sec-
tion 206 In) were not puoilshed until
June 23, 1973 SInce there was a substan-
tial lapse between the eii bmlity’ date in
the act, the date o r enictinent. and the
date EPA ’s definition was published, it
Is estimated that 107 projects in 24
States, which received a grant under
Public Law 660. 84th Congress. which
would have otherwise qualified for reim-
bursement, were declared ineligible.
In essence, these communities were
penalized because of the mtrrcac:es of
the legislative process aM EPA’s delays
in administering the program.
SectIon 8 of ER. 3199 corrects this
Inequity by extending to July 1, 1973. the
date by which treatment works projects
must have Initiated cons tnic;icn in order
to be eligible for reimbursement grants,
The term “Initiation of construction”
as used In this section means the issu-
ante’ to a construct ion contractor of a
notice to proceed, or, if no such notice
is required, the execution of a construc-.
tion eontracS (40 CPR 35.$90L
It is estimated that $23 million would
be required to resmouzse these projects.
On a national scale this is a small
amount of money, but locally, each proj-
ed’s share Is significant to each con-
xnunfty—especially when one realizes
that some of these projects are still tin-
dergoing construction. No new money is
authorized for these projects, because
there is still a, substantial balance re ’
malning from the existing authorization
of $2.6 billion.
The following Is a State-by-State list-
ing of projects that received a construc-
tion grant under Public Law 660, 84th
Congress, and Initiated construction be-
tween July 1, 1972, and July 1, 1973. This
list was prepared by EPA in September
1977.
Iznboden.
ARRAN5AS
ALAB%MA
Alabama WSPS’D.
co intncrt
Connec’tcuc Department at .tentat health.
DflAWAflS
‘tot’ ,’
Gre Cove S ,mr ln s, Jaser. Sousa Say.
Dunedin, Riveria, Beach, ifoliywvod, azrd
Manatee Counry.
czoactt
Port Wett’ orth, Cardec Ctty. Snnrtek.
tort O ie’ihorpe. Comzrtcrce flcrncrr’l’e.
Crantatile. McDooouglt, Cairo, flomaston,
‘Valdosta, Sneilril:e, Consldaonilue, East-
nan, Augusta. Woocistockc. t,tnccma ton. Fu-
ton count;, Bsbb Counr3’ Balnbrttige, Cos-
qt ::t, floyd County. Telea, tdi ,on, atcaao,
Social Crete, llazleliurst, Retdarti!o. States’
bore, Warner Robins, Cortzrgtoa. East Dub
14n, vayc roes, Sanders,stit Conyers. and
Macon ,, ‘ —
Z irDL’ZIA
Roane County. Cedar Lake, and GrandvIew
Russell Sprisgs
tOciSL&Ms
Shre veport.
Baltimort
hcsalsswn -
Qultomen, anon, Prenttss. and Senatobla.
Morfla reA
crow L’idtaa Community, Raure ,
sxoam cssoz.u’ta.
Badanboro.
s’r.v iir co
Taos.
OZLAZOM.t
Ctaremnore. Cbkaaha, O kla homa City, Tuba,
and CeIe3te-. -
onecs
Wallowa, Astor Ia, and Echo. -
vni reanra na
Orbtnson-P,ockhill. c2iartsers Toanship,
South Fayette TownshIp, l4rndon. Pine-
creek, Carroiltown. 000peraburg, Buc,cs
County. Qppee Alien Townshi a. Lower Saaco4
Township, Delaware rownabip, flethlabem.
Aimibridga. nerlen. Manheim. Bundman. Cam-
bridge Sprtnga, and Lernoyne.
sOt’flt CAZOLWa.
sc. Step hen, Si. George. Lamar. ‘ Moncka
Corner. Andrews, and MWUns..
irenseta -
Boetme County.
Dallas, Granger. and Needel tie.
vmnflns
Wake5eld.
Northeast Lake Washington. Sedro valley,
Sstao, ,imlioa. Tacoena,aad Concrete.
w r cna
Greenbrlar. a m A Baieigh County.
- WYOtdfltC
Gilette, and Aspahoe Tribe
- .51 —
Suesex County.
-------
HOUSE REPORT
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
Section 8of H.R. 3199 anienils section 20 6(a) of the act to extend
from July 1, 1972, to July 1, 1973, the date by which initiation of
construction (as defined by the Administrator in 40 CFR 35.890 as in
effect on May 1. 1976) on treatment works projt.ets ntust have occurred
iii order for such projects to be eligible for reimbursement grants of
50 to 55 percent of project costs. Applications for rcinibursemont for
those projects on which comistruction was initiated between July 1,
1972, and July 1, 1973, must be filed within 90 days after the date
of enactment of this section.
Section 8 also anme tcls section 206(e) of the act to increase the au-
thorization for reimbursement grants from $2,600,000,000 to $2.950,-
000,000 for the purpose of fully reimbursing the total eligible grant
amount of 50 or 55 percent to all those communitie which have previ-
ously qualified under section 206(a) and those communities which be-
come eligible wider the provisions of this section.
it is expected that any funds appropriated for the section 206 (a)
program after the enactment of this section vill be used_to reimburse
those eligible projects on’ which construction was initiated between
July 1, 1972, to July 1, 1973, to the same proportionate level as had -
already been provided currently eligible projects.
-52—
-------
GRANT ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
—53—
-------
RANT ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
Two amendments ar. •nade to Section 211 (Sewage Collection Systems)
of the Act. The first ‘ovides that population desnity.crj .teria can be
used only for the pur . of evaluating alternatives and in determining
the needs for the col _:ion system in relation to ground or surface water
impact. The second provides that no grants may be made from Fiscal Year
1978 to Fiscal Year 1982 for treatment works for control of pollutant
discharges from se arate storm sewer systems.
The conferees state that existing law is left in place. Collector
sewer eligibility is limited to communities in existence on October 18, 1972,
with sufficient existing or planned capacity adequate to treat such
collected sewage. Floor statements indicate that separation of combined
sanitary and storm sewer systems remains eligible for funding.
—54-
-------
GRANT ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
Pg 1
LAW TEXT
csan’r zimar cazzcosms
Sm. 38. 8ectloa of the Federal 77atee
FollutloA ControL Act Is amended . by insert-
ing “(a)” immediately aLtar “Sec.. 2LL. ’ and.
by adding at tha end. thereof oL the following
new subs ttods ,
“(b)lL ths A lAizalor uses population
density as test-for deer””• g the eUgi—
bilityoL a collector sewer for assistance It
shall be only for the purpose of evaluating
alternatives and de . . nir1 5 the needs fOr
such system La rotation to g ound.or surface
water quality Impact. -
(c) No gre .nt shall be made under this
title tram fundr authorized fog- any flecaL
yew during the period beginning October I. .
1977. and ending September 30. 1982. for
treatmene worbs for co tTol of pollutant die-
charges trues separate storm sewer systems.”.
cgezre Euonr CATrGORiZ5
House bilL
No comparable provision.
— Seitate amendment
Thie section amends sectIon 211 of the A. t
to eliraroate (ron, eligibility the consiruction
of treatment works for the control of die-
charges from separate storm sewers, the re-
placement or rehabilitation of a collection
s7stem unle ,a necessary to correct excessive
inSitr alion , and the construction of a new
collection system unless the grant is llniLled
to esisting population, there Is or wiLl be
treatmeai capacity to serve the system the
system is necessary to protect ground or sur-
face water suppUes or to attain water quality
• standards, and the alternatives had been
proved less cost-effective.
Con/erene. Sub tftut
• The conference substitute adas tvo• nrw
subsections to section 211 or the .‘ict. The Srst
provides that I! population density is used as
a test of eligibility of a collector sewer for
assistance populatlo 1 i density shall only be
used for the purpose of evaluating alterna-
tives and in determining the needs (or tae
collec$toa. system in relation to ground or
surface water quality impact, The second
provides that no grant may be made under
title ] from funds (or ,ical years 1973
tb_rough 1982 for treatment works for con-
troL of poUutant. discbarges from separate
.isarlu j wer s,ystems,
The conference agreement deletes the Sen-
ate provision which arn 5nds section 211 of
exli ,ting law relallng to major sewer reh bitL-
•tation and collector sewer eii ±bIll17. Tt1.s
leaves in place e ’cs;i.ng ! 5w. Coi.occor sa :er
eligihiUty is thus Limiisd to cocun nictes in
enseace on October 18. 1912, with s_ ctcnt
ex1 tlng or planned capacIty adequate to
treat such collected sewage.
Por,the purpose of this section, It Is rec-
ognlrect that a community qualifytog t r
Feder .il grant assist.ince to construct a col-
lector sewer system may be a geograchic or
Jurird lccionat area that Li less tha t the
municipallty which is apply ,n3 for the treat-
ment works grant.
• The conferees added an amendment which
lin,Its the use or population density as a test
for determining the grnt eligibility of a
collector sewer to ev1lus io of alternatives
and deternnnatioa of the needs for such
system in relation to ground or surface water
OunUty Impact. The Agency has issued
guidance on the use of density and othef
factors in cost eeectlveness analysis. The
conferees direct toe Agency to review this
guidance to assure that it meets the test of
Ibia new provision.
SENATOR MUSKIE :
- Gwrr iants cermoau -
The conference substitute adds two
‘new subsections to secton 211 of the act..
The Urst. provides that If population-
density Is used as a test of eligibility of
• a collector sewer for assistance, popula-
tion density shall only be used- for the
• purpose of evaluating alternatives and in.
• determining the need3 for the collection
system In relation to ground or surface
-water quality Impact. The- second pro-
vides that no grant may be made under
title -U from funds for fiscaL years 1978
through 1982 for treatment. works for
control of pollutant discharges from sep-
arate storm sewer systems.--
-. The conference agreement deletes the.
Senate provision which amends section
211 of existing law relating. to.major
sewer rehabilitation and collector’ sawer
eligibility. This leaves in place existing.
law. Collector sewer eligibility is. thus
limited to communities in existence on
October 18. 1972, wIth su clent exist-
ing or planned capacity adequate to
neat such collected sewage. -
- - By Its actiesls. the conferees reainrmea-
rthe-lntent of the 1972-act The purposes
- of those- funds is not to finance the lu-
tare growth needs of the United States;’
rather the purpose is to eliminate- the-
backlog of waste treatment needs with a -
‘limited provision for Increased capacity
- to ?ecognize, the cost-e ectWenezs tao-
torn and to achieve a balance between
the pressures for economic development
and the need for environmental im-
provement. - -
A community may be a geographic or
jur Isdictional area less than the munic-
lpal.lty that applies for the grant. The-.
determination of what is a community.
is based in part on occupied residences
in su cient numbers to justify contruc— -
tion of collector sewers. An existing coos— -
munity for the purposes of section 211
is those residences occupied as of the
date of enactment of the 1972 act.
When evaluating the eligibility of col—
lector sewer systems, the Administrator
shall bear in mind the preference given
‘to alternative systems for sparsely pop-
ulated areas by other provisions of the
act.
SENATOR RANDOLPH :
Mr.’ P. esiden one of the most exten-
sively-debatect sections of this bill is that
re(atiaZ to the types Of facilities htch
Itr(eI’giole for Federal asciatance under
the cor.structlon grant program. The En-
ytroiunental Protection agency propo ,ed
- ‘remaving collector setter systems f. om
eigibility. The conferees rejected tiiLs rec-
ommead -i P ii- n. The bill continues eligi- -
bility for collector sewers under existing
law.
• I recognize that under the exintuig pro-.
gram there may have been abuses in some
§tates and coinniwuttes wiiich utthzed
funds for excessive construction of co-
lector sewers. In m.anl areas, however, it
Is Impossible to build a treatment sys-
tem without assistance tot the total sewer
system. I turn to the SLate of West Vir-
ginia .s an example. Our State gen.eraiiy
has a widely-dispersed populatIon and
extensive sewer lines are needed- for the
system to function. The cost is so hign
thatoccasionall sewage piants—car..aot
be built if local funds must oe relied on
for all of the sewers. Without.some Fed-
era! assistance for coUector sewers, maxw
communities in West Virginia would be
unable to participate in the program
and would be forced to continue without
pollution abatement facilities, -
The conferees, as the Senate bill, pro-
vided, decided to continue collector sew-
-erg as an eligible Item. Excessive coi l-
struction of collector sewers w Ill be con-
trolled .by other provisions in the bill
which.’restrict the reserve capacity of
treatment systems. I refer aga.n to the
emphasis on alternative treatment 5y3-
tems to stress that their use should re-
duce the need for the construction of ex-
tensive sewage netwo lth. -
CONFERENCE REPORT
DEBATE
—55—
-------
GRANT ELIGIBLE CATEGORTES(Continued)
DEBATE (Contthued)
Pg 2
Existing law concerning collector
eligibility is still in place. Collector sewer
eligibility is thus limited to communities
in existence on October 18. 1972. with
su cienc e istthg or planned capacity
adequate to treat such collected sewage.
Fur the purpose of this section. it Is
recognsied that a community qualifying
for Federal grant assiscance to construct
a oUectov sewer system may be a geo-
grapiih’ or jurisdictional area thatis less
than the municipality wh ch is applying
for the treatment works grant.
Mr. NOWA . Mr. Speaker. I would’
like to get a clarification of the eligi-
bility for Federal funding of certain
water pollution control projects. I am
particularly concerned with the treat-
ment of waste from separate storm
sewers and from combined storm water
and sanitary sewer systems. The law
very clearly makes eligible the treat-
ment of municipal waste “Including
storm water runoff, or industrial waste.
Incluthng waste in combined storm we tot
and sanitary sewer systems.”
Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct; those
types of proiects are inc1ud ’d in the
definition of treatment works under so —
tlon 212 of the current law .
Mr. NOWAX. And under this confer-
ence re ,ort we are considering today is
Included a change in the ebgibmlitie , re-
lating to separate storm sewer systems.
Mr. ROBERTS. That is only for the
time period authorized in this b:il. No
grants shall be made during fiscal years
1978 through 1982 for separate storm.
sewer systems.
Mr. NOWAK. What I want to make
clear Is our intent in making s paritte
storm sewer systems ineligiolt during
this time period—that it is for this time
period only. and makes no final corn-
mitment to the eligibility of the treat-
meat of waste for separate storm sewer
systems and that It is to have, no impact
on the eligibility of combined storm
water and sanitary sewer systems.
Mr. ROBERTS. The change in eligi-
bilitles In this bill relating to storm
water treatment Is only for separate
storm sewer systems and has no impact
on the treatment of storm water In a
combined sanitary/storm sewer system.
CotnlSlned sewer overflow is a serious
pollution problem which must be ad-
dressed In order to meet the enforceable
requirements of the act.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker. I yield
suCh time as he may donsunie to the
gent1e iafl frorn New Hampshire, (Mr.
D’Ascouss).
Mr. D’AMOURS. Mr. Speaker, follow-
ing the colloquy the gentleman just had
with the genUemnan from New York (Mr.
Nows ), I would like to ask the chair-
man It I am correct In my interpretation
of !ectlcn 36 (c) of the acL that although
funds are prohibited for the consti ’uctlou
of facilIties designed to control the treat-
merit of storm waters. Federal funds for
tho construction of storm drains as part
01 a separation program in munlcipalir.ses
that have existing combined sewers
would still be eligible under this ac .
Mr. ROBERTS, I agree’wlth the gen-
tieman, and we make no changes that
would affect the ifiustration ha offers.
CONG. ROBERTS :
CONG. CLEVELAND :
CONG. NOWAK :
Gfl % T 5iIO L 5 CIiT5GOi 5 srxorr ccosrss
Section 36 amermd5 section 211 of the Paragraph (o stlpWat that no
act concerning the eligibility of collector g ’5fl shall be made tinder section 211 of
sewers for Federal construction grant as- the act for “treatment works for control
s6tance. . -of pollutant discharges from separate
The amendment adds two new subsec-’ storm water systems.” By definition
lions to section 211 of the act. The first ‘ - —
provides that II’population density is used “treatment works” in Public Law 02—500
as a test of eligibility of a collector sewet ‘includes all facilities including treatment
for assistance population density shall plants. Interceptors, collector sc rërs,
only be uied for the purpose of evaluating pumping stations, storm sewer systems.
alternatives and in determining the needs and so fortit The use of “treatment
for the collection system in relation to works” iri paragraph Cc) does not con-
ground or surface water quality imp t: . form to time definition In section 212 oS
‘The second provides that no grant may Public Law 92—500.
be made under title II from funds for Hence, it can only mean, no grant
‘flscal years 1978 through 1982 for treat- • would be available to a treatment plan
ment works for control of pollutant for flows discharged from separate storm
discharges from separate storm sewer sewer systems. This section us no way
systems, should be interpreted to prevent Federal
grants to assist in storm water separa-
tion work when that is clearly the most
cost-effective means of treating sanitary
waste. Any other interpretation would be
Inconsistent with other provisions of the
act.
While State pollution control agencies
should continue to have ume ability to as-
sist financially IA the construction of
storm sewer systems laider Public Law
92—500, priority for such work will vary
In any given State. In the case of New
Hampshire the agency would assign a
low priority to projects of this nature be-
cause of the need to fund treatment
plants, interceptors and other related
facilities within the available funds ap-
- propriated by the Congress.
—56—
-------
GRANT ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
DEBATE (Continued )
Pg 3
SENATORS DURKIN & RAFIDOLPH
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President. in ac-
coroance with Federal requirements, the
city of Manchester has undertaken a $50
million water pollution abatement pro-
gram. much of ibich IS already con-
structed. In addition to this prorram,
and in order to fully abate pollution as
required by the Environmental Prc ’tec-
tion Agency, the city must undertake a
program :o separate storm and sanitary
s wera.
In- ‘t ’ompiiance with th iaw, the city
ini:inted a report which studied tha vari-
ous alternatives for : s separation pro..
gram. ecause the city has built o’.er a
period of 100 years 200 miles ox sanitary
sewers. the report uid : ates that the
mos. cost e5ective and oc. y solutton is
seoarat oit by means of ,u ding a torin
dra.nage syacern.
However. o ciaLx of the New Hamp-
shue Water Supply s ad Pollution Con-
trot Commission feel that wording in
secuon 6(c) o? the conference report
or LR. t99 dated November 28. 1977
‘amending the Water Poilutton Control
act) may prohibit, the use of Federal
f jnci for constructon ul separate storm
se’ser systems where separate treatment
ii not contemplated. Consequent to txus
pt. rpretatlon. the Comnussion has mdl-
cate f that no State funds trill be avail.
abla for a separate storm tracer system.
in t tanchester.
In response to a letter from Senator
Mai rsms and me ascing for clariflca-
t on of the intent of sectina 3 ,1(c). Chair-
man JE Hz.ecs RANnOLPR and ranking
m.aorlty member, Senator RoaEar Sr.is—
po of the Environment and Public
Words Committee have written to me:
Th section to which you refer only Umits
th, elletblltty of the ConstructIon of treat-
meat ‘ orks f r treatcien: or storm water
duch±rzas. The Senate Report 96-370 3peaks
to t!it isr .
“Th’s anseadnient Is not meant to restrtct
the opportunities available to 50 1ve pollu-
tion probems crcated by combined sower
or bypasses.”
The Cont’ireac, bill is the oame as the
Sena:e bill in this respect.
X hope this will ci r&Zy the issue for you.
r see they are both on the floor. They
both understand the letter.
I m1 ht add that there are other coin-
munhies besides my home city. I under-
stand there Is a problem in Rhode Island
anti some other problems around the
country.
With this clarification, It is clear that
corsatunitjes such as Manchester that
wu :t to b*if I d are required to build or are
building separate storm drainage sys-
tems where separate treatment facilitIes
for storm water not contemplated are
e!lg:ble for Federal funding under the
Clean Water Act of 1977, and there is
absoh&seIy no prohibition or confl et with
acti.on 16(a).
Th’ s. the city of Manchester’s separa-
t:n p-oject is ell ible for funding. The
pr& ,hib ciori on separate treatment plants
for storm dratnaue systems contained in
pa:ara h 3,1’c of the conference re-
pcir: is n’jt applicable
.: Fre ident, I ask unanimous con-
5 ’nt that the letters from Cha rman
R tr eotr and Senator Sr. rroan malt-
In; cie’tr the conferees’ intent be
printed in t: e Rccoao, tcgether with let-
te:s from Manchester to Senator Mclis-
v its and me. and our joint letter to
Ch urrnazi it e4oou ’g and Senator Sray-
There iietng no obj ctioa, the material
‘; ordered to be printed in the Rccogn,
as t ’liows:
WAsuurcToM. D.C..
Decentbsr 15. Zn?.
Hon. J 0 A. Dcescsw.
U S. Senate.
Wcsh:ngeon. DC.
Dt. e .Ioui ’ Thank you for your lerier of
December 13, discussing sectIon OSlo) of the
Clean Water Act of io’rr
The sectIon to ahich you refer only lmits
the ei igio&litv of the construction of treat-
meat works for treatment of storm. water
dtschar es. The Senate Report 95-373 speaks
to thiS Lasue:
‘This meadment is not meant to restrict
the opportunities avaitable to so lve noilutton
problems created by combined se*er over-
flows or bypasses.”
The Conference biLl Is the same as the Sen-
ate bill in this respect. -
t hone this will clarity the issue for you.
With kind personal regards. I am.
- Tr11iy . -
JzNr4tr4Gs RANOOL,H.
- - Ch vman.
- WAS GTOt4. D.C..
- December 25. i977.
Eon. JoHN A. Dvucne.
ZS. Senate.
Washrngton.DC ’ ‘ -
Deaa J0KN: Thank you for your letter of•
December 13th. d 5cussiag sectIon 36(c) of
the Clean Water Act of 1917
The section to which you rater only UntitS
the ougistitry of tha coa.struet oa of treat-
meat wores for treatment of storm water 413-
charges The Senate Report 95-370 speaks to
this is Sue:
“This amendment Is not nieant to restrict
the oppornin.ieles available to solve pollu-
tIon problems created oy combined sewer
overflows or bypa.s.s.”
The Conference bill Lathe same as lbs Sea-
ate bIll Ia this tespect.
I hope this will clarity the Issue for you.
With kind personal regards. I sin.
Truly,
flosesT T. STa,roao.
Ranking Minority Main hi’?, Environ-
ment and Public ,VorI Corn stiffer,
. M.twcwrsrts Uf.
Dectrt bet a. 1n7.
Hon THOMAS J. McIrt e.
US Scncie
Hon. JoHN A. Duiucrw.
o s. Senate.
tion. Noune O’Anouns.
. i ’ernber o/ Congress.
Wa3k itg2ofl. D C.
D€.ta Senators Mcl etn ie and Dosir.nr and
Congressman D’.tasoc’ta:
In accordance with i’edersi rrouirements,
the City of ?.taochester has undertaken a fifty
million dollar Water Pollution Abatement
Program, much of winch is already cmi’.
strucied. In adthtzon to this program, nd
in Order to tullj abate pollution a requsreo
by the Haviroutmentat ProtectIon Ageucy. the
City must undertake a ‘aeparanon” pro-
gram.
In compliance with the lad. the City had
Initiated a report which studied the various
alternatives for its suoarsnon program. Ia
esae ce. the rvport indicates that thu moat
cost eflective and omiq ..j ,utl .in a separation
by znee.ns 01 buIlding a storm cira..ia. e
system.
The City Is unique t’t that over a peri 1
of about one hundred ;eara it bui!t WOut
Iwo hundred miles of “saa.tary” £ew rs
PerIodically the City obviously conaected
catchbaslr.s to the sewer system to nannie
stormwater. A the CLty ti ,es not h . ’.e a
separate storm dra.ne e stem the o ’i2e
solution to the aepar’%tion problem a to con-
Strtirt a storni dra a sys’Pa
The estImated cost of thiS scoaratlon cr0-
grain is 140 to 200 millIon dollar’. ver a :1)
to 21) year period. The C:ty of Man:!lestet
under tao current program of 75 eccen&
Fecieral. 20,percent Scale of N -sw H.impshlre.
— • L
and 5 percent local !undlrt . has been pie-
pared to share Ia the allocate’S cost s.
The final Committee of Conference Reoori
on R.R. 3199 amending the Proerel WSter
PollutIon Control Act dated November 28.
1311. Includes the following iangua e on
PageOS. Sec. 36. paragraph (C ,’
“(C) No grant sball be made under this
title from funds authorized for any fiscaL
year during the period oeginniI l 5 OCtober I,
1977, and ending September 30. 1952. for
treatment works ior control of pollutant 415-
charges from separat. storm sewer sysiems. ’
This Section of the Conferertcn iteoors haS
been interpreted by orficisis In L ’ie Wits,’
Supply and PoUutlon Control Commission of
the State of New Hampshire to mean aat
no Federal funds would be availaole for
Sfancbsstei ”! separation program. whicn re-
quires construcUon Of Storm drains. There-
fore, they say. no State funds enul’S be 51i0
cated for such an unde ”tak.ing by the CitY
of i4ancheste
U the City of Sfan ,.iiester It required. to
proceed wLt separation acid La determined
to be “Ineligible” for Federal or Stats assist- -
ance as eziended to the separation e for.s of
other cities, additional local property tax -
or user charges of up to 52,500 per person
wilt be required. There is aosolutaly no poe-
stbuity for the City to meet the ooJectives
of water pollution abatement under such
circumstances.
—57—
-------
GRANT ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
DEBATE (Continued )
Pg 4
• Certain&y we must presume it is not the
Intent of the Congress to punish the City
- of Manchester for stnvthc to- meet the Fed-
ersily-mandated stanuartl.s of leiia water
in an orderly and ef ient man ar
I Is our considered op zuoin that the
Stale o illciaLs have mtsinterpre’ed the leg ’.s
laUve intent of Sectton 36 oarsgraoh (ci or
the final Conference Committee Report on
HP .., 3199
We would apprectate substanctacton of our
• view by the Coauzuttee of Conference before
any floor action Is taken on the Committee
Conference Report. -
We are sure you understand our concerns.
Sincerely.
CRASLES R. S1’*zero,..
Mayor, City oj 1anchejter.
- . Cxatsroe Spmo.
chairman, Highway Commission.
Wasnyrrovo,r. D C
Decertber I3 1977.
Eon. Jrrnnw e RANOOLPX.
ChairmAn, Committee on E rOnment and
Public Works. U S. Scnate. Washington.
D.C.
D aa M,. CHAzaMiN: We enclos, a coor of
a letter we receacty received from o ctal.r
of the City of Manchester, New Hamoshtre,
regarding the Conference Reoort on H.2.
3199 amending the Fedcml Water POilution
Control liCi. -
The letter descnbee a difference of ooinzon
between the State of New Ilacicehire a cl
the City of Manchester over the tncerprst —
tation of Section ‘36. partfriob (C ,, of th
Conference Report. which i seen by the
State as forbidding the ii,. or any Lund.,
under this title for the coostrtictton of seo—
azaAe storm. dflan piping. The Ctty contecid.s
that this is misinterpretation Or thi sec-
tion In quaitioa. 3ec u. e the City L not
contemplating constricting a senarate
treatment facility for storm drainage but is
only trying to comolv with P L. 92 —600 ’s
“separation” requtrement. 1 .Isnch icer
sltoud not be declared Inellalble to receive
Federal funds by virtue of thLs section of
the Conference Repor.
We woi..td like a speedy ciarldcation of the
legis’ative Intent of this pact cuI1r pace-
graph In order to determine wctch’ tttter
pretatton of the dIsputed peira raoii is cor-
red. We request that Senate cOnsideration
of the Conference R.pOrt he delayed untiL
this matter Is clarified. It you believe a col—
lnquy on the Senate Floor In cuujun.tten
wIth consideration of the Conference Report
would be iseful In settUng this Issue, we
vould be plee.sed to arTan e one with you.
Tban i., for pour attention to this matter.
SIncerely
TMo is J MCINTYRE.
JoHN A. Dtmiurr.
-- C
WAsHT c—o ,z,DC,
Dpceri her .13. 1977
ton Ronrar T S s -voeo.
Committee on Enr,ronincnt and Public
Us Scnatc, Waihirz 1 fo,i. DC
Deia Boa We enclose a copy of a letter ie
recently received from Olicir.is 01 tile C:ty
of Manchester. New Rampsht e. regarding
the Conference Report on H R 3190 amend-
Ing the Federal Water Poflutton Control Act
The letter describes a difference or opinion
between the State of New Hampshire and the
City of Manchester over the interpretation
of Section 36. paragraph (C), of the Confer-
ence Report. nhlch Is seen by the State as
forbidding the use of any funds under this
title for the construction of separate storm
drain piping The City contends that this is
a misinterpretation of the section In ques-
tion. Because the Ctiy Is not contemplating
construcung a separate treatn-ent .facility -
for storm drainage but Is only trying to com-
ply. wlh P L.. 92—500’s ‘separation” require-
ment. Manchester should not be declared In-
eligible to receive rederal funds by virtue Of
this aection of the Conference Re oyt
We would like a speedy clarIfication of
the legislative intant of this particular para-
graph In order to determine ahich interpre-
catlon of the disouted paragraph Is correct.
We request that Senate conside atlon of the
Conference Report be dela—ed until thi.’
matter is clarifIed. It you believe a colloquy
on the Senate Floob in conjunction with
consideration of the Conference Report
would be useful in settling this issue, we
would be pleased to arrange one with you.
Thanks for your attention to thi, matter.
Sincerely, -
- ThoMAs J. Mc lrrrrar.
JohN A. DURKD.
Mr. ‘DURX flq. I%fr. President. I yield
to lxiy good friend from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPh. Mr. President, re-
fernrig to the situation that Senator
DCRHIN has brought to our attention, he
is correct that correspondence clarifies
the matter which was of concern to him
and also to Senator McL’ ryRe.
We were dehghtecl to respond in a way
which Insures that not only would the
two Senators of that State understand
the matter. -but more unporta.ntly. real-
ly, so would the people of the area who
are affected. We were delighted to co-
operate.
Mr. DURhCIN. On:e again. I thank the
distinguished chairman and the ranking
member for his cooperation, be:ause it
Is very Important to our people In Man-
chester and some other communities
- around the country.
-58-
-------
SENATE
REPORT
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later-—See Conference
Report statements)
GRANT ELIGIULE C tT oonrp a
This section amends section 211, Stwago Collection Systems, to
eliminate from eligibility the construction of treatment works for the
control of discharges from separate storm sewers, the replacement or
rehabilitation of a collection system unless neces ary to COrrect exces-
sive infiltration 1 and the construction of a new collection system unless
the grant is limited to existing populatiofl, there isom will be treatment
Capacity to serve the system, the system is necessary k protect ground
or surface water supplies or to attain water uaIity standards, mmcl tho
ltermmtjves hind been proved less cost-efEectj ye.
DIscuss ioN
This section amencl section 211 of the act to eliminate from eligi-
bility certain categories of treatment works where such grants are
made from funds authorized for any fiscal year beginning mifter Sep-
teinbar 30, 1977. Under this tunendnie,it facilities reqiiii’e&j to control
pollutant discharges from sepamale storm sewer systems would be
eliminated from eligibility. In inhuif ion. sewer leplateulient end major
rebabuI tatio 11 would also be elimninnte l unless necessary to tIme total
integrity and performu c of (lie trelilmeuit works and for the cost—
cfli’ctive eliniiii t ion of excessive Infiltration.
Subsection (b) of the amnendmeumt would elimimmnte Federal fund-
ing of collector sewer systems except mmdci (lie following conditions:
( ) The coqfs of (lie project eligible for a grant are limited to
those costs which can be allocated to poptilntioii existing as of the
(late of enactment of this a menclimim’nt;
(2) sufhiciejit capacity will e ’cist upon compictioji to treat
sewage in Comni)liancc with sections 01 and 301;
(3) the system is deemed necessary because time disposal of
waistes from existing l)Opulatitm is comistitutim ig a threat to ground
or surface water or prcventjmia time attajimmnent of applicable water
quality standards; and
(4) ;mltcrnzmtjvcs to central treat uncut ‘mare been evaluated anti
found to lic less cost-effective than the i)roposedi collector sewer
system in prof ecting ground orsurface water 1 mmalily.
This an cndnwi vill a’sumg that fummis machi avumihimbic imnc1ct title
II arc ut hued for facjljtjts irmost critical to medmicing PollUtant (uS—
charges fiomn municipal! Wastc watet Systems and vill bring th ulti.
mate Federal cost of the construictioji grants )rogrmImn within reason-
able reach of Federal budgetary resources. These purposes will be
principally achieved by eliminating the eligibilities for stormnwater
facilities, and in certiun instances, sewer rehnbiitatiomi projects and
collector systems. Such facilities have traditionally been the respon-
sibility of local communities and developers.
Rehabilitation and replacement may be necessary if maintenance
has been inadequate. Funding eligibility for this category of facility
Lends to reduce the financial penalty a community mmmmist pay for in-
adequate maintenance. Eliminating time eligibility would tend to cor-
rect this problem.
Time amnendmmment recognizes in the first instance that replaiccuitent. or
major rahmabil it a Lion of a sewage collection sysu’mn is eligible only when
ncce.c ary to the total integrity and perfom mmmcc of (lint puii Licular
treittuument. wom ha in the comnmnmumity. ] it addition it must be shown tluiL
roplaceummemit mmd major relmitbilitmit ion is time mimo’ t. co’ t-efici Lure alter-
native to eliminate excessive infiltration. ‘J’luis, reduction of infiltra—
tion/immilow into sewer systems is to be umidertuikeut when it. is muome
cost-effective than conveyance and treatimmemit. of lumhilt mat iomm/immflow.
‘I’lme cost of controlling storuiwater is sumbs(mmum(jal even a 11cr cons Id-
eration of other options such as land use commtr ls vhmichm mumaty Lie mote
cost .-cliectivo in some situations. The Federal luur for slot ummwater
projects is beyond the teach of time limitations el time Fedem iii budget.
It is, furthermore, a cost for which water quality bummefits have not
bean suflicicntiy evaluated, pa it icula ny Si ace st omit mwater ci i .clmmm rges
occur omi nit episodic basis dm14 ing which water use is mmminimmtaiI. Because
of these factors, time contmit.tcc believes it is in tlm 1)111)110 immtomest. to
- ohimmuinato stormuwmmter diselma rgeS finimi cligibilty Ion grants until a
better nssessmncmmt. can be made of time benefits amid of noncapital inten-
sive solutions for stornmwater control projects. Section 2O piammmng
is now affording an opportunity to identify amid to deternummict beneljts
of this typo of pollution control amid to analyze nonc mpitnl intensive
alternatives. This itmeendmnemit is not, nmemmt . to re 1 rict lime 01)1)011 unities
ftV1UI1LhIO to solve pollution prollenms cmeatcd by coumbimmed sewer over—
Ilows or bypasses.
Sewage collection system projects ame presently grant eligible. Their
eligibility is limited, however, by section 211 (ii the mutt which staites
that Iummmcls for collection systcumm may be pm ovideçi only fum the rel)laee—
miment, 01 Jiift OP rehabilitation of an existing systun or for umew collec-
tion systems in existing ceunmumuuit.ies. Tlmc.se sy temns usumahl provide
few benefits outside the communmimnity. ‘l’ime amemnlummemut would renfhimin
time fact that tlmo o systeuns are essentially time mesponsibility of the
conmmnumimty 1111(1 tlmatt they arc generally closely associated with other
IOCaLL ,Commminnnity (leVClOpflmdflt CXI)eflCl itu tOeS. Fuurtitermimore, this pro—
po’ tl would result 3mm a more cost-effective utihiz.utiomt of himmmit cl fmitumo
resomurces for time ucimievmnent of the goals of time act. As a result of
this aim mend ,ncnt, Fedemal cx pemmd i t.uiie WOuI 1(1 l)e comicen trailed nmore
in I hosim eattegorn s of trcatmimi ’nL facilities likely to bring about the
most waiter quality enhmanceniemmt per 1)01hi1 1 lou abatemmient dollar
expemmded.
l\rctvemltilmeiesq Limo amnemudmnent recognizes tJiat sonic comimummnities,
part.iculmmmly those in iui-n.l areas, arc e periemmciimg severe limmammcial bun—
-59-
-------
clens and aro simply too poor to pay the entire cost of a s ewa”e col lcc..
tion system as well as other needed treatment facilities for 1 7 in.t com-
munity. ‘rue amendment would allow collector systems where disposal.
of wastes from the existing population is constituting a threat, by.
polluting ground or surface waters, or is preventing the at.t ain.ment
of applicable water quality standards.
Coats of the collector sower system must be allocated 1etween eiqst..r
ing and projected future population, and only those allocated to exist-
ing population are eligible for a Federal grant under title It In.addi
turn, the d.uu lListrator must deteminine that altcriuttiv s•to cc4raj ,
trentmncumt. wlmeic collector sc vcis hnvö bean evaluated and demon-.
strateci to be less cost-effective thait the proposed central collector tutd
treiitmnent system. Examples of alLeiimtives to consider arc measures to
improve operation om t maintenance of existing septic tanks, nstalla-
t-uon of new septic tanks, various means of upgrading septic tanks
(including mounds, alternate leaching fields and pressure sewers), and
other small systems serving 5iidiWdual residences or a cluster of resi-
(knees, including water coiiscrvution and recycling systems whcrQ
feasible.
—60-
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN MATERIALS
(BUY AMERICA)
-61-
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN MATERIALS
( BUY AMERICA )
No grant, for which application is made after Febrj ary 1, 1978,
shall be made unless the construction of the treatment works will use
(1) unmanufactured articles, materials and supplies that are mined or
produced in the United States or, (2) manufactured articles, materials, and
supplies which have been manufactured substantially all from articles,
materials or supplies that are mined in the United States.
This provision is not to a 1y in any case where the Administrator of
EPA determines that it should n t apply for relevant reasons, such as (1)
-limited agency resources to administer, (2) inconsistency with the pubflc
interest (including .multi-lateral government procurement agreements),
(3) unreasonable costs, or (4) the articles are not available in commercial
quantities of satisfactory quality. The House report on HR 3199 states:
4
“In implementing this provision, it is expected, where applicable, that
the Administrator will utilize existing Federal regulations contained in
the Code of Federal Regulations” (for the basic Buy America Act).
- —62—
-------
LAW TEXT
REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICA’i MATERIALS
BUY AMERICA
CONF REN ,CE REPORT
-. U Y £M lCA
Sec. 39. TItle II of the Federal Watar Pol-
hitlon Control Act is amended by adding at
‘the end thereof the tollowiog new section:
‘EXQV Es rrS 505 AMESXCAN 3LSTESXALS
‘Szc. 215. Notwflhstandin; any other pro-
vision of law, oo grant for which application
is made after Februaiy 1. 19 ’ 8. shah be made
under t.hLs title for any resuaent works
• unless only such unmanuLactured articles,
uaterials, and supplies as have been mined
• or produced In the United States, and only
such manulactwed articles, materials, and
supplies as have been ananuiacsured in the
United States. suhete.ntialiy aU (roan articles,
materIals, or euppUas mined, produced, or
manufactured, as the case may be. in the
United States will be used In such trea ent
works. This section ahail not apply Lu any
case where the Administrator determine_s.
based upon those factors the Administrator
deems relevant, I ncluding the available re-
sources of the agency. It to be inconsistent
with the public interest (including multi-
lateral government procuramect agree-
ments) or the cost to be unreasonable, or If
erucles. materials, or suppiles of the ciaes or
kind to be used or the articles, materiaLs,
or supplies from which they are manurac-
twed are not mi , d , produced, or manurac-
tured, as the case may be, In the United
States In su ctnt and reasonably available
commercial quantities and of a sasialactory
quauty”.’
CONG. ROBERTS :
BUT AMSaICAN
Section 39 creates a new sectIon 215
which extends the application of the Buy.
American Act to any case where Federal
cor.scruction grant funds for municipal
trentment works are used. However, this
provision Is not to apply in any case
where the aiIn i stra lion of the vtron-
mental Protection Agency determines,
based upon those factors he i.eems rele-
vant.. including avaUable agency re-
• sources, that enforcement Is inconsistent.
with the public Interest, in ‘luding multi-
• lateral Government. procurement agree-
ment,s, the cost to be unreasonable, or the
articles are not reasonably available an
commercial quantities of satisfactory
Quality. - - -.
DEBATE
acuolee_aesires FOS AateuaCArsr4tTeac Ls
house bid
The new sectIon 216 c;eated by section 12
wonlu clctend the application of the Buy
American Act to any case ‘vhe:o Federal con-
strucLI n grant funds for municipal treat-
ment wcrks are used. Kowerer. where the
Administrator Cf EPA determines, as in the
basic Buy American Act, that enforcement
of the Buy American proriston would not
be In the public tnterest or that costs would
be unreasonable, the provision shalt not
apply.
Se’tate emendment
No comparable provision
Conference substit. tc
The couference sub : tuto is t w aame as
the House bill ex .ept that th provaio a
not to apply in any case where the Adminis-
trator determines, base’S upon thu , factcrs
he deems relerant, Including avail,iale enc
resources, that enforcement is iLWOi ..3teaa
with the public Ia erest (including
lateral government procuretr. nt 3,ree-
mental, the cost Co be un:easonab,e ci’ tlte
articles are not reasonably ava lao iu cznn-
mercial quantt:ies of satisfaclory quaiLty
CONG. TAYLOR AND ROBERTS :
The prulciple buy American” was a
part of this legislatton when it. left the
floor of tae House. The pr.nciple of “buy
American” provaalon as to insure con-
,tinuau.ori and Improvement of American
tecbnolo y, and to assure that American
workers may pii:taczpat.e in this pro-
gram.
There was a provisioi in the House
that required that any funds expended
by grants by the Environmental Procec-
tio Agency would be spent on products
that were made in America. -
I would like to inquire of the dastin-
gulehed chairman of the subcommittee
as to whether the House provision of
the “buy American” is contained in the
conference report?
Mr. EOB TS, If the gentieman will
yield, the buy Amarica provision is in the
bill. We do have a provision, that if the
cost exceeds 25 percent over what the
bid was, the administrator has authority
to buy. But the buy America provision
is in the bill, and we were abLe to get
the other body to acce’,t it.
Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the. dis-
tlngui.thed chairman. -
-63-
-------
HOUSE REPORT
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
REQUIRF.MENTS FOR AMEIUCAN M i’ ni tx.s
The Buy American Act now generally applies to any 4ircct procure-
ment by the Federal Government. The new seetion 216 created by sac-
hon 12 of 11.11.3199 would extend the np 1 lieat ion of the Buy American
Act to any case where Federal construction grant fun(ls for municipal
treatment works are used. I-Iowevcr, where the Adrniiiistrator of EPA
determines, as in the basic Buy American Act, Lhat enforcement of the
Buy American provision would not be in the public interest or that
costs would be unreasonable, the provision shall not apply. In imple-
mentmg this provision, it is expected. where applicable, that the Ad-
ministrator will utilize the existing Federal regulation contained in
the Code of Federal Regulations.
-64-
-------
DETERMINATION OF PRIORITY
—65-
-------
DETERMINATION OF PRIORITY
States may determine the priority of categories fp ojects in a State
except if EPA determines that a specific project will not be in compliance
with the enforceable requirements of the Act. If EPA so determines, the
project must be removed from the priority list and the State must submit
a revised priority list. Suggested categories of projects are included
in this amendment.
Not less •than 25 percent of funds allocated to a State in any fiscal
year shall be obligated for sewer pipe projects if they are on a State’s
priority list and are otherwise eligible for funding for that fiscal year.
This may be interpreted to mean that a State has the option of including on
its priority list any percentage of sewer projects, be it zero to one hundred
percent, provided that they meet the enforceable requirements of the Act.
In any review of the State priority list by EPA, EPA could not eliminate
sewer projects below the 25 percent level provided that such projects are
otherwise eligible.
Section 20 of the Act states that priority lists may be modified by a
State to give higher priority for Step 2 and combined Step 2 and 3 grants for
projects that utilize innovative and alternative technologies.
-65A-
-------
LAW TEXT
DETERM:’. ‘TION OF PRIORITY
- CONFERENCE REPORT
Pg 1
CONG. ROBERTS :
pal0
8ectlon 40 creates a new section 216
concerning the determination of a treat.—
meat worcs project’s priority for fund-
ing wtthin a State.
The amenamens provides that the de-
termination at priority to be given each
category of projects within .ach Stnte
shall be made solely by that Scate. iow-
ever, if the admimstrac ,r alter a puolic
hcsring determines a project will not re-
sult In Compliance with the enforceable
requirement, of the act the project shall
be removed from the priority list and the
State shall suomit a revised list.
• For the purposes of this section. the
categories of pro ecs for coasthiccion
of publicly owned treatment works in-
clude: secondary treatment, treatment
more sr.riiigent than secondary treatment
a.s Is necessary to meet water quality
standards, correction of Lntlitration-iii..
flow, major sewer .system rehaoilitation,
new coU ction sewers and appurtenances.
new intnrcept 1 Sr sewers and appur-
tenazices, and correction of combined
sewer overfLows.
Also, not leas than 25 percent of funds
allocated to a State in any f_scat year
for construction tinder this act skiau be
obligated for major sewer system reha-
bilitation, new collector sewers and ap-
purtenances, new interceptors arid tip-
purtenanc,es, and correccton of combined
sewer overflows U they are on the States
priority list for that year and arc other-
wIse eligible for funding for that fiscal
year.
- 5ET MUtAZ1ON OF PR IORITY
• • •. House ba l l
Section 12 auds a new section 215 to the
Act woich gites each State tne ab’1.17 to
aetermine the priority to be given each cate-
gory of projects Tcr construction of publicly
owned treatment worics withIn eer.h State.
The categories of projects for construCT.lCfl Or
publlcly owned rreatment works ncludc:
secondary treatment. treatment ciore strIn-
gent than secondary ireatment as is neces-
sary to nicer, water quality standards. co rec-
lion or lufiltratlon/taflow. major senar sys-
teni rehabtil .tatlon. new collector sewers and
appurtenances, new interceptor sewers and
appurtenances, and correction of combined
sener overflows.
Senate amendment
Section 8 amends section 106(f) to provide
that In the approval of priority lists or deter-
minations for priority under 106 ( 5) or sec.
lion 204(s)(3) or section 3c3(e) for grants
for design or construction of publicly wfied
treatment works the Adni nistrator sht.il give
highest priority treatment works necessary
to comply with sections 301(b) or 201(b).
(d) and (g) (2) (A). Included are facilities
providing for treatmeot. reclamat:on or re-
cycling of was .ewater and for bene cial use
or disposal of residual sludges.
Con/ereece izbstttute
The conference subsitute Is the same as
the ifouse bill except that if the Administra-
tor arier a public hearing determines a proj-
ect will not result in camoltance wtth the en-
-. folesable requhements of the Act the project
Iball be removed frOm the priorIty list and
the Senate shall subnilt a revised bst. At
least 25 percent of funds allocated to a State
to any Sscal year for construction under
- this Act shall be obligated for eligible types
- of projects if they are en the States.prlOrity
• list for that year and are .Qtherwlse eligible
Jar fcmding for that year. -
Section 20 of the conference substitute
amends section 204(a) (.3) of the Act to pro.
ride that section’ 303( 0) (3) (H) priority lists
‘niap be modified by a-State to give higher
priority for grants for construction d.-lwtnm
and specifications (Step 2) for ?eatinani
works using procesee snd techniques meet-
ing section 304(d) (3) guIdelines and giving
higher rtorfly for grants for the comotned.
‘edera1 share of construction d swIngs and
specIfications and building and erection of
treatment works (Steps 2 and 3) meeting the
requirements of the neat to the last sentence
ofi section 203(a) of this Act whick utilize
and techniques meeting section. -
304(d) (3) guIdelines.
OETERMXtSATTOII OP PRIOR I ” • ‘ PaxOarry. - - -
Sec. 40. Title of the Federal Water Polita- Sec. 20. S ta 204(a) (3) ot the Federsi-
tion Control Act Is amended by adding 51 Water PoIH. .introl Act Is amandcd by
the end thereof the followIng new sectionc inserting in tely after the word ‘Act”
the followic- scept tha any priority list.
‘ceATIore or PRIORITY
developed _.in to sectio 303(e)(3J -
• Szc. 216. NotwIthstanding an othet pro- (H) may’ ;, hed by such. State In ac-
- viaion of this Act, the dci lnauon of cordance - - ragulatlono promulgated by
• . ‘ the .tdin . -.a:or to gtvabighec-prioiity for
priority to be gtven’ cock category’ of proJedtr grants- : - . ‘ •. t’edereJ. share of the coal . of
for construction brpuollclrowned creamiest preparu . . cscruction drawings and sped-
works within each State shall be nagS solely ocattoms o- any treatment works utilizing-
by that State. except ins; it the AdnilnisirS- processes .iT2d techniques meeting the guide—
tar. amer a public hearcog. determines chat lines proznul;atcd ender section 304(d) (3k-
a specific project. will not result to mm- of this .4cr. and, for grants for the combined-
pUance with the’ enforceable requirement. oS Fderal share of the cost of preparing con-
this Act, suck prujece shall be’ removed Il structlon dzawth s and speciilcatlons and. the
the States priority’ list and such scat. - building-and erection or any treatment works
submit a revised priority fl l, TheSe C 5t 5 meeting tao requirements or the’ nest to the
gcriee shall, include, but, not. be limited last sentence of section 2O3 a ot this’ Act
(&) secondary treatment.. (B) more’ strtfl which utilizes processes and’ techniques
• gent tre ’ ”t., (C) inflhtrat!oa -ln 5aw COT. meeting- th, guidelines promulgated under
recliow, (D) major sewer sYstem rehabillta-’ sedtion-3O4(d) (3) of this Act”.
lion, IE) new collector and appurte-. -
nancee, (P) new interceptors and aopurte-
nausea, and. (0) correctIon of combined
sewer overflows. Irot lets than 25 per centu
of funds allocated to a Scsi. In any fiscal
year under this title for conscrnctlon of pub-
Ucly owned treatment works In suck Stat.
shall be obUgated Soy those types of project..
referred to In clauses (D), (E), (P) and
(O of this section, if such projects aie on
suck State’s priority ilet for that year and are
otbsswise eligible for funding- In that Sacal -
year.
DEBATE
—66—
-------
Pg2
DETERMINATION OF PRIORITY (Continued )
SENATOR MUSKIE :
CONG. ROE :
The conferees were dIsturbed y the
fact that there seemed to he little re-
h Uoc.s iip between the enforceable re-
qu remeccs cz the act and the chstribu-
Uon of public funds for this program.
Again, to underscore that the purpose
of the proerain is to reduce the backlog
of waste treatment facthti ’s ueeds and
not to finance the requirement of future
growth, the conference agreement spe-
cifically requires that State priority li.st.
reflect the enforceable requ.Lremeiits of
the act—the deadlines for municipalities
and for those industr es whicn will, dis-
charge through those mun1cipaJ.t es. Any
project on the State list which does not
comply wIth th.ia requirement wilL be
removed, and the list. shall be. revised
accordingly.
The Administrator may not approve a
grant award for a facility, designed to
meet. new growLiL. He may only approve
a grant for that. portion of any facility
which meets the speciiic criteria-of this
act. Nor may the Administrator approve
a grant for a project primarily designed
to deliver more waste to a. rece2ving
• water. -
- The availability of a 75-percent grant
‘ban encouraged the construction of coI-•
lectors. For exampin. a. town in Wiscon-.
sin Installed a entarel3’ new collection..
antI treatment s jstem to replace existing
septic tanks and ended up spending $500
per household per year for debt service
and operation and maintenance. A aim-
liar situation us Maine has produced
costs of $221) per household pea year for
• debt service and operation and inainte-
nance. In a county.neighboring Wasb-
ington, D.C.. the State and the county
had ’ proposed to construct a $400 nsUion
advanced waste treatment facility wnose
capacity was at- least four times that’
needed by the existing population. -
Meanwhile, 43 other cities in that same
State which would have gone without
funds to construc; needed secondary
treatment facilities are pctentlalJy sub-
ject to abatemenLaction for failure to
colupl Ir with minimum. treatment
• standards. . -
The sect1uz of the’ act setting out
enforceable requirements include see-
tions 201. 208, 301. 309. 402. and 405.
These requirements can normally be met
by projects for construction or treatment
plants, correction of excessrie mIUtra-
tion arid inflow Into the sewer system,
and/or ccntrol of pollutant discharges
irons combined sewer overflows and by-
passes. Construction of coUector sewers,
Interceptor sewers and major rehabui-
tatlon of sewers (except where necessary
to correct excessive In f iltration and in-
flow) ordinarily would not be necessary
to meet the enforceable requirements
oI the law. -
The States are expected to. continue
to give priority to projects within each
category of projects on. the basis of the
severity of the pollution. problem to be
corrected and related (actors such aa the
size of existing population to be served.
Aiso, the con.ference repoit clarifies a
matter which s of great concern to our
States arLi clues—cue ability of the
Statcs to establish tdeir own project pri-
Otity lists and the etL4Iothty oc coileclor
sewers for grants.
It was necessary to clanfy these mat-
ters because of the wi.y ice Environ-
mental Protection Aeacy has unple-
mented these matters. To a significant.
degree, the conference report provisions
on States authority to set priorittes and
the 75-percent grant eligibility 01 col-
lector sewers is a restatement of current
law. • -
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS -
(Need to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
HOUSE REPORT
DE ’r n IIN. rroN OF PnloiuTv
The new section 215 which is created by section 12 of H.R. 3199
elasifies Collgres1.Ional intent that categories of treatment works con-
struction needs that are eligible under Public Law 92—500 for Federal
grant assistance may, at a State’s election, be included on the State’s
construction priority list. The categories of projects for construction
of publicly owned treatment works include: secondary treatment,
treatment ,no e stringent than secondary treatnwiit as is necessary to
iiieet water quality standards, correction of infiltration/inflow, major
sewer system rehat bil itation. new collector sewers anti appurtenances,
new interceptor sewers and appurteliances, and correction of coin-
hineti sower overfloiis. SENATE REPORT
Pnionrrr LIsT REQrfliZ3(E TS
s Rr
This section amends section 106, Grants for Pollution Control Pro-
grams. to reanire that State priority lists reflect the enforceable re-
quirements of the act.
DISC SSIO
Section 5 amends subsection 106(f) to provide further guidance to
the Administrator on requirements for approval of priority lists or de-
terminations for priority under 106(f) or section 204(a) (3) or section
303(e) for grants for design or cohstruction of publicly owned treat-
ment works. Highest priority is to be given to treatment works neces-
sary to comply with sections 301(b) or 201 (b), (d) and (g) (2) (A).
Included are facilities providing for treatment, reclamation or re-
cycling of wastewater and for beneficial use or disposal of residual
sludges.
EPA’s current municipal enforcement policy is directed toward
communities which could have complied with the 1077 deadline but
chose not to. Communities which cannot comply because funds were
not available are issued enforcement compliance schedule letters spec-
if ving a time for compliance which is related to availability of fu’ads.
The purpose of amendment is to close the loop between funding
and deadlines. States must assign highest priority for funding to those
projects the purpose of which is to achieve secondary or better levels
of treatment for current discharges of waste. ‘o other project is e’n-
titled to funding until current publicly owned point sources are fully
funded.
-67—
-------
MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATPIENT REQUIREMENTS
(MARINE DISCHARGES)
-68-
-------
MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
IMARINE DISCHARGES )
For communities that can show that existing deep marine discharges
require less than secondary treatment, a case-by-case ré iew and waiver
procedure is provided. The waiver will be reviewed every five years.
Criteria for the waiver and continued compliance are as follows:
1. Applicable water quality standards for the specific
pollutants involved must exist.
2. Modification will not interfere with attainment or maintenance
of water quality which assures protection of public water supply
and protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife.
3. The applicant must establish a monitoring system to record
impact on a representative sample of aquatic biota.
4. Modified requirements must not result in any additional
requirements on any point or nonpoint source.
5. Pretreatment requirements must be enforced.
6. The app icant must establish a schedule of activities designed
to eliminate toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources.
7. No new or substantially Increased discharges are to be allowed
to occur from the point source of the pollutant to which the
modification applies.
8. Funds available under Title II must be used to achieve the effluent
reduction required by Section 201(b) and 201 (g)(2)(A) or to carry
out the requirements of this amendment.
For the purposes of this amendment, the phrase “the dis.charge of any
pollutantinto marine waters” refers to a discharge into deep waters
of the territorial sea or the waters of the contiguous zone 1 or into
saline estuarine waters where there is strong tidal movement and- other
hydrological and geological characteristics which the Administrator
determines necessary to allow compliance with this amendment and
Section lOl(a)(2) of this Act.
Procedures are established fo,’ filing applications for modifications.
-------
MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREAThENT.REQUIREMENTS
J4ARINE DISCHARGES )
LAW TEXT
MOn ios ow OP Sacoisneaw T mr . ..r sa—’
- Q c z xw r
-3ec. 4+. SecttoTr3Ol:ot th,P!derar Wates’
Pollution- Contror Act Is a en ed by addtng-
at the en thereof the- following new subset.-
t!onr
“(b) ’ The’ Adminlstmtor with the’ concm”
rence- of the St te may issue a perasir under-
seetIo 402 which modifies the req emeata
otsubseetton (b)(l)(B) of this section with
respect to the distharge orany- polliuinv m
as misting discharge from a publlcty owned
treatment- works into marine waters, It the
applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that—
“(1) there is an applicable water quality
standard specific to the pollutant toe which
the modificatIon L i requested. which ha,
been Identified under sectIon 304(a) (6) of
thIs Act
(2) such modified requiremento will not
Interfere with the attainment or mainta—
nance of that water quality which assures
protection of public water supplies and the
protection and propagation of a balance& in-
digenous population or shellflsfl, 0th. and
w2ldliZe and showy recreatIonal activities. in
and on the watert
“(3) the applicant has estabflshed a sy,-
tern for monitoring the Impact of such dls-
charge on a representative sample of sq-aatie.
blots, to the e’ctent practicsbhe
(4) such modified requiremee-to will not
result in any addltton I reqntre . te on any ’
other Po lo t 0? nonpotat 5c ee
“(5) all applicable pretreatment require-
ments for sources introducing waste Into
such treatment works will be enforced:
•‘(6) to the extent practicable, the appli-
cant has established a schedule or activities
designed to eilmLaate the entrance of toxic
pollutants from nonindustrial sources into
such treatment works;
“(7) there wilt be no new or subetaniially
increased discharges from the point source
of the pollutant to which the rnodi catton
applies above that volume of discharge,
specified in the permit:
“(8) any funds available to the owner of
such treatment works under title of this
Act will be used to achieve the degree of ef-
uent reduction required by section 201(b) -
and (g) (2) (A) or to carry Out tile require-
ments of this subsection. -
For the purposes of this subsection the
phrase ‘the discharge of any pollutant into
marine waters’ refers to a discharge into deep
waters of the territorial sea or the waters of
tile contiguous zone, or Into saline eetnarlne
• waters where there Is strong tidal movement
and other hydrological and geological char-
acterlsttca which tile A ’fn’ trator deter-
mines necessary to allow compliance with
paragraph (2) of thia aubeection. and sec-
- ton, and section 101(a) (2) of this Act.”.
MODw’ICATIOPJ 0? SSCONDART TRCATT .ICNT
acaumrwrsr
Hours bill
No comparable provisIon.
Scncfe cmcndment
This section amends sectIon 301 of the Act
to provide-for a modification of the secondary
- treatment requirement (or any conventional
pollutant in a d.scharge Into marine watsrs-
from existing municipal sources if It can be-
shown that_the modification will not inter-
ieee with the attainment or maintenance of
that water quality which assures tne pro-
tection of puolic water supplies and the pro-
tecuon and propagation of a balanced, 1.3-
digenous population of fish, shellitsh. and
wildlife, and allows recreatIonal. acttvltiea,
in and on the water, will not require add!-
tional controls on any other source, assures
• enforcement of all aøpltcable pretreatment
requlremente. and assures that there wtll be
no substantial increase- in the volume of the
discharge.
Con erenc6 subs tttiste
The conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment.
or triose communities which can show
that e’dsting deep marine 4l.scbarge requires
less tnan secondary treatment, a case.by.csse
review watver is provided. Such a waiver
would be based on stringent criteria dis-
cussed below. The waiver would be reviewed
every 5 years to assure continued compliance
With these conditions.
This subsection Is the result of recognition
that there are some coastal areas of tns
niteti States and its territories where nat-
ural (actors provide significant and In some
cases sudicient elimination of traditional
forms of pollution from publicly owned
treatment worss to avoid the necessity of
providing secondary treatment.
An applicant, in order to obtain this relief,
must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator thit eight conditIons are met.
The first condItIon is that there Is an appli-
canle water qualIty standard snect c to the
pollutant for woich the medificalton is re-
quested. The degree of sifluent reductIon nec-
essary to meet this standard must be provided
as a minimum.
.me second condition Is that the modified
requlxcmenis would not interfere with the
atialnment or nl,untenance of that water
quality which assures protection of public
waer suppites and propagation of a balanced
L’ idlgencus population of shellfish. fish and
‘wildlife, and allows recreational activitIes, in
and on the water.
The third condition is that the apolicant
has established a system for monator1n the.
impact of such dIscharge on a representa-
tive sampling of aquatic biota to tile extent
practicable.
The fourth condition is that the modified
requirements will not result in any additional
requirements. on any other point or non-
point source.
The fifth condition is- that all applicable
pretreatment requirements will be enforced.
The sixth condition is that to the extent
practicable the applicant baa established a
schedule of activities designed to eliminate
the entrance of toxic pollutants from non-
industrial sources into such treatment worts.
The seventh condition is that there will be
no new’ or s’.zbatnnttally- increased disciarges
from the poLat source of the pollutant to
which tile modification applies bove that.
volume of discharge s ecificd in the oernilt.
waters where there is strong tidal movement
and .ither hydrological and geoio Ical cnar-
scteristics whIch the Administrator deter-
- - ‘ mines are necessary to conmly with ‘ e cc.
ond conditIon descrIbed aoov,. and secuon
101(a) (2) of the Act.
Depth is a ey factor In determtnthg the
amount of clrcu! tIon In waters of t ie :ec.
ritorial sea or contiguous lane. Ctrcu aticn
in tI rn a ects the degree to which vas:e
water discharges to these waters are rapIdly
dispersed. In some instances. depta of waer
In. the territorial seas or contigucus zone In
excess of 200 feet 13 necessary to achIeve su.
ftclently rapid dispersIon (I e, 4 seconds) Of
waste water and waste water cOosilt uents. In
some ir.stances, depth of 200 fees Is insufli-
cleat to provide adequate dispersIon. Poor
net flus.aing (i.e. stagnation) of a deep basin
may cauae undesirnole vertical cycling of dis-
charges.
Pactors determining tile amount and ra-
pidity of dispersion of saline estuarine waters
are tile degree of tidal movement ar.d other
hydrological and geological ciiarac:ertsttcs.
In some cases. rio currents and s ani :insl
movements wiic contrIbute to h:rh fiusn-
Lng e cIency in certain hays and es:uarlio.
may provide suI ctent circulation. Adti Iocau
recautIon . however, need to be cor..udered
in or near the rnoutr,s of estuarIes due to
possible tidal transpert of pouutantn land-
ward into estusr 4 .ne area where they may as
retained.
Distance offshore for location of Outfall
lines is also a factor whtic mus; be cons.d-
ered in many situations. In these cases. su.S-
cleat distance offshore is gvnerallv rtscessa.-7
fo that adverse water qusilty connt:tans 1111
not be created under assumed worst candi-
lions of onshore current anti wind baseu on
data derived from historIcal records.
Greater distance offsnoi’e may oro-ride tile
desired protectIon during d’rerse concittcas
of onshore currents and sind. Geolcgtcai
characteristics such as submarine canyons
may also be utilized because of tbs same ad-
vantages of rapid dispersion anti desirable
circulation.
There are, of course. con.stituento such as
polychiorinaced biphenols (PCSa ). which I I’-
respectire of deoth. tidal movement or other
factors related to circulatIon in marine wa-
ters. cannot be adequately dl,spersed aerause
of thair persistence.
Ai’eae described by these conditions include
most of. the coast. of the western inlo’d
States, the- coasts of l awsli: Puerto RIco.
AmerIcan Samoa, the VIrgin Islands, and
portions of estuarine ‘rater, such as Cook
Inlet near Anchorage, Alaska, and Resurrec-
tion Bay near Seward, Alaska.
This provision assumes that any criteria
oromulgated by the Adminlstralor-tinder sec-
tion 402 remain applicable. - -
Greater distance offshore may provide tile
desired protection during adverse conn.atons
of onshore currents and wind. Geolcctca!
cheracteristics such e.s submarine canv’sns
may also be utilized because of the same ad-
vantages of rapid dispersion and desirable
circulation.
There are, of course, constituents, such as
polyciliorlnated biphenols (PCBs). whIch ir-
respective of deoth. tidal movement or other
factors related to circulation in marine wa-
ters, cannot be adequately dispersed because
of their persistence.
Areas described by these conditions Include
most of the .coast of the western T.’atted
States, the coasts of Rawaii, Puerto Rico.
American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and
porg.lons or estuarine waters Such as
Inlet near Anchorage. Alaska. end Resurrec-
tion Bay near Seward. Aas a.
This provision assumes that any criteria
promulgated-by the Administrator under sec-
tIon. 403 remain appUcable. -
CONFERENCE REPORT
—70—
-------
MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREAThENT REQUIREMENTS
pg 3
CONG. ROBERTS :
MODtFXCtTtON or SrCON3’ ftY TitE.tT tEYr
One of the areas of greatest controversy
Concerning die 1 )72 amendments was the.
rquiremer t of secondary treatment for
niumctpat ;va tcs betng C chru:ed into
the marine i’ ironnient. Th ihiosopiiy
behind the l )’ amendment. 5 niand.xted
uflhfoim lec utrernents on all municipal
dischar:tes ‘thctiier they discharge into
laices. rivers. estu iips or oceari . This
was done vichj a trite analysis of the
costa and burdens aa: ociated witri these
uniform requiLemen s owerer. the 1972
amendments uiclucied a requirement for
a national ColnInIsslon L i study the im-
pacts s4soct4ted i ith carry ris out the
1972 amendments. In lt report, the corn-
mission included the following finding on
nearsliore ocean discharges:
(1) Near shore ocecn disc?iarges..—sludjes
and testimony tadicate that any benede from
the uniform application of the 197 rsc’ii ire-
meats to all ocean dl5char es may require a
disproportionate e pendlture of public arid
private resources 11 full adherence to the re—
quirements is demanded. It may be better
to study and analyze the specific environ-
mental factors wtth selection of the degree
and type of treatment depencent. on the
analysis and aatictpated benedts.
The Commission addressed the prob-
lems of a relatively small pot of money
having to be stretched a long way. In.
California alone which has many dis-
charges into the deep marine environ..
ment. the cost of achieving secondary
treatment will be well over SL billion.
This billion-dollar e’cpendlture for treat-.
ment for treatment’s sake will come at
the expense of many municipalities. 10-
ealities, and small communities which
currently did not even have primary
‘treated effluent. Further quoting from
the Commission’s report’
If reasonable precautions are followed.
large volumes of municipal wastewalers can
be discharged into some open coastal waters
without undue damage to man’s Interests or
to the ecological balance and productivity
of coastal waters.
The public Is mlstnlarmed snout the eg-
tent of ocean pollution and the damage to
macins hlZe by mun1ctpal waaaewsters. gen-
erally beilevtn the situation to be maca
worse than scienitS e studies anew. -
For aU thefic reasons the conference
report Includes sectIon 44 which allows
for mpdificstion of the secondary treat-
ment requirements for discharges from
existing deep marine outialis.
Section 44 amends section 30L to per-
mit the Administrator to grant case-by-
case waivers of the secondai’j treatment
reqwremens to municIpal ocean dis-
chargers.
For those communities which can show
that existing deep marine discharges re-
quire less than secondary treatment a
case-by-case waiver is provided. The
amendment Is the result of recognition
tha; for the western coast of the United
States and the coastal areas of Its terri-
tories natural factors provide sigriflcant
and In some cases sufficient elimination
of traditional forms of pollution from
publicly owned treatment worLs to avoid
the necessity of provtdm secondary
treatment. — - -. ‘ --
( MARINE DISCHARGES )
Any waiver would be rev’ewed every 5
years and oulcl be ranted where an
applicant dernon Lracej that the foUow-
ing eight condicion are met. —
The Iii at conditton is th .tt they e is art
applicable it ater qualicy c.uidard cCcL c
to the pollutant t r .h.ch the od: i-
ca .on is ieque ed. Ti e degree of ei’ uent
reduction necessary to meet mis stand-
ard must be provided as .i m.ininiuxn.
The second condit:on 14 that the moth-
fled requirements iiouid not intertere
v,ith the attatnziaertt or mauiten4nce of
that i aLer quality ahich assumes pro-
tection of public water supplies and
propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and vtldlffe.
and allows reci eationo.1 activities, in and,
on the water.
The third conditIon Is that the applI-
cant has established a system for moni-
toring the impact of such discharge on a
representative sample of aquatic blota
to the er tent practicable.
The fourth condition Is that the modi-
1 cd requarementa mu not result In any
additional requirements on any other
point or nonpoint source.
The fifth concliton Is that all appi!-
cable pretreatment req .iircments will be
enforced --
Tto sixth cond:tion is that to the ex-
tent practicable the applicant has estab-
lished a schedule of activities designed to
eliminate the entrance of toxic pollut-
ants from nonindustrial sources into
1 sucli treatment works.
The seventh condition is that there will
be no new or substantially increased
discharges from the point source of the
poliutant to which the modification ap-’
plies above that volume of discharge
specified in the permit.
‘The last condition is thai any title IX
funds available to the owner of the treat-
meat works are to be used to achive the
degree of effluent reduction reqmnred by
aection20l(b) and (g)(2)(A) ortocarry
out the req’enenmets of this subsection.
The referenced provisions of sectloli 201
may require a degree of effluent reduc-
ton which is greater than that required
under this section of the act an amended.
Available title II funds shall be used in
this case to achieve the requirements of
section 301 as amended before they are
used to achieve the requirements of see-
tIon 201. Uses of funds appropriate to
carrying out the purposes of the section
aught include Infiltration and Inflow
‘work, Interceptor construction and re- -
pair, and proper location of outfall lines.
The amendment defines the “discharge
of any -pollutant into marine waters” as
a discharge Into deep waters of the ter-
ritorial sea or contiguous zone or Into
saline estuarine waters where there is
strong tidal movement and other hydro-
logical and geological characteristics
which the Administrator determines are
necessary to comply with the second con-
dition described above, and section 101
j2) of theact.
Depth is a key factor in determining
the amount of circulation in .t titers of
the territorial sea or conttquous zone.
Circulation in turn affects the degree to
which waste water discharges to. these
-waters are rapidly dispersed. In some
• Instances, depth of water in th rr1-
tonal seas or cont gucus zo:les n e . c ss
of 200 feet is necessary to achieve s i.f-
licleat rapid dispersion (45 seconds)
of waste water and waste water co:st.t-
uents. In some Instances, depth of 20k )
Ieet is Insufficient to pro-ride ade nate
dispersion. Poor net flashing (stag-
-nation) of a deep basin may cause mm-
- desirable vertical cycling of discharges.
Factors determining the amount and
rapudity of dispersion of saline estuar’,ne
waters are the degree of t:dal mo enment
and other hydrological and geological
cnaracteristics. In some cases, rip cur-
rents and strong tidal movements which
ccn ib-.ite to’ high flushing e c:ermcy in
certain bays and estuaries, may provide
s fflclent circulation. Additional precau-
sloric, however, need to be considered in
or near the mouths of estuaries due to
possible tIdal t:a.nsport of p0 it its
la.ndward into estuarinc areas where thcy
map be retained.
A.rear which can meet these cond.t ons
include the c Ity of Los Ange!et. Sin
Dle o. othcr coastal commu it!cm in
Cali.forniit, Seattle. Washuiug -toi, Eana:i,
Puerto Rico, Amencc.n Samoa. the Vir-
gin Lslands. amid port ons of esturarine
water, such as Cook Inlet, Alaska, and
Pu;ct Sound in \Vz.snu,gton.
S nce waivers will be g ani d in the
form of a permit under secticn 402 of
the act, States with an authorized periuiit
program may grant such wa ers.
Several. oZ the conferees particuiai-lv
those from California are ery con-
cerned with the problems provided by
the requirement of this section. During
the conference the Environment i Pro-
tection Agency was asked to provide the
conferees with a description of the ocean
outfalLs In the State of Cah!orn,a which
are likely to meet the criteria that the
conferees have established. At this point
In my statement I would like to include
that list of existing ocean out! ails In the
State of california:
Cresent City, CA. -
Westport, CA.
Meadocino, CA.
Slenodcjuo r2, CA.
Zci l nas.CA. -
San P aneLsco (Richniond SunSet), CA.
North San Mateo, CA. -
PsdU%ca. C.t.
Montaro, CA. -
Gn n da, CA.
HalrMoonBan CA,
Davenport, CA.
Santa Crun CA.
£ st Cllft, CA.
Aptor, CA.
Wat rinviiie, CL
idanna. CA.
Sesalde, CS..
Padac Orove, CA. -
Menter,y CA.
—71—
-------
MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREAT 1ENT REqUIRE 1ENTS
kMARINE DISCHARGES )
Pg 2
LAW TEXT
PROC ou5 FOR M0O 1C.%TIOff5
Sec. 46. sction 301 of the Federal W3ter
X’ofluttoü Control ? ct Is amended by adaia(
at the end thereof the following new sub-
section:. - - - -
“(J)(l) Any appUcat on filed under tIlls
section for a modification of the provisions
of—
“(A) subsection (b)(1)(8j uader subsec-
tion (h) of thia section shall be filed not
later than 270 days after the dote of enact-
ment of the Clean Water Act Of 1977;
‘(3) subsection (b) (2) (A) as It applies
to pollutants Identified in subsection (b) (2)
(F) shall be tiled not later than 210 days after
the date of promulgation of an applicable
emuent guideline under section 304 or not
later than 270 days after the date of enfict.
ment of the Clean Water Act Of 1977. which-
ever l.s later.
“(2) Any applicatIon for a modlfleatton
filed under subsection (g) of this section
shall not operate to stay any requirement -
under this Act, unless In the Judgment of
the Administrator such a stay or the-n1odi.
ficatlon sought will not result in the dia-•
charge of polfutaiits in quantities which may
“reasonably be anticipated to pose an l ..nao-
ceptable r2s to human health or the en i-
ronment because of bloaccumulation. persist-
ency in the environment, acute toxicity,
chronIc toxicity (including carclnogec4clty.
I mutagealcity or temacogenicity). or s7ae- is.
tic propensities, and that thers is a subetaia-
tal likelihood that the appUcana will suc-
ceed on the merits of such aoplicatton. In
the case of an application filed under sub-
section (g) of this section. the Ad InI tratot ..
ma condition any stay granted under this
paragraph on requiring the filing of a bond
OF Other appropriate security to assure timely
compliance with the requiremenes cm
which a thodificatton is sought.”.
CONFERENCE REPORT
pg gftg FQ 5 r , OOn’IC,.rtON5
?IoI.se hiU
No cornparab a provision
- Se” .ate amn,indrnent
This ameodmcnt e tab1tsttss a. procedure
for filing ap llcatLons for a mo0 aIi3fl of
the requirements of the Act fOr cond;ry
treatment for puoltcly owned ta mett
wor’.cs which d.scha:ge into marine waters.
arid for the 1963 best ava lable technoogy
requirement for other point sour:e dis-
charges.
The amendment requires that any pub-
licly owned system or indus ;.st dL5char er
which wants a modification must ft e an
application to that efiect t tth ’ the A minIS-
tratør wIthin 9 months of enactment of the
1977 amettdme!i (or Ia the event that P?.
has rot prom .lgated e ituent gutdel nes f r
the pollutant in question. uitnta 9 monthS
ot such a prr t i;atlonl.
In the case of a z odifica Lion of the best
avail bIe technology requirement, the .U-
mnintstrator may com dt lon a sta. O the Un
-of a bond or other appropriate ecurtty such
as a tine of c?edal. ahlch ilI assure ti-nciy
•cori plianc with the requtrements for hich
a modt1 catton is SoLt tfl.
-72-
-------
1ODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQuIREMENTS
( MARINE DISCHARGES )
Pg 4
cfzmel ,CA.
Sen Simeon. CA.
Morra Bay. CA.
Shell Beach. CA.
PD mo Beach. C.t.
Aviia,CA.
South San Luis, CA.
Octets, CA.
l3anta Barbers. CA.
Montecito, CA.
Suinmerland, CA. -
Carptntcria. CA. -
San Buenaventura, CA.
O iard. CA.
- Port isueneme. CA. -
City of Los Angeles. CA.
- Ctty of Los Angeles (Terminal Wand). CA
Los Angeles County Sanitation Dlsti’ict,
AvalOn. CA.
Sunset Beach, CA.
OTange County Sanitation Dts lct, CA.
Laguna Beach, CA.
So Lag ’un s CA. -
Da na Point, CA.
San Cleniente, CA.
Oceanside. CA.
Eneinitas, CA.
Cardiff, CA.
San D1e ’o, CA.
Carlabad-Buer.s Vlata CA. - -
!stance o thore for location of out-
afl lines s also a factor which must be
cons:dered in n any s.taations. In these
ca.se.s suZc ent dist..ance ofTsho c is cei-
emi ly necessary so that advtrse v.ater
qu.i.lity conditi ,or.s will not be crcatccl
uncer assumed conchticnc ol on-
shore current and wind bated on data
derived from historical records.
Greater distance off shore may pmovmdc
the desired protection during adverse
cor .diUons of onshore currents and wind.
Geological charr.cLenst cs such as sub-
marine cazirons may also be utilized be-
cause of the same advantage of raptd
dispersion and desirable circulat:oxi.
I’bere are, of course, constituents.
such as polychlommated biphencis—
PCB’s—wiliCh, lrrespectit’e of depth.
tidal movement, or other factors related
to circulation in marine waters, cannot
be adequately dispersed because of their’
persistence.
The conferees expect that the En-
vironmental Protection Agelicy will
carry out this provision in such a wev
that burdensome requirements are nc’t
placed on municipalities. The conference
report calls for the Adnu.ntstratcr to Issue
guidelines promptly to carry out the in-
tent of the Law. Those dmscbaxgers tthiCIi
contemplate being able to meet tne
cnteria established in the law will have
9 months either from the date of enact-
ment of this section or 9 .months from
the date effluent guidelines are prornul-
gated.
Following the fling of an applicatioii
for a. waiver, the Administrator should
dlscoamtinue any legal proceeding or ci i-
forcenient actions which may ha e been
Initiated prior to the enactment of 5cC-,
tlon 44.
The conferees expect the Administra-
tor to make a decision promptly on the
evidence presented to him and not per-
mit protracted deliberations.
The waivers will be for a pe .od 01 5
years. During that period EPA chot . cl n -
crease its expertise by conducunc stun es
rel tthg to deep ocean outlalls and time
water quality of the recetvi: waters
The absence of such studies by EPA i,as
hampered the communities’ work in tiJs
area.
My colleagues from California ‘Mr
JOHNSON and Mr. MtosItso ,) tiil corn-
merit further on this provision.
CONG. JOHNSON :
- Orie of the areas or particular concern
to those of us from, the west coast is. the
problem of providing secondary treat-
‘meat for publicly owned treatment din-
cnarglng Into the Pacific Ocean. Call-
fomnia has a number of c!mschar ers wh ch
use the assimilative cacacity of the Pa-
cific Ocean to heli, them treat thea:
wastes. At this po!nt in my statement I
would l:ke to includc a list of some of
thCse d inchargers:
List or D:scH not s
C:e.ce t City. CA, Weqt ort CA. i!endc-
r no, CA. Menclocnoc No 2, CA. Bo’ins. CA.
$tn ancl9cn (atchatond 5t t). CA,
r;’ San .L teo, CA PauSca. CA. Mo i :as ,
,C ,A, Ozacacla, CA.
Half MGomt nay. CA. Da .enport. CA Santa
Cri., CA. East CLt . CA. AOt.r. CA. Waison.
i ,e, C.t, Ma.-tna. CA. Seastde, C.t, Pacide
Grove. CA, .toaterey, CA.
Ca. eI. CA. San SLmeon. CA, .torro Bar.
CA. Shell Beech, CA, P s o Beech. CA, AVUa,
CA. South San .L.ul.,. CA. Goleta. CA: Santa
B rbsza. CA. 5!oruec to,
5u mer1acd. CA, Carp u.nterla.. CA, San
Buenavennira. CA. Osnard, CA. Port Hue-
name. CA, City oX Lc Angeies, CA. City of
Los Angeles (TerminaL TxL . ) , CA, Loa .t.a..
geles Coun .7 l,aaltaliou Dstrlct, CA. Atalon.
CA. Sunset Beaco, CA.
Orac;, County Sa.ni atlon District. Ct, La-
ina Be cb. CA. South Laguna. CA. Dana
Point, CA, San Clenet.. CA. Oceanside, CA.
CA.. Caz’diff. CA. San Diego. CA.
- Carlsbad-Buena Vista, CA.
One of the problems with the inflexibil-
ity of the 1972 amendments was that
these disehargers had to meet secondary
treatment requirements on Ju.ly I, l 17.
Man3 ’ of us lcnow that to require second-
ary treatment for these discharges wh ca
are in the open, deep ocean is’ simply
treannent for treatment’s sake and a
waste of the taxpayers’ money. In CalL-
forms. alone, the cost of applying second-
a .7 treatment to all of these disCharges
is above 3500 million. Since we all imow
that this program does not have unhin-.
ted funds, the conferees expect this
money will not be used for providing un-
needed trea ent, b’.it for providing
treatment which will enhance water
quality. - - -
The conferees have taken a major s’eD
by providing for a v;aiv.r froi’n the ocean
dlscha.rge requirement. It establishes an.
eight-point test which a discharger must
meet before the Administrator deter-
mines tha.t secondary treatment is
wasteful. This test I.s t fort laitteL7 not
ca straigat-forward mar .y of s vou d
have Lked ha;’e seen. Ho. .e’.er the d.
is expeced to giant ; at ers
from the secoridaiy tre.m meat. r2q’ :e-
meat. to an ocean disc.ha ;er ‘vh:cia can
how that its d.schatge is at tie apj ro-
priate depth requu’rd or : aptd d.spet iicn
of waste, that prer.re itznen re u . ,e-
meats are being complied wi;.i. and
toxic substances are nob beir4 di-
charged into the ocean er .virort .ziieat. I
can assure all of the members from the
Pacific coa st States that, our comzn icee
will be keeping careful watch on the
EPA’s consideration of thele wa.Lvers to
make certain that the disclzaryers are
riot paying for t.i’eatznent for treatment a
sake.
-73-
-------
MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
( MARINE DISCHARGES )
Pc ’ 5
SENATOR MUSKIE :
Another area of flexibility relates to
deep ocean discharges of municipal
waste. It has been alleged that a munic-
ipality can discharge iLs waste Into
ocean waters after comethmg less than
secondary treatment without causing
any ecological perturbation. Witnesses
from 1 oriolulu, 8eatUe, and Los Angeles
have aUeged that they have accumulated
sufficient evidence to prove no adverse
effect on water quality and aquatic eco-
systems from such discharges. -
The conference provision is identical
to the Senate bill in this respect. Is does
not change the Senate bill In any way.
The Administrator should lock to the
-legislative history in the Senate for
guidance on this prov sion.
As was the case in the Senate bill, this
provision is Intended to provide a very
narrow opportunity for certain muruci-
pal dlscharger , if they can meet a spe-
cific burden of proof, to qualify for a
modification of the secondary treatment
requirement. . -
MoDi7iCxrtO OP SECONO4ST T l 4T
The Senate-pa&,ed bill contained a
rrovijion perinittuig a mothficat on of
tao secondary treatment requirement
for dee, ocean municipal discharges.
The conference agreement is identical to
the Sen.ate-passed bill.
Some communities located along the
Nation’s coasts have argued that there is
no need to require secondary treatment
foe municipalities which di charge into
ocean waters. The Congreas deter-mined,
after much o.nalysis. that there should
be a mechanism by which communities
nialang this aigument can test their
case in the administrative process. No
such contention was made eor treshwa-
ter discharges. There seems to be gen-
eral acceptance of the need to ai,hieve
:. high degree of municipal waste treat-
ment for dzscha ges frito the Nation’s
river’, lakes, and streams. But with re-
spect to marine discnarges, this bill pro-
vides a Unuted e .ception.
- The Administrator may, on a case-by-
case basis, modify the requirements of
secondary treatment for marine dis-
charges from publicly owned waste
treatment plants where specific condi-
tbns are met. Water quality standards
-must exist for the waters into which the
discharge is made and the modification
must be limited to pollutants which are
covered by those water quality stand-
ards. In this case, those pollutants iu e
also limited by the parameters which de-
fine secondary treatment. Thus, a waiver
could be granted only for the specific
e uent parameters wInch are included
in the definition of secondary treatment
under existing law. The Ada-unistrator
would be required to establish an en-
forceeble elfluent limit for such works’
adequate to assure maintenance of
-ocean ecosystems. - -.
Wbere applicable water”quallty stand-
srds exist specific to a pollutant In a dis-
charge, the municipal so Lrce can ardpty
for a waiver from the secondary reqii:re-
rent for that poUutant if a how ng is
made that the applicable ater quality
standard will be maintained, there w’.il
not be interference with the national
water quality standard for that poliut-
ant, if indirect sources wh ch di -charge
into that system meet all applicable pre-
treatment requirements, if no other
point or nonpoint source will be requ red
to meet additional requirements because
of a modification of the secondary treat-
ment requirement, and if the volume of
discharge of the pollutant will not in-
crease -beyond that specified in the
mod.tLtecj permit for the period during
which the waiver Is granted. -
This provision for modification would
be avaiLalile only to systems which are
provi ng waste treatment services to
- users which contribute primarily domes-
tlc-t3-pe wastes or v’hich have sufficient
control over industrial input so as to
prohibit any 331-type pollutants from
entering the system
Any complex system which is treatinr
wastes for a myriad of Inaustrial and
corn.’nercial establishxnenin withtn a
metropolitan area could never rnect the
requirements of this modification pro-
ceduro unless the control of industrial
input was thorough enough to assure
that mo toxics or other incompatible
poLlut .nts pass directly into the ocean
environment.
- Primary treatment does not deal with
‘these kinds of constituents. Therefore.
‘their presence as an input into municipal
waste streams is a prima facie Indica-
tion that the secondary treatment modi-
fication. provision is not applicable,
Additionally, the discharger must be
able to establish that there is no inter-
ference with the attainmentand mainte-
nance of water quality which will support
a oatanced Indigenous population of fish.
.shellflsh, and wildll,fe in alL stases of
their l:fe cycle. This burden is duficult.
but in most cases these outfalls have been
in place for many- years. Comparative
ecosystems exist In nearby ocean waters
Evidence should be available -and fur-
nished as a part of an application to -
determine whether or not the ecosys-
tems which exists in the areas of these
outfalls are identical to those which live
in unpolluted environments.
There was a great deal of dIscussion
of the term “Indigenous” as used in the
phrase “balanced Indigenous population
of fish, shellfish and wildlife.’ The legis-
lst ve history reflects an understanding
of what is required by this national water
quality standard in its application to spe-
cific receiving waters.
As in 1912, It was intended that the
interim water quality standard be that
condition of aquatic life which existed in
the -absence of pOllUtion. There is- no
question that mans activities have rad-
ica.lly- altered receivu-iz act.ei ecoss’stem.s
in this rr uatry and that altera iori Is con-
t nuir an accelerated nace in many
a:e.t . -- toration of acuatic ecosystems
‘hic - i ted prior to i he i!:trod’Jctien of
poil_ ; i ±rom n’.an’s acti i e is n i i-
par. it element of the restorat:on and
ma ::ienance of the biologic .l. pnysical.
and chemical inte r t o receiving
waters. it is an essential aspect of ss-.
suring that future generations will ha o
an adequate supply of basic life support
resources.
The concept of indigenous does not an-
ticipate the remo al of structures from
waterways. ft does nd anticipate t: e
existence of ecosystems ahich existed In
the absence of those structures hut it
does fully anticipate the analysis of
aquatic populations in terms of man’s ac-
tLvit es prior to. and subsequent to. Poillx-
Lion.
- The secondary treatment mothficitt:cn
is not intended to en;enaer the derays
created by prior mod ficatrori provisions
such as section 316’ai Procedures ie
to be as exped;tious as practicable To be
approved, applications for moc.r:c uor,.s
must be filed within the time l:m t pro-
vided and must, on the r face. oro .’ide
suillcient iustification for grantuig the
-application. The burden of aernor ,strat-
uig entitlement to a moa ficauon is sciiely
on the application and must be met in
the application.
The requirements of section 403. wh’ch
the Administrator should promulgate tin-
r:idiately, must be met as a coliciiu’)u of
the granting of a modification unoer this
provision. it is expected that in evaluat-
ing modification applications, the’ Ad-
ministrator will pay particular attention
to any combined sewer or storm sewer
overflows or limitations in treatment
plant capacity which result in period c
bypasses. A modification unaer tais pro-
vision shall be effective for the full terra
of the permit.
Mni. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a letter I havd received from
Thomas C. Jorling, Assistant Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protectton
Ag ’ncy for Water and Hazardous Mate-
rials, on the secondary treatment modiii-
cation provision be printed in the RECORD
at this point. -
There being no objection, the letter
was orcered to be printed in the REcORD,
asfoUows:
-74-
-------
SEN T R MUsKrE :
U.S. EVaOIeisLNTAT.
PaotcTToij ArE CY.
Washington. D C., D. . ccmbrr 7, Zfl7.
lion. Enasvzso S. Musi cx.
Chairman. Housc-Serw.ir Cnv/c-cr e C ’t -
mittee on AmeflnT7lcnfc to tl:e Ftd” -o
W.atcr Pollution Control .tci, LI..!, *.-
ate. Washington. DC.
Dear Mr. Cbair ma and Men ber’. of the
Conference, as you know, there wi-re sorce
unfortunate dcla7s tn the EFA iznpJei c:ivs-
lion of Important ‘ ,ect:ona of the !‘edcri l
Water Pollution Cofltrol Act AmGn e t.s
of 19 ’12. To bonie e,tterit these dAis ii V
due to confusioi surrounding the Interpre-
tation or the onlphcated new s.tt(Oi5 i.aned
to the law by those emendmenni To a aid
Similar problems li i lmplementtn; the :orr
amendments, I am taking the l herty f ad-
dressing one of the major smend-nents or the
bills before Congress that cowering recjtre-
meats for municipal ourfa !s wh!ch die.
charge into deep marine waters—end stP .t ..
lag EPA ’s interpretstaou of thi t ropotal
We int4 .rpret the provicion for rnoOi Ca-
tion of secondary treatment requirements fOr
unicipal outfaUs to ltr .it its applicatico to
eel, special circuzn. ’ tances: those few exttt-
lug outfalla into very deep water5 or ery
high tide fluctuation areas On!y under
these unusual temperature ann bigr. energy
conditions can condiUonq exist which alcw
waters to receive ot gen.demandtng wp5tC’s
without. eliect c i i indi enou, pc’pul .iuczis
In addltion, when EPA determines v ?ether
inodliled discharges will interfere ‘cith the
indlgenqus.popu.ahon. etc. of an area. We
intend to coneider the eltecta of such ci.-
charpes over the Ufe expectazIc’V of any p ”oJ-
act that ooulfl result from Such mochtlcatxou
In other warns, our modiflcsstu’n ne isicn,
even though any modification 5i1i be lit itcd
to 5 years. would be made ‘in the baa ’s (
long term efl ’ect.. since such clii unic eltects
are of greatest concern in protedung the in-
tegrity of the oceans.
The Conference’s adoption at the propoced
.dednltons and criteria restricts the poS iint-
Ity of modification under this picivision to a
limited number of areas’ California (list c.n-
cioeed), San Juan, American Samoa. the
Virgta Islands. Honolulu. Settle. and A.i-
thcrege. I would note that this listing does
not In any way prejuoge the question of
whether outtalls in these arers would, iii
feet. quaily under this section
Adoption of another, broader set of cri-
teria—which In our opinion the Conferees
wisely did not accept—rould prompt mane
munIcipalitIes to seek mc’dificatioia of sac-
onea.ry treatment requiremeilts undtr thts
provision simply to delay ompllance v..th
tbe law. This a Quid,, create en e traorainary
drain en Agency resources, and e ectLveiy
suspend secondary treatment requirements
for an indeterminate period. l’urtsiermore.
.beeawie of our limited understanding of the
ffects of etduansa on oceans, decL ’,ione woi id
nasesaseily be highly jud msntai and would.
Of course, be appealable in the courts. 7 l’i
net e!ect of this process would be a return
to the requIrement of proof of nartn to re-
ceiring waters before coatrols can be re-
quired.
Several .sddiuoual points should be mace 5
with regard to our interpretation of the pro.
posed provisions:
- 1. MOdification of secondary treatment re-
quirementa I s allowed aLly ahere applicable
water quality standards exist. We v’iii inter-
pret that Language, of course, as a ly n;
only to standards for the disc:.srge of cci.-
ventional pollutants regulated by the eec-
‘ondary treatment definition. We will vL , or-
OUSlY eppiy controis on other pouutairs,
especially toSiCs. in these circumsaitces.
2. Our pveiiminary review inoicates there
are’few ocean outfails for which any eviccnce
- has been accumulated to support an sppiice-
( MARINE DISCHARGES )
tion for tnodtdcation of the requirements for
secondary treatment with regard to biocrieni-
ital ox-gen demand and total Suspended
acltds. Although there are studIes that could
have the erect of j”sciytng discharges of a
h ner level of o.ey en-demandLn substances.
we are su ric1ous of these sccmes as they
aelate.to cl.sclia:ges of orner po2ucants 5550-
elated n’ith mttnic pal discharges We inter-
ret the a ?iOn of the conferees to reemplia-
eisa the overall objectives of P.L. 92—500 as-
pilcable to municipalIties.
3. We intend to apply the requirement that
the buden of proof be placed on an applicant
to shoir no interference with indigenous poc-
liaison, and we wtl assure that. thu criteria
developed under sectIon 40Z are satts 5ed as
well.,
4. Senate provision (e) (6), whIch in our
Opinion the Conferees have W1ScX7 retained,
ties modL cntion to a requirement that a dis-
charge souce baa acted to eliminate the en-
trance of toaths Into the mun.icinai s stem,
Thia will permit the recycUng and reclania-
- lIon of water and the conAning and contain-
- mend of pullutaota in the future. We will
Interpret this provision to require facil&tie.
planning during the initial time extension to
adhere those objectives.
5. ‘ .Va endorse the concept of limiting any
ircdidcatlon to floes exts:in on the tiat of
issuance of such modification. Only t tha
‘ av 721 the municipality be induced to do
tue t7pe of planning and implementatIon
which will acnieve ta objectives of P.1., 02—
co. - -
It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that
Whil, much attentIon has been focused on
the dumping of sewage- sludge into the
cceang. which the Con esa baa voted to ter-
minate by 1981 (P.1.. 95—153). a enmoanihle
or more adverse impact on ocean waters Is
caused by the discharge of sewage eifluents
into the’ cceaa through oiiLCail . t’ee know
Uttis tboiit the effect of continued reiease of
persistent pollutants to the cceaus . hut ae
‘cnow that oceans are vitsi to the bIosphere
that si.pports all life. Prudence dictates that
vie apply controin as rigorously as possible in
Order to protect. the oceans. Therefore, any
modification of pollution Controls applicable
to the oceans occasioned by short term acids
should and, as we interpret the Conference
agreement, is quit. limited in scope.
Sincerely yours.
• TRoassaC. Joax,nac.
Ae3est nf 4din nIstretor.
Ltsv o azs Oniwsans ro Tzsarvoau,z, Seas
AND
(California)
Cresent CIty, Wertoort, Mendocino, Mendo ..
cino lIe. 2, Solina,, San Francisco (ittchmofld
Sunset, North San Mateo. Paciflea, Mcntaio,
Granada. -
Half Moon Bay. Davenport, Santa Crise,
East Cliff. Aptor, Wacsouvllie, Marina, flea-
slde. Pacific Grove. Monterey.
Carrne!. San Susan, Morro Ba,, Shell
B aci. Pismo Beech, Astla, South San Luis,
Boleta. Sa .ita Barbara, Iifonteclto.
Summeriand, Car ,interia, San Suenaven-
turn, Oxria:d. Port EI.zeneme. City of Los
Angeles, City or Los Angeles (Terminal Is-
land), Los Angeles County Sanitation Dis-
trict, Avalon, Sunset Beach,
Orenge County Sanitation Diairfct. La-
guna Beach. South Laguna, Dana Point, San’
Cienierite, Oceanside. Encinit .i, Cardiff, Sar.
Dledo, CirL5bad-3ue s Vista,
i .Tr. htti5 , Mr. President, with re-
gard to municipal exten. ion , the con-
ferees aoprove’d a case-by-case extension
for municipal:ties which were unable to
meet the July 1, 1977, requirements, In
part as a result of recognition of the
lmpnct of Impounded funds, These ex-
tensions are available only to municipal.
ftles which would require substantial
constructIon and tot which Federal
funds v.ere riot available. :1’ they sgree
to eslablish and maintain an interim
compim: ce echedulet
.0! ’ 12.501) tI’encment plants now ui Op-
erat on. 4,130 or one-th.rct meet trie 1OT
requirements of Punhac Low 9:-5,00 These
r into serve about 5Z million persons.
Plants that do not meet tue deadline
serve about 92 millIon persons. EP has
pro’ndcd the following estzn’.atee as to
ultimate municipal compliance:
EPA estimates the cumulaLve number
of facilities currently in oper’,ation that
wculd achieve secondary or moie string-
ent treatment level.s:
-
‘
Ptscai )ear?
191’?
Sleet
level
4, 150
Iot
meet
level
8.370
1980
——
4.260
7,260
l I S A
8. 2 0
4,270
1990
11,200
1993
12,300
Although there is no precise estimate
of the number of present. induatnal hoclc-
ups to m’.tc.lcipal astewater sytt. rns,
roughiy 50,000 industries, most of w.Lcn
are relatively small. is an A approxi-
niat.lon. Based on a survey th s year of
major ndustr1al dischargers in the paper
industry, the total number of major in-
,dustres—fiow greater than 50.000 gal-.
lens per day—in all categories ctesirulg
hoohups to municipal systems Would be
in the order 01 70 to 100. There is no
estimate of potential hookups for tae
small industries, but EPA b’ehieves that,
several thousand such incustries may
find hookups to be advantageous.
The purpose of this amendment is to
allow the permitting agency to extend
the date of compliance for those treat-
meat works, and industries w th con-
tracts to tie in to treatment woras, wluca
have made all possible good faith efforts
to meet the July I, 1977. deadi ne and
whose failure to do so is primarily the
fault of the Federal Government.
For those izidusu’ial and municipal
sources which are unable to meet this
statutory deadline due to’ their unwill-
ingness to take appropriate actions and
spend necessary amounts of money at
the earliest possible time, the confereeo
intend ‘that no extension be granted and
that enforcement actions be undertaken
under section 309.
In determining whether or not to
grant the extension, the permitting
agenc3’ must consider whether the de-
lays lU construction were due to EPA’s
inability to make available appropriate
construction grant moneys promptly or
whether the fault lies with the munici-
palities’ unwillingness to move as fast
as possible with all available resources
toward the achievement of the require-
ments of secondary treatment,
Subsection 301 (i) (2) (A) (iii) ou]d
allow an extension in a perrr,it to an in-
dustrial discharger proposing to connect
to a municipal treatment svstetn if “en-
g’,neer,ng or acbitectu’al pLins or ttork-
ing &‘aW.r ig,I made before July 1, 1377.
for a publicly owned treatment works”
MODIF.rcATIoN OF SECONDARY TREAT!IENT REQIJIREMENTS
p ’ a
—75-
-------
tIODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
(_ tI INE DISCHARGES )
Pgi
SE 1/’.T’)’ MUSKtE :
Indicate such connection and other cr1-
tens of the new subseccica are mac.
This test is Intended to establish t iiat
plans or drawings I.e cuscharge to a mu-
nicipal tieatmena system were in e.cut-
ence prior to July 2, 1977. and weri no;
concocted after that. date merely to
frustrate enforcement of the act s re-
qinrements. Accordingly, plans or draw-
Ings that have been dascaroed ci- super’.
seded or submitted in a grime applica-
tion that was determined £nthgiple
should no be considered su ment to
• support an extension. To support an ax-
• tension, such plar.s ord nwings general-
• ly should be those accompanying an elig-
lble cant appli ’ t1”n -
• PRO R row sioo ic ioie
- This amendment estabhch, ” a pro-
cedure for filing aphcation for a modift-
cation of the requirements of the act for
secondary treatment for pub1ic owned
treatment works which discharge into
- marine waters, and for a modLflca on of
the best available technology require-
nient for nonconventlonal pollutants.
I The amendment requires that any
publIcly owned 5)-stem or industrial dis-
charger whIch want,i aniocification mu.st
file his appUcation to that effect with
the Administrator within 9 months of
enactment of the 1977 amendments (or
In the event that EPA has not proniul-
gated effluent guidelines for the poUut-
ant Lu question, within 9 months of such
a promulgation).
The amendment makes clear that the
mere application for a moditication does
not stay any requirement to achieve BAT
by’ the applicant, unless the Aclininistra-
ton determines that there is a substantial
likelihood that the applicant will guanfy
for the modification on the inertIa of his
application. In the case of a modiilca-
tion of the best available technology re—
quirement for a nociconventional pol-
lutant, the Administrator may condit:on
a stay on the filing of a bond or other
appropriate security, such as a line of
credit, which will assure timely comph-
anne with the requirements for which a
modification Is sought.
This provision is-Intended to discour-
age the use of the modification pro-
cedures for delay by diachargers which
have na reasonable chance of qualifying
for a odiflca on.. Otherwise, the ex-
eznpttons would provide an opportunity
to “buy thue” and result, in failure to
meet the deadlines in the act.
Although numerous changes have been
made to sections 301 and 304. effluent
limitations and guidelines developed pur-
suant to these sections remain tecanol-
ogy-based standards. Except to the ex-
tent expressly provided in the statute.
such limitations cannot be varied or
modified due to the nature or quality of
receiving waters.
Whenever judicial review Is sought of
the Administrator’s a.ition with regard to
any modification to or waiver or vanante
from an effluent limitation, it is expected
that such review will be in too courts of
appeals pursuant to sectIon 509. -
CONG. ANDERS(JN :
Ot P OCEAN D1SCHAROE W ’tVER
A nia or provision of this bill s ec::on
44 which wouJa permit municipaL :c
ti-tat d scharge ii to deep ocean a,ters
be gra:it.ed a waiver from the secondary
treatment rec iiremeiit.
There is some confusion as to thri
meaning of several of the specific terms
used In this section. For example, the
terms “applicable water quality stand-
ards,” and “balanced, indigenous popula-
tion.” • -
One of the conditions of the waiver
Is that there is an “applicable water qual-
ity standard” specific to the pollutant for
which the modification Is requested.
The law requires States to develbp
water quality standards according to cr1-
teria developed by the Environmental
Protecuon Agency. “Applicable water
quality sandarcts” for the pur ’oses of
this secimu ere approved SLc,te “ater
quality itandarts. In the case of Call-
foi-nla, a revision of the State ocean plan
wo iid meet thts requirement.
The otl er rnct?er, mat needs cla — iica-
tion is the concentration of dissolrr -d
oxygen, which Is one of the elements
controlled by secondary treatment. Dis-
solved oxygern is measured by b ochenu-
cal gxygen demand EOD). Beca.ii,o of
the si ecial characteristics of ocean wa-
ters, there is no proolein of oxygen ce-
p etion. BOD is not a relevant pollutant
for marine discharges and ib is unrea-
sor.able to develop a water quality stand-
ard for dissolved oxygen,
Therefore, under this provision, a Jo-
cality could get a modification of the
ROD requirement, but a State is not re-
uired to go through the m n ng1ess ex-
ercise of developing an “applicable water
quaLity standard” for dissolved oxygcu
for marine waters.
Another waiver condition is that the
modified requirement will riot inter ere
with attaining the water quai ty whIch
assures protection of public water sni,-
plies and me orotection arid propagation,
of a “oa.lariced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife.” This term
cannot be defined In the absence of a
good deal of additional scientific infor-
rnation which may not be readily availa -
bie.
The House and Senate conferees dis-
cussed the meaning of the term “In-
digeriom.” It is clear that there was con-
fusion as to how It would be applied to
the oceans. An indigenous population is
one produced, growing, or living natu-
rally in a particular region or environ-
ment arid reflecting a healthy popula-
tion given the presence of man. Em-
• phasts should be placed on maintaining
the current mdI& enous population of
shelLfish, fish. and vildl 1e. It in cam-
olef.ely meaningless and rireutsonabie to
assess this condition according to any’
—76—
Other- time period—parttcuiary a liii-
torical pe:ibd such as
• ‘ limes. ‘fl ,is term is not to i,e .cr rete.i
in such a mariner as to r e%aie ti2 C.iti
con resstonal intent ot this £ectl.in that
waivers be granted.
At the time the waiver d cu on i.i rustle.
it is quite possible that neither the S rte
nor EPA will be able to determine t.ie po-
tential long-term e ect.s of the approied
lovel of treatment unuer the watier pro-
vision. Therefore, the Athna strator
should make his decision by focusing on
the effects projected w thin toe first 3
years. During this period EPA should
fi.tnd additional studies which will meas-
ure the effect.
The dec!s on to grant a waiver will be
subject to reassessment at the eric of
each 5-year pertod. Over time hoth the
EPA and the locality wtll be in a better
position to evaluate the long-term zri
pacts with the information aeveloned by
EPA and by the locallt7 ur,aer the re-
quired system for monttor!rig the
of this discnar;e cci a rr serita;t’:e
sample of aquatic biota, v iIC e:%tenn
practicable. Conscruct. n gras; money
under title U of the act can be u ctl to
cstabUsh such a mocircoring syscm.
Where requested by the locality or St-ite.
EPA is to give the locality technical as-
sutanee In the design. instadation, and
operation of such a sys rem.
The requ ernent under the new sub-
section 301(h)(7) set forth in section
44 aLio requires clarincatteri. Th.s pro-
vLnou provides that there w ll be no r.ew
or substantially increased disczia:zm
above the volume specl ed in t: e perm t
from the treatment worics getc:n; a mod-
itication. Tha i provuuori does cot m aa
t:iat treatment works applyrny for a
mod. ,flcatioa are to be restricted to the
current volume or capacity of their
plants. In the interest of con inmng the
po!.tcy of encouraging rertonahzat on,
these treatment works may increase z eir
ducha’ges over time, as capacl:y ;erm ts.
as long as the pollutant controls are
maintained. •The volume of discriarie
may be revised. just as any other per-
rut coruLtion may be altered, as war-
rtnted by changes in circumstances.
Li to carry out this provsiun in
such a way that burdensome regu e-
rnent.s are not placed on municlpaiit es
applying for such walvecs. T i-ia .Ar.min-
Istrator is to Issue guidelines promptly
to carry out the intent of the law. Those
d chargers which contemplate being abte
to meet ce criter Ia established in me law
will have 9 months either from the date
of enactment ot this section or 9 months
from the date e Cuerit guidelines are
prcmiigatecL The Actmlrns;rator i. to
a decision promptly on the e-’ldence
presented to him aria riOt cernhic pro-
tz-i’cted del berations. Iii the interim. it
is the roaponsibthty of the inucratar
to th.scoatinue any legal prcceedin or
cnfarcernecib actions wrnch may have
been Initiated prior to the enactment of
this provision, - -
-------
MODIFICATION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
SENATOR MUSKIE :
Included among t e d charges eligible
for a waiver tinc r this section are toe
cities of Los Angeles ai d Avalon. Calif.
The foUowing is a li.stlog of other eligible
coinmunif
LUT 07 OCE*.N O T7 ‘J.LS TO TiZarrOalAL Saaa
AN 8cTorio
Cresent City. CA.
Weetport, CA.
! r docino. CL
Mendocino, No. 2, CA.
Bolta.u. CA.
San t nc sco (Richmond Sunset), CA.
North San MMeo, CL
Paciaca. CA. -
Uontaro. CA. -
Granada. CA.
Ball Moon nay. CA.
Davenport. CA.
Santa Cruz. CA.
East C1l . CA.
Aptor, CA.
t7atsonviCe.CA.
Marina. A.
Seaside. CA.
Paci c Grove, CA.
Monterey. CA.
Cerme l. CA.
San Slineon. CA.
i . ’rro Bay. CA.
5be 1 Beach. CA.
Ptsmj Beeic , CA
A,Ua, CL
South Ean Lute, CA.
Oolota. CA.
Sact.i Barb.wa, CA.
Mon actt . CA.
Suerianct, CA.
Carplntaris. CA.
San Bueneventura, CA.
O nard, CA.
Port aueneZne. CA.
City of Los Angeles. CA.
City of L.oi Angeles (Terminal l 1and). CA.
Los Angeles Cou yben it4tton l strtcC, CA.
Avalors, CA.
6unse Beach. CA
Orange Count7 Sanitation District. CA.
Laguna Beach. CA.
Sooth Laguna. CA.
De.ca Point. CA.
San Clemet., C.’i.
Oceanside. CA.
ncinttae. CA.
Cerdt . CA.
Sea Diego. CA.
Carlubad-Buana Vista, CA.
I wish to emphasize that t do associate
myself with the remarks of my col-
leagues Mr. JoHxsox of California. and’
Mr. Roagars. of Texa.s, ut regard to this
provision. I would lure to ask a question
of Mr. Roams COaCerflhilg this provi-
ston. “Mr. Roagars. do you agree thai.
the city of Los Angeles and Avalon, Call !..
are Izutended to qualify (or a wwier un-
der section 44?”
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, it Is contemplated
that these communities cualify for a
waiver of the socondarj treatment re-
qufrement under section 44.
itr. ANDERSON of California. Thank
you. Mr. Rossars.
Mr. DON H. CLAO’SEN. Mr. Speaker.
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. A DEP .. ON of California. I yield
to the gentleman from Calkorma.
Mr. DON R. CL. C3 N. I tlian c the
gentleman for yiekiiag.
The answer to that is yes, ht t It does
not or.ly ripply to southern California;
It also has applicatIon to the entire west
coast.
Mr. RO3ERTS. The geutleinail Is cor-
rect.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. It ap-
piie to the coast of California, üwatl.
Puerto Rico. American Samoa. tile Vir-
gui Islands. and estuarles and waters
such as Cook Inlet. But I wan tea to una e
sure that the cities of I.od Angeles and
Avalon were spec fica,liy incl ed. aiso
basicaUy the southern coast of Califor-
nia.
Mr. ROBEE . That is correct.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. I thank’
the gentleman. I have scme auaittcnal
comnient.s I would like to add at thi.s
point pertaining to other speci c provi-
sions in the bill. - -
Finally. a ‘word about the rnunict oI modi.
Station procedure The conference report ac.
curately reflects my concerns about the Fe-
auirement that certain coastal eomcnuni tle
should provide !econdsrv treatment of con-
ventional pollutants when natural action of
the receIving body e&iminates the need to
do so The conference reoort mentIons 5ev-
eral communities that might be l.lcelv to
quail (r for the modt cattnn prot’ision When
I introduced the mea.ure did not intend
to limit the eoplicahon of the proi’Iston to
Anchorage. Sesard. and a few other cit.es.
I intended to ellow COT city chat c cii me,:
the eeneranhica) !‘eouirements to come for-
ward and attemat to proie tbelr case. (Tout
miebt even ine li.Je comn i’nitles currenllv
under sChcdtile to proride traditional se:-
cudary treatment ) Thst is my understand.
ing of the conferen:e’s intention as sell. I
can understand the Ei -As cc,ncerns about the
administrative burden this prosision might
place on the agenc’y. but I might remind my
friends at the agency that s.c shou.d not
legislate unressonthil so as to accommodate
an agency. There are a number o comnium.
tics that have been ann will be aubjected
to administrative burdens any beyond their
financial and administrative capacity be-
cause of tile need to comply with the .ic.c
ondary treatment requirement. With this
modification procedure for coastal COn%nlur.i-
Ues that qualdy. and the other provisior.s
in the bill far alternative and innovative
te:hno1og es, as weU as recycle capabilities,
the Congress has announced it Intention to
put some sense into the treatment of muni-
cipel wastes.
The rncdL’tcatlon procedure, then. guar-
antees to no ‘one that uiodL’icatjons will be
granted: it denies no coastal community
with the qual:fying geographical character.
istics the right to bow its abii ty to meet
the other conditions of the provision.
The provision applies to communities with
discharges into the waters of the territorial
seas and the contiguous zone or into saline
estuarine waters where there is strong tidal
and Other byth’ologfca l action. There is a
“ recognition that depth is a factor. The con-
ference report clearly states the importance
of depth w ith regard to the territorial seas
and the contiguous zone; emphasis Is not
placed on depth with regard to saline estu-
anne discharges, but rather on tides and
currents and flushing action which act to
remove pollutants from large bays and es-
tunrie .
The conditions that an applicant must
demonstrate abtiity to meet are forthright.
They are geared to protection of the water
body from toxics and violation, of s—ater
quality in the area of the discharge. To the
extent practicable, monltorlng or a periodic
nature should occur to assure against water’
qoality violation. Modifications will be
granted in S-rear increments ss a rurther
protection Pretreatment requ:rcm:nts s.ili
be enforced
In essence, the provision says that there
are areas which mey be able to show that
the discharge of cor entiOnal pollutants
Irom a municipal sewage system can be made
without sccor’dary treatment and w t’O .t
harm to the enilronment If tt s co:’ce t is
adopted in regulations promulgated b :, e
agency, we can assure a reasonao le approach
to sewage treatment In coastal coritrnui ities
while not violating the environme t. 0? tl.e
fabric of the act I will watch clOacly ta see
that the provision is implemented in the
manner l i i which I proposcd it and the con-
ference adooted it.
( MARINE DISCHARGES )
p ,8
SENATOR GRAVEL :
—77—
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
(Need to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later-—See Conference
Report statements)
SENATE REPORT
M0DIrICATION or SEcoND 1nr Tni .irMENT REQmiLE3jEN
8m tART
This scet,ion amends section 301, Efiluent Limitations, to provide for
a modihcntion of the secondary treatment requirement for any conven-
tional pollutant in a discharge into marine waters from existing
principal sources if it can be shown that the modification viIl not
interfere with protection of public water supplies and the attainment
or inuiintenance of that vaitcr which assures the protection of public
water 5ul)plieS and the protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and vildlife, and allows rec-
reational activities, in and on the water, will not require addiLional
vontrols on any other source, assures enforcement of nfl applicable
prel reatinent. requirements, and as.suios that there vil1 be zie substan-
tial increase in the volume of the dischai e.
OISCUSSION
For tlio o communities which can show that existing deep marine
discharges require less than secondary treatment, a ci se-by-case review
WaiVer is piovided. Such a waiver would be based on stringent criteria
discussed below. The waiver would be reviewed every years to assure
continued compliance with these conditions.
‘I’his subsection is the result of reCognition that theme are some
co istnl areas of the United Stnte mimi its territories where natural
factors provide significant and in some cmmse s ulhici’rnt elimination of
tradi tiona I forms of pollution front publ icly—ow’ned treat mci it works
to avoid the necessity of jiiovidiimg secondary treatment..
An applicant, in order to obtain this relief, must demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Administrator that si conditions are mriet. ‘1’he
first condition is that there is an applicable water quality standard
specific to the pollutant for which the inodi caLion is requested. The
degree of effluent reduction necessary to meet this standnrd must be
provided as a minimum.
The second condition is that the modified requirements would not
interfere with the attainment or maintenanco of that water quality
which assumes protection of public water supplies and propagation of
a balanced population of shellfish, sh and wildlife, and allows recrea-
tional activities, in an(l on the water.
The third condition is that, the modified rcquirenients will not re-
sult in any additional requivemcmits on nay other point or nOlupoint
SOil I Ce.
‘limo fourt it condition is that all. npplicai)le pretreatment require-
ments vill be en forced. ‘fim fifth condition is that, there will be no new
or simbstanti lly immcreased discharges from the point source of tIme 1)01
Infant to which the modification applies above that volume of dis-
charge specified in the permit.
The last condition i that any title II fui ds a’ to the owner
of the treatment works are to be used to achievo time degrep of dUn-
out reduction required by section 20t (b) and (g) (2) (A) oi to carry
out the requirements of this subsection. The referenced provisions of
section 201 may require a degree of efiluent reduction wInch is greater
than that required under this section of the act as amended. Avail-
able title II fmnids shall be used in this case to achieve the require-
ments of section 301 as amended before they are used to achieve the
requirements of section 201. Uses of funds appropriate to carrying
out the purposes of the section might include infiltration and inflow
work, interceptor construction and repair, and pioper lo atiomm of out-
fall hues.
‘fimo amendment defines the “discharge of any pollutant into marine
waters” as a (liselmarge into deep i’miters of time territorial sea or con-
tiguous zone or into saline estuarino waters where there is stiong tidal
movement amid other Jiyd rological and geological characteristics which
tho Administrator determines are necessary to comply with the second
condition described above 7 and Section 101 (a) (2) ot the act.
Depth is a key factor in dete mining the amount, of circulation in
Wiiteis of the tetiritormal sea or contiguous zone. Circulation in turn
affects the degree to which waste waler discharges to these waters arc
vapidly dispvvsed in sonic instances, depth of water in the territorial
,nq or am if jaunums zone in e cess of 20t) feet is miecessary to achieve
mimtlieiemii lv i mij)itl (hisl)Cm:iiOmi (i.e., 43 econd ) of vmi to water amid waste
water cui tmt units. In semite imm tauiees, depth of 00 feet is in ,mi1Iici uiL
to pmovule adequate dispersioa. Poor net Ihisiming (i.e. stagnation) of a
(heel) basin many cause undesirable vertical cycling of discharges.
F.tetoms deterummining the amnoumut and rapidity of dispersion of
seliume estuarine waters ame the degree of titLil muo ’eimiemit. mmd other
hydrological timid geological charactem istics. Iii sonic cases, rip cur-
rents amid strong tidal movements whieh contribute to high flushing
elliciemicy in certain bays and estuaries, nitty i)tOVtdle sullicicmmt circimia—
lion. Additional precautions, however, need to be considered iii or near
i Ia mumouitli , of e4uanies clime to poisible tidal transport of 1)0ilutmtfltS
lammdwanl into estuam lime areas where the ’ may be i etaiuied.
l)m tmmmmce olFslmore for location of ommt.t.mll lines is also a factor which
must be considered in many situations. in these cases, suflicient (lis—
titmice olIsliom e is generally necessary so that li(lt’cVse water quality
condit iomms will net be created uimult r as uumned vurstcommtlit ions of oi’—
shore ciii remit, amid wind based on data derived fromum Iii toric .ml records.
Greater di.tamice oIi’shore may l)rovide time desimed protection during
advcm se conditions of onshore currents amid wind. Geological cimaruc—
teristics such as smmbnmarine canyons may also be iii ilizi ’d bcc.musc of Limo
same imdvmi niages of rapid dispersion ouch desirable circulation.
There are, of course, commstiLuents such as polychlot’iumntecl biphienols
(PUBs), which irrespective of depth, tidal umovemmment or other factors
related to circulation in inn rine waters, cannot be adequately dispersed
because of their peisistemmee.
Areas descrilmeil by these conditions include most of time coast of time
western lJmuitecl States, time coasts of I-Tawaii, PLICI to llico Anmorican
Samoa, time Virgin Islands, and portions of estuarimie waters such as
Cook Inlet near Anchorage, Alaska, and Resurrection Bay near Sew-
ard, Ala’ku.
This p •ovision assumes that any criteria promulgated by time Ad-
nmi nistrator under sect ion 403 remain applicable.
-78-
-------
HOUSE REPORT
Siiicu the cnuctiiicnt of 1 J.a. U2—500, there h been considerable
ilisciis ioii of the nc :essity of requiring secondary treatment for pub-
licly uwiied 1 rcnliiwiit works which have or plan outfalls into Ocean
waters or oil ic r coastal waters having dispersion characteristics of
ilect) uccilli waicis (hereinafter rcferictL to as “ocean outfalls”). Most
of the iiiunicipahities affected have argued that BC)]) and SUspended
solids, niajor pollutants addressed in secondary treu inent regulations
pioinulgated by the E1 A iue not of concern in many marine waters
and that. expenditutes for secondary ticatment of ocean discharges
wusto public funds.
‘i’lie EPA’s definition of sccondaiy treatiiicnt in regulations includes
hi,iiitaLions on 110]), suspended solids, pH, antI fecal cohifoini bacteria.
‘I’liesuiegulatioiis are umfoi in and applicable nationwide. Under pres-
ent law consideration cannot be given to levels of treatiiicnt less than
secondary br ocean outfuhls based on water quality needs specific to
ocean disehuiges.
I )uiing aiiy extensions of tilike made in accordance with this section
for ocean outialls, it is c ) peeteLL that ilic Enivronnieiital Protection
gelicy would iiiake grants pursuant to section 2OI(g) (1) of the Act
for facility planning (step 1 grants) wInch would be utilized to iiiuku
neCessiuy eiiviroiuiicntul asscssiiients of the need for secondary treat-
inent. I L is expected that these studies and evaluations would be thor-
ough and would include the detcriiiiiiutioii of treatment alteinatives
and the envi ioiuuental effects of such alternatives, if thecontemplated
enviioiiuiiental assessments are coitipleted, Federal, State and local
ufiiei.ils will be iii the position to niuke iiitoinied decisions as to what
level of I icatnient should be required. It should be noted that it is
exjh cLed this provision vihl result in the E PA’s accelerating of ic-
eaucli iind devclopineiit cllprts to identify better Lhe pollutants for
which sonic base levels of control is necessiny and to develop and
deiiiunstrate improved technologies for marine pollution contrpl.
It i expe reU that any extensions of tune gi aiited to municipalities
with existing ocean outfalls or wInch plin future ocean out .falls or
which are currently considering ocean outfalis as a viable alternative
ill be iehlcctc&l in schedules of compliance and will include a linal
date for coiiipletion of necessary treutiuienL
On I lie question of ocean discharges, as well as all oh her cases, section
13 of IlK. 3199 does not chiniinatc the secondary ticutinent . require-
nient; it Dilly pOstpoiueS it. it. vi1l be for Congress to i elax.the require—
iiicnt.s, at a futuie date if justified, by the environmental assessments,
Ol)CVC Li ng expeL ience, and i eseureh, development, antI dcii toiistra t ion
progi :uuuIs.
However, it is expected that, where appropriate, treatment works
which discharge into the ocean waters, the territorial seas, or the
omit I iml)tIs zone will he granted t iliw e teii ion tinder t hk section.
it is not. expected that time extensions will be granted lightly for
ocean ilisehnu’ges pursuant to this section. ‘I’heie must. ho a well-docu-
mnented case. I-Iowcver, it is recognized that the studies for large mu-
nicipalities could take as much as three years, and it is expected
that extensions of this length would be made iii those Iiusl:tiices for
tlmo o mumunicipal ities for which multi—yea i’ and rvpe l.iii ye in nIt i —seu oum
eval mint ionq a mid st tidies mu•e necessa my. It is a l’.o rec ) iii i ecl I I u i I . am mm
municipalities or regions such as Soattlo, hawaii, Puerto Rico, and
southern Cali (main. regioims, such its the city of Los A migehes, have al—
rem dy made extensive studies which may provide most of the inlormna-
tioji and data necessary to giant extensions. Added si tidies mmiay iiot lie
miecessa ty.
Parts of certain other open waters such as Piiget. Sound in thmc State
of Washington and Cook Inlet in the State of Alaska have dispersion
characteristics simmiilai to ocean watci S which permit effective (lillusion
and d isperijon of waste waters from puilil icly—owiicd treat meat works.
—79-
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
-80-
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
This provision represents a major policy determination to advance
he use of innovative and alternative technologies in sewage treatment.
In general, the provision applies to Fiscal Year l97 to Fiscal Year 1981.
Aspects of the provision are as follows:
—- A 4 percent set-aside of a rural State’s allotment is
required for alternative or unconventional systems for
small communities, effective in Fiscal Year 1978.
—- A 2 percent set—aside in Fiscal Year 1979 and Fiscal Year 1980,
and 3 percent in Fiscal Year 1981 is to be used to increase the
Federal grant to 85 percent for projects that use innovative
and alternative technology, with a minimum of 1/2 of 1 percent
restricted to innovative technology.
—- The foregoing set-asides are not exclusive but overlap. Any
funds not obligated in the allotment period will be subject
to reallotment.
—- Innovative technology means new and promising technology
which has not been fully proven under the circumstances of
its contemplated use. Innovative Fncludes the use of
demonstrated techniques which eliminate pollution and
conserve water resources and energy in places and under
circumstances where they have not been tried before and
where such use advances the state of the art. Criteria to
evaluate innovative characteristics include (1) cost
reduction, (2) improved reliability, (3) energy conservation,
(4) reclamation, (5) recycling and reclamation of nutrients,
sludges or beneficial wastewater constituents (6) better
management of toxic materials, and (7) environmental benefits.
—— Alternative technology differs from secondary treatment and
advanced waste treatment. It includes land treatment,
acquifer recharge, water reclamation, and other techniques
for eliminating pollution and saving water.
A listing of the aspects of the provision follows:
—— 100 percent funding of the costs of technical evaluation of
the costs of technical evaluation of treatment works utilizing
innovative and alternative technologies, the costs of training
persons, and the costs of disseminating technical information.
-81-
-------
-— Innovative and alternative technologies must be studied and
evaluated for each project (except where manifestly infeasible),
including more efficient use of energy and resources.
-— A 15 percent credit is provided for cost effectiveness analysis
purposes in evaluating a project of this t ,pé.
-— Where such a project fails, 100 percent grants can be made to
fund all costs of modification or replacement.
—— Priority lists may be modified to give higher priority to
such projects for Step 2 and 3 grants.
-— Land is eligible for storing treated wastewater in land
treatment systems prior to land application.
-— EPA must develop and operate a continuing program of public
information and education on recycling and reuse of wastewater
(including sludge), the use of land treatment, and methods for
reducing wastewater volume.
—— EPA is required to publish guidelines for identifying and
eva1 uating innovative and alternative wastewater treatment
processes and technologies.
-— Federal agencies shall evaluate the use of innovative and
alternative technologies for their treatment systems.
-— EPA is to provide a r eport to Congress (in two years) on
the coordination of water supply and wastewater control plans
as a condition to construction grants.
—— EPA is to establish a clearinghouse for alternative treatment
information.
—— Recreation and open-space opportunities are to be encouraged.
.
-82-
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECPNOLOGY
Pg 1
• ‘ -- “weaOusz 505 ALT INATIVE rliEATML’fl
- ZNPORM.ATION
-Sec. 1. S ctscn 104(q) of the Federal Water
Ppllutlou Control Act is amended by edaing
at the end thereof the following:
“(2) The Administrator shall estgblisl ,
either wlthntbe nvuunmental Protection
Agency, or through contract with an appro-
priate public or pri ate non-profit o gau1za-
tion, a national clearInghouse which abaU
(A) receive reports aGd information result-
ing from research. .iemonstratlons. and
other projects funded under this Act relaled
to paragraph (1) of this subsection and to
to subsection (e) (2) of sectIon 105. (B) co-
ordinate and disseminate such reports and
information for use by Federal and State
agencies, municipalities. Institutions, and
persons In developing new and Improved
methods pursuant to this subsection: and
(C) provide for the collection and dissemi-
nation of reports and Information relevant.
to this subsection from other Federal and
State agencies. instItutions, universitIes. and
persons.”.
.ASSISTANcZ 505 azcrcae. SEU$E, £2 D LAND
- TazaT srr rxOzzcTS
Sec. 9. Section 105 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new sub-
section:
(j) The Administrator Is authorized to
niake a grant to any grantee who received an
increased grant pursutnt to sectlon-202(a)
(2) of this Act. Such grant may pay up to
100 per centum of the costs of technical
evaluation of the operation of the treatment
works, costs of training of persons (other
t1 an employees of the grantee) • and coats
of disseminating technical information on
the operation of the treatment works..
Sec. 12. S. ton 201(g) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
paze.grspb:
(5) The Administrator shall not make
gr nts from funds authorized for any fiscal.
year beginning after September 30. 1918, to
any State, municipality, or totermunicipal
orjnterstate agency for the erection. bulid-
leg. acquisition, alteration, remodeling, i a-
provement. or extension of treatment works
unless the grant applicant has satisfactorily
demonstrated to the Atha n4 trator that in-
novative sod alternative wastewater treat-
- mont processes and techniques which pro-
wide for the reclaiming and reuse of water,
otherwise elIminate the discharge of pollut-
ants. and utilize recycling techniques, land
treaent. new or Improved methods of
west. treatment management for municipal
and industrial waste (dischss gad into muni-
cipal sy5tems and the conSned disposal of
pollutants. so that pollutants will not mi-
grate to cause water or other environmental
• pollulion. bare been fully studied and seal-
- ‘uated by the applicant taking into account
IeCtlofl 201(d) of this Act and tsI Yag into
account and allowing to the extent practt-
cable the more e cient use of energy and
resources.”.
axcanaTtow AND 05 5W SPACS
Sec. 13. SectIon 201(g) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraph:
“(6) The Administrator shall not make
• grants from funds authorized for any fiscal
year beginning after September 30. 1978. to
any State, municipality, or intermunlclpal or
interstate agency for the erection, building,
acquisition, alteration, remodeling, Improve-
ment, or extension of treatment works un-
less the grant applicant has satIsfactorily
demonstrated to the Administrator tb t the
applicant has analyzed the potential recrea-
tion and open space opportunities in the
planning of the proposed treatment works.”.
r riecr aEecmE g’rs
Sec. 15 Section 201 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by adding
at the end thereof the foUowtng new sub-
section:
“(I) The Administrator shall encourage
waste trastment management methods, proc-
esses. and techniques which will reduce total
energy requirements.”.
cosr ETFSCTflISITSS
Sec. 16. Section 201 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new subsec-
t lon
(j) The Administrator Is authorized to
make a grant for any treatment works Utiliz-
ing processes and techniques meeting the
guidelines promulgated under sectIon 304(d)
(3) of this Act, L I the Aam inlstrator deter-
mines It is In the pubUc Interest and if in the
cost eflectiveness study made of the con-
struction grant application for the purpose
of evaluating alternative treatment works,
the life cycle cost of the treatmeOt works 107
which the grant is to be made doss not en-
ceed the life cycle coot of the most cost effec-
tive alternative by more than iS. per ceo-
tum”. - -. -
r5O AI, GRANT 3 5 5 5 5 5
S Ec. 17. Subsection (a) of sectIon 202 of
the Federal Water PoUutiOa ControL Act Is
amended by inserting (1)” immed.iacaly
after “(a)” sad by inserting at the end
thereof the following new paragraphs:
(2) The amount ‘if any grant made alter
September 30, 1973. and before Octocer 1,
igal. for any eLigible treatment works or
aigni Cant portion thereof utilizing inno-
vative or alternative wastawaler treatment
processes and techniques referred to in
aedion 201(g)(5) shall be 85 per centum
of the cost of construction thereof. ito grant
shall be made under this paragraph far -
construction of a treatment works in any
Stale unless the proportion of the State con-
tilbutlon to the non-Federal share - of con-
struction costs for all treatment workS in
such Stat, receiving a grant under this
paragraph La the same as or greater than
the proportion of the State contribution
(LI any) to the con-Federal share of con-
atruction costs for all treatment works re—
celvtng grants in such State under pars-,
graph (1) of this subsection.
(3) In addition to any grant made pur-
suant to paragraph (2) of this subsection.
the A I,..i . ’tti’ator I authorized to - make
a grant to fund all of the costs of the
modification or replacement of any aciUties
constructed wIth a grant made pursuant to
paragraph (2) LI the Administrator finds
that such facilities have cot met design
performance specidentiOns unless such fail-
ure Is attributable to ncgiigence on the pan
of any person and if such failure has sig-
nlAcantly increased capital or operating and
malnteflWe expenditures.
(4) For the purposes of thin section. the
terra ‘eligible treatment works’ means those
treatment works in each State which meet
the requirements of section 201(g) (5) of
this Act and which can be fully funded
from funds available for such purpose La
such Stat. in the fiscal years ending Sep-
tember 30. 1979. September 30, 1980, and
September 30, 1981. Such terra does not in-
dude collector sewers, i ntercep tors. storm
or sanitary sewers or the separation thereof,
or major sewer rehabLlitatlou.”.
-83-
Pazoatry
Sec. 23 Section 204(al (3) of the Federal
Waler Pollution Control Act Li amended by
ifl.serllng immedIately oiler the word “Act”
the following: “, e’tcept that any priority list
dcveloped pumuant to Section 303(e)(3)
(a)• m&y-be modified by such State In ac-
cordance with regulations promulvated by
the Administrator lo give higner priortt7 for
grants for the Federal share o the cost of
preparing constructton drawings aid speci-
fications for any treatment works utilizing
processes and techniques meeting the guide-
lines promulgated under section 304(d) (3)
of this Act and for grants for the combined
Federal share of the cost of preparing con-
structIon drawings anti specidcations and-the
building and erection of any treatment works
r eeting the requirements of the ne’tv to the
last sentence of section 203(a) of this Act
which utilizes processes and techniques
meeting the guidelines promulgated under
sectIon 304 ( a) (3) of this Act”.
RESZSVE C AesTT
Sec. 21. Section 204(a) (5) of the Federal
Vatta’ Pollution Control Act is amended by
striking out the semicolon at the end thereof
and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and
the following: “after taking into account,
in accordance with regulations promulgated
by the Administrator, efforts to reduce totaL
flow of sewage and unnecessary water con-
suniption. The amount of reserve caoacuy
eligible for a grant under this title shall be
determined by the Administrator taking into
account tbe projected pooulatioa and as-
sociated comnierciai’and industrial tstablish-
meats withi n the jurlsdicntton of the appli-
cant to be served by such treatment works
as identified tn an approved facilities plan.
an areawlde plan under sectIon 208. or an
auplicable municipal master plan of tie-
velopnient, For the purpose Of this para-
graph, section 208, and shy such Olan. pro-
jected population shall be determined on the
basii of the latest information available from
the United States Department of Commerce
or from the States as the Administrator, by
regulation, determines appropriate
• Warm CONmoVAT IO N
-— SEc. 23. Sçdtion 204(b) (3) of the Federal -
Waten Pollution Control -Act .iS amended by
adding at the end thereof the following:
“NotwIthstandIng Paragraph (1) (2) of this
subsection, sub)ect to the approval of the
a grantee that received a.
grant prior to the enactment of the’ Clean
Water Act of 1977 may reduce the amounts
required to be paid to such grantee by any
Inaustru l user of waste treatment services
under such paragrap.s. if such grantee re-
quires such industrial user to adopt other
nieaDS of reducing the demand for waste
treata services through reduction In the
total flow of sewage or unnecessary water
consumption, in proportion to such reduc-
tion as detezmi ad in accordance with reg-
ulations Promulgated by the A im 4 istiator.•.
1 scr asms 705 aLr !tAr!v5 srsrxers P05 SMALt.
caNaraN i rms
Szc. 27, SectIon 205 of Federal Water Poilu-
Lion Control Act Is smanded by adding after
i new subsection (g) a new subsection sa. tel-
(h) The A nfstrator shall set aside from
funds authorized for each fiscal year begin-
ning on or after October 1, 1978, four per
ceama of the sums allotted to any State with
,a rural population of 25 per centum or more
01 the total population of such State, as Ge-
aeralned by the Bureau of the Census. The
AdministraSor may set aside no more than
four per centum of the sums aliotted to any
other Slate for which the Governor requests
such action. Such sums shall be available
only for alternatives to conventional sewage
- treatment works for municipalities having a
population of, three thousand five hundred
or less, or for the highly dispersed sections
of larger municipalities, as deAned by the
Administrator.”.
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
(Continued)
Pg 2
Sac. 28. Section 205 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Is further amended by
.ddtng at the end thereof the following new
subeection:
“(I) Not less than one-half of one per
centum of funds allotted to a State for each
of the fiscal years ending September 30. 1979,
September 30. 1980, and Septetnoer 30. 1981.
tmdpr subsection (a) of this section shall be
pended only for lneres.sthg the Federal
share of grants for construction of treatment
. worka uttli24ng innovative processes and tech-
- niques from 75 per centum to 85 per centum
• .pursuant to section 202 (6) (2) Of this Act.
. nc1uding the expenditures authorized by the
preceding tentence. a total of two per ceanim
of the tun.ds allotted tO_a State for each of the
sca1 yeas’s ending September 20. 1979, and
eeptember 30. 1980. and 3 per centism of the
lunds allotted to a State for the’ Semi year
aDding September 30, 1951. under subsection
46) of this section shall be expended only for
- lnaeesing grant. for construction of treat-
‘..mant works from 75 per cenrum to 85 per
centum pursuant to sectIon 202(a) (2) of this
Act.”.-
WAstXWATER STOSAGS
Sac. 37. ect1on 212(2) (A) of the Federal
• Water PoUution Control Act Is amended by
inserting “(Including land used for the Star-
age of treated wastewater in land treatment
systems price ta Land applicatLon ” alter the
word “process”. -
POse,ZC (roIseAT ON PSOGSAS
Src. 38. TItle of the Federal Water PcI-
Intlon Control Act is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new section:
“POBLSC ZN ’POaiLATZOiI
“Sac. 214. The Mn”ati’ator shall develop
and operate within one year of the date of
enactment of this section. a continuing pro-
gram of public Information and education
on recycling and reuse of wastewater (In-
cluding sludge), the use of land treatmett.
aa4 methods for the reduction of wuetewater
- - ----- .
co 5r—nrE , ,aav n CVOELflf
Sac. 41. TItle of the Federal Water PoUu-
Son Control Act Is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new section:
“cosT—.. ..- - ,., .issa cammzsqas
“Sac. 217. Any guidelines for cost.effectire.
seas analysis published by the Administrator
under this title shall provide for the Identi- -
fleatton and selection of cost effective al-
ternatives to comply with the ob)ective and
goals of this Act and sections 201(b), 201(d).
201(g)(2)(A) , sod 301(b)(2)(B) of this
Ac’s.”.
1cartoi*
Sac. 49 Subsection (d) of section 304 of
the Federal. Waist PoIlutio Control Act Is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
(3) The Administrator, after con.sulta-
tion with appropriate Federal and State agen-
cies and other interested persons, shaU pro-
mulgate within one hundred and eighty da s
after the date of enactment of this subjec-
tion guidelines for identifying and evaluating
Innovative and alternative Wa 5tewaAer treat-
ment processes- and. techniques referred to
in section 201(g) (5) of this Act. ,
rzaesA(. “cnrrtzs - -
Sec. 50. Seetl 313 of the Fede - i Water
P U Uon Contto l Act a ;mertdei l iv Injt,t-
tog (s Imxn50lateIy after Src. 3l3.’ sad
by sddlng as the ccc thereof lb. tollo ing
new
‘Ib) (1) Ti’. AdnlinUti -,itor shall coordi.
nab with the head of each
ageccy, or tnatrjmenizjity of :he ?edrraj
Government having JunscicIlon over say
property or taclilty utlli :n; federally owned
watet.. cillt:es to develon a
of concerntion to t ut1lI ig wascewatet. con-
trol systems utillz:ng those Innovative treat-
050$ prnce1s, s l id techaftIll ., for “hich
uldeUnes bare been promulvalcd tinder see.
tio lGtfd ) 13) Sucb program Shall Includs
4 Ini ’ si y of property sad facilities which
Could OuZlz. such precuse, sad teclsnlqizes.
‘ I2) Construction shall not be Initiated
for :acuut e, for treetmeut of wusrewoter at
any Federal property or facility alter Sep.
lenbep 30. 1979. If alterastir, methods for
BUteB&t.r treatment at such property or
facility utliL —Ing Innc.atl,e treuuuent proc.
ses and tecbniques, incLuding but cot lint.
lied t mscheds lalilinag recycle and reuse
techniques and land trt3tnt eflt ar, not uti-
lized. unless the lIfe cycl, cost of tee Wet.
SaLty, ueacneae worits veceeds th, life
cy t l e t of the moat ran effective aitereg.
live by note than 15 per CentUnt, The Ad.
nay waive the Sopllcstjou of
this as -sgi’ao In any case wher, the Ad.
mlnigu-scor determines it t be ‘ the pub-
lIc interest, or that compitocca with this
P Mrlp8 would laterfer, pith the orderly
cowiplisem vita condtt : of a pemut Is-
d pursuant tG scntlo 482 of this Act..
WAraji TltffATllEltr
COORD aT:oN
Sac. 72’ SectIon 516 of the Federal Wttcr
Poliutton Control Act Is amended by addazg
at the enu thereof the following new sub.
sectlcn
fe) The AdtBlni trator in cooperation w Ith
tho States. inchiding water pollution control
agencies, and other ater poli i control
planning agencies, and water suoplv and
water resources agencIes of the States cud
the tliited States shall subthjt to Ccugress,
witnu two rears of the date of enactment
Cf this section, a report wIth reconmenda_
tlor.s for legIslation on a program o require
coC :diflarton bctween water supply and
vastewate; control plans as a cohCjt!o to
grunts for construction of treatment works
under this Act. Xo such repcs- shall cc sub-.
mit ted except after opportunity for public
hearings on such proposed report.”.
-84-
-------
INNOVATIVC:; 1 LTERWi T TVE TECHNOLOGY
Pg 3
5iilGfl0G55 roe Att 5 fATtV5 ?arATz!!14T
Z. ’ TORMATioZ
IIOTLC h i ll
to coinpera his provis Ion.
Senaf amridment
The Serite amencolent further amends
Iectlofl lilt of the Ac: to cstabIizh a neelonal
Cle fln;housa for the :olleeelon and dli-
Ssnunaernn of lolorenaurin ceve!cped on
uiternaure cra tm, t :ecnnologte,,
Cwifcrcr cc lu bsfLf!Itd
The aa0terrniee sub Itute U the same s
the Senate amendrne c with additional au.
tboilty gennied the .tdml trIter tO esr.ab.
11Th £ national clearing uae within the
Igefley or through other puoUc or private
eceprosi OfliZ3tt ti .
GRANTS FOR U(NOVATIVE aim ALTmNAT!Vz
ItCENOLOGY
-- House bill
No comparable provision. - -
Senate amendment
Section 6 amends eectlon 105 of the Act
to provide 100-percent funding for research
and development projects which demon-
esrate Innovative technology, If such a proj-
ect is on a State’s priority list under section
303 of the Act. Such grants are now limited -
• to 75 percent of the total cost. Under this
new provision, the non-Federal costs of
such projects ins? be provided from a State’s
allotment Uj der the construction grant pro-
gram. The total amount of such fuDds used
for this purpose may not exceed one -baU
of 1 percent of a State’s allotment.
Conference substitute
SectIon 9 of the conference substitute
amends sectIon 105 of the Act to authorize
• £ grant to anyone who received an increased
-grant pursuant to sectIon 202(a) (2) of the
Act. This grant may pay up to 100 percent
of the costs of technical evaluation of the
costs of treatment works, the costs of ti-sin-
Ing persons, and costs of disseminating tech-
• meal Inlormataon, SectIon 12 of the confer-
ence substitute amends. section 201(g) of
the Act to add a new paragraph (5) prohibIt-
ing the Administrator from making grants
after Sacal year 1978 for treatn ent works Un-
less the applicant satisfactorily demonstates
that Innovative and alternative waste water
treatment processes and techniques have
been fully studied and evaluated and taking
Into account and shOwing, to the extent
practicable, for more eibclent use of energy
and resources. SectIon 15 of the conference
substItute amends sectIon 201 to require the
A l*t a to . to encourage waste treatment
—gement methods, processes, and tech-
niques which reduce total energy require-
ments, Section 18 of th, conference sub-
stitute amends SectIon 201 to authorize the
M t!Mtrator to make a grant for treatment
works utilizing processes and techniques
meeting section 304(d) (3) gnide!lnes 11 the
atd nistra determines it to be In the
public Interest and if in the cost effective-
ness study the lire cycle cost of the works for
which the giant Is to be made does not ex-
ceed the life -cycle cost of the most cost
e’ective alternative by more than 15 per
centum, SectIon 17 of the conference sub-
esitute amends section 202(a) of the Act to
provide that the amount of any grant made
after September 30, 1978, and before Octo-
ber 1. 1981, for eligible treatment works, or
significant portions thereof, utilizing in-
novative or alternative waste water proc-
- seses and techniques shall be 83 per centum
of the cost of construction. A State must
-35-
ntsintaia Its proocrtlonate contribution to this she:e h deteratines it to be In the
the aofl-Federal share of these costs Adth- publtc Interest or that comp ltartce would to-
t onaily, the Administrator is authorized to terfe;e with complying with a permit asued
make a grant to fund all costs of rnod iica- un sr sectIon 402 of the Act. ScctCn 72 of
tion or replacement of facilities cocstrt,c:ea •t’aa ceo krence s lbs :ltutb anw:ids sect.on
with such a grant 11 they fail to meet desi n Sil of the Act to requ e the .Admtn:strntor
• performance Speciiicatioos. Uai se tots 10 s wm:t to Con ess ;lthin : ;o y et;s a
faUu:e Li attributable La negligence, and ohs repori. w tb ;ecomrneodatIorrs. an a program
aignicicant.) increased capital or oceratLag to require coordtcatlon bet-*-een water sun-
and maIntenance expendIture,. For the pur- ply and v,asce water controL plans as a con-
pcbe of this provision. “eL:gible treateo,t d tIon to grants for construction of treat-
worcs” Is defined as those wO ich meet eec- meat works under thts Act. Public hea’ings
tlon 2011(g) (5) requirements and can be must be held on this renort.
fully funded from funds avaiiable to the Sect: ns 9. 12. 13. 15 15. 17. 21. 28. 37. 38.
State in ftscal year, 1979, 1980. and 1981. t 49. 60. and 72 h.Lve been Incorporated Into
does not Include collector se.vers, this coa erance report to expand toe treat-
tars, storm or sanitary seners or the separa- men1 works cortttruclion grant program uti-
ttoz thereof, or major sewer rehabilitation, ltzatlon of lnnovatlvC and e.iternatlce Wa St e
SectIon 20 of the conference substitute water treatment processes and technIques.
amends sectIon 204(a) (‘3) of the Act to pro- Tbe , sectton generally follow a series of
vido that sectto 303(e) (3) (K) prIority lists provIsions in U.lt. 9464. They are intended
may be modified by a State to give hIgher to result In a maJor reorientation of the con-
priority for grants for construction d’-a’vlngs sttUctton grant program.
and spectecatlons (Step 2) for trestznenz The 1972 amendments redirected the water
works using Processes-and tecaniques meet- pollution program to municipal wastetreot.
lng section 304(d) (3) guidelInes and giving men: al :srnatlves wlt :ch would lead to ra-
hIgher priority for grants for the comalneg ctatnung and recycling of water and the
‘edet ’aL share of construction drawings and Confined and contained disposal of wastes so
spectflcatlons and building and erection that polLutants would apt rn rate to cause
treatment works (Steps 2 and 3) meeung the enviror.mental pollution. Little was Gone to
requirements of the next to the bat sentence acb . eve this result. The purpose of the grant
of sectIo 2C3(a) of this Act whIch util e level in renses set forth in section 2S for
processes and techniques meeting secttofi projects consistent with this program and
304(d) (3) guidelines. Section 28 of tha con- Ins series of related smeeidm n:s Is to under-
ferecce substltue amencts section 205 of the score and etpaad itat 1372 latent by pro-
Act to provide that cot less than ij of 1 per v : ng supplemental a autance for innova-
centum of Lunds atiotted to a State for each tIre a d alternative ua 5 ’ e treatment pro:-
of the fiscaL years 1979 througa 1931 etses and techniques, This siaoplemental as-
be expended only for Increasing the Federal sistance program 15 intended to (c’ce tech-
share of grants for construction of treatman; notogy o ttat new and better alternatives
worksutiiiztng Innovative processes antI will ne ut Ued
techniques from 75 ad as per cenluin ac The Adm!nz rator has been prov:ded all
that Including the 14 0 ! 1 per centum, 2 of the legislatIve tools need d to require the
centu per year for fiscaL years 1979 and Utilization of suca tanovative and alterna-
1980. and 3 per centum for fiscal igai, tive waste water treatment processes and
Cf func’s allotted to a Stale . techniques
pended only lot- increasing grants (or con- Care snould be taken In the evaluation of
strzct on of treatment works from.. 73 per . - grant applirattotis to avoid unnecessary stud-
centum to 85 per ceratum pursuant to sec- lorestigatlons or aeiflyses which are ir-
lIon 202(a) 12). Sectlo 37 of the conference relevant to. and unaffected by. apolication of
substitute amends Section 212(2) (A) of the new technology, recycling, reuse or band
Act to ln iude land used for scoring treated treatment.
watte water La land treatment systems prior The provisions for Increased granta ter
to land aopllcallon within the deftuatlon of publicly owned treatment works utilizing la-
the term “treatment works” for the novative-and alternative technology nsa been
of title TI of thIs Act. SectIon 38 of the con- speclficalli phased In to avotci delays La on-
ference substitute amends title 11 to add a gOi . Step 1 and step 2 proJects Th Ad-
new seetton requiring the Administrator to mlnutracor is cautioned In proaiu’ a:ton of
develao aod operate-a contInuing- progism - regu atio” —I inipiemensaton of thele.aec-
Cf ublle informatlo - and educatIon on re— t :e is- not to cause delays In the cors :ructLo
cycling end reuse of waste water (Including grant prägram. The environmentaL betsadts to
sludge), the use of land treatment. a be realized from these sections on innovative
nteihods for reducing waste water volume, and alternative technology should not be viti-
SectIon 49 of -the cânferencs substItute ated by such delays.
amends section 304(d) of the Act to add a While treatenwit works constructIon grant
new paragraph (3) which requires the Ad- funds ‘are authorized or 5 years by section
- mlnletralor to promulgate guIdelsc for - 30 ef thLs Act, it Is t be noted that section
ldvñtlfylng. and evaluating Innova:lvs.-and- 17 pi’ovldestàr increased grants for treatment
atieritaetve waste water treatment processes works ustng 4ternaflve-aod Innovative tech-
arid techniques referred to in sectlori 221(g) notagy f r 3 yeam only Tht, 9 i ’o;lsion Is
(5). This Is to be done within six months, no: applicable to qranta made from funds
$ectIo - 60 of the conference sttb 5tlttjt. authorized I rain either the nist or the i3st
amends sectIon 313 of the Act to require the year for which grant funds are available. It
Administrator, In coordination with other is ecpected that Congress will evaluate the
Federal agencies, to develop a program of program at the same time Congress consid-
cooperation for using waste water control ers art allotment formula for the grant funds
systema utIlizIng InnovatIve treatment pros- authorized for fiscal year 1982
ear -es and techniques for which there are WhIle funds to Increale construction grants
guldellnea under zectlo,n 304(d) (3). IncIud- to 85 percent are made ava 1aDle only for
log an inventory of facilities which Could fiscal years 1979, 1930. and 1981. it 15 Im-
utilize these processes and techniques. After portant to re:ogniae that while .1 percent of
- September 30. 1979. constructIon shall nut the constructIon grant funds are set aside
be Initiated for wa 5 te waPer treatment ‘aclil- for ftecal years 1979 and 1980 to carry out
ties on any Federal pronerty or fac !ltc’ If this program. 3 perce’ t is set aside for fiscal
alternative methods util IzIng InnOvative year 1931 ThL; underscores the intent ot
treatment processes and technIques are not Con’(reas to increase the number of projects
utilized unless the life c cle cost of the al— utilizing Innovative and alternatIve technol-
tcrnatlve exceeds the life cycle cost or the cgy During fiscal sear lPB%- oter 25 percent
most cost effective alternatIve by more than of new grant awards should utilIze such tech-
15 per centuen. The Admintttra:or may waRe notogy
-------
- Pg4
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLO’Y
- (Continued)
1(otbtng in this section Is intendrd to cc—-
thice th cu. ent emphasis on funding cost
e!ecttve alternathes to conventional tree.t—
ment u nder the balIc groat proernol.
It Is not ezidid that conventional proc.
esses ln;Iudsng advanced bio&ogtcaI treat-
msnt processes Cr ad nc d waste t?eat ect
systems utilizing .till.st&on. nrt catlon.
and deriltrl catlon or brev cpoint chlorma-
tton be el!gible for the n reased Federal
sha.-e In addition Co Improved metoods for
ccnventlonal treatment. Innovative technol.
.ogy should Include such techniques as flu-
trietit uctlizatioa and reclaiming or recycling
of water.
The Administrator is expected to coo;-
• dinate promptly with the other heads of de.
partfltenta. agencIes. or instrumentaiitles of
the Federal overnrnertt which haS jurisdic-
tion over any property or facility utilizing
federally owned waste water Cacdltles. The
Federal Government is ecpecteg to be a
leader In the use of alternative and innova..
tlv treatnsen1 processes and tecnnicues. The
cost eftectlvaneso provision of sectIon 60 Is a
mechanism for orctn; the use of such proc.
esses and techniques. Section 60 allows the
Administrator to waive the apoUcation of
such processes and techniques where he de-
to be In the public interest. This
authority is not lzttenzled to be a means for
negating the 15 per centusn cost edectiveness
provIstors. The .tdm nlstrator Is not axpected
to waive thl requirement un iesa there is a
clear showIng that on-going projecca would
be delayed or that trnportanc public interest
con3iderauons cannot be met.
yes * ceseeyiva 3raTtat3
Ton SSSAL. COM5*VtrtT 3
Mouse bull
1a comparable provision.
Senate imcndntent
This sectien amends ec :on 2C 5 of the .tct
t0 require the settIng aside of bctwcen 5 per.
cent and 10 percent of construction grant
funds allotted to a rtirit State (States with a
• rural population of 3 percent or more of
the toC l population of the Sintei for use
only for alternative or unconventIonal sro.
tems for conununiuss of 3.500 Or iU Or for
• hIghly dispetsed s ,ctlafl.s of larger ccmnmu-
• fillies. Nourizrai States niny reçuest. thrOugh
the Govetnor, a set-aside of up to 10 percent
of Its grant allotment to be Used tar such
purposes.
Conference substitute
flu conference substitute La the same as
the Senate amendment eccept Chat the
amount of the set-asIde I a 4 per ecotumn of
the alloced sums and the term “muitlclpali.
11es is used is slam of iommunitles
P r the purpose of this section. “?urnl
States are those having 25 percent or more
of their total population residing In place,
a population of 2.100 or less.
A table of States runiced by percent- of
• rural population coOsistent with this section
Is set forth on pages 33 and 34 of Senate
CalamitIe, on Environment and Public
Works aepore tIe. 95-370.
Plothing In this sectIon is to airec: ec!.stlng
admInistratIve policy for the stabllsl tan;
of a reserve for small conuatun itte , where a
State chooses to set asid, a re onabla p .r.
centara of Its unds (or the projeer, O(’sucit
small couamunlt1e . For the purpoqe of this
polIcy, the State determine, the definition
at smali comnnnunlrr. subject to eporoval
by the AdmInistrator. States whose ‘rto ; It-,
lists inw ‘ellect a 1e’asId of a pr000rtional
share of eoru’rucclon funds for small corn.
nuinlue, include Teta.a. .tichlgan. and .lsry-
land.
REC5ZAZO t A O OP!N SPtCE
Rouse bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
This. section amends sectIon 204(s )’ of the
Act to require toe Administrator before ap-
prorio a grant to determaune that the apoll.
cant has aoal7zed Potent :al recreat:oo and
O e Space opportunItIes lfl the dcsi n of the
proposed works.
Conference jubjttttit
The conferenc, substitute amends section
201 to provide that the Administrator shall
not make grants after fiscal year 1978 for
any treatment works Unless the grant appli.
can ..how II has aaalyed potential recrea-
ttois and open apace opportunities, in plan-
ing prc osi works. - - - . . -
- SSSEITE CAPACITY
House bIll
No comparable provision.
Senater amendment
This Section adds a new eubsectlo (c) to
section 202 of the Act to provide that th
amount of reserve capacity for treatment
works eligible for Federal assistance Is to be
limited to that future capacity reaulred to
serve the users of such treatment works ex-
pected to exist within the service area of
the proJect 10 years from the tIme such treat.
mefit works Is estImated to become onera-
lionel (or 20 yca.-s in the case of interceptor
sewers and associated appurtenances). The
provision also amends sectIon 204(a) (5) to
conform to the new paragraph In sectIon 202
- Conference substItute
• Amends sectIon 204(a) (5) of the Act tore-
quire the Administrator In determining the
amount of reserve capacity to takg into ac-
count 5ffO t to reduce total flow of sewage
and unnecessa.-y water consumption. The
amount of teserve capacity elIgible for a
grant under title fl of the Act sha il be deter-
mIned by the Administrator taking Into ac-
count the projected population -and asso-
ciated commercial and Industrial establIsh-
ments within the jurisdiction or the spoil-
cant to be served by such treatment works
as Identified In an approved facIlIties plan.
an areawide plan under sectIon 203 or an
applicable municipal master plan of develop.
- ment. For the purpose 0! section 204( a) (5).
sectIon 208. and any such plan. projected
opulatio shall be determined on the basis
of the latest Infor matIon available from tho
nhted States Department of Commerce or
from the States as the AdmInistrator by reg-
ulation. determines appropriate.
- cos ’r-vrpn. -sv ctss ,w..
• If ours bUi
Comparable provision.
Senqte amendment
The bill adds a new section 223 to require
that cost.e ect1vensu guidelInes publIshed
by the Admsnjstratop provide for Identifica-
tion and selection of Cost-effectIve afterna-
tives comply wtth the objective and goals
of the Act and sectlo s 201(b), 201(d).;0j
(g)(2)(A) , and 301(b) (2) (3).
Conference nzbsfftufe
T ie confe,enc& Tobstitute Is tse same as
the Senate amendn ent. -
This section is to have no effect on collec-
- to; sewers.
-86-
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGI
(Continued)
CONG. ROBERTS : -
1NNOVAiZVL A ,.LrxrrAT!%E TTC!N0L0(T f
Mr. Speaker, the conference re orL. 0i
H.P .. 31 9 contains a number or amend-
ni?iits at various points. amending s iv-
eral provisions of Puu1 c Law 92—500.
which comprise a package encouraging
de eiopment and depIo ment of i::no a-
the and alternative technology in the
treatment of wastewater and the con.
servation of resources.
In combination. sections 9, 12. 13. 15.
16, 17. 20. 28. 37. 32, . 60. and 72
represent a major reonentat on of the
construction grants program. But they do
not constlt’ute a major reorientation of
the act Itself. Section 201(b of Public
Law 92—500, as enacted in 1972, called for
municipal treatment technology “includ-
ing reclaiming and recycling of water.
and conflned disposal of pollutants so
they will not migrate to cause water or
other environmental pollution.’
So the policy has been there, the re-
quirement has been there. But the7 base
not been carried out, largely due to re-
sistance on the part of EPA, the engin-
eering community, State and local gov-
ernment and the private sector. ror cx-
mple, only 12 to 13 percent of construc-
tion grant awards have gone for land
treatment—one of the alternative tech-
nologies—representing less than 3 per-
cent of the funds under the pro;rarn.
The conferees recognize the problems
of inertia and the tendency to cling to
the tried-and-true and to avoid risks,
and accordingly have structured a corn-
preher.sive set of amendments to over-
come them.
These include a 5et-aslde of 2 percent
of each State’s allotment for fiscal years
1979 and 1980 and 3 percent In 1981 to
be used to increase the Federal share of
eligible project cost to 85 percent from
the 75 percent prevailing for convention-
al technology.
ThIs 2, 2 and 3 percent set.-aside Is
to cover both innovative and alternative
technology, with a minimum o one-half
of 1 percent restricted to innovative tech-
nology as dlsting,nslied from alternative
technology. The Administrator is direct-
ed to develop and Issue guidelines which
among other things draw a thst nctjon
between the two. Tins is discussed fur-
ther below.
A certain percentage of the State’s al-
lotment is set aside for 85 percent grants
for Innovative and alternative teonnol-
ogy. Those moneys are not exclusive of
but rather overlap the 4 percent set asIde
for alternative or unconventional sys-
tenis for small communities.
In the process, the Administrator, pur-
suant to section 49 of the Clean Water
Act of 1977, siia.l1 develop guidelines for
equipment which utilizes energy recovery
or the re’ise or recycling of resources.
‘i1 e L’itent of this is to make it clear that
the guidelines which aQply to cost et-
lectire evt’hzatlon, sectIon 16 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977. Include energy re—
..covery and reuse and recycling of re--
sO’irces
.iLllcipal applicants for financing will
be required to demonstrate that such
technologtes have been studied and eval-
uated In the process of developing their
projects, subsequent to Septernber 33.
1973. to qualify as eligible for a.ssistance.
Grants made for such projects will be
eligiale for assistance even though their
lile-eycle costs exceed those of conven-
tional techniques provided such conven-
tional cost. are not exceeded by more
than 15 percent.
Excluded Irons eligibility for such as-
sistance are collector sewers, intercep-
tors, storm or sanitary sewers or the
separation thereof, and major sewer re-
habilitation, However, costs of the as-
qu idon of land, otherwise not ebgzble
tinner Public Law 92- 0O. will be eligi-
ble where the land is to be used for the
storage of treated wastewater prior to
Its a)pILcation to the land in land treat-
ment systems.
In recognition of the risks involved In
encouraging this departure from buss-
ness-as-usual, the conferees acopted an-
other amendment authorizing grants to
cover the total co I of modilying cr even
replacing systems that do not- perform
• as intended- and result In capital or
oneratu’.g and maintenance costs stvrut-
icanrjy higher than anticipated. This, in
effect, constitutes an Insurance policy.
States will be permitted to modily their
pr:ority lists to give a higher priority
to the preparation of construction draw-
ings anti specifications, step 2. involving
application of innovative or alternative
teccriology, anti for projects eligible for
combination of step 2 and at step 3, con—
st.ri lctlon, employing sucks technologies.
Other requirements provide that the
administrator must encourage waste-
water treatment processes that foster
energy conservation, anti that applicants
must analyze potential recreation and
open space opportunitIes In the planning
of treatment works.
The iIr!i!ni tratcr Is authorized to pro-
vide applicants, the Federal share of
whose projects Is increased to 85 per-
cent to encourage innovative or aileron-
tis’e technology, additional grants cover-
Ing the total cost of technical evaluation.
training costs, and the dissemination of
information,
evera1 criteria should be relied upon
to eva. uaLe the In novative or alternative
character of technology. The criteria in-
clude cost reduction: improved reliabil-
ity; energy conservation or recovery; re—
eya!L’ig. reclamation, or reuse of edluents
or resources; greater eI!tciency; the bene-
ficial aspects of sludges or e luent con-
etituents; better management of toxic
materials; and environmental benefits.
Where technology does not meet any of
these criteria, the administrator should
not consIder the teconology to be nno-
vntl’re or alternative under these provi-
sions.
When a project Involving tnnovat ot
a!ternative technology is cor.structed. the
facility rightly becomes the focus of at-
tention by waste treatment professionals
in tne public and private sectors, c.rid en--
‘-ta Is ’ unusual leveLs of study evaluation
and mo: to:ing. To the exteni, that t. esi
factors result In thci’ea ed costs to the
muntc:pali: es sponsoring such projects.
these co ti are also to be reimoursed in
their totality by EPA.
The administrator is :eqwred to de-
velop and operate a pub1 c information
program with respect to the recycling and
reuse of wa.stewater, land treatineaL and
methods for the reduction of wastewaler
volume.
The Adrninlctrator is further required
to coordinate with the heads of all Fed-
eral agencies with properties using Fed-
eral wastewater treatment facilities to
develop a program of coopetation foc
using concro.i systems involving usnova-
tl?e treatment processes developed under
the guidei.ines for municipal systems. In
addition, no Federal facilities may in,iu-
ate construction of new treatment facilt-
ties after September 30, 13’79. unless in-
novalfve tecanologes are employed. This
requirement is sub;ect to taiter by the
Adinlnisuaor of EPA as in the national
interest or in, the intere ts of avoiding
delay us compliance ivita a permit s, i1ed
ui-icier section • 132 of the’ act. No auth
technology- is to be reqwred in cases.
where the costs would.ei ceed the costs of -
conventional treatment by mc e uian 15
percent.
Finally, the Acminstrator is required
to consult wica Federal an n State water
qitality and water supply a encles to de-
velop, within 2 years, a pac&age of legi.s-
lative reconimaridations to require co-
ordina on between water suppl:’ arid.
a’asfewater treatment plans as a concu-
tion of eligib lsty for funding under this
art.
Tins study will be conducted seoarate-
ly, distinctly, and apart from the ad-
inxriissratiou’s re’ iew of utter resource
policy and will stress energy as welL as
water resource conservation. Special at-
tention should be given the role o all’
agencies, particularly th.it of the Corps.
of Engineers and the Department of
Agriculture, Attention should be given
in the conduct of the study to the role of
208 agencies in the coordinating process.
As to intent, we want to make it clear
that these innovative and alternative
technology amendments are in no way
Intended to substitute for research and
development programs under title I of
the act, Nqr is the funning for title I
research to be diminished as a result of
consr.rucuors grant funds’ being set aside
for innovative and alternative technol-
o y.
As to definitions, we cited earlier the
sect Ion rz’t’uring the Administrator to
develop guttiehues icentifytn; innovative
and alternative cechnoog:es, whicn are
not synonymous by any means. Concern- -
in wiuca. a fey, observations:
Innovati re technology, as referred to
In the cGn erence report. znear,s new and
promising technology winch has not
been fully proven under the circurn-
-87-
-------
Pg 6
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
CONG. ROBERTS:
StanCes 0 : 11.5 Co mPiateci use. The use
of demonstrated tcchnolog es whica
! “Iufl Lte pollution and conserve water
resources and energy ui places and under
circumstances where they have not beezi
tried before and wnere such use ad-
vances the atate of the art. L Lnr.OvaCA e
It would fall between tne extremes oz
Unproven technology, and the old con-
ventional methods which have been dup-
licated and repeated endlessly in this.
country’. We thin. the key lies in the
recoguitlon and accept.ance of a certain
element of risk, which is why we provide-
the insur ance policy in the form of the
authorization for the Federal Govern—
merit to 3.ss ’ume 100 percent of the cost.,
of modifying or replacing systems which
fail to perform as intended. These risks.
are deemed acceptable i of the
potential benefits in terms of environ--
mental enhancement, tower capital or-
maintenance costs, and reciamailco. to-
cycling and use of waten which is. be-
coining ncreasIn l y costly to provide..
Alternative technology is another
matter, differing from such conventional
secondazy treatment technolo aes as ac-
tivated sludge and adv ncect waste
treatment, and Includes land treatment.
aquifer recharge, water reclarnat on , and
other techniques for eliminating poLla-
tion and saving water. y definition
these are better known than the tech-
nologies In the Innovative category. but
have not been used to their fuil poten-
tial because of the constra&nt we have
referred to. -
Members will note on page 51 of Rg .-
port No. 95-830, statement of managers
language cautions the Adimnistrator in,
two respects v..s to implementation of
these provisions.
Ptrst, in effect, the con.erees do not
intend to have the pendulum swing from
the e ttrene of Little or no cor.sideration
of innovative or alternative technologies.
on the one hand, to that or an ecciesa
series of unnecessary studies, investiga-
tions or analyses which are irrelevant to
new technology, recycling and reuse- of
water, or land treatment. We might add.
that It Is further not me !ntenuori tn re- -
quire studies of technologies with no’
realistic potential for being used under
the circumstances, such us. for example,
land treatment In areas characterized.,
by a high water table, steep slopes, Ins-
permeable subsurface rock strata, scant,
overburden, and intense and prolonged
cold. The key criterion will be judgment
on the part of the administrator, re-
quiring realistic cons dcrnt1on of avail-
able alternatives to ronveritional toch-
nology without resulting In volumtnou.
treatises an;logous to the environmental
impact statement to prove a negati%e.
Such would merely wiste scarce uc-
sources and delay the program.
Nor is It the tht nt to requIre .zcii
consIderations n all cases n-here ex.. i-
lug systems are being altered. reznocielcd.
Improved or extericiea. The ‘:ei — .,
here should bewhether the pro:ect u
result in a s:.mifcsiv tiv’rease in tre
volume of treated vas:e front a lun.ci-
pal system, or a r cncn in tho ool-
lutirig characterutles of discnnr;es :‘ra
thworka.
(Conti nued)
A finni caution relates to the phasing-
in of the requirement. beginning in fis-
cal year 1919. Our concern- Is to avoid
the cisruptiori of construction such as
occurred n.s a result of the erlactn,ent of.
Pu Lc L-tw 92—.5O . We fully intend that
no step 1 or stei, 2 work. facilities plan—
nin anti construction design, respec-
twely, be redone as a. result of these re-
cuirements. or that proiect.s In process
be otherwise delayed. Thus, the require-
ment for consideration of innovattve and
alternative technology will apply only to
proje t.c for which step 1 planning is
under.aken In fiscal year 1979.
- TRAINtNG
With respect to section 10 of the conS
fereuci? repoz-t, it should be acted thrJ ,
the Administrator In assisting the States
In the development of training facUlties
I expected to encourage tramtrig for
oa .s te treatment systems. —
-
- 3ection 21 amends sectIon 204(a (F ,)
to require the AdnIfllstrat(g’ In deter-
mtnLn g the amount of reserve capacity to
t ’i Into aecosj it e orts to redur’ total
ulcw of ea age and unnecessary water
coumptio ii.
The amount of re cerve capacity eliglole
for a great und’er title II of the act £hatl
be detern,thad by the AdmL-ilstz’ator talc-
big into sccount the projected population
and assocIated commercial and mndustrlrU
establishmenIn vrithmn.the juthdictiori of
LIe applicant to be served by such treat-
nient woi’In as Identified In an approved
iac1lltha plaul an arenwide plan mauler
section 2011, or an applicable municipal
master plan of developirnint.
Fcr the purpose of section 204(a) (5),
section 208. asic! any such plan, pro ected
pepitlatfon claall be cietermmed on the
basis of he ‘ateal. Information available
i roin the thilt.ed States Department of
Commerce u” from the States as the Ad-
‘nnrafrr. by regulation, determines
a ppropriai.ep
SENATOR MUSKIE :
AND E NOVATt 1
T C2i4OL0GT
The conference agreement ezsphi ci -
the need to use alternative technologies
Instead of conventional secondary
treatment plants and encourages the
development of new and Innovative sys-
tems. To accomplish this, the bill re-
qiures republication of cost-effective
guidelInes to reflect the long-term bene—
fits of reclaiming and recycling. creates
a special set-aside for rural and lightly
populated areas to be used for alterna-
tive technologies, and authorizes a spe-
cial set-asides for increasing to 85-per-
cent grants for the use of alternative and
-icovative technologics. The bill also in-
cludes a provision for extension of dead-
lines for industries which use innovative
technologies.
The conferees Intend to underscore
the reouirements of the 1912 amend-
ments that all of those involved in im-
plementing the program—the Env1ron. .
mental ProtectIon Agency. States, corn-
munities, and consuI:ing engineets—..th-
rect the program away from the con’.
ventional collection and secondary
çreatment apprpach and toward ttie usc
of alternative technologies, especiaUy
those which rely on controlled natural
processes, such as land or lagoons or
marshes, In order to make use oc toe.
nutrients in the waste waters.
More than any other issue concerning
the construction grant program. t e
conferees are concerned with the need
to encourage alternative and iruaovati’;e
systems. The problems of smaLl commu-
nittes coping with exponsi e capital-
inten.sive waste treatment systems ann
the wastefulness of discharging valuable
nutrient resources to the Nation s waters
were stressed throughout the country.
The need for new industrial processes
sihuch produce no waste as emphasized.
The conference bill. in every ;ossibie
way, attempts to reinforce th soeci c
statement of the 1972 act with respec:.
to Innovation, use of almernstlies. and
the adoption of policies cich otuld lean
to toe confined and contained ci posal
of waste, utilization of the ‘.alues of
waste, and the elimination of the dis-
charge of pollutants to the Nation’s
wa’ers
T s agreement recognizes that sludge
which is a burden to many communities,
can be usefully applied as a so ! co’adt-
holier, as a source of nutrients, and as a’
fert IIzer. But the agreement also rec-
ornizes that often sludge is so contami-
nated by the chemicals and metals
which find their way into municipal
waste treatment systems that it is use-
less These amendments are intendeil
to reverse the waste of this imnortant
resource, The Administrator is expected
to heed that emphasis of thzs legislat.on
There is no defense for the pract:ce
of dumping all of the waste that this
country generates into rivers, lakes, and
streams. The 1972 act stipulated that
the Iration’s fresh and marine waters
would not be an element of the iaste
treatment process. That continues to be
nstional policy For commurntlec and
Industries, the discharge of waste direct-
ly Into the Nation’s waters and oceans
Is permitted or-tIe where there will be no
interference with attainment and main-
tenance of that water quality which as-
sures- protection of water supplies and
the protection and prorjagation of a bal-
-asiced, indigenous population of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and allows r’eerea-
tional activities, In and on the water:
that is only where ecological balance can
be assured. The Agency should e’upethte
promulgation of the criteria in section
4c3.
Thus, alternative technologies for
dealing with waste, particularly’ land
treatment options which will take ad-
vantage of the valuable nutrients In the
waste stream, and other waste recyc!-
hag options should become the htchest
priority for funding ttnder thrs act
wherever these are feasible or available.
The conference agreement provides for
a bonus grant, raising the Federal share
to 85 percent, for projects which utilize
-88-
-------
SENATOR MUSKIE :
alternat!i’e ana innovative waste treat-
ziierit processes.
Sections 9. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 21, 28. 37.
38. 39. 49. 60. and 72 of the conference
report expand the treatment sorks con-
struction grant program utihzation of
Innovative and alternative naste water
treatment processes i na techmques
These sections generally follow a series
of çftovisioris in l R 9464. They are In-
tended to result in a major reorientation
of the construction grant program,
The 1972 -arnenaments redirected the
water poUution program to municipal
waste treatment alternatives which
‘would lead to the confined and contained
disposal of wastes so that pollutants
would not migrate to cause environ-
mental pollution. Little was done to
achieve this result. The purpose of this
and related amendments Is to underscore
that 1972 intent by providing supple-
mental assistance for Innovative and al-
ternative waste treatment processes
which might not otherwise be cost-
effective.
The conferees intend that EPA shall
require cons deration and application of
demonstrated alternatives which meet
the objectives of section 201 funded from
the regular grant program, This supple-
mental assistance pro7ram is intended
to force technology so that new and bet-
ter alterratives which have n et been
demonstrated can become available. s
they are available, funding should come
from the regular grant pro rnm.
The administration has been provided
— all of the legitlatis’e tools needed to re-
‘quiTe the utili:atlon of st:cli Innovative
and alternative waste water treatment
processes and techniques.
• Care should be taken in the evaluation
nf grant applications to avoid unrieces-
ear; studies. Investigations. or analyses
which a*e irrelevant to, and unaffected
by. application of new technology, re-
cycle. reuse, or land treatment
The provis ons for increased grants for
publicly owned treatment works utiliz-
ing Innovative and alternative tech-
nology has been specifically phased in to
aroid delays in ongoing step 1 and step
2 projects. The Administrator is cau-
tioned in promulgation of resuations
and implementation of these sections not
to cause delays In the construction grant
program. The environmental benefits to
be realized from these sections on inno-
vative and alternative technology should
not be vitIated by such delays.
While treatment works construction
gi’iint funds are authorized for 5 pears
by sectIon 30 of this act, it is to be noted
• that sectIon 17 provides for increased
grants for treatment works us ng after-
native and Innovative technology for 3
years only. This provision is not appli-
cable to grants made from funds author-
ized from either the first or the last year
for which grant funds are available. It
Is eirpected that Congress will e’aluate
the program at the same tinte Congress
considers an allotment formula for the
grant funds authorized for fiscal year
1982.
.(Continued)
While funds to increase construction
grants to 85 percent are mane available
only for fiscal years 1979. 1980. and 1981.
it is important to recognize that rl’Ue 2
percent of the construction erant funds
are set aside for fiscal years 1979 arid.
1950 to carry out thIs program, 3 percent
is set aside for fiscal year L9e1. This un-
deracores the intent of Congress to in-
crease the number of pro3ects utilizing
Innovative arid alternative technology.
During fiscal year 198L,-ot’er 25 percent
of new grant awards should utilize such
technology.
However, nothing in this section is in-
tended to reduce the current emphasis
on funding cost-effective aiteraat ves to
conventional treatment under toe basic
grant program.
It Is ‘not intended that conventional
processes including advanced biological
treatment processes or advanced waste
treatment systems utilizing distillation,
nitrification. and denitrification or
breakpoint chlorination be elimble for
the increased Federal share. In addition
to improved methods for conventional
treatment. thnos’a tive technology should
inalude such techniques as nutrient utili-
zation nd reclauning or recycling of
Water.
The Administrator is expected to co-
ordinate promptly with the other heads
of departments, agencies, or rnstruxnen-
talities of the Federal Government wnich
have jurisdiction over sny preperty or
facility ut lizing federa:ly owr d v’as
water facilities, The Federal Gven,merit
Is expected to be a leader in the use of
altez-nati e and innovative treatnienc.
procesces arid techniques. The cott-effec-
ttveness provlsi n of section l) l a
mechamsni. for forcing the use of such
processes arid techniques, Section 6’)
aUo s the Adrnin:stratoi’ La waive tne
application of such processes and tech-
niquej where he determines it to be in
the public interest Thn authority is not
intended to be a means for neg iting :he
15 percent cos —etfectiveness pro :sion.
The Administrator is not ex,ect d
to aaive this requirement unless there is
a clear showIng that ongoing projcts
woUd be delayed or that imuartant pi.h-
llc interest considerations cannot ne met.
Several criteria should be reLied up’ :t
to evaluate the Inno vative character of
technology. The criteria include cost re-
duction. improved rel2abtht , enerl ’
conservation or reclamation, recycimg or
reclamation of efiuenr.s, sludges or ben-
ficial wastewater constituents, better
management of toxic mst.erials. aiid en-
vironmenj ,al benefits. Where tectinok, ry
does not produce benefits in line with the
criteria, the Administrator snould not
consider the technology to bc ninovati ‘c
or alternative under these pro Ls.oria.
A certain percentage of toe State’s
allotment i set a.cide for 5-p’ei-ceriu ,
grants for innovative and alternative
te:hnoiogy. Those m’ineys are not ci:-
elusive of, hut can overlap. tne 4-pcro nt
set-aside for alternative or uriconven-
tional systems for small commun :ies.
SENATOR RANDOLPH :
One’ of its most sign ficcn a pec1 :
its emphasis on the r’eed far c”ve: .
merit of new and less co tly mr.t iu s
• seware treatment, rar ‘c’:lz’
sparsely populated areas, as er i:-.
to the Increasingly e .persrve ;,-
tional systems.
This is a matter which has !on been
of concern to me both in rn . cnpi ’ .iv
chairman of the Environment aria Pe ’ .c
Works Committee and as is S nr
from the Nation’s second most r i- il
State I have seen the fallacy of try:ng
to apply the same treat .’nen yarcct:c’:
to rural America as to highl’. t.roan
areas where large and centralized ccli”c-
tion and treatment systems can be usrd
effectively and economically.
Because of that concern, I beeisn urg-
ing the — Environmental Protect . n
Agency nearly 2 years ago to estab!’sl
an active program for deveJopmer t a:.d
implementation of a cost-ertec ive a 1 ;€ ’r-
native waste water treatment system br
use in rural areas,
I gave that concept a high pr Iorit”
planning for the b ll on which v, e are rici’
ready to act. I introduced or io.nt ’
sponsored three provisions in cne t.il
which bear on the subject,
The first of these procosals directs the
Environmental Protection Agency o
establish a clearinghouse to collect arid
oisseminate Information on the types Cr
Isebnology that are available fc ’ IJ
ternauve systemsand how they may uc
applied to various sltuatior- s.
I believe this provision will be very
helpful In assisting the developme, t cf —
this type of approach in various parts
of the country to which it is especially
sufted.
As a further means of encouraging ti’e
use of that concept, I Sponsored an
amendment with Senator Sv.irro
which requi es specific aniotmta to be
carmarked for alternative sysrerris, yc-r
those 34 States in which total popula-
tion is more than 25 percent r ’ai. the
Administrator of the En’#iror,.’nental
Protect on Agency would be required to
set a.side 4 percent of trieiz alot:ec
t aste water treatment facilit:es con-
str ctson grants funds for exclusive use
in alternative or Unconventional zystcm.s
i commurntie of 3,500 population, or
less.
A major policy change,, whIch I did
propose, permits Federal grants for con-
structioni of privately owned treatment
works where a public body, not the per-
son but a public body applies on benaif
- of a number of such units where we can
be assured that theIr are properly oper-
ated and maintained and will be more
cost effective than the central systems.
the large rnas,sive systems which we have
• lii the citres which are nob apolcaole to
the rural sect oas of tne country.
It Is not enough just to spend money. -
We want to spend money intelligently,
and that s the reason we are making
this change, Grants of this type i’ou d
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGy
Pg 7
-89-
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
(Continued)
be i: tendedto solve pollution pi oblems
in the lighcly populated areas as I said
where conventional collection and treat-
meat systems are not suitaole They are
aca&lable but they are not suitable. They
are not pract cal. They are not reason-
able.
The Appalachi3n Regional Commis-
sion, th Commission which serves 13
States, the St.ite of West Virginia as a
iihole and parts of 12 other States, has
conducted a demonstration program. It
has been held in Boyd County, ICy., and
we have had the experience of that
project. asia at indicates that individual
and cluster systems are a ienlistic means
of meeting the sewage treatment pro-
grams at the rural community level.
So, the small communities are going
to benefit also from a provision in the
bill which wtll allow the reduct’on of
time. cost. and aci ninistrative redtape
by combining the design and construc-
tion hpases of sewage system projects
Into a single application and gtant pro-
cedt re where the project cost is under
- $2 m:ll on and planned for areas, as I
have sale, in the first instance 3.500. and
in this instance with a population of
under 25.000.
These are the innovative programs.
They are the necessary programs. These
are the helpful programs as we move
with the leadership of Senator Mrsiczz
and others to this hou
CONG. GANDER JAGI :
- - Mn VANDER JAGT. Mr. Speaker, I
want to con,plirnent the coninsittee for
the outstanding legislation In this con-
ference report. It Is a brilliant a nd far-
sighted accomplishment I find particu-
larly exciting the language encouraging
reuse and recycle technology. Land
treatment systems for wastewater man-
agement utilize this approach and will
provide the Nation with clean water at
low cost as the Muskegon system has
accomplished in my district:
Mn.Speaker. I have several questions
for the gentleman from California, my
vesy highly respected colleague. Mr.
Cy.*vszzr, who, with the House conferees,
so successfully Introduced the recycle
language to this legislation,
In the language amending sectIon 202
of the Federal Water Pollution Contrcl
Act, the new paragraph Ia) (2) increases
the Federal grant share for any eligible
• treatment works or significant portion
thereof to 85 percent. A feasibility study
is underway in my district wh:ch may
result In a very- substantial project for
the recycling of sewage sludge from
southeast Michigan. The project would
transilort raw or partially processed
sludge by rail, barge, or pipelire to a
digestion facilit7. The digestion procecs
may include the recovery of methai.e
gas is -, bc uied as a fuel for dnmes: c atid/’
or industriiil purpoecs. The di estcc1
sl.idge uouka then be spread on forest
land as a fertilizer and soil cond tioncr
accelerate hybrid poplar or other tree
growth rates or used on farmland to im-
prove cron growth. Am I correct In as-
suming that tñis sludge management
process, from the point at which the.
slud o leaves the conventional sewage
treatment facility, would be eligible for
85 percent Federal construction grant
funding because of its reuse and recy-
cling characteristics?
Mr. DON H. CLAtJSEN. lift. Speaker,
If the gentleman will yield. I have dis-
cussed the matter with the gentleman
from Michigan, and the answer Is af-
firinative, a definite “yes.”
Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman from California.
SENATOR MUSKIE :
Perhaps most slg’n.tecantly. Mr. Presi-
dent, here is a bill which includes perva-
sive requirements to find and apply
methods to recycle, reclaim and reuse
wastes and waste water. While-this was
ntended in 1972, the 191’? amendments
say emphatically that the Congress really
means to eliminate the ducnazge of pol-
-lutants as rapidly as possi 1e.
In every respect, the conference agree-
ment underscores the basic thrust of the
Senate bill—the application of technolo-
gy to reduce the flow of waste to streams.
Sowever, the cost ot high technology,
capital -intensive waste water treatment
systems is so groat that utilization of
less costly alternative waste treatment
systems must be given high priority for
Federal fund.Lng.
- SENATOR STAFFORD :
Mr. 8TAyPO D. Mr. President, one
of my principal concerns during the de-
velopment of the Clean Water Act ci
19 ’17 has ‘been the water pollution contro’
problems of small communities m rural
America. According to the 1970 census
there are 54 million people in thi’- cc ;i-
try who live in places of rr ! s,
some 26.5 percent of the tot.:d t S p ;”.-
Jat ori. Because my o in a e sf ‘ ‘ r-
moat is the most rural of aLl the f St t.’s
(nearly 68 percent ef our piaz-oi s
ruraji, I come by my intrre ’ t in sr’iait
communities qu te naturally.
}Ioa ever. even the least rural Stat in
America, California, w th a 9 percent
rural population, nevertheless ha’ I
muilrnn people laying Li cor nun:ties of
2.500 or less. Pcnrisylva nia, ah ch is
thought of as a highly industrialized nd
heavily populated state, nevertl’eiess
boasts the largest rural population in
America, some 3.4 milion people. I
this point to emphasize that the problems
of rural America are not limited to sma.l
States, and that the measures surcested
by this new law should command the at-
tention of nearly every State e y n-
mental agency. The conference rerort.
suomatted for the Senate’s approval tc-
day represents a sig-nu9cant step forwa-8
In directing the attention and resou-c ”’s
of the U.S. ivironmeata1 roteit:an
Agency and the States ov-a-a th prr’i-
bar financial and inst n’ticnal cnara:-
terlatics of rural communit:es.
One of the most Important features of
the national water pollution contro ef-
forts that developed from the 19’72..
amendments to the Federal Water Pol..
lution Control Act was a vigorous a.’ i ’i
heavily funded construction grz.:it pro- -
gram to assist and encourage rnun;c.prj-
ities Ir a the abatement of water po:i ,.
For the last 5 years most States na c o! -
rected their efforts and their allotments
of Federal and State funds to the c t.ez
and urbanized areas.
• This was certainly appropriate, as these
areas were a bcted with the greaten, pol-
lution abatement problems. Eowever, n
the ncx 5 years we can expe:s to s o
States reaching down in their prior;ty
list to plan arid fund projects in &nziier
towns and villages. States like Vermont,
or West Virginia, or South Dakota,
whose rural populations are such a large
proportion of their total populaucas,
have already gained some experience in
addressing the special problems of small-
er settlements which may be of value
to future grant appucant,s in their own
States and elsewhere. Very succznctl ’,
the problem seems to be that onven-
tiona.l centralized collection and treat-
ment systems, which offcr many econo-
mass of scale an densely populated Cities.
simply- ao not work and are far too ex-
pensive and extravagant for e commit-
nity of 500, or 2,500, and perhaps even
10,000 people. -
In Vermont we can telate several hor-
- ror stones where the costs per household
of the planned conventional system were
- outrageously expensive, toth in connec-
tion costs and in annual charges Coti -
munitles In other States fact similar
ettuatlons. There has consequently
developed in this country a rn-tall cadre
of concerned arid dedicated people who
I have been searching for and promc,ung
• alternatives which migat be sultabie fr-r
smaller, rural towns and. vi ia was. ‘rxev
coTafr3nt, however, an army of cons al:ing
- engineers, developers, State ens’ironmea-
Pg 8
-------
/ SENATOR STI FFORD :
tal anil health department adminlstra-
to’s, and the construction nc:ustry. who
have been convinced that. the only solu-
Uon i to build a central ac:Iity with
tendr:ls of concrete pipe reaching out
to capture the wastewatec from remote
settlaments. To the exzcnt that septic
systems or other aiterriau;’es are used
an less densely populated areas they are
considered a temporary solution. until
the population grows large enough to
support a collection syatemn. The avail-
ability of grants of up tc 90 percent in
- some States has often encouraged col-
lectiora and central treatment soluuor.s
even where the population density may
never ustity such a system. The moment
of truth comes, however, when the oper—
atang and maintenance costs are re-
vealed.
For various reasons, septic tanks and
other onsite or cluster-type alternatives
have no favor with those who plan and
construct pollution control facillties. For
the health o cials, these systems have
been unreliable In the confinement of
disease organisziu: for the construction
Industry, there is simply less money to
be made In some of these alternatives
(or It goes to d.tfferent. sectors of •the
economy): for tile consulting engineers.
there is less profit associated with a
protect that costs less than one that costs
more: furthermore, engineering scliools
• simply are not teachtng much in the way
of how t design alternatives; for the
State e:wironmectal a;cnc es and for
many koat o ’cials, it is comforting.to
know that the Federal EPA waU approve
a known and proven type of technology;
also, they do not have the manpower
to seek out or administer alternatives
which f qutre additional manasement
resources. Fins ily. there Is a lack of d.t-
• rection or mandate from the Federal
agency or the Congress to examine alter-
natives before approving the tunding of
conventional secondary plants. EPA has
failed to encourage, for example. reha-
bilitation and repair of septic systems
before awarding a construction planning
grant
It is the intent of the conferees in de-
veloping a number of new provisions In
the CIean Water Act to encourage the
Environmental Protection Agency, and
the States and local goverrunents. to
seek out alternatives which are both
more cost effectwe and provide a greater
degree of water pollution abatement
than the systems we ha e been buildang
In the past. The problem of small corn-
munittes should be seen as a subset of the
larger problem of the failure to adopt
technologies which achieve the require-
ments of the act, requirements which
were in tact In the statute as far back as
1972: the recycling of potential sewage
pollutants through the production ot ag-
riculture. silviculture. or aquacuiture
products, the confined and contained dis-
posal of pollutants not recycled, the rec-
lamatuon of wastewater and the ultimate
disposal of sludge in a manner that will
not result in environmental hazards.
One of the provisions to encourage
these results, which I sponsored, and
which was cosponsored by the chairman
of the Committee on Environment and
Pt.iblic Works, Senator , .JENNIxGS RAN-
(Conti nued)
ootpie. is section 27, set aside for cater-
nattie systenis for small corn ..urutue
T t s section directs the Admin3stra-
tor to set aside 4 percent of the alot-
merit to any State wtth a rural popula-
t.on of 25 percent or more as determined
by the Census Bureau. The Admiruu tra-
tor is also aucruori:ed to et astde not
more than 4 percent of tha al1ot uent for
any other State, at the request or rae
Governor.
Such sums are available only for alter-
natives to conventional se age treat-
ment r .orks for communities naving a
population of .500 or less, or for the
h ghLy dispersed sections of larger mu-
nhcipalicie.s as defined by the Adminis-
trator.
Alternatives cc conventional treatment
works are systems different from con-
ventional seconda-y treatment (partic-
ularly act:vated sludge) and from con-
ventional advanced waste treatrnenL In
passing this measure, the Congress rec-
ognizes that conventional systems are
too costly for smaller communities. we
also recovtize the inherent shortcom-
ing of coni’entronal systems These in-
clude slud ze prod’ictron, nutrient and
chlorine pol utton, high operating costs,
naste of water, and excessr:e energ ’
demands.
Alternattves are, in general, of two
types: First. thaae described in the new
section 20lig (5k: ,narneiy, “innovative
and alternative wastewater treatment
processes and techniques which provide
for the recalming anh reuse of water.
otherwise eliminate the discnarge of pal-
lutants. anti utthze recycling techniques.
land treatment, new or improved meth-
0th of waste treatment management for
municipal and industrial wastes (ais-
charged into rnumcipal systems) and the
conlined disposal of pollutants so that
pollutants will not migrate to cause
water or other environmental pollution”;
and
Second, privately owned treatment
works of the type described In new sec-
tion 201(h), subject of course, to the,
safeguards and limitations in 2 1(h).
Including most especially the require-
mest that such privately owned treat-
ment works will be properly operated
and maintained. This essential require-
ment is expected to overcome the objec-
tions of State health otncials and en-
vironmental agency administrators.
There is everj reason to believe that on-
site systems, including septic tanks. v.iU
meet health and pollution abatement
concerns when they ‘are properly de-
signed. operated and maintained in ac-
cordance with a commuziitywide pro-
gram. They need not be. as they have
been, a haphazard or temporary solution.
In general, the Congress expects that
the rural set-aside will result in. first.
lower o;eratin g and capital costs fO
sewage treatment woiks in small com-
munities: second, energy arid water con-
servation, and truird. elimination of pal-
lutuon or substantral progress in hint
direction, for rurat con’.znunities.
It is anticipated that many of the proj-
ects funded by the set-aside ui-all oe el.gi-.
ble for an increased grant pursuant to
new section 202(a) (2).
The set aside for alternative systems
in small cornmunttles goes irito efect
for each fiscal bear nicer Oc oer I,
l9 3.
CONG. CLEVELAND : -
s CTi0N is —n4NovATTvs 1’ECiINOt.OGY
This section Is designed to stimulate
Innovative and alternative treatment
processes and techniques. As stated,
however, In ray opening remarks, it Is
the Intention of the conference commit-
tee that this not be used to retroactively
stall any phase of a project which has
proceeded beyond the step 1 stage. At
this Juncture, I would also :em.ind my
colleagues that many States as well as
municipalities throughout the Nation
must bear their share of the co t and
the ultimate risks which Innovation en-
taIls.
Beyond that, municipalities must face
the prospect of shouldering the entL-e
cost of full operation of whatever innova-
the systems are installed. In vtew of
these Circumstances, EPA must empioy a
balanced approach and avotd maopi.ag
courses of action whIch municicalities
and States will be required to follow In
attempts at innovatIon.
It seems quite evident that EPA must
not maintain a unilateral policy wnich
It alone Implements In this area. The
voice of States and municipalltles must
be heard in this matter so that they will
not be subjected to an arbitrary program
of achieving innovation merely for the
sake of innovation,
If this strikes as unduly aLarmist, I
call attention to the general memoran-
dum Issued by Adm.tnistrntor Douglas
Costle on October 3, 1977, relative to
land applicatIon for sewsge. .As zone
reading this materIal cannot escape con-
clusion that EPA goes overboard In Its
anxiety to lead the way.
Innovation must be approached with
appropriate caution and only after a
reasonable demonstration that the :n-
novatii’e techniques being proposed will
perform. Otherwise, Federal, State, and
local funds could be wasted in experi-
mentiü projects which later prove to ho’
operationally unsound. The fact that
this bill authorizes funds for EPA to
compensate acivanced technologIes
which turned out to be too expensive for
the localities induced to experiment ‘with
them is conclusive proof of this danger.
However, because we encourage inno-
vation and because we recognlz there Is
risk, new subsection 202(a) (3) ProvIdes
for payment of all of the costs of m ach--
fication or replacement of facthtlez which
do not meet design performance s edhi-
cations, Th1 provision. an Insurance pol-
icy, recognizes there will be nsks where
technology Is pushed ahead.
I recognize, too, that there are risks
of forfeiting the benefits of Innovation If
Innovation is not encouraged. - - -
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
Pg 9
-91 -
-------
CONG. CLEVELAND :
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TFCHNOLO Y
(Conti nued)
, (U
It should also be noted that tert In
Innovative treatment procedures, par-
ticularly methods lot land treatment,
may not he as applicable in certain re .
gions or States such as northern New
England where there is nothing but steep
slopes, high groundv ter levels, hard.
pan soils. ilitle overburden over ledge.
cold climate, and the like. It is not the
intention of the conference committee
to permit EPA to arbitrarily require in-
depth planning studies of these systems
when they are known to be not feasible
In these areas.
Lest I leave the tmpressjon that the
New Hampshire position J one of resist-
lug change, let rue say that my State was
among the leaders In pursuing land
treatment techniques when the situation
suggests their applicability. Witness the
fact that In 1069 the State of New Hamp-
shire designed and constructed a spray ’
irrigation project for Sunapee State
Park to protect the waters of Lake Suna-
pee, a major recreational body of water.
On the basis of results achieved at this
Installation. other similar projects of
municipal size were designed and built
In the towns of Grantham, Windhant,
Dublin, and Wolfeboro.
The point to be made is that we do not
want to encourage detailed study and
documentation of the obvious. EPA has
gone far beyond reason in Its insistence
upon useless but costly and voluminous
facility plan investigations, It Is about
time we put a stop to all of this unnec-
essary and expensive bureaucratic boon.
doggling. These remarks under sectIon 12
are also applicable to sections 9, 16, 17.
20, 28, 37, and 49, and wherein require-
ments to “innovate” are included.
Here again, the expressions of Intent
containe(i In the statement of managers
and the joint statement of the House
floor managers have today assured me
that these points are weU taken and
shared.
I must confess, though, that I am al-”
ways leery of what can happen to a
good Idea once It Is turned over to a
Federal agency—any agency, not just
EP& And I also get worried when I see
a concept embraced by an agency with
the zeal of the newly converted, as in the
case of EPA and land treatment as an
alternative means of municipal waste
disposal.
I am sure the gentleman shares my
concerns and understand that he has
certi ed himself that this provision will
be administered sensibly and practically,
without forcing communities to accept
Inappropriate treatment technology or
delaying the program. I expect that the
Investigations Subcommittee will be
backing up both of us In that depart-
ment.
SECrIO?( 4 9 EN7 rCAi ’ ox AN SVALtJATIOi(
G OnEI.INE S
This modification reguire that the
adxnlnjctrathr promulga guideline’, t
Identify and evaluate innovative treat-
ment processes, However, the conference
comnilttee etnphasi,zed in the language
of the section that the administrator
must consult with State agencies along
with other interested persons In the do-
velopinent of the guidelines. We expect
that the consultation will be more on a
partnership level partjc patjon rather
than an opportunity for EPA to an-
nounce in-house achievement of the
reguiatio , Past performance has been
to gIve only perfunctory cons lderatmn
to the real obligation to allow effective
Participation.
There is no question concerning the
ability arid competency which exists at
State and Interstate levels to offer con-
structive assistance to EPA, but It has
not been utilized ‘properly and to the
necessary extent to date. I again would
admonish EPA, to comply with the intent
of the Congress in inviting and acceit-
lug tote and Interstate partlc!pation in
the program. The amendment to sectIon
101 of the act regarding State participa-
t:on means what it says.
CONG. CLA(JSEN :
But the problems of the construettorr -.
grant program also reflect a disincluis--
tion on the part of all parties to move.
In the area of Innovative treatment tech-
nology and wider use of alternatives to
convenUo Community.wide collection
and treatment systems which clean up
dirty water and export it to the seas via
our rivers and streams.
This has been a concern for- a long
time, since the early 1970’s, In fact, when
we had great hones for progress in tech-
nology advancement as a result of the
research and Qevelopaisni provisions ui
Public Law 92—500. Those hopes were
not fuifl.lied. -
I therefore develooed, my fellow House
conferees supported, arid the conference
accepted a package of aznendmenr,s to
foster deve!opntent and deployn nt of
innovative and alternative Lochuology
in the municipal construction field.
I shall riot now duplicate our joint
House managers’ explanation of all toe
interrelated provis ions l.a this package,
but rather briefly summarize t.hcm and
highlight certain 1ements for emphiisis.
This section authorizes r. set-aside of
construction grant funds to encourage
ii’.novative and alternar ve technologies.
The set-aside o( a States annual con-
struction grant aIioc hon is . pcrcent
for each of the fiscal years 1979 and li 6O,
and 3 percent for 1981, to be used to
bring grants for the Federal shnre of
project costs up from the standard 75
to 65 percent for new technologies.
One-half of 1 percent is to be uted for
Innovative technologies and the best for
alternative, demonstrated technologies.
Cost-effectiveness guidelines are to be
revised to allow funding of a project
which employs Innovative or alternative
technology, .the cost of which is up to
115 percent of the cost of conventional
technology. -
This section provides encoursge nent
and incentives to communities willlnc to
attempt utilization of innovative and a.l-
ternative technologies for the treatment
of municipal ‘s -astewater. And I can say
on the basis of sentiment in my own
diatrict and the California Water R-
sources Control Board as smnhiied by
Its chairman, John Bryson, that wtUmg-
ness is there. Communities in California
and elsewhere have been willing to ex-
plore other options when they are -pre-
sented and promoted.
The advantages of the innovative
technology are many. They include ac-
eelei’atlon of efforts to meet the long- ”
radge objectives and goals of Ll n act,
development of simpler options to cc’n-
ventlonal secondary treatment with con-
comitant lessening of operating costs
and energy consumption, and the facili-
tation of 1 reclamation and recycling
efforts. - -
Reclamation-recycling facIlities and
devices and other alternatives to conven-
tional secondary treatment hare always
been el:gible for funding under the act,
Included are water reclamation or re-
cycling projects which entail a degree of
treatment greater than conventional
secondary treatment and projects to
transport water which has been sub-
jected to secondary treatment where its
disposal does riot violate water quality
standards. -
However, such projects often Involve
Dew technology and the nsla-thst the
new technology will not work as predict-
ably - azid acceptably as a more convert-
tional treatment process: possIble h.gher
operating and maintenance costs asso-
ciated ‘with new technology have served
as disincentives to adoption’ of such
solutions. -
This section would encourage the de’
velopinent of new and alternative tech-
nology through three devices First, It
would provide for an increase in the
Federal grant for treatment facilities
to 85 percent for the construction of
such technology,
Second, by setting as’de a portion of
the construction grant funds allotted to
States so that these funds can be used
only for nenccnventio j solutions, cx- .
pertise anti Interest In such solutions will
be promoted at the State level.
Third. revision of the cost-effective--.
ness g jdelines to permit the funding of
—92—
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
CONG. CLAUSEN :
new te jhnology projects that are up to
115 pcrcent of the cc st of conventional
technology will help eliminate tce prei-
erit bi s in the guidelines toward con-
ventioni secondary treatment.
It is Intended that this provision will
promote the long-range objectives and
goals of the act to include enco’i.raging
technology that will lead to the reclama-
tion and recycling efforts so crucial to
attaining these ends.
I am convinced that this new depar-
ture will yield substantial dividends UI
advancing technology in the water poi-
lutton control Oelct leading to improved
water quality at lesser capital or operat-
ing costs, or the combination of the two.
This can only be achieved ii we provide
IncentIves: legislative direction, backup
In case of failures, and rewaras for en-
celleace. -
Colleagues -icho have ai o followed the
Implementation of’ Public Law 92—äOO
with anything near the degree -of close-
necs I have may well be concerned that
we may see a repetition of the üasco that
followed enactment of the act, when the
change m direction sent the tram off the
tracks and the construction grant pro-
gram ground to a halt.
I want Members to know that I share
these concerns, and personally rece ved
assurances from the Assistant Adimnis-
trator of EPA for Water and Eazardous
Substances—while these provisions were
still under development—that the con-
struction grant program will not be
slowed down as a result of Increased em-
• phasis on Innovative and alternative
technology. -
Only on the basis of that aisurance
• did I proceed to introduce my amend-
ments as H.R. 9464 and push for their
• adoption by the conference. Similarly,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. oc-
zens) and I, in our joint statement of
legislative intent, make clear that these
provisions will be sii nmi ’ te with
- judgment, without nimecessary studies
and evaluations, with no tendency to
force innovative or alternative technol-
ogies Inap w iate to the type of project
or the area for which a project is pro-
posed. Only projects for which step 1
grants are submitted after September
30. 1979. wIll be subject to any require-
snent for consideration of innorati-re or
alternative technology. -
With these assurances, and indeed be-
cause of them. I expect this program to
be phased in, beginning in fiscal year
1979, to the point where fully one quar-
tsr ot the funds obligated in ilecal year
1981 will involve such projects.
‘The opportunities are enormous, as are
the bene ts. This Is particularly- true in
the case of lend treatment and Its pa-
tential for reuse of water and recaPture
c( what heretofore have been considered
pollutants as a nutrient resource.
This is of particular Interest to water-
short areas such as my own Smite of
Calilcunin, which has recently estab-
lished an once of water recycling and
others which Increasingly vill be experi-
encing water shortages.
- I perience at Muskegon, Micli.. site of
the Nation’s largest land treatment
project, demonstrates Its applicab,jty
elsewhere. Testimony from the gentle-
(Continued)
man from i iciigart (I :. VA mER .J, cr)
has been most persuas.ve as to thc bene-
fit ’;
ThLi provislon, of course, is riot cx-
clu5 1 %ely or even primarily a lard trrat—
merit oroiision. No one aculd o so far
as to argue th,it it is uriirersaUy appli-
cable In Cal iorn:.i much less acro s the -
Nat :’ n. Ti’e ob ec ive s to move ten-
nology fonrird aion a broad froit in
the municipal treatment area.
I am leascd to be able to repcrt that
these provis:ons are supported by a broad
coalit:ori of environmental organizat onr
inclu±ric the National Clean Water
Campaign, on whose steering committee
are representing the Clean Water Action
Project, the Natural Resources Defenre
Council, the Sierra Club, and iviron-
mental Actlqri.
All told, some three doren national,
Stste, and local environmental groups
support this legislation which also enjoys
the support of the League of Wor-icn
Voters and the American Consulting En-
gineers Council (AEC). In fact the AE C.
the Clean Water Action Project—and
EPA have been extremely helpful In the
development of this approach.
The National Wildlife Federation aho
was very helpful in its cunmcnts. par-
ticularly In identifying the open space
and recreation potential of alterriat ve
treatment systems, which in my vie v
could take the form o tree farm:ng, golf
courses, and green belts surrounding
cit es.
Oiie particularly important provision
wtuch thould not be handled bj EP
in mere routsne .fashzon is the public
lnfbThiatlon program which is intended
to tcouniter prejudices, m: concept :r ns.
and. misundertanding as to the true
meaning of Innovative and alternative
technology. • - -
Par too few, in my judgment, under-
stand the concept of land trearment. for
example. which merely means the appl I-
cation of partially treated wastewater to
land where absorption by the soil ft:r-
ther removes the remaining tinpuntu’s
and the nutrients in the wastewater sup-
port anything from ground cover to
crops.
Of possibly greatest ultimate ‘Impact,
however, Is the provision requIring a
study by EPA and related Feocral and
State agencies to devise legislative rec-
cxnniexidatlons to require the coordina-
tion of water supply and water qual:ty.
A flaal thought on this subject; a
pertinent obcervaUon from the staod-
point of guidance t, the agency, was
made recently by T. C. Williams, an engi-
neer from Grand Rapids, Mich., quou ig
Cardinal Newman:
A man would do aothlng I L he walrcd ur.tii
be could do It 3 well that no one wcald zind
fault with what ho ha s done.
-93-
-------
Gn.tNm Pon I xovvrJvE ‘rucnx --
CI. RiwoEousE )‘Ofl ALIIUNLI,XvE TREATMENT IN?orJsAIION
su i iaiir
This section amends section lOt, Research, Investigations, Training,
and Information, to establish a national c1earin housc for the collec-
tion and dissemination of information developeá’on alternative treat-
ment technologies.
DISCUSSION
Numerous studies, research projects, and demonstrations have been
conducted and arc presently underway to develop and evaluate new.
improved alternative yastewater treatment systems. Such projects in
volvo State and Federal agencies, private founciation and institu-
tions, universities, and private industry in all aspects of alternative
system technology including treatment system development and reli-
ability testing, evapotransportation, spray irrigation and other dig-
posal techniques. Water-saving methods mcliido the development of
efficient wastewater recycling systems and nonwater use toilcis.
One of the most serious imupeilimnents to the full utilization of alter—
iiati o sy temns technology bus baea the unavailability of research data
and othe i inforniat ion for t ho e intqrestcd in dovelopi ug sanitation
projects using such systems, and in advancing the present state of the
nit in this held. The result lies been a limited cxc iange of ideas anti
Limo unnecessary duplication of research and ctemnonsti aLien pL ojectS.
The amendment, in establishing a national clearinghouse for alter-
native systems requires that new and existing information in this field
be continuously coordinated, evaluated, edited and otherwise prepared
in the most usable form to assist State and Federal agencies, mimic-
ipalities and other interested parties in keeping abreast of the latest
developments in this field.
StThX f-&’RY
This section amends section 105 grants for Research and Develop-
ment to provide 100-percent funding for research and development
projects which demonstrate innovative technology, if such a uroject is
on a State’s priority list under section 303 of the act. Currentfy, grants
for such demonstration projects are limited to 75 percent of the total
cost. Under this new provision, the non-Federal costs of such projects
may be provided from a State’s allotment under the construction gra it
piograrn. The total amount of such funds used for this purpo e may
not exceed one-half of 1 percent of a State’s allotment.
DISCUSSION
Testimony prebented to the committee sup gestecl that one reason
coimimimminities were unwilling to attempt to utilize innovatirn technolo-
gies for the treatment of municipal waste waters is the risk that time
new technology will miot work 8$ acceptably as a more conventional
treatnient pioces ;. Both innovative anc 1 conventional solutions arc cli—
g hut for 73 percent federal funding under current law. fit an CI 1OL L to
ci; i ii in. tc this i isk, and to encourage full scale I reutirient ovl;s which
(h•mnon tiatc new technology, this section provitles 100 peiccnt rimmiding
fcr demimoimstration plants. The funds applicable IC) the lem::inimmg 2
percent shaic mire linmiteci to one-half of 1 1 )CLcellt of a State’s allotment.
Si r-Asmuu i ’on AmJralmNATIvis SYwn:Ms i’on S x r.r Co ciuuNrrlrs
SU3t3(. RY -
This section amends scction 205, Allotment, to require the setting
aside of between 5 percent and 10 percent of construction grant funds
a] toted to a rural State (States with a rural population of 25 percent
or mote of the total population of the State) for use only for alterna-
tive or unconventional systems for comnmunities of 2,500 or less. Non-
rural States amy lequest through the Governor, a et-asido of up to
10 percent of its grant allotmcnt to be used for such purposes.
DISOUSSION
This sectiomi amends section 205 of the act. to require the Atijuinis—
tmutor to set aside not less than 5 nor more tItan 10 imercent of a rur 1
State’s construction grant allotment exclusively for the construction
of nlterimmtti ye or unconventional treatment works in sinai I comimmnu—
nities.
Time provision is mandatory with respect to States hose population
is at least 25 percent rural as defined by the Bureau of rita Ccj sii . In
general, “rural” means that ProPortion of a State’s pQI)tilaI ion living
in of 2,500 inhabitant or less. Tho Census Thiecau reported 34
Si aLes with it rural population of 25 percent or mom a in 1970. (Sec table
below.) In all other States, the Administrator may set aside up to 10
percemit of a State’s allotment, at time Governot ‘s. request, for this
purpose. Tha funds so e;irmnarkeil arc available only for allermiat lye
or mmnconv n( ional scwaj e treatnient oLks in comnimmimnitica of 2,5 (n) in—
Imaiiifan(s or less, or in hiiglmly dispe cd sections of larger Coimmnmunil les,
aft tlutiitett by time Admninbit rator. Projects funded mmimdcr (lys nitty be
_.94_ RiCmttiiied ci i a SpeCial Slate priority list for alienist ire SySteIi I .
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
‘(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
SENATE REPORT
-------
• Percent
or. a
00.0
as. y
55.5
56.4
• 51.5
51.7
50.0
40.2
47.7
40.0
45.9
43.0
43. 1
42.8
41.4
40. 0
39. 7
39.5’
38.6
30.8
30. 1
84. 1
33. 0
39. 5
33.5
32.9
32. 0
30 2
29.0
28.6
2T.8
20.0
20.0
24. 7
23.4
21. 0
21. 6
20.4
20. 3
19.0
10. 1
18. 3
16.0
10 8
is. 4
14.3
12.0
11. 1
0. 1
0
•
1.
2.
• • BtaSei ranked by perc nt of rural pop,slaUon -
State • . .•
Vermont —
West Virgiula
8.
l.
.5.
0.
North Dakota
Mbl ’dSSlpld —
South Dakota
Nuvtlt Carolina
7.
R
9.
10.
11.
I L
13.
14.
1 .
16.
IT.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23
2-I.
25.
26.
27.
28.
20.
30.
31.
32
33.
31.
36.
36.
37.
.48.
30.
40.
South Carolina
Arlcnnsaa
Maine
Kentucky
Montana
Idaho
New llarnDsblro — ‘
.Unska — — —
Iowa
Alabama
‘re
(eorgiu
Wymiiing
Nebraska
V1r ii,I
Jiidiann
Whicoiisia
Ki,ncas
LouIsiana
MIsiiu ’ ota
Oregon
Oklahoma
Ni•w Mu Le
lliqsnurt
1 ’tnn ’.ylvnnla
I)ulnware
Mi
lilg in
Ohio —
Maryland
Cmineetkut
C’iloratlo
.trizonn
Texas
41.
42
43.
44.
Utah —
Nevada
FlorIda
HawaIi
45.
Illinois
40.
47.
Massachusetts
New York
4R.
Rhode Island
49.
50.
N.’w Jerqey
California
systems serving isolated individiliti residences or clusters of residences,
may olfer ft less costly solntioa to a small community’s water pollution
pms. In addition, witnesses recommended land treatment alter on-
ttves which would reuse waste water for agricultural purposes, or treat
it to a quality suitable for recharging into a. ground vator aquifer.
Although such al ternat.ives to conventional secondary treatment havo
always been eligible for funding under the act, they have been resisted
by State adinijuctrotors, and by the construction and engineering fLa—
tornity. Communities have been willing to explore other options when
they are presented and promoted. 1-lowever, few if flfl States actively
plolILoto alternatives, especially if there is any doubt about their re-
liability or their acceptability to the EPA.
Because a portion of a State’s funds can be used oaly for non-
conventional solutions, this amendment, along with the sect iOn nt:uk—
ing individuals systems eligible for grants would have the efrect of
creaLin the expertise and the interest at the State level for promotiii
and ns isL1ng in the development of less costly alternatives in sniafi
rural communities.
HOUSE REPORT
‘L’hict 7 1 )eI elit Federal grants OllCrWto as an incentive to utilize
biological ‘t.r’n II neal technologies, foreclosing consideral jolt of ehtective
iii Lcrital i yes a meting cost alkaLi veness and viii tie mgi neon ng criteria.
Cite vial)l() alternative to iiwet secondary treatment Lieiiig overlool ed
is elte.inical treat iuieiit as a cost—oltect.ive method for (he separation of
sohid aimd liquids by coagulation, flocculation, and sludge condit.iou—
ing. Clwiitical trc ’atineiit can ho a snl)stitLite for major capital expendi-
tures. 1 re en thy ava ilublo chenucal treatment technology vill ‘allow
existing puhhicly.ownecl treatment works in many cai .cS to meet the
secondary t,relLthliehit and water quality requirenients of section 301 at
no inhuit load cal iLLl cost.
In those case’ where the I icatinent. woiks as determined by time Ad—
ilimnist i alor will utilize iiimiovntive technology relnt ilig to (ho abate—
meat. a nd coat rol of water pollution, time inodilicat ions may CX(eII(l
tip to, but not beyond, .Jnly I, 198;L It is expected (hilt pa hi ietihiir
rInpilasis would be giveli to land I reatitient utitil new l,cimm,iciti t chi
niques.
ti ’ e iii (11(1 lush lOtted St ’rOIl(l i ry I remit macmit mu hut low level of u e
at iii nut .u lit e i e liii iu iie Iweut ii t ul (lie coin I oil amid scent icy ( hi.it
hiii hugicui i i t .iimiicrii oIlers clucisioii—iuakels is chu appoiiil 11 1g. ‘I’hic
j . l ‘A .Iiouu hut euicuui I iminoen lit t ’ ICClilii(jLIeS by the u e of grants and
(frluiull—.i I ii 14,1 1 jIl Ojecla. ‘lerhinology tins Comae ititicli luititer LImit t hat
mc (i t t I c i 11111 lie ci ii m elm I Cal is(iitti lull gin mits pt g ii iii.
—95-
1070 Census
During the hearings on the Clean Water Act the Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution received ample testimony concerning the
prol,lenis faced by small, rural comnnumnities iii complying with Public
Law 09—500. The most Prominent problem is the overwhelming cost to
in(lividunl homeowners of constructing, and operating and mneinta.iq—
ing centralized, conventional public ivasle water collection and t,reat.—
nu’nt facilities. Even where the local share of the capital costs has been
only 10 peicent, some cominnnities have defeated bond issues to finance
a treatment facility because of the high cost.
Witnesses testified that altermiatives to those systems, such as a
“non—cent nil” facility consisting of several treatment and disposal
-------
MUNICIPAL TIME EXTENSIONS A ID 1977 DEADLINES
-96-
-------
MUNICIPAL TIME EXTENSIONS AND 1977 DEADLINES
Municipalities that failed to meet the July 1, 1977 secondary treatment
deadline may be granted time exten fons up to July 1, 1983: The Administrator
may make additional requirements, such as interim effluent limitations during
the time for construction of the treatment works.
Extensions may be made where the construction is already underway but
the facility was unable to be completed by the deadline, or where the United
States has failed to make financial assistance available in a timely manner.
The municipality must request the extension within 180 days from December 27, 1977.
Any modification should contain a schedule of compliance based on, among other
factors, the availability of financial assistance from the United States.
An owner or operator of an industrial source may request the same time
extension as that available to a publicly-owned treatment works when the
industrial owner or operator has a permit issued prior to July 1, 1977,
which calls for discharge into a publicly-owned treatment works, provided that
the industrial source asts in good faith. The industrial source must request
an extension within 180 days from December 27, 1977. Any modified permit
issued should contain a schedule of compliance, including any pretreatment
and interim effluent limiations. No such time modification is to be granted
where it is not planned that the municipal treatment works will be in
operation and available to the industrial source prior to July 1, 1983.
-97-
-------
LAW TEXT :
MUNICIPAL TIME EXTENSIONS AND 1977 DEADLINES
Pg
M N! aL T r (3IONa
Sac. 45. SectIon 301 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by add-
lag at the end thereQf the following new
subsection: -
(1)(l)- Where construction Is required In
order for a. planned or existing pubLicly
owned treatment works to achieve limits-
tions-under subsection (b)(l)(B) or (b)
(1)(C of this section, but (A) construction
cannot be completed within tho time re-
quired in such subsection, or (B) the United
States has Called to make financial assist-
ance under this Act available In time to
achieve such limitations by the time speci-
fied In such subsection, the owner or opera-
tor of such treatment works may request
the Administrator (or If appropriate the
State) to Issue a permit pursuant to section
402 of this Act or to modify a permit Issued
pursuant to that section to extend such time
for compliance. Any such request shall be
flied with the Administrator (or If appropri-
ate the State) within 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection. The Admin.
Istrator (or If appropriate the State) may
grant such request and issue or modify such
a permit, which shall contain a schedul, of
complIance for the publicly owned treatment
works based on the eszUast. date- .by WhiCh:
such financial assIsta Ce will be available
from the United Statsa and cons uctlon
can be completed, but I n no event later than
July 1. 1983. and shaU contain such Other
terms and conditions, Including those neces-
sary to carry out subsections (b) through.
(g) of sect Ion 201 of this-Act, sectIon 307-
- Cf this Act, and such Interim e uent limi—
tacloas appucable to- tbattreatment wor
as the Administrator determines are necea—
saz7 to carry out the provisions of this Act.
“(2) (A) Where a point sou.-ce (other than
a publicly owned treatment works) will not
achieve the requirements of subsections (b)
(1) (A) and (b.) (1)(C) of this section and—
“(1) U a permit lsaued prior to July 1. 1977,
to such point source is based upon a dis-
charge Into a publicly owned treatment
works: or
“(Ii) if such point source (other than a
publicly owned treatment works) had be-
fore July 1. 1971: a contract (enforceable
against such point source) to discharge Into
a publicly owned treatment works; or
“(IlL) U either an appUcallosa made before
July 1, 1977. for a construction grant under
this Act for a pubUcly owned treatment
works, or engineering or arcbltecttu ’al plans
• or working drawings mad. before July 1 ,
- 1977, for a publicly owned treatment worits,
show that such point source was to discharge
into such publicly owned treatment works,
tact such pubUcly owned treatment works La
presently unable to accept such dIschar a
without constructloO, and In the case of a
discharge to an existing publicly owned treat-
ment works, such treatment works ha s an
extension pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection, the owner or operator of such
point source may request the ! I , L n’ator
(or if appropriate the State) to Issue or modi-
fy such a permit pursuant to such section 402
to extend such time for compliance. AA
such request shall be filed with the Adm4..
trator (or if appropriate the Stale) within
180 days after the date of enactment of this
subsection or the Slang of a reque’i by the
appropriate publicly owned trearmect.works
under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
whichever Is later. Li the Administrator (or if
appropriate the State) finds that the owner
or operator of such point source has acted In
good faith, he may grant such request and
.issua or modify such a permit, which shall
contain a schedule of compliance for the
point• source to achieve the requirements of
subsections (b) (1) (A) ant (C) of this sec-
tion and shall contain such other terms and
conditions, Including pretreatment and
Interim ethuent limitations and water-con-
servatio5 requirements applicable to that
point source, as the Administrator dete?-
mines are necessary to carry out the provi-
sions of this Act.
“(B) No time modLflcatio granted by the
p.dmi , ctfator (or If appropriate the State)
pursuant to paragraph (2)(at) of this sub-
section shall extend beyond the earliest dare
practicable for compliance or beyond the
dare ol any extension granted to the appro-
priate publicly owned treatment works pur-
suant to paragraph (1) of thl subsection,
but In no event shall it extend beyond July 1,
1983; and no such time modldcarion shall be
- granted unless (I) the publicly owned treat-
ment works will be In operation and avail-
able to the poInt source before July I, 1983.
and will meet the requirements of subsec-
tions (b) (1) (B) and (C) of this section
after receiving the discharge from that poInt
source; and (Li) the point source and the
pubucly owned treatment works have entered
Into an enforceable contract requiring the
poln$ source to discharge into the publicly
owned treatment works, the owner or upeen-
toe of such point source to pay the costs
required under section 204 of this Act, and
the publicly owned treatment works to an-
capt th. discharge from, the point sourcar
and (Ill) the permit- for such. point source
qufres that poInt source’- to meet all re—
- qulzementa under sectIon 307 (a) and (b)
during the period of such time modifi-
• ea 0 ’ - . -
- S
i ’y?DKADW1ES -
- Src. 56 (a) The third sentence of Ce tcon
308(a) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Is amended by strilcing out “tne
AdmiaLsiratOr shalt’ and by Inserting In licu
thereof the following: “ctcept where an ex-
tension has been granted tinder paragraph
(5) (B) of this subsectIon, the Administrator
shall”.
(b) Section 209(a) (4) of tha Federal Wa-
ter Pollution Control Act is amended b
I strikIng out the second sentence thereof.
Ic) Section 3co(a) of the Federal Vater
Pollution Control Act Is a encled by adding
at tile end thereof rue following ac.v para-
graphs:
“(5) (A) Any order issued under thIs sub-
section shall be by pemonai serr.ce. sh.iii
state with reasonable snsciflcltv the nature
of the violation, and shall spec liy a tt!ne
complIance not to e-cceed th:r y d s In thc
cisc of aviolatto of an Interim compliance
schedule or operatIon and main fenance re-
quirement and not to exceed a time the Ad-
mInistrator determines to be reasonable in
the case of a. violation of a final deadltne
taking into account tile seriousness of Las
violation and any good faith e!for ’ to com-
ply with applicable reqmrcmcnt3.
“(B) The-Administrator may. :f he-cicter-
mines (fl that any person wno I n riolt—
toe of. or any person who Is Otherwise not In
compliance with, the time requirements un-
der tltis Act or In any permit Issued nuder’
this’ Act, ha, acted In good faith, and
made a commitment (In the form of con-
tracts or Other sccuritIe, of necessary re-
sources to achieve cOmoiiance b7 the-earliest
possible date after July 1, 1917, but not later
than April I, 1979; (ii) that any extension
under this provision will not result In tue
imposition of any additional control, on 3075
other point or nonpoint source; (li i) that an
application for a permit under section 4C -
of this Act was filed for such person prior
to December 31. 1974; and (iv) that
facilities necessary for compliance with ruth
requirements are’ under construction, grant
an extension of the date referred to In sec-
tion 302 (b)(1)(A) to a date which wiLl
achieve compllm@ce at the earliest time’ pos-
sible but not later than April I, 1973.
“(8) Whenever, on the basis of lnfor’na-
tion available to him, the Administrator finds
(A) that any person La in violation of secuon
301(b)(i)(A) or (C) of this Act, (3) that
such person cannot meet tile requirements
for a time extension under section 30 1 (i) (2)
of this Act, and (C) that the most ernedi-
tloua and appropriate means of compliance
with this Act b7 such person Is to discharge
into a publicly owned treatment works, tacO.
upon request of such person, the Adminla-
tratoz may lssfla-an order reqldr.ng such per-
edu to comply with this Act at ton e 5rllest
date practicable, but not later than July 1.
1983. by discharging Into a publlc ,y owted
treatment works af such works concur with
such order. Such order shall Include a sched-
ule of compliance.”.
-98-
-------
MUNICIPAL TIME EXTENSIONS AND 1977 DEADLINES (Continued)
CONFERENCE REPORT :
k .wAY. TTM tVts!O S
Mouse btfl
Section 13 amends sectIon SOt of the Act
by adding a new subsection (g) which au-
thorizes the Adm ntstraO? to xnncify on a
case by case basis, the time for acbicvizg tue
July 1. 1977. treatmcnt requirements 1C1
posed by section 301(b) (1) of the Act for
both pubUcly-Owned waste treatment ZaciU-
ties and other point sources.
In the case of publicly-owned treatment
works. subsection (g) authorizes the Admin-
lstr t0r to razt time extensions up to July
I. 3932. or If innovative technology Is to be
utthzed, up to July 1, 1963.
New subsection Ig) (3) provides that no
time modifications shall be granted nader
‘this subsection unless there is an approved
ecbeduie of compliance. Failure to meet the
approved schedule of compliance would be
a violation of the requirements of sectiOn
301 and would be subject to enforcement
-under section 109 In the same manner as an-
other violation of the requirements of sec-
tion 301. •
——_____ —. --
Section 13 adds.a new subsection (g)(4)’
to section 301 of the Act. This new aubsec-
Sian addresses the question of point sources
which introduce tteL: eriueuits tflO p. bliCly..
owned treatment works It provides that any
point source which has a coxttrict enforce- -
able against Itself to parilcipate in a pub-
lI:1y-own d treatment works may discharge
its etflueiK into a puaLicly-owned treatment
works and sha&1 nor be subject to the beat
practIcable control technical requIrements of
subsectIon 301 (b) (1) (A) or the more stung-
eat requirements necessary to meet the nec-
essary water quallty,standarda required by
subsection SOL(b)(1)(C ) until the dote
which the treatment wants receiving the ef-
fluent is itself required to meet subsecttoos
301(b)(1) (B) and (C).secoadary treatment
or water quality standards. respecttvely. It
Is necessary that the enforceable contract
must be In cited not later than the sixtieth
day after the date the ttme modificatIon is
granted to the publicly-owned treatment
works. -
Sec ton 13 adds a new sectIon 301(h) to
the lid which provides that industries which
received grants under section.l03(c) of the
Act to develop new technology to treat I n-
dustriat waste, and were unsuccessful. wul
receive an additional period of time to coin-
ply with section 301(b) (1) of the Act.
Senate antendmen:
Section 31 amends Section 301 of the Act
to permit a case-by-base mcdl cst1on of the
JuLy 1, 1977, deadline for publicly owned -
treatment works up to July 1. 1933. where
construction cannot be completed or where
Federal funds have not been made available.
Such mOdi catton Is available to diachargers
Into the system If such discharger! have been
found to have acted In good faith.
This amendment allows the Federal or
Stale approved permitting agency to extend
the July 1, 1977. deadline for the achteee—
mend of secondary tresimen; by sewage
reatment plants on a case-by-case basis.
New section 301(f)(i) allows the permit-
ting agency, in Its dIs etion. to extend the
staiutory deadline for secondary treatment
:or sewage treatment plants, provided that
eIther (1) maJor new construction t re—
quired and cannot reasonably be completed
by the statutory deadline, or () necessary
Federal financial assistance under title If
of the Act baa not been available.
U an extension Is granted, the permitting
agency shall specLfy in the permit that final
compliance with the requirements of sec.-
ondary treatment be achIeved at the earliest
date practically possible, but in no event
later than July 1. 1033. In addition, the per-
sbaU contain any other requirements
necessary to carry out the Act. including
interim e uent limitations to be ochieved
by the sppilcacton of he best pos ’b1e on—
era Lons aid maintenance practices arid
ot’ttr rio cap tal intenst e measures In ad,—
dition. the permit shall contain sucu re-
quir’ctents as are necessary to achieve t e
rcq .iireneuts of water qusltty stauctards,
beat practIcable waste treat:neur technomogy.
to :c e’Ituetit Ilmitatlons, and pretreatment
ai.ir. ida.
I’. — ;-aph (3j of section 301(f) allows the
:ty .iuthOnlt7. in Its discretion, to
cc’ . .. the date of compliance with the
1977, deadlIne for noitmunloipal
p0’ ‘ijrces which intend to discharge
th - -‘e o a yet unfinished sewage treat-
at’,—
5:’ crIteria must be met before th
non pat pout source can be cousin-
ero an e reos!on FIrat, the point
eom’’ :srmit must evidence a decision to
tie- - the municipal treatment wOrks.
- .‘l. the sewag, treatment plant uhlch
Is : - Intended rectpien: of waste from the
noi mr inlclpat point source. mu t either
h1 e obtained an e’cterts’on pursuant to the
‘flint peragrapti of thIs tecilon or require
substantial constructmoa In order to process
- the waste, This section allows the tndi..5tnial
point source to Obtain an extension of its
linhi effluent limitatIons pending the coin-
piotion of this major constr,icton by a sew-
age treatment plant, provided that the sew-
age treatment plant ties been fully planned
and can deinoostrate to the satIsfaction of
the permitting authority thai it can com-
plete constructIon by July 1. 1983.
Third. no extension-can be granted unless
the permittIng agency finds than the sewage
treatment plant will be able to nicer the re-
quirements of secondary treatment and water
quality standards when the waste from the
contributing industry La received,
Fourth. the poini source and the sewage
treatment plant must hare entered Into a
binding contract providing that the con-
trtbutor agrees to discharge its waste to the
treatment plant, and the sewage treatment
plain agrees to accept and treat that waste by
a certain dare, Also, the contract must pro-
vtde that the contributor agrees to pay all
user charges and construction coat recovery
charged required under section 204 of the AOt.
In order to OSSiSI tile permitting agency
in protecting the puolic interest, the agency
is iastructed to consider the good fai ,th of
the industrial discharger in decIdIng whether
or not to grant an extension of the 1977 dead-
line.
If alt the above conditions are met, the
permitting agency may etceadthe data nf
compliance with final e ueni ltmltatioiis
either to correspond with any extension
granted to the receiving treatment work. or
to tile earliest possibl, date that sewage plant
construction permits the tie-in (in ito event
later than July 1. 1033), The permit allow-
ing such an extension shall not allow any
extension of the permittee’s obligation to
comply with pretreatment Standards and
toxic eeuent limitations.
The Administrator may not grant an ax-
‘tensIon for an industry which Intends to dis-
charge through a municipal system if he de-
termines that the municipality wilt not have
its treatment works completed by July 1.
1933. Ix that event, the Adminiotrator is
required to iSsue the a ected industry a per-
mit which sets forth an e uent limitsion
and a ocinpUance schedule which wit . ,s ure
compliance by that source at the enrIlest rea-
sonable date. -
Section 41 amends section 309 of the Act
to provide two new enforcement options for
violations of the 1977 best practicable tech-
nology for industrial discilargers. The first
option authorizes the issuance of an enforce.
‘meot order requirtng a “reasonable” tine tcr
compliance. rese ing the 3 .day require.
ment for violation o ope-atmon and main-
tenance requirements and interim COlflOii.
a ce schedules The ‘econd option author:res
an ectene.on of th 1977 deauli. e up co Jsii—
u.wy-t, 1973, y.here the Admtnlatritor fi dj
Char the d..charger acted in ocd :i:h. t ac
a serious cormicment 13 at rc’e co pt. .i:e
had been made, that coinpliince will occur
no later than January 1, 1, that the e-
tension will not impose addi:ionai controls
on other sources, that an ac,lcatmon for a
permit was filed betore December 31 1971.
and that the necessary abatemeiit facilitIes
are under construction.
Con ererice SUb3t:ti&t
The conference substitute is based upon
the flenate amendment wtth the following
niodifications:
(1) The requirement that “major” new
construction be required tins been revised
to require that construction be required.
(2) The requirement that constructIon
cannot be “reasonably’ co ’npletsd hns been
revised to require that crinstruetlon cannot
be completed
(3, It ties b en made clear that the ntted
States must have failed 10 make financial
assistance available in time —
‘(4 The owner or operator of a treatment
works-is given 180 days to file a request (Or
in e’ttension,
(5) Where an industrial point source WIlL
not achieve tile reqiurenienu and (I) I L a
permit issued before JuLT 1. i977, to that
source U based upon a aischa:ge into a
pubilciy owned treatment works or (II) If
such Industrial point source had before
July 1, 1977. a contract enforceable against
it to discharge into a publicly owned t?,at-’
meat works or (ill) IL eit er an applIcation
‘made before July 1. 1977. for a construction
grant for a publicly owned treatment works
or engineering or architectural plans that
such industrial point source was to discharge
tub the publicly owned treatment woras
and that the publicly owned treatment
works is preseatiy unable to accept tile In-
dustnial poLar source without construction
and, in the case of a discharge to an exi.sttn;
puoiicty owned treatment works. that treat-
ment works has an extensIon under pare.
graph (1) of the subsectIon, then the
owner or operator of the Industrial point
source may request the Administrator for
the State) to extend the time for cornoli-
ware. This request must be filed withIn ItO
days after the date of enactment of the
subsection or the filing of a request by an
appropriate publicly owned works under
paragraph (1). whichever Is liter, The re-
maining provisions of the Senate amend-
meal relating to the granting of such ex-
tension or modificatIon are unchan;ed In
the conference substitute. -
This provisIon contemplates for those La-
dustries Introducing their discharges into
municIpal systems, that such industries’
complete their pretreatment requic’emerita
by a date consistent with the pretreatment
provisions of this Act which wou ld, have to
be met if the municipal systems were avail-
able. For example. it an industry Is plan-
nIng on participating In a municipal system
- which wi ll not be available until January
1983. that Industry wouid still have to In-
stall and operate pretreatment facilitIes
within the time soedtfled for compliance at
the time the applicable pretreatment stand-
ard was promulgated and in no event later
than 3 years from the date of said promw-
gallon. Thus, if the pretreatment reguLs .
lions are promulgated March 1. 1970 and
require compliance within two years. that
industry would be required to comply by
Ma.-cii 1, 1981, - -
There will be no time extension for in-
dustries which intend to be tied in15
municipal systems the treatment works for
whIch will not be completed by July 1. 1983,
-99 -
-------
- - - 1971 DEDi .SNE3
Howe bILL
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
.tsnends section 309 of the Act to provide
two flew en!orcenienc Options for violations
of the 1917 best pracucaole technology (or in-
dustrial diwbargers. The first optton author-
izes the Issuance of an enforcement order
requL-ing a “reasonable’ time for co mpltance.
reserving the 30-day requirement for viola-
tion of operatton and maintenance require-
menta and interim compliance scnedules. The
second option authorizes up to an 13-month
extension of the 1917 deadLine where the Ad-
ministrator’fi.nds that the d acbnrger acted
in good faith; that a serious commitment to
achieve compliance had been made: that
complIance will occur no later than Jauu-
ary 1. 1973; that the extension will not m i-
pose additional controls on other Sources;
that an appUcatton for a permit was lefl be-
fore— December 31. 1974: and that tZ e
necessary abatement faciLities are under
construction.
Conference ubstitnte
The conference substitute retains the first
option authorized by the Senate amendment
and retains the second oplion revised to
ensure that a person, other than a vlolator,
who is otherwise not in compliance with the
time requirements of the Act. may have an
extension of up to April 1. 1979.
In addition, toe conference substitute
establIshes an addItional option wh 1cb pro-
vides that if the Administrator finds (I) that
a person is in violatton of section 301(b) (1)
(A)’ or (C) of the Act, (2) that the parson
caenot meet the requ ements for a time
e’ctenston under section 301 i) (2) and (3
the appropriate means of compliance by the
person is to discharge into a publicly owned
treatment works, then upon the request of
the person, the AdminIstrator may issue a
complIance order for the earliest practicable
date, but not later than July 1, 1083. for the
treatment works if that works concurs with
the order.
For those municipal sources whIch are
unable to meet this statutory deacilne due
to their u il.Ungaes to’ ra e, aop.’oprtate
ctCbns and spend necessary amounts of
money at the earliest possible time, no exten-
don would be granted and enforcement
actions would be undertaken under section
309.
In determining whether or not to graiit
the ectension. the permitting agency m.l,s
- consider whether the delays in conatructaca
‘ vere due to PA’s inabil :y to make avalialile
appropriate constructIon grant monies-
promptly (as described in section 301(1) of
the Act), or whether the fault lirs with the’
municipalIty’s unwIllIngness to move as fast
as possibto with all available resources toward
the achievement of the requirements of
secondary treatment.
The conferees modified he Senate amend-
ment to provide reco nitiun of the fact that
some sourc!s may fail to comply wIth the
deadllues of the Act for reasons be/onci thetr
control such that it is not aoprcprtate to
label them as violators. ndec the conference
modification, these kinds of sources may re-
ceive extensions without bearing the Stl n3
of vioiatton of law. ft is the intent of the
conferees that under the pro;-lston hich
allows the AdminIstrator to est ihiIsh a
reasonable time in which to comply aith an I
enforcement order, e’ctsttng adnilatitrative
and couti orde’s wiucli provide or attain-
ment dates beyond April 1. 1970. coittuue In
eifect unless modified under these amend-
menu. The:efore the existing enforcement
policy of the £?A Is continued. The couere”s
also intend that durlug such time of corn—
pliance, the Administrator may require a
point source to meet any interim levei,e of
• treatment as he deems appropriate under the
• circumstances.
In any case where an industry planned on.
negotIated w ;h, and conducted Joint engi-
neertng studies with a municIpality wb ch
p:anned to construct a publIcly-owned treat-
ment works and subsequ. ntly decided not to
pruceed with Such a works such Industry
would be elIgible for an extension of Its 1977
beat practIcable technology requirement for
a. period of time not to exceed that which
eLipsed during the negotiations with the mu-
mctpality and the engineering studies.
A number of Industries received grants
under sectIon 105(c) of the Act to assist
them in developing inflovatlve technologies
for treating their wastes. A small number of
these industries were unable to perfect these
LnnOvati7e technologies, through no fault of
their owti, and were thus required to Install’
the necessary conventional facilities to meet
the requirements of section 301(b)(lp by
July 1, 1977.
It is intended that industries which re-
ceived grants under section 103(c) of the
Act to develop new technology to treat In-
dustrIal waste, and were unsucresaful, will
be elIgible-to reccive additional time to com-
ply ‘a-tin section 301(b )(l) of the Act. An
e nmple of such an Lndustrv that has come
ta the attentzo of the Managers is the }fol-
U ton itills in K1n roort. Tennessee which
wou d require one additIonal year.
A person who wishes an extensIon must
have made a serious commitment of the nec-
essary resources to achieve comoilance as
soon as ossib1e aiter.JuIy 1. 1971, but no
lasir than April 1. 1979 Ptere the Adnijnis.
trator must determine whether purchase
orders were executed, land cieered, and engi-
neers and consn’uctlon-wopkers available, or
otoer stem taken to insure that the job can
be completed by the new extended data.
CONG. ROBERTS :
197? DSADLflStS-
The ercl Water Pollution Control
Ad. Amendments of 19’12 established a
systematic approach for dealir. ,with
water polluton from thdustrfak and
runiclpal sources. Publicly owned waste
trearment facilities were required to
hare e uent limitations based ca
secondary treatment by July 1. 12i7, and
nonpublicly owned point sources v:ere re-
qmred to apply best practicable control
technology by that same date.
Over the past 5 years signiflcaiit p Lo ;-
ress ha.c been made in clc. ning our
waterways. Tlie Environnienta 1 Prntcc-
ticn .ii.gency estimates that. 85 percent cf
major industrial a..scha.rgcrs ha’, c con-
plied with the law. Many of the or. .cr iS
percent have been unable to comply
through no fault of thetr own. Most of
those sources wriach has e not conip lif.d
with the law have negotiated agreemerit,s
“:th the EPA that will shortly bi-ing them
into compliance.
Because there have been some t stacces
where industries have failed to comply
wth the law, section 55 of the conference
rc oi t has included it procedure ere
the Acimini.itrator i gtven trio opt.cnl to
gnat an extension of the l 77 deadline
Utitil April 1, 1979. The flrs: op:;on au-
thpr:zes the Issuance of an enlorcement
order requiring a reasonable tune for
compliance. reserving the 30-clay re-
qiurement for violation of operation and
maintenance requirements lncluded ta
Interim compliance schedules. The sec-
ond option authorizes up to nn 12-month
extension of the 1977 deadline where the
AcL’nin iscrator finds that the dischager
acted in good faith; that a serious corn-
U’.ittnent to achieve compliance had been
made;—bhat compliance will occur no later
tha’t Apr Il 1, 1979: that the e’rtenelon
will not Impose additional controls on
other sources; that an applicatIon for a
permit was filed before Decemoer 31,
1974; and that the necessary abatement
f3cthtles are under construction, II is
important to note that the second op-
tion ailowS a person other than a v!o ator,
riot in comphance with the time require-
meats of the act, to have an extension
of up to Apr11 1.1979.
Throughout the conference, the House
conferees were very aware of the ctLrrent
t scai problems of the American steel in
dustry. In several instances the House
conferees attempted to assist this inat.s-
try to meet the requiremenr.s of the act
in a way that would not place great fi-
r.ancia l stress on the Industry cauning
further plant closings and greater un-
ernployn-tent. We are sorry to say that
the Hou.e conferees were only partially
successf’.iL
The steel Industry has had problems
with capital formation for several years.
In many instances the Industry ha,s not
been able to modernize and Install pollu-
tion control equipment at the same time.
Por that reason many individual facth-
ties negotiated long-term, agreements
with EPA that carry the compliance date
for BPT past July 1. 1977. and in some
instances past April 1, 1979. Nothing in
this legislatIon invalidates or in any way
affects any orders, decrees, settlements,
or other agreements in existence prior to
enactment of this legislation pertaining
to compliance dates for EPT. -
On another matter, the Rouse con-
ferees were less successful. We offered
language to the Senate conferees that
would have allowed the Presicent, after
consultation with the Secretary of Corn- -
met-ce, the Secretary of Labor, and the
Adinirnitrator of the EPA to exempt any
point source or category of point sources,;
other than publicly owned tredtrnent
works, from Compliance with the require-’
merits of section 30l(b)(1) and f
tion 301(b) (2) if tie deterrn nect It to be.
in the national interest of the Uruteci
States to do so. Any exemption would
have been for a period not in excess or
2 y,tars. but additional exemptions m;u it
have been granted for periods of rot to
exceed 2 years upon the Pres :clent ma L ’t;
a nesv determination. There v.ould hase
to be assurances that they woutd meet
CONFERENCE REPORT :
MUNICIPAL TIME EXTENSIONS AND 1977 DEAoLIr Es (Continued)
Pg 3
STATEMENTS :
-100-
-------
MUNICIPAL tIME EXTENSIONS AND 1977 DEADLINES
(Continued)
Pg 4
Interim e!fluent guidelines and would con-
tinue operatibc., at the site in the fu-
ture. Since the steel industry is of major
national interest because of Its defense
and employment Impact, as well as the
ripple effect that occurs throughout the
economy whenever the steel industry is
Impacted, the House conferees offered
this language to the Senate conferees.
This would not have been an automatic
extension of environmental controls; a
rigorous test had to be applied in each
case. The House conferees were attempt-
tag to be responsive to the situation as
we knew it. Unfortunately the Senate re-
- fused to accept this znothflcatloL
With respect to municipal require-
• merits, we have not been as successful In
reaching deadlines. Present estimates by
the Environmental ProtectIon Agency
show that approximately one-third of all
publicly owned treatment works have
complied with the 1977 requirement in a
timely manner. The primary fault lies
• with unavailability of Federal funding
- . arid redtape. Alter passage of the act in
1972 the President Impounded half of the
funds earmarked for the construction
grant orogram. To compound the lack
of fundIxi . tiie EPA put so much recltape
on top of the woefully inadequate fund-
ing that many communit es simply threw
up their hands and refused to deal with
the Federal Government.
The conferees wrestled with this prob-
lem and came up with an equitable solu-
tion that recogntze . the present realities
of the situation. The conference report
provides the Admuustrator with the
flexibility he needs to grant time exten-
• sions through modifications of permits.
To exercise this modL’lcatlon authority,
the Admniiitrator must find either that
construction is underway but the facility
wa.s unable to he Completed prior to July
1 of this year. or that the United States
- has failed to make financiaj assistance
available in a timely manner. Th1 modi-
fication procedure can only be Instituted
at. the request of the owner or operator
of a publicly owned treatment works and
ii must be request.ed of the Administra-
tor within l i0 days of the date of enact-
•ment. It Is the conferees’ intent that any
modi&ation shou!d contain a schedule
of Comp1i. nce based on among other
things availability of financial assistance
from the United States.
This modification shall not extend any
later than July 1. 1933, under any cir-
cumstances, and the Administrator may
make additional requIremen of the
point source such as interim eftluent
limitations during tune of construction
• of the treatment works.
Throughout the Nation many Indus-
tries have Contemplated tying into
municipal works and have been unable
to do so Lecause o the nab lity of pub-
Ucly owned treatment works to come
into compliance with the law. These in-
dustrial dischargers are now, in rniny
• lnstanues, out of complianre with the law
without fault. Section 45 permits the
owner or operator of an lt idusti ’ial source
to request a sunriar time e- tension as
that ava:Iable to puolicly owned treat-
ment works when the owncr or operator
of trial industrial source has a permit is-
sued prior to July 1, l2’7, contémplat-
tag discharge Into a treatment works.
Several other criteria were included to
insure that the owner or operator was
acting in good faith. The owner or onern- -
tor must show that the point source had
an enforceable contrac: to cu charge into
a treatment orks and there is an ap-
plication pending for a municipal treat-
ment works reflecting in its eng -n.ieerlng
and design capacity for that point
source.
As in the case with municipal dis-
charges, it is the responsibility of the
owner or operator of each point source to
apply to the Admiatctrator within 180
days of enactment of this section for the
extension. The conferees expect the Ad-
ministralor to grant such extensions
when he finds that. the owner or opera-
tor of this point source has acted in good
faith. Any moa.ifled permit issued should
contain a schedule of compliance similar
to that included in the extension for pub-
Ucly-owned treatment works including
any pretreatr ent and interim eriuent
Liniitations that me Administration
deems aophcable.
Also, sz.-ctron 56 provides that where
A finds that an industry cannot meet
the reqwremcnts for a time extension
under section 301(i) (2) as set forth, in
section 45 regarding industries which
contemplate tying into a murucipal
treatment works, and the Administrator
finds that the most expeditious and ap-
propriate means of compliance is for IL -ie
industry to discharge into a municipal
treatment works, upon the industry’s
request, the Adr nt r.ra or may issue art
order requiring the ibdustry to come into
compliance at the earliest date practica-
ble. but. not later than July 1, 1983, by’
discharging into a municipal treatment
works.
The conferees do not expect the Ad-.
ministrator to make unnecessary de-
mands on owners or operators of point
sources. They do expect the Admirustra-
br to make permit modification deci-
sions in a timely manner.
No such trme modification shall be
granted where It Is not contemplated
that the municIpal trear.inent works will
be in operation and available to the point
source prior to July I, 1983.
CONG. EILBERG & ROBERTS :
• Mr: E1LBERG. ’ Mr. Speaker, I wish
to inqwre as to the intent of this bill
regarding extensions of time’ for mu-
mcipalitiesjo meet the secondary treat-
ment deadline in the case where EPA it-
self may have contributed to the delay.
For example, the city of Phtlaaelphia
is carryinjout a halt -billion-dollar pro-
gram to improve its abateinent.facthties.
-101-
While Federal funda nave been avail-
able, EPA has delayed the city by re-
fusing to approve Federal tunthn for
parts of the program which are lii ib1e
for such funding; by insisting upon F -ed-
• eral bidding procedures ratner inert fol-
loiring State and local law as has ce i
the practice; and by refusing to support
the -city’s efforts to solve the difficult
problem of sludge disposal on land rather
than in the ocean.
Is the intent of Congress that EPA be
particularly responsive in granting ex-
tensions in such cases as these, when
EPA has or may have contributed to the
delay? —
Mr. ROBERTS. The conference report
establishes a procedure whereby the Ad-
thinistrator, on a case-by-case basis, can
extend the July 1, 1977 deadlIne for mu-
nic:pal waste treatment plant construc-
tion to July 1, 1983, when constrict on
cannot be completed on time or the
United States failed to make financial
assistance available in tune.
I wane to stress that it is our inten-
tion that the provision be applied lib-
erally—not in a restrictive, puniu e, or
arbitrary manner.
I am not in a position to .ludze each
individual case, but I trust that the
Administrator of ).PA—or the State ad-
ministrator, in the case where there is
a section 402 permit program in the
State—will administer the time exten-
sion L’i a manner that w:U be mcit eon-
cerned about reaching. sound erivir n-
mental results in the most cooperanvo
manner.
a
SENATOR MUSKIE :
— -•• I ’
Section 309 Is amended to authcriz ’.
the Administrator to use his enforcement
discretion in three new ways in the issu-
ance of administrative orders: First, to
require compliance with final permit re-
quIrements within a reasonable and ex-
peditious time; second, to require corn-
pliance with the requirements of section
301(b)(l)(A) of the act by industr:al
dlschgrgers meeting specified criteria b
April 1. 1979; and third, to require com-
pliance by an industrial discharger not
meeting all of the criteria for an exten-
sion under the new section 501(1) (2 by
discharging Its -wastes by July 1. 1983, to
a publicly owned treatment works that
will meet the requirements of sectien 301
(b) (1) (B) and (C) of the act after re-
ceiving the wastes from the industrial
dischargerby July 1.1983.
These remedies are all at the discretion
of the Administrator. No discharger tins
any right to compel the Adininistrator to -
provide a particular remedy. These rem-
ecies are su adthtion to and not. exclustve
of e,: lstrng remedies. The Aaninistra’ or.
for in Lance, in appropr ato cases may
- seek a civil penalty as well as issuing an
administrative’ order. Re is expei.ted.
however,’ not to seek penalties in ‘In-
-------
MUNICIPAL TIME EXTENSIONS AND 1977 DEADLINES
Pg 5
sLancesjrom a dLse ii’.rge: to which he Is-
sues an ad.muustratite oraer under the’.
new section 309(a) (5) (8) as long as the
discharger is lit compliance with that
order, since that new section was de-
signed In part to emove the stigma of
noncompliance from dzschargers meet-
ing the criteria of that section not in
compliance because of circumstances en-
tireiy beyond their control. It should be
noted that the extensions available to in-
dustrial dischargers In adnunntrative
orders in the new section.309(a) (5) B)
and in permits in the new section 301(1)
(2) (B) are available only to dischargers
that have acted in good faith. The Ad-
ministrator is not expected to grant corn-
‘parable extensions in administrative or-
ders under the new section 309(a (5)
(A) or (C) to industrial dischargers that
have not been in good faith.
It must be emphasized that the Adrnin-
istrator is expected to utilize section 209
(a) (6) only In those few cases where the
discharger has acted in good faith and
the Administrator finds that such means
• of compliance would result in more rapId
and effecttve reduction of the amount of
pollutants dischc.rged than any other at-
ternative means or compl:ance. The Iaet
that use of a publicly owned treatment
works would be less expensive than treat-
ment by the discharger is not relevant to
the exe cise of the Administrators
discretion to use this enforcement
alternative.
In providing the Administrator with
additional fleinbibty to issue enforce-
mezit orders where coxlipliance with stat-
utory deadlines would be impractIcable,
• the conferees do not intend to under-
mine the fundamental concept of strict
liabiUty which underllcs 1 the act’s en-
forcement provisions. In particular, the
Administrator and the courts should not
be burdened in enforcement proceedings
with determinations of whether a dis-
charger was negligent, not exercising
due care, or otherrtse at. fault. - - -
CONG. CLEVELAND :
- SZClTOtr 5G —1917 DZADLZxES
When the Federal Water Poliuuori
Control Act Amendments of 1972 were
• being developed. Congress made It clear
• that Industrial sou.ices were encourared
to participate lit joint raunic lpal-indus-
trial treatment works. This was done to
reduce the number of Ind Ividual sources
of discharge to our waters.
Before participating in a joint system
industry and niuJuc palities can reason-
ably be exoected to study and evaluate
the economic effects of part1c1patin
These studies take time. Also, there nay
be some question whether the inunicipal
system will be viable. Time cart be con-
sumed, time which is lost to the industry
if the municipal syste m does not proceed
and leaves the industry with the re u ip-
mesit to install best practicable control’
technology by July 1, 1977.
(Conti nued)
This situationwa.s recognized clea:ly -
by the conferees, I refer to the fourth
full pa:agraoh in the statement o man-
agers on page 9 of the corJerence repoz-
( P .ept. No. 95—30) which follows:
i ,uiv case where an tndusrry planned o’i.
Cc Ot.4ted tth , and cond’4ctecj Jolilt 0fl -
c eertng studies with a mulic ipailtv wh.crt
p nect to construcl a pubUci7.owa 4 treat-
n en works and subsequeotiy dec de4 not to
p:cceed w :h such a worss such Industry
wowd b. eligihie for an ex ensIori of Its
1917 best practicable technology req’ilr,-
mect ror a time not to eweeci that wblch
elapsed during the negotiations with the
ni3alcipaLLty and the eag eenng st ud iSs.
In any request for a time exten.ston
under the amendment to section 301 of
the act set forth in section 56 of the
Clean Water Act of 1917. the clear In-
tent of the conferees Is that the Admin-
istrator recognize this source of delay
and give credit for this lost time.
One such example of a comoany which
lost time because ot the decision by a
municipality not to proceed with a mun-
Icipa.t s atezn Is Paper Service Mills, Inc.
of Kinsd ale, N H. While I cannot com-
ment on all aspects of this situittiO , it
is api,arent that this company io l time
by participating in a municipal system.
The .ibo ,e quot?cj language os the state-
ment of managers is cocaistent with tue
s ton my district and ZPA is ex-
p ted to recognize this clear direction
for Congress.
CONG. ANDERSON (Calif) :
19?T T Z1T lBION5
SectIon 45 provides that the .luI I.
1977, secondary treatment requirement
for mun1c1p libes may be extended to
JuLy’ 1, 1983, witere construction cannot
be completed in time or the Umtcd States
failed to make financial assistance avail-
able In time. EPA, or a State with an
authorized permit program. may grunt
the time extension. The owner or op-
erator of a trescinent works baa 180 days
after enactment to file a recuest or alt
extension, it is the conferees’ latent that
any request for a notification :thsuld con-
tain a scriedule of compliance based on
among other things availability of finan-
cial c.ssistance from the mred States.
Throughout the Nation many indns-
tries have contemplated tyui into
inuiticipal works and have been unanle
Li do so oecause of the taa itLry of pub-
licly ownea treatment wor s to come
into compliance with the law. This has
been . problem n southern Califorriis.
The , e industrial d cbargem .ire now. La
n any Instances, out of com, ance with
the Law without fault. Section 43 permits
such indtfstries to get a time ettension
up to Juiy 1, 1 33, In the following ca. 5 es:
F’.rst. if a per=:t issued before July 1.
1977, to that sou’ce is based upon a c.s-
charge into publicly owned i eaancnt
w r s, or;
Second. if such a source had, before
July 1, 1977, a contract en oreacle
• ainst it to discharge into a putLciy
owned treatment aor s or
Third. if either an appUcation made
before July 1. 1977, for a cor’icruct.oct
grant for publicly owned t-eatini’ni
works, or eagiaeertn or arcn ceczi raI
p!a.is or work drnw ngs made efure
that date for such wo: s. sco.v L’a:
t: source was to di.scnai’ge into the
ptibhc owned treatment worxs and that
the treatment works are prea ntly
unable ta ncc pt the source without con-
structicni and, in the case of a clschar7e
to an existing treatment works. this the
treatment works has a n exter.aion of its
1977 requIrements.
Art indujtry has 150 days after er.act-
meat or the tiling of a requcet for a time
e:cteris on by a municipal trcament
works, whichever Is later. to re ’4uest an
extenston.
No extension cart be gr;cted unless
the perirutting authori:y
First, that the treatment works can
complete ccn tz-uction by July 1, 1 J3:
Second, that the treatment works wiLL
be be to meet seccruiai-j tr tmect
and water quslity st.aacisros warn tcie
waste from the contributing industry is
received;
Third, the industry and the treatment
works have entered into a o:ncLng con-
tract provicing that the irinustry a;rees
to discharge its waste to the treatmei-iC ’
plant, and the plant agi’ees to accept arid
treat that waste by a certain cate;
Fourth, the contract hiust provide
that the Industry agrees to pay all user
charges and industrial cost recovery
charges required under section 204, and,
t1th, the industry muat meet au t iaic
and pretreatment standards curing use
period of the time extension.
Because there have been some in-
stances where industries have failed to
compiy with the law, the conferees hate
included a procedure wl’ere the Ad-
mlo.istrator is given two opt:ons to gra.t
an extension of the 1977 ueadhne until
April 1, 1979. The first option aut,horizes
the issuance of an enforcement orcer re-
quiring a reasonable time for compliance.
reserving the 30-day reqwrensent for
violation of operation arid maintenance
requirements and interIm complintice
schedules. The second option authorizes
up to an 13.mont .h extension of the 1977
deadline where the Administrator finds
that the discharger acted in good faith;
that compitance will occur no later trian
April 1, 1979; that the extension will not
impose additional controls on other
sources; that an application for a per-
mit was flied before December 31, l 4;
arid that the necessary abatement zacil-
ities are under construction. It is im-
port.ant to note that the second optton
aflc.wa a person other than a v 1olator,
who is otherwise not in compliance wstn
the time requirements of the act, to have
-102-
-------
P9 6
MUNICIPAL TIME EXTENSIONS AND 1977 DEADLINES
- (Continued)
an extension of up to Apfli 1, 19711. Also,
If EPA hinds that the most expeditious
means or bringing the Industry into corn-
pliance is for It to discharge Into a
municipal treatment works. EPA may is-
sue an enforcement order, upon request
of the industry, calling for it to tic in
with the treatment works no later than
July 1. 1983.
For the purpose of section 45 and 56
industries and cihes that pursued their
.Iudlcial rights in regard to the 1971 dead-
line are not to be penalized or be con-
stdered as having acted In bad faith.
Throughout the.conference, the Eouse
conferees were very aware of the cur-
rent capital problems of the American
steel Industry. The steel Industry had
had problems with capital formulation
for seveai years. In many instances the
Industry has not been able to modernize
and Install pollution control equipment
for the reason that many Individual
facUlties negotiated long term settle-
ments that. carry past July 1, 1977. an d
In some instances past April 1. 1979. It is
the erm Intent of the conferees that
noth1n g in this legislation invaiidatea or
in any way affo ts any such orders, de-
crees, settlements, or other ag-reement.s
In existence prior to the enactment of
this th.ngiiage.
CONG. CLAUSEN :
• , One of tiij ’ I iportant Issues which
came before the committee was consid-
eration of the time requirements in Pub-
ito Law 92—500; because of the work of
the Conunisslon we know now that many
of these time requirements, simply can-
i not be met. For instance the secondary
treatment requJrem nt of July 1. 1917.
has been K yed to July 1. 1083 in ret-
ugziition of the fact that Congress per-
haps underestimated., the tasa ahead at -
them. In 1972 in. terms of boin. time and
money and also because the program
was a Icted with impoundment of large
portions of its funds.
On the industrial side; the .rst re-
qulremant Is to have best practicable
control technology installed and. work-
lag by July 1.1977. On the whole, u,dus-
try has been able to comply. The EPi.
estimates that 85 percent of the Nation’s
major industrial dischargers have com-
plied with this requirement. Eawever ’ we
do recognize that some sources may be
out oL compil nce through no fault of
their own, through. equipment rnanufac-
‘turers” strikes or the unavailability of
- certain equipment or failure of the EPA
ta :publish.e uent gmdelines and stand-
- arc s - In time. For this reason- we have
provided an extension of -the July £. 1377
- deadline to April 1. 1979, only In those
Instances where the discharger can prove
good faith with, the law and lack, of corn-
- pti nce because of it circumstances be-
yoz’. i the discharger’s control.
-103-.
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
(Need to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
SENATE REPORT
MUNIOWAL TIME ExFENSI0NS
SOMMART
This section amends Section 301, Efiluent Limitations, to permit a
case-by-case modification of the July 1, 1977, deadline, for publicly
owned treatment works up to July 1 1983, where construclion cannot
be completed or where Federal funds have not been made available.
Such modification is available to clischargcrs into the system if such
dischargors have been found to have acted in good faith.
nisccssroir
This amendment allow’s the Federal or State approved permitting
agency to extend the July 1, 1977, deadline for the achievement of sec-
ondary treatment by sewage treatment plants on a case-by-case basis.
Many mllnicl [ )al sewage plants arc unnblc to meet this deadline through
no fault of their own and often duo to the inability of EPA. to make
adequate funding available to allow construction of necessary faeili-
I tics. fl 1 purpose of this amendment is to allow the peimit ng agency
to extend the date of coumpliancu for thq o tieatmirnnt works, and indu —
tries with contracts to tie-in to treatment worlis, which lmve made all
possible efforts to meet the July 1 1977, deadline anti whose failure
to do o is primarily the anlt of d 1 Federal ( overnmiient. For those
industrial and municipal sources which arc unable to meet this statu—
— tory deadline due to their un vihlingn ss to take appropriate actions
and spend iieccssary amounts of money mit the earliest possible time,
the commit tee intends that no extension be granted and that en-
forcement actions be undertakemi under section 309.
Proposed section 801(f) (1) allows the pevniitlinu agency, in its dis-
cretion, to extend the statutory deadline for secon%try tveiitmuciit for
sewage treutmnemit plants, provided that either (I) major new construc-
tion is required and cannot reasonably be completed by the statutory
deadline, or ( ) necessary Federal financial assistaikcc under tiLJo II
of the Federal \Vater Pollution Control Act has not been available.
The committee intends that the major construction reipiired relate to
ess ntial parti of tIme treatment system of the plant itself, not collec-
• tor sewers, administration buildings, or operations and maintenance
expenses. In determining whether or not to grant the extension, the
pemmnitting agency must consider whether the delays in con (ruction
• were clue to EPA’s inability to make available appropriate construe-
• tion grant moneys promptly, or whether the fault lies with the maim—
rncipality’s unwillingness to move as fast as possible with all available
reSources toward time achievement of the requirements of secondamy
treatment.
If an extemmion is granted, tIme permitt .in agency shall specify in the
permit that fimmal compliance with the requirements of secondary treit-
inent lie achieved at the earliest date practically possible, but iii no
event later than July 1, 1983. In addition, the permit shall contain any
oth v requireniemits necessary to carry out the act, including interim
ellluent limitations to be achieved by the application of the be L po-
siblo operations and maintenance pracLice and other mioncapital limicim—
sivo measures. Time facility should be required to treat as munch waste
as possible, as thoroughly as possible, lcadin to th nchicvemeimt of
1977 requirements of the act.. In addition, tL Imeimnit shall contain
such requirements as are necessary to achieve the requirements of
water quality standards, best practicable waste Li eatument technolqgy,
toxic elihiemit limitations, and pretreatment standards.
Section ( ) of p’°p° ’ 1 section 301 (f) allows (ha permitting •au—
thority, in its discretion, to extend tIme date of comnpliance with the
July 1, 1977, deadline for nonmunuicipal point sources which intend to
• discharge their va te to a yet unfinished sewage treatment l)lant. When
Congress enacted the Feclcral STater Pollution Control Act Amend-
mnents of 1iYT , it emicoumageci indu tries to send wastes of time type that
could be treated by local municipal Sewage treatment. plants to tlmo c
plants for treatment, thereby avoiding duplication and expense. To
be consistent with that purpose, the committee intends that nonmunici—
pal sourcec which are firmly commnitted to tic-in with a mimiiimicipnl
sewage treatment plant, not be forced to build (lul)hicntive treatnunt
facilities pcmmdin the completion of the sewage treat inemit plant.
Several criteria must be met, however, before time nomnimnicipal
point source can be consklered for an extension. First, the point *
Sources l)cIimmiL mimQt evidence a decision to tie-in to time municipal
treat meat works. Permits i siied to these pOimmt sources several ycai
ago include provisions which will require modiuicat ion it aim extension
is grammtcml. ‘l’Jmo permit, written when all parties intended a Lie-j im
lwior to July 1, 1977, may have effluent limnitatinmis requiring zero
iliscimarge at the time of the contemplated connection, in somne cases,
the pei’imiit may explicitly state that a tie—in vill occur on a certain
date, amid prolmmhit later isclmarges to navigable waters of iiolhmmtanls
semmt to [ ho immuimmcipal plant for treatment. In either case, the Pei’mfliL
nmmi-t. be inodi1ie I to reflect time new Lie—jim date.
-104-
-------
Second, the sewage treatment plant which is the intended recipient
‘of waste from the nonmunicipal point source, must either have oh-
ttii ned an ext.cnsioit pursuant to the first paragraph of this section or
require substantial construction in order to process the waste. Soino
sewage treatment plants, while fully able to meet the requirements of
the July 1, 1977, deadline, have not ye completed construction of
tlio o sewer lines necessary to complete the tie-in. (Note that the
detinition of “major construction” in this section is different from
that ust’d iii section (1)’ in that construction of sewer lines is included
if the lines are intemleci to connect an industrial cont ,ril)Iitor.) Other
plants, while possessing adeqiiiit.o sower lines, have not coiitriicted
facilities necessary to handle the increased flow from new industrial’
contribLitors. This section allows the indust ,rial point source to obtain
an extension of its final efiluant limitations pending tIi completion
of this major construction by a sewage trentnwiit plant, proviclc(l that
the sewage ticatinent plant ins fully planned and can denmoustrate to
the satisfaction of the peimitting authority that it can complete con-
struct ion by July 1,1983.
‘l’luiil, no extension can ‘be grant l tuiless the permitting agency
finds that, the sewage treatment, plant will be able to meet the require-
iiicnls of seconchuiy I rentincut, cmi ii vater quality standards thcmi the
wnstc from tim contributing inclusti:y is recoivcd.
Foiu th, the point source and time sewage treatment plant must have
entered into a binding contract providing thtit the contributor agrees
to clisdiargo its waste to the treatment plant, and the sewage t.uc’at-
ment plant agrees to accept and treat that waste by a certain date.
• Also, the contract must provide that time contributor agrees to pay all
user charges and construction cost recovery charges required under
‘section 204 of the act.
• Iii order to assist the permitting agency in protecting the ‘pul)hiC
interest, the agency is instructed to consider the good faith of the
inchist.ri,il discharger in deciding whether or not to grant an e tcn-
sion of the 1977 deadline. For the purposes of this section, a finding
of good failh includes the consideration of any possible economic’
a(lv.Lnt ago v & a 2 123 other competing in 1ustrics, and whether the point
source has met the requirements of its existing permit mid operated
its limited macililies competently and responsibly.
TI all the ebove conditions are met, the permitting agency may ex-
tend the dato of compliance with finm l elhluent limitations either to
correspond with any extension granted to the receiving treatment
work, or to the earliest possible date that sewiage plant construction
permits the tie-in ( n no event, later than July 1,, 1983). The permit
nlh wiiig such an extension shall not allow any extension of the par-
mutt Leo’s obligation to comply with pretreatment st,mndards and toxic
efluuucnt , hinmitations. In addition, the permuittec vill be required to op..
crat its existing treatment facilities, and in the tliscretion of the
permitting authority, construct such additional facilities. a many ho
necessary to macat any interim eflinemit limitations in the permit. ‘While
the committee does not wish to force industries to build duplicative
treatment facilities duo to a short delay in the coiripirt ion of a sewage
treat mitemit plant, it. is only remusommnhulo that those iniluistrmi which can
utilize nonicapital intensive measures to improve the quality of their
wastes should be required to do so ai an interim step. ‘rho committee
also intends that tlio permitting agency consider and, if appropriate,
require the use of recycling and other water conservation rcquire
ments, to be set forth iii time permit.
The Administrator may not grant an extension for an industry
which intends to clischar e through a municipal system if lie deter-
mines that time municipality will not have it-s treatment.works coin’
plated by July 1,1983. In that event, time Administrator is required
to issue the a thmcted industry a permit which sets fom th an effluent
immimitation and a compliance schedule which will assure compliance by
that. source at tho earliest reasonable date.
This limitation’ makes it incumbent, on States to assign a high
priority to joint nmunicipal-industrial focilities which if not built oil
a timely basis would force industries into an alternative COUFSC of
action. is not a Federal judgment its to whiek project should rcce ve
priority as between two projects which nrc designed to meet the cii-
foreenbhe requ it cmi tent s of the net.
A ummuiuicipal waste treat mmment facility and a joint municipal—mr
dustriuil facility both of vhiclm are designed to meet best. prmmat .icaI lo
tretttincnt techmmiology for municipalities have, with respect to the Ad-
imministrator’s authority, equal priority under t•imo law. ‘l’ime State and
only the State can decide hieh is to receive a higher priority. ‘I’lio .&d—
mumistrator’s only responsibility with respect to any such contingency
is to let time State know that the effect of giving priority to Limo nmunici-
pal waste only plant. may be to force industry planning to use a joint
I)immmmt into separate treatment facilities.
PimocuDnuEs FOR MODIFICATIONS
SUMMARF
This section amends section 301, Efiluent Limitations, to establish
the proccdui’cs for obtaining a. modification of secondary treatment.
and best available teclmnology requirements.
DISCUSSION’
This amendment establishes a procedur for ling nppli,cntions for
a modification of the mequiremnents of (lie act for secondary treatment
for publicly owned treatment worlçs which discharge into nmarino
waters, and for the 1083 best available technology requiucment for
other point source discharges
The omimemidmemmi c 1 ’iiu’ ”i I .i in i’ publicly owned system om indus-
trial discharger whuu& Ii m .; ‘ ‘ u iiu t file his application
to that eikci. with LIme A iim. ‘ ‘‘‘i ‘f ( ‘m li i i uiit ttt
of limo 1977 auumendmneimts (ol I I I m mm wmmul—
gated eflumment guidelines for the polluta: .t umomitlis
of such a promumiulgat ion)
The ammwndmimemmt makes clear that the mere pphicntiomi for a. modi-
fication does not. stay any requirement to achieve BAT or secondary
:105
-------
treat méiit. by the apjlicant, unless the Adrnh istrator determines Uia
thero is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will qualify for the
modification on the merits of his application. In thecase of a modi?
lacation of the best available technology requirement, the Administra-
toi may condition a stay on the filing of a bond or other appropriate
scenrity, ueh as a line of credit, which will assure timely compliance
with the iequirements for which a modification is sought.
‘I’his provision is intended to discourage the use of the modification
Iwocedures for delay by disehargers which have no reasonable chance
of qualifying for a uiodification. Otlierwh e, the exempt ions would
l)iOvide an opportnnity to “buy time” and result in failure to meet the
(le;LtlliIws in the act.
HOUSE REPORT
T i in ExraxaioNs
Section 13 of 11.11. 3199 amends section :401 of 1’.L. 02—500 by add-
ing a new subsection (g) which authorizes the Atlininistrator to
modify on a case by case basis, the time for achieving thc July 1, 1977,
treatment requirements imposed by section 301(b) (1) of the Act for
both publicly-owned waste treatment facilities and other point sources.
In the case of pulicly-owned ticatment works, section 13 authorizes
the Administrator to grant time extensions up to July 1, 11)82, or if in-
no ’ative technology is to he utilized, up to July i, 198:3.
It is apparent that. many publicly—owned treatment works will not
meet the .] lily 1, 1977, treatment requnentents. ‘l’he best estimates
available at this time are that 40—50 percent of the publicly owmwd
ticat inent. works vill be in compliance with the 1977 mc 9 uircineiitS.
Thus, ap )roxinmately 11,000 of the estininled 20,000 1 )ublICly—Ownedl
treatment works will not be in compliance. Less than 40 percent. of the
population will be served by wastewater I reatment facilities which
iiieet the ileaciline, principally because a number of large cities will
not have hail suflicient time to coniplete needed construction. ‘I’his
situint ion has resulted in pelinits that. contain unrealistic coinpliaiice
scitetlules iiiuler existing law which would go beyond the .11113’ 1, 197?,
date.
It. is important to note that new Sul)Sec(iofl (g) is not intended to
modify the rights of the States under section 510 of the Act. ‘hue
states wilt COfltinLiC to have the ilght to adopt or enforce (a) aiuy
St iLudard or limitation respetting 1 scharges of pollutants, or (b) any
rejiiircment respecting control or abatement of pollution. It. should
fin they ha noted that the requirements of section 301 (a) (2) (B) iii
i’.L. 92—500 are not affected iii any way by new subsection (g). I L
is jiol intended that the 1983 ucquirements be a heeled.
New ubparagraph (g) (3) provide that no time modifications shall
ho granted under this subsection unless there is an approved schedule
of compliance. Failure to meet the approved schedule of coniphiunce
would be a violation of the requirements of section :301 and would be
libject to enforcement under section 300 in the same manner as anotiuci-
violation of the requirements of section 301. It is expected that the
Admuiiiuistrator will require that the schedules of compliance yill be
made a part of any permit issued under section 402.
Section 13 of iU . 3199 would add a new subparagraph (g) (4) to
sectiofl 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Cont.rol Act. This new sub-
paragraph addresses the question of point s lines which introduce
their euihumemits into publicly—owned treatment works. It provides t limit
11113’ I)OiIIt SOiuICC which has ii contract enforceable against itself tO
lialticiputte in a publicly—owned trciitmncnt works many thu cliuu rge its
ellluent. into a publicly—owned ticatmncmut. works m mcl slimill iiot lie sub-
ject to the best practicable control technical requlilemiments of subsec-
tion 301 (LI) (1) (A) or Iha more stringent requiiemnents necessary to
meet the necessary water qmuiility stan(lards required by sumbsectiomi 301
(b) (1) (C until tlw d tu which thme trcatmuucnt works receiving the
cihluent iS itself required to meet subsections 301(b) (1) (B) and (C),
secondaiy treatment or water t uiality stan(htrdls, respectively.
It is necessary that time enforceable contract must. l)e i ii effect not.
later than the sixtieth day after the (late of the timmic modification is
granted to the publicly-owned treatment works.
I L is expected that the Administrator will immediately promulgate
regulations to imnl)leme IIt the new subsection (g) of seclioli :ioi mind
hat 110 soul cc will be penalized because of the tlelny i on the !)mi lt of tlmc
EPA to prouiulgate regulations.
One o thmo objectives of Public Law 99—500 is the emucomiragemnemit of
ill(lIlSt vial disch.Lrgers to participate iii pumblkly—owned tI(uutIIleIIt
varl s. ‘I’huo provision of section 13 to add a new sumbcicctiomi 3 01 (g) ‘4)
is at fuiitluei veeo mijtiomi of this. The provisions in this new subsc.tmoii
mire intended to be iudmumimuistcred by the EPA in a mimnmuner to caiconi age
immuliusi F jIl pam I icipat ion in puihml icly—ownecl t remit muemul. works.
-106-
-------
PRETREATMENT
-107-
-------
PRETREATMENT
An industrial source may depend upon a municipal treatment works to
remove part or all of ‘toxic pollutants where the result will be equivalent
to direct discharge of that pollutant, and sludge is not adversely affected
by the modification. If there is such an agreement between the industrial
source and the publicly—owned treatment works, the municipality shall
enforce any agreed-upon requirements against the discharger on defalcation,
or EPA must.
EPA is to establish national pretreatment standards for toxic pollutants
based on best available- technology economically achievable or any more stringent
effluent standards under Section 307(a). -
EPA is to work with the Economic Development Administration and the
•Small Business Administration to sae that. loans are made to eligible small
plants to help offset the costs of installing pretreatment equipment.
-108-
-------
PRETREATMENT
Pg 1
LAW TEXT :
$rc. 54. (a Soctioa 201(b) (1) of the red-
cmi V, ater Pollution Cn o1 Act is
by 4 lng at th aad reef the Lollowtn3
new sentence: “11. Ls tile case. of oy to”.i.
pollutant under t oectoo. (a) of this sec-
lion introduced ty a souzce uitu a publirly
owned eacment works. . t i le ireatment by
stw .b worka reisovec ill! Ot any pert of suc t
toll; pol uinnc 300 the d cilarge from suco
works does not ioete i at emuent limits-
lion or s ta nd hch -voold be applicable
tJ 5uCil todc pol utant if It were discharged’
137 SUCh SOUXCC Oiler than through a pun..
!!siy owned tveatxaent works, anti ‘Ices not
• prevent tiudge use or thsocsai by such works
i.t ordance vltth section 405 oX itus Act,
then ills pre atmen requ emenia for the
onrcea wttualll dLwciarging sncn toxic pci.
‘lut. n: into such publicly r’ ed treatment
‘vr r&cs may be revised cv tile owner r c”er-
eto of suc.a works to re ec tile removal of
st ch t3 c polintan t by .aicb works”.
(bl fl .a tIn 300 of tile ?edei .l Water Pot.
l’ tion ControL Act is amended b7 ailoing at
tii) ei d tba eof tile following new subsec-
(f) Whenever, on tile taaia of any Infor-
mntlan a’rai!ibla to him, the Aclmlnis’.rntor
Itndi that ‘n owite ’r operator of any source
is introducLn r a pollutant into a trettineut
w;rks in rolsiton of (d) of section
307, Lbs .tdmtn!strator may nottf7 tile owner
er omeratar of such vrea ment works . nd the
State or such v(olaeLçn £ tile owner or uper-
atur of the treatment eorks does not corn-
rsence appropriate enforcement action cr1 i3in.
30 days of tile date of 5 1 1th notlIlcarion. the
- Administrator may cortunence a civil act:on
for appropriate relict, including but not
limited to. a permanent or temporary ln uDc-
than, against the owner or operator of such
treatment woiLs. tn any such civil action the
Adminlseratcv shall Join the owner or ocer-
atar of such source as a party to the action.
Such action shalt be brought in tile itistrict
court of, tile t ’natad States in tile district in
which t e treatment works is located Si:Ch
court shall bare Jurisdiction to restrain suca
violation and to require tile owner or oper-
ator of the treatment works and the owner
I or operator of the source to ca’te such action
es may be necessary to rome Into “ompilance
with this Act. Notice of commencement of
any i’ucb ftitton shaU be given to the State.
• Nothing In this substctlOn shall he eorstr.ieti
to limit or prohibit any otlsrr authorih7 the
Adiatnistrator may have under this Act.”
C)(lt Section 4fl2(b)(8 of th Federal
‘atnt ‘cUution Control Act is ,m.nded by
thsert’nw otter “lntludes conditions to re’
quire” tile follOwing: “t.te iden tcntl3 n in
terra., of character and volume of pollutants
or any c!&ai.ticaat sourc’e tUtrotLucIn oilut.
antS aub ect to pretre4 ment s’an03L’d under
sec.iun 3 1 , 1(b) of this A”t into such wc.ric
and a program to asaure ompIIance with
such or.’treatment atanihards b$ ‘rach cU ,h
source, La addition to”
(2) &ay’ Stat. percilit program approved
iLsriersecrtcn 402 of the Poderal Water Pollu-
Uou Control Act before tile data of enact-
Water Act of 5977, which
- raqulava tnodl catLon to conform to t ie
.mendxnmit made by paragraph Ii) of this
s1lilse . ’tlon. thail not be i’eqiilred cc be modi-
fied before tile end of use one year period.
which begins on the date of eua . :t’ueai of
tile Clean Water Act of 1911 an ccc in order
to claha thus required mctiillc...tIoTi a State
muat amend or enact a law ta ‘vtwi, caso
such luOduiCatlOn shall not b repnrsd for
such Since before the *‘ud of tile two year
period whtclt begins on tuch dat ’s at enact-
mail
CONFERE lCE REPCRT :
EIOujg b lI
No comparable prol is.on
Senate amvidmeaf
This section amends section 1J07 of the Act
to provide a mechanism for EPA enforcement
of pretreatment standards (or pollLtartts
whtch pa s through or interfere with mu-
nicipal treatment procteses Or contaminate
sewage sludge
The provisIon amends sections 307(b) and
304(b) to make contamination of slud e one
of tile criteria for pretreatment star’.ciards.
For .pollutants which ‘require pretreatment
standaçds, tile amendments require, at a
minimum., the application of beet available
technology In national pretreatment stand-
ard&
The amendments regarding pretreatment
also stipulate that local pretreatment pro.
grants must be required as a condition of any
grant made under title of the Act as weli
as any permit issued to a publIcly o’vned
treatment works under sectioü 402 of the Act.
The bUl amends sdctloa 30 5(t) to sake tile
same clariilcatton regarding sludge contaznt-
nation and tile appropriateneis or best avail-
able technology that are in:orpo:ated ‘into
section 307.
Section 402(b) (8 is amended to insure
the ident ifIcation of pollutants that are in-
troduced into municipal systems, to provide
for tile development of local pretreatment
programs and to make tile requirements of
local pretreatment programs enforceaoze
under sectIons 309 and 505 of this Act Sec-
tion 339 also Is amended to insure tilat any-
one who discharges a pollutant to whit sec-
tion 307(b) standards are applicable must
notify the proper authorities In a t:ely
manner, and that other pertinent Informa-
tion called for under seetton 402(b)(8) is
provided. A penalty is provided for failure to
provide such notice.
In additIon, the amendments provide that
any pretreatment requirements established
or adopted through sucil local programs sAsh
become an enforceable permit requIrement.
Such requirementf can be enforced dIrectly
against the Industrial source using tile au-
thorities of sectIon 309 or 503 of tile 4 tct.
Con erer.ce subs t:tnt
Section 54 of the conference ‘substitute
amends section 307(b) (1) of tile Act to pro-
vide that. if a toxic pollutant is Introduced
Into a publicly owned treatment works. anti
the treatment by those works removes all or
any part of that totic pollutant and tile dis-
charge from that works i not In violation of
the etfluent limitation or standard which
would apply to that toxic pollutant it it were
discharged by such source other than a pub-
licly owned treatment works and does not
prevent sludge use or disposal by such works
in accordance with section 405 of the Act,
then the pretreatment required by sources
sctuaUy discharging that to’cic poilutant tnta-
that’ publicly owned treatment worxs may be-
revised by the owner or operator of tno5e
works to reflect the removal of that toti:
pollutant hr that works. In addition section
309 of the Act Is amended by adding a new
subsection (f) to provide that whenever the
4dminlstrotor finds that a owner or oper.
-109-
-------
PRETREATMENT CConti ued)
Pg 2
CONFERENCE REPORT :
• ator of an source Is Incro iuc&ng a )1Ct ’i ’t
Into a treatment works In vloLttio nf sCb-
section (d) of section 207. he may otlfy the
owner or operator of sLh tre ‘ie t corks
and the Suite of such ;iolauon II the ovoer
or operator of the treatment o: s does not
commence approprint, enforcement action
within 30 days of the date of such notifica-
tion, the Administrator may commence a
.clvii acuori for approp;tate relief, tnc!uthng
but not limited to. a perzri’nent or temporary
injunction, against the owner or operator of
such treatment works In any such civil ac-
tion the Administrator Shall Join the owner
or operator of such sour:e as a party to the
action. Such action shall be brought in the
district court of the tlnlced States In the
Lstrtc; In which the treatment works is
located, Such court shall have jurisdiction to
• re.trslit Such vIolatIon and to require the
OWnOC or operator of the t ea:mcnt w0rk
anti the owner or operator of the source to
take such action as may be necetsarv to come
Into compliance with tli Act. otice of corn-
inencement of art:: such action shall b gwen
to the State Nochtng irt new subsection (f)
shall be construed to limit or prohibit any
other authority the Administrator may have
under the Act. Section 402(b) (8) of the Act
Is amended to provide that a State program
must insure the identification In terms of
character and volume of pollutants of. any
significant source introducing pollutants
• subject to pretreatment standaros undCr sec.
tlon 307(b) of the Act into publtoly ownea
treatment works and a program to assure
compliance with, such pretreatment stand-
ards by each such source. State permit pro-
- grams heretofore approved which require
modification to conform to this requirement
are not to be required to be modified for
one year unless In order to make the required
modification a State must amend or enact
a law in which case the modification shalt
not be required by’the State for two years.
SectIon 405 of the Act is amended to require
the Administrator to develop and publish
regulations providing gtideUnes for the dis-
posal of sludge and the utlUzation of siud e
for various purposes. These regulations shall
identify uses (inCluding- disposal) specIfy
factors to be taken into account in deter-
mlnin* measures and practices applicaoir to
each such use or disposal (including infor-
mation on costs) and identify concentration
of pollutants which interfere with each such
use or disposal. The determination of he
manner of disposal or use of sludge is a
local determination except that if a tuide-
line laSs been estaulished for a use It is
thereafter unlawful for the owner or operator
of a publicly owned treatment works to dis-
pose of aiudge ‘from such works for that use
except in accordance with the guideline.
Under the amendment to section 207(b)
the’ Administrator would establish national
pretreatment atandards for toxic pollutants
based on the best available technology eco-
nomically scblevabi . oi any more stringent
effluent standards under ssctlon20l(a) . There
• in applying these pretreatment standards
through its pretreatment program, the owner
- araperator of the municipal treatment works
could modIfy the requirements applicable 1.0
d1vtduai classes of sources Introducing that
pollutant into the treatment works to reflect
the degree of reduction f fEhe pollutant
ach.ieved by the treatment works. The com-
bination of pretreatment and treatment b
the municipal treatment works shall achieve.
at least that level of treatment which would
be requtred if the industrtal source were
making a direct discharge. Any ediuenc re-
ductlon attained by thr’treatment works anti
Osed to justify a modification of pretreat-
ment requirements must-be a permit condi—
tioia enforceable against the owner or opera-
tor of the treatment work. -
In promulgating national pretreatment
standards the Administrator shall lncluds a
provision recognizing the option or the o;vne:
or oplracor to modiiy the requiremmm tO
reflect the degree of reduction achieved by
the treatment works. An adequate pretreat-
ment program under section 402(b) (8) may
include municIpal ordInances or regulations
specifying pretreatment requIrements and
incorporated into the treatment works per-
me; by reference, or pretreatment require-
ments app.icaole to specific sources see forth
as conditions on the permit.
In addition to the e’cpress criteria of Sec-
tlon .n07 b). the Admuiietrator in estabilan-
Ing pretreatment standards shall consider
the piicle 1 ines for sludge disposal or use as-
tabi shed ttndor section 405.
1t,s expected that the .dmlalstrator wdl
work lth the Economic De eLopment Act-
zranistrattore to see ttiat direct E’.t loan; as
wall as loan arvi lease uar.enlees are provided
to elIgible plants to offset cite costs Of In-
stilling. p-etr?atmeat equipment.
ALSo. section 8 of blic Law 02—500. pro-
vines (or Loans from the Small BusIness Ad-
rninis ratlori to small businesses for the in-
stzitlatlon of pollutIon control equipment.
This ,cIon has never been fully iniplo-
mented. It is expected that these loans will be
ade available to assict tt the lnataliar!ot i of
rretre tLr.e’ t proceses to industries such r
metal itnishers. . -
STATEMENTS :
CONG. ROBERTS :
FR TftE .%TaiZSiT
Section 54 of the conference report
amends sectIon 307(b) (1) of the act to
provide that if a toxic pollutant is intro-
duced into a publicly owned treatment
works and the cretitrnent by those works
zeinoves all or any part of that toxic
pollutant and the discharge from that
works is not In violation of the elfiuent
lim&taion or standard which would
-110-
apply to that toxic ,ollutarit if it nere
discharged by such source other than
a p ibllc]y owned treatment works and
dc’es riot prvent shid;e ucc or cl spcsal
b: .scrt works in nccor ance-w:h ret-
hon 405 of the act. then the pretreat-
‘nent ,‘e mred by sources nctuali c:t-
cnarcing that toxic pollutant into that
publicly owned treatment works may b2
revi’ed by the owner or operator of thoza
works to reflect the Temovol of that to ie
poliui.ant by that works. I-i nodition eec-
lion 309 of the act is amended by addm
a new subsection (f) to provado that
whenever The Adrnmwtra or finds that
an owner or operator of any source is in-
troducing a pollutant into a treatment
works in t’iolataon of subsection (d) of
sechon 307. lie may notify the owner
or operator of such treatment works and
the £tate of such vaolat on. if the owner
or operator of The treatment works does
not commence appropriate enforcement
action within .31)-days -of tbe date of suen
uot. nabn, the Administrator may -com-
mence a civil ection for appropriate re-
l ef. I rind eng -but not limited to a per-
manent or icmpomzjr uiictiori. against
the o ’ner or operal.or of such treatment
wor 1 a. In any such cvil action the s a-
min . strator shall jnin abe oc7ner or op-
erator of such source as a party to toe.
action. Such action shall be brougi t in
the das2rtct court of the United States
In -the cistrict in which the treatment
works is located. Such court shall have
jurisdiction to restrain such vsclat.o i
and to ‘require the owner oz- operator of
the ‘treatment works and the o er or
operator of The source to take such ac-
lion es may be necessary to come lflt .Q -
comp iance’w1ta the act. NotIce of coin-
inezseement -of soch action shall be
given tothe State,
Section 405 of the act Is amended l.a
reqofre the Admirnstrator to develop and
publish ‘regulations -providing gindelines
for the dt pcsal of sludge anti the utlil-
sation of sludge for rarions purposes.
These eegnlaticns shall identlf ,v’uses (In-
c*odlng desposal) -specify factors to be
taken mb sccount’ui cieternnnmg’meas-
wee end practices -applicable to each
ench se or sposal (including Infornia-
tion on costs) end -toeritify -concentra-
on -of polluts.rits which interfere with
each .ench use r disposal. The deter-
esmiwi of the mann’ir ‘of -disposal or
isse f sludge Is s local aerernunatlon
exceut’thztlf a goldeline has been estab-
lishad or use it Is thereciter unlawful
for the owner or ‘operator of a publicly
owned treatment works to dispose of
sludge from such works for that use ex-
cept In scoo i’dsmce ‘wxth the guideline,
• Uoder the amendment to section ,307
(b) the Anlstrgtar would establish
national pretreatment standards for
toxic pollutants based on the best avati-
able technology economically achievable,
or any more stringent ‘chuent ‘standards
under section 307(a). Then in applying
these pretreatment stanaards through its
preti—eatinent program, the owner or
operator of the munIcipal trealmenc
works could modify the requirements
appln’ o hle .to lnthviduaLciasses of sources
introducing that polutant into thc treat-
ment works to reflect the degree of recuc-
lIon of that pollutant achieved by the - -
-------
PRETREATMENT (Continued )
Pg 3
treatment works. The combinaton of
pret eut!nent anti treath ent by the
minic pnl cn rn’rit works shnfl uchie
at least that level -of -trea-inc:it wh:ch
would be reou:r d 1! the ucrnal sotrcc
were akrng a direct thseharge. Any ef-
fluent reduction atta:ned by the treat-
mont works nnd used to 3ustify a moth-
ficarion of pretreatment requirements
must be a permit condition en!orceab e -
against the owner or operator -of the
tseanerit -work.
In premulgatng national pretreat-
merit standards the Admmictrator snaIl
hiclude a provision recognizing the op-
tion of the owner or operator to modify
the requirements to resect the degree of
redaction achLeved by the treatment
works. An adequate retreatment ‘p-ru-
gram lmder section 402tb) (6) may in-
dude mupicipal o:dinances or regula-
tions speczfymg pretreatment require-
ments and incorporated into the treat-
merit ‘works permit by reference, -or p-re-
treatment reouiremerns applicable to
spec c sources set forth as C xidit om on
the perinzt. -
L ’s promulgating national pretreat-
meist standards the Adrnimstratcr shall
Include a provinon recognizing ‘the op-
ton of The owner or -operator to -modify
the -i’equfrensems to reflect the degree -Of
reduction achieved by the treatment
works n order to avoid ts’esvment for
teszmeifl’s sake.
I ii addition to The -express criteria of
section 2071b). the Administrator ‘in es-
tabhshing pretreatment standards shall
consider the guidelines for sludge dis-
posal or use esteblished mder section
405.
Lt is expected that the Aduunistra or
‘will -work -with the Economic Deve’op-
n nt dmbLctratson to ee that erect
EPA loans as well as loan -and lease
guarantees are irovzded to eligible plants
to set the costs of installing precreat-.
meris u ipnient. -
ALso, sectIon 8 of Public Law 92-500
provides for loans f m the 5mail usl-
ness Ad sinistration to aniell businesses
for’ the usst lI -’ion -pollution co o1
t..This section ha.s never been
ZnUy Sinph!TnPllted. t Is expecI that
these loans ‘will be made avaiiaole ‘to as-
slat in the lnsts.llatlon of pretreasment
processes to Industries such -as metal
- finlahecs.
- It should be noted that on line of
• section 54ta) -wnich appears Ca page 28
of ccaferenne ‘ieport 95-830. as ‘flied,
should read ‘that effluent hinitaisori ar
standard which would cie -applicable to
sud ”. ‘he official documents, -ea ffl ed,’
aze -correct. - - -
SENATOR MU KIE :
PRZTRZATM S?1’? - -
The agreement reached by the con-
ferees on pretreatment requires EPA to
estaliui.sh technology-based pretreatment
standards under section 307 (b) and (c).
The standards will at least include 21
industries and 65 toxic poflutant.s: addi-
tiorial industries and pollutants may be
added later, Where set, national pre-
treatment standards will be developed by
applying best avaUab!e technology—used
for setting direct discharge effluent Urn-
its—to thr ndirect dischargers,
The Agency wlU encourage local en-
forcement of the national pretreatment
standards Initially, and as municipal
permits are revised, require a local coin-
pirarice program as a condition of the
section 402 permzt. Local compliance
programs will be approved by EPA or by
the permitting States with EP, ’ review
Where local compliance programs ha e
been approved, local governments will be
responsible for enforcing national and
local retreatrnent standards. .And such
standards w 1l be conditions on applica-
ble permits. EPA or permitting States
s ill initiate enforcement procedures
wherever local governments do not as-
sume enforcement a ithonty and wher-
ever needed to back up local authorities
or to protect the environment. -- -
Where a local compliance program is
approved, EPA and the permitting States
- rirnv approve case-by-case mod icatlor.s
of the national pretreatment standards—
or local credits—for documented pollut-
ant removaLs atta.xied by a publicly
- owned treatment works. To receive a
local credit, there must be a dcznonstra-
tion that the pollutant is degraded or
treatjd. credits will not be g ven for
dilut on. Such credit approvaLs wiU be, -
conditioned initially upon municrpal
compliance with Resource Conservation -
and Recovery Act requirements under.
subtitles C and ID, and in li 8J upon the
treatment works being capable of mal :
tog benedclal use of its municipal sludge
as established under subse don 405—
unless such use is shown to be infeasible.
Icatlonal standards will not permit local
crecita for pollutants which are bioac-
cpznulative or persistent toxics. Tymg
local credits to local complu.nce pro-
grams not only provides an incentive (or
local participation, but more impor-
tantly, it provides assurance that the re-
moval levels which lustifled, the local’
credits will be maintained by a publicly—
owned treatment works committed to
operating a sound pretreatment pro-
gram. - - -
- In addition to the local credit incen-
t ve. Federal encouragement of local pr -
treatment programs i(l mcli ide, but n t -
be limited to, financial lricertti%cs—ftnci- -
trig of State and local program develop-
ment costs through section lOG. 201 and
208. Regulatory incentives ri ! ] mclua
requIring a local co:nphance program.
Construction grant rec pients will be re-
quired to have user charge programs
which, in combinat on with other rev-
ernie sources, are capable of supporting
an approved local pretreatment program.
All construction grant recipients Will be
required to have auproved local pre-.
treatment programs as a condition of
their grants.
The Conference agreement requires
that States witn permIt programs ap-
proved prior to enactment must conform
their programs to the new pretreatment
requirements no sooner than 1 year
alter enactment or, ii new State law is
requ:red to do so. no sooner than 3 lears
after enactment, Such States ooviously
may not be accorded an unui.-nrtecl ti.me
to conform their programs to these new
requirements The Adznuustraror is e ’-
pec ted to establish by regu1at on a rea-
sonable time by which such States con-
form their’- programs to these new re-
quirements or lace withdrawal of the ap-
proval of their permit programs, - -
CONG. BUCHANAN :
- PagrI,sa n iszscr - —
The conference report provides that
the treatment capability of the ub1rcly
owneo treatment plant be con icee4 in
pretreatrnsri, requirements. The tnslu-
sun of requirements relative to the
“toxic” polLitants, however, may take
away a’,y rncenive or advantage from
pret;eat nent. -
—111—
-------
PRETREATMENT (Continued)
CONG. ANDERSON (Calif) :
Pg 4
PWfl IZAtMEXT
Section 54 of the conference report
modifies the pretreatment requirements
of the act concerning the control of toxic
pollutants and the enforcement of any
pretreatment standard. Also. provisions
are made for the utilization of sludge dis-
posed from a municipal treatment ‘works.
The provision concerning the level of
pretreatment required for toxIc pollut-
ants specifically allows localities to re-
duce the level of treatment required by
the industrial user, in certain circum-
stances. -
Under this amendment the Adminis-
trator would establish national pretreat-
merit standards for toxic pollutants based
on the best available technology eco-
nomically: achievable, or any more strin-
ent e iuent standards under section 301
(a). In applying these pretreatment
standards through its pretreatment pro-
gram, the owner or operator of the mu-
nicipal treatment works could modify the
requirements applicable to an individual
source or individual classes of sources in-
troducing that pollutant into the treat-
Inent works to reflect the degree of re-
duction of that-pollutant achieved by the
treatment works. The combination of
pretreatment and treatment of that p01-
lutant by the municipal treatment works
shall achieve at least, that level of treat-
ment which would be required If the in-
dustrial source were making a direct dis-
charge.
In promulgating national pretreat-
ment standards the Administrator shall
Include a provision recognizing the option
of the owner or operator to modify the
requirements to reflect the degree of re-
duction achieved by the treatment works.
An adequate pretreatment. program
under sectIon 402(b) (8) may includq
municIpal ordiances or regulations spec-
hying pretreatment requirements and in-
corporated Into the treatment works per-
mit by reference, or pretreatment re-
quirernents applicable to specific sources
• et forth as conditions on the permit.
The conferees recognize that some In-
dustries as well as individual plants with-
in industries will be called upon to make
significant advancements in their levels
of pretreatment. In some cases, these ad-
vancements will be very costly and could
force plant closings. There Is a severe
danger of this happening within the
metal finishing ancf electroplating
dustry. -
Federal- &ssistance to such plants is
available from both the Economic De-
velopzijent Administration ana the En-
viroximental Protection Agency. The Ad-.
ministrator Is to work with the Economic
Development Administration to see that
direct EDA loans as well as loan and lease
guarantees are prov!ded to eligible plants
to o set the costs of installing pretreat-
ment equipment.
Also. section 8 of Public Law 92—500,
provides or loans from the Small Susi-
ness Administration to small businesses
for the installation of pollution control
equipment. This section has never been
fully implemented. It is expected that
these loans wul be made available to as-
sist in the instaliat on of pretreatment
processes to industries such as metal
finishers.
Section 54(b) amends section 309 con-
cerning the enforcement of pretrest-
meat standards. The municipality has
the pnrnary responsxbxlity to enforce
such standards w th their constituent in-
dustries. EPA is not to unilaterally en-
force such standards against the indus-
tr:es.
However, where EPA finds that pre-
treatment standards are being violated
by such industries, the Aani:nstrator
may notify the owner or onerator of the
treatment works and the State of such
vloat on. If the locality does riot beg n
appropriate enforcement action within
30 days of noti cation by the Anmin-
lst.-ator. then EPA may institute a civ.1
suit for appropriate relief, including but
not limited to a temporary or permanent
Injunction against the municipality. In
such civil action the owner or operator
of the industrial source shall be joined as
a party to the action.
Section 54(d) amends section 405 of
the act to require the Administrator to
issue regulations providing guidelines for
the disposal and utilization of sludge.
These guidelines shall identify uses for
sludge, specify factors to be taken into
account in determining the measures and
practices applicable to each such use, and
identify concentration of pollutants
which interfere with each such use or
disposal. -
The determination of the manner of
sludge use or ai.sposal is a local aeter-
mlnat±on. However, once EPA has pub-
lisheci guidelines for a sludge use or dis-
posal, it is unlawful for the owner or
operator of a municipal treatment works
to use or dispose of sludge except In cc-
coroance witmi such guidelines.
—112-
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
(Need to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
SENATE REPORT
Pnu rrnwrMcNT
BImn iAflY
‘J.liis section tunends section 307 to provide a inechanisn for EPA.
enforcement of pretreatment sLandtirds for pollutants which pass
through or interfere with niunicipal I reatnient. processes or contam
mate sewage sludge.
DISCUSSION
With respect to pretreatinemit, the committee bill provides a
mechanism to directly enforce national standards for pollutants
which pass through or interfere with municipal treatment. processes or
which contaminate sewage sludge.
Because indirect dischargcis are not subject to permits, where a
municipality fails to enforce against a discharger in its system, EPA
or the Nr’DI s States does not have a statutory mechanism to pursue
tho enforcement. In the absence of an aggressive municipality, which
may be dcpenclemit. upon the industry for revenue, there is often no
eat m’ccinen I. of I he pret.veatinent ieqnuenlents.
‘limis creates incqnit.y if indirect discharges are not subject to the
same enforcement for toxic pollutants as direct discharges.
Sludge contaminated with toxic mmim terials is inuismible as a soil
coiidil inner mind nimfit Ice (lispoSal in macst landfills so the committee
amiicmulecl S ctioiiS 807(b) and 30- 1(b) to make contamination of sludgo
criteria to the cflhiiwit, limitations for prCLrCmLtmflCflt.
Amendments to sectious 307 (b) and (e) ieqimire that one of the
criteria for development of pretreatment standards, unit of inter—
forenco viLlm the o1)er mt.iaii of the treatment works, be clarified to iii—
elude sludge disposal operations. Es enLiahly, this means that pollu-
tants aro not considered to be mcmpvrd by a Public system if such’
removal results in the contamination of the sludge or otherwise ham—
peis tim disposal of the system’s sludge. For pollutants which require
preI.meatnicmit standards, the amendments require at a miii imnum, the
application of best. available technology iii national prctreatmncmmt
stmi 11(18 i(i ..
The philosophy belmin both of these amendments to section 307 is
tlmt removals tend to aggrovato sludge disposal problems and are not
satisfactory menus of pollution abatenient. and comitrol. Pm [ any coum—
Hiunil mes are already faced with serious problems in disposing of the,
over-increasing quantities of sludge. Timo i resencc of industrial pnlhiit
ai ts, mnamiy of which mime toxic, iii the sludge often tend to coiliphicate
fmihmer the municipality’s problems by either hiiiiil ilig the disposal
Options available to it or making available disposal iiiethods mimore cx—
us well as macme euvironmc uitahly troLmL,lcsomIme.
‘limo only way to avoid this pioblemmi is to prevent, to the niaxinnun
tixtemit ica .ib1n, the iiulustmial pOlliitumiits from emitering the l)lmiuIt iii
the Ii rat. place. Some industrmni poll imLmmumt , even of a t o’ ic ha hue, eau
in met be mmdeqtmately (icumted iii a typical l)liInt, that is to say, they
(10 not pass through untreated, they do not hamper Lime PCifOlThauce
of the lien Lment works and they do not imiterfem c with slLmdgc (his—
posal. Tiu aimmemulnuent s would muot. require that. pm et real meat stand—
aids be set in such cases. But where any of these probleirms would or
is likely to occur, preti eatument shotiki be required.
Ammotluer rea oii for uuinhimmizing time consideration of removals in
the development. of national Pretreatment standards is that time per—
fornmaumrc ’ of tmeuttmnent works on industrial waste, exce l)t in those few
cases where time system is specifically designed to treat a certain type
of industrial waste, is extremely variable. Data that have been i me—
sent ed to I his ecmnmumittee indicate that secondary ti cuitirment i emnnvnl
cilkiemmey for mumetals varies from between 10 amid 70 percent. Variability
of such uumuugumil imde umìnlces t he mmssuuniptiomm of specilie level of reummovum ,
wlmeii Set I 1 1mg national sI ummuhmirmis, slimmest. immq)osshl)ic.
In time long rim, the only ienl solution to the problem of safe dis-
posal of toxic or hazardous industrial h)OliutantS is in their reuse and
recycling by iumdmuatry, not the tunumafer of such materials (monu ouw in-
dustrial waste m tmeimuui into mnimuicipuul wum W at reams or fmomn time water
mmmcdii i to Lime air or solid waste mcdiii. Such reuse amid recycling cmiii
only be emmcoimrmiged by Federal stminduntls based on time best avmulmulmio
technology. Best avaiiaml ,Ie technology immmust be delined by the Adummium—
istrator iii munch time suiiiie [ MOCCSS that is used in defiuming efiluent me—
qmuirenments for direct discharges keeping in mnincl tim t what is avail-
able amid m emmsouunhie for industries (hisehuarging into nimuiuicip:il Systems
may be di Ilerent train what is available and reasonable for direct. dma—
cliii rgems ma (he same industrial cuitegomy.
‘J’lme commmnmittec is concerned with the PCCC at which time Agency has
itch cml to cstal)l ish pretreatmnent requirements for imuluctrial users of
nmunicipal waste treatmument facilities. This failure on time part of the
Aduumimmishimmtnr imims resulted in the couistmuction by coniniuumit ics of i’mmste
ti emmt.mnent fmmcmhit mes which have no capability to handle in(limqtrial waste
Sel)arately, and thus many industrial wastes are either iimterfet lag with
WuIS(O Lremitimmeumt. processes, passing thomnrh facilities without tremitirment,
or eouitmummminuiting time sludge of those facilities.
It is essemitial Limuit time Administrator establish pretreaLmeumt regula-
tions for tlmese kinds of l)0lhuitflfl . At the very least, a list of potential
—11 3—
-------
• pollutants in each category should be distributed to all potential grant
I appikants and the Administrator should begin to assist communities
in developing alternative ways to deal with the wastes of industrial
disehargers which intend to use municipal facilities.
There is no provision in the law which prohibits a municipality from
performing the pretreatment task for industry if this approach is the
most feasible and cost-effective way of handling the problem. In many
cascs, this may not be a feasible approach. But certainly in areas where
thero are older industries with limited space which have
q jo problems handling their own wn tes, every effort should be
maIm to 1 )rovidc them with an option to assure the maximum teduction
of section 307 pollutants, section 311 pollutants, and the 65 consent
(lecr(•e pollutants from being (liseharged into the municipal va te
stream.
‘F he amendments regarding pretreatment also stipulate that local
pr(.tiPatmnent lirogramns must be reqmre(l as a eofl(litiOhi of any giant
made under title II of the act as vell as any permit issued to a pub-
licly owned treatment works under section 409 of the act. This pro-
vision is intended to insure that communities share in responsibility
for the development iu d iinplmnentation of approj)riate pretreat-
ment standards. Well operated pretreatment programs arc essen-
tial to the efficient design and operation of public systems and that
such programus should ke developed in conjunction with the granting
of any Federal moneys for the construction of treatment works.
Moreover, to insure the continued operation of such programs such to
insure timuit such programs are developed in a timmiely maimer in cases
whore grants are not being processed in the immediate future, the
amenduuments call for local j)Iogvarns as a condition of any section 409
permit. The nature of such programs and the timing for the develop—
memit of such •pi ngrnn ls in cases where title II gramil s are not pending
will have to be established by the Admninist.r.mtor through apj)rOpriiLtC
regulations.
The bill amends section 304(f) to make (.hie sutmuc elamiflcat_ion re—
garihing sludge contamination mind the nppropiiuiteness of best avail-
able technology that were incoiporated into section 307. This insures
that guidance issued under this section is developed in the same light
as standards that are developed under section 307 (b) and (c).
Section 409(b) (8) is a,imeimdt’il to insure the identification of pollum-
tamuts that introduced into municipal systems, to provido for tIme
development of local pretreatment programs and to make the require-
ments of local pretreatment programs enforceable under sections 309
nud 505 of this uict. Section 309 also s amended to insure that. anyone
who discharges a pollutant to which ectioim 307(b) standards arc up-
plicabla nmst notify the proper authorities in a timely manner, and
that other pertinent information called for under section 409(b) (8)
is provided. A penalty is provided for failure to provide SuCh notice.
‘l’hi-i should serve as an tulthit•ional incenliv to avoid incidental dis-
charges. One of the most Serious enforcement pI0l)lCmflS for pretreat-
ment stnndarcls are incidental discharges such as spills or •mtcrniit—
temil disposal ptnct•ices. ‘I’lie notice rec 1 imiremuemmt is intended to make the
operalor of the municipal system aware of such incidents in timuie to
talce proteutivc immeasumCS. -
• Proper and timely identification of industilal contributors and the
quantity and quality of their wastes is essential to the efficient enforce-
mont of pretreatment standards whether such enforcement be through
local, State, or Federal authorities. In the delegation of permj
authority to States, it is essential that such States have the necessary
authority to require such information from the industries discharging
into public systems in the State. This information also is needed by
the Administral or where a permit program Imas not been appi oveci,
and by time local authorities for usc in the developmument of local pre—
treatment pmogramims.
The rcquiiemeiut. that States which are assummniu time permit pro—
granis Imave the authority to require development of rocah pretreatment
progu uuuuis also is aimed at assuring that States have the necessary
ammilmorilics for insuring efficient implementation of Pretreatment
standards, whether they be standards developed at the local 1 State, or
Federal level.
In acid ition, the amencinments provide that any l)ietreatment require—
nients established or adopted through such local programs shall become
miii ( ‘ Ii loiceum l le h)clmuuit requirement. Such requireineni s can be en-
forced duteetly ugaimist the industrial source using the authorities of
section 809 or 5(J3 of the act . or enforcement action cam i be taken
migailust the conuiumunit mes for failuic to meet its obligation to develop
mind umtiuuuimui I er a local program that 1flSUVCS, as a mmmmunumn, compliance
m ithm Fcderui I j)iet m estmnent standards.
hOUSE REPORT
‘Flic failure of EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards as re-
quired by section 307(b) of the Act is disappointing. The content of
pictreatuumemit megulat ions should weigh heavily on the decision of
industrial point sources to partici atc in municipal systems. It is ex-
pected, therefore, that the EPA will make every effort to promulgate
iecjuired reguln moum at the earliest timmie. Major emmuiImasis imu t be mind
i expected to be given to tins probleumi.
‘liie f.wt that liuuic mnodilications are permitted under suibsectioui (g)
in no u ay a ilects the al)plueablimty of l)rctrCuitmu uit. i.cqiiLi.WuiCuLL
umuidcr suul -,ectioui 307(b) of time _ ct.
-114-
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
—115—
-------
COMBINED SEWER O’/ERFLOWS
EPA is to prepare and submit a study by October 1, 19Z8 on combined
sewer overflows in municipal treatment works operations. To be included
is (1) the status of exist.ing funded projects, (2) needs, (3) time required
to correct combined sewer overflows, (4) analysis-of pollutant discharges
from overflow compared to treated effluent discharges, (5) technological
alternatives and, (6) recommendations-for legislation, including the necessity
for a separate program. -
congressman Roberts expressed a need for a strong and consistent
national policy for providing adequate Federal assistance for the correction.
of combined sewer overflows. He stated that the study shoula contain options
for the Federal Go v 1 ernment to develop a positive role of leadership and
finaRcial assistance.
—116-
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
LAW TEXT :
CONFERENCE REP RT :
CO 5 1 SEW t OV TtOWS -
Sac. 70. SectIon 516 of the Federal Vater’
Pollution ContrOl Act is- ante:ided by adding:
at the end thereof a. new subsectlofl 5 5%
follows:
“(C) The Administrator shall submit to the
Congress by October 1. 1S73. a report on the
status of eomb ned sewer overflows In mu-
nicipal treatment wOrhs operatiOns. The re-
port shall include (1) the status of any proj-
ects funded under this-Act-tO address corn-.
bined sewer overflows. (2) a listing by State
of combined sewer overflow needs identified
I d the l9 ’ 7 State priority listings. (3) an esti-’
niate for each applicable municipality of the
number of years necessary. assuming an an-
nual authorization and appropriation for the
constroction grants program at S5.000.000.-
000. to correct conbined sewer overflow yrob-
lems. (4j an analystS using representative
municipalities isced with major combined
sewer overflow needs, of the annual dis-
charges of pollutants from over Ows in com-
parison to treated efiluent d1sch rges. (5 an
analysis of the technological alternatives
available to munlc:psiitleS to correct major
combined sewer overflow problems. and (6)
any recommendations of the Administrator
for legislation to address the problem of com-
bined sewer overflows. Including whether a
.. separate authorization and grant program
5bOuld be established by the Congress to ad-
4ress combined sewer overflow!.”.
STATrMENTS:
CONG. ROBERTS :
- . CO iOZ. Ec szwca arcor
Sevuon 73 rovhies for a scuci of Coin-
bined tewcr o erfiow.
istorica1l: -. the cities have been left
out o Federal n 3Istance p;cgrn:ns for
InC corr etion of the storm and flood
problems of combined sewers. As a re-
suit, cities have been left to their own
resources. This has meant that corn-
bined sewers have been developed to w
handle only the most frequent storir,
situat on, not the interi.sjve situations.
The problem has become more acute with
the development of suburban areas. T:ie
overaow from these areas is funi clcd in-
t already overloaded urban trentment
works, further exacerbating the problem.
The TARP project in the city of Chicago
Is indicative of tIi s situanon. The devel-
opment of the study authorized in this ,.
section Is in no Wfl3 to hfnder the on-
going funding of th s project.,
There Is a need for a s:roug and con-
‘ststent national poUc on this matter.
providing adequate Federal assistance
for the correction of combined sewers.
This study should contain OPtIOnS for tnc
Federal Government to develop a poaitfve
role of lender hip arid financial assist-
a ztec.
coa mse mwsa ovaasz.ow
,i o comparable provision. -
Senate amendment -
- This provts!on requires the Administrator
to prepare and submit a Cudy by October 1.
l978 oa combined sewer overflows in munici-
pal treatment wori operation. including
satus .ot eZsting.. funded projects, needs.
time required to correct combined sewer over
we; analysis of pollutant discharges from
overflow compared to treated ediuent die-
cbarge technological alternative,. and’ rec-
ommendations for Iegtstatton, including nec-.
amity for aeeparate pivgram -.
,a0nfer e nc.mbsu:&se -.
-Th&cnoferenco ubstitute Is the same as
the Senateainendmen. -. -
0
. 0
2°
a.
0
)4 1..
‘4
.
5)0
C-. tit’-
4. 1 0 1
cc p-I
ii
ci
U
cc
=UI.
s_ •‘- ci
O
U) L)
coo l
U . U- .
U 4) V) U)
t U 14)
ucc IC
U I- S W
.— U E 0
U cc ci
.0 C
0 U— cc
0 ’ -
45 U1 ’C in
mW 0
in ci
‘0 5. 5 5
ci 01 0
ci C U 0.
0 U U
eec
-------
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
AND
UTILIZATION OF TREATED SLUDGE STUDY
-118-
-------
SLUDGE DISPOSAL AND UTILIZATION OF TREATED SLUDGE
Provision is made that any permit for the discharge of sewage sludge is
to be issued in accordance with Section 402 of the Act,. nd be subject to all
of the criteria, factors, procedures, and reauirements of the section.
Section 405 of the Act is amended to require the Administrator to develop
and issue guidelines for the disposal of sludge and the utilization of sludge
for various purposes. These guidelines shall identify uses for sludge,
specify factors to be taken intoaccount in determining the measures and
practical application applicable to each use, and identify concentration of
pollutants that interfere with each such use or disposal.
The determination of the manner of sludge use or disposal is to be a
local determination. However, once EPA has published guidelines for a sludge
use or disposal, it is unlawful to use or di pose of sludge except in accordance
with such guidelines.
The amendments provide for a sludge study by EPA to be submitted to the
Congress by October 1, 1978. The report shall be on the status of the use of
municipal secondary effluent and sludge for agricultural and other purposes
that utilize the nutrient value of treated wastewater effluent. In general,
the study requires the Administrator to report to the Congress on the
prospects for increased use of wastewater and sludge for productive purposes,
including legal, institutional, public health, and other impediments to the
greater utilization 0 f wastewater and sludge.
EPA is also to recommend whether or not Federal legislation is adequate
to encourage or require the expanded use of municipal wastewater and sludge
rather than the prevalent nationwide practice of discharge, landfilltng, or
-incineration, or whether new legislation will be necessary. The amendment
lists specific areas that should be covered by the study.
—119—
-------
SLUDGE DISPOSAL AND UTILIZATION OF TREATED SLUDGE STUDY
CONFERENCE REPORT :
Pg 1
Stupor DISPOSAL
Sec. 68. (a) Section 405(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Is amended by
str*.iog Out “under this section” and lsert-
Ing in lieu thereof ‘under section 402 of this
Act”.
(b) Section 405(b) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by strilcing
out the period at. the end Cf the first sentence
and inserting In lieu thereof “and section 402
of this Act”.
(C) The last sentence of section 405(b) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by striking out “. as the Adminls-
bator determines necessary to carry out the
objective of this Act”. —
(d) Section 405(c) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by etrildng
out “if upon submission” and all that follows
down througb the period at the end thereof
and inserting in lieu’tbereof the follo 1ng
•‘in accordance with section 402 oX this Act.”.
tr .marror OF T5LATE m.VnGZ
Crc. 71. SectIon 516 of the Pederal Water
Pollution Control Ac; Is amended b ada ng
at the end tbereof a new subsec on as
followS: . -
“(d) The Administrator shall submit to
the Congress by OCtober 1. 1978. a report on
the status of the use of municipal secondary
uent and sludge for agricultural and otherS
purposes that utilize the nutrient value Of
treated wastewater e uent. The report shall
‘uclude (1) a a ’ ” '’y of results of research
id development programs, grants. anti con-
acts carried out by the Environmsntal
otection Agency pursuant to sectIons 104
end 105 of this Act, regerding alternatives
to disposal, landhli. or incineration of sec-
ondary e uent of sludge. (2) an estimate of
the amount of sludge generated by public
ti’eatment works and its disposition. includ-
lag an estimate of annual energy costs to
inciperate sludge. (3) an anlysie of currant
technologies for the utilization. reprocessing,
• and other uses of sludge to utilize the nu-
triant value of sludge. (4) legal. institutional.
public health, economic, and other Impedf-
•ments to the greater uulization of treated
sludge, and (5) say recommendations of the
for legislation to encourage
c i require the expanded utilization of sludge
for agricultural and other purposes. In carry-
ing ‘out -this subsection, the AI. ’ t trator
shall consult with, anti use the services of the
Tennessee Vafley Autholrity and other de-
partmente, agencies, and Instrumentalities
of the United Stares,.to the extent is Is ap-
propriate to do so.”.
(dJ Section 405 of the Federal Water PoR z-
tion Control Act Is amended (1) by str iking
out In subsection (b) thereof “subject to this
section” and Inserting. in Uetr thereof “sub.
ieee to subsection’ (a). of tale section”, (2)
by striking. out In subeectioc. (a).. tbereof
“sewage sludge” and inserting in. lieu thereof
“sewago sludg, subject to subsection (a) of
this sectica ’. and (3) by adding at the end -
thereof the Zoilowth new subeections:
- -. “(d) Th*A jnIst aftom r u
with appropriate. Federal and 8tate- agencies
and other interested persons. snail develop
and p ’ublIsh,.wtthln. one year after th. date-
of enactment ot this- subsection, and from
time to’ time th rafter, regulations providing
guidelines for the disposal of sludse and the
- uttlisutton of sludge for-various purposes.
Such regulations ehall—
(1) identIty uses for sludge Including
disposal: . ‘ -
“(2) specify factors to be taken Into ac-
count In determining the measures and
practices appUcable Co each such use or dis-
posal (including’ ptibUcation of Information
oncoeta); , -
“(3) identIfy concentrationa of pollutants
which interfere. with each such use or dis-
p o sn . - -
The Administration I s authorized to revise
any regulation issued under this subsectiotr,
- “(a) The determination or t e manner of
disposal or use of sludge is a local determi-
nation except tb_aS it shall be unlawful for
the owner or operator of any publicly owned
treatment works to dIspose oc sludge from
such works for any use for’ which guideunes
have been established pursuant to subsection
(d) of this section, except In accordance
with such guld 4 . . .
sr.vaGz pzspos*Z. -
House bill
No comparable provas!pA.
Senate amendment
This section amend.s section 405 of the Act
ta•require that any permit for the discharge
of sewage sludge shall be issued pursuant
section 402 of the Act and subect to alt -
Of the criteria, factors. procedurls, anti re.
- quizemeata of that section.
Con/erence substitute, . -
The conference substitute is the same as
tb Senate amendment with conforming
amendments. -
‘ .AtrON OP T liE. ’ .TED 5LV0C5
- House bill ,
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
This section requIres lIt, Ad tnis:rator to
prepare and submit a studs by Oc:ober 1.
1973, on the current anti pocecital utll:r-
ttoa of municipal waste water and sludge
for productive purposes.
This Study requires the Administrator to
report to the Congress on the prasoects of
Increased use of waste water anti siudge far
productive purposes. Including le- at. insti-
tutionar publIc health and other Impedi-
ments to the greater utilization of waste
Water and sludge.
The Administrator Is also to recommend
whether Federal legislailon Is adequate to
encourage or require the expanded use of
muntelpat waste water and sludge- rather
than the prevalent nationwide pr ctice of
discharge. tandfltllng. or incineratton, or
whether new legislation w:U be neces ary.
Conference Sub3t cizfe
The conference substitute is the same as
the Senste amecidinecit wIth the audition
that iii carrying out this provision the Ad-
ministrator is required to consult with and
use the services of TVA anti Oiht? depart-
ments, agencies and Instrumentalities of tue
United Stales to the extecil appropriate.
LAW TEXT
-‘ 120-
-------
SLUDGE DISPOSAL AND UTILIZATIO 1 OF TREATED SLUDGE STUDY
Pg 2
CONG. ROBERTS :
- Section 405 of the act is amended to
require the Administrator to develop and
publish regulations providing guidelines
for the disposal of sludge and the utili-
zatiOn of sludge for various purposes.
These regulations shall identity uses (m
cluding disposal) specify factors to be
taken Into account in determining meas-
ures and practices applicable to each
such use or disposal (Including inlorrna-
tion on costs) and Identify concentra-
tion of .poflutants which Interfere with
each such use or disposal. The deter-
nilnatlon of the manner of disposal or
use of sludge is a local determination
except that if a guideline has been estab-
lished for a use it is thereafter unlawful
for the owner or operator of a publicly
owned treatment works to dispose of
sludge from such works for that use ex-
cept In accordance with the guideline.
CONG. ANDERSON (Calif) :
• Section 54(d) amends section 403 oI -
the act to require the Administrator to
• Issue regulations providing guidelines for
the disposal and utilization of sludge.’
These guidelines shalt Identify uses fo;
sludge, specify factors to be ta.ken inL
account in determining the measures and
practices applicable to each such use, and
Identify concentration of pothitar.ts
which interfere with each such use or•
disposal.
The determination of the manner of
sludge use or disposal is a local de en ..
nulnatlon. Eowei,er, once EPA has pub-
lisbed guidelines for a sludge use or dis-
posal. It Is unla vful for the o ner or
operatcr of a municipal treatment works
• to use or dispose of sludge except in ac-
coroance with such ii1deilues.
- ‘
Secllon 71 provIdes for a study of t u
utilization of treated sludge. Such a studs
should Include an assessment of aludgi
disposal and reclamation projects. Row’
ever, In no case should this study l x
used as an excuse to delay developmeit
and funding of ongoing projecr.s. In par.
ticular the Sepulveda, Calif.. sludge dis
posal and reclamation project should be
• allowed to proceed as planned ‘vlshouc
further delay. It, however, the Adntinis-
trator determines such plans require
mod cation. he slioul so advt e the
bmuaicipailues. in writing as soon as pm-
agile, so that necessaz changes In the.
plan maT be made. -
CONG ROBERTS :
In addition to the express criteria r
section 30’i(b), the Administrator In e..’
tablisluing pretreatment standards aIm
consider the guidelines for sludge di
posal or use established under section
405
SENATOR MIJSKIE :
Where a local compliance program Is
approved. EPA and the permitting States
may approve case-by-case modifications
of the national pretreatment standards—
or local credlts—.ior documented pollut-
ant removals attained by a publ1cl
owned treatment works. To receive a
local credit, there must be a demonstra-.
tion. that the pollutant is ciegraded or
treated: credits will not be given for
- dilution. Such credit approvals will be
conditioned Imtlaliy. upon municipaL
compliance with Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act requirements under
subtitles C and I). and in 1983 upon the
treatment works being capable of znal-
- leg. beneñclal use of lts .munictpal sludgo
as establIshed under subsection 40 —
unless such use is shown to be intea.sib1e .
Nattonal standards will not permit local.
:crethts.for pollutants which are bloac-.
cumulaifve or persistent toxins. Tying.
local credits to local compliance - pro’-.’
ama not only provides. an incentive Zo
local partlclpation..-but. more. impor—
tarnly. it provides assurance thatx.he re— .
- moval. leveIs.wbich justified-the local
- creditswtil b 4” ’ed by a publicly—
owned treatment works con’ ”1tted. - to
operatinf- a.. sound. pretreatmenL.prO ’
grass. . ‘- .-
—121—
-------
LNR E -: REPORT
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later-—See Conference
Report statements)
SLUDGE DrsPos L
SUMMARY
This section amends section 405. Disposal of Scwn e Sludge, to-
assure that permits issued under this section are consistent with sec-
tion 402.
- - DISCU3StON
This amendment is r.eccssary to clarify that any permit for the dis-
charge of sewage sludge is to be issued pursuant to section 402 and
subject to all the same criteria, factors, procedures, and requirements
of such section.
Under current law, section 405 would seem to set up a separate
permit program under section 405 for discharge of sewage sludge when
the Administrator has all the authority ho iieeds to issue permits for
the discharge of any pollutants, incluàing sewage sludge, under sec-
tion 402.
UTruzATro or TRE.tTnu St.U1,GE
This section requires the Administrator to prepare and submit a
study by October 1, lOTS, on the current and potential utilization of
municip tl waste water and sJudgc for productive purposes.
orscussxo
The hearings of the committee demonstrated that little municipal
waste water or sludge from treatment works now in operation or
under construction is being utilized for productive purposes by treat-
ment works now in operation or un’ r construcUon. The com-
mittee is concerned that while technologies exist for the land treat-
ment of waste water and the utilization of sludge for agricultural and
other purposes, that the large majority of municipal treatment works
continue to clischarg treated waste water to a receiving water and
landfill or incinerate sludge. The water content and nutrient value of
the waste water and sludge products of th& treatment of municipal
siva e are, in the judgment of the committee, resources to be used,
not merely discarded, consuming either land or energy iii the disposal
process.
The EPA reported to the committee that. only 13 percent of the
treatment works under enn truetioii with funds provided by the Fed-
cml Govermuciut utilize the hind treatment of waste water and only
4 percent utiUze smite type of sludge processing technique.
This study requires the Administrator to report to the Congress
on the 1)roSPect of increaceci u e of vnsre water and sludge for pro-
ductive purpo es, inchid lug legal, institutional, public health and
other impediments to the greater utilization of waste water and sludge.
The Administrator is also to recommend whether Federal legisla-.
tion is adequate to encourage or require the expanded use of municipal
waste water and sludge rather than the prevalent nationwide practice
of discharge. hmdfilling, or incineration, or whether new legislation
will be necessary.
-122-
-------
208
—123—
-------
SECTI0N 208
( AREAWIDE PLANNING )
A 208 planning agency, designated as the appropriate planning agency
after 1975, which received its first grant before October 1, 1977, is to
receive a grant of 1OO percent for the first two years, and have three years
after receipt of its initial grant to prepare an initial plan.
( AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT )
A 208 plan must include an identification of open space and recreation
opportunities expected from improved water quality, including potential use
•of lands associated with treatment works.
( IRRIGATION RETURN FLOWS )
This section drops irrigation return flows from the definition of a
— point source and includes them under the Section 208 areawide waste treatment
planning program. States are not preclude(from regulating irrigation return
flows under the permit programs.
( AGRICULTURAL COST SHARING )
This amendment establishes a new program In the Department of Agriculture,
with the concurrence of the Administrator of EPA, to give financial assistance
for implementing long—term soil conservation for improving water quality under
approved 208 plans. Federal share would be as high-as 50 percent to owners
to Install best management practices to reduce agricultural runoff. Funds
are to be used for installation of control mechanisms and not day—to—day costs.
—124-
-------
DREDGE AND FILL PERMIT PROGRAM
The Administrator is authorized to approve statewide regulatory
programs to control discharges of dredged or fill mater a.l .that are better
handled through imposition of best management practice requirements. This
program is intended to complement State permit programs approved under
section 404. Once a State has an approved section 404 permit program and
an approved 208 regulatory program, the Administrator may approve best
management practices imposed by the State to control activities which he
determines will have only’minor individual or cumulative effects on the
aquatic environment. If the Administrator approves best management practices
as adequate to control a specific activity, Federal permits are not to be
required. Best management practices will not be appropriate as the sole means
of control for activities such as channelization and site development fills
that can impair the circulatton or reduce the reach of navigable waters.
Best management practices are appropriate for controlling farm roads,
logging roads, temporary mining roads, stock ponds, farm ponds, and maintenance
of existing fills.
—125—
-------
LAW TEXT :
(e)Sectton 208 ) (3) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by sInk-
thg out “and not to exceed s150 .000,000 tot
the fiscal yea, ending Jime 30.1915.” and La-
serting in l1e i thereof “and not to exceed
81 50.000000 per fiscal year for the Ascal years
endIng June 30, 1973. September 30, 1977.
September 30, 1978, September 30, 1979 and
,September 30,1980.”... - --
SECTION 208
Pg 1
LAW TEXT :
AREAWESE PLM BENG
Sec. 31. (a) Section 208(b) (1) of the Fed-
era! Water Pollution Control Act is amended
,by insertIng “(A)” after “(b)(l)” and by
adding ftt the end thereof the fouowthg .new
subparagraph:
• “(B) For any age y deelgasted after 1975 I
under s beection (a) of this section and for
aU portions of a State for which the State
Is required to act as the planning agency in
acordan with subsection (a) (01. the ml-
tial plan prepared in accordance with such
pcooeas sbaU be certified by the GO nor and
submitted to the I.d ,nl,, , tratoc not later
t three years after the receipt of the -
initial grant award acthorlsed under alabsec-
tLon (t) of this section.,”,
, (b) Section 306 (t) (2) of the Federal Water
‘Pollution Control Ani is . “'..‘.‘.4 to reed as
fotioih: -
- “(2) For the twO-year period beglno g on
the data the first grant is made under pera.
graph (1) of this subsection to an agancy, It
• such first grant Is made before October 1.
WTI, the amount of each such grant to suCh
agency shall be 100 per censure of the costs of
dáveloplng and operating a continuing area-
wide waste treatment management planning
• 5 o s under subsection (b) of this section.
and thereafter the ainouflt granted 10 such
agency shafl opt gxc.ed 75 per centtm of
such costa In each succeeding one-year pe-
nod. In the cas. of any other grant made to
an agency under such paragraph (1) of this
subsection, the amount of such grant shall
not exceed ‘75 per centure of tbe costa of de-
veloping and operating a continuing azeswide
waste treatment me gemeat pI.i nf g proc..
In any year.”.
(c) The second sentence of section 208(f)
(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by stoking out the period at
the end thereof and Inserting in lieu thereof
a comma and the fol1owing “subject to such
asuounlo as are provided in sppropdal&oa
aseawem weace eezavssssqw Mear ws
. 33. Se on, 208(b) (2) (A) Of the Pad-
esal Water Pollution Control Act is amended
- b insertiog before the semicolon a.
-the following: •‘svd en identification of
open spac. and recreation opportantues that
can be expected to result trom improved
water quality, including consideration of pa-
tontml use of lands associated with - “ent
worm e nd tneres . acoma to wanc-basad
- -
SXCATTO RETOSPT FLOWs /
tire. 33. (a) Section 208(b$ (2) (F) of the
Federal Water PoUution Control Act is
amended by adding after ‘sources of pollu.
tion, includior the following: “return flows
ftore Irrigated agriculture, and their ciula-
tire effects,”. -
(b) Section 502(14) of the Pede al Water
Pollution Control Act La amended by adding
at the end thereof the following: “This term
does not include retm flows from Irrigated
agriculrore.”.
• (c) Section 402 of the Federal Water Poiru-
lion Control Act 25 amended hr adding at the
end thereof a new subsection as follows:
(l) The Admlnmtratoi’ shall pot require
a permit under tale ‘section ror discharges
composed entirely - or -return flows from liTi-
gated agiculture, nor 5haIlllie Administrator
directly or indirectly, require any State to
require such a permit,”,
STATE BEST RtANAcEi.r y PRACT! S PBOGSASL
Sec. 34. (a) Paragraph (4) of subsection
(b) of section 208 of the Federal Water Pal-
lutlon Control Act is amended—
(I) by Inserting “(A)” Inunedlately after
“(4)”; - -
(2) by striking out “to the Administrator
for appucation to all regions within such
State.” and Inserting La Ueu thereof “to the
A” ’”’stratur for approval for application
to a class hr category of activity througout
such Statè ”; and
(3) by inserting at the end thereof the £01-
lowing new subparagraphs:
“(B) Any program submitted under sub-
paragraph (A) of this paragrapa which, In
whole or in part, La to control the dIscharge
or other placement of dredged or fill mate-
rial Into the navigable water shall Include
the following:
“(I) A consultation process which Includes
the State agency with primary jurisdiction
over flab and wtldlUe resources.
- (ii) A process to IdentIty and manage the
discharge or other placement of dredged or
5.11 materiaL which adversely affecta naviga-
ble waters, which ahali complement end be
coordinated with a State program under see-
hon 404 conducted pursuant to this Act.
(iti) A process to assure that any activity
conducted pursuant to a best management
practice wiii comply with the guidelines as-
.tabllsbed under section 404(b) (1), and see-
tiona -307 and 403 of this Act, -
“(iv) A process to assure that any activity
conducted pursuant to a best management
practice can be -terminated or modified for
—cause including. but not limited to, the fol-
lowing:.
“(I) violation of any condition of the best
management practice;
“(II) change In any activity that requires
either a temporary or permanent reduc:ion
or eIIm n t.oa of the discharge pursuant to -
the best “ '“ '-!ement practice.
A process to assure continued coordi-
nation with Federal-and Federal-State wat€r-
related planning and reviewing processes, In-
-eluding the listlonal Wetlands Inventory.
“(C) I! the Oovernor of a State obtains
approval from the Administrator of a state-
wide regulatory- program which meets the
requirements of subparagraoh (B) of this
paragraph and if such State Is administering
a permIt program under section 404 of this
Act.- no person shall be required to obtain
an individual permit pursuant to such sec-
- lion, Ot to comply with a general permit is-
sued pursuant to such Mctlon, wIth resuect
- to any appropriate activity within such
Stale for wh ich a best manazement practIce
has been approved by the Afimmistraccy un-
- der.the program approved by the Admlhisti’a-
tar pursuant to this paragraph. -
“(D) (I) Whenever the Administrator de-
termlnes after public hearing that a State Is
not admini tening a program approved un-
der this section in accornance with the re-
quirenients of this section, the Ad.minisu’ator
shall so nou1 the State, and it appropriate
corrective action Is not take’s within a tea-
scuable time, not to exceed ninety days, the
Aimlalatrator shall withdraw approval of
such program. The Admte . tz’ator shall no;
withdrew approval of any such program’
unless be shall fist have Dotifled the State,
and made public, In writing, the-reasons for
such withdrawal. -
“(Li) Zn sac ease eta State with a program
submitted and approved under this para-
graph, the Administrator shall withdraw ap-
proval of such program under this subpara-
graph only for a substantial failure of the
State to a N tt lat& ita.program l.a accord-
ance with the requireme r of this para-
graph.”. -
(b) Section 208 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act is amended by adding at
—126-
-------
rg
SECTION 208
(Continued)
the tad thereof the following new subsec- poses of the program or to facilitate the
tion: practical administration of the program.
“(1) (1) The Secretary of the Interior, act- “(2) In return for such agreement by the -
big through the Director of the United States landowner or operator the Secretsry shall
Fish and WildLife Service, shall, upon request agree to provide teconical assistance and
of the Governor of a State. and without Fe- share the cost of carrying out those Con-
Imbursement, provide technical assistance to servatian practices and measures set, fOrth in
such State in developing a statewide pro- the contract for whicn he determines that
grain for ubmisslon to the Administrator cost sharing is aopropriate and in the public
under subsection (b) (4) (B) of this section interest end which are approved for c ,st
and in Implementing such program after its sharing by the agency designated to imple-
approval. ment the plan developed under subsection
‘(2) There is authorized to be appropriated (b) of this section. The portion of such cost
to the Secretary of the Interior 56.000.000 (including labor) to be ehared ehüLl be that
to cOmplete the National Wetlands Inventory part which the Secretary determines is nec-
of the United States, by December 31. 1981, essary and appropriate to effectuate the in-
and to provide information from such In- stollatlon of the water quality management
sensory to States as It becones available to practices and measures under the contract
assist such States in the development and but not to exceed 50 per centum of the total
operation of programs under this Act.”. Cost Of the measures set forth in the con-
aciuc .rosam. cost - tract; except the Secretary may increase the
matchIng cost share where he determines
Sec. 35. SectIon 208 of the Federal Water that (1) the main benedts to be derived
Pollution Control Act is amended by adding irota the measures are related to Improving
at the end thereof the following new sub- offsito water quality, and (2)-the matching
section: share requirement would place a burden on
‘(J) (1) The Secretary of ACriculture. with the landowner which would probably prevent
the concurrence of the ‘“‘ trator , and hlm from participating In the program.
acting through the Soil Conservation Serv- “(3) The Secretary may terminate any con-
ice and such other agencies of the Depart- tract with a landowner or operator by mu-
meat of Agriculture as the Secretary V tual agreement with the owner or operator tf
designate, is authorized and directed the Secretary determines that such ter na-
establish and administer a program to enter lion would be in the pubUc interest, and
Into contracts of not less than dye years nor may agree to such modihcation of contracts
more than ten years with owners and opera— previously entered into as he may determine
tore having control of rural land for the pur- to be desirable to carry out the purposes of
pose of Installing and maintaining measures the program r facilitate the practical ad-
incorporating best management practices to. ministi’ tion thereof or to accomollab equl-
control nonpoint source pollution for in” table treatment with respect to other con-
proved water quality in those States or aseas” servatlon. land use, or water -quality pro-.
for which the Administrator ha approved a
plan under subsection (b) of this section “(4) In providing assistance under this.
wherd the practices to which the contracts subsection the Secretary will give priority to
.appiy are certided by the management agency those areas and aources that have the most
designated under subsection (c) (1) of this signiScan; effect upon water quality. Add.t- -
section to be consistent with such plans and tiozial investigations or plans may be made.
- wifl result in i proved water quality. Such where nec ’y, en supplement approved
- contracts may be entered -Into during the water cuality management plans, in order to
period’ ending not later than September 31, determine priorities.
1988. Under such contracts the land owner “(5) The Secretary shall, wbere practi-
or operator shall agree— cable, enter into agreements with soil con-
“( I) to effectuate a plan approved by a soil servatien districts, State soil ‘and water con-’
r’COnaeTV0.tIou district, where one exists, under semtlon agencies, or State water quality
this section for his farm, ranch, or other land ncies to administer all or part of the pro-
substantially In accordance wIth the ached- gram eatabuahed in this subsection under
isle outlined therein unless any requirement regulations developed by the Secretary. Such
thereof is waived or modifled by thS SSciis” agreements shall provide for the submission
- of such reports as the Secretary deems neceti
— “ (I L) to forfeit all rights to further pay- ssl’y. and for payment by the United States
meats or grants under the contract and e- of such portion of the costs incurred is the
fund to the. United States all payments and aewi . 4 trnir.0a of the program as the Secre’
grante received thereunder, with Interest, tory may detos appropriate.
ispon his violation of the contract at any “(8) The contracts under this subsectiozi
stage during the tine he has control of’ the chill be entered Into only in areas ‘where the
land it the Secretary, after considering the management agency designated under eub-
- xr ’ ”” endations’ f the soil conservation diS.’ section (C) (1) of this section assures an ade-
Diet, where one exists, and the Adminlstra- quate level of participation by owners and
toe’, determines that such violation-is of such. operators having control of rural land in
a nature as to warrant termination of the such areas, Within such areas the local soil -
contract, or to make refunds or accept Such conservation district, where one exists, to-
payment adjustments as the Secretary may gather with the Secretary of Agrtuulture. will
‘deem appropriate if be determines thac tile determine the priority of assistance among
—violation by the owner or operator does not individuai land owners and operators to as-
warrant termlntalon.of the contract: sure that the most critical water quality
‘(ill) upon transfer of his right and. in- problems are addressed,
in tile farm, ranch, or other land Silt” “ The Secretary. In consultation with
‘, g the contract period to forfeit all rights the Administrator aud subject to section 304
to further payments or grants under tile can- (k) of this Act,-sbaU, net later than 5.ptem-
tract and refund to the United States her 30. 1978. promulgate regulations for
payments or grants received thereunder, With carrying out this subsection and for support
interest, unless the transferee of any such and cooperation with other Federal and non-
land agrees with the S.creta17 to assume eral agencies (or impLementatIon of this
obtigations of the contract; subsection,
“Civ) not to adopt any practice speci ed ‘(8) This program shall not be used tO
r by the Secretary on the advice of the Ad” authorize or nance pro(ecta that would
niiniitrator in tile contract as a P Ct Ce ‘otherwise be eligible for assistance unaer the
which would tend to defeat the purposes of t.r s of PubUc Law 83-366.
the Contrsct - ‘- , ‘ “(9) There are hereby authorized to be
p.- “(v) to such additiona? provisions as tile appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary detetmines are desirable and in- $200,000,000 for fiseal yeer 1979 and 3400.000.-
eludes in the contract to effectu te the put- 000 for Sscal year 1980. to carry out this sub-
— — - s_ —
:aee i. The pregesea watboetsed wades’ t!i1
,,subeection shall be in addition to, and not
in subetitution of. other pru rams en such
areasthdbyhiscr any uthcrpubllo
,‘1n IFl1rs 10 SEC.r:or4 2004
Secttcn 341a; of the confereoce iuhstittttC
anlenOs section 208 1b )( 5 ) 0: the .t.-t to slow
the GovernOr of a State to deveioo and sum’-
m.t tho requ:remcrita o( c(su es Ii ’) th:nugh
li ) Of para3raoh (2) ol cection 203(U) tO
the Administrator for anpucutlou u a class
or category t aetlvtty ‘l rOu houi the Otarc,
Ire addihon, section 34(a ( adds the fDl(uw lcg
new subnaratrapts to mectiore 20S(bi (4):
Subparagra. &’t ill) which TequI:es tilat
an; program suhmi’,tad unUe’ euopursgrt’ph
A) of tha I section wblc is. In waoie or In
part, to control the disc”arg or othcr place.
meal of dredged Ot 5I neattytril, hid’ the
navt sbie waters inrlude the (o,ioweisg: (I)
a consultation proceiz. with the State aeency
with rti7L2ry Jurtsdicdlo:i over s1v t.’id ‘sild.
lIfe. (ii) a proceu to identIfy and rnara e
the disc harge or ‘.thCr ple ’i’meat. of tired
or fU material which actrerse;r affect’ nay!’
gable waters. which sba l coc,plemeni. atid u.s
ciior.iirut!ed with .i 5tate nro.,:ani u .’er 3CC—
thIn 404 of the Act. cr nilucted :‘ursi’aitt to
the AcU (iii) a 1 iroces, t’ . ,cur? tha, any
at ’:lsz y conducted ouzs’Iaot, hI .i bc.t ii, . -’,-
ag ,iient pra. tI e rr,ll c ,t ’r .pl’? v.i. :, thc gu.
ii:.i’ establi.ehid ir,der sccl:0n 4O4 ., ( I).
and sections ,3fl’ ‘4it1 4t” 4 Of the Act. “i) a
process to a.suie dna; a , y iictlie: COl tad
pur .uant to s best maos en .en; prac;. ucac .
be terminated or mcd ed rot’ csui i:ic”i&d-
treg. but not l ited to (I, .ioia:(on of ‘Liy
coo ltIon of tas nest ag,ageiflei . ; ,rs..’wc.
a nd i ) change in any acisv1 ’ :.i.tt reqt.tros
eit’ er a tamputar, or ncrmans .; rediict.nn or
eliminatlon of cac dijcnar e .urs .ut :0 iris
teat msns;ernenL pri.. l:ce. end t ) a
to assure eoad,.’itied ccc.rd::’a:.on w.Ia .f.’d’
pial and Federal-State a er relatea alan-
ning aai reviewinq pr ’ .c’vi es, tocluU.Wg nc
‘;etiooai Wetleads 1i’ .writcry.
Subparagraph iCp ‘shuck’ ‘,rovtaes chat If
a Stats Ooialns aporcvrut C-O. ttto ,4d’flinlS’
trator cf a s:atewrde :eeuatorv vgram ricd
If the State is a ,mln ,startng a pcriut pro’
gram under sectim’ri 4G4 of Ihe Act, no per-
son is requitcd to obtain an individual 441.1
permit. or coaipI . with a ‘,enersl 40< permIt
with respect to any ap roprf.ice sciiv :ty
within the State for whtcl, a best manage-’
meat practice has beco aporoved by Ins Ad-s
nilnlstrator under Ins State’s approved 2d8
pro am.
Subparag-aph (0; ahich rsqu)res the Ad’
‘utoucrator. w”uenecer ih *1zniniatrat3r do,
terminer, after a nublic hea:lng a otate
It not adnuorlterinf a prosram aoprorsd
tinner section 2u)8 of the Ar; in accordance
with the requirements uf the sec ’ion to so
I.cetill the Stats and i! apomprati, correc-
rhv action us not raitert ‘vttlun not to ecrerd’
90 days the Administrator shall withdraw
a oroval yr the program. The AdmInrs ;raior
prior o ti’s vtt’ti”csi of acpro”ai mt’st,
caske pubIc. I c wrirln 5. Li’s rr’soi:s for the
wichdrut.,, In the in,.’ 0 ! a State “:ttb a
program submltt d and ,tpo o?ed e ,ncl ,ir sec-
tion, 08tb)(4). the AdmLnistcitOr h.uIl’
withjaw approval of th pc’agrarn under
.,iit$ subparagraph only cur a auh’ ,’anrlsi
failure of the State to ad’innister i’;
grain in accordance w.th ocn tecctoo.
Seotton 34 c, add,i a nec -ubject !Gn u )
to “cteon 2Clb wotch requuiui the t.erreta”y
of :ne In;erior. acting through the UurectOr
‘c trio Uuii:ea Scares Fish .i:ta “ildil.fd oer;-
Ice uorn request of the Gor.,-mor of a SLits
atiti without ri0!n’i .4rn.rflL in rro 1 t.’cir.
rti’ al ae, , acce to tne S at I’e de’ —“x,ILI. , .1
stc e’ hle p” ’acn under ‘i.’c’ti’ru “18. hi
ill; and to !moieeetrtuu3 ( ‘he p. u ,tx. trot
-127-
-------
CONFERENCE REPORT :
SECTION 208
Pg 3
Its approvaL Al o. subssetloi (I) authoylzec
to be appropriated to tine Secretary of the
Datertor 35,600,000 to complete the ?latioüal
Wetlands inventory by December 31. 1981.
and to provtde Information from the inven..
tory to States as It becomes available to as-
sist States lathe development and Opera-
on Ofprograius under the Act.
- - The conference SubstItute amends section
p908 of the Act to provide for the develop-
ment and Implementation of aectlo 208
. programs, admthLstered by the State C cv-
‘ernment, for the regulation of a e!ssa or cat--
egory of activity Involving dredge or fil’ ma-
• tenet- throughout the State -in accordance
with best management practices. In review-
ing and approving any program applying
beet management practices under section
208(b) (4) (C), the Adnuntsuator sbaU con--
alden whether the proposed beet manage-
mentpeactlcee requirements are in fact the
best.appUcable practices, as well as whether
such a program will adequately protect the
navigable’ waters at least to the San te extent
as if the activity were- regulated in accord-
ance with the section 404(b) (1) guidelines,
-- For example, a program may be da,elooed
for the use of best mnnn.gemant practices
for a forestry activity.
U a. State regulatory program is approved
by the Administrator, and It the State has
a permit program approved by the Adminis—
• trS ,tor under section 404. thea no ifldjvid a2
permit is required under section 404 for an
activity which Involves -the discharge of
dredged or Sn materiaL which Is in conform.
ftflC with the prescribed best mans amens
practices. u a particular prorraxu I disap.
proved by the Adminis r tor. 83 provided by
the’ Conference substitute, that disapproval
only applies to that particular orogrum and
,not to other approved program3 regulating
Other classes or categories of activities.
,. ‘- The, new section 208(b) (4 ) programs to
addresn ’dzedge or fill activities are distinct
and, can be developed separately from
(tbeOsneensecsion208( (2) programs,
J- •Ths. Nasionat Wetlands Inventory- is In-
.tenda to be used for technimi assistance, as
th. regulatory agency deems appropntat - In-
) 7tflg out this program.
assawma Paazrnnro - - , - -
- - - Hoisseb iU - -
SectionlO amends section 208(f) (2) of the
Act to provide for 100 percent Federal grants
• to designated agencies for the first two years”-
costs of developing and operating a con-
tinuing areawide waste treatment manage-
ment p [ .-’inlng process if the flz t grants are
approved by EPA before October 1, 1977. The
2-pear period begins on the date the Sx 5t
grant is made.
Grants of up to 75 percent of the costs of
developing and operating a continuing area.
wide waste treatment management process
rain any one year, are provided for each suc-
csed.lng one year period to newly designated
‘agencies whose first grants are approved after
October 1, 1977, as well as (or subsequent
tnte for each succeeding one year period
agencies which have already utilized their
A grant
Sen:ta cnendment
Section 3 a) ameld5 sectic.it 208 (h) of
the Act to provide that any- anency de .ig-
na:e t after l9 5 under eectcin 20Ca and a
State rcttn a the planning agency for all
pnrtior..s of th State ot o therwise de .elg-
i atcn Si’ l1 ha e a full three !,ea:s alter
receipt of the Idled grant uncer section
208(L) to prepare an Initial plan.
Section 13(b) amends section 208(f) (2)’
of the Act to provide that, for the rSt 2
)enrs of operation of any agency decignated
prior to Octooe: 1, 1978, to conciuct art area-
wide waste trmtznent manaccinerit planning
I process under sectIon 208, the amount of the
Federal grunt shalt be 100 percent of the
Conference substitute
The oonference substitute Is the same as
the Senate azuen ment except that the date
• by which the fl_-st clans must be approved
Is set as October 1, 1977, as provided Itt the
Eouse bill.
The conferees note that the authorization
(or sectIon 208 is unrelated to the litigation
In National Assoctarion of RegionaL Councils
v. CosLLe, No, ‘76—1970, U.S. Court of Aopeala
for the DC. Circuit (cecided September 8,
1977). Sunts autho:xzed fo this section
should 001 In any way be Used to meet any
‘order ve ii1tIng from that. CaSe Any funds
anoropriated pursuant to this authort.zat on
• should be used only as set fdrth in this
section.
£aLtwma WASIt vanarsrxrrr )LANAGzM i5
Housc ball
No comparable prorlelon.
Sanate amendment
This section amends sect on 208(br(2) (A)
of the Act to requi-e that any plan prepared
• under the areawide waste treatment manage-
ment process must include an identification
of open space and recreation opportunities
expected to result from Improved water
qusuty, Including methods and procedures
to assure public access so navigable waters
(or recreation purposes. -
Conference substitute
The conference substitute is the same as
- the Senate amendment except that the pro-
vision relating to public access to navigable
waters ha s bean replaced wIth a requirement
- that there be consideration or potentiaL use
of land associated with treatment works and
Increased access to water-based recreation.
mamsrmw asrome rsows
• House bill
No comparable provisIon.
- Senate amendment
This provision creates a new subsection
(sa) of section 402, and amends section 208
.(b) (2) (F) of existing law. Its effect Is to cx--
• empI irrigation return flows from all permit
requirements under section 402 of the Act,
and to assure that areawide waste treatment
management plans under section 208 Include
consideration of irrigateef agriculture.
Conference substitute
The conference substitute makes the same
-amendment to section 208(b) (2) (F) as the
Senate - amendment. it also amends section
502(14) of the Act to remove return flows
from -irrigated agriculture from the defini-
tion of tb ternt ‘point source”. In addition
the amendment to section 402 of the Act is
revised to prohlbtt the Administrator from
requiring permits for thIs type of discharge
and to prohibit the Administrator from re-
quu-tn_g any State to i’equireeucli a permit,
The purpose of this section is to assure
that no permit can be required by EPA for
regulation of Irrigation return flows. The con-
ferees do not intcnd, in any way, to restrict
the authority of a State to regulate irrigation
return flows as a part of an approved State
section 402 permit program. - -- -
acc:cvvroac cmv sziAsn G
House b.Zi
No comparable provis.on.
- Senate a-’l(”tnrlent
The- settlon eetab.’rhes a new prep—am
for the Department of Açr:cuture in c ’ op-
eratlori aiLb the Adninstrator of tie n-
vOnr lrentAi Pnote’t t on Agency, to prorade
technical arid i1ti ncial assi ;ance to land
owiiers fi operators In rural areas for L—i-
piemeorl area :ce management pans tin-
dci: secton 20fl of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Can trol Act,
Flncnclnl assistance uncer this provrston
is flci verea through a cost-sha ’ing program
for Implementing long-term soil conser:a-
tion practices for Impravtng water ci_-ality
under section 208. The funds would oe au-
thorized to the Secretary of Agriculture, act-
ing through the Soll Conservatron Service.
The Secretary, with the concurrence of the
Administratot of the Eni-iron en;al Pro-
tect.on Agency. eouid enter into ccntracts
wIth farm onerators and owners for- the pur-
pose of Installing -measures to reduce agri-
Cultural roach. Only those soil cacsei-vatinn
measures approved as part of State plans un-
der section 208 as best management prac ces
for improving water quautv would be el:gib.e
for such ftno.ng. The Federal cost share
could be as hIgh as 50 percent u_- less the
Secretary detercunes otherwise Furies avau-
ante are to be used for Inrtsllation of ccn-
trol ine_-lianisms and not cay-co-day opera;-
tag costs. -
These cost-sharing fund.s will be made
available only to those areas of States waich
have approved management pans under
aectior, 203. The Secretary a-Ill g re priority
to pro ecta in those areas whic bare criti-
cal no oiz,t source pollution problems from
agnicultorat runoff. Section 208 mantge- -
meat agencies will be required to assure an
appropriate level of participat Ion by land
owners and operators In the area. befons
func.ng can become available,
The Secretary is autnorizefl to carry out
this cost-abann procram through the State
Soil conservation disu- cts•
There Is authorized to ca, ’ry out this provi-
sion £200,000,003 far fiscal year 1979, and
$400,000,000 for fiscal year 1980,
Conference subsritute
The conference substitute is the same as
the Senate amendment except that the Sec.
retary of Arriculture, with the cnn:u-reace
of the Administrator, and acting t.brcug±i the
Soil Conservation ServIce and such other
agencies of the Department as the Secretary
may nesignate. Is to es and _____
t sr this program, In addItion, agreements to
administer the program ‘shall provide for
payment by the United States of such admin-
istrative costs as the Secretary deems appro-
priate, The- local soil conservation district,
where one exists, together with the Secretary
of Agriculture, will determine priority of as-
sistance to assure the most critical water
qualIty programs are add.-essed by the pro—
gram.
This provision Is eSacntiauy the same as
the Seriate-passed bill except that ;t has been
clarified to give the Secretary of Agriculture
more flexibility within his department. The
funds authorized for agricultural t-shar-
lag programs are to be Included in the re-
quest for appropriations for agricultural pro-
grams and not to be Included In the EPA
budge;. The funds are to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Agriculture.
The conferees agree that the function of
this cost-sharing program is to reauce non-
point source pollution through financial as-
sistance for only those soil conservatIon prac-
tices which Improve water qualIty. It is no;
intended to be a copy or extension of existing
soil conservation programs In the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, and should not finance
productIon-oriented practices except as an
incidental or indirect result, -
p -
0•
-128-
-------
Pg 4
SECTION 208
(Continued)
STATEMENTS:
CONG. ROBERTS :
iCSlaA AGRZCVLTUEE
Section 33 of the conference report cx-
empts return flows front lrrigatec agri-
culture from aM permit requiren,cnts un-
der sectIon 402, and recogluzes that this
activity is not a point source within the
meaning of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
This action was taken In recogmtlon
of a spect’lc recommendation of the Na-
tional Commission on Water Qualit:.. The
problems of permitting every discrete
source or tonduit returning water to the
streams from frrnated lands Is simply
t o burdensome to place on the resot rccs
of EPA. Eowever. section 33 assurec that
sreaw:de waste treatment managerrent
plans under section 208 Include con id-
eration of Irrigated agriculture.
STATS ems eiMAczMrirT PRACTICIS i ’ito:r. :
Section 34(a) of the conference sub-
stitute amends section 208 of the act to
provide for the development and mip,e-
mentatlon of secuon 208 programs, ad.’
ministered by the State government, for
the regulation of a class or category of
activity, Fgr eiçample, programs zna ’ be --
iujve’oped for the use of best manage-
i ”r At practices ror various forestry activ—
tt.es or nuning activities, including con—
‘s ruttIo & id maintenance of forest or
i unirq roads and other. forestry and
min ilg actIvities which lend themselves
, iulatioa through the implementa-
t .ii ,,f best management practices. If a
regulatory program is approved by
t:’c . dmimstrator and if the State has a
•i.ira.it program approved by the admin-
•s ’atjr under section 404, then no In-
th&tuai permit Is required under section
4t.4 . r the activities following best man— -
.ie.r.ent practices uncer the section 208
r grain. The State-level section 208 pro-
;ran ’ applies to activities in all the nay-,
ig ’ b ’e waters, including those described
a plate I waters in the Corps of Engi-
‘i’eers 75 regulations. - -
£GBZVOLTVSZ COST 5 A3 (G
SectIon 35 of the conference substit4te
‘ authorIzes she Department of Agricul-
ture. acting through the Soil Cozaserva-
tlon Service and such other agencies of
the Department of Agriculture as the
Secretary may designate, to establish and
S program to enter into con-
tracts of not less than 5 years nor more
than 10 years with owners. and opera-
,‘tors having control of rural land for the
purpose of Install ing and maintaining
meaoures Incorporat ing best manage-
ment practices to control nonpoint source
pollution for Improved water quality con-
• sistent with an approved area’.. 4e man-
agement plan under section 208.
ARZAWIaE WAsrZ vlxAT,acNr Me.’ t 4E%
V i i .G PROCtSS
- Section 208f) (2) of the act is am’ m l-
c cl by section 31 to provide that the rr’
2 years of the operation of any acene:,
-designated under section 203a) pr Ior to
October 1, 1977 to conduct an areaw ie
planning process under sectior ?08 shall
receive a Federal grant of 100 percent of
the costs of the flr t 2 years of operation.
• The committee would like to emphasire
that sectlo t 208(b (2) (E) requ:res a cn-
des to Include In their plan a method of
financing the plan. Section 2( 1 8tc, i2) (E)
provides that the administrator shall not
• accept any designation of management
agencies which do not have the authority
to raise revenues, including the ssses-
mont of waste treatment charges. It is
erpected that designated agencies, as
provided by these sections, will deveop
• a seU-sustalnisig revenue base as ‘ioon as
-practicable, As Congress determines that
agencies have had a reasonnole o ic :-
tunlty to develop such bases, it w LJ re-
assess the need for Federal funding, Un-
til such time, however, It is fully cNpectcd
that there will be eontinu ty in Fed rai
funding for all eligible agencies and th.it
the first grants to agencies will be 101-
lowed. by subsequent grants oi up to 5
percent of the costs of deveIop ng and
operating the continuous maneveinent
process. Subsection 31(b) speclilcal!v au-
thorizes such continuing funding.
The conference report also adds a new.
subsection (f) which provides that the’
discharge of dredged or fill material:
First, front normal farming. silviculture,
and ranching activities: second, for the
purpose of nialnteaance—including
emergency reconstruction of recently
damaged parts—of currently serviceable
structures; third, for the purpose of.
construction or ‘maintenance of farm or
sto !t ponds or Irrigation ditches or the
maintenance of draInage ditches; fourth,
for the purpose of construction of tern-
porary sedimentation basins on a con-
struction site which does not include.
• placement of fill material into the r.avi-
- gable waters;-flLth, for thepurpose of-
?construcUon or maintenance- of Lana.
roads or forest roads, or temporary roads
‘for moving mining equipment, thcre
such roads are constructed and main-
tamed. In accordance with best manage-
ment practices, to assure that flow and
circulation patterns and chemical and
biological characteristics of the naviga-
ble waters are not Impaired, that the.
reach of the navigable waters Is not
reduced, and that any adverse e 5ect on
the aquatic environment will be other-
wise minimized; and sixth, resulting
fronf any activity with respect to which a
-129—
-------
Pg 5
SECTION 208
State has an approved pro rani ünc! r
section 208(b) (4) which meets the
requfrenients of 5ubparagraphs (B) and
(C) of such section. is not prohibited by
or otherwise subject to reg’ i1ation under
section 404 or 301(a) or 402 of the act—
except for e uent standards or pronibi-
tions under sect;on 307. This swisection
(I) shall not apply if the discharge oi
-dredged or fill material Into the navi-
gable waters Is incidental to any activity
having as Its purpose bringing an area of
the navigable waters into a use to which
It was not previously subject where the
flow or cIrculation of navigable waters
may be Impaired or the reach of such
waters be reduced.
l.a Senate Report No. 95—370 accom-
panyIng 5. 1529 it Is stated that the term
“normal siivicultural practice” does not
Include, for Eastern mixed hardwood
forests, clenrcuttixig of timber, or har-
vesting associsted with even-aged man-
agement or timber. The souse conferees
do not agrea with this statement and do
not consIder It so be factually correct.
The Eastern mixed hardwood rorests
are eep&ially well suited to various man-
agement ipractices such as shelter cod
cutting and clearcutting. E en-aged
practices such as clearcuttlxig create the
widest range of plant communities of any
,regeneratlon method and are appropr:-
ate for areas where wildlife habitat diver-
and water yield are primary objec-
tives.
.Perhaps more than any other forest
type, Eastern hardwoods require a wider
range of cutting methods and cultural
methods with prescriptions varied to fit
each particular tract. For these reasons
the Interpretation of normal silvIcul-
tural activities should not restrict or con-
strain the use of a wide range of scien-
tlfically proven silvicultural practices. An
informative description of these’ prac-
tices Is contained in a letter from the
Chief of the Forest Service of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to Representative
Joms BaxAinc and I ask that this letter
be printed at the end of my discussicn of
sectIon 67. we wIsh to point out that iii-
though discharges of dredged or fill ma-
terial associated with normal silvicul-
tsral activities are not to be regulated
under section 404. matters such as seci-
mentation problems resulttig from sul’.
vicultural activities will continue to be
subject to the requirements of section 208
(Continued)
SENATOR MUSKIE :
DP.FOGE AND FiLL PtRMIT PaOGSAM
The provisions of the conference r -
port dealing ith discharge of dredge
or fill material amend sections 404 and
208(b) (4) of the act. These amendments
are essentially the same approach as
taken In the Senate-passed b ll. and the
Senate report and floor statements at
the time 01 Senate passage are still a-
quate reflections of legislative intent
with respect to this program.
The conference bill follows the Senate
bill by maintaining the full scope of
Federal regulatory authority over all
discharges of drecged or fill mater.al
into any of thu Nation’s waters. It pro-
vides for the substitution of adequate
State programs for permit issuance by
the Corps of Engineers, and for general
permits to be issued by the corps or un-
der approved State programs. The bill
also provides the exemptions from the
permit requirement for certain specified
aLtivities as provided In the Senate-
pas cd bill.
The two major changes from the Sen-
ate version are a greater degree of spec-
ificity about the type of “best manage-
ment practice” regulation under section
208(b) (4) which qualifies an activity for
exemption from the section 404 permit
requirement, and a restatement of the
exemption for Federal project.s.
The conference bill amends section
208(b) (4) to authorize the Adinmistra-
tor to approve statewide regulatory pro-
grams to control those discharges of
dredged or fill material that are better
hanoled ‘through imposition of’ best
management practice requirements. The
section 208(b)(4)(B) program is in-
tended to complement State permit pro-
grains approved under section 404 Once
a State ha,s an approved section 404 per-
mit program and an approved section
208(b) (4) (B) re ulatiry prcr—;.rn. the
Administrator may appro’ ,e bei I. man-
agement practices imposed by L ie SL tc
to control an act:vity wh,ch he c .c er—
mints will have only minor L,Ui’.id l
or cumulati e er ects on the rçua ’c
envuronrnent. If the Admu istrat. ’ir p-
proves best management pracz’res as
adeq iate to control a specif c iictlv lty
without additional perm:t revi v ’. pro-
id:n dêgr,e of protection cc’npa’ e
to that from section 404 bi ill gu de-
line review, Federal permits sho.ikl not
be required. Best management pr?c t ccs
will not be appropriate as the soc .rnearis
of control for activities such
nelization and sate development fills t tnt
can impair the circulation or reduce the
reach of navigable waters. Such activ -.
ties, by the r vary nature, will continue
to require individual attention throu n a
permit review process. as will a.l d.s-
charges involv ing any toxic pollutant
listed under section 307(a) (1’.
Of course, bect management u’ractices
may be required for such ait tities as
r.ermit conditions It is not expected that
the section 208(b (4) (C) exempt cn
from permit requ rement.s w:1 t e ava l-
able for whole classes of act ’: y s :en
as s:lvaculture. While the ntent c ‘ ec-
tion 208(b’ (4) is to encourage Stales to
develop best management practaco re-
quirements for all such activit es. as ,art
of a general forestry pracncez ac’ or
otherwise, each L-idn’idual act:v ty or
practice must be scrutin:zed in l:g t of
the section 404(b) (1) gu del res and ap-
proved by the Administrator befcre the
permit exemption is available.
A section 208(b) (4) ( ) is not a sub-
stitute for the section 404 program, end
the Administrator cannot approve best
mwe ement practices to reph,ce the
State’s permit review pmeeis in its en-
tL’ety. This is consistent with the pr:nci-
pal that section 208(b) programs gen-
erally, at the state or area wide level.
do not duplicate the permit proerams fc-r
point sources under sections 402 and 41)4.
but incorporate them in a broader eiTort
to attain the water quality objert:ve of
the act.
The Administrator must acsnre that
an approved best management pract:ce
is specific enough to inform each person
conducting an activity what is specifi-
cally required of hIm. The conferees e-
pèct that any-approved section 208(b)
(4) (B) program will include an active
enforcement process with demonstrated
capability and adequate resources. -
—1 29A—
-------
i g 6
CONG. HARSHA :
F na1iy, lw ld like to comment on
:thc en ncnt to tect on 203 of the act
•w: c: would aäov: certain categories of
ictivit es to be reg’.iated under tne 208
e.rea-ude management program. The
new 208 program is a supplement to the
• 404 program and is intended to coraple-
merit and be coordinated with i.ii ap-
probed State 404 permit program. The
203 progran is riot a substltdte for the
404 program as most discharges of
dredgcd or fill material require a case-
by-case review through a permit process
and It Is not intended that actzvities
conducted under a best management
practice be required to obtain en In-
dividual permit. Activities that involve
discharges of dredged or fill material
that insceir the flow or circulation cf
navigable waters or replace water with
dry land will normally require inaividual
permit review. iror example, case-by-
case permit review Is necessary to mini-
mize a4verse eIects from most channel-
Ization ann real estate development fills.
Moreover, the conferees agreed that a
permit should always be required where
toxic substances are involved. A case-by-
case permit review would not be required
for narrowly defined act vities thct
cau e little or no adverse erects either
Individua l ly or curriulat ve1v. incl mding
those activities narrowly defined in 404
Cr) (I) (A—F).
A State niust have a permit program
approved under section 404 and a state-
wide regulatory program approved under
208th) (4) before the Adniimstratcr can
approve any best management pract cez
submitted by the Governor for appro-
priate activities. Apy best management
practice must be included in Scala laws
or regulations prIor to its final approval
by the Administrator.
The Adctimatrator cannot approve best
management practices to replace the
States permit review process in its en-
ttrety as only certain activities are ap-
propriate for best management t±ces.
A best management practice might be
an acceptable xnethcd of ortro! for ac-
tivities that are similar In nature and
that cause no more than nuninial harm
to thö ecwironment eitiwr div 1ually
or cumulatIvely. Eest m3xia4erne:1 prac-
tices are appropriate for controixiug I srm
roads, logging roads, temporary miring
roads, stock ponds. farm ponds and
maintenance of existing fills. Pest man-
agetnent practices are not appropriate as
the sole means of controlling actIvities
If the Irmact varies according to location
so that the lest of “nimizual adverse af-
fect” Is not met or where advanced par-
mis-type review is necessary to assure
that the discliar e is concutioned to pro-
tect the environment. It is expected that
best managenierit practices would be ap-
proved cnjy for thObC actinctas which
are likely by their nature to be con thicted
In cwnpllaace with a management prac-
tice.
SECTION 208
(Continued)
‘the 2 8 ayencies thou.d continue to
c ’cen ote on sreaw de mnri .nent
pollut ou and on ncn: otrtt zoLrc s of
o r.: ,in that degracte critical ar,’ja:ia
areas r.ither than attempt to dupl c te
4 and 404 oerrn t pro iams Lu_c con-
tro point so’ cce , ox pollution.
‘r:ie A nunuitrator nv.cc in. ure th ;
b st mun.a emenc prac :c s are speciflc
enoimun to L’ifcrm ee h per o’u c cting
an sc’.i :t7 what is poci c 1ly reuirad
of him. Where .appro?rlate, a beat man-
urrienc practice wc.xid reouu’e nohee
to the designated State agency In ad-
vance o dxscrmerge.
The conferees expect that this 208
process will include an actt ty enforce-
nuer.t ;ro raxn with demonstrated capa-
bility and adequate resources.
SENATOR CULVER :
Mr. CULVER. Mr. President, I am
pleased to see the Senate act today on the
ror. .ference report a003mpanyirg HR.
3199. the Clean Water Act of 1977. 1 am
hopeful that both Houses will appro’. e
this legislation without further delays.
and I want to commend my fellow con-
ferees for their aedicated attention to
tins important measure.
One of the major water quality issues
ethich has long been of concern to me is
the urgent need to reduce noxupoint.
source potlution, It Is widely recognized
that our Nation’s water quality goals wIll
not be met In many lakes, streams, and
rivers without accelerated attention to
the problem or controlling agricultural
and silvzcultural runoff, which may be
so severe as to overshadow current water
quality Improvements from the control of
untreated municipal and mdustr a1 djs-
charges. It has been estimated by the
U.S. Sod Conservation Service SCS),
for example, that cropland is responsible
for at least 50 percent of the total sedi-
ment entering our Inland waterways.
Over 400 million acres of croplarid con-
tribute 2 bxlllon tons of sediment an-
iuual!y to our streams, lakes, arid rivers.
Effective water quality rels ted sod
conservation practices will both conserve
our valuable topsoil and abate lurthe;
degradatmon of our wm ter. Existiri soi
conservation programs ha e simply ,ritjt
addressed the problem of nonpeint
source pollution and, frankly, have c’,n-
tributed to poer water quality ui many
instances. In fact, the General Acco t-
ing O ce recently reported thnt ex!st:ng
prograrr.s are too production oriented, do,
riot emphasize areas with sericus wat r
pollution, and do not foster participr : on
on a geographically related basis. I’. m c
possible to conserve soil within hou cs
necessary for continued producthci;u of
food and yet not meet our water-qual:tv
standards. As an example. many su.1
conservation practices which improve
agricultural productivity contribute ouly
marginally toward curtailing so l erosion.
Though conservation pract ces which
enhance agricutural output are needed,
we also need to finance those cons r ’ .a-
thin efforts which are specifically
premised on improvements in water
quality.
The Coxr.nuittee on Environmental ard
Public Viorl s, of ah:ch I am a rnenwc;,
has recognized the serious prot,em ciT
nonpomnt source pollution ever sinc.e i e
landmark Federal Water POliUtiOii Co:u-
trcl Act Amendrnenic of 1Y 2 (PubI c
Law 92—500) were passed. To be in
renucing polluticu from these sourzes.
Congress establuned an area’.’ i Ie ho.’ l
plarin iug mechan am urmner scct’oiu 2uj3
of Publ c Law 92—500 Undcr this p:o.
‘.ieion, the Governor of each State u.ust’
identify each area s thin his o; her
State wh 4 ch has s giuflcint a atc ’ c’ ah iy
problems and subsequently must dec.g_
nate an agency icr developing a reg o:uui
plan for enhancing a ater qualltv. Among
its primary respons b:l ies. the are md
management agency must est.abiisl. locol
procedures for controlling nc.pcut
source pollution. Th s planning process is
to assure the necessary local arrange-
ments for Implementing coordaiaied
decisIons to achieve our water quality
goals In acccrdance with this process.
guidelines for regional ‘be t ci ria e-
mnent practices” have been identified b ’
the EPA for reducing agricultural run-
off. Such conservation measu: s must
be cornpat:ble with water quah y gca:s
and should be the most effeczi e polc :s’
for preventing soil erosion. Because of
the varmabthty of sources anc geograpz ’ ..
rio one best management practLce ‘. ‘. 1 be
applicable to all activ1t es. They must be
tailoreca to local rmeeas, and locol ex:1o:_
tue will be utilized in the final sel”c ,;on.
This rear the En’,ironmermtal 1 ’ollu-
tion Subcommittee conductei sevemnl
fleid hearings to review the prCcrers
under section 233. At the hearing mi
Iowa, which I chaired, and at otncra
in Colorado and Minnesota. we r..cc:”-cm
considerable testinio luy on tue succei s of
the local planning efforts under sect on
208 arid on the future requiremcruts oz
tnis program. At the hearing in LeYcars.
Iowa, members of several larin orp u-
rations and , envizonmei ial gro.zpo
praised the aection 208 areawicie plan-
ning process at the local level ana cicrariy
documented the need for flnan.i a.s.
sistance to help institute the couxerva-
tion practices identified as best manage-
mer.c practices for abating water poau
tion.
These consers’aticn measures are a
-130-
-------
SECTION 208
(Continued)
c ’sUy endeavor and place a major bur-
den art the average landowner. The Na-
ticnal Water Qt.ahty CcrnmssOfl. for
instance. estimates that presently these
rural water quality pro ecis cculd cost
as much as $12 billion natic•nally. To
help farmers comply with water qi.a.Iity
goals pertaining to nonpou2t source p01-
1.ilion, a system of i cc cal and ñnan-
c al assistance for impieme rng the ap-
propriate soil conservatiOn practices Is
essential. Without such an arrangement.
it will be di cult for farm operators and
owners to Install these practices volun-
tarily.
During consideration of the legislation
before us now by the Committee on En-
vironment and Public Woths last sum-
nier. I offered an amendment. wh ch was
apprbved. to help landowners and op-
erators In rural areas nazice the cost of
Implementing the appropriate conserva-
tion measures under sect on 236 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. In
• order to carry out this cost sharing pro-
gram S200.000.000 is authorized for fiscal
year 1979 and $400,000,000 for fiscal year
• 1980.
Under this Sepate-aoproved provision.
the Secretary of Agriculture. aciing
throuch the Soil Conservation Service.
with the concurrence of the Admiziisira-
tor of the Environmental Protect Ion
Agency (EPA) • is authorized to enter into
long-terra contracts with farm cpe.’ators
and owners for the purposes of installing
practIces to reduce nonpoint source pol-
lution. Only those soil conservation proj -
eels ldentt ed under section 208 as best
management practices are eligible for
funding, and the Federal cost share may
be as hlzh as 50 percent.
These rural clean water prolects are
designed to address a major deflctency
of current soil cor.servattoa oroerams in
their emphasis on land with the most
revere water.degradlnrl soil erosion prob—
lenis. These funds ivJl not be used for
practices instituted by one or two opera-
tors In a particular area when broader
particIpation is needed to reduce runoff.
Under some watershed, hydrologic, or
geologic conditions, water quality goals
cannot be achieved unless a high per-
centage of the pollution source is given
appropriate treatment. Accordingly, the
sectIon 208 management ageac es are to
assure an appropriate level of pa ’zicipa—
lion by andowrterz and operators in the
area before funding becomes available.
Addltionally, these funds are to be made
available only to those areas which have
approved management plans under sec-
tion 203.
Under this cost-sharing provision, the
Secretary is authorized to carry out these
rural clean water projects through the
local soil conservation districts. These
conservation districts are unIquely
equipped to help plan, manage, and im-
plement portions of the State- and area-
wide water quality management plans.
particularly those related to the control
of pinpoint pollutton. They are legal si b-
divisions of State government, crected
by locally elected or appointed conirnis-
atoners or directors, En most areas, they
have been active in the development of
208 water qualIty management plans arid
have been particularly involved in the
icIenti ’ication of best management prac-
ttces for nonporzit source pollution ccn-
troi. Fro idrng these di.striccs witn. Lie
authority and ability to a. s ist with the
iriplernentation at the local level will
achieve the mc ’st ei cient use of funds
and resources possible.
In addmt on, the Secretary of Agricul-
ture is to give prlority to those areas
that have the most b1 n lcant and ad-
verse problems with nonpoint source pci-
lutton. Funds appropriated under this
provision will Utcily no be dispersed
evenly throughout the Nation. ‘The iii-
tent of this requirement is to limit the
application of the program to carefully
selected priority project areas.
The heart of this program is the a i-
thority for the Seeretary oi Agriculture
to enter into contracts o not less than
5 years nor more than 10 years with co-
operating owners and operators of non-
Federal rural land. These long-term con-
tracts will be entered into only upon the
assurance that the r.ecessary soil con-
servauon practices will be properly es-
tabbahed and maIntained. Such con-
tracts ‘aili help guarantee that the Fed-
eral investment will result In the control
of agri uiturat runoff. A project partici-
pant will he required to pay back Federal
moneys plus interest in the evens that
the contract is violated d ,iruig it.s term.
The conference coznni ctee essentially
approved the Senate-passed cost-sharing
rural water quality program except for
a few minor changes. The Secretary of
Agr culture has been given greater flexi-
bwty to designate other agencies to ad-
minister this program in those instances
wnere the soil conservaton disr.ricts do
not exist. The local sail conservation dis-
trict, where one exists, is to have the pri-
mary responsibility for implementing
the clean water projects at the local
level. Otherwise, another local agency
may be des guaWd. The conferees also
agreed that the function of this cost-
sharing program is to reduce nonpoint
source pollution, and that it. is not in-
tended to be a copy or extension of exist-
ing soil conservation programs in the
Department of Agriculture..
The Senate proposal named. the Soil
Conservation Service as the administer-
ing agency, and the conferees retained
that provision, adding the phrase “and
such other agencies of the Department
of Agrrculture as the Secretary may des-
ignate.” This will allow the Secretary to
designate other agencies in the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to assist SCS in its
administration of the program.
The conferees decided to strengthen
the possible local and State administra-
lion of this program. With this change,
the Secretary will, where practicable, -
enter into agreements with soil conser-
vation districts, State soil and water
conservation agencies, or Slate water
quality agencies to adminiiter this
program.
To clarify the establishment of priori-
ties for assistance among individual
landowners or operators, the con:erence
committee authorized Inc soil conserva-
tion uistricts. with the local departmen-
tal reprrsentar.ives to address this issue.
Districts cart relate to critical water—
quality problems as identr ied in the 208
plan as a source of guidance for
priorities.
It is intended that funds appropriated
under this program are to rcmain avaiL-
able until expeaacd. This will let ind-
viduals who participate iii this program
know that funding will be made on a
long-term basis and will be available
throug’hout the life of t: eir contract.
Add t onady. aue to the rnagiitude of Lie
task nationwide and’ L’ie limited lunch
available, these funds should be used on
prib ate lands only. Both of these points
were intended to be included in the con-
feree’s report, however, through an over—
sight they were omitted. I have enecicect
with both Houses and the conferees agree
that these points snould be made a part
of the legislative history on this act and
given the same weight as the statement
of managers.
Mr. President, I believe the changes
made by the conference committee are
worthwhnJc and do not diminish the full
objective of this provision. It has an
.treawtdc water quality focus to reduce
soil erosion and, therefore, efforts under
this progrum must meet different re-
quirements from those that have guided
us in the past. I ex.coura e my colleagues
to anorove this legislac:on.
SENATOR STAFFORD :
The conferees also agreed to amend
section 2081b) (4) to authorize the Ad—
mmlstrator to approve statev de regula-
tory programs to control those discharges
of dredged or fill material that are better
handled through imposition of best man-
agemerit practice. The 208(bi 41(8) pro-
gram is Intended to complement State
permit programs approved under section
404. but not as a substitute for State
permit programs. Once a State has an
approved 404 permit program arid ap-
proved 208 regulatory program, the Ad-
ministrator may approve best manage-
merit practices Imposed by the State to
contrOl those activities which he deter-
mines will have only minor individual
and cumulative effects on the aquatic
environment, If the Administrator ap-
proves best management practices as
adequate to control a specific activity
without additional permit review, Fed-
eral permit.s should not be required. Best
management practices will not be ap-
propriate as the sole means of control of
activities such as channelizatmon and site
development fills that can impair the cir-
culation or reduce the reach of navigable
waters. Such activities, by their very
nature, will cont nue to require individ-
ual attenUon through a permit re iew
process, as will all discharges uii’ulving
toxic substance requirements under sec-
tion 307.
—131—
-------
SECTION 208
(Continued)
Pg 8
CONG. WAMPLER :
Mr. WAMP iR. Zr. Speaker, r gcri-
erally support the “agr:cuJ.t ral cost
sharing” pro;is o:is contai ned in this
conference report However, had this bill
been either Jointly or sec er t afl ’ re—
(erred to the Agriculture Committee, I
would have preferred more explic t lan-
guage with respect to the manner in
which the Departmeit of Agricu1 u;e ad-
ministers the section 35 program at the
local level.
The provisions of section 22 of S 1952.
the Senate versmon of the Clcan Water
Act of l977 ect:on 35 of the confer-
ence report—clearly fall within the :ur-
Isdiction of the Comrmttee on Agricul-
ture In my opinion. Conservation activ-
ities carried out by the Sod Conservation
Service, under the Sod Conservatii n and
Domestic Allotment Act and others, are
a primary rcspor.sibi lity of the C3mrruc-
tee on Agriculture, and sectton 35 is sim-
ilar to ongoing programs, suca as the
agriculture cor.servation program and
the Great Plains conservauon pro r m,
In addition, the Soil and Water Re-
sources Conserva: on Act, which s an
effort to pror de better coord nnti anU
threcuori to the conservation act it es of
the Department of Agr1culture, vas
passed by the House and the Senate and
signed into law ‘Pubhc Law 95—1921 on
November 18, 1977.
In consideration of these c rcurrt-
stances, the Subcommittee on Conserva-
tion and Credit held s publmc hearing on
September 15. 1977, orr HiL 8150. the
Agricultural Water Quality Act. which is
similar to section 35 of the conference
re0ort
Recognizing the interest of the Corn-
‘niittee on Agriculture, the Committee on
Public Works has been most cooperative
in listemn to our ccn’ru nts on those
l ort1ons of the biLl—ir icluci2ng portions
v.hich might a et eastern nard;vood
forests—where e ha e a legitimate
interest. .
However, I cor.,stder that it may stiU
be Important to ro!nt out that the AgrI-
cultural Stabil:mariori and Conser:atiozi
Service has tradirtonaily handled the
administration or piograms invohing
soil conservation practices, insofar as
they related to applications, justdlca—
tions, parcelu out of funds. et cetera.
under thIs system, local ASCS commit-
tee members made juagments on enwle-
meats. et cetera, rather than hn iing
those decIsions mac:e in Washington,
DC.. by peçple unfamthnr with local
problems,
On the other hand, the Soil Conser-
vatlon Service tra&tlonail:: has provided
technical services. vcrific,itton, and ac-
ceptance of projects and managed com-
pliance becau e of the tccniucal nature.
of the work’perforrned.
I trust that our Committee on Amir:-
culture will observe closely how this b:ll
and its practices and programs are ad-
ministered vis-a-vis our current agricul-
tural conservation pract ces program.
After the sectIon 208 program—and per-
haps those portions of the sect:on 404
program relat ng to normal silvtculture
practices—is ,mplemented. committee
oversight hearmgs would appear te. be.
In order to determine how the program
is proceeding toward meeting the neecis
of farmers, ranchers, and foresters.
CONG. CLEVELAND :
VTTON 3 $—ME wma pLAN? ro
This section provIdes that all 206 agen-
cies which recei ’cd their first grant prio:
to October 1, 1977,’ thafl be eligible for
100 percent of the costs of developing
and operating contlnwng areaw de wa.st.e
treatment management program. , In the
case of the State of New Hampshire, this
will Involve a payback of the lnitmai 25
Percent matehing funds which were ad-
vanced by the State. Such funding Is
subject to an app:opr ation act.
The section also provides that any
grant to a newly designatej agency alter
October 1, 1977, shall be in an amount
not to exceed 75 percent, The commit-
tee’s clear inti rtV Is that the l00-nercent
funding provision will not apply to newly
desIgnated 208 agencIes.
—132—
-------
SECTION 208
(Continued)
pg ;
?TON 4 (e)—20q Pi .Ai(Wt O
This section, as we know, provides for
continued funding for the 208 planning
program. It is my imderstaxidln that an
emphasis of this provision will now be on
funding statewide agencies. This Is con-
slstcnt with recent EPA memoranda
which assure the States that the next
round of 208 fundIng will. In fact, con-
centrate on adequately funding state-
wide agencIes.
It should b noted here that the Fed-
eral regulation confirmed by the court.—
specL ee that State pollution control
agencies have the responsibility for co-
ordinating 208 activitIes so that they will
properly mesh with other program actil-
itles covered under the law. This. In
turn. will Insure maximum effectiveness
In use of the funds as well as maximum
coordination of work programs, whether
performed directly by the State agencies
or locally desI ated agencies.
BECflO!r 4(I)— .zLil L&
section provides authoriza .Ions
for the section 314 clean lakes program.
As yo’fwiu recall, the 1972 amendments
to the act also provided approoriatiocs
Zor the clean lakes program which EPA
employed In only a limited way. This
time it should be made clear that the
Congress by once again. autnorzing
funds for the clean lakes program clearly
Intends that ZPA will move forward
with rneasu-es so that the moneys are
ssefuily obllgated. -
I! EPA Is unwilling or unable to man-
age this program, we mi2ht consider
transferring the responsibility to the
Corps of Engineers,
CONG. HAMMERSCHM I Di :
I sin aLso i,Ieasea that the areawice
wase treatment management plar. n;
process beun by the I9 2 act will be
continued. The work bern; accomplished
. ‘ ‘6 these 208 plannIng agenctes triji now
ben continuous process. constantly being
refined and updated, I bc!ieve we w:!l
in the future that thIs work done
by these agencies is the cprncrstone of
the nonpoint source pollutIon control
program. - — -- -
SENATOR BAKER :
The ces’.ferees agreed to adopt the ap-
proach taken by the Sent Le In the
Senate-passed bill with respect to activi-
ties performed by the farming, forestry
and mining industries. First, the confer-
ence bill clarifies the exclusion of act vi-
ties that do not involve point source dis-
charges of dredged or fill material, such
as-S plowing. seeding, cultivating. har-
vesting, and upland conseriation ani
minor drainage practices. The confer-
ence bill also responds to testimony re-
ceived In both the House and Senate
committe& hearings on the section 404
question by opecifically exempting other
farming, forestry, and mining practices
that do invohe minor discharges of
dredged or fill materxal such as stock
.and farm ponds, logging roads, tempo-
rary mir u ; roads, and farm roads. It
Is e, pected that these actii:ties. ‘.ihile
exempt from permit requirements, would
still be subject to section 208 including
the best management practices approved
by EPA and imposed through a state-
wide regulatory uroaram.
Second, conferees adopted the Ser.ate
amendment to section 404 that clarifies
the exclusion of actlvnies that do not in-
volve point source discharges, such as
plowing and upland conservation act v1-
ties, and exempts others that may involve
discharges or other placement of dredged
or fill material that will be succcssfuliy
controlled by management practices and
perforn’.ance standards Imposed through
the section 208 program. An amendment
to section 208(b) (4) Is designed to
strengthen the section 208 statewide reg-
ulatory programs that will control the
minor c’ischarges exempted from sect on
404 and that will control nonpotnt
sources of pollution originating from ma-
t .eriaLs placed outside the navigable
waters.
The conferees believe that the State
permit programs will continue to afford
the best protection from potentially
harmful discharges as the wide diversity
arid unique values of the Nation’s aquatic
resources will continue to require a case-
by-case assessment of harmful effects.
Permits shall continue to be required for
any discharge that alters or modifies the
specific uses of a body of water arid that.
Impaies the flow or cu’culationor reduces
the reach of such waters. For such dis-
charges, best management practices
could be approved only for Inclusion in
permits issued by the State program ap-
proved und r section 404. but would not
be appropriate for approval as a replace-
meat for the permit process. Similarly,
discharges containing toxic substances
addressed by section 307 will continue to
require permits. -
CONG. CLA(JSEN :
eetion 35 of the conterenci ti t tute
authorizes the Department of A ricul-
Lure. actln’r through the Soil Con ’or,a-
tion Service and such other a7cncier of
the Department of Agriculture as the
Secrecaur may designate, to establish and
administer a program to enter into con-
tracts of not less than 5 years nor more
than 10 years with owners and onerntnrs
having control of rural land for the pur-
rose of installing and maintaining meas-
iu’es lncoi’poratin; best mana emcnt
oractic,s to control nonpomnt jource p01-
lunon for Improved vs I cr quality con-
sistent with an approved arenwude man-
agement plan uncer section 208
The Secretary is e’
-------
SECTION 208
(Conti nued)
Pg 10
SENATOR WALLOP :
Agriculture, and in particular irrigated
agriculture, should be partm ’tiarly
pleased with some provisions of the.
Clean Water Act of 1977. The conferees
agreed to remove return flows from ir-
rigated agiicuiture, from the definition
of the term point source, Iii addition, the,
adm .aistrator w11 be prohibited from re-
quiring permits for this .type of dis-
charge.
This amendment corrects what has
been a d!scriniuiation against irrigated
agriculture. Return flows, composed of
water which had been applied to crops
through irrigat on, were subject to per-
mit requirements. Farmers in areas of
the country which were blessed with ade-
quate rainfall were not subject to permit
requli’?menta on their rainwater run-of!,
which in effect had been used for the
ca ine purpose and contained the same
pollutant.,. Only the manner of applica-
tIon di ered.
The Clean Water Act conteni lates
that permits will generally regulate pol-
lution from point sources by imposing
effluent limitations, However, irrigation
return flows. like rainwater run-of!, are
more effectively addressed by manage-
ment practices which are not generally
available irt NPDES permits. By placing
the responsibility to address irrigation
return flows in the local panning process
wide: section 208. the conferees en-
visioned a program hich could utithe
management prac:ice.’ rather than per-
mit requirements, ensure that the prac-
tines will be tailored to local conditions.
remove the posstbi .ity of conflIct between
section 402 and 108, and provide for the
cons:deration of cux .iiative effects.
- While I may take crei t for sponsoring
this amendment, I cannot take credit for
its logic.. The Environmental Protection
Agency’s regulations of .JLiy 5, 197 , orig-
inally excluded irrigation return flowi
from the necessity to obtn.n a permit.
EPA recognized that theac sources were
not of the type which coulci be effectively
controUed th:oi gii a permit process.
Only after a deci.sion agau t the E A
,In NREC against Train, did the EPA be-
gin to Impiement the permit program
a asnst irrigated agriculture. Their reg-
ulations would have- required general
erattts to be administered through gen-
eral permit program areas. Wherever
possible, these areas were to be identical
to 208 planning areas. This ws.s nothing
more than a circuitous approach to the
usa of management practices in address-
lag discharges from h’rlrated agri-
-culture. Yet, irrigated- agriculture was to
-bear the burden of permit requirements
duo to the definitional deficiencies of the
act This amend.’nent iviit remedy- thaI.
‘problem, - - - ‘ _.. - - -
Recognuing that the implementation
of agricultural arsoagement practices to
improve water quality will be an expen-
sive proposition, the Senate’ conferees
were successful in retainuig a provision
in the bill for agrcultural-cost sharing.
This section authcrizes Z 0G million in
,fiscal 1979, and $400 million in fiscal 1980
for Federal cost sharing to Implement
long, term soil conservation practices for
improving water quality under sectien
208. The Federal cost share could be as
high as 50 percent of the total project.
To reduce administrative cost and
avoid duplication, or the establ!snruent
of additional bureaucracy, the program
will be administered through the Soil
Conservation Service, or other agencies
which the Secretary of Agriculture
deems appropriate. There should be rio
mistalce, the conferees agreed that the
function of this cost-sharing program is
to provide financial assistance to reduce
nonpoint agrlculural sources oi pollu-
tion, utilizing soil conservat:cn practices
•wh ch iniprove water i uaJtty It is not
• intended to be a duplication or exten-
sion of e’cistung programs which have
as the r purpose increased production. It
Is of course hoped by the conzeree that
these projects will also have positive, if
indirect, effects on production.
The Clean Water Act of 1977, taken
as a wnale. expand_s the role of local 208
planr..ing in the water quality efforL As I
have previously stated, we have provided
cost sharing provisions for the iniple—
zruentat:ozi of agricultural managemens
practices, and provided 2C8 programs
with dredge and fill management respon-
sibilities. The bill aiso prov dee continued
funding for these 268 programs, of $150
million for each of fiscal’ ‘ear 1977
through 1980. Agencies which were desig-
nated aLter 1975 will be granted an adai-
tional vest’ in whtch to submit their 208
plans. Federal grant amount.s under this
program will be iou pei-c nt for the first
2 years of a program’s iiperat on for the
purnoses of plan development, and 75
percent for cost incurred in each suc-
ceeding year.
-134-
-------
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS
(Needs to be screened thru
Congressional actions which
occurred later--See Conference
Report statements)
SENATE REPORT
I
Am t viim PLANNING
SUMMARY
This section amends section 208, Aroa vidc Waste Treatment Man-
ageinent, to provide that each Statewide planning agency shall have
8 years for completion of their plan. This section also provides that
each initial planning grant shall be 100 percent, and further grants
sli.ill beTh 1)eret’lit.
DISCUSSION
The bill amends section 208 to assure that each statewide 208 plan-
nin agency has a full 3 years for preparing an initial plan.
The bill also contains a substantive arn ndment to section 208(f) of
tIme Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This nmnendnient provides
that, for the lust 2 years of operation of any agency designated to con-
(met an rc.iw ide waste treatment fl)flflfl geinelit planning process under
sect ion ! 08, tIme amount of the Federal grmniL shall be 100 percent of
rue costs. ‘J’he purpose of this amendment is to provide new designa-
tions equity with those agencies which ware designated before June 30,
197g. Under the terms of the existing law, new designations arc only
eligible for 75 percent giants for the lust 2 years planning costs.
HOUSE REPORT
Aims twins WAsTS TRSATMSXI’ MA NAQJiMRNT PLAN Ni NO
in addition to the previously discussed changes in section 3(e), see-
1 tions 10 and 11 of H.R. 3190 amend section 208 of the act which pro-
vides for the developument and operation of continuing areawide waste
treatiiieimt management planning processes. Section 10 provides for
‘1 lie level of Federal participation. Scat ion 11 pi ovides I lint. the con-
tract ant hority provisions of section 208 will be in conformity with
the proviSionS of the congressional Budget and Inipoumidment (tolitrol
Act. of 1974.
Section 208 of the act . provides for the (levelopinent of continuous
areawida waste ti catment iiianageiiient plaiining pi oeCS— .eS in iii CSS
lila a State having substantial water quality coati at 1)1 ohle iiis as a
result of iii bmui inmliist nat conceiitnttions ui ot her fimetors. Sect ion 208
(a) ( ) pm ovimlcs I hat, the SI .ite shall us a plaiiimiiig agency for all
1)011 iOns of the State which arc not dcsign .iteil as ai enwide ninzwge— —l 5—
iiient. at
Tho act. provides for 100 percent Federal grants for the costs of.
developing and operating continuous a reawide waste treatment mnnn•
agenient planning processes for fiscal years 1973, 1974. amid 1975. Grants
awarded alter fiscal year 1975 nrc not to exceed ,75 peiccnt of smicis
co .ts in each sIwcee (’ling liseal year. Authorizuliomis of a0,OO0,OO(I
were p Øvi(le(l fm fiscal year 1973, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1974,
and h1. U,tJIJo,00() for Ii cai year l97 . ‘1 heso funds wci.e to ‘be pm—
nianily ut ii ized for grants to dc igimatcd agencies with soii e 1ufl(1s
hutied by EPA to adimimimister the prograiiu and to pioi’ide guidance
and evaimi iLion aetivilie’,. Ii was intended that the States ese the fuuimds
prorided tlmeiim by scCtLoa IOU plugrain gr.mnts to State and inteistate
a eiicie- to fmnid their responbibilities under section 08. ‘l’luere!ore,
it was intended that. States would not be eligible for time grants pio-
vidett by section 08.
Wla’ii Public Law 9 —500 was enacted, it. was intended that time EPA
proiiimilg.m(o regut.ttions for the designation of areas aimd the c.urryizig
uut of iii ciuwnie jmiainiiing wit hut iiiimt Ly days iufter (lie date of enact—
ilietit. ot (lie Act of Jaimummry 16, 1913. however, the designation guide-
lines weic not. published in time Federal Register until Scpteiimbcr 17,
1973. It was intended that the Governors identify by March 1973 each
area within I lie State ham ilig substantial water quality control prob—
hemiis. T liese initial tle .igim.uLioims not made until .\Iiut c l i 1974. The
(Jovenimors vene to Inure designated time boundaries of each such area
iumiti a 5 111gb ICI)I e eiitatii’tj organizal ion capable of developing circe—
Lire iii enwida aste treiutmeimt. management. vliLnS for each iichu iii ea
by July 1973. Bet uei n July 1973, amid July 1975, 149 designations were
Iul)prOVc( [ vitli iiiost approvals taking I)ILLCC in May anti Jumic 19Th.
In acllit.iwi 1)i oVo ett grant iegulatiomms were not published until
May 197-I aunt did not. becuiiie eIIectiv until September 1974—auhino ’ ,t.
two yeaur .uiter (lie cii.uctiiient of Public Law 9 —500.
Tue ptibhsliiiig of the grant regulations is especially significant
because local agencies were provided only a limited tiinc iii vluueli
to mi:Lhiiy for the 100 percent Federal funding. Because of EPA’s
deLmy in iiilpleiiiemitiiug this program, none of the lands auit liorized
for fiscal year 1973 were obligated, and oiily 11 grants wet o awarded
in fiscal year 1(171 for a total of $]3,575,550.
So mitany gr.mnt applicntioims were subnmit.tcd in tiscaml year 1975 that
all of thu.ut. miloimey was obligated with 17 areas not. reccwimmg one hun—
died v ’ ccitt grants because EPA ran out of funds.
On June 30, 1975, the availability of 100 percent Federal fLmnding
expired, aiitl only 75 percent giants can now be awarded. To date.
27 additional areas have becim desigiiatcd imud funded lit time 75 peucent
level. T,lmcse ni ens limul iimitimmted Ike complex and lemmgthiy qmmalihcat.ion
pt ocetl n e Wit Ii t lie Liiulers(aimdl)img that they would be eligible for
lOt) percent giants. It is estimated that an additional 50 to 55 areas
remanu to he dc’ .igiiaated and fuimided. If EPA had iiimpleineimted sectioti
208 as intended by Congress, these areas would be eligible for 100 per-
cetit gnauiits.
Sect iosis tO :tnct 11 of Jill. 9560 arc intended to coi rect thai iiiany
inequities Lhuat have tesulted lioma the way (he sect ion 208 1)10gm tin
hats m iii adimiiiiustei ccl.
Sectiomi 10 of H.R. 9560 amends section 208(f) (2) to provide for
100 & emit l”c I i iii I gi ’auiut’ to desigmiateil ngciurie— . I ui• I 1w Iii st t i I)
ye;mi ’s’ r , ’ is ol dci cho miiIg aumul opematimmg a eoiitimimiimig iLrtai% ide ‘i .u te
treatment mmiaiflagciiient piamuning prOcesS if the Iii st. guiumts are ap—
-------
ing measures incorporating best management practices n aPPfOved by
EPA for improving water quality by ieducing soil ero uon. b O0 mu-
lion in fiscal year lOTt) and $400 million in fiscal year 1980 nra provided
for up to 50 percent sharing in areas with approved 208 management
plans, with the local 208 ligencics assuring an appropriate level of par-
ticipation. Priority of funding is dtrected to areas with critical non—
point aource problems front agricultural runofi.
niscUsslo i’
This section provides for the unaiute?uanca i nd enhancement of the
quality of water in rural America. ‘flie section establishes a new pro-
gninu for the Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the
Ad ininistruitor of the Envirounneutul Protection Agency, to provide
technical and financial assistance to land o vners and operators in
runui nreaq for iinpk’uienting areawide management plaits under sec-
tion 20S of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Financial a sistunce under this provision is delivered through a cost—
sharing piogi a in for impleitienti ug long-term soil conservation prac—
tices for improving water quality under section 208. ‘I’Iue funds would
be uuIthorh e(j to the Secretary of Agriculture. Acting through the
Soil Conservation Service, the Secretary, vith flue concurrence of the
Aclntin istator of the Envitoumen liii Piot ection Agency, would enter
into contracts wit Ii farm operators and owners for the l)1ILPOSeS of
installing niensures to veduc agricultural runoff. Only those soil con-
servation inensuutes approved as part of State plans under section 208
as best mailngeui)ent 1)ractices for unpioving waler quality would be
eligible for such funding. The Fcdeu al cost share could be as high as
50 percent. unless the Secretary determines o tlieiwiso. Fiuuids avail—
nblo are to be used for iu huIlation of control inetthiinisuns and not day-
to-day operating cask.
These co t- hinriag funds will be made available only to those areas
or States which have approved miumageument plans under section 208.
The Secretary will give priority to Projects in iluose areas which have
critical mioupoini. source pollution l)rollIemmls from tugricu Itutal runoff.
Section U8 nianagemuieimt agencies will 1)0 requuretl to assure an ap-
propriate level of paiticipat ion . y land owners and operators in the
amea befoic funding can become available. These factois address a
major deficiency of cuurent soil conserve Lion practices which larva been
ci iticized for not eiuuphasizmg land with this most. severe nonpoint
source pollution.
It is uuIIpoif4 11L tluat these funds be used to reduce runoffs in those
areas with major 110n 1 )oint. sour c pollution and that they not be used
on practices by one or two operators or owners when broader par-
ticipatiour is needed in a conservation district. In addition, the Coin—
ituitlee t!xpeel the Secretary to look for bunoyativo conservation incas—
ures to be fuunileci under this puogu n. ‘Flue Secretary should give
hirioluty to developing model systeruus tln.ouighout an area, to develop
a ieau ide proglauns lieu vill be upplicauble in other areas through-
out the country.
‘l’hue Secretary is authorized to carry out this co t-sliaring ploginm
ti rouu Ju the State soul coiusorvntion d is [ ricLs. Conservation districts
urn equipped to 1 dp P 1 t ’, niazuage, and iniplemnent pot tions of the
State and n’eawide wiit r quality management plans, particularly
those related to the control of nonpoint pollution from erosuon and
sediunent. ‘l’hey luavo not. only perfected working arrangements with
a host of Federal and State a encics and institutions, bat have also
developed a widespread and eRective delivery system as well.
‘rids section recognizes that the responsibilities for developing State
and areawiclo water quality plans rest with tluosc agencies approved
under the programs n(lmnimstcrcd by the Emuvironunent ad Pu otcet.ion
Agency. ‘rho program created in this section is designed to assist in
implementing such plans, particularly its they allect fuuincrs, ranchers,
and other rural land users.
A major focus of efforts to achieve the national goal of dccii water
is the i eduction amid elimination of water pollution from rural sources.
Field hearings by the Subcommittee omi Envi ronmuental Poll rition
dcmnonstratoel that nguicultural runoff has significant and adverse
effects out the quality of the Nation’s waters. Nonpoint source pollution
from animal wastes, fertili eus, pesticides, and eiO(lCd soil is dillicult
to control because of the diffuse natu e of the pioblemut and is growing
in inc gum it uile.
‘l’he problems of soil erosion and water pollution from nonpoint
SOLIVCCS am ic neatly identical. Agricultural runoff represents a dual loss
to our Nation. Soil erosion depletes the productivity of land and,
to the extent that it enters streams, rivers, and other waterways, de-
grades water quality. By reducing such runoff, topsoil quality is
enhanced and conserved. The investments for improving water quality
are substantial and may place a mnutjor burden on the average farmer—
especially the small funnel-. A systonu of technical and Imnancil assist-
ance for instituting soil con erva(.ion practices for improving water
quality vii I encou rngç individuals to control nonpomilt Son iCC 1)01111—
tion voluntarily. Such an arrangement will make it easier for opera-
tors and owners to iniplemnent those soil conservation measures ideuti—
fled under the section 208 management. plnns as the best management
practices for reducing soil erosion mid improving water quality, in—
c’hucling thoic related to the section 40 excnuptioims provided in the
The mutagnitude of the effect of soil erosion on waler quality is docu-
mented. Suspended solids reaching the Nation’s treamns fioin runoff
ate estimated to be 700 times greater tlmaji the loadings caused by
sewer dischmairges. ‘I’he Mississippi River system delivers approxi-
mately 250 million tons of sediment to the Gulf of Mexico annually,
which is equivalent to the weight of 250,000 acres of topsoil measured
to a (lel)Lli of 7 incites. All of the 97 percent of the Nation’s rural land
is a potential so irce of nonpoint pollution, andover 400 million acres
of cioplamid deliver 2 billion tons of sediment annually to the streams
and lnla s. This runoff may carry toxic materials, and muonpoint sources
mumay actually prevent attnimunwmit of water qualuty goals in spite of the
progress being made wjthu controlling poiuut sources of pollnlicm.
lunpuoving water quality by ieducing agricultural runoff will i-c-
quiro modified agricumltumral ,prncliccs, greater curio in the disposal of
anmnmuil wactes, and better soil conservation uiethod . E :isting soil
. cOumst ’rVaLtioul prmrcl ices have not always been elleclive in nddressi ag tire
—, U J)LobleiIt of waler degradation. ‘ [ ‘lie General Accoumutimm 0111cc, for
cxmummpio, Tecently I C OLtetl that oxisti mug meastu es ai o too production-
-------
proved by EPA. before October 1, 1977. The 2-year period begins on
the date the first giant is iflft(10.
Giants of U to 75 percent of the costs of developing and operating a
continuing areawide waste treatment management process in any one
year, are provided for each successding’one year period to newly tie-
signated agencies whose first giants are approved after October 1,
1977, as well as for subsequent grants for each succeeding one year
period to agencies which have nhcatiy utilized their first giant.
Section 208(b) (2) (E) requires agencies to include i ii their 11a11
development a method of flinutcing the plait and bect.iofl 208(c) (9) (E)
provides that the Administrator shall not acccpt amiy designation
of mimaimingemmiumit agrucies which do nut have the nutliumit.y to raise meve—
31 110S, IIIC IU(limtg the assessment of waste tit atnient charges, it is ex-
pected that tiesignuted agencies, a provided by these sections, will
develop a sd f-sustaining revenue base as soon as practicable. As Con-
gress tick’ miami macs I list agencies have 1111(1 a i’eusunnblt oppuituim ity
to tievulop such bases, it vihl reassess the need for Fedenil funding.
Until such time, however, it is fully ex 1 )eeted that tlu re will be con-
tinuity in Federal funding for all eligible agencies and that the first
grants to agencies will be followed by subsw 1 iieitt grants of up to 7
1e 1’cellt of the costs of developing and operating the continuous man-
migemnent process.
l.’nrtliennorc, in 1975 the United States I)istriet Court for the l)is-
trict of Columbia in Natural Resowrcc8 Defense Council et al. v. Ti’ain,
ci al. (39( F. Supp. 1386) rules that States Die i’eqimim’ed to comadmict
the commensurate level of section 208 planning in all non-designated
areas as would have been conducted by the Loyal agency if time urea laud
been desigimated, and that the initial planning must be completed by
November 1978. The court also stated that section 208 funds must be
imiade available to the States to assist them in comadmicting this phtnning
fr in funds appi’opmiated for fiscal year 1976. This decision is pre-
sently on a peal before the U.S. Circuit Conit. of Appeals for the
1)istrict . of Lolmnbia.
SENATE REPORT
IRRIGATION Rn’ruiui FLOWS
SUMMARr
This provision creates a new subsection (m) of section 402, and
amends section 208(b) (2) (F) of existing law. Its effect is to exempt
irri ation return flows from all permit requirements under section 402.
of d 0 act, and assure that areawiçlo waste treatment management p’ans
under section 208 includø consideration of irrigated agricUltLire
DISCU8SION
Permit requirements under section 402 of the act have been con-
strued to apply to discharges of return flows from irrigated agricul-
ture. These flows have been defined by the Environmental Protect.ioa
Agency as conveyances carrying surface irrigation return as a result
of the controlled application of water by any person to land used pri-
marily for crops.
‘i’estimony in field hearings suggested that effluent limits based on
technological methods may not be appropriate for control of return
flow pollutants and the committee deternutied that these sources were
practically indistinguishable from any other agricultural runoff, which
may or may not involve a similar discrete point of entry into a water-
course. All such sources, regardless of the manner in which the flow
was applied to the agricultural lands, and regardless of time discrete
nature of time entry point, are more appropriately treated under the
requirements of section 208(b) (2) (F).
In exempting discharges composed “entirely” of return flows from
irrigated agriculture Ir ma the requirements of section 402, the corn—
inittco did imot. intend to differentiate among return flows based upon
their content. ‘l’lte word entirely was intended to limit the CxCCl)LiOfl
to only those flows which do not contain additional disclma&’ges from
activities unrelated to crop production.’
AomucuiLtI. Cost SUAIuNO
SUMMARY
This provision amends section 208 of the act by adding a subsection
(i) authoriidng the Secretary of Agriculture to establish amid admin-
ister a cost sharing program with landowners. Its pui’poso is install—
—137—
-------
oriented and geographically disconnected. Currently there is no
attempt. to focus conservation efforts on those areas which have serious
water quality problems caused by soil erosion. The committee recog-
nize.s the need to a surc the utilization of those conservation practices
winch improve water quality and to assist in the implementation of
aiejt wide management plans under section 208.
• The cost-shnrmn program established in this section of the legisla-
(ion s only for those practices which reduce the degradation of our
water quality by soil erosion. ‘l’lie fimniLing is available only for those
practices i(lentmfied as best. management practices nuder section 208.
Dmuman AND FiL Piuurrr Pnoaa t
The committee amendment modifies the existing program for con-
trolling the disposal of dredged and fill material. The bill amends
section 402 to provide a mechanism for approving permit programs of
States for controlling disposal of dredge and fill material which meet,
their particular needs. Section 401 of the act is amended to provide
speriffe exemptions from any permit. requirement. for certain activi-
ties. ‘Pho amendment also provides for the u e of general permits as a
mechanism for eliminating the delays and adm inistratmv 9 bim rdcns
- associated with this prograih.
A third provision amends section 208(b) (4) to provide that the
placenietit of fill material associated with activities which a St;tte.
chooses to regulate by requiring best. management practices under that
section, is also exempt from any permit. rec 1 uivemnent. under section 40L
or . 102.
The national wetland inventory is required to be completed by
December 31, 1978, and $6 million is authorized for that. purpose.
DISCUSSION
Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Amend-
ments of 1972 required a permit program to control the adverse effects
caim’ed by point source dmscliamges of dreclicd or fill material into the
navigable waters including: (1) the destruction and degradation of
aqimmitic re oimreec that results from replacing wnter with tiredged mnate—
rimd or fill nmatcrinl; and (2) the conlmuiiination of water resources
with dredged or fill material that contains toxic substances.
The committee amendment is designed to reaffirm this intent. and dis
pci the ‘widespread fears that the program is regulating activities thai
— wore not intended to be regulated.
Issues raised concerning the section 401 program may ho dividei
iim o four categories:
1. Jurisdiction: the role of the Federal Government in rcgula
tion of waters beyond those that support navigation;
2. Activities exempt. from the section 404 Permit. program
certain activities that do not. involve point source discharges ani
those activities that are more appropriately dealt with under sec
tion 208 mimanagement practices and lerforimiance st:Llmclards;
3. State programs: the manmier in which the States will be aim.
tlmotized to administer (the progi am; amid
4. lJnmiccessary regulation and iedtape: the use of general per.
mits ammil I imna eou ’ tuaimiIs on Federal review to ci imimmimmite unnec
essary paper%v0V1C and delays in perilmit processilig.
,Sectioa 404 jurisd.ctiou
Initial commsiclor.itmon of the section 404 eonlmoversv stimulated dis
cuissiomi on time extent. of the waters in which discharges of dredged oi
fill malerial will be regulated. -
The 1072 Federal Water Pollution Comitrol Act exemeised compre
bensive jurisdiction over the Nation’s wmitci S to comit mol polhtil ion to tin
fullest. constitutional extent. Iii its report on I limit h t ms1:mt ion, the Semmati
Public WTomlcs Comnuuittee stated “waters mnove in hydrologic cycles nmm
it is essential that discharge of pollutants be controlled at (lie source.’
Tho objective of tIme 1972 act is to protect the phm3’si ul, ciIcnmicmLl. ntl
biological Integrity of the Natiomis waters. Ilestrictiomi of jum isdictiom
to those relatively few waterways that. are used or mime sumc,(epLiI)le ti
use for navit mttion would render this purpose iIim 1 )OSSible to achieve
])ischurgcs of dredged or fill mat erial into lakes amul ti ibul aries ol
these w’aters can physically disrupt the chemical and b o1ogical integ
rity oft he Nations ivaters and adversely affect their quality. ‘lime pies
emmee of toxic l)OlltmtmLIiIS in tim se niatcmimmla coinpoummils this pohlutiou:
problem and Iummtlmrr dictates that time adver e effects of such mnatcvimi b
must. be addressed where the mnutemial is Iirst discharged into thc
Nation’s waters. Tp limit the jurisdiction of the Federal \ ‘ater Pollim
ticum Commtrol Act with reference to clischafges of the Pollutants ol
dredged or fill material would cripple efforts to achieve tIme act’s
Ol)jC cLiVCS.
• The committee amendment does not redefine navigable vnt rs. In-
stead, the committee amendment intends to assure continued protec-
tion of all the Natiomm’s waters, but allows States to assume the primary
responsibility for protecting those lakes, rivers, streams, swamps,
marshes, anc other portions of the navigable waters outside the corps
progrziuli in the so-called phase I waters. Under the committee amend-
imment, time corps will continue to ad,uminist,er tIme ectioti 101 permit p-
grain in all navigable waters for a discharge of dredge or fill material
until (ho approval of a State program for J)hmase 2 mmcl 3 waters.
4 ctn ’iIws CamCfllp€ /ro;n. 7 d1flh2t8
‘Festimmmony received comiceriming time types of activities that arc sub-
ject to sect ion ‘101 permits revealed two basic probleums: confusion over
-138-
-------
whether permits are required for certain “gray arean types of activi-
ties, and the inappropHate use of the permit mechanism for regulating
cprtain discharges of dredged or fill material.
Thu committee amendment addresses those concerns. The amend-
ment clearly assigns responsibility to the section 208 program for
earth-moving act.ivjties that do not involve discharge of dredged or
fill material into navigable waters. Thus, no permits arc required or
seeding, cultivating, and harvesting, or for upland construction of
soil and water conservation incasuies, or certain minor drainage; in-
cluding sediment basins and terraces to prevent pollutants ftomn enter-
ing Limo Nation’s waters. These exemptions must be defined in regula-
tions. Minor drainage is intended to deal with situations such as (1mm—
ago in Noitliwestern forests or other upland aieas. ‘I’hc exemption for
minor drainage does not apply to the drainage of swampland or other
wetlands.
Similarly, no permits are required for other such “gray area” prac-
tices involving those agriculture, mining and construction activities
listed in section 208(b) (2) (F) through (I) that mome arc properly
controlled by State and local agencies under section 208(b)(4) and
for which there are approved best management practice programs.
For example, section 208(b) (4) regulatory programs arc responsible
for controlling pollution that may result from sheet flow across a. site
prepared for construction or from the placement of pilings in water
to support structures such us highways, railroad tiacls, and dockmmmg
facilities. Under the committee amendment, no permits are required
for such activities when regulated under section 208.
‘l’he coin mit tee alileni imeut also add messes the recognition that cer-
tain activities that involve time .ticlition of tireclged or fill nmntemial into
water can macct the objectives of tho net if conducted in aecordaiwe
with performance stnmulards and best mamingemnent practices estab-
li hed under (lie section 208 program, and thus (10 not require the
(let ailed scrutiny of it Federal permit program.
lime amendment cxciii pts from orinit requirements the maintenance
and emergency reconstruction of existing fills such as higliwumvs,
hi icige ai)Litmduts, dikes, dmumns, levees, and other currently serviceable
structures. This does not include maintenance that changes the char-
cter, scope, or size of the original fill. Emergency reconstruction mnus
occur within a reasonable period of time after destruction of the previ-
ously serviceable structure to qualify for this exemption.
‘J’luu coin iii it tee amend imment spccifically exempts construction or
maintenance of farm or stock ponds, us vell as construction and main-
tenance of agricultural irmipation ditches and (lie maintenance of
drainage ditches, from time permit requirements.
‘l’ho construction of farm and forest roads is exempted from section
404 permits The committee feels that i)arIrIit issuances for such activi-
tie’; voulil delay and interfere with timely consti-umction of access for
cult ival ion ‘and harvesting of crops and trees with no countervailing
euvironrnemitai benefit. The prescribed management pilict ICeS for con—
st rmmetion of e. ernpt roads rccinirctluit tIme coast m uction, use, amid main—
lemuice of time roads not significantly alter thai biological character or
flaw. readi. amid circulation of alluded waters.
During thin committee oversight of the corps pio inm last. year,
lest imimommy was m-cceircd regarding potential disruptions of mimimuimig
operations due to delays resulting from permit review of routine fill-
ing activities. The committee amendment exempts the construction of
tcmmiporary mining roads for the movement of equipment from permits.
These roads must not only be designed snd constructed in accord with
(lie prescribed requirements for protection of the navigable vmutevs
applicable to roads; they must be removed in a nmammcr consistent with
those requirements.
‘I’hesc specified activities should have no serious adverse impact on
vaLter qLmahity ii performed in a manner that will not imimpatr the flow
muid circulation pit termis mind time elmenmicul amid biological characteristics
of the oltected watembody, and that vii1 not reduce the icach of time
uikctcd w’atcrbody.
All exempt activities will be required to have permits if time activity
introduces toxic materials into the navigable waters. For this purpose,
toxic mnuLtcuals shall include those substances for which, because of
their lmau-uiful prOj)eltiCS, EPA is developing standards mmd guidelines
pursuant to sections 301, 30-1, 30T, and 404 because of their harmful
ProPeil iCS.
‘l’hc bill specifically requires the Admiiinistrator to include in guide—
hues methods for identification and testing of toxic pollimtants so as
to umiimiimni e the possibility that da mininius comutamination with trace
amounts of toxics will not expose an exempt placement or activity to
the need for mu permit.
The conmmnittec amnendment continues the requirement that a permit
must be obtained under section 402(1) or section 404 to minimize or
prevent ndvcise effects caused by altcm-immg time flow or time icach of the
navigable waters from direct discharges of dredged or fill mimaterial.
- For example, perimuit review is necessary for pimucemnent of fill to con-
vert a hardwood swamp to amuothmer use through construction of dikes
or (lL flImtgO chaiuicls.
‘l’hio term “normal silviculture activities” as used in this provision
does not. immchmde, for eastern mixed hardwood forests, cleat-cutting
of tiumiber or harvesting associated with even-aged niamnmgcmnent of
timimber amid the placement of fill material or the discharge of scdimnu’ut
into the navigable waters resulting from such puactices shall be sumbjecb
to the pci-mit requirement of the act.
State programs
Testimony received established that the permit review process is
appropriate for regulating discharges of dredged om- fill material.
Duuing the last 9 years the section 40.1 permit review process resulted
in the modification of more than 3,500 projects to protect tlmu aquatic
envim ommmmient.
The commimnittee amendment is in accord with the stated policy of
Puu lihic r uW 92—500 of “preserving and protecting time primimary respon
sibmiutics amid ridmts of States or prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollu-
tion.” It. 1 )roViJ iS for aSSumption of tIme perummit ;iuthmoritv by States
\vit Ii m ppm oved rcgmammis for control of diselmarges for di ca e’l amid fill
iumutem nil iii accord with time criteria and with guidelines comimparablo
to tluo’e cnmmt mincd iii 409(b) and ‘104(b) (1).
By using the established mneclmaumismmi in section 402 of Public La v
09—iiOO, t lie eomnmiiit lee anticipates the nulhmoi ization of State ma miage—
—139— nmm-nt of time peiumut pmo€’ramn will be suib ( ammtially expedited. At le ; st
28 St ate emit ities v]mielu flave already obtained mu pprou al of (lie mini ional
-------
pollutant discharge elimination system under the section should be -
able to assunic the program quickly.
rho use of this mechanism vill also e pedito State authorization be-
cause the Administrator only has to amend guidelines under section
30-1 (ii) (2) of tIme act to establish the procedures and other require-
ments that a State must meet to achieve appioval of its program.
Uniter the munendmnent, a State may elect to seek approval of a dredge
mind fill pernuit program independent of any application for approval
of a National Pollutant. Discharge Elimination System program. This
ill lmrcvelmt any delay iii proces iflg applications for the National
Pal I d ant. l)ischargc Elimination System.
‘lime amneimilmiment also provides that. a State may elect to administer
its tIm lgt mm ad fill leruIiit program l ode 1 ammdemmt of tho Nm tiommal l’oll ii—
tunt I )i elsm rgc-l limmiimmatioim System program. SevcrEIl States have uI—
meatly t• .taluiisluetI sapammite State agencies to control discharges of
tlreige or liii materials. These agtlmcies need not. be the sauna us the
Numtmoimal Polluit ant l)isehmmmgc Elimimimmation System ugen y. ‘J’he coin—
mmm i i t&•c cxpeets t he Adinini Lmator to insist that any mlesigumatiomi of
mmon—Natioui;m I Pollutant Discharge Elimiumatiam 1 Syslem agency be ac—
eompnmncdby a demonstration of full capability to ncleqmrumtoly ad—
mm lii i nit er I his I miogr.un.
‘l’he .iumuemiilint mut. encourages the usa of a variety of existing or devel—
imrn State and local management agencies and recognizes mapping,
protective orders, standards of performance and the like as useful
muimmugeimiemit tools. It is anticipated that. State and local government
will cpor(hin:ltc and integrate the pernut program for (lischargcs or
dredged or till material with the section 208(b) (4) progrummn for regn
l :itiiig pelluhon from nonpoint sources and from the placement of ma-
temials where such placement results from activities that are explicitly
eM’n ll)teml from obtaining section 404 pcrui its.
. It homigh thscmenon is granted to eat nhlmh separate admi mm istration
for a State permit program, the authority of the Administrator to
as mirt’ compliance with guidelines in the issuance mmml enforcement of
pcrmmiits and in the specification of disposal sites which is provided mu
seet mans 409 (c) through (ic) and 40-1(c) is in no way diminished.
‘I’hie authority for contiol of discharges of dredged or 1111 material
granted to a State through tIme approval of a program peitamns solely
to time environmental concerns reflected in the specific guidelines sat
fin th in the amendment, arid the rcs onsihiliLy of the Corps of Engi—
neems tmndci tIme Rivers and Harbors Act. of 1899, as specified under
section lu 1 of the act, is not affected or altered by this amendment.
The Admninistratnr shall consult with t.ha Secretamy of the Army
and the l)irector of the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to his ap-
l)roval of a State permit pmogmmun for control of discharges of dredge
anti fill material (Qec. 409(1) (9)). The committee amendments relat-
ing to (lie Flair and Wildlife Service mmmc designed to (1) recognize the
particular expert isa of IIm:it agency amid the mt.latioimciliip between its
go:mlci for fi ’.li and wildlife protect ion amid time goals of time Waler Act,
arid (2) encourage time exercise of its capabilities ii i the early stages of
plamimming. By soliciting tire views of the primucipal Federal agencies
involved in the m eview oft lmc n prog ammu mit mmmi early stage, objections
can be resolved that might. otherwim.tm surface later and iurupt ’clcm (he
Olwratmui of a State progmirmim alll)rovcd by time Aduuministialor This
coumsuiltalion pm•escrvtjs tIme Administrator’s discretion iii iukliessiumg
the concerns of the agencies, yet affords them reasonable and early
participation which can both strengthen the State program and avoid
delays in implementation. That is, early participation iii the develop-
ment and design of programs, guidelines, rind regulations should
servo to reduce the emphasis now placed omm tlmt review by the T’ 1u
and Wildlife Service of individual applicrmtiomm f’m i.’”
the Water Act.
Time committee expects that this consultation process I .
in an expeditious manmmer and that it will not be usn(l to del.ry .11)1)1 oval
of acceptable State programs. ‘l’hese additional vcquircmneimts m’ihl add
to present tiemnimuds on tIme Service and it is expected that time Secretary
of time Interior will take appropriate action to imistiro availability of m c—
sources to gel (Iris job done. The Fish ammd W’iklhi V e Service does not
have tiny right to veto time aj)proval of a Slate )rogrttnl.
‘lime courmomitteti li:ms amldt ’d a requireimment for mm consultation process
with time St ate agency hmavimig primmiary jurisdiction over 11db and wild-
life m tsomIrCcs iii davehopiimg tIme 208 n’guuintory pmogramn. ‘this mimmiend—
mmiemmt is needed because ninny State w.mtcr polltm( iomt commtiol agencies
with jurisdiction over i ecLioui 208 activities mmmn be mint cogmmizammt of
imimpoitant fish amid wildlife values and the water quality conditions
necessary to maintain those values. TIme nnmendmmmemmt would ‘help assure
that time insights and commetirmis of time State fish amid wildlife agency
nrc reflected iii the design mind implementation of ioan . Their )am—
ticipation will also decrease the probabilities of delays based omi en—
‘irommmmmentaI challenges to time issuance of individual permits or other
regi hat ory act ions I :iken tinder section 208.
Jut this regard the committee has ohio included aim arnendnment to
cctioim 208 which would authorize and direct the Secretary of time
Interior, actimig through time l)irector of time Fish amid Wildlife Service,
to consult with and provide technical assistance to any State or desig-
nated agency in developing and operating a coiml .immtmmumg planning l)1 C—
ess (sec. 208(j) (1) . Early involvement, of lime Service in thm 208
pinnmmimmg process vmhl assure proper consideratiOn of the ecological
omrls of time act will mnimmirnize time potential for objections ja the
immmpiemumentrmtiout plmase.
‘Fire coimimumittee mululed a requirement for a coordination process with
hue Fish amid Wildlife Service, including a pio e ’ S for use of the
Natioii;tl \Vetiaimd Tumventory being concluded by that rmgcrmcv. as part
of the State’s regulatory i ograrn under section 208(b) (4). Time Serv-
ice is mm ptiitmmmtY snum cc of ecological informnatiomL iii time Federal c ,t:mb—
lishmmemit amul has stewardship responsibilities for fish amid wildlife
resoimuces. ‘J’he basic reason for this coordinat .iomm process and time con—
SLu1L :tLiOiL with State lishi and wildlife agencies mandated elsewhere in
the amuieuulmmmeuts is to mmssuro that the ecological goals of the Water Act
iLEC mideqimittely adili esed.
Time Natiomu:ml Wetland Inventory is developi mmg in formation about
time ex lcnL amid dist.m ibutioh of wetlands types tlm mL will be imivniuabie
iii time tit ’ciaionmnnki lug prOcess under statemv ide 908 reguhal ory pm
‘gr:uns. ‘l’hma invemilory idemmtifies time boundaries of wetlumimd and de—
flumes di Ileremit ve”at atuon:ml areas withi mm time wet hmtumds. ‘J’Ii is iii fuirnma—
tiomm, eoiuiiled wit ii mc knowledge of species coimmiumorily n snciiut ed with
— these ty ic ’. :us well as such other nat iii uI value’, as their (Omit iLl ‘ut iomms
to w’ :mIer quality tlmrormgh filtering action, m:mintennnce of water tables,
mmmcl mom:iI.mnmm of ihi ought mind 1Ioodimm co dil ions, mimi Ilium liI c, mviii
mild deckioimuimmil is in dcterummiumimmg ie s ensitive areas. By u .iuug the
-------
Nationwide Inventory the Committee believes that more informed
choices can be made, more promptly, among alternative plans and.
proposals.
The committee is aware that the implementation of tins program
under the 208 process may require significantly more of State and local
208 agencies than at present.
It is the committee’s intent that the Administrator seriously scruti-
nize any 208 pri ppsal, mid review periodically any such approved
)rOgrflnk to assure that the program represents a realistic vay to
achieve the goals of the act.
Thu conwiittcc has included an authorization of $0 million to the
Seeiclary of Llie Interior to complete the initial phase of the Nnt onal
Wetland Inventory by December 31, 1078. The inventory identifies t ie
ecological attributes of wetlands with regard to vegetational types. I
vilt 1 )Iovldo valuable information which can be used in the 208 plan-
ning process as well as other coastal planning activities under tuG
Coastal Zone Management Act.
Tfnneccssai’y regulation and redtape
Pho committee amendment authorizes the use of general permits by
the corps niuL States which approved programs for classes or cate-
gories of activities which cause, individually or cumulatively, only
niinimnal environment impact.
The corps during the last 2 years of administering the section 40
program has issued general permits on a regional and nationwide
basis to eliminate the need for individual permits for a number of
activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material. These
include streambanlc protection, stream alteration, backfill or bridges,
erosion control, and, in at least one instance, a genbral permit for
road fit ’ and culvcrting on a statewide basis. For general construction
activities, gemieral permits issued on a statewide or regionwide basis
will greatly reduce administrative paperwork and delay.
The commit tee amendment also responds to concerns that were e-
prt ’ ad during testimony over delays iii permit p) Ocessing by the corps
including those caused by othiei Federal programs which interface with
the comps’ section 404 program. ‘J’hie amendment requires the corps
to issue a public notice within 15 , iuys of receipt of all required
informimation necessary to evaluate a section 404 permit application. It
also requires the Secretary of the Army to enter into memoranda of
iindcralaudiimg with other Feclei’nl agencies to coordinate their respec-
tive reviews in order that a decision can be reached in most cases within
75 clays of time public notice. This would apply to pending applica-
tions, as well as future ones. In sonmecases, this would require revisions
to existing memoranda of understanding, including the one that now
exists between the Secretaries of tIme Army and the Interior to imple-
ment the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
-------
WATER TREATMENT CONTRACTING AND BID SHOPPING
—142—
-------
WATER TREATMENT CONTRACTING AND BID SHOPPING
EPA is to submit a report to Congress in three months from
December 27, 1977, on certain aspects of the procurement of equipment
for construction of wastewater treatment works. EPA is to include
a review and evaluation as t3 whether or not principal subcontractors
and equipment suppliers should be named in bid submissions for treatment
works so as to prevent bid shopping. Included in the report is to be an
outline of any proposed actions, togethes- with recommendations for any
i ecessary legislation.
-143-
-------
WATER TREATMENT CONTRACTING AND BID SHOPPING
CONFERENCE REPORT :
WAT 1 Z&? I? CO TRACT G A.’ D B
SR0PP O
lnformaUaa was received that sect oa
204(a) (6) of the i ’l2 Act which provides
that no bids for equipment for treatment
works may specify particular brand onmes.
has been Interpreted in. current regulations
In a way which requires acceptance at tne
LOw-dOUar treatment equipment bid In prnc-
ticaUy sU circumstances. Also. there La con-
cern that post-contract bid shopping for
lower-tler equipmea; suppliers by successul
bIdders for grantee constr.zctlan conirnots
has Increased.
Information on potential problems posed
by post bld-sho ping and toe e p asts on
1gw dollar btd. has a! o been pr entecL to
the nvl1 onmentat Protection Agency by con-
cerned equipment suppliers. The conferees
dl ect the Administrator to revte’v Implemen-
tation of the section 204(3) 6) procicloos
to determine tf any niodlAcatiocs of eguin-
Clan or law may be necessary or approprla:e.
The Admini.strator Is expected to incluaa in
the revl•w an evaluation of whether or nut
principal subcontractors and equ nen; sup-
pUera should be nated In bid submLssions
for treatment words. The .inis tor shall
submit this report to Congress within 3
nionth after enactment of this Act The Ad-
ministrator should include an outline of any
proposed actions. togethar with recommenda-
tion, for any necessary le tslatzOn. - - - -
SENATE REPORT
(Needs tQ be screened thru
Congressional actions which
Qccurred later—-See Conference
eport statements)
WArmi Tnc tv rENT CoNra.’crI n .tND Bm SuorvrNa
The committee received information that section 204(a) (6) of tlie
1072 act which provides that no bids for equipment for treatment works
may specify particular brand names, has been interpreted in current
regulations in a way which reqnii’es acceptance of the low-dollar treat-
ment equipment bid in practically all circumstances. Also, there is
concern that post-contract bid shopping for lo-wer4ier equipment sup-
pliers by suecessful bidders for grantee construction contracts has
increased.
Information on potential problems posed by post bid-shopping and
the emphasis on low dollar bid, has also been presented to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency by concerned equipment suppliers. The
committee directs the Administrator to review implementation of the
section 204 (a) (0) provisions to determine if any modifications of reg-
ulation or law may be necessary or appropriate. The committee expects
the Administrator to include in his review an evaluation of whether
or not principal subcontractors and equipment suppliers should be
named in bid submissions for treatment works. The committee requests.
that the Administrator submit his report to the committee within 3
ipouths of passage of this act. The Administrator should include an
outline of any actions lie proposes to take, together with recoinmendit-
tions for any necessary legislation. -
-144-
-------
PL%’
-------
01
-------
PUBLIC LAW 97—117 EH.R. 4503]; December 29, 1981
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CONSTRUCTION GRANT AMENDMENTS
OF 1981
For Leg s1attve His Wry of Act, see p 2629
An Act to emend the federal Water Pollution Control Act to authoru e fundi for fitcol yeat
1982, and far other purpose,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatiue of the
United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, un’ciP
Treatment
SHORT T1TLR Construction
Grant
SECTIoN 1. This Act may be cited as the “Municipal Wastewater Amendments of
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of I 981’ 1251
note
RLIOIBLZ CAraGORixs
Sac. 2. (a) Section 201(gXl) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: “On and 38 USC 1281
after October 1, 1984, grants under this title shall be made only for
projects for secondary treatment or more stringent treatment, or any
cost effective alternative thereto, new interceptors and appurte-
nances, and infiltration-in-flow correction. Notwithstanding the pre-
ceding sentence, the AdniiniRtrator may make grants on and after
October 1, 1984, for any project within the definition set forth in
section 212(2) of this Act, other than for a project referred to in the 33 USC 1292
preceding sentence, except that not more than 20 per centum (as
determined by the Governor ofthe State) of the.amount allotted to a
State under section 205 of this Act for any fi y s] J l 33 USC 1285
obligated in such State under authority of this sentence.”.
(b) Section 211(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is 33 USC 1291
amended by striking out “Se ptember 30,1982,” and inserting in lieu
thereof “September30, 1985, -
GRANTS FOR STRPS 1 AND 2
Sac. 3. (a) Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 33 USC 1281
is amended by adding a new subsection (1):
“(IX1) After the date of enactment of this subsection, Federal grants
shall not be made for the purpose of providing assistance solely for
facility plans, or plans, specifications, and estimates for any proposed
project for the construction of treatment works. In the event that the
proposed project receives a grant under this section for construction,
the Atiminiatrator shall make an allowance in such grant for non-
Federal funds expended during the facility planning and advanced
engineering and design phase at the prevailing Federal share under
section 202(a) of this Act, based on the percentage of total project 33 USC 1282
costs which the Adminisstrator determines is the general experience
for such projects.
“(2XA) Each State shall use a portion of the funds allotted to such
State each fiscal year, but not to exceed 10 per centum of such funds,
to advance to potential grant applicants under this title the costs of
95 STAT. 1623
-------
P.L. 97-117 LAWS OF 97th CONC.—lst SESS. Dec. 29
facility planning or the preparation of plans, specifications, and
estimates.
“(B) Such an advance shall be limited to the allowance for such
costs which the Administrator establishes under paragraph (1) of this
subsection, and shall be provided only to a potential grant applicant
which is a small community and which in the judgment of the State
would otherwise be unable to prepare a request for a grant for
construction costs under this section.
“(C) In the event a grant for construction costs is made under this
section for a project for which an advance has been made under this
paragraph, the Administrator shall reduce the amount of such grant
by the allowance established under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
In the event no such grant is made, the State is authorized to seek
repayment of such advance on such terms and conditions as it may
determine.”.
MITIGATION AND SPECIAL PROCESSES
Grants SEc. 4. Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
33 USC 1281 amended by adding the following new subsection:
“(mX1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, the
Administrator is authorized to make a grant from any funds other-
33 USC 1285 wise allotted to the State of California under section 205 of this Act to
the project (and in the amount) specified in Order WQG 81—1 of the
California State Water Resources Control Board.
“(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Adminis-
trator shall make a grant from any funds otherwise allotted to the
State of California to the city of Eureka, California, in connection
with project numbered C-06—2772, for the purchase of one hundred
and thirty-nine acres of property as environmental mitigation for
siting of the proposed treatment plant.
“(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Adminis-
trator shall make a grant from any funds otherwise allotted to the
State of California to the City of San Diego, California, in connection
with that city’s aquaculture sewage process (total resources recover r
system) as an innovative and alternative waste treatment process.’.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
33 USC 1281 SEc. 5. Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
“(nXl) On and after October 1, 1984, upon the request of the
Governor of an affected State, the Administrator is authorized to use
33 USC 1285 funds available to such State under section 205 to address water
quality problems due to the impacts of discharges from combined
storm water and sanitary sewer overflows, which are not otherwise
eligible under this subsection, where correction of such discharges is
a major priority for such State.
“(2) Beginning fiscal year 1983, the Administrator shall have
available $200,000,000 per fiscal year in addition to those funds
Post, p 1630 authorized in section 207 of this Act to be utilized to address water
quality problems of marine ba rs and estuaries subject to lower levels
of water quality due to the impacts of discharges from combined
storm water and sanitary sewer overflows from adjacent urban
complexes, not otherwise eligible under this subsection. Such sums
may be used as deemed appropriate by the Administrator as provided
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, upon the request of and
demonstration of water quality benefits by the Governor of an
affected State.”.
95 STAT. 1624
-------
Dec. 29 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT P.L. 97-117
CAPITAL FINANCING
Sac. 6. Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is 33 USC 1281
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
“(o) The Administrator shall encourage and assist applicants for
grant assistance under this title to develop and file with the Adminis-
trator a capital financing plan which, at a minimum—
“(1) projects the future requirements for waste treatment
services within the applicant’s jurisdiction for a period of no less
than ten years;
“(2) projects the nature, extent, timing, and costs of future
expansion and reconstruction of treatment works which will be
necessary to satisf the applicant’s projected future require-
ments for waste treatment services; and
“(3) sets forth with specificity the manner in which the
applicant intends to finance such future expansion and recon-
struction.”.
FEDERAL SHARE
Sac. 7. The first sentence of section 202(aXl) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act is amended by inserting after “1971,” the 33 USC 1282
following: “and ending before October 1, 1984,”. The first sentence of
such section is further amended by inserting after “(as approved by
the Administrator),” the following: “and for any fiscal year beginning
on or after October 1, 1984, shall be 55 per centum of the cost of
construction thereof (as approved by the Administrator),”. Such
section 202(aXl) is further amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: “Notwithstanding the first sentence of this
paragraph, in any case where a primary, secondary . or advanced
waste treatment facility or its related interceptors or a project for
infiltratiofl.ifl-flow correction has received a grant for erection,
building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, exten-
sion, or correction before October 1, 1984, all segments and phases of
such facility, interceptors, and project for infiltration in .flow correc-
tion shall be eligible for grants at 75 per centuifl of the cost of
construction thereof.”.
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES
Sac. 8. (a) Section 202(aX2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by inserting after the fIrst sentence the following:
“The amount of any grant made after September 30, 1981, for any
eligible treatment works or unit processes and techniques thereof
utilizing innovative or alternative wastewater treatment processes
and techniques referred to in section 201(gX5) shall be a percentage of 33 USC 1281
the cost of construction thereof equal to 20 per centum greater than
the percentage in effect under paragraph (1) of this subsection for
such works or unit processes and techniques, but in no event greater
than 85 per centum of the cost of construction thereof.”.
(b) Section 202(aX4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is 33 USC I 82
amended by striking out “in the fiscal years ending September 30,
1979, September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1981” and by striking
out the last sentence.
(c) Section 205(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is 33 USC 1285
amended by striking out “and September 30. 1981,” in the first
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof “September 30, 1981, Septem-
ber 30, 1982, September 30, 1983, September 30, 1984, and September
30, 1985,” and by striking out “from 75 per centum to 85 per centum”,
95 STAT. 1625
-------
P.L. 97-117 LAWS OF 97th CONG.—lst SESS. Dec. 29
and by adding at the end thereof the following: “Including the
expenditures authorized by the first sentence of this subsection, a
total (as determined by the Governor of the State) of not less than 4
per centum nor more than 7½ per centum of the funds allotted to
such State for any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1981,
under subsection (c) of this section shall be expended only for
increasing the Federal share of grants for construction of treatment
works pursuant to section 202(aX2) of this Act.”.
33 USC 1292 (d) Section 212(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by inserting after “procedures,” the following: “field testing
of innovative or alternative waste water treatment processes and
techniques meeting guidelines promulgated under section 304(dX3) of
33 USC 1314 this Act,”.
COMBINED STEP 2 AND S GRANTS
94 Stat 2362 SEc. 9. Section 203(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
33 USC 1283 amended by striking “$4,000,000” and inserting in lieu thereof
“$8,000,000”. The last sentence of such section 203(a) is hereby
repealed.
RESERVE CAPACITY
SEc. 10. (a) Section 204(aX5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
33 USC 1284 Act is amended by striking out the semicolon at the end thereof and
inserting in lieu thereof a period and the following: “Beginning
October 1, 1984, no grant shall be made under this title to construct
that portion of any treatment works providing reserve capacity in
excess of existing needs (including existing needs of residential,
commercial, industrial, and other users) on the date of approval of a
grant for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling,
improvement, or extension of a project for secondary treatment or
more stringent treatment or new interceptors and appurtenances,
except that in no event shall reserve capacity of a facility and its
related interceptors to which this subsection applies be in excess of
existing needs on October 1, 1990. In any case in which an applicant
proposes to provide reserve capacity greater than that eligible for
Federal financial assistance under this title, the incremental costs of
the additional reserve capacity shall be paid by the applicant;”.
(b) Section 204 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
“(C) The next to the last sentence of paragraph (5) of subsection (a)
of this section shall not apply in any case where a primary, second-
ary, or advanced waste treatment facility or ita related interceptors
has received a grant for erection, building, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement, or extension before October 1, 1984. and
all segments and phases of such facility and interceptors shall be
funded based on a 20.year reserve capacity in the case of such facility
and a 20-year reserve capacity in the case of such interceptors, except
that, if a grant for such interceptors has been approved prior to the
date of enactment of the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construc-
tion Grant Amendments of 1981, such interceptors shall be funded
based on the approved reserve capacity not to exceed 40 years.”.
Ante, p 1623 (C) Section 201(k) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence:
Expiration date “This subsection shall not be in effect after November 15, 1981.”.
95 STAT. 1626
-------
Dec. 29 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT P.L. 97-117
BRAND NAME
Sac. 11. Section 204(aX6) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by striking out “, or at least two brand names or 33 Usc 1284
trade names of comparable uality or utility are listed and are
followed by the words ‘or equal “and by adding at the end thereof the
following: “When in the judgment of the grantee, it is impractical or
uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the
technical requirements, a ‘brand name or equal’ description may be
used as a means to define the performance or other salient require-
mente of a procurement., and in doing so the grantee need not
establish the existence of any source other than the brand or source
So named.”.
ENGD EERfl G PERYORMANCE
Sac. 12. Section 204 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding the following new subsection:
“(dXl) A grant for the construction of treatment works under this
title shall provide that the engineer or engineering firm supervising
construction or providing architect engineering services during con-
struction shall continue its relationship to the grant applicant for a
period of one year after the completion of construction and initial
operation of such treatment works. During such period such engineer
or engineering firm shall supervise operation of the treatment works,
train operating personnel, and prepare curricula and training mate-
rial for operating personnel. Costs associated with the implementa-
tion of this paragraph shall be eligible for Federal assistance in
accordance with this title.
“(2) On the date one year after the completion of construction and
initial operation of such treatment works, the owner and operator of 33 USC 1342
such treatment works shall certify to the AthniniRtrator whether or
not such treatment works meet the design specifications and effluent
limitations contained in the grant agreement and permit pursuant to
section 402 of the Act for such works. If the owner and operator of
such treatment works cannot certify that such treatment works meet
such design specifications and effluent limitations, any failure to
meet such design specifications and effluent limitations shall be
corrected in a timely mRnner, to allow such affirmative certification,
at other than Federal expense.
“(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a grantee
under this title from requiring more assurances, guarantees, or
indemnity or other contractual requirements from any party to a
contract pertstining to a project assisted under this title, than those
provided under this subsection.”.
AUD1 T YORMUTA
Sac. 18. (a) Section 205(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by inserting “(1)” after “(c)” and by adding at the end 33 USC 1285
‘hereof the following new paragraph:
“(2) Sums authorized tobe appropriated pursuant to section 207 for Post. p 1630
the fiscal years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 shall be allotted for each
such year by the Mministrator not later than the tenth day which
begins after the date of enactment of the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981. Notwithstand-
ing any other provision of law sums authorized for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1982, shall be allotted in accordance with table
3 of Committee Print Numbered 95-30 of the Committee cc Public
95 STAT. 1627
-------
P.L. 97-117 LAWS OF 97th CONG.—Ist SESS. Dec. 29
Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives. Sums
authorized for the fiscal years ending September 30, 1983, September
80, 1984, and September 30, 1985, shall be allotted in accordance with
the following table:
Fiscal years 1983
States: through 1985
011398
laska - - 006101
rizona - 006885
Arkansas - 006668
072901
lorado - -
Connecticut 012487
Delaware 004965
Distnct of Columbia .. 004965
Flonda
Georgia — — 017231
Hawa ii 007895
Idaho 004965
Illinois 046101
Indiana..... 024566
Iowa — — 019796
- 009201
Kentucky 012973
Louisiana .. ... 011205
Maine ...... .. .. 007788
Maryland 024653
Massachusetts — .. .. 034608
Michigan.... 043829
Minnesota - 018735
Mississippi..... 009184
Missouri...... .. 028257
Montana .. 004965
Nebraska . 005214
Nevada .. - 004965
New Hampshire 010186
New Jersey - .. 041654
New Mexico
New York .. - 113097
North Carolina 018396
North Dakota 004965
Ohio 057383
Oklahoma .. - 008235
Oregon 011515
Pennsylvania 040377
Rhode Island 006750
South Carolina 010442
South Dakota - .. 004965
Tennessee 014807
Texas 038726
Utah 005871
Vermont. .. 904965
Virginia.... 020861
Washington 017726
West Virginia - 015890
Wisconsin 027557
Wyoming 004965
Samoa .. 000915
000662
Northern Marianas 000425
Puerto Rico 013295
Pacific Trust Temtories .. 001305
Virgin Islands 000531
United States totals.- 999996
33 USC 1285 (b) Section 205(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by striking out “and 1981” each of the two places it appears
and inserting in lieu thereof at each such place “1981, 1982, 1983,
1984, and 1985”.
95 STAT. 1628
-------
Dec. 29 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT P.L. 97-117
STATE AD RAT1ON GRANTS
Sac. 14. (a) The first sentence of section 205(gXl) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act is amended by inserting immediately 33 USC 1285
after “October 1, 1977,” the followinç “except in the case of any fiscal
year beginning on or after October 1, 1981, and ending before October
1,1985, in which case the percentage authorized to be reserved shall
not exceed 4 per centum.”.
(b) Section 205(gXl) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence:
“Sums authorized to be reserved by this paragraph shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of any other funds which may be
authorized to carry out this subsection.”.
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Sac. 15. Section 205 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
“(jXl) The Adrninietrator shall reserve each fiscal year not to
exceed 1per centum of the sums allotted and available for obligation
to each State under this section for each fiscal year beginning on or
after October 1, 1981, or $100,000, whichever amount is the greater.
“(2) Such sums shall be used by the Administrator to make grants
to the States to carry out water quality management planning,
including, but not limited to—
“(A) identifying most cost effective and locally acceptable
facility and non-point measures to meet and ynz intajn water
quality standards;
“(B) developing an implementation plan to obtain State and
local financial and regulatory commitments to implement meas-
ures developed under subparagraph (A);
“(C) determining the nature, extent, and causes of water
quality problems in various areas of the State and interstate
re ion, and reporting on these annually; and
‘(D) determining those publicly owned treatment works which
should be constructed with assistance under this title, in which
areas and in what sequence, f-eking into account the relative
degree of effluent reduction attained, the relative contributions
to water quality of other point or nonpoint sources, and the
consideration of alternatives to such construction, and imple-
mentingsection 303(e)of this Act. 33 USC 1313
“(3) In carrying out plAnning with grants made under paragraph (2)
of this subsection, a State shall develo jointly with local, regional,
and interstate entities, a plan for carrying out the program and give
funding priority to such entities and designated or undesignated
public comprehensive plenning organizations to carry out the pur-
poses of this subsection.
“(4) All activities undertaken under this subsection shall be in
coordination with other related provisions of this Act.”.
CONVENTION CENTER
Sac. 16. Section 205 of’ the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is 32 USC 1285
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
“(k) The Adminiatrator shall allot to the State of New York from
sums authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending Septem-
ber 30, 1982, an amount necessary to pay the entire cost of conveying
sewage from the Convention Center of the city of New York to the
95 STAT. 1629
-------
P.L. 97-117 LAWS OF 97th CONG.—lst SESS. Dec. 29
Newtown sewage treatment plant, Brooklyn-Queens area, New York.
The amount allotted under this subsection shall be in addition to and
not in lieu of any other amounts authorized to be allotted to such
State under this Act.”.
AUTHORIZATION
Ante, p 764 Sac. 17. Section 2()7 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
33 USC 1287. amended by strikiM out all that follows 1$2 548,837,000;” and insert-
ing in lieu thereof ‘and for the fiscal years ending September 30,
1982, September 80, 1983, September 30, 1984, and September 30,
1985, not to exceed $2,400,000,®O per fiscal year.”.
WATER QUALITY PRIORiTY
33 USC 1296. SEc. 18. Section 216 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: “It
is the policy of Congress that projects for wastewater treatment and
management undertaken with Federal financial assistance under
this Act by any State, municipality, or interinunicipal or interstate
agency shall be projects which, in the estimation of the State, are
designed to achieve optimum water quality management, consistent
with the public health and water quality goals and requirements of
the Act.”.
CO EFTECrWENTSS
Sac. 19. Title U of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
“COST amcnv
Waste treatment “Sac. 218. (a) It is the policy of Congress that a project for waste
gystem treatment and mai agement undertaken with Federal financial
33 USC 1298 assistance under this Act by any State, municipality, or inter inunici-
pal or interstate agency shall be considered as an overall waste
treatment system for waste treatment and mAnagement, and shall be
that system which constitutes the most economical and cost-effective
combination of devices and systems used in the storage, treatment,
recyclth , and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes
33 USC 1281 of a liquid nature to implement section 201 of this Act, or necessary to
recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost over the estimated
life of the works, including intercepting sewers, outfall sewers,
sewage collection systems, pumping power, and other equipment, and
their appurtenances; extension, improvements, remodeling, addi-
tions and alterations thereof; elements essential to provide a reliable
recyc’led supply such as standby treatment units and clear well
facilities; and any works, including site acquisition of the land that
will be an integral part of the treatment process (including land use
for the storage of treated wastewater in land treatment systems prior
to land application) or which is used for ultimate disposal of residues
resulting from such treatment; water efficiency measures and
devices; and any other method or system for preventing, abating
reducing, storing, treating, separating, or disposing of municipal
waste, including storm water runoff, or industrial waste, including
waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems; to meet
the requirements of this Act.
“(b) In accordance with the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this
section, before the Mminbitrator approves any grant to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the erection,
95 STAT. 1630
-------
Dec. 29 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT P.L. 97-117
building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or exten-
sion of any treatment works the Administrator shall determine that
the facilities plan of which such treatment works are a part consti-
tutes the most economical and cost-effective combination of treat-
ment works over the life of the project to meet the requirements of
this Act, including, but not limited to, consideration of construction
costs, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs.
“(c) In furtherance of the policy set forth in subsection (a) of this
section, the Administrator shall require value engineering review in
connection with any treatment works, prior to approval of any grant
for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodelln ,
improvement, or extension of such treatment works, in any case in
which the cost of such erection, building, acquisition, alteration,
remodeling, improvement, or extension is projected to be in excess of
$10,000,000. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘value engineer- ‘Value
mg review’ means a specialized cost control technique which uses a engLneerlng
systematic and creative approach to identify and to focus on unneces-
sarily high cost in a project in order to arrive at a cost saving without
sacrificing the reliability or efficiency of the project.
“Cd) This section applies to projects for waste treatment and
management for which no treatment works including a facilities plan
for such project have received Federal financial assistance for the
preparation of construction plans and specifications under this Act
before the date of enactment of this section.”.
STATE CERTIFiCATION
SEC. 20. Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
“STATE CERTIFICATION OF PROJECTS
“Sac. 219. Whenever the Governor o(a State which has been 33 USC 1299
delegated sufficient authority to administer the construction grant
program under this title in that State certifies to the Administrator
that a grant application meets applicable requirements of Federal
and State law for assistance under this title, the Administrator shall
approve or disapprove such application within 45 days of the date of
receipt of such application, if the Administrator does not approve or
disapprove such application within 45 days of receipt, the application
shall be deemed approved. 11 the Administrator disapproves such
application the Administrator shall state in writing the reasons for
such disapproval. Any grant approved or deemed approved under this
section shall be subject to amounts provided in appropriation Acts.”.
MUNiCIPAL COMPLIANCE DEADUNE
SEc. 21. (a) Section 301(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by striking out “July 1, 1983,” each place it appears 33 Usc 1311
and inserting in lieu thereof “July I, 1988,”. The amendment made 33 USC 1311
by this subsection shall not be interpreted or applied to extend the iote
date for compliance with section 301(bXl) (B) or (C) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act beyond schedules for compliance in
effect as of the date of enactment of this Act, except in cases where
reductions in the amount of financial assistance under this Act or
changed conditions affecting the rate of construction beyond the
control of the owner or operator will make it impossible to complete
construction by July 1, 19B3.
95 STAT. 1631
-------
P.L. 97-117 LAWS OF 97th CONG.—lst SESS. Dec. 29
33 USC 1311 (b) Section 301(bX2XB) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
isrepealed.
OCEAN DISCHARGES
SEC. 22. (a) Section 301(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended in the portion preceding paragraph (1) by striking out
“in an existing discharge”.
(b) Such section 301(h) is amended by striking out the semicolon at
the end of paragraph (7) and inserting in lieu thereof a period and by
striking out paragraph (8).
(c) Such section 301(h) is further amended by adding at the end
thereof the following: “A municipality which applies secondary
treatment shall be eligible to receive a permit pursuant to this
subsection which modifies the requirements of subsection (bX1XB) of
this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from any
treatment works owned by such municipality into marine waters. No
permit issued under this subsection shall authorize the discharge of
sewage sludge into marine waters.”.
(d) Section 301(jXl) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by striking out clause (A) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following new clause:
“(A) subsection (bX1XB) under subsection (h)of this section
shall be filed not later that the 365th day which begins after the
date of enactment of the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grant Amendments of 1981;”.
Effective date (e) The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the
33 USC 1311 date of enactment of this Act, except that no applicant, other than the
city of Avalon, California, who applies after the date of enactment of
this Act for a permit pursuant to subsection (h) of section 301 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act which modifies the require-
ments of subsection (bX1XB) of section 301 of such Act shall receive
such permit during the one-year period which begins on the date of
enactment of this Act.
SECONDARY TREATMENT DEFINITION
33 USC 1314 SEC. 23. Section 304(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is
amended by adding the following new paragraph:
“(4) For the purposes of this subsection, such biological treatment
facilities as oxidation ponds, lagoons, and ditches and trickling filters
shall be deemed the equivalent of secondary treatment. The Adminis-
trator shall provide guidance under paragraph (1) of this subsection
on design criteria for such facilities, tRkmg into account pollutant
removal efficiencies and, consistent with the objective of the Act,
assuring that water quality will not be adversely affected by deeming
such facilities as the equivalent of secondary treatment.”.
REVISED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
33 USC 1313a SEc. 24. The review, revision, and adoption or promulgation of
revised or new water quality standards pursuant to section 303(c) of
33 USC 1313 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall be completed by the
date three years after the enactment of the Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981. No grant shall
be made under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
after such date until water quality standards are reviewed and
revised pursuant to section 303(c), except where the State has in good
faith submitted such revised water quality standards and the Admin-
95 STAT. 1632
-------
Dec. 29 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT P.L. 97-117
istrator has not acted to approve or disapprove such ubmission
within one hundred and twenty days of receipt.
NEEDS SURVEY
SEc. 25. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Report to
Agency shall submit to the Conzress, not later than December 31, Congress -
1982, a report cont.Rining the etailed estimates, comprehensive 33 USC 137o
study, and comprehensive analysis required by section 516(b) of the
Federal Water l’ollution Control Act, including an estimate of the 33 USC 1375
total cost and the amount of Federal funds neoessary for the construc-
tion of needed publicly owned treatment facilities. Such report shall
be prepared in the same manner as is required by such section and
shall reflect the changes made in the Federal water pollution control
program by this Act and the amendments made by this Act. In
preparing this report, the Adni nistrator shall give emphasis to the
effects ol the amendment made by section 2(a) of this Act in
addressing water quality needs adequately and appropriately.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
SEc. 26. It is the sense of Congress that judicial notice should be
taken of this Act and of the amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act made by this Act, including reduced authoriza-
tion levels under section 207 of such Act, and that the parties to Anti’ p 1630
Federal consent decrees establishing a deadline, schedule, or timeta-
ble for the construction of publicly owned treatment works are
encouraged to reexamine the provisions of such consent decrees and,
where required by equity, to make appropriate adjustments in such
provisions.
BATH IVWNSICP
8cc. 27. For purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
the project for publicly owned treatment works for Bath Township,
Michigan, shall be eligible for payments from sums allocated to the
State of Michigan under such Act in an amount equal to the amount
such works would be eligible for under section 202 of such Act if such 33 USC 1282
works were to be constructed after the date of enactment of this Act,
at the original construction cost.
Approved December 29, 1981.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—HR 4503 (S 1716)
HOUSE REPORTS No 97-270 (Comm on Public Works and Transportation) and No
97—408 (Comm of Conference)
SENATE REPORT No 97-204 accompanying S 1716 (Comm on Environment and
Public Works)
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Vol 127 (1981)
Oct 27, considered and passed House, S 1716 considered and passed Senate
Oct 29, considered and passed Senate, amended, in lieu of S 1716
Dec 6. House and Senate agreed to conference report
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol 17. No 53(1981)
Dec 29, Presidential statement
95 STAT. 1633
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CONSTRUCTION GRANT AMENDMENTS OF 1981
P L 97-117, see page 95 Stat 1623
House Report (Public Works and Transportation Committee) No.
97-270,
Oct. 9, 1981 [ To accompany H.R. 4503]
Senate Report (Environment and Public Works Committee) No.
97—204,
Oct. 7, 1981 [ To accompany S. 1716]
House Conference Report No. 97-408,
Dec. 14, 1981 [ To accompany H.R. 4503]
Cong. Record Vol. 127 (1981)
DATES OF CONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE
House October 27, December 16, 1981
Senate October 27, 29, December 16, 1981
The House bill was passed in lieu of the Senate bill.
The House Report (this page) and the House
Conference Report (page 2656) are set out.
HOUSE REPORT NO. 97-270
[ page 1]
The Committee on Public Works and Transportation, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 4503) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to authorize funds for fiscel year 1982, and for other
purposes, having considered the same. report favorably thereon with
an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
* *
IxTRonucriox
In 1972 Congress responded to the need to strengthen Federal and
State efforts to control the discharge of pollutants into our waters
and established a comprehenQive . national approach to water pollu-
tion control. The Federal ‘Water Pollution Contrcl Act Amendments
of that year (Public Law 92—500) were a complete rewrite of existing
water pollution control laws and stand as one of the great landmarks
of environmental legislation. The Amendments established as goals the
reduction and ultimately the elimination, of discharges of pollutants
from municipal sewage systems and industrial plants. An interim
goal . set for July 1, 1983, was to achieve, wherever attainable, fish-
able and swimmable water quality in all the rivers, lakes and streams
of our Nation.
2629
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97—117
[ page 2]
Public Law 92—500 established two primary mechanisms for the
accomplishment of these goals. First, all industrial and municipal
dischargers were required to treat their wastes to clearly definable
minimum levels based on best practicable and best available tech-
nologies: Beyond those minimum levels, dischargers were required to
comply with any more stringent State or Federal requirements based
on receiving water quality standards. These requirements were to be
enforced nationwide through permits which are required for every
point source discharging into navigable waters.
The technology-based minimum treatment i ’equireinents were to be
imposed in increasingly stringent steps. For industries, effluent limi-
tations reflecting application of the best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT) were to be achieved by 1977. The corre-
sponding 1917 effluent limitation for municipalities was secondary
treatment. By 1983 industries were to achieve effluent limitations
corresponding to the best available technology economically achiev-
able (BAT). By 1983, all pubicly owned treatment works for munici-
palities were to be applying the best practicable waste treatment
technology over the life of the works (BPWTT).
The second mechanism was a significantly strengthened program
of grant assistance to ‘municipalities for the construction of sewage
treatment facilities to meet these effluent limitations and other require-
ments of the law. The Federal share of eligible project cost.s was raised
to 75 percent and $20.75 billion was authorized for grants, including
reimbursement grants, for the construction of treatment facilities
under the new law.
These two fundamental pillafs of the Nation’s water pollution con-
trol effort have remained essentially intact since the 1912 Amendments,
although there have been several additional amendments. The most
important changes were enacted in 1977. These were the “midcourse
corrections” which had been contemplated since 197-2. The 1977
Amendments, known as the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95—217),
authorized an additional $25.5 billion for the construction grants pro-
gram. In addition, it established a program for encouraging innova-
tive and alternative approaches to wastewater treatment and initaa.ted
a mechanism for turning over more of the management of the grants
program to the States. For municipalities which had not been able,
despite good faith efforts, to meet the 1977 deadline for secondary
treatment because of inadequate funding, the deadline was extended
to 1983.
Significant progress has been made in carrying out the construction
grants program in the nine years that have elapsed. It is clear that the
Nation has been making progress, through the construction and up-
grading of municipal treatment plants under the grants program, in
reversing the trend of increesin degradation of the quality of our
surface waters. Today, these facilities are removing 65 percent more
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS)
than in 1973. Because of this progress by municipalities and industry,
the Council on Environmental Quality, in its December 1980 Repoit
to the President, was able to state that major degradation of surface
waters in the United States appears to have stopped, in spite of a
growing population and an increase in gross national product.
2630
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97-117
[ page 3]
Water quality improvements have been achieved despite a history
of funding problems and the long completion times typical of most
construction grants projects. These funding problems have resulted
from appropriations below the authorized level, presidential impound-
ments in the early years of the program, deferrals, and rescissions.
These fluctuations and reductions in funding have resulted in a stretch-
out of the completion times expected for municipal treatment projects
and the postponement of the 1977 secondary treatment requirements
for many municipalities. The completion times have been lengthy, even
when funding was available, ranging from an average of 71/2 years for
small projects to 111/2 years for very large projects. The Committee
has received testimony over the years that regulations for the construc-
tion grants program have contributed to these delays. Thus, while over
twenty thousand grants have been awarded in approximately ten thou-
sand sewage jurisdictions, fewer than three thousand projects have
gone entirely through all the grant steps to completion. The vast
majority of the funds spent have gone toward projects which are still
“in the pipeline.” For this reason, while substantial benefits have been
achieved by the program to date, the most significant benefits are still
to be realized. This will not occur, however, without continued ade-
quate funding to allow attainment of the benefits associated with those
needed projects now under way.
In 1981, the construction grants program is once again faced with
the prospect of funding delays and instability. Currently, no appro-
priations are euthorized for Fiscal Year 1982. The Administration
has indicated that if certain changes in the program are enacted, fund-
ing will be requested.
In April of this year, the Administration submitted to Congress
proposed changes in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
Administration bill would limit Federal grant assistance to projects
for secondary or more stringent treatment, or any cost-effective alter-
native thereto, and interceptors and appurtenances. Eliminated from
Federal grant assistance would be such categories as infiltration/inflow
correction, major sewer system rehabilitation, collector sewers, and
correction of combined sewer overflows.
The Administration bill would also eliminate grant assistance for
construction of reserve capacity to meet future needs. The size and
capacity of the treatment works eligible for a grant would be based
upon 1980 population levels. -
The Administration proposal contains a number of other provisions.
It would revise the formula under which the States are allotted their
respective shares of the appropriated construction grant funds. The
present allotment formula was adopted by Congress in 1977 and is
applicable to Fiscal Years 1978 throu h 1981. It has based on a com-
bination of population and the needs of the States to meet the reciu3re-
ments of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Administra-
tion’s revised allotment formula would be based on a State’s needs as
a percentage of total national needs as reflected in the 1980 Needs
Survey. In computing the percentage, only the needs for secondary
and more advant’ed treatment and interceptors would be counted and
no reserve capacity would be included.
2631
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97-117
[ page 4)
The Administration bill would make the presently mandatory 3-
percent set-aside of grant funds for innovative and alternative tech-
nology and 4-percent set-aside of grant funds for alternative systems
in rural States discretionary at the request of the Governor. In addi-
tion, the legislation would allow a Governor to reduce the 75-percent
Federal share on a category-by-category basis as well as by project
step; change the manner in which the States’ grant funds for program
administration are calculated; and repeal the authority in existing
law to reimburse local communities which construct treatment works
with their own funds. Finally, the legislation would direct a State
in establishing its priority list for projects to give highest priority
to those projects which will directly benefit areas of urban-industrial
concentration and will result in significant public health or water
quality benefits.
The Administration’s position that no funding for the construction
grants program should be provided in Fiscal Year 1982 until legisla-
tive modifie ttions of the construction grants program hed been enacted
was reflected in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97—35). This
Act contains a provision reducing the Fiscal Year 1982 authorization
to zero. Ho’ vever, it authorizes $2.4 billion when legislation revising
the construction grants propam is enacted into law.
H.R. 4503 is the Committe&s response to this call for modifying
legislation. The Committee wishes to point out that such legislation
is only one step to be taken to obtain funding for the construction
grants program in Fiscal Year 1982. In addition, an appropriation
will have to be made, and the spend ing ceiling in the final Budget
Resolution will have to be sufficient to accommodate the appropriation.
The Committee held extensive hearings on the Administration’s
legislative proposal and has examined it very thoroughly. We are con-
cerned that it would have an extremely disruptive effect on the con-
struction of municipal treatment works ‘which are already receiving
Federal grant assistance.
Projects for waste treatment works are divided into three steps.
Step 1 is the planning phase in which the overall facility plan for the
project is developed. This involves consideration of alternatives, the
determination of the size and scope of the project, and development of
other required information to enable the actual design work to begrn.
This design work, in which construction drawings and specifications
are prepared, is Step 2. Step 3 is the actual construction.
This process is immensely complicated by the fact that grants are
not ordinarily made for the entire amount of work involved in any
one of the steps. They are, rather, “segmented” or “phased”. A seg-
mented grant is one made for any portion of a project such as an
interceptor sewer, outlet works or various other portions of the over-
all plan. Indeed, it is not unusual for parts of an overall project to
have a Step 3 grant while other parts are still undergoing design
under a Step 2 grant. A phased grant arises where an overall project
is approved and the grant funding for that project is phased over a
number of years.
Under the Administration’s proposal, a project could be partially
under construction or partially under design and suddenly face a
2632
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PL 97-Ill
[ page 5]
change in eligibility for a grant. For example, if a project including
reserve capacity had been approved and the interceptors and outlet
works were under construction, the municipality would find that it
would not be receiving grant assistance for reserve capacity in con-
nection with the design and construction of the remaining parts of the
overall project which had not yet received a segmented grant. Yet the
requirement in the Act for inclusion of adequate reserve capacity
would still be applicable. The municipality would then have to seek
additional local funding through such measures as the issuance of
municipal bonds.
The Committee feels very strongly that forcing a redesign or a
reentry into the bond market after a project is under way would be
not only disruptive but costly because of the delays which would be
involved. \Ve determined, therefore, that it was essential to preserve
existing grant eligibility provisions for those projects which are
already under way.
For this reason, the Committee’s bill retains existing categories
of eligibi]ity for projects which have received a Step 1, 2 or 3 grant.
It also retains current eligibility for reserve capacity for projects
which have received a Step 2 or 3 grant and reduced funding for
reserve capacity for projects which are in Step 1. The Committee
recognizes the necessity of reducing the projected Federal costs for
this program and of assisting the States and localities to become
self-sufficient insofar as the treatment of municipal waste is con-
cerned. To this end H.R. 4503 would reduce reserve capacity for
treatment works to ten years and eligible categories to secondary or
more stringent treatment and interceptors and appurtenances, while
retaining discretion on the part of the Governor to us up to 30 per-
cent of the State’s allotment on other categories. Moreover, H.R. 4503
authorizes only $2.4 billion for Fiscal Year 1982 for construction
grants—a figure which is consistent with that contemplated in the
Reconciliation Act, and well below the Fiscal Year 1981 original
funding level of S3.3 billion.
The 1980 Needs Survey prepared by EPA estimates the total costs
of municipal treatment to meet the goals of the kct through the year
2000 to be $120 billion. The 75-percent Federal share of this is $90
billion. It is this $90 bi]lion which has come to be referred to as the
“Federal exposure.” The Administration’s bill would reduce, this Fed-
eral exposure to approximately $23 billion. However, this would be
accomplished at enormous costs to the program in disruption and
delay. H.R. 4503, as reported, reduces the exposure by some $40 bil-
lion, a substantial amount but one which minimizes disruption for
ongoing projects and preserves some flexibility for States and munici-
palities in meeting water quality needs. The Committee wishes to
emphasize that while the amount of “Federal exposure” is informa-
tive to some degree. it is not determinative of what the Federal gov-
ernment will ultimately spend in this program. The amount of
expenditures will be governed by authorization and appropriation
acts.
The Committee intends to address the multiyear funding needs of
the construction grants prc ram and other issues in the proe ram. as
part of a comprehensive review of the entire Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, which the Committee will conduct next year.
2633
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—117
[ page 6]
AN&z rsIs o H.R. 4503, as Rzroitrw
SECTION 1
This section provides that the Act may he cited as the “Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1981”.
SECTION 2
This section amends Section 201(g) (5) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act. Section 20 1(g) (5) provides that the Administrator
of EPA shall not make any ‘rants for the construction of treatment
works unless the grant apphcant has demonstrated that innovative
and alternative wastewater treatment processes and techniques have
been fully studied and evaluated by the applicant. The techniques
which must be studied and evaluated include the reclaiming and reuse
of water, recycling technologies, land treatment and the confined dis-
posal of pollutants so that pollutants will not migrate to cause water
or other environmental pollution. In studying and evaluating these
tchnologies, the applicant is to take into account and provide for, to
the extent practioal, the more efficient use of energy and resources.
Section 2 modifies this provision to require the applicant to study
and evaluate these various innovative and alternative technologies
taking into account and providing for, to the extent practical, the most
efficient use of energy and resources which will result in the lowest
net cost of water and sewer servic to the consumer. The purpose of
the section is to provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative costs
and savings associated with usable water which might be obtained
from a particular treatment process. If a municipality, for example,
can realize appreciable savings through the production of usable water
through a particular treatment process, even though that treatment
process is more expensive than others, the savings to the municipality
associated with the usable water being made available may offset the
increased costs associated with the treatment process. The provision
does not alter the applicability.of Section 201(j) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Rather, it simply encourages an applicant to
consider a broader range of approaches when it is undertaking prep-
aration of its Step 1 facilities plan.
SECTION 3
This section repeals Section 201(k) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Section 201(k) provides that no grant made after No.
veniber 15, 1981, for construction of a publicly owned treat.nient works
shall be used to treat, store, or convey the flow of any industrial user
into such treatment works in excess of a flow equivalent to 50,000
gallons per day of sanitary waste. The repeal of Section 201(k) was
included in I-1.R. 2957 which passed the House on May 28, 19b1.
This industrial cost exclusion (ICE) has its origin in Congress’
attempts to deal with an earlier provision known as “Industrial Cost
Recovery” (ICR). The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended in 1972 authorized the Environmental Protection Agency
to make grants to municipalities for 75 percent of the eligible costs
of construction of publicly owned treatment works (POTW’s). It
2634
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97-117
[ page 7)
also provided that industries which use waste treatment works re-
ceiving construction grant assistance under the Act must pay to the
grantee that portion of the grant allocable to providing treatment
capacity for their wastes. At least 50 percent of this industrial cost
recovery was to be returned by the grantee to the United States
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. The rest was to be retained by the
grantee for the costs of administering the requirement and for future
expansion and reconstruction of the treatment works.
An EPA progressed with the implementation of industrial cost
recovery, there were increasing complaints from municipalities and
others that the mechanism required to assess and collect 1CR charges
was so burdensome that administrative costs exceeded the monies
recovered and retained. Industries and municipalities reported that
the additional cost attributable to ICR was, in many cases, driving
industries away from regional publicly owned waste treatment plants.
Other industries, particularly those located in highly developed
aieas, lacked the option to leave. Industrial cost recovery acted as a
penalty for many of these industries because they had no choice but
to continue to discharge into the municipal system at a higher cost, or
close down.
As a result, the 1977 Amendments (Public Law 95—217) to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act placed an 18-month moratorium
on the ICR requirement and called for EPA to submit to Congress
a study of the einciency of and the need for ICR. Because of delay in
completion of the k ri study and Jçgislative proposals, the mora-
toriuin was extended an additional year, to June 30, 19 0, by Public
Law 96—148.
After considering EPA ’s final report and holding extensive hear:
ings on ICR, the Coimnittee in the 96th Congress concluded that
inuustrial cost recovery did not serve the original intent of Congress
in enacting it and was discriminatory, unworkable, and not cost-effec-
tive in a large number of instances (House Report No. 96—983). The
Committee reported 1{.R. 6667 which amended the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act by deleting the industrial cost recovery
provisions.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported
a bill, S. 2725, which also eliminated the industrial cost recovery
requirements of the Act.
In addition, S. 2725 provided that, beginning October 1, 1980, no
grant was to be used to treat the wastewater flow of any industrial
user greater than 50.000 gallons per day sanitary waste equivalent.
The provision did not apply to grant assistance for Step 1 facilities
planning or to Step 2 preparation of construction drawings and
specifications. It also did not apply to Step 3 grants for physical con-
struction for any plant which had received its Step 2 grant on or
before May 15, 1980.
In October 1980, the Congress passed a compromise between the
House bill, which repealed ICR without changing grant eligiblity for
industrial capacity, and the Senate bill, which repealed ICR but
added iCE. Public law 96—4S3 retained ICE, but delayed the effective
date of exclusion to November 15, 1981. It also required the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to prepare and submit to Congress by
March 15, 1981, a study on the effects of the ICE provision.
2635
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—117
[ page 8]
EPA transmitted its report to Congress on March 13, 1981. The
study concluded that the industrial cost exclusion would cause a finan-
cial ‘hardship for a large number of communities and that savings to
the Federal Treasury could very well be exceeded by the costs of the
delays caused by requinng cities to revise their plans and negotiate
new agreements with their industries.
The effects of the industrial cost exclusion provision, as shown in the
report of the Environmental Protection Agency, are set forth in de-
tail in House Report. No. 97—90, which accompanied the bill H.R. 2957.
On the basis of the EPA study, the testimony of all those concerned,
and our own examination of the issue, the Committee concludes that
the industrial cost exclusion should be repealed. All available evidence
indicates that it is arbitrary, inequitable, and not likely to produce
significant cost savings to the Federal government.
SECTiON 4
This section directs the Administrator to encourage and assist. ap-
plicants for grant assistance to develop and file with the Administrator
capital financing plans which will, at a minimum, project the appli-
cants requirements for waste treatment for at least 10 years; pro)ect
the nature, extent, timing and costs of necessary expansion and recon-
struction of treatment works within the applicant’s jurisdiction; and
set forth the manner in which the applicant inten ds to finance such
expansion and reconstruction.
Section 201(d) of existing law established as a goal of the grants
program that “the Administrator shall encourage waste treatment.
management which results in the construction of revenue producing
facilities . . .“. The Committee has been concerned for some time that
grant-assisted municipalities are not. establishing financial plans ade-
quate to insure that projects will be able to operate successfully and
without. further Federal financial assistance. If this is the case, then
achievement of the goals of the Act may recede into the indefinite
future, for wastewater treatment will continually fall behind treat-
ment needs as those systems fail to generate the revenues required to
ensure their continued operation, expansion, and reconstruction.
Section 4 builds on the concept contained in Section 201(d) of
existmg law. It will provide necessary encouragement and assistance
to applicants to address and anticipate future needs and to identify
ways of meeting them. The development of these plans will also pro-
vide valuable information on the needs of various communities in
relation to their financial resources and abilities to either meet these
needs or adjust them to meet applicable budgetary circumstances.
Current Federal budgetary constraints are causing a reduction in
the level of funding assistance that can be expected from the Federal
Government for the construction grants program. Thus, it is impor-
tant that planning be initiated to deal with the question of how the
next generation of municipal sewage treatment plants will be built
and financed.
Generally speaking, there has been an inadequate attempt by grant-
ees to forecast long-term capital needs and to identify potential financ-
ing to cover those needs. Most grantee revenue systems now in place are
2636
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97-117
[ page 9]
designed to repay past obligations (debt service) and to provide for
actual annual operation and maintenance expense. Few grantee reve-
nue systems are designed to accommodate the major system improve-
ments and rehabilitation that will be required in the future. The
absence of this long-term planning constitutes a serious obstacle to
achievement of economic self-sufficiency for local sewage treatment
programs.
Section 4 will provide a means for the Administrator to encourage
this type of long-term planning. The Committee notes that the pro-
vision does not authorize the Administrator to require such financial
planning as a prerequisite to approval of a grant: rather, it simply
authorizes the encouragement of such planning and the providing of
appropriate technical assistance.
SEcmoN 5
Subsection (a) of Section 5 provides that the Fiscal Year 1982
grant funds shall be allotted by the Administrator not later than the
tenth day after the date of enactment of the Act.
Subsection (b) extends the existing formula for allotment of con-
struction grant funds among the States through Fiscal Year 1982.
The Administration proposed that the allotment formula be changed
to reflect only the needs for secondary and more advanced treatment
and new interceptors to serve 1980 population levels as set forth in
the 1980 Needs Survey. The Committee feels that before a new allot-
ment formula is adopted, a new needs survey should be prepared
reflecting the changes made in the Committe&s bill. This is provided
for in Section 20. in the meantime, the best course is to continue with
the present allotment formula which was worked out after consider-
able discussions in 1977 and which is familiar and understandable.
In 1982 the Congress will then be in a position to consider the adoption
of a new allotment formula based on new and mbre valid information.
Subsection (c) extends through Fiscal Year 1982 the provision
that no State shall receive less than one-half of one percentuni of the
total allotment, except that in the case of Guam, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Trust Territories not more than thirty-
three one hundredths of one percentum in the aggregate shall be
allotted to all four of these jurisdictions. The authorization for the
appropriation of not to exceed $15 million per year for this provision
is continued through Fiscal Year 1982.
SECTION 0
This section provides that for Fiscal Year 1982 not to exceed 4
percent of the total amount authorized for construction grants ($2.4
billion) is authorized to be reserved for making grants to States for
the costs of administering provisions of the Act relating to the grants
program which have been delegated to the States. The 1977 Amend-
ments provided for a reservation of 2 percent of the total authoriza-
tion ($5 billion) which came out to $100 million a year for admin-
istration. The l)erCentage for Fiscal Year 1982 is changed to 4 percent
to reflect the reduced fundmg level of $2.4 billion for that year and
2637
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L 97—117
[ page 10]
to assure that close to $100 million per year will still be available in
order to allow continued management of the program by participating
States at a stable level. This provision continues the policy of encourag-
ing the States to exercise their primary responsibilities and rights in
water pollution control. The Committee expects the delegation of
program management to the States begun under the 1977 Amend-
ments to continue and expand. By supporting development of viable
management capability at the State level, the provision will enable
the States to better meet their appropriate responsibilities in achiev-
ingthe goals of the Act.
The Administration’s legislative proposal would require that the
amount set aside for a State be a percentage of an amount equal to
the sum of the unexpected obligations and the unobligated allotment
available to a State at. the beginning of the fiscal year in which the
grant is to be made, or $400,000, whichever amount is greater. The
Committee did not adopt this recommendation because it would result
in a fluctuating level of funding for the administration of functions
delegated to the States. The amount of money would go up and down
depending on the amount of unexpended obligations and the unobli-
gated allotment in each State. The States’ responsibilities, however,
under a partially or wholly delegated grant program do not vary in
proportion to how much unobligated or unspent money is available
at the beginning of a fiscal year. Neither do those responsibilities
lessen when the amount of Federal funding assistenee for the pro-
gram is reduced. In fact, exactly the opposite may well occur. To
the extent that Federal financial support for the construction grants
program is lowered, States and municipalities will be expected to
assume increased responsibility for piograin financing and adminis-
tration, and their need for strong management capabilities corre-
spondingly will be increased. Furthermore, a fundamental goal of
the delegation process is to eliminate duplicative review and shorten
the lengthy process by encouraging better program management. Ade-
quate State management capabilities and funding levels are key to
this goal. The Committee believes that the Administration’s proposal
could discourage good management practices. States could be tempted
to retain high unexpended obligations and unobligated allotments at
the beginning of a fiscal year in order to obtain higher funding. This
would be contrary to proper management of the program.
It is important that a consistent level of funding be provided to
ensure stability in State programs. This will better enable the States
to obtain and keep qualified personnel and to maintain a stable orga-
nization capable of an orderly scheduling and performance of ac-
tivities for which the States are responsible. The Committee has,
therefore, retained the concept of basing the level of funding for State
delegated activities on the authorized amount provided for the con-
struction grants program.
SECTION 7
This section extends the set-aside for increasing the Federal grant
share from 75 to 85 percent for innovative and alternative technology
through Fiscal Year 1982. It also amends the existing 3 percent man-
datory set-asIde to provide that the set-aside shall be not less than
2638
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 11]
3 percent nor more than 5 percent. The amount of any increase be.
tween 3 and 5 percent will be at the determination of the Governor
of the State.
The Administration recommended that the set-aside be made dis-
cretionary on the part of the Governor. The Committee feels that re-
tention of a mandatory set-aside is advisable to continue the encour-
agement provided for innovative and alternative technology. While
the 3 percent is retained as a minimum amount, the set-aside may be
increased to a level between 3 anti 5 percent at the determination of
a Governor of a State. This provides more flexibility to the States in
determining to what degree innovative and alternative technology
should be encouraged and utilized within a State.
Subsection (b) of Section 7 extends the authority for the increased
Federal share for innovative and alternative technology through
Fiscal Year 1982. It also amends the innovative and alternative tech-
nology provision to state that any component of a treatment works is
eligible for the increased share if that component is innovative or
alternative. The law presently requires that a significant portion of
the treatment works utilize innovative or alternative technology if
that portion is to be eligible for the increased grant. The purpose of
the Committee’s provision is to expand this concept so that a lesser
portion of a treatment works can be eligible for increased innovative
and alternative funding. It is not intended to overturn the existing
practice of providing the increased funding for an integrated unit,
such as a unit process, when its innovative nature results from the
utilization of new features such as an energy and cost saving rotor
in an activated sludge tank, in this case the improved unit—the tank
together with the new rotor—could be funded at. the higher share.
Subsection (c) of Section 7 removes the existing prohibition in
the law against providing the higher Federal grant share for in-
novative and alternative technology relat ng to collector and inter-
ceptor sewers, major sewer rehabilitation, and storm or sanitary
sewers. This prohibition discourages the development of innovative
and alternative technology in these areas and is, therefore, considered
inappropriate
As one example. the Committee received testimony and other infor-
mation indicating that innovative processes for the correction of
infiltration and inflow problems are being developed which show a
potential for significantly decreasing the costs and increasing the
effectiveness of this type of work. The prohibition against a higher
grant share for this type of innovative technology is counterprotjuc
tive. The Committee feels that it is important to encourage innovative
and alternative technology for all aspects of an overall treatment
system. This will assist in achieving the maximum degree of improve-
ment in water quality at a lower cost. The Committee wishes to point
out that subsection (c) of Section 7 does not add any new categories
of eligibility. It only provides that, where a particular treatment
works is otherwise grant eligible, an increased grant share can be
provided for innovative and alternative technology. It does not alter
any other provisions of the Act which may limit grant eligibility for
various types of treatment works,
2639
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—117
[ page 12]
S CTJON 8
This section amends Section 204(a) (6) of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. Section 204(a) (6) requires that the Administrator,
before approving a grant for a treatment works, shall determine that
no specification for bids in connection with such works shall be written
in such a manner as to contain proprietary, exclusionary or discrimi-
natory requirements other than those based on performance. un]ess
such requirements are necessary to test or demonstrate a specific thing
or to provide for necessary interchangeability of parts and equipment,
or at least two bra.nd names or trade names of comparable quality or
utility are listed and are followed by the words “or equal”.
Section 8 changes the “two brand names or equal” requirement by
providing that when, in the judgment of the grantee, it. is impractical
or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the tech-
thea] requirement, a “brand name or equal” description may be used as
a means to define the performance or other salient requirements of a
procurement. In doing so the grantee need not establish the existence
of any source other than the brand or source so named.
Section 8 incorporates the principle contained in 0MB Circular
A—102 which provides that procurement solicitations or specifications
should incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical
requirements for the material, product or service to be procured. W’lien
it is impractical or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate descrip-
tion of the technical requirements, “brand name or equal” description
may be used as a means to deflnb the performance or other salient
requirements of a procurement. The specific features of a named brand
which must be met by offerors must be clearly stated. The change from
“two brand names or equal” to “one brand name or equal” is designed
to remove difficulties encountered where it is not practical to name
more than one brand or it is not reasonably ascertainable whether
there is more than one brand. The requirement for the words “or
equal” together with the requirement in 0MB Circular A—102 that
the specific features of the name brand which must be met shall be
clearly stated preserve the opportunity to offerors to demonstrate that
their product is in fact equal to the named item. It. is not designed to
allow proprietary specifications when the characteristics of the named
product are not related to demonstrated requirements of the grantee.
SECTiON 9
This section amends Section 205 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act by adding a provision which creates a set-aside of one
percent of each State’s allotted grant funds or $l00.000, whichever
amount is irreater, to be used to make grants to the States to carry out
water quality management planning. Among other things, this plan-
ning is to include the identification of the most cost-effective and local-
iy acceptable measures for treatment works and non-point sources to
meet and maintain water quality standards; the development of an
implementation plan to obtain State and local financial and regulatory
commitments to implement such measures; and the determination of
the nature, extent and causes of water quality problems in various
2640
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PL 97—117
[ page 13]
areas of the state and interstate region. In carrying out planning under
this provision, each State shall develop jointly with local, regional
and interstate entities a plan for carrying out its water quality man-
agement planning program. The State must also give funding priority
to such entities and designated or undesignated public comprehensive
planning organizations to carry out the purposes of the provision.
Experience with a broad variety of Federal programs teaches that
the need for planning increases inversely with the amount of funding
available. This is particularly true for the construction grants pro-
gram which this year will sustain massive cuts in the authorization
level. Section 9 maintains the ongoing wastewater management plan-
ning process by providing 1 percent of the construction grants funds
for State and areawide management efforts. In writing this section,
the Committee underscores its intent that the planning process be
funded at an adequate level. Further, the Committee intends that
States develop and continue the water quality management process,
giving funding priority to existing designated areawide waste treat-
ment management planning organizations, and to similar, presently
undesignated public comprehensive planning organizations, adequate
to maintain or create areawide management capacity.
SECTION 10
This section directs the Administrator to allot to the State of New
York from Fiscal Year 1982 funds an amount necessary to pay the
cost of conveying sewage from the Convention Center o the City of
New York to the Newtown Sewage Tieatment Plant in Brooklyn. This
provision was included in H.R. 2957 which passed the House May 28,
1981.
SECTION 11
This section provides an authorization of $2.4 billion for the con-
struction grants progra rn for Fiscal Year 1982.
SECTION 12
This section amends the definition of the term “construction” in
Section 212 of the Act to include as grant eligible under Title lithe
field testing of innovative or alternative wastewater treatment proc-
esses and techniques meeting guidelines promulgated under Section
304(d) (3). The purpose of this provision is to provide further en-
couragement for the development of such processes and techniques
and to better ensure that they will perform as planned.
otwithstanding the present financial incentives in the Act, fail-
ure. of an experiment process still carries the risk of redesign, delay
and cost overruns. Much of the risk lies in the fact that promising
innovations have had the benefit of only laboratory simulation or
small-scale field testing. Thus, there is a need for an additional
element of verification of hardware or processes in terms of their
performance capability, which in turn ‘aould provide the needed
increment of confidence which larger-scale field testing can provide
under the broadened definition of construction.
2641
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—117
[ page 14J
It is the,intent of this provision that, field testing of processes,
techniques and components be grant eligible under Step 1, the fa-
cility planning phase, and Step 2. the design phase.
The Committee recognizes that many communities will lack the
capability to perform themselves the field testing contemplated by
this provision, in such instances the Committee intends that such ap-
plicants may contract with large municipal or metropolitan waste-
water treatment agencies, or other entities, which have qualified
operating staffs, monitoring and analytical capabilities, and labora-
tories and other facilities, to carry out this work on a reimbursable
basis.
SECTION 13
This section expresses the policy of Congress that a project for waste
treatment and management undertaken with financial assistance
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall be considered
as an overall waste treatment system for waste treatment and manage-
ment, and shall be that system which constitutes the most economical
and cost-effective combination of treatment works to meet the re-
quirements of the Act. Jt also provides that water e cicncy meas-
ures and devices (conservation measures) are to be considered along
with all other alternatives in determining what overall system is
most cost-effective. In many cases, it may be more cost-effective to
use such measures than to build additional treatment capacity. Just
as with the correction of infiltration and inflow problems. conserva-
tion measures can reduce the flow of wastewater into municipal
treatment plants and reduce the amount of treatment capacity
needed.
It provides that the Administrator, before approving any Step 3
construction grant for treatment works, must determine that the
overall project of which the treatment works are a part is the
most cost effective combination of treatment works to meet the re-
quirements of the Act. This section applies to new projects which
have not yet received any Federal assistance and to projects which
are m the Step 1 planning phase. It does not apply in cases where a
Step 2 engineering design or a Step 3 construction grant has been
approved. Step 2 and Step 3 projects are not appropriate for manda-
tory inclusion in this provision as it could require a redesign or possi-
bly reconstruction, which would most likely add more costs through
delays than would be saved by additional cost-effectiveness analyses.
There is, however, no prohibition against applicants reexamining
their plans if they believe that in the long run money could be saved
through further cost analysis.
It is extremely important that an overall project for treatment of
municipal waste as described in Step 1 facility p]anninsr be regarded
as a system for the collection, treatment and ultimate disposal of the
wastes involved. Such an overall project or system includes a corn-
bination of treatment works as defined in Section 212(2) (A) and (B).
Treatment works include devices and systems used in the storage,
treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or in-
dustrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement Section 201 of this Act,
or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost over
2642
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 15]
the estimated life of the works, including intercepting sewers, outfall
sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping, power, and other equip-
ment, and their aPpurtenances; extension, improvements, remodeling,
additions, and alterations thereof; elements essential to provide a re-
liable recycled supply such as standby treatment units and clear well
facilities; and any works, including site acquisition of the land that
will be sri integral part of the treatment process (including land use
for the storage of treated wastewater in land treatment systems prior
to land application) or is used for ultimate disposal of residues result-
ing from such treatment; and any other method or system for pre-
venting, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating, or disposing
of municipal waste, including storm water runoff, or industrial waste,
including waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems;
to meet the requirements of this Act.
Section 13 will ensure that the combination of treatment works
selected for the overall treatment system will be the most economical
and cost effective over the life of the project, taking into account con-
struction, operation, maintenance and replacement costs. Other fac-
tors, including nonmonetary or nonquantifiable factors such as pri-
mary and secondary environmental effects, implementation capability,
operability, performance reliability and flexibility, may also be in-
cluded. The provision is designed to ensure that the highest degree
of pollution control is achieved with the limited financial resources
available. It will require the use of recognized engineering and eco-
nomic estimating techniques, such as value engineering, in order to
make sure that. the various treatment: works chosen are in fact the
most economical ones attainable which will deliver the required per-
formance.
SECTION 14
This section is designed to expedite the consideration of grant a.ppli-
cations and.to eliminate duplication of effort b’ EPA and the States.
It provides that ss’here a State has been delegated sufficient authority
to administer the construction grants program under Title II. the
Governor may certify to the Administrator that a grant application
meets applicable requirements of State and Federal law. In such a case,
the Administrator must appprove or disapprove the grant application
within 30 days. If it is disapproved, the reasons for disapproval must
be set forth in writing. If no action at all is taken within 30 days, the
grant application is deemed to be approved. This provision should
also have the effect of encouraging States to seek increased delegation
of administration of Title II of the Act in order to ‘be eligible for the
expedited grant approval process.
SECTION m c
This section states that it is the policy of Congress that projects for
wastewater treatment and management undertaken with Federal
financial assistance under the Water Pollution Control Act shall be
projects which, in the estimation of the State, are designed to achieve
optimum water quality management consistent with the public health
and water quality goals and requirements of the Act. With the dimin-
i9hing financial resources expected to be available for implementation
2643
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—Ill
[ page 16]
of the Act, it is imperative that the projects to be built are those which
are most needed to meet the goals of the Act with regard to achieve-
ment of improved water quality. Under Section 15. this decision is left
with the State in accordance with the philosoph expressed in H.R.
4503 to oive more discretion in this program to the States which have
firslihan 2 knowledge of local water pollution problems.
SECTION 16
This section amends Section 301(h) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Acts which allows modifications of secondary treatment re-
quirements in the case of certain ooe tal communities discharging
treated wastewater through ocean outfalls into marine waters—pro-
vided environmental safeguards enumerated in the Act are complied
with—so as to allow additional communities to avail themselves of the
ocean discharge option as an alternative to full secondary treatment.
The section authorizes modifications of best practicable waste treat-
ment technology requirements for ocean disehargers able to inset the
same stringent environmental safeguards applicable to modifications
of secondary treatment requirements. It deletes from existing law a
restriction of eligibility to communities wihich had ocean discharges on
the date of enactment of the 1977 Act, and a requirement, in Section
301(j) (1), that app1i tions must be submitted within Q70 days of the
date of enactment of the 1977 Act. Section 16 also removes as redun-
dant a requirment in Section 301(h) (8) that construction grant funds
available to a community receiving a *aiver be used to provide second-
ary treatment and best practicable waste treatment technology or to
carry out the requirements of Section 301(h). Paragraph 8 is a.pplica-
ble only where grant funds are available, and when this is the case the
requirements of Title II apply in any event. FinaIly it clarifies orig-
inal Congressional intent that eligible applicants include communities
which have achieved secondary treatment capability.
Section 301(h) was added in 1977 in recognition of the fact that,
while high degrees of treatment remain necessary for discharges into
rivers, lakes and streams, some exception could be made for discharges
into certain ocean waters. Natural factors such as currents, tides, waves
and depth can in some cases combine to create circulation or flushing
action which rapidly disperses wastewater and its components. There-
fore, the Act was amended to allow existing ocean dischargers to seek,
with the concurrence of the State, a variance from full secondary treat-
ment contingent upon existence of water quality standards applicable
to the pollutants in question; protection of public water supplies and
a balanced, .ndigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and
recreational activities in and on the water; a system to monitor the
actual impact of resulting discharges on aquatic life; assurance that
modified cleanup requirements would not result in imposition of addi-
tional controls on other sources; enforcement of all applicable pre-
treatment requirements again industrial sources contributing wastes
to public treatment works; establishment of a program to eliminate
the entrance of toxics from nonindustrial sources into the treatment
works; and assurance that the applicant will not substantially increase
its discharge of pollutants. And. as noted above, applicants were re-
2644
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PL 97—117
[ page 17]
quired to submit their applications within 270 days of the date of
enactment, December 27, 1977.
EPA received 227 preliminary applications. The Agency took action
with respect to approximately 50 percent of those by exemptmg Native
Alaskan villages and small communities in the Trust Territories,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from the need to seek variances,
reasoning that they have more immediate public health needs. Of the
remainder, however, only 70 final applications were received. By the
time of the Committee markup of H.R. 4503, EPA had acted on only
eight applications; five were approved, a sixth approved in part, and
two denied. The other major applications will be acted on in groups
according to a timetable extending into late 1982, with the remainder
deferred still longer.
Since 1977, several factors have prompted the Committee to reexam-
ine the issue of whether existing Section 301 (h) might be unnecessaril
restrictive. Engineering advances have been made in recent years whic
have led to improvements in outfall design achieving rapid dilution,
in the ability to predict the dispersal patterns of outfall discharges,
and in monitoring capability to analyze environmental effects. In
addition, there have been continuing increases in capital costs to
achieve full secondary treatment 1 reduction in Federal funding levels,
and rising operating costs. In view of these factors, and in order to
achieve needed savings in the cost of treatment of municipal wastes,
the Committee considers it desirable to make the option of ocean dis-
charges available where it can be shown that unacceptable adverse
environmental effects will not result. EPA has estimated a total saving
of $2 billion if the 1arge t 30 of the total 70 applications are approved
and less than secondary treatment is required. The State of California
has estimated that the granting of all 12 variance requests submitted
in that State alone would save $997 million.
With respect to communities which have achieved secondary treat-
ment, the legislative history of 1977 Act clearly demonstrates that
such communities were to be eligible to apply for and receive variances
under Section 301(h). EPA’s regulations denying eligibility to such
communities were successfully challenged in one U.S. Court of Ap-
peals. Section 16 of the bill affirms the original Congressional intent
with regard to this matter. This will remove any doubt as to the
eligibility of communities such as Avalon, California, which, as noted
by GAO, “appears to be ideally suited for a waiver and could sub-
stantially benefit from the resulting reduced O&M expenses.”
While GAO has estimated that approximately 800 communities
located within a half-mile of their coastal waters might in theory be
considered applicants, the Committee anticipates no such prolifera-
tion of ocean discharges from the expansion of eligibility in Section
16. Testimony ha indicated that small systems in the 1 to 10 million
gallons-per-day range might well find secondary treatment cheaper
and more cost eflective than outfall construction, because treatment
capacity costs rise roughly in proportion to increases in wastewater
load. Potential revisions in secondary treatment requirements, now
under consideration by EPA, could reduce costs by an aggregate $1.2
billion or more, further diminishing the incentive of some comxnuni-
2645
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97-117
[ page 18]
ties to seek ocean waivers as an alternative to full secondary. More-
over, like all other construction financed under Title II, outfall and
related projects remain subject to the requirements that innovative
and alternative technology options. including the recycling and rec-
lamation of treated wastewater, be considered. Also limiting the
number of successful applicants—and the environmental impact of
their ocean discharges—is the fact that the substantive environmental
requirements of Section 301(h) remain intact.
It should be noted that the extent of treatment required of success-
ful applicants will likewise have a limiting effect. The choice confront-
ing the coastal community and both environmental and economic terms
is not between primary and secondary treatment, but between the
level of treatment required by water quality standards. plus ocean out-
fall construction, versus full secondary treatment. For example, in
California, water quality standards are embodied in the State Ocean
Plan, which will require capital expenditure of roughly $1.2 billion
for improved treatment. This can take the form of increasing the
proportion of a treatment works’ discharge subjected to secondary
treatment, enhanced settlement of solids in wastewater known as
“advanced primary,” br a combination of both.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that existing
Section 301(h) is unnecessarily restrictive. Failure to broaden eligi-
bility as provided in Section 16 of H.R. 4503 risks requiring treatment
for treatment’s sake, involving the expendit ire of funds which could
be better used to achieve additional water quality benefits elsewhere.
This provision does not grant varinnces. It simply allows variances
to be sought with the burden on the applicant to make its case on
environmental grounds.
SECTION 17
This section deals with reserve capacity. Under existing law, ade-
quate reserve capacity, generally at least 20 years, is required to be
included in publicly owned treatment works and this reserve capacity
is eligible for grant assistance. The Administration has recommended
the elimination of grant assistance for all reserve capacity. Its pro-
posal would limit Federal assistance to treatment capacity required
to meet 1980 populat ion levels.
This section would retain existing grant assistance for reserve capac-
ity in those projects which are presently receiving Step 2 design or
Step 3 construction grant assistance. For projects which have not yet
received any grant assistance, or are in Step 1 planning. it would limit
such assistance to a reserve capacity representing 10 years of projected
growth. The 10 years would be measured from the date of the first
application for grant assistance.
The term “project” as used in this section encompasses the overall
project as set forth in a Step 1 facility plan. Hence. any project which
had received a segmented Step 2 grant would not have its fundable
reserve capacity limited to ten years, but instead would continue tobe
funded under existing law. Projects which have been funded with
State monies in lieu of Federal grants would be treated the same as
projects receiving Federal grant assistance. The provisions in the Act
requiring inclusion of adequate reserve capacity remain unchanged.
2646
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 19]
SECTION 18
This section deals with categories of treatment works which are
eligible for grant assistance. Present law provides assistance for treat-
ment plants, interceptor and collector sewers, correction of infiltra-
tion/inflow problems, rehabilitation of sewers, and correction of com-
bined sewer overflow problems. The Administration’s proposal would
limit grant assistance to treatment plants and interceptor sewers.
This section retains Federal grant assistance for presently eligible
categories for all projects currently receiving assistance under the Act.
For new projects which have not yet received any Federal assistance,
up to 30 percent of a State’s yearly allotment under the Act, as deter-
mined by the Governor, could be used for categories such as correction
of combined sewer overflows, sewer rAhabilitation and construction of
qualifying collector systems. This provision is designed to continue the
States’ discretion and flexibility in deciding how their money should
be spent to meet their particular problems. For all projects, correction
of infiltration/inflow problems would remain grant eligible where it
represents a cost-effective alternative. As in Section 17, the term proj-
ect encompasses the overall project described in the Step 1 facility
plan, and State-f unded Step 1 and 2 projects are treated the same as
those which are Federally funded. The categories which remain eligi-
ble for Federal assistapce within the 30-percent limitation are oriiy
those categories which are eligible under the provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as it exists prior to the date of enactment
of H.R. 4503. No new categories of eligibility are added.
SECTION 19
This section states that it is the sense of Congress that judicial notice
be taken of the amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act and the other provisions contained in H.R. 4503, and that the
parties to Federal consent decrees establishing a schedule for construc-
tion of publicly owned treatment works are encouraged to reexamine
the provisions of such consent decrees and, where required by equity,
to make appropriate adjustments in such provisions. This is designed
to encourage consideration of the impact of reduced funding levels on
the scheduled completion dates of projects under a consent decree.
SECTION 20
This section directs the Administrator of EPA to submit to Con-
gress not, later than June 30, 1982. a p ç i epo .t of the costs of meeting
the requirement.s of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
amended by H.R. 4503 for discharges of municipal waste. This is the
so-called “needs’ sui-vev which EPA is required to submit to Congress
every two vea . This section will provide Congress with a revised
estimate of needs reflecting the changes in the program made by the
bill. In preparing this report, the Administrator is to give emphasis to
the effects of Section 18 of the bill in addressing water quality needs
adequately and appropriately.
2647
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—117
[ page 201
SECTION 21
This section provides that the project for pubhcly owned treatment
works for Bath Township, Michigan, shall be eligible for payments
from sums allotted to the State of Michigan in an amount equal to the
amount such works would be eligible for under the Act. if the project
had been constructed with Federal grant assistance. The amount to be
paid would be limited to the appropriate Federal share of the actual
construction cost at the tune it was ori inall constructed. Bath Town-
ship was compelled to proceed with this project by court order with its
own funds at a time when Federal funds were being impounded. Had
it not been for these most unusual circumstances, the project would
have been constructed with the usual 75-percent. Federal share. This
section is designed tocorrectthis inequity.
OTIIEIi COHMENTS
The implementing a .greeinents for the Great Lakes Water Quality
Treaty with Canada. are presently under consideration for approval.
The Committee notes that. these agreements could result in higher
treatment costs for municipalities. Since these costs would be incurred
to meat treaty requirements which are more a Federal than a local
responsibility, the Committee intends to monitor this ma.tter and to
look into it in the future as warranted.
The Committee is also aware that. the Envitomnental Protection
Agency is presently reconsideringr lts regulatory definition of second-
ary treatment. Plus oflers a potential for addressing the water quality
problems of both urban and rural communities in a manner consistent
with the cost-effecfive requirements bet forth in Section 13 of the bill.
The Committee intends that. this e.flort. be undertaken with a view
toward achieving the water quality goals of the Act in the niost cost-
effective manner.
Co PuANcs Wrrix Ci. tsE 2(1) OF RULE XI OF THE HousE OF
REPREsE NmTWE S
(1) With reference to clause 2(1) (3) (A) of rule XI of the House
of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
held hearings on subjects including the construction grants program
on June 18, 19. 24, 25, and 26, 1980. The conclusions of the Subcom-
mittee based on those hearings are contained in Committee Print
96—71, “Implementation of the Federal WTater Pollution Control Act.”
Additional hearings concerning the construction grants program were
held on March 19, 1981; May 18, 1981; July 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23,
1981; and September 8, 1981. In addition, the Subcommittee on Water
Resources held hearings on the subject matter of this legislation, which
hearings resulted in the reported bill.
(2) With respect to clause 2(1) (3) (B) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, H.R. 4503, as reported, does not provide
new budget authority or increase tax expenditures. Accordingly, a.
statement puisuant to Section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act is not required.
2648
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PL 97—117
[ page 21]
(3) ‘With reference to clause 2(1) (3) (C) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee has received a report
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act. The report is as follows:
U.S. CoNoaxas,
CoNoaxssIoNAL Buncn r OrncE,
Wa8hin.gton, D.C., October 9,1981.
Hon. JA f Es J. HowARD,
Chairman, Committee on Ptthlic Work8 and 7’ran8portation, Wa. h.ing-
ton, D.C.
D a Ma. CHAIaiAN: Pursuant to Section 403 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, the Congressional Budget Office has prepared the
attaclied revised cost estimate for H.R. 4503, the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act Amendments of 1981.
Should the Committee so desire, we would be pleased to provide
further details on this estimate.
Sincerely,
ALICE M. Rivu , Director.
CoNoREssIoNAL Buixim OmcE—.CosT EsTnfAn
1. Bill number: H.R. 4503
2. Bill title: Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1981
3. Bill status: As or ered reported by the House Committee on
Public Works and Transportation, September 30, 1981.
4. Bill purpose: This bill authorizes the appropriation of $2.4 billion
for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) municipal waste-
water treatment construction grants program for fiscal year 1982. (The
initial fiscal year 1981 appropriation was $3.3 billion, of which $0.8
billion was later rescinded.) The 1982 funds are to be allotted among
the states no later than ten days after nassage of this act in accord
with the existing formula, the use of wciich the bill extends through
fiscal year 1982.
The Administrator of the EPA is directed to encourage and assist
grant applicants to develop capital financing plans which detail antic-
ipated waste treatment requirements for at least ten years and in-
tended financing methods to accommodate such needs. Under current
law, sewage treatment facilities eligible for grant assistance must allow
for needed reserve capacity—generally adequate for the next 20 years.
This bill would limit grant assistance for reserve capacity to the
anticipated needs for the ten years following the date of first applica-
tion for assistance.
The bill repeals the prohibition against the use of federal construc-
tion grant funds to provide capacity in municipal treatment plants for
treating, storing, or conveying a flow of more than 50 thousand gallons
per day of any industrjaf user’s waste. That restriction was added to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) in October 1980,
and was to become effective November 15, 1981.
2649
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—ill
[ page 22]
The current provision for 85 peicent federal funding of l)rOJeCtS
that use innovative or alternative processes and techniques is extended
through fiscal year 1982. The existing set-aside of 3 percent of funds
allotted to each state for such alternative and inno ative p1 ograms is
amefl(led to provide for a minimum of 3 percent and a maximum of 5
percent to be set aside for such purposes with the proportion to be
determined by the Go ernor o f each state. In addition, the 1”WPCA
is amended so that any innovative or alternative component of a treat-
ment project is specifically eligible for the increased federal financing
share; current law requires that a significant portion of a project uti-
lize innovati’ e or alternative technology in order to qualify for in-
creased federal funding.
The bill directs the Administrator of EPA to allot to the State of
New York the necessary funds, from 19S2 appropriations, to convey
sewage from the New York Convention Center to the Newtown Sewer
Treatment Plant in Brooklyn 1 New York.
Finally, the bill directs the Administrator of EPA to submit a ic-
port to the Congiess, no later than June 30, 19S2, detailing the costs
of meeting the requirements of FW’PCA, and taking into consideration
the provisions of the amendments made by the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1981. Under current law the Admin-
istrator is required to submit a similar report (known as a needs sur-
vey) by February 10 of odd-numbered years.
5. Cost estimate:
Authorization level:
Fiscal year. M lUona
19S
19S3
1984
198i
19S6
Estimated outlays
Fiscal year:
1982 20
1983 300
1984 660
620
1986
Including outlays from previous years’ appropriations, total 1982
construction grant outlays are estimated to be $3.9 billion, assuming
the authorized funding level.
The estimated cost to EPA. of compiling the needs survey report
required by this act to be submitted by June 30. 1982, is approximately
$1 million.
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
6. Basis of estimate: The authorization level is that stated in the bill.
Public Law 97—51, which makes continuing appropriations for fiscal
year 1982, provided $2.4 billion for the construction grants program,
contingent upon enactment of reform legislation and a subsequent 1982
budget request. For purposes of this cost estimate, it was assumed that
H.R. 4503 would be enacted and the entire $2.4 billion authorization
would be appropriated by December 1, 1981, under the conditions pre-
scribed in the continuing resolution or in some other form.
The estimated outlays of the construction grant funds are based on
historical spending patterns for the program, foi which projects often
2650
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 23]
taken seven or more years to complete. Various provisions in the bill
might result in faster or slower outlay rates but the net effect of these
provisions cannot be determined with accuracy.
Several provisions in the bill, such a the repeal of industrial cost
exclusion and the limit on federal grant assistance for reserve capacity,
might significantly affect the demand for construction grant funds in
future years. As a result, appropriated grant funds under this bill will
be spent on projects somewhat different in nature from those projects
which would have received grants in the absence of these amendments.
The cost of conveying sewage from the New York City Convention
Center to the New town Sewer Treatment Plant in Brooklyn, New
York is estimated to be $1.2 million spent over two years. This money
is to come from the $2.4 billion 1982 appropriations.
7. Estimate comparison: None.
8. Previous CBO estimate: On October 7, 1981, the Congressional
Budget Office transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 4503 that incorrectly
stated that the current authorization for the EPA construction grant
program is $5 billion. That authorization was repealed by the Recon-
ciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 9 —35). This estimate supersedes the
previous CBO estimate.
A cost estimate of the Senate version of the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1981 was prepared for the Senate Committee on En-
vironment and Public Works on October 7, 1981.
The House and Senate versions of the Clean Water Act Amend-
ments of 1981 differ in many regards. The Senate bill authorizes $2.4
billion for the wastewater treatment ionstructioii grant program in
each of fiscal years 1982 through 1985, and an additional $200 million
annually in fiscal years 1983 and beyond for the correction of combined
sewer overflows into marine bays and sanctuaries. H.R. 4503 authorizes
the appropriation of $2.4 billion for the construction grant program
for fiscal year 1982 only and does not include an.additional authoriza-
tion for combined sewer overflow treatment grants. The House bill
authorizes the continued use of the exh ting allotment formula; the
Senate bill sets forth a new formula to be used in fiscal year 1982
through 1984.
The bills also have different provisions with regard to the industrial
cost exclusion provision of the Clean Water Act, the size of the set-
aside from a state’s allotment for increasing the federal share of inno-
vative and alternative projects, and the limitation on federal funding
of reserve capacity.
The Senate bill defers reimbursement for steps 1 and 2 grants until
after approval of a step 3 grant application beginning October 1, 1981.
The Senate bill also extends the municipal secondary treatment com-
pliance deadline from July 1, 1983 to July 1, 1988. The House bill does
not contain corresponding provisions. However, it directs the Ad-
ministrator of EPA to allot sufficient funds, from 1982 appropriations,
to the State of New York to convey sewage from the New York City
Convention Center to the Newtown Sewer Treatment Plant in Brook-
lyn, New York.
9. Estimate prepared by: Anne E. Hoff man.
10. Estimate approved by:
C. G. NucKot,s,
(For Jame8 L. Blum.,
A88i8tan Director for Budget Analy8i8).
2651
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97-Ill
[ page 24 ]
(4) With reference to clause 2(1) (4) of Rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the follov ing information is provided:
The effect of carrying out H.R. 4503, as reported, should be negligible
with respect to prices and costs. The bill continues an ongoing pro-
gram at a level considerably reduced from recent years. Authoriza-
tions for the program were $5 billion for each of 1980 and 1981; ap-
propriationS were $3.4 and $3.3 billion for those years, respectively.
COST or LEGIsLm0N
Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representa-
tives requires a statement of the estimated costs to the United States
which would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 4503, as reported, in
Fiscal Year 1982 and each of the following five years. The Committee
considers the estimates of costs in the report of the Congressional
Budget Office to be reasonable.
CoIMrrrEE AcTioN wn Voit
The Committee in compliance with rule XI(2) (1) (2) (A) reports
favorably the bill H.R. 4503, as amended. The Committee ordered the
bill reported by voice vote.
[ page 25]
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB EDGAR
ON H.R. 4503
In reporting H.R. 4503, the ‘Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1981, th House Public Works and Transportation Commit-
tee gives the 97th Congress one of its first opportunities to consider
a key environmental and water policy issue. As we move into an era
of greater restraint on federal spending and shift more responsibili-
ties to state and local governments we face a great challenge in pre-
serving the commitments to clean water that. we have made over the
past decade.
I believe that we are also moving into an era in which water policy
generally will become a critical national issue. In H.R. 4503 we are
dealing with infrastructure problems relating to water quality. In
the coming years we will increasingly face problems in the area of
water supply. In the Sunbelt projects will be needed to supply water
for growth in dry regions. In the Northeast and Midwest neglected
water supply infrastructure must be repaired and rebuilt. In this con-
struction grants bill we have an early opportunity to deal with these
types of problems using the limited means that will be available over
the coming years.
Water problems may present the next great resource crisis for our
nation. I believe we are going to have to reevaluate past policies in
light of threatened water shortages and limited budgets. Policies
which in the past fostered unlimited or ill-planned growth will have
to be amended. The needs of older regions and localities will have to
2652
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
be addressed along with the needs of new cities and growing regions.
Though we are not now dealing with the requirements and sanctions
of the Clean ‘Water Act, in the future we will have to provide the
flexibility and reasonable guidance needed by the states under an
austere construction Fants program.
I have had two chief concerns during the committee’s consideration
of the 1981 construction ‘rants bill—both of which have been ad-
dressed by amendments wI iich the subcommittee and full committee
have accepted. I appreciate the patience of my committee colleagues in
listening to m concerns and accepting my suggestions. I want to take
this opportunity to further explain my concerns for the committee
report.
Basically, I am interested first in the flexibility of the program and
next in the need to target the limited funds we are authorizing to ad-
dress public health and water quality needs. The House Water Re-
source Subcommittee partially ar re:; 1 the flexibility issue in the
initial draft of HR. 4302. Adclri --ing ti Administration’s proposal
for arbitrary elimination of cerLin elt ible categories, the subcom-
mittee retained eligibility for all funded projects in currently eligible
categories, while providing up to 30 l)ercent of a state’s construction
grants funds for such P1O]eCtS in the future.
[ page 261
It. is my concern, however, that the. 30 percent figure is also some-
what arbitrary. This provision again seems to leave open the possi-
bility that, the states wil be restricted from spending their allotments
on the most cost-effective or necessary categories. For example, my
committee colleague, Congrestman Buddy Roemer, raised concerns
about infiltration/inflow needs in Louisiana (later addressed in an
amendment); I, myself, am concerned about the rehabilitation needs
of the Northeastern and Midwestern states. Since no one could argue
that a 30 percent set-aside would be adequate or appropriate for the
needs of various states, the subcommittee agreed that the 30 percent
figure should be studied by the EPA in the process of compiling a new
needs survey ma.ndat.ecl by H.R. 4503.
The Administration’s approach to the eligible category issue, like
its approach to the meserve capacity issue, does not really constitute
a thoughtful reform, in my view. Both the Senate and House commit-
tees have moved in the direction of providing greater flexibility than
the Administration proposes, especially for projects already funded
and in the development phase. The House subcommittee’s “cost-effec-
tiveness” provision, Sec. 11 of the committee print of HR. 4503, is a.
key provision in this regard.
Another critical issue which concerns me in this legislation is the
need for targeting the limited funds we are proposing to make avail-
able under an austere 1981 construction grants orogram. The full
committee adopted an amendment I offered which states the policy
of Congress on public health and water quality benefits. I believe such
a statement to be absolutely necessary in the face of criticism of the
construction grants program, the Administration’s request for pro-
grain reform, and the $ .4 billion authorization level.
There had been some apprehension that a statement of this nature
in H.R. 4503 would be inflexible for the states or would indicate a bias
2653
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97-117
toward urban areas. This was not my intent, and I believe the purpose
of the public hca.lth and water quality provision was clearly estab-
lished in discussion at the committee mark-up. By adding this section
to the bill, we simply tell the states what Congress wants from the
construction grants program. Common sense dictates that limited
funds should go to clean up dirty water, and we should take this leg-
islative opportunity to reiterate this point.
I think that we can trust the states to clean up the water if we clearly
tall them what the construction grantsprogram is all about. Reviewing
the history of the Clean Water Act, I have found that Congress has
too often sent conflicting signals in the past. This is a critical period
for the construction grants program, and we must express clearly to
the states and the public what the construction grants program is all
about.
My amendment clearly addresses the Administration’s demand for
reform of the program. It parallels provisions in a coinmittee-ap-
proved Senate bill a.ddressin public health and water quality bene-
fits, though the Senate bill is ur,warrantedly intrusive in directing
the State s procedures for drawing up their project priority lists. Al-
though I definitely do not share the Administration’s desire to focus
the construction grants program on urban water needs or on any
arbitrary region or locality, I do believe that we must make a ma.xi-
[ page 27]
mum effort to address existing public healtl and water quality needs
wherever they eixst. I think the House Public Works and Transporta-
tion Committee has acted responsibly on this bill and we ought to
state our concerns about water quality to the Administration and to
the Public.
As this legislation moves through the Congress, I believe that respon-
sibility will ultimately rest with the Reagan Administration to approve
funding for the construction grants program. Despite President Rea-
gaii’s March pledge to budget $2.4 billion for a reformed program,
many of us in Congress have been concerned about the possibility of
reaching a concensus on this issue. Having been part of the process
of examining the Administration’s proposals on the program, I am
familiar with the close but fair scrutiny we gave these proposals. Water
Resources Subcommittee Chairman Bob Roe and other subcommittee
members have pointed out the obvious difficulties with the Administra-
tion’s program changes, but we have stuck by the President’s proposed
funding level of $2.4 billion. I hope that we can expect the same con-
sideration and cooperation from the Administration when Congress
offers this bill in final form to the President.
2654
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 28]
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF’ MR. OBERSTAR AND MR. EDGAR
We regret the Coniiiiittce’s dern.ion to approve the language in Sec.
16(a) removing the current requirement that a marine outfall be in
existence as of the date of enactment of the 1977 amendments in or-
dci’ to qualify for a waiver of secondary treatment. i equireinents. ‘We
offer a cautionary thought: this provision may encourage open-ended
discharges of ‘vastes into the ocean on the pai t of communities which
might not otherwise consider resorting to the ocean as the final rest-
ing ground for their wastes.
‘I’lie May, 198], General Accounting Office report, “Billions Could
Be Saved Through Waivers for Coastal Wastewater Treatment
Plants,” while noting potential savings, also identifies 846 cominu-
nities within half a mile of all U.S. coastlines, including 13 heavily
industrialized in unicipalities—616 more than filed preliminary waiver
applications—which may be encouraged into ocean discharge by relax-
ing the limitations on applying for a secondary waiver.
We submit that the cumulative impact of hundreds of new ocean
discharges will be disastrous to sensitive nearshore waters.
We. therefore urge the Environmental Protection Agency in follow-
ing the intent of I [ .R. 4503. and in its legitimate efforts to avoid
“treatment for treatment’s sake.” to assure that the conditions de-
sci’ibed in Sec. 01(h) (1) through (7) are vigilantly adhered to.
Of equally grave impact for the future, we believe, is the deletion of
Sec. 301 ( Ii) (8). hic ’h cui’m’entlv requires that alternative vaste man-
agemnent techniques. iicli as recycling. groundwater recharge, and on-
land d 15 1 )osal. be fully evaluated dtii’ing the waiver application I)roc-
ess. At a time when adequate supplies of fresh water are dwindling,
when cities are forced to draw water from farther and farther back
in the mountains, when saltwater intrusion, yawning sinkholes, and
newly discov recl grounciwate r conta minatior ’ are daily subjects of
news reporting, it. clearly seems as improvident to dispose of fresh
water in the ocean as it is imprudent to dispose of its contaminants
in that same receptacle.
2655
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97—117
HOUSE CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 97-408
*
[ page 13]
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMIITEE OF
CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4503) to amend the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act to authorize funds for fiscal year
1982, and for other purposes, submit the following joint statement
to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the
action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the ac-
companying conference report:
The Senate amendment struck out all of the House bill after the
enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
The House recedes frpm its disagreement to the amendment of
the Senate with an am ndment which is a substitute for the House
bill and the Senate amendment. The differences between the House
bill, the Senate amendment, and the substitute agreed to in confer-
ence are noted below, except for clerical corrections, conforming
changes made necessary by agreements reached by the conferees,
and minor drafting and clarifying changes.
SHORT TITLE
House bill
Provides that the Act may be cited as the “Federal Water Pollu.
tion Control Act Amendments of 1981”.
Senate amend rn.ent
Provides that the Act may be cited as the “Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1981”.
Conference substitute
Act may be cited as the “Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Grant Construction Amendments of 1981”.
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES
House bill
Amends section 201(gX5) of the basic Act to require the applicant
to study and evaluate various innovative and alternative technol-
ogies taking into account and providing for, to the extent practical,
the most efficient use of energy and resources which will result in
the lowest net cost of water and sewer service to the consumer, in-
cluding production of usuable water through a production treat-
ment process if the savings offset increased costs of the process.
Senate Amendment
No comparable provision.
2656
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PL 97-117
[ page 14]
Conference substitute
Authorizes a grant for a project in San Diego, California, which
will result in a low net cost for water and sewer service to the con-
sumer.
INDUSTRIAL COST EXCLUSION
House bill
Repeals section 20 1(k) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. Section 201(k) provides that no grant made after November 15,
1981, for construction of a publicly owned treatment works shall be
used to treat, store, or convey the flow of any industrial user into
such treatment works in excess of a flow equivalent to 50,000 gal-
ions per day of sanitary waste.
Senate amendment
Amends section 201(k) of the basic Act to provide that no step 8
construction grant may be made to treat, store, or convey industri-
al wastewater in excess of existing flows from industrial users.
Conference substitute
Makes section 201(k) of the basic Act, relating to industrial costs,
inapplicable in view of amendments to the reserve capacity provi-
sions of section 204(aX5).
CAPITAL FINANCING PLANS
Directs the Administrator to encourage and assist applicants for
grant assistance to develop and file with the Administrator capital
financing plans which will at a minimum, project the applicant’s
requirements for waste treatment for at least 10 years; project the
nature, extent, timing and costs of necessary expansion and recon-
struction of treatment works within the applicant’s jurisdiction;
and set forth the manner in which the applicant intends to finance
such expansion and reconstruction.
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Same as House bill.
ALLOTMENT FORMtJLA
House bill
Provides that the fiscal year 1982 grant funds shall be allotted by
the Administrator not later than the tenth day after the date of
enactment of the Act.
Also extends the existing formula for allotment of construction
grant funds among the States through fiscal year 1982.
Senate amendment
Establishes a new allotment formula that allots funds on the
basis of 1980 population and backlog needs in categories I, II, and
IVb, also maintains the minimum State share, and has a descend-
ing hold harmless provision included in the formula.
2657
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97—117
[ page 15]
Conference substitute
Uses House formula for fisc J year 1982 and for fiscal years 1983,
1984, and 1985 uses the average of the House formula and the
Senate formula for fiscal year 1984.
STATE ADMINISTRATION GRANTS
House bill
Provides that for fiscal year 1982 not to exceed 4 percent of the
total amount authorized for construction grants is authorized to be
reserved for making grants to States for the costs of administering
provisions of the Act relating to the grants program which have
been delegated to the States.
Senate amendment
Requires that a State’s grant for administration of the program
be tied directly to the amount of unexpended obligations made but
not actually disbursed, plus unobligated allotment funds available
to that State at the beginning of a fiscal year.
Conference substitute
Same as the House bill through fiscal year 1985.
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL SHARE
House bill
This section extends the sit-aside for increasing the Federal
grant share from 75 to 85 percent for innovative and alternative
technology through fiscal year 1982. It also amends the existing 3
percent mandatory set-aside to provide that the set-aside shall be
not less than 3 percent nor more than 5 percent. The amount of
any increase between 3 and 5 percent will be at the determination
of the Governor of the State.
Senate amendment
Amends section 2 O 2 (aX2) of the basis Act to provide that munici-
pal treatment works utilizing innovative or alternative treatment
processes shall be funded at a rate 20 percentage points more than
conventional treatment processes, but in no event greater than 85
percent of the cost of construction. It also removes the statutory
deadline for utilization of these practices for Federal funding under
the construction grant program.
Amends section 205(i) of the basic Act to continue the use of a
minimum of one-half of one percent of a State’s allotted funds for
the increased Federal share (that percentage which is over the Fed-
eral share for conventional systems). Also increases from three per-
cent to four percent a State’s mandatory set-aside of allocated
funds in each fiscal year for innovative and alternative treatment
systems.
Conference substitute
Similar to Senate amendment. The amount of the mandatory set-
aside is established between 4 and 7 percent as determined by
the Governor of the State.
2658
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 16]
Innovative or alternative unit processes and techniques are made
eligible for the increased Federal share. These processes and tech-
niques represent the provisions contained in existing EPA regula-
tions.
BRAND NAMES
House bill
Amends section 204(aX6) of the basic law to strike the require-
ment that if a bid specification prepared by a sewage treatment
plant grantee includes a specific brand name item, it must include
a second brand name, followed by the words “or equal”. This lan-
guage is replaced by a requirement for “one brand name or equal”
in situations where it is impractical or uneconomical to make a
clear and accurate description of the technical requirements.
Senate amendment
Same as House bill.
Conference substitute
Same as House bill and Senate amendment.
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
House bill
Amends section 205 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
by adding a provision which creates a set-aside of one percent of
each State’s allotted grant funds or $100,000, whichever amount is
greater, to be used to make grants to the States to carry out water
quality management planning. This planning is to include the iden-
tification of the most cost-effective and locally acceptable measures
for treatment works and non-point sources to meet and maintain
water quality standards; the development of an implementation
plan to obtain State and local financial and regulatory commit-
ments to implement such measures; and the determination of the
nature, extent and causes of water quality problems in various
areas
Senate amendment
Section 205(g) of the basic Act is expanded to designate an addi-
tional one-half of one per centum of a State’s unexpended obliga-
tions and unobligated allotment, or $100,000, if greater for water
quality management assistance.
Conference substitute
Same as House bill, except the reserved amount is not to exceed
one percent of the sums allotted and available for obligation, and
planning is also to include determination of those publicly owned
treatment works which should be constructed, and implementation
of section 303(e) of the Act.
NEW YORK CON VRNT]ON CENTER
House bill
This section directs the Administrator to allot to the State of
New York from fiscal year 1982 funds an amount necessary to pay
2659
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97-117
[ page 17]
the cost of conveying sewage from the Convention Center of the
City of New York to the Newtown Sewage Treatment Plant in
Brooklyn.
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Same as House bill.
AUTHORIZATIONS
House bill
Provides an authorization of $2.4 billion for the construction
grant program for fiscal year 1982.
Senate amendment
Amends section 207 of the basic Act by authorizing not to exceed
$2.4 billion annually for the construction grant program for fiscal
years 1982 through 1985.
Conference substitute
Same as Senate amendment.
Section 206 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides
a mechanism for the reimbursement of communities which proceed
with construction of treatment works at their own expense if the
treatment works meet all of the requirements of the Act. This en-
ables communities to save money by moving ahead before Federal
funds are available and thus avoiding the increased costs associat-
ed with inflation. This provision of the Act, however, has not been
funded in Appropriations Acts. This has resulted in an unfortunate
and unnecessary increase in cost for the program both to local in-
terests and to the Federal Government.
With the reductions in Federal assistance incorporated in H.R.
4503, it is even more necessary that ways be found to decrease
overall costs associated with the reduction of pollution of our na-
tion’s waters. Permitting construction at present day prices, with
reimbursement later, is one way of doing this. The conferees urge,
therefore, that funds be appropriated to implement section 206 so
that the cleanup of our waters may proceed in as efficient and eco-
nomical manner as possible.
FIELD TESTING
House bill
Amends the definition of the term “construction” in section 212
of the Act to include as grant eligible under title II the field testing
of innovative or alternative wastewater treatment processes and
techniques meeting guidelines promulgated under section 304(dX3).
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
2660
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—Ill
[ page 18J
Conference substitute
Same as House bill. It is the intent of the conferees that this pro-
vision not become a means for any delay in compliance with the
requirements of section 301 of the Act.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
House bill
Expresses the policy of Congress that a project for waste treat-
ment and management undertaken with financial assistance under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall be considered as an
overall waste treatment system for waste treatment and manage-
ment, and shall be that system which constitutes the most eco-
nomical and cost-effective combination of treatment works to meet
the requirements of the Act. Also provides that water efficiency
measures and devices (conservation measures) are to be considered
along with all other alternatives in determining what overall
system is most cost-effective.
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute.
Same as the House bill. This provision does not in any way over-
ride the limitation on eligible categories made by section 2 of this
Act.
VALUE ENGINEERING
House bill
Provides the Administrator shall require value engineering
review in connection with treatment works before any grant is
made in excess of $10,000,000 in order to identify unnecessarily
high costs in a project without sacrificing rQliability or efficiency.
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Same as the House bill.
STATE CERTIFICATION
House bill
Provides that where a State has been delegated sufficient author-
ity to administer the construction grants program under title II,
the Governor may certify to the Administrator that a grant appli-
cation meets applicable requirements of State and Federal law. In
such a case, the Administrator must approve or disapprove the
grant application within 30 days of the date of application. If it is
disapproved, the reasons for disapproval must be set forth in writ-
ing. If no action at all is taken within 30 days, the grant applica-
tion is deemed to be approved.
Senate amendment
No comparabla provision.
2661
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97-117
[ page 19]
Conference substitute
Same as House bill, except that approval period is 45 days.
WATER QUALITY FOCUS
House bill
Establishes the policy of Congress that projects for wastewater
treatment and management undertaken with Federal financial as-
sistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act shall be
projects which, in the estimation of the State, are designed to
achieve optimum water quality management consistent with the
public health and water quality goals and requirements of the Act.
Senate amendment
Amends section 216 of the basic Act to require that State priority
lists contain only eligible projects in an order of precedence reflect-
ing significant public health or water quality benefits, especially
projects having the greatest effect on the improvement of water
quality.
Conference substitute
Amends section 216 of the basic Act to establish the policy set
forth in the House bill.
OCEAN DISCHARGE WAIVERS
House bill
Authorizes modifications • of best practicable waste treatment
technology requirements for ocean dischargers able to meet the
same stringent environmental safeguards applicable to modifica-
tions of secondary treatment requirements. Deletes from existing
law a restriction of eligibility to communities which had ocean dis-
charges on the date of enactment of the 1977 Act, and a require-
ment, in section 301(jXl) of the basic Act that applications must be
submitted within 270 days of the date of enactment of the 1977 Act.
Also removes as redundant a requirement in section 301(hX8) of the
basic Act that construction grant funds available to a community
receiving a waiver be used to provide secondary treatment and best
practicable waste treatment technology or to carry out the require-
ments of section 301(h). Clarifies that eligible applicants include
communities which have achieved secondary treatment capability.
Except for Avalon, California, no waiver for applications made
after the date of enactment may be granted for a period of 1 year
after the date of enactment.
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Same as the House bill, except that no permit issued under sec-
tion 301(h) shall authorize the discharge of sewage sludge into
marine waters from outfalls and applications for waivers can be
submitted only for one year from the date of enactment. This provi-
sion does not affect the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuar-
ies Act. The Conferees intend that during the one-year period in
2662
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 201
which no waivers can be granted, while Congress is further consid-
ering amendments to this section, the research project conducted
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
sludge from the Orange County Sanitation District may continue.
LEGISLATIVE VETO
House bill
Establishes the procedure whereby rules of the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall be submitted to the
Senate and the House and may be disapproved by those bodies in
accordance with the procedure which has been established for such
disapprovals in the case of other departments and agencies.
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute
No comparable provision.
RESERVE CAPACITY
House bill
Retains existing grant assistance for reserve capacity in those
projects which are presently receiving Step 2 design or Step 3 con-
struction grant assistance. For projects which have not yet received
any grant assistance, or are in Step 1 planning, it would limit such
assistance to a reserve capacity representing 10 years of projected
growth. The 10 years would be measured from the date of the first
application for grant assistance.
Senate amendment
Section 2 O4(aX5) of the basic Act is amended to preclude the use
of Federal construction grant funds for the Construction of treat-
ment work facilities in excess of Current population or backlog
needs except in limited instances.
Projects which have received approval to proceed with the engi-
neering and design of a facility before September 30, 1981, and one
segment of which receives a construction grant prior to October 1,
1983, shall receive the full Federal share for reserve capacity con-
templated in the design phase and approved by the Administrator.
A project shall receive Federal assistance for reserve capacity even
if the project receives a phased or segmented construction grant
prior to October 1, 1983, provided that the funded phase is for a
legitimate portion of the treatment works.
Conference substitute
Beginning October 1, 1984, no grant may be made for a project to
provide capacity in excess of needs existing on the date of award of
a step 8 grant, and in no event in excess of needs existing on Octo-
ber 1, 1990.
This limitation does not apply to any project or to a subsequent
segment of phase of treatment systems (comprised of primary, sec-
ondary, or advanced waste treatment and related interceptors) that
receives a step 3 grant award prior to October 1, 1984.
2663
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P L 97—Il?
[ page 21]
If a step 3 grant is approved before October 1, 1984, for a step I,
II, or Wb category of a treatment system, then subsequent grants
for all of of these categories shall provide for 20 year reserve capac-
ity and, in certain instances, for up to 40 years reserve capacity for
interceptors.
ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
House bill
Retains Federal grant assistance for presently eligible categories
for all projects currently receiving assistance under the Act. For
new projects which have not yet received any Federal assistance,
up to 30 percent of a State’s yearly allotment under the Act, as de-
termined by the Governor, could be used for categories such as cor-
rection of combined sewer overflows, sewer rehabilitation, and con-
struction of qualifying collector systems. For all projects, correction
of infiltration/inflow problems would remain grant eligible where
it represents a cost-effective alternative.
Senate amendment
Amends section 202(aXl) of the basic Act to place a limitation on
eligible categories of waste treatment facilities which may receive
Federal assistance in the future. The eligible categories will be sec-
ondary treatment, more stringent than secondary treatment, and
new interceptors and appurtenances. These correspond to catego-
ries I, II, and IVb of the Needs Survey updated every two years by
the Environmental Protection Agency. This eliminates Federal
funding of categories such as new collection systems, replacement
and rehabilitation of sewers, combined sewer overflow systems, and
correction of infiltration-inflow problems.
Conference substitute
For grants approved prior to October 1, 1984, all categories would
be eligible. For grants awarded after October 1, 1984, only catego-
ries I, II, ifia and IVb would be eligible. After October 1, 1984, up
to 20 percent of a State’s allotment in any fiscal year may, in the
Governor’s discretion, be used for categories of projects not other-
wise eligible. Where a project encompasses eligible categories (as
well as otherwise ineligible categories funded out of the 20 percent
fund) only the cost of the otherwise ineligible categories will be
counted against the 20 percent fund. The eligible categories will be
funded out of monies available other than the discretionary fund.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Amends section 202(a) of the basic Act to permit the use of con-
struction grant funds for the construction of collector sewers in ex-
isting communities of less than 3,500 population for a limited
period of time and certain larger existing communities which have
received grants for collector sewer construction prior to October 1,
1981.
2664
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PL 97 I)7
[ page 22]
Section 202(a) is also amended to provide in paragraph (7XA) that
a Governor may use a portion of his allotment for treatment of
combined sewer overflows upon demonstrating to the Administra-
tor that the water quality goals of the Act will not be achieved
without such treatment. The demonstration shall at a minimum
prove that significant usage of the water for sheilfishing and swim-
ming will not be possible without correction of combined sewer
overflows.
Paragraph (7XB) provides that the Administrator, upon the dem-
onstration of need by the Governor of a State, may fund the neces-
sary facilities to correct combined sewer overflows where the re-
ceiving waters will not be improved by other methods of
wastewater treatment. it is restricted to those facilities discharging
into bays and estuaries.
The Administrator is authorized to utilize $200 million annually
to correct combined sewer overflows into marine bays and estu-
aries. The authorization is not effective until fiscal year 1983. The
minimum water quality demonstration for paragraph (7XB) is the
same as (7XA).
Conference substitute
Same as paragraphs (7XA) and (7XB) as proposed to be added to
section 202(a) of the basic Act by the Senate amendment.
DEFINITION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Section 304(d) of the basic Act is amended by adding a new para-
graph permitting the use of biological treatment facilities such as
oxidation ponds, lagoons and ditches, trickling filters, and devices
to treat waste waters from combined storm and sanitary sewers, as
the equivalent of secondary treatment if it can be proven that
water quality will not be adversely affected by such methods.
Conference substitute
Same as Senate amendment, except that the reference to com-
bined storm and sanitary sewers is deleted.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
House bill
States that it is the sense of Congress that judicial notice be
taken of the amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act and the other provisions contained in the House bill and that
the parties to Federal consent decrees establishing a schedule for
construction of publicly owned treatment works are encouraged to
reexamine the provisions of such consent decrees and, where re-
quired by equity, to make appropriate adjustments in such provi-
sions.
Senate amendment
Expresses the sense of the Congress that courts in supervision of
court orders for non-complying municipalities take cognizance of
2665
-------
LEGISLATIVE HiSTORY
P L 97—117
[ page 23]
the amendments contained in the Senate amendment in their con-
sideration of modifications to water pollution control deadlines.
Conference substitute
Same as House bill.
NEEDS SURVEY
House bill
Directs the Administrator of EPA to submit to Congress not later
than June 30, 1982, a new report of the costs of meeting the re-
quirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended
by the House bill for discharges of municipal waste. This is the so-
called “needs” survey which EPA is required to submit to Congress
every two years. In preparing this report, the Administrator is to
give emphasis to the effects of section 18 of the bill in addressing
water quality needs adequately and appropriately.
Senate amendment
Supplements section 516 of the basic Act by adding a require-
ment that the Environmental Protection Agency submit a report to
the Congress within eighteen months of enactment of this legisla-
tion. The report must identify publicly owned treatment works not
yet in complaince with the secondary treatment goals of the Act. It
must also contain an assessment of the impact of the 1981 amend-
ments on the cost of completing the Federal construction grant pro-
gram, and the remaining Federal costs necessary to complete the
program.
Conference substitute
Combination of both House bill and Senate amendment. This
report is due by December 31, 1982.
MITIGATION ELIGIBILITY
House bill
Requires the Administrator of EPA to make a grant to mitigate
adverse impacts arising from construction of a grant eligible treat-
ment works from the State’s allotment if the State determines that
the proposed works are necessary for mitigation of inipacts associ-
ated with the construction of the treatment works, that the pro-
posed works are grant eligible and that the step II construction
grant on the underlying grant eligible treatment works was made
no later than February 1, 1981.
Senate amendment
Amends section 201 of the basic Act to authorize the Administra-
tor to make a grant from California’s allotted funds for the project
specified in the order WQG 81-1 of the California State Water Re-
sources Control Board.
Conference substitute
Same as the Senate amendment with the addition of a provision
relating to the Eureka, California, wetlands mitigation, as well as
the San Diego project discussed earlier.
2666
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PL 97-117
[ page 24]
BATH TOWNSHIP
House bill
Provides that the project for publicly owned treatment works for
Bath Township, Michigan, shall be eligible for payments from sums
allotted to the State of Michigan in an amount equal to the
amount such works would be eligible for under the Act if the pro-
ject had been constructed with Federal grant assistance. The
amount to be paid would be limited to the appropriate Federal
share of the actual Construction cost at the time it was originally
constructed.
Senate amendment
No comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Same as House bill.
GRANTS FOR STEPS 1 AND 2
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Amends section 201 of the basic Act by providing for Federal re-
imbursement to grantees for the costs of planning (step 1) and
design (step 2) of wastewater treatment facilities only after awards
for actual construction (step 3) have been approved, rather than in
advance as is currently authorized. This requirement will take
effect on October 1, 1981.
Authorizes States to establish a revolving fund from not more
than 10 percent of their annual construction grant funds allotment
to be used to advance planning and design money to potential
grant applicants who would otherwise be unable to perform such
work.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is
required to determine the average cost of such planning and design
based on the total projects in the general program experience.
Planning and design costs usually average between seven and ten
percent of total project costs. The cost associated with infiltration-
in-flow analysis and examination of the need for sewer rehabilita-
tion will be eligible for reimbursement.
If a construction grant is awarded following such an advance to a
grantee, the Administrator shall subtract the estimated cost of
planning and design from the grant to transfer to the State for re-
plenishinent of the revolving fund. In the event no construction
grant is made, the State is authorized to seek repayment from the
applicant on such terms and conditions as that State determines.
Conference substitute
Same as Senate amendment, except that the State is required to
advance money for planning or design to small communities which
would otherwise be unable to perform such work, but is not re-
quired to establish a revolving fund for that purpose. Money sub-
tracted from a construction grant where an advance was made
2667
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97-117
[ page 25]
shall remain in the State’s allotment. Where a State or other non-
Federal interest has funded Step 1 or Step 2, it would be eligible
for reimbursement under this provision.
FEDERAL SHARE
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Provides for the gradual reduction of the Federal share of
wastewater treatment facilities from 75 percent through fiscal year
1981 to 65 percent through fiscal year 1984 and 55 percent thereaf-
ter. It will not affect grants which had approved step 2 grants prior
to September 30, 1981. Municipalities which had voter approved
bonds prior to July 1, 1981, and which receive a construction grant
prior to July 1, 1985, shall receive a 75 percent grant.
Any treatment facility for which bonds have been approved
before July 1, 1981, and which proceeds to construction prior to
July 1, 1985, shall receive 75 percent of the cost of a facility from
the Federal Government
Conference substitute
Until October 1, 1984, the grant amount for eligible projects shall
be 75 percent of the cost of construction.
Beginning October 1, 1984, the grant amount for eligible projects
shall be 55 percent of the cost of construction. However, where a
grant for construction of a primary, secondary, or advanced waste
treatment facility and related interceptors or for correction of infil-
tration-in-flow was awarded prior to October 1, 1984, all subsequent
segments and phases of such facility, related interceptors, and infil-
tration-in-flow correction shall be 75 percent of the cost of construc-
tion.
COMBINED STEP 2 AND 3 GRANTS
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Amends section 203(a) of the basic Act to raise the estimated cost
limitation on small projects for combined step II and III grants
from $4 million to $8 million and eliminates the $5 million limita-
tion from projects in high construction cost areas.
Conference substitute
Same as Senate amendment.
ENGINEERING CERTIFICATE OF OPERABILITY
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Amends section 204 of the basic Act to require that the prime
consultant to a grantee remain on the site for one year following
2668
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
P L 97—117
[ page 26]
st.art-up to certify to the Environmental Protection Agency and the
appropriate grantee agency that the treatment works is in compli-
ance with its permit, and to allow the main partners responsible
for a treatment works to work cooperatively in making sure that it
is meeting its discharge permits. This activity will be grant eligible.
Conference substitute
Same as Senate amendment.
REVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Requires the review, revision, and adoption or promulgation of
revised or new water quality standards within three years after en-
actment of the 1981 amendments.
After three years, no grant will be made unless this effort has
been completed and approved by the Administrator. The sole ex-
ception to this is the situation of a State acting in good faith and
submitting the necessary documentation to the Administrator and
not receiving notification of action within 120 days of such submis-
sion.
Conference substitute
Same as Senate amendment, except that all references to total
maximum daily loads of pollutants is eliminated.
MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE DEADLINE
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Amends section 301(i) of the basic Act to extend the July 1, 1983,
deadline for the uniform achievement of municipal secondary
treatment to July 1, 1988. Repeals section 301(bXG)(3).
Conference substitute
Same as Senate amendment.
IrUDSON RIVER PCB’S
House bill
No comparable provision.
Senate amendment
Amends section 116(b) of the basic Act to clarify that funds are
allocated under section 205(c) and not section 205(a).
Conference substitute
No comparable provision.
FEDERAL COMMON LAW
House bill
No comparable provision.
3USCorg Admraews 8 —22 2669
-------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
PL 97-117
[ page 27]
Senate amendment
Amends section 511 of the basic Act to provide that the Act does
not displace or limit other Federal or State law, including common
law.
Conference substitute
Contains no comparable provision with the understanding of the
conferees that failure to include this provision is without prejudice
and is not intended to displace remedies other than those under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and with an agreement to
examine further in the next session the best means to accomplish
this intent.
JAMES J. How itD,
RoB T A. ROE,
JAMEs L. OBESs u ,
BOB EDc J ,
ROBERT A. YouNG,
BUDDY RoEMm ,
DoN C usEN,
GENE SNYDER,
JoHN PAUL HAMMERsCHMIDT,
Wu .u F. CLINGER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
RoBERT T. STA.n0RD,
JOHN H. CHAFEE,
PETE V. DOMENICI,
SI DE G0RI’oN,
JENNINGs RANDoUH,
GEORGE J. MFrcHELL,
DANIEL MOYNIHAN,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
2670
------- |