GUIDANCE
FOR
FACILITIES PLANNING
^ PRO^°
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 1974
-------
GUIDANCE
FOR
FACILITIES PLANNING
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C, 20460
JANUARY 1974
-------
FOREWORD
The central thrust in EPA implementation of the new
water bill (P.L. 92-500) is maximizing environmental
effectiveness of actions taken, includinn those concerning
the accelerated program of building new and improved
publicly-owned treatment works. The great amount of money
that will inevitably be spent for publicly-owned treatment
works as a result of the Act should be used to the best
effect in meeting its goals.
At the heart of cost-effectiveness is the development
and costing of alternatives before construction. These
alternatives may variously involve land treatment or reuse
of wastewater, flow reduction measures (including the
correction of excessive infiltration or inflow), the
treatment of overflows, alternative system configurations,
phased development of facilities, or improvements in
operation and maintenance. EPA will require that such
alternatives be considered for any projects it helps to
fund.
The alternatives must also be judged in terms of their
net environmental effect. Care should be taken that
pollutants addressed are germane to the local water quality
problem, and that .abatement practices to restore surface
water do not shift an environmental problem to other, less
remediable media.
Facilities planning, as provided for under Federal
regulations and this supplemental guidance, is intended to
accomplish the above objectives. The planning process
features systematic economic and environmental evaluation of
feasible alternatives and public involvement in the choice
among the alternatives. The plan would provide information
needed for EPA preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement which the law requires for federally funded
projects. This approach is intended to assure the selection
and development of cost-effective and environmentally sound
treatment works which will meet the effluent limitations
prescribed by the law. To achieve these goals, the
facilities planning approach can be neither piece-meal nor
short sighted. Rather, the geographic scope of planning
should be sufficient to avoid foreclosing consideration of
cost-effective alternatives and future facility needs should
be forecast so that the facilities developed can be readily
modified without undue expense as changes occur.
-------
I expect this guidance to serve continuously as a
useful planning tool. Thus, it will be up-dated when
necessary to incorporate changes and additional information
as developed. To improve the usefulness of this guidance,
we need constructive comments and suggestions reflecting
your usage experience. Such comments may be furnished to
the appropriate EPA .Regional Administrator, or to the
Director, Water Planning Division. (AW-454) , Washington, D.C.
20460. Following revisions, you will receive revised pages
of this guidance material.
Copies of this guidance and a Facilities Planning
Summary may be obtained from the EPA Regional office in your
area.
Robert L. Sansom
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Water Programs (AW-443)
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Forword
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Applicability
1.3 References
1.4 Objectives
1.5 Contents of Facilities Plan
1.6 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
1.7 Relationship of Facilities Plans
to Basin Plans and Other Water
Quality Management Plans
1.8 Relationship of Facilities Plans
to Section 208 Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Plans
1.9 Relationship of Facilities Plans
to Municipal Permits
1.10 State Responsibilities for Planning
Page
111
vii
1
1
1
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
Chapter 2 Facilities Planning Process 10
2. 1 Introduction 10
2.2 Delineate Planning Areas (Step 1) 10
2.3 Prepare Plan of Study (Step 2) 11
2.4 Establish Water Quality Objectives and 14
Other Water Management Goals (Step 3)
2.5 Review Pollution Sources Waste Loads and 14
Water Quality Information (Step 4)
2,6 Inventory Existing Waste Treatment Systems 14
and Determine Existing Flows (Step 5)
Inventory Environmental Conditions (Step 6) 16
Estimate Future Waste Loads and Flows (Step 7) 16
Develop and Evaluate Alternatives (Step 8) 16
Evaluate Implementation Arrangement (Step 9) 19
Refine Review and Display Alternative 19
Proposals (Step 10)
2.12 Select Plan (Step 11) 20
2.13 Complete Implementation Arrangements (Step 12) 20
2
2
2
2.10
2.11
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Chapter 3 -- Planning Considerations
3,1 introduction
3.2 Estimate Future Waste Loads and Flows (Step 7)
A. Planning Period
B. Land Use
C. Demographic and Economic Projections
D. Economic Growth Constraints
E. Flow and Waste Load Forecasts
3.3 Develop and Evaluate Alternatives (Step 8)
A. General
B. Optimize Operational Efficiency of
Existing Plant
C. Industrial Service
D. Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
E. Sewers
F, Waste Management Techniques
G. Sludge Disposal
H. Location of Facilities
I. Regionalization
J. Waste Load Allocation Revision
K. Phased Development
L. Flexibility
M. Reliability
N. Operability
Page
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
23
23
23
24
25
25
26
29
30
31
32
32
34
35
35
Chapter 4 Monetary Cost Evaluation
4.1 General
4.2 Elements of Capital Costs
4.3 Major Replacement Costs
4.4 operation and Maintenance Costs
4.5 Salvage Value
4.6 Revenue Produced
4.7 Sunk Costs
4.8 Method of Analysis
4.9 Accuracy of Cost Estimates
4.10 Prices
4.11 Interest (Discount) Rate
36
36
36
37
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
41
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
4.12 Interest During Construction 41
4.13 Risk Factors 41
Chapter 4 Appendix -- Present Worth and Average 43
Annual Equivalent Cost
Calculation Examples
Chapter 5 Environmental Evaluation 50
5.1 Purpose 50
5.2 Relationship of the Environmental 50
Evaluation to the Facilities
Planning Process
5.3 Environmental Evaluation Process 50
A. Inventory Environmental Conditions 50
(Step 6)
B. Develop and Evaluate Alternatives (Step 8) 52
C. Refine, Review and Display Alternative 53
Proposals (Step 10)
D. Select Plan (Step 11) 54
5.4 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan 54
Chapter 6 Plan Selection and Implementation 55
6.1 Plan Selection 55
A. Introduction 55
B, Comparison of Proposals 55
C. Ranking of Alternative Proposals 58
D. Evaluation Factors 58
E. Preliminary Design 61
F. Operation and Maintenance 61
6.2 Plan Implementation 61
A. Introduction 61
B. Public Support 61
C. Institutional Arrangements 62
D. Financial Program and Schedules 62
E. Steps for Plan Implementation 64
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Chapter 7 Public Involvement in Facilities Planning 65
7.1 Introduction 65
7.2 Public Involvement Program Elements 65
A. Public Involvement Program Objectives 65
B. The Role of the Planner 66
C. The Levels of Public 67
D. Public Involvement Functions 68
E. Public Involvement Mechanisms 68
7.3 Public Involvement Program for Facilities 69
Planning
7.4 Summary Public Participation Report 72
Chapter 8 Reports 73
8.1 Report Structure 73
8.2 Main Report Outline 71
Chapter 9 Review Certification and Approval of Plans 77
9.1 Purpose 77
9.2 Levels of Review 77
9.3 Compliance with OMB Circular A-95 77
A. Plans 77
B. Determination of Project Compliance with 77
Plan
9.4 Submission of Plan for Review 78
A. Submission to State 78
B. Submission to EPA 78
9.5 Plan Revision 79
9.6 EPA Reviewing Program Office 79
9.7 Content of Review and Evaluation 80
9.8 Approving Authority 81
9.9 EPA Approval 81
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1 FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS 12
Figure 2.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION 18
Figure 6.1 COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS 56
Figure 6.2 RANKING OF FINAL ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS 59
Figure 6.3 SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL REVENUES 63
VI1
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Presently, both National and State policies call for
high quality water in all the nation's streams, lakes and
coastal waters. In this regard, the importance of careful
planning has become evident. Without planning, some water
quality problems would not be solved and might become worse.
In other cases, far more money than necessary would be spent
to solve a water quality problem.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (the Act) affirm the importance of planning and contain
some new provisions intended to help achieve the national
objective of clean water. The Water Strategy Paper
(reference a) presents the EPA approach and policies for
implementating the requirements of the Act. This guidance
supplements the Federal regulations on grants for
construction of publicly-owned treatment works (reference b)
and presents advisory information on the process and
procedures for planning such works (facilities planning).
The process of facilities planning is emphasized as such
guidance allows much more flexibility in meeting local
conditions than does guidance prescribing in minute detail
what is to be done,
1.2 APPLICABILITY
This guidance applies to entities involved in
facilities planning. These include EPA, other Federal
agencies, the States, local planning entities and applicants
for grants to construct publicly-owned treatment works.
works.
1.3 REFERENCES
a. Water Strategy Paper.
b. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E (Grants for Construction
of Treatment Works-Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972).
c. 40 CFR Part 133 (Secondary Treatment Information).
-------
d. 40 CFR Part 137 (Information on Alternative Waste
Management Techniques and Systems to Achieve Best
Practicable Waste Treatment).
e. 40 CFR Part 35, Appendix A (Cost Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines).
f. Federal Guidelines, Sewer System Evaluation.
g. 40 CFR Part 130 (State Continuing Planning
Process).
h. 40 CFR Part 131 (Preparation of Plans Pursuant to
State Continuing Planning Process).
i. Guidelines, Water Quality Management Plans, Section
303{e) .
j. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart B (State and Local
Assistance) .
k. 40 CFR Part 128 (Pretreatment Standards).
1. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E (Grants for Construction
of Treatment Works - Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, User Charges and
Industrial Cost Recovery).
m. Technical Information Report, Alternative Waste
Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste
Treatment.
n. Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of
Wastewater, July 1973 (EPA-430/9-73-006).
o. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application,
August 1973 (EPA-660/2-73-006 a and b).
p. EPA Policy Statement (Proposed), Acceptable
Methods, Based Upon Current Knowledge, for the
Ultimate Disposal of Sludges from Publicly*owned
Wastewater Treatment Plants.
q. Federal Guidelines; Design, Operation, and
Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities).
r. Technical Bulletin; Design Criteria for Mechanical,
Electric, and Fluid System and Component
Reliability.
-------
s. Water Resources Council, Water and Related Land
Resources, Establishment of Principles and
Standards for Planning, Federal Register, Vol. 38,
No. 174, Sept. 10, 1973.
t. 40 CFR Part 6 (Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements) .
u. 40 CFR Part 105 (Public Participation in Water
Pollution Control).
v. OMB Circular A-95.
1.4 OBJECTIVES
The overall facilities planning objective is provision
for cost-effective, environmentally sound and implementable
treatment works which will meet applicable requirements of
Sections 201 (g), 301, and 302 of the Act. Facilities plans
in effluent limited segments (paragraph 1.7) will provide
for secondary treatment (reference c) as a minimum plus,
where applicable, provision for application by 1983 of the
Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) in
accordance with reference (d) . The latter requirement must
be met as a basis for awarding grants for design (Step 2)
and for construction (Step 3) of treatment works from funds
authorized for FY 1975 and thereafter. Criteria for BPWTT
are presented in reference (d) for each of the following
waste management technique categories:
a. treatment (biological or physical-chemical) and
discharge to receiving waters;
b. treatment and reuse; and
c. land application.
Techniques included in the above categories will be
compared under the facilities planning process as described
in Chapters 2 and 3. In evaluating alternative techniques
for a specific case, any local environmental or water
management goals such as the following should be considered:
a. preservation or enhancement of designated
surface waters for aesthetics, recreation or
fish and wildlife purposes;
b. prevention of saltwater intrusion or
enhancement of groundwater supply through
groundwater recharge;
c. water conservation through wastewater reuse or
recycling; and
-------
d. multiple use of facilities and required lands
for such purposes as recreation, aesthetics and
fish and wildlife.
Where necessary to meet water quality standards (in
water quality segments) pollutants will be reduced as
required beyond the minimums of the BPWTT criteria. In
these cases, such reductions will be obtained through a
higher degree of treatment for dry-weather flows or measures
for abating pollution from combined sewer overflows or a
combination of both approaches. Within water quality
segments the effluent limitations for both municipal and
separate industrial sources will be based upon
determinations of maximum allowable loads and waste load
allocations as required by reference (i).
1.5 CONTENTS _OF FACILITIES PLAN
Consistent with reference (b), a facilities plan will
include:
a. A description of the treatment works for which
construction drawings and specifications are to
be prepared. This description shall include
preliminary engineering data, cost estimates
for design and construction of the treatment
works, and a schedule for completion of design
and construction. The preliminary engineering
data may include, to the extent appropriate,
such information as a schematic flow diagram,
unit processes, and desigh data regarding
detention times, flow rates, sizing of units,
etc.
b. A description of the selected complete waste
treatment system(s), of which the treatment
works is a part. The description shall cover
all elements of the system, from the service
area and collection sewers, through treatment,
to the ultimate discharge of treated
wastewaters and disposal of sludge.
c. Infiltration/inflow documentation in accordance
with references (b) and (f) .
d. A cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives
for the treatment works and for the waste
treatment system (s) of which the treatment
works is a part, in accordance with reference
(e) and this guidance. The selection of the
-------
system (s) and the choice of the treatment works
on which construction drawings and
specifications are to be based shall reflect
the cost-effectiveness analysis. This analysis
shall include:
1. The relationship of the size and capacity
of alternative works to the needs to be
served, including reserve capacity.
2. An evaluation of alternative flow and waste
reduction measures.
3. An evaluation of improved effluent quality
attainable by upgrading the operation and
maintenance and efficiency of existing
facilities as an alternative or supplement
to construction of new facilities.
4. An evaluation of the capability of each
alternative to meet applicable effluent
limitations. The treatment works design
must be based upon not less than secondary
treatment (reference c).
5. An identification of, and provision for
applying, BPWTT as required. Where
application of BPWTT would not meet water
quality standards, the facilities plan
shall provide for attaining such standards.
Such provision shall consider treating
combined sewer overflows as an alternative
means of meeting water quality standards.
6. An analysis of the alternative means by
which ultimate disposal can be effected for
treated wastewater and for sludge materials
resulting from the treatment process, and a
determination of the means chosen.
7. An adequate assessment of the expected
environmental impact of alternatives
pursuant to Chapter 5.
An identification of effluent discharge
limitations, or where a permit has been issued, a
copy of the permit for the proposed treatment works
as required by the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System.
-------
f. Required comments or approvals of relevant State,
interstate, regional and local agencies.
g. A brief summary of any public meeting or hearing
held during the planning process, including a
summary of the views expressed.
h. A brief statement demonstrating that the
authorities which will be implementing the plan
have the necessary legal, financial, institutional,
and managerial resources available to insure the
construction, "operation, and maintenance of the
proposed treatment works.
1.6 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
The mandate for cost-effectiveness, as it applies to
the planning of publicly-owned treatment works, is set forth
by Section 204 (a) (5) and 212(2) (A), (B) , and (C) of the
Act. The concepts of cost-effectiveness are outlined below
and the application of these concepts to facilities planning
is described in reference (e) and this guidance.
Cost-effectiveness analysis is defined as an analysis
featuring systematic comparison of alternatives to identify
the solution which will minimize total costs to society over
time to reliably meet given goals or objectives. Total
;costs to society include resources costs plus social and
environmental costs. Thus, the purpose of cost-
effectiveness analysis is to select an alternative which
efficiently uses the nation's resources in meeting adopted
goals while minimizing adverse environmental and social
impacts. The analysis involves identification and study of
the tradeoffs among monetary costs, environmental effects
and other aspects of the alternatives leading to selection
of the best plan.
Resources costs are the values of goods and services
representing primary project inputs and include: capital
costs (construction, land, interest during construction and
other labor and service); plus operation, maintenance and
replacement (O.M.SR.) costs. Resources costs may usually be
represented in monetary terms, while environmental and
social costs (effects), as described in subsequent chapters,
are usually not identifiable in monetary terms. Rather,
these costs are usually expressed descriptively using
quantitative or qualitative terms. Chapter 4 provides
further information governing calculation of monetary costs
and Chapter 5 covers evaluation of environmental and social
costs.
-------
1.7 RELATIONSHIP OF FACILITIES^.PLANS TQ^BASIN PLANS
AND OTHER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Facilities plans will conform to the State continuing
planning process and to applicable basin plans prepared by
the States under Section 303 of the Act (references g, h,
i). Under the State continuing planning process, water
segments have been initially identified and classified as
either "water quality" or "effluent limitations". The water
quality class includes any segment where it is known that
water quality does not meet applicable water quality
standards and which is not expected to meet water quality
standards even after application of the effluent limitations
required by sections 301 (b) (1) (A) and 301 (b) (1) (B) of the
Act. (The effluent limitationss required by Section
301(b)(1)(A) and (E) are base level limitations consisting
generally of best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT) for industrial point sources and secondary
treatment for municipal sources. BPT and secondary
treatment are defined in regulations issued and to be issued
by EPA.) The effluent limitation class includes any segment
where water quality is meeting and will continue to meet
water quality standards or where there is adequate
demonstration that water quality will meet applicable water
quality standards after application of the above effluent
limitations. Basin plans should reevaluate and refine these
initial classifications. The basin plans will also identify
point and non-»point waste sources, determine waste
characteristics and establish a basis for the State project
priority list of needed municipal wastewater facilities (see
reference j). For water quality segments, the 303 basin
plans, when available, will provide the maximum allowable
amounts of pollutants and the waste load allocations among
point sources. For those water quality segments not covered
by a completed 303 basin plan, wasteload allocations
developed for permitting should be used. Where a wasteload
allocation has not been made, either the State or the
Regional Administrator shall develop such an allocation as a
basis for preparing a facilities plan.
The water quality management planning formerly under 40
CFR 35.150-1 and 2 (previously 18 CFR 601.32 and .33), has
been superseded by referenced regulation (b). The former
regulations covered both basin water quality management
plans and the facility oriented metropolitan or regional
plans. To avoid duplicative planning, any existing basin,
metropolitan or regional plans prepared under the previous
guidelines or other wastewater management plans will be used
to the maximum practicable extent. Since the former
requirements for metropolitan or regional plans closely
-------
resemble many of the requirements presented herein for
facilities plans, in some cases simply amending or
supplementing existing metro or regional plans may be the
most practical approach toward compliance with this
guidance. In any event, the facilities planning authorities
will carefully review existing wastewater management plans
and consult with those who have prepared and approved such
plans with a view toward properly incorporating appropriate
elements of any existing plan in the facilities plan and
preventing unnecessary or duplicative planning.
I-8 RELATIONSHIP OF FACILITIES PLANS TO SECTION 208
AREAWIDE WASTEDTREATMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS
Within planning areas designated under Section 208 of
the Act, any facilities plans, existing or underway, should
be construed as a step toward and supplementary to the more
comprehensive 208 plan which, when completed and approved,
will supersede any existing facilities plan(s) within the
208 area. The 208 plan will provide for integrated waste
treatment management including industrial and non-point
source abatement measures and regulatory programs as well as
municipal waste treatment facilities. The facilities
planning entity should furnish facilities plans prepared
pending completion of a 208 plan to the designated 208
planning agency for comments.
1.9 RELATIONSHIP OF FACILITIES PLANS TO MUNICIPAL PERMITS
Direct relationships exist between municipal permitting
and facilities planning. Facilities plans will, as a
minimum, meet permit requirements. Where the permit has
been completed prior to facilities plan completion, the plan
will include a copy of the permit. Otherwise, the
facilities plan should include adopted municipal discharge
effluent limitations and the abatement schedule. With
respect to future growth of waste loads, the aim of both
permitting and planning should be to eliminate or preclude
the adverse effects of such growth through planning for
timely increases in treatment capability or for other
measures for regulating growth. Facilities plans will be
consistent with EPA policy for permitting municipal
facilities under high growth situations.
-------
1.10 STATE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PLANNING
States will have overall program control for facilities
planning. The state will:
a. Determine where and when treatment works will be
required through preparation and submission of the
State project priority list (see reference j).
Development of the list should be based upon
applicable Section 303 basin plans, the annual
State strategy, the ranking of water segments and
the State municipal discharge inventory.
b. Establish priorities and scheduling for facilities
planning in accordance with the State priority
system under Section 106 of the Act.
c. Develop waste load allocations under the 303
planning process and establish the effluent
discharge limitations for municipal point sources.
d. Delineate, as a preliminary basis for planning, the
boundaries of the planning areas as described in
Chapter 2. The State shall consult with the local
officials in making the area and boundary
determinations.
e. Review plan of study to insure that (1) the
geographic planning area is adequate; (2) the
nature and scope of the planning tasks are properly
defined and cover only essential work; and (3)
planning costs are reasonable.
f. Review facilities plans and certify that (1) the
plans conform with the requirements of reference
(b); (2) the plan conforms with existing basin
plans developed under Section 303; (3) any
concerned 208 planning agency has been afforded the
opportunity to comment upon the plan; and (4) the
plan conforms with applicable approved 208 plans.
-------
CHAPTER 2
FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Figure 2.1 outlines the facilities planning process.
Although Figure 2.1 suggests that the process involves a
series of distinct and separate steps/ this ordinarily would
not be the case. Iteration of the steps would occur and the
sequence of the steps may differ from that shown in some
cases.
2.2 DELINEATE PLANNING AREAS (STEP 1L
The first step in the planning processdefining the
planning areais one of the more important. It is
essential to outline a geographic area sufficient to permit
unrestricted analysis of alternatives including waste
treatment methods and ultimate disposal options for sludge
and treated effluent. Also, each planning area should
encompass the entire area where cost savings, other
management advantages, or environmental gains may result
from interconnection of individual waste treatment systems
or collective management of such systems.
In delineating facilities planning areas, consideration
should be given to applicable provisions of the regulation,
"Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements" (HO CFR,
Part 6) . This regulation (reference t) provides that an
environmental assessment is an integral part of a facilities
plan and such assessment must adequately cover the
cumulative environmental impacts of proposed treatment
works. Thus, the geographic scope of the facilities plan
must be sufficient to permit such analysis. Otherwise, the
referenced regulation provides that if a number of related
facilities plans are submitted in conjunction with
applications for grants, EPA may delay approval of these
plans and award of a grant until the plans can be reviewed
together to allow the agency to properly evaluate their
cumulative environmental impact.
Recognizing the considerations discussed above,
planning area boundaries for non-metropolitan communities
(1970 core city population less than 50,000) should
encompass the entire community including those areas subject
to future urban development. Where cost savings or other
advantages might result from waste treatment system
interconnection, joint effluent or sludge disposal
10
-------
facilities, or collective management for two or more nearby
communities, the planning area should encompass the
community group. Should a community be isolated
sufficiently to preclude such regionalization, the
facilities planning area should be confined to that
community.
Piecemeal planning for metropolitan areas must be
avoided as such planning is likely to foreclose
consideration of the range of options necessary to assure a
cost-effective solution. However, in some cases single
facilities plan coverage of such entire areas may be
impracticable for institutional, geographic or other
reasons. Where practicable, particularly for those smaller
metropolitan areas with a limited number of political
jurisdictions or of public bodies having jurisdiction over
sewage disposal, facilities planning areas should include
the core city plus contiguous urban areas. Where sub-
metropolitan planning is necessary, the planning area should
encompass contiguous waste treatment systems where such
systems may require major new or expanded treatment plants,
sludge disposal or effluent disposal facilities and where
system interconnection or joint facilities would be feasible
alternatives. If these considerations do not apply,
facilities planning areas within metropolitan areas should
include, as a minimum, the entire waste treatment system.
2.3 PREPARE PLAN OF STUDY (Step 2)
A plan of study will be prepared and approved by the
State and EPA prior to initiating a facilities plan. The
plan of study will be a brief document presenting the
following information:
a. a map delineating the planning area;
b. the responsible planning entities and
arrangements for conducting the planning;
c. a description of the nature, scope and detail
of the planning effort including the scope of
required infiltration/inflow documentation;
d. a breakdown of specific planning tasks and
a schedule for their completion; and
e. an itemized estimate of planning costs.
With respect to item c, the recommended plan should
have sufficient scope and detail to assure that the water
quality goals and technical criteria are met. Interceptors
and collection systems will be located and sized; the
treatment plant location, site layout and unit process
combinations will be displayed; effluent disposal, reuse,
11
-------
Figure 2.1
FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS
1, DELINEATE PLANNING AREAS
A
2. PBEPARE PLAN OF STUDY
3. ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
and OTHER WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS
4. REVIEW POLLUTION SOURCES, WASTE LOADS
and WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
5. INVENTORY EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT
* SYSTEMS and DETERMINE EXISTING FLOWS
H
u
H 6. INVENTORY ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
7. ESTIMATE FUTURE WASTE LOADS and FLOWS
8. DEVELOP and EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES «*
u
H 9. EVALUATE IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS *
A and IDENTIFY MANAGEMENT AGENCY *
CQ
^ 10. REFINE, REVIEW and DISPLAY »-
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS "
11. SELECT PLAN -i
12. COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
12
-------
and sludge disposal facilities will be described and
located; and engineering cost estimates will be presented.
In addition, the energy and resource requirements and major
environmental impacts of the selected plan, as well as the
alternative proposals, will be displayed.
The alternative systems will be developed and evaluated
in detail sufficient to identify practicable alternatives;
effects and other aspects; and to permit realistic
comparison of the alternatives.
In view of the large proportion of relatively simple
planning cases, the plan of study should identify such cases
as particular efforts should be made to restrict planning to
that essential. To aid in identifying "simple cases",
review to determine whether the situation meets the
following guidelines is suggested:
a. the area is not within a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area;
b. the estimated new investment requirement is
less than $5 million;
c. the area growth rate is less than the
national average for urban areas;
d. the environmental setting is relatively
nonsensitive; and
e. regionalization opportunities do not exist.
The suggestions below provide for simplifying planning
specifically for simple cases. It is recognized that each
of these suggestions will not be uniformly appropriate for
all cases and thus must be reviewed and applied with
discretion to each case. The suggestions follow:
a. Limit evaluation of alternative flow and waste
reduction measures to infiltration/inflow
analysis and any required sewer rehabilitation
measures.
b. Limit detailed evaluation to a small number
(not more than 3 or 4) of the most feasible
alternatives.
c. Limit environmental evaluations to brief
summaries of existing conditions and
significant -effects of each alternative.
The plan of study should identify simple planning
situations and, for all situations, briefly describe the
13
-------
planning scope and detail required including the scope of
the infiltration/inflow analysis.
2.4 ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND OTHER WATER
MANAGEMENT GOALS (STEP 3)
Planning of publicly-owned wastewater treatment works
will provide, as minimums, for secondary treatment and for
scheduled application (prior to 1983) of BPWTT meeting EPA
criteria. For most water quality segments, meeting any more
stringent effluent limitations corresponding to the
established waste load allocations would be the objective.
In this case, the need for pollution abatement beyond that
obtainable from BPWTT will be determined. If further
pollution abatement is needed, the plan will provide for
treatment of combined sewer overflows, further treatment of
dry weather flows, or a combination of both -- whichever
approach is most cost-effective. Plans will include
provision for combined sewer overflows wherever and to the
degree required to meet water quality standards.
Under this step of the process, other local
environmental or water management goals, such as those
presented in Chapter 1, should be identified.
2.5 REVIEW POLLUTION SOURCES, WASTE LOADS AND WATER
QUALITY INFORMATION (STEP"41
Where available. Section 303 Basin Plans prepared by
the State in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 131 will provide
essential information on municipal and industrial point
sources, waste loads, effluent limitations and water quality
within the water segment(s) receiving wastes from the
planning area. Where available, information developed for
permitting and established permit conditions would be an
additional source of information. At the start of
facilities planning these data will be reviewed and
supplemented as necessary. Where 303 basin plans have not
been completed, effluent limitations for publicly owned
treatment works will be determined by the State or Regional
Administrator.
2.6 INVENTORY EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND
DETERMINE EJCISTING FLOWS (STEP 5)
The existing waste treatment systems including flow and
waste reduction measures, sewers, treatment plants, effluent
disposal measures and sludge disposal measures must be
accurately assessed to establish a basis for planning any
system modifications. Such assessment will include a
14
-------
performance evaluation of the wastewater treatment facility.
The evaluation of the operational efficiency of a wastewater
treatment facility consists of an in depth analysis of basic
elements such as the following:
1. plant performance;
2. operational problems;
3. operating personnel;
4. sampling and testing program;
5. laboratory facilities; and
6. maintenance program.
Some causes of poor plant performance are often related to
one or more of the following:
1. lack of proper plant operation and control;
2. inadequate plant design;
3. changes in wastewater flow or characteristics; and
4. changes in treatment requirements.
An incorrectly operated or maintained facility.cannot
consistently perform according to design. No physical
upgrading or new construction should be considered before
there is thorough documentation that the existing plant is
being operated to yield, its optimum efficiency.
Average wastewater flows, flow variations, wastewater
Characteristics a.nd waste loads must be determined as a
basis for estimating design flows and waste load reductions.
Such data will cover domestic and industrial (industries
served by the system) flows, dry-weather flows and combined
sewer overflows. The combined sewer overflow information
will define the problem and, where practicable, include
types and amounts of pollutants, magnitude and frequency of
overflows and bypasses, and water quality impacts. Unless
the state certifies that excessive infiltration/inflow does
not exist, this step will include an infiltration/inflow
analysis in accordance with EPA Guidelines for Sewer System
Evaluation. Such an analysis involves estimating the
infiltration and inflow to the system, approximating, on a
preliminary basis, the costs of treating the
infiltration/inflow versus the costs of rehabilitating the
system to eliminate the problem, and finally, based on
comparison of such costs, determining Whether the
infiltration/inflow is excessive. Should excessive
infiltration/inflow be indicated, a more detailed sewer
system evaluation survey will be made to specifically define
the problems and determine the needed corrective measures
and their costs. The scope of the infiltration/inflow
analysis should be limited to those waste treatment systems
15
-------
for which construction drawings and specifications for
treatment works are to be prepared immediately following
completion of the facilities plan.
2.7 INVENTORY ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (STEP 6)
To establish a baseline (without project) for measuring
environmental effects of proposed wastewater facilities,
existing environmental values and resources will be
determined as described in Chapter 5. This inventory will
include identification of plant and animal communities;
wildlife habitat including wetlands, stream valleys and
other natural areas; community growth patterns; and air and
water quality. When practicable, these values will be
measured in quantitative terms.
2.8 ESTIMATE FUTURE WASTE LOADS AND FLOWS {STEP 71
To provide the basis for planning and preliminary
design of facilities, forecasts must be made of the future
variations of waste loads and flows over the planning
period. As described in Chapter 3, such forecasts should be
based upon evaluation of land use plans, where available;
economic and demographic growth trends for the planning
area; and any growth constraints imposed by air quality
implementation plans, zoning restrictions or permit
conditions. The effects of selected flow and waste
reduction measures, including sewer system rehabilitation to
correct infiltration/inflow, should also be reflected in the
flow forecasts to permit subsequent calculation of waste
treatment system cost reductions.
2.9 DEVELOP AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES (STEP 8)
Many decisions are required regarding the collection,
conveyance, and treatment of wastewater and the reuse or
ultimate disposal of treated effluents and sludge. In view
of the many available options, planning must be systematic.
Initially, upgrading the operating efficiency of existing
facilities should be evaluated as an option or supplement to
new construction. The base line for subsequent planning
shluld be identified as that level of treatment actually
attainable by the existing facilities based upon performance
evaluation. Subsystem options will be identified and
compatible options combined into preliminary treatment
systems, with a view toward meeting'the adopted water
quality goals. Subsystems failing to meet physical
constraints of the planning area such as climate, soils, or
topography, or those incompatible with air or water quality
constraints will be rejected. The reasons for subsystem
16
-------
rejection should be presented. Rough layouts of each
prelimininary alternative system will be developed. Using
judgement supplemented by rough analysis of monetary costs
and environmental effects, the preliminary alternatives will
be screened with respect to goal attainment, monetary costs,
environmental effects, and physical, legal or institutional
constraints. Those alternatives found to be unacceptable
with respect to any of these factors should be rejected.
The remaining alternatives should then be evaluated in
detail to develop a limited number of proposals for public
presentation. The diagram (Figure 2.2) suggests an
alternative development and evaluation process. Major
subsystems and typical options within each are discussed in
Chapter 3. Evaluation of monetary costs and environmental
effects is presented in Chapters 4 and 5.
Following screening of the system alternatives,
evaluation of the remaining alternatives will include the
following analyses:
1. contributions to water quality goals and
objectives of each alternative;
2. present value or average annual equivalent
value of capital and operating costs for
overall alternative and subsystem components;
3. significant environmental effects of each
alternative consistent with NEPA including a
specific statement on future development
impacts; and
4. operafcility, reliability and flexibility of
each alternative and subsystems included in
each alternative.
Based on the comparative evaluations, the most
desirable and undesirable aspects of each alternative will
be identified and any clearly inferior alternatives will be
rejected. In some cases, new alternatives will be
identified and formulated. (See Figure 2.2). Where
necessary to better distinguish their relative merits, the
proposals will be refined and the comparison repeated. This
iterative process will produce a limited and manageable
number of proposals for final evaluation and public review
as a basis for plan selection.
17
-------
FIGURE 2.2
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Major
Subsystems
+++»»+»*+»
FLOW and WASTE
REDUCTION
MEASURES
SEWERS
Collectors
Interceptors
WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
Subsytem Options
\
[Alternative 1 Location Tl
[Alternative n Location n|\ Sff
\ //
[Alternative 1 Location Tj); //
. . / \ / /
[Alternative n Location n |\ f\l
[Alternative 1 Location ~T|/ /\^'.
LAlternative n Location nl / ^y
[Alternative 1 Location T]/ /
I " ~~~ ^^^~~~~^~-
Preliminary
Alternatives
(systems)
+*»++»+»*»*»
Alternative D
Alternative 3|
(Alternative ill
(Alternative ^
[Alternative g
jftlternative ^
[Alternative Ifl
Alternative T^
Alternative ij
Remaining
Screen Alternatives Evaluate
1
nvironmental
Effects
*
jj
1 1
Constrain
1 I
one tar y
j Costs
a
1 -
nment
13
II
n
ii
n
n
t
ii ~
II
"-Alternative ijj
n
u
n
n
ii i* i' *..*._.. ~*. * ..» -i
u b~~~**> ^
n
n
n
n _
^-Alternative 1^-
u
u
n
n
Select
Optimum
Proposals
*++++++++
PUBLIC
HEARING
_^
^J
-9-jp R OPO SAL"!
Location nj
-------
2.10 EVALUATE IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS (STEP 9)
Prior to selection of a final plan, existing
institutional arrangements and the authorities of existing
wastewater management agencies must be compared to those
required to implement the plan. Further, local financial
obligations for each proposal, based on capital and O.M.&R.
cost .schedules and preliminary cost allocations among local
governmental units, should be estimated. These matters, as
well as the costs and effects of each proposal, should be
discussed with representatives of concerned local
governmental units and their views on the plans obtained.
Also, a prospective wastewater management entity should be
tentatively identified.
Provision must be made to assure proper and efficient
operation and maintenance, including the employment of
trained management and operations personnel, all in
accordance with a plan of operation approved by the state
water pollution control agency, or an appropriate interstate
agency. There should be assurance that there is adequate
legal, institutional, managerial, and financial capability
to insure adequate operation and maintenance of any existing
or proposed treatment works. Chapter 6 further discusses
plan impementation.
2.11 REFINE, REVIEW AND DISPLAY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS (STEP 1_0)_
Each alternative proposal will be examined, refined,
and modified as needed to define all elements sufficiently
to assess realistically costs, reliability and environmental
effects. The refinement should include: review of system
functions; flexibility; operational reliability; adjustments
of facility locations and sizes; analysis of optimum phasing
of construction; and evaluation of feasible measures for
mitigating probable adverse environmental effects.
Following refinement of each alternative, the monetary
costs, the environmental effects and the contributions to
objectives and goals of each proposal will be reevaluated
and compared. Should this review indicate one or more of
the plans to be objectionable, the alternative(s) should be
restructured and the refinement process repeated. Each
alternative proposal, including its costs and environmental
effects, will be publicly displayed and the views of
affected local governmental units and the general public
will be obtained as a basis for plan selection. Chapter 6
further describes this step.
19
-------
2.12 SELECT PLAN (STEP 11)
A public hearing will be held to explain the
alternative proposals and obtain the views of all concerned
interests. Reflecting inputs from the public, each
alternative proposal will be reviewed as described in
Chapter 6 with respect to environmental effects, monetary
costs, plan implementation capability, resources and energy
use, reliability and public acceptance. Based on
consideration of each of these factors, the alternative
proposals will be ranked and a plan selected for
implementation.
2.13 COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS (STEP 12)
Following plan selection, existing institutional
arrangements will be reviewed and a financial program and
schedule for implementing the plan will be prepared.
Finally, necessary agreements among the implementing
entities for carrying out the plan should be reached. Even
where such agreements have not been completed, the State and
the Regional Administrator may approve the plan. Chapter 6
further discusses implementation arrangements.
20
-------
CHAPTER 3
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the analyses essential for
estimating future municipal" waste loads and flows (Step 7)
and factors which must be considered in the development and
evaluation of waste treatment system alternatives (Step 8}.
3.2 ESTIMATE FUTURE WASTE LOADS AND FLOWS JStep 7)
A* Planning Period
The planning period is the time span over which
wastewater management needs are forecast, facilities are
planned to meet such needs, and costs are amortized. The
facilities planning period will extend 20 years beyond the
estimated date of initial system operation. The plan should
provide for cost-effective phased development of facilities
to meet forecast changing conditions over the planning
period as described in the subsequent paragraph on phased
development.
B. Land Use
Facilities plans must be carefully coordinated with
applicable State, local and regional land use management
regulations, policies and plans. However, use of land use
plans as a conclusive basis for developing treatment systems
may be futile, unless the necessary legal and institutional
tools to control land use and development are present and
vigorously used.
Projected land use patterns and development densities
based upon land use plans and zoning codes should be used as
an indicator of the capacity and location of facilities.
Development controls consistent with projected land use will
be necessary to assure the continuing conpatibility of the
facilities with community needs over the planning period.
Where land use plans are not available for all or portions
of the planning area; existing planning agencies, zoning
commissions, and public officials should be consulted to
assess development patterns and densities for the area.
C. Demographic and Economic Projection
As one basis for estimating future waste loads and
flows, economic and population growth projections, based
21
-------
upon past growth trends for the planning area, should be
developed. Such projections must be consistent with those
used for air quality control or other environmental planning
unless new knowledge or data justifies departures.
For metropolitan areas, economic and population
projections (Series E) developed by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) or comparable projections developed by the
State should be used as overall growth projections for the
planning area and as a source of information for projections
review by EPA. Such projections may be disaggregated for
areas served by each system, taking into account land use
plans, development policies and other growth constraints for
each service area. Economic projections for non-
metropolitan communities may be based upon extension of 1960
to 1970 or 1965 to 1970 growth trends. While economic
projections of industrial employment and production may be
used to roughly assess growth of industrial waste loads,
planning for municipal facilities to serve industries should
be based upon commitments for each industry and upon cost-
effectiveness analysis as subsequently described in this
Chapter.
D. Economic Growth Constraints
Economic projections for entire planning areas or for
individual service areas should be adjusted to reflect
growth constraints imposed by air quality implementation
plans, other adopted land use and development controls or
growth related permit conditions.
E* Flow and Waste Load Forecasts
The expected economic and population growth patterns
for the planning area must be translated into estimates of
wastewater flows and waste loads. In turn, a realistic
allowance for non-excessive infiltration/inflow should be
added.
Available flow records should be obtained for combined
sewer overflows and bypasses. Where flow records are
lacking, available estimates of flows based upon
observations should be used. Waste load estimates should be
based on pollutant sampling during dry and wet weather flows
and subsequent tests for pertinent parameters such as
dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-«N), total solids (TS) , suspended
solids (SS), dissolved solids (DS), toxics, and fecal
coliform counts. Overflows and waste loads during storm
periods should be related to the drainage area tributary to
22
-------
the combined sewer system. This would permit forecasting
overflow and waste load increases resulting from future
changes in the nature and extent of the drainage area.
The estimated future changes in flows and wasteloads
from industries to be served by the municipal system must
reflect application cf pretreatment requirements for
existing and new industries plus any expected industrial
process changes affecting wastewater. Preliminary
industrial wastewater flow forecasts should include
presently served industries and any additional industries
planning to meet pretreatment and industrial cost recovery
requirements. Cost-effectiveness analysis described
subsequently in this chapter may result in changing the
industrial flows to te treated by the municipal waste
treatment system.
Wastewater flow forecasts will reflect the effects of
applying selected combinations of flow and waste reduction
measures. For example, should the infiltration/inflow
analysis demonstrate excessive infiltration or inflow, flows
will be reduced to account for the estimated effects of
corrective measures. Flow forecasts will similarly reflect
effects of providing other flow and waste reduction
measures.
In summary, many factors affect wastewater flow
forecasts, some of which can be identified when planning is
initiated. Other factors, such as industrial wastewater
flows and flow and waste reduction measures, depend upon
cost-effectiveness ccmparisions and cannot be determined
when planning is initiated. For these reasons, a range of
wastewater flow forecasts for preliminary planning should be
developed to cover several sets of assumed conditions. Such
a range of forecasts would subsequently aid in testing the
cost-effectiveness of a proposed measure.
3.3 DEVELOP AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES (Step 8)
A. General
The following paragraphs describe major factors to be
considered and procedures to be applied in the development
and evaluation of alternative waste treatment systems.
B. Optimize Operational.Efficiency of Existing Plant
Any facilities plan must consider the optimization of
the performance efficiency of any existing facilities as an
alternative to or integral part of any additional treatment
23
-------
facilities. Optimization of operational performance may
include better operation and maintenance of existing
facilities and/or upgrading or modification of such
facilities to provide better operational control,
flexibility of operation, or a change of treatment process
to improve operational efficiency. Upgrading may be
undertaken to accommodate higher hydraulic or organic
loadings, or to meet higher level treatment requirements.
Economic pressures to optimize pollution abatement
expenditures require that a logical and technically sound
approach to upgrading be established. Regardless of the
purpose for upgrading, it is necessary to first take steps
to optimize the operation of existing facilities before
considering additions to the treatment plant. This becomes
especially significant in instances where improved operation
may forego construction for extended periods of time.
c Industrial Service
Municipal waste treatment systems should be planned to
serve industrial users of the area whenever practicable and
cost-effective. Because of the unusual economy of scale
associated with larger municipal-industrial facilties, as
compared to separate municipal and industrial facilities, a
joint system will often be cost-effective. In many
instances, however, it may be more economical to have
separate industrial treatment facilities because of such
factors as characteristics and quantities of industrial
waste, industrial pretreatment requirements (reference k),
and industrial locations and groupings which facilitate
joint industrial treatment and/or reuse of industrial
wastewater.
Industrial use of municipal facilities will be
encouraged where total costs (environmental and monetary)
would be minimized. Where industrial flow handled by
municipal systems is significant (more than 10 percent of
total flow), costs of separate treatment of industrial
wastes versus costs of pretreatment plus joint municipal-
industrial facilities should be compared. This involves
comparing the incremental cost of the municipal facilities
required to transport and treat industrial wastes, together
with the costs of corresponding pretreatment required, with
the cost of separate industrial treatment and disposal of
those wastes. In particular, the analysis will cover those
industries desiring municipal service and which are not so
served when facilities planning is initated.
24
-------
D. Flow and Waste Reduction Measures
Section 212 (2) (B) of the Act encourages the use of
methods for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, or
disposing of municipal wastes including industrial wastes
and storm water runoff in municipal wastewater systems where
such methods are cost-efficient. Some types of flow and
waste reduction measures are listed below.
1. Measures for reducing sewer system
infiltration/inflow.
2. Household water saving devices.
3. Water meters.
U. water pricing.
5. Land use and development regulations.
6. Industrial reuse and recycling.
Procedures for determing the cost-effectiveness of
measures for reducing infiltration/inflow are presented in
the EPA Guidelines for Sewer System Evaluation. To
determine the cost-effectiveness of water conservation
measures, the costs of implementing the measures should be
compared with the resultant savings for both waste treatment
and water supply. Some of the flow and waste reduction
measures will realize multiple purpose values associated
with land use control, open space, parks and recreation and
floodplain management. The overall values and costs of such
multiple purpose measures should be reflected in the
analysis.
E. Sewers
Planning of a waste treatment system will include
comparision of alternative arrangements of interceptors and
trunk lines to assure selection of a cost-effective
configuration. In developing areas, sewer planning should
be based on land use plans and zoning which reflect expected
future land use and development density changes. Planning
must provide for cost-effective phased development of
sewers, and related facilities, to serve the changing needs
of a developing area over the planning period. For planning
of interceptors, land use or development changes resulting
from the interceptor location will be evaluated. Choice of
interceptor and collector pipe sizes should reflect cost-
effective analysis of alternative pipe sizes over the
planning period. The analysis should reflect the expected
useful life of the pipe, all costs related to future pipe
installation, and induced growth effects of initial
provision of substantial excess capacity.
25
-------
F. Waste Management Techniques
1. General
As indicated in Chapter 1, alternative waste management
techniques will be evaluated based on the BWPTT or, as
applicable, more stringent criteria require to meet water
quality standards. Since the criteria depend partly on the
receiving media (i.e., surface water, oceans, land),
selection of a waste management technique relates closely to
effluent disposal choices. Facilities planning will include
cost-effectiveness comparison of techniques listed in
subsequent paragraphs. Preliminary alternative systems
featuring at least one technique under each of the three
categories below (treatment and discharge, wastewater reuse
and land application) will be developed and screened. A
final proposal will te prepared for each unless adequate
justification for eliminating a technique during the
screening process is presented.
Published cost, performance, and other information is
available for many alternative treatment technologies
including primary and biological processes, physical-
chemical processes and land application (reference m).
These technologies can be evaluated by comparing logical
combinations of unit processes selected to achieve the
required results. Preliminary screening of these treatment
technologies involves interrelating the costs and relative
treatment capabilities of each unit process. The cost
information published in the technical literature should be
adjusted to reflect regional or local cost levels.
2. Treatment and Discharge
Treatment and discharge techniques include the
following:
a. Biological treatment including ponds, activated
sludge, trickling filters, nitrification, and
denitrif ication.
b. Physical-Chemical treatment including chemical
flocculation, filtration, activated carbon,
breakpoint chlorination, ion exchange, and ammonia
stripping.
c. Systems combining the above techniques.
d. Storm and combined sewer control measures.
26
-------
Where meeting water quality standards during dry
weather periods requires higher degrees of removal than the
BPWTT criteria, biological measures such as longer detention
periods or larger clarifiers may be employed. Physical-
chemical processes such as carbon adsorption, filtration and
chemical addition and precipitation may also be used.
Storm sewer discharges and combined-sewer overflows can
be sources of significant quantities of pollutants.
Demonstrated technology to cost-effectively control storm
sewer discharges does not presently exist although efforts
are being made to better define the problem and possible
corrective measures. The combined-sewer overflow problem is
better defined and EPA research has demonstrated many types
of control and treatment techniques. They may be grouped
into the following five categories (reference m):
a. Separation of sewage and storm collection systems
(generally the most costly approach);
b. Operational control of the existing system,
(maximum use of system storage by computerized flow
regulation and subsequent treatment at the plant);
c. Storage and subsequent treatment;
d. Dual use (waste treatment plant expansion or
modification); and
e. Direct treatment of overflows (in-line high rate
treatment methods) .
Proper maintenance and control of combined sewers,
including maintenance of valves and other flow regulating
devices, are included under BPWTT requirements. Where water
quality standards criteria would be violated, even with
application of BPWTT requirements, during and following
storm runoff periods, facilities plans will provide for
measures to abate pollution from combined sewer overflows.
Where combined sewer overflow pollution abatement measures
plus BPWTT would not meet water quality standards, the
magnitude and nature of the separate storm sewer problem
should be assessed. Possible corrective measures should be
indicated.
The monetary costs and environmental effects of the
above combined sewer control and treatment methods,
including combinations of the methods, should be compared.
Generally, the cost comparisons should be based upon the
unit costs for each alternative of removing U.O.D. or other
27
-------
pollutants on an annual basis. Since costs for storing
combined sewer flows prior to treatment are generally high,
the storage.features may typically be designed to only store
and treat the initial most highly polluted storm runoff.
Design criteria should be developed for each case based on
storm and runoff characteristics, system geometry, pollutant
loadings during runoff and other factors.
3. Wastewater Reuse
In comparing waste management techniques and
alternative systems, wastewater reuse applications should be
evaluated as a means of contributing to local water
management goals. Such applications are listed below.
a. industrial processes.
b. groundwater recharge for water supply enhancement
or preventing salt water intrusion.
c. surface water supply enhancement.
d. recreation lakes.
e. land reclamation.
Wastewater reuse needs should be identified and defined
by volume, location and quality. These needs may influence
the location of the treatment facilities; the type of
process selected; and the degree of treatment required.
Wastewater reuse criteria set forth in the BPWTT regulations
impose minimal restrictions on wastewater reuse and, at the
same time, prevent degradation of the receiving waters
through indirect discharge of inadequately treated wastes.
The criteria require that the quantity of pollutants and the
concentration attributable directly to the publicly-owned
treatment works meet the minimum criteria applicable to non-
reuse techniques.
The economic and environmental costs (losses and gains)
related to wastewater reuse will be included in the monetary
cost and environmental evaluations of alternative systems.
The monetary costs will include external costs for
consumptive use of water diminishing a prior established
water use and also the net revenues obtained from reuse.
4. Land Application
The application of wastewater effluents on the land is
being practiced at several hundred sites throughout the
United States. Land application involves use of the soil
through biological action therein plus plant growth, for the
breakdown and disposal of pollutants. When wastewater is
applied to the land, biological action to break down
28
-------
pollutants occurs within the topsoil and plants utilize the
resulting nutrients. Such treatment generally provides a
high degree of removal for both nutrients and organic
substances. Much cf the treated wastewater is released to
the atmosphere, some returns to streams through surface
runoff or underdrain systems and the remainder migrates to
the permanent groundwater table. The wastewater proportions
disposed of in each manner depend upon the type of
application and the design and operation of the system.
Land application techniques must meet criteria published in
the BPWTT regulations for protection of the groundwater
resource and, if underdrains are used, surface water
discharge criteria as well. Technical information,
including cost data on principal Land Application
Techniques-irrigation, overland flow and infiltration-
percolation--are presented in a referenced publications (m),
(n), and (o). Land application techniques include:
a. Irrigation including spray, ridge and
furrow and flood.
b. Overland flow.
c. Infiltration^percolation.
d. Other approaches such as evaporation
and deep well injection.
G- Sludge Disposal
Sludge disposal will comply with referenced policy
statement (p). Acceptable disposal methods include the
following:
1. Stabilization
-aerobic and anaerobic digestion
-composting
-chemical methods
-physical methods
2. Final disposal options
-land application
-incineration
-landfill disposal
Some disposal techniques such as soil conditioning and
land utilization realize the nutrient value of sludge as
fertilizer. The economic and environmental values derived
from such uses, will be determined. Analysis of the monetary
costs and environmental effects of the sludge disposal
29
-------
option will be included in the evaluation of each
alternative system.
Incineration of sludge generates its own particular
wastes, including ash and- gases. Disposal of incinerated
waste is subject to limitations similar to those for land
disposal of sludge and to air pollution control regulations
as well. Estimated costs of ultimate disposal of
incinerated waste should be included in the analysis.
H Location of Facilities
Evaluation and choice of sites for treatment plants,
interceptors, transmission lines, outfalls, pumping plants
and other major works should reflect the factors cited below
and discussed further in references (q) and (r).
1. Odor, aestheticsIf practicable, treatment
plant and sludge disposal sites will be removed
sufficiently from either residential or heavily
used public areas to preclude problems due to
odors or unpleasant visual contrast to the
surrounding area. If not practicable, the
design and landscaping of the treatment plant
and grounds will provide for the features
necessary to minimize such problems. Sludge
disposal methods to minimize odor problems
should be adopted.
2. Future provision for no-discharge goal
Treatment plant sites should, if practicable,
be located to facilitate future reuse of the
effluent and additional pollution abatement,
thus contributing toward future "no discharge"
requirements.
3. Discharges to potable, shellfish and
recreational watersOutfalls located close
enough to adversely affect public water supply
intakes, shellfishing beds, and contact
recreational waters should be avoided. Where
alternative sites are unavailable, special
precautions as prescribed in reference (r).
must be taken.
4. FloodplainsTreatments plants and other
facilities should be located outside
floodplains where unwise economic growth might
be induced. Where such location is not
30
-------
practicable or would lead to excessive costs,
the treatment plant and electrical and
mechanical equipment will be protected against
flooding as described in reference (r). The
costs of providing the required minimum levels
of flood protection for alternative sites for
treatment plants and other works will be
included in the evaluation of alternative
systems.
WetlandsSiting of treatment works will comply
with the EPA. Policy to Protect the Nation's
Wetlands. The policy, dated May 2, 1973, is
published in the Federal Register, Vol. 38, No.
84, Pg. 10834.
1 Regional!zation
Regionalizaticn options will be evaluated where
appropriate. Monetary costs of feasible combinations of
treatment plants, interceptors and other works within a
planning area will be assessed. In addition, costs of
collective management of individual wastewater systems
should be explored where applicable. Frequently because of
economies of scale, regional plans involving large waste
treatment plant with interconnected systems will have least
monetary costs. However, the selection of the best regional
system must reflect balanced consideration of environmental
and social impacts as well as costs. As an example,
interconnected systems, because of their extensive
interceptor networks, open up many areas for new or more
rapid growth. Particular concern arises because such areas
frequently include floodplains, wetlands, valley slopes,
forests or natural scenic areas not well suited for
intensive development. Thus, the impacts of each
alternative plan regarding these factors should be fully
examined and presented. Another adverse environmental
effect frequently resulting from regionalization is the
diversion of treated flows from a stream. The resultant
stream flow depletion may inhibit maintenance of a fishery
or support of other aquatic life. Accordingly, both the
costs and environmental effects of interconnected system
alternatives should be evaluated and presented to establish
a rational basis for final plan selection.
31
-------
J. Waste Load Allocation Revision
For water quality segments, waste load allocations,
derived in applicable Section 303 basin plans may provide
the effluent limitations to be achieved by the planned
treatment plants. However, the load allocations depend
partly upon the location of discharge points and the
distribution of waste loads among these points. The
initially determined waste load allocations will generally
be based upon existing discharge locations and waste loads,
with reasonable allowances for economic growth. However,
facilities planning may result in changing the effluent
discharge locations, and the waste load distribution among
the locations. In this case, the waste load allocation must
be reviewed by the State or EPA and modified as necessary to
reflect the waste treatment system proposal. Should the
revised allocation reguire different treatment levels or
other changes, the proposed works should be modified
accordingly. If the load allocation performed in the 303
plan is modified and is approved by the State, this will be
reflected in future revisions of the 303 plan.
K. Phased Development
1. General
In examining the cost-effectiveness of a waste
treatment system, one important aspect is the alternative of
providing sufficient capacity in the initial construction
for the entire planning period versus phased construction.
The latter option would involve planning to construct
facilities at intervals throughout the planning period to
accommodate projected increases of waste loads and flows.
The factors to be considered are:
a. the service life of the treatment works;
b. the incremental costs;
c. the planning period; and
d. the flow forecasts.
A cost analysis for phased development is presented in
the Appendix, Chapter 4.
2. Reserve and Excess Capacity
The planning of waste treatment facilities will
normally allow for some excess capacity. The system
32
-------
capacity excess beyond the anticipated average daily flow,
however, must be examined from a cost-effective viewpoint.
Rather than providing sufficient excess capacity to
accommodate wastewater flow increases over the entire
planning period, phased construction of facilities,
particularly treatment plants, may be more cost-effective.
To be considered are such items as:
Ease of constructing additional facilities
at a later date, e.g., space limitations,
disruption of community activities from
more frequent construction, environmental
impacts;
b. Relative cost of providing excess capacity
initially as compared to the discounted
cost of deferring provision of capacity
until needed;
c. Uncertainties of projecting long term
wastewater flows;
d. Difficulty of plant operation at low flows
and settlement due to low velocities in
gravity sewers; and
e. Future technological advances or adoption
of flow and waste reduction measures may
limit need for excess capacity.
3. Phased Development of System
Phased development of the system pertaining to sewers
and multiple plant construction, is advisable in rapidly
growing areas; in areas where the projected flows are
somewhat uncertain; or where such phasing would facilitate
orderly growth. The phasing must be accomplished so as to
provide sufficient excess capacity at the beginning of each
construction phase to accommodate expected flow increases
during the phase. Phasing of the sewer may involve
providing for parallel or multiple systems or extension of a
single pipe. The decision should be based on cost
comparisons of the options. For example, should the growth
projections for a planning period be such that providing a
large enough sewer for the total planning period would
result in substantial under-capacity initially, a parallel
sewer may be more cost-effective. Multiple systems may be
advisable in situations where the interceptors will follow
rather than lead growth directions.
33
-------
U. Modular Development of Individual Facilities
Modular development of the individual facilities,
pertaining to components of the wastewater treatment plant,
is advisable in areas where high growth rates are projected;
where the required degree of treatment must be upgraded
later during the planning period; or where existing
facilities are to be used initially but phased out later.
High growth projections rcay mean that constructing the
plant at the beginning of the planning period to accommodate
flows expected at the end of the period would present
operating problems. Certain components would be under-
utilized for a period of time, and other components would
not be operated within an efficient range.
Should a requirement for a higher degree of treatment
be expected during the planning period, the provision of all
facilities required to provide the anticipated future
treatment at the beginning of the planning period would
result in idling some facilities until they are needed.
This would occur for example, if an industry is expected to
join the system of if the water quality standards are
expected to be raised. Although cost-effectiveness
considerations may preclude initial development of the
facilities that may be needed in the future, provisions
should be made for such future additions during the design
of the initial facilities.
L. Flexibility
Planning of treatment processes and plant facilities
should consider plant upgrading resulting from possible
future changes of water quality objectives. Such upgrading
could be accommodated by incorporating provisions for future
addition cf unit treatment processes and associated
facilities changes. Planning for the plant and site should
also consider providing for facilities layouts and siting
arrangements, together with sufficient land, to allow for
expansion of the plant to handle unforeseen increases in
wastewater flows. To the extent practicable, planning of
treatment plants and sites will allow for later application
of new technologies, including possible future wastewater
reuse.
Planning of interceptors and collection systems will
facilitate adaptation to unforeseen service area expansions,
density changes or growth pattern changes. To accommodate
such unforeseen future changes, consideration will be given
to such contingencies as provision of extra sewer rights of
34
-------
way for staged parallel pipes and pipe extensions, staged
extension of interceptors and temporary treatment plants.
M. Reliability
There is a risk of failure cf any planned wastewater
system. With a view toward minimizing this risk, the
probability, duration and impact of such failures will be
considered for each system and its component parts. Each
unit process and the combination of such processes should be
designed to reliably treat wide variations of flow and
pollutant concentrations. Emphasis on reliability must
focus on the most critical processes. Planned facilities
should meet the reliability requirements presented in
reference (r) .
N. Operability
All equipment and controls should be readily accessible
to plant personnel. Off-the-shelf equipment is often
difficult to combine in various ways without adverse effects
on their operability. Some items to consider are: (1)
proximity positioning of dependent operations; (2)
compactness; (3) considerations for future expansions; and
(4) accessibility of principal facilities.
35
-------
CHAPTER 4
MONETARY COST EVALUATION
4.1 GENJSRAL
This chapter covers direct resources costs that can be
evaluated in monetary terms. Cost^effectiveness analyses
will include a monetary cost evaluation of direct project
costs to be incurred in the implementation of the plan
throughout the planning period (see reference e). These
monetary costs are represented by the values of goods and
services and include all capital costs; operation,
maintenance, and replacement costs; and costs for managing
or implementing integral flow and waste reduction measures.
Revenue derived from implementation of the plan will be
assessed as negative monetary costs. The monetary cost
assessment, however, will not extend to the indirect costs
or benefits related to the plan. These costs will be
included, as appropriate, in the social and economic impact
components of the environmental evaluation.
As discussed in Chapter 2, all monetary costs incurred
throughout the planning period will be related through a
discount rate in determining the present worth or equivalent
annual cost over the planning period. Such a cost
evaluation will be applied to both the entire system and to
the system components.
Monetary costs will be evaluated in terms of actual
outlays or expenditures. Cost of each facility will be
analyzed over the planning period. Facilities scheduled to
function beyond the end of the planning period will be
credited for an actual market salvage value at the end of
the planning period. The evaluation of monetary costs would
not be influenced by adopted financial arrangements such as
depreciation, debt retirement, and cost recovery rates and
periods.
4.2 ELgMENTS_OF_C^PITAL_COSTS
Capital costs will include:
a. The estimated contract construction costs of all
system components including:
1. Those for collection, treatment, and disposal
of wastewater;
36
-------
2. Modifications required for existing facilities;
3. Components for treatment and disposal of
residual wastes, including conveyance to
disposal sites;
4. Components for storage and recycling of
wastewater including land disposal;
5. Integral flow and waste reduction measures;
6. Pretreatment facilities for industrial wastes
(private costs) ;
7. Storage or control measures for control of
domestic wastes and combined sewer overflows;
and
8. Any interim facilities needed while more
permanent facilities are deferred or under
construction plus incremental operation and
maintenance costs of the temporary facilities
compared with costs of the old facilities.
b. Costs for detailed engineering and design services,
field exploration studies, and engineering services
during construction.
c. Costs for legal and administrative services
associated with implementation of the facilities
plan.
d. Costs of all lands, including capitalized costs of
leased lands (including publicly-owned lands),
rights-of-way, and easements based on appraised
market values.
e. Startup costs such as operator training.
f. Interest foregone during facilities construction.
g. Contingency allowances as appropriate to the level
of complexity and detail used.
4.3 MAJOR REPLACEMENT COSTS
Major replacements will consist of the periodic
replacements of auxiliary equipment included in the system
facilities. The service life and interval of replacement of
major replacement elements within each facility will be
37
-------
identified and the discounted costs of all major
replacements expected during the planning period included as
a cost to the plan. Such replacements may include
instruments and control facilities, pumps and electrical
motors, various mechanical equipment, and electrical
generating facilities. They may also include any probable
initial major replacements costs required to fully utilize
existing facilities.
4.4 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The ongoing operation and maintenance costs of a waste
treatment management system will consist of the continuous
costs of administering and operating the facilities and the
costs of providing routine maintenance and minor
replacements. These costs should be adequate to insure
effective and dependable facility operation at the designed
capacity and treatment level. They will include:
a. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs for all
collection, storage, treatment (including
pretreatment), disposal and recycling facilities
and integral flow and waste reduction measures; and
b. Short-term operation and maintenance costs
associated with upgrading of existing facilities or
development of interim facilities.
c. Costs for a continuing program for personnel
training necessary for new entries and to maintain
the proficiency of existing staff, including
operator certifications, management training, and
other specialized training as needed.
4.5 SALVAGE VALUE
Normally, land for treatment works, including land used
as part of the treatment process or for ultimate disposal of
residues, shall be assumed to have a salvage value at the
end of the planning period equal to its prevailing market
value at the time of the analysis. Rights-of-way and
easements shall be considered to have a salvage value not
greater than the prevailing market value at the time of the
analysis.
Permanent structures will be assumed to have a salvage
value at the end of the planning period if those structures
can be expected to continue to fulfill their planned use.
Where a structure can be expected to continue to be used as
planned, salvage value will be based on the remaining
38
-------
service life of the structure based on a straight line
depreciation over the assumed service life of the structure.
The same approach for determining salvage value will apply
to process and auxiliary equipment that will have a useable
value at the end of the planning period.
H.6 REVENUE PRODUCED
Net revenue (total revenue minus associated costs)
anticipated to be accrued from plan implementation, such as
revenue from the sale of wastewater, revenue from recovered
wastewater constituents, revenue from processed sludge or
other residual wastes from the treatment and pretreatment
facilities will be evaluated and credited as negative costs
(benefits) to the plan. In addition to normal monetary
costs associated with wastewater reuse, there may be
external costs for diminuation (consumptive use) by
evaporation or evapotranspiration of a prior water use or
supply. These monetary external costs should be included in
the analysis.
4.7 SUNK COSTS
Any investments and cost commitments made prior to or
concurrent with the facilities planning study will be
regarded as sunk costs and not included as monetary cost for
plan evaluation and comparison. Such investments and cost
commitments will include:
a. Investments in existing wastewater treatment
facilities and associated lands even though
incorporated into a plan;
b. Outstanding bond indebtedness; and
c. Cost of preparing the facilities plan.
In summary, monetary costs assigned to a plan will
represent only those initial and future costs associated
with the implementation of that plan.
U.8 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
For those resources that can be evaluated in monetary
terms, the interest (discount) rate stated in Section 4.11
will be used. Monetary costs will be displayed in terms of
present worth values or annual value equivalents over the
planning period. It will be assumed that funds needed or
used during a given year must be totally available at the
beginning of the year and that funds received during the
39
-------
year are not available until the end of the year. See this
chapter's appendix for examples of typical cost analyses for
selected waste management subsystems.
4.9 ACCURACY OF COST ESTIMATES
The level of accuracies for comparison of treatment
processes and system components will be of sufficient detail
as to assure the reliable selection of the cost-effective
solution. Gross cost estimates will suffice for preliminary
screening of alternatives. Generally, cost estimates for
comparison of those plans selected for detailed evaluation
will be based upon:
a. Unit process costs associated with the different
wastewater and sludge treatment processes
considered. The unit costs should be applicable to
the locality or region.
b. Preliminary engineering layouts, quantity
estimates, and unit costs for the sewer lines and
appurtenant works. Unit costs used should be the
same for each of the alternatives for
comparability. Such unit costs should be
representative of the area based upon recent
comparable projects.
c. Market Value of land or easements required for
facilities.
Cost estimates for the selected system will be refined
based upon preliminary engineering layouts and designs for
the treatment works and residual waste treatment facilities.
Should the more refined estimates of the selected system
differ considerably from the previous estimates, the prior
comparative evaluations of alternatives should be revised to
assure the selection of the most cost-effective system.
U.10
Monetary costs and possible revenue throughout the
planning period will be calculated on the basis of market
prices prevailing at the time of the analysis. Inflation of
wages and prices shall not be considered in the analysis.
The implied assumption is that all prices involved will tend
to change over time fcy approximately the same percentage.
Thus, the results of the analysis will not be changed by
changes in the general level of prices.
40
-------
Exceptions to the foregoing will be made if there is
justification for expecting significant changes in the
relative prices of certain items during the planning period.
In such cases, the expected change in these prices should be
made to reflect their future relative deviation from the
general price level. Also, if market prices do not reflect
the actual values of scarce energy or resources, the
opportunity costs of such items should be evaluated.
Opportunity cost represents the value of the resource in its
best alternative use.
4.11 INTEREST (DISCOUNT) RATE
The interest rate to be used for evaluating municipal
wastewater facilities will be, the Federal discount rate for
evaluation of water and related land resources projects as
published in reference (s).
4.12 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION
In cases in which capital expenditures can be expected
to be fairly uniform during the construction period,
interest during construction may be calculated as I x P/2 x
C where:
I = the interest (discount) rate
P = the construction period in years
C = the total capital expenditures
In cases in which expenditures will not be uniform, or
when the construction period will be greater than three
years, interest during construction shall be calculated on a
year-by-year basis.
4.13 RISK FACTORS
Risks such as potential additional resources costs and
non-use of capacity will be accounted for. Such accounting
may be included through additions to cost estimates,
descriptions, or combinations of these methods. For
example, contingency allowances will be regularly included
in engineering cost estimates to allow for estimating errors
and for uniform problems related to new or different
processes. Costs will also be included to insure a certain
degree of reliability in the operation of a system (e.g.,
technological change; uncertain operating changes; etc.).
Additional costs may be incurred and normally included in
the cost analysis (see Chapter 3).
41
-------
There will also be a probability that in the future the
capacity of the system will be either under-utilized or
undersized. For instance, if projected capacity results in
a system that in actuality is underdesigned, extraordinary
expense may be incurred to increase capacity. (This risk
may, of course, be reduced somewhat through design
flexibility). Under-utilization of capacity may occur if
growth projections are too optimistic and excess capacity is
not used when scheduled. This type of risk and uncertainty
will be difficult to quantify and therefore may be best
accounted for descriptively.
42
-------
APPENDIX
CHAPTER 4
PRESENT WORTH AND AVERAGE ANNUAL
EQUIVALENT COST CALCULATION EXAMPLES
The following three examples explain the derivation of
present worth and average annual equivalent cost for a
project such as a sewage treatment plant.
Present worth may be thought of as the sum which, if
invested now at a given interest rate, would provide exactly
the funds to make all expenditures during the life of the
project. Average annual equivalent cost permits expressing
a non-uniform series of expenditures as a uniform annual
amount, where money has a time value. The calculation of
present worth and annual equivalent cost allows the planner
or engineer to compare the long run economics of different
courses of action. Present worth and annual equivalent cost
provide economic answers to questions such as: Should a
community construct a sewage treatment plant with the
capacity to handle its 20 year projected waste flow? Or
should it build a smaller facility now and upgrade it later?
Three cases, as described below, include: a simplistic
one, assuming constant O&M costs; a relatively complex case
with varying O6M costs; and a third case assuming varying
O&M, upgrade expenditures and a positive salvage value.
Note that the second and third cases actually compare two
alternatives for treating a given community's waste.
In order to perform the following analysis you will
need a table of 7.056 compound interest factors and a table
of factors to compute the present worth of a gradient
series. These tables may usually be found in an engineering
economics textbook.
1st Case
GIVEN:
sewage treatment plant #1
capacity: 10 mgd
average flow through plant: 9 mgd
43
-------
planning period: 20 years
salvage value at the end of 20 years: $0
initial cost of plant: $3 million
average annual operation and maintenance cost: $190,000
interest rate: 7.0%
DETERMINE;
Present worth and average annual equivalent cost of this
plant over 20 years.
METHOD;
Present worth equals initial cost plus the present worth of
the operating and maintenance costs. Average annual
equivalent cost equals the present worth times the
appropriate capital recovery factor.
Step 1
Initial cost = 13^000^000
Step 2
Present worth of annual OSM cost equals annual OSM cost
times the uniform series present worth factor 3 7.0% for 20
years. Thus:
$190,000 (10.594) = 12^013^000
Step.,3
Sum of numbers obtained in the1 above steps yield present
worth
initial cost = $3,000,000
present worth of OSM cost = $2,013,000
present worth = $5,013.000
44
-------
Step 4
To find average annual equivalent cost multiply present
worth obtained above times the capital recovery factor a)
1.0% for 20 years. Thus:
$5,013,000 (.09439) = $ 474,000
is the average annual equivalent cost of the plant over 20
years.
2nd Case
GIVEN:
sewage treatment plant #2
capacity: 10 mgd
average flow through plant: increases linearly
from 2 mgd to 10 mgd over 20 years
planning period: 20 years
salvage value at end of 20 years: $0
initial cost of plant: $3,000,000
constant annual operation and maintenance cost: $126,000
variable annual operation and maintenance cost:
increases linearly from $0 to $68,000 in year 20
interest rate: 7.0%
DETERMINE:
Present worth and average annual equivalent cost of this
plant over 20 years.
METHOD;
Present worth equals the sum of initial cost, present worth
of constant O&M cost, and the present worth of the gradient
series of the variable OSM cost. Average annual equivalent
cost is derived as in the first case.
45
-------
Initial cost = $3,0 CO. OOP
To find the present worth of operating costs it will be
necessary to calculate the present worths of the constant
costs and the variable costs separately.
a. Present worth of constant annual costs equals that
cost times the uniform series present worth factor a 7.0%
for 20 years. Thus:
$126,000 (10.594) = $1,335.0.00
b. Present worth of a variable cost increasing linearly
is found by first finding the amount of increase per year.
This amount is $68,000/20 years or $3,100 per year. This
increase is known as a gradient series. This series times
the correct gradient series present worth factor 3) 7.0% for
20 years yield the present worth of the variable cost.
Thus:
$3,400 (77.5091) = J _ 264^000
StejD_3
Sum of numbers obtained in the steps above yields present
worth:
present worth of constant O&M costs = jl,335,OQO
present worth of variable O&M cost = $_ __ 264,000
present worth = $4..5..S9.«.00_0
Step 4
As before the present worth just derived times the capital
recovery factor a) 7. OX for 20 years will yield the average
annual equivalent cost. Thus:
$4,599,000 (.09439) = | __ 434.100
which is the average annual equivalent cost of the plant for
20 years.
46
-------
3rd Case
GIVENi
sewage treatment plant #3
capacity: year 1-10r 5 mgd; year 11-20, 10 mgd
average flow through plant: increases linearly from
2 mgd to 10 mgd over 20 years
planning period: 20 years
salvage value at the end of 20 years: $750,000
initial cost of plant (5 mgd): $2,000,000
cost to upgrade at year 10 to 10 mgd: $1,500,000
operation and maintenance cost:
a. constant annual O&M cost year 1-1,0: $84,000
b. variable annual O&M cost year 1-10: increases
linearly from 0 to $29,000 in year 10
c. constant annual O&M cost year 11-20: $165,000
d. variable annual O&M cost year 11-20: increases
linearly from 0 to $29,000 in year 20
interest rate: 7.0%
DETERMINE;
Present worth and annual equivalent cost of this plant over
20 years.
METHOD:
Present worth is derived as in the previous example:
however, this time calculate O&M costs from year 1 to 10 and
O&M costs from year 11-20 separately. It is necessary also
to add the present worth of the expansion and subtract the
present worth of the salvage value from the present worth of
the costs. Average annual equivalent costs are calculated
as before.
47
-------
Step 1
Initial cost = $2.000^000
Step 2
Calculate the present worth of the OSM costs as follows:
a. Present worth of constant annual cost years 1-10 equals
given cost times uniform series present worth factors a) 7.OS
for 10 years. Thus:
$84,000 (7.020) = $ SSO^OOO
b. Present worth of the variable OSM cost years 1-10 equals
the gradient series ($2900) times the present worth factor
of a gradient series 3 7.0% for 10 years. Thus:
$2900 (27,7156) = | 80.400
c. The present worth of the constant OSM costs year 11-20
are first calculated as in (a) above using the given cost
for years 11-20. This, however, yields present worth in
year 11 which must be converted to present worth in year 1.
This is accomplished by multiplying times the single payment
present worth factor a 7.0% for 10 years (.5083). Thus
present worth in year 1 equals:
$165,000 (7.024) (.5083) = $ 589,100
d. The present worth of the variable OSM costs year 11-20
are first calculated as in (b) above using the gradient
series for years 11-20 which is $2900. This yields the
present worth in year 11 which again must be converted to
present worth in year 1 by multiplying the present worth
(year 11) times the single payment present worth factor 3>
7.0% for 10 years (.5083). Thus:
$2900 (27.7156) (.5083) = J HP_X900
Step^3
To determine the present worth of the upgrade cost which
occurs at year 10, multiply the upgrade cost times the
single payment present worth factors o» 7.0% for 10 years.
Thus:
$1,500,000 (.5083) = | 763^,000
48
-------
Step_4
The present worth of the salvage value at the end of 20
years equals that value times the single payment present
worth factor a) 7.03! for 20 years. Thus:
$750,000 (.2584) = | __ 194,000
Step 5
The sum of the values obtained in Steps 1, 2 and 3 minus the
value obtained in Step 4 will equal the present worth of the
plant. Thus:
initial cost = $2, 0 CO, OOP
present worth of constant OSM year 1-10 = ___ 590,000
present worth of variable O&M year 1-10 = ___ 80*400
present worth of constant O&M year 11-20 = ___ 89,1 CO
present worth of variable OSM year 11-20 = ____ 4 .0, 900
present worth of upgrade at year 10 = ___ 76 3 f 0 CO
TOTAL $4,063.400
Subtract from the total the present worth of
salvage value
present worth of salvage value = - 194,000
present worth of plant = $3, 669,400
As before the present worth just derived times the capital
recovery factor o> 7.0% for 20 years will yield the average
annual equivalent cost thus:
$3,869,400 (.09439) = jj __ 365,200
which is the average annual equivalent cost of the plant
over 20 years.
49
-------
CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
5.1 PURPOSE
This chapter presents guidance intended to meet the
letter and intent of Section 102 (2)c of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. To meet this objective,
this chapter provides guidance for integrating environmental
evaluation into the facilities planning process in a manner
that will influence planning decisions. Thus, the
facilities plan will serve as an environmental assessment
and will provide the information needed to facilitate
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement by EPA
(reference t).
5.2 RELATIONSHIP OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TO THE
FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS
The environmental evaluation will be an integral part
and major tool of the facilities planning process. The
environmental evaluation, together with the monetary cost
evaluation and consideration of systems performance, will
comprise the major analysis of alternatives which results
finally in selection of a facilities plan (see Chapter 2).
The environmental evaluation should pervade the entire
planning process, beginning early enough to impact the
initial goal setting and alternative screening decisions as
well as the final decisions. The steps in the environmental
evaluation process will generally conform with corresponding
steps in the total planning process as described in Chapter
2. Much of the data gathering, analytical work, and public
involvement should be done concurrently to avoid duplication
and conserve time and resources. Attempting to delay an
environmental evaluation until after the selection of a plan
must be avoided as such an approach may result in
reformulation of the plan. The orderly and timely
integration of environmental considerations into facilities
planning will be described and presented in the planning
report in accordance with this guidance.
5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROCESS
A. Inventory Environmental Conditions (Step 6)
The purpose of this step is to provide baseline
environmental data against which projected environmental
50
-------
changes attributable to the various management alternatives
may be evaluated. The environmental inventory will
encompass, as a minimum, the delineated planning area, and
will be expanded as alternatives are developed, to include
locations of plan components which may be outside the
planning area. Examples of such components include land
disposal sites for effluent or sludge, other wastewater
reuse sites, and outfall sites.
Historic base data should be reviewed and briefly
included to establish a "natural condition" as well as the
existing condition. Such information will be of assistance
in estimating trends. Data for both the current and
historical inventories may be available from the appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, and from local and State
level environmental, historical, sporting and cultural
organizations (e.g., Audubon Society, Garden Clubs, Rod and
Gun Clubs, and Historical and Anthropological Societies) .
The environmental inventory may include but will not
necessarily be limited to the following:
1. topography, including topographic maps;
2. climate and precipitation;
3. geology (brief description related to ground
and surface waters) ;
U. ground and surface water hydrology, quality,
water uses;
5. plant and animal communities, particularly:
aquatic biota in receiving water
ecosystems
endangered or locally threatened species
(See U.S. List of Endangered Native Fish
and Wildlife - published in the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 50, Part 17,
May 19, 1972.)
other wildlife;
6. unique or vulnerable environmental features
such as wildlife refuges;
7. unique archeological, historic, scientific or
cultural areas, parks, wetlands, stream
corridors;
51
-------
8. community growth patterns and land use trends;
9. air quality; and
10. aesthestics.
The above information will complement and not duplicate
information presented elsewhere in the facilities planning
report.
The inventory will include identification of adopted
environmental goals and pertinent environmental constraints.
Such goals might typically include:
1. preservation of high quality surface waters;
2. protection or enhancement of groundwater
resources and recharge areas including
prevention of salt water intrusion;
3. preservation of coastal or other wetlands;
4. preservation of river corridors or other
natural areas; and
5. preservation or enhancement of fish and
wildlife.
Examples of environmental constraints include:
1. air quality regulations and implementation
plans;
2. local climate, topography, soils, etc.; and
3. restrictions on floodplain use or other land
uses.
B« Develop and Evaluate Alternatives (Step 8)
As described in Chapter 2, environmental evaluation and
screening will be a major integral element of this planning
step. Environmental evaluation will be applied to the
screening and evaluation of each alternative. The impact of
the alternative on the environment will be evaluated with a
view toward noting significant impacts and failures to meet
environmental goals or constraints. The noted impacts may
require further study. Adverse impacts could be a basis for
rejecting an option, thus reducing the number of
52
-------
alternatives. Major impacts and reasons for option
rejection should be indicated.
For example, such primary effects of a waste treatment
system as the following should be described and estimated,
where possible, in quantitative terms.
1. Temporary or long-term construction effects:
land erosion damage
stream damage due to bank and stream bed
erosion and sedimentation
aesthetics, noise, odor, dust
air pollution
plant and animal life including endangered
species
unique or vulnerable environmental features
such as wildlife refuges, parks, unique
ecosystems, wetlands, stream corridors
< unique archeologic, historic, scientific
or cultural areas
-- dislocation of individuals, businesses, or
local governmental services
significant employment changes;
2. Operational effects:
grcundwater contamination
-- groundwater depletion and wetland degradation
streamflow depletion where treated effluents
are intercepted and conveyed to other locations.
Secondary effects, primarily induced land use changes
and increased development, will be assessed. Such analysis
will be based upon identification of zoned and unzoned land
use and development categories (e.g., open space, sparse
residential, dense residential, commercial, etc.) and the
predicted future land use and density changes of each
category with and without the proposed system.
C. Refine, Review and Display Alternative Proposals
(Step 10)
Contributions toward goals and environmental effects
will be reviewed in detail as a basis for refinement of the
alternatives. Features to offset or mitigate adverse
environmental impacts of a plan will be added, where
practicable, to each alternative. Sites of major facilities
will be reviewed and located more closely and preliminary
phased construction schedules will be developed with a view
53
-------
toward minimizing environmental effects as well as costs.
Finally, the alternative proposals will be publicly
displayed, together with expected environmental effects of
each.
D. Select Plan (Step 11)
Through public hearings and other measures (see Chapter
7) the views of the public will be obtained. Any suggested
additions or changes of environmental effects will be
reviewed and the impact analyses will be modified
accordingly. Where necessary to avoid unacceptable adverse
impacts, a proposal will be modified through repetition of
Step 8. Using inputs from public review, the significant
environmental effects as well as cost and performance of
each alternative will be displayed and compared. A
descriptive list of the nature and degree of the most
important environmental effects should be developed.
Finally, the environmental aspects will be considered along
with other factors as described in Chapter 6 to develop a
composite ranking for the proposals.
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SELECTED PLAN
Following selection and detailing of the plan, its
environmental effects will be summarized. Any unavoidable
adverse impacts will be noted as well as any measures
adopted to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts. Such
mitigating features might include measures to control
sedimentation from construction and monitoring of plant
influents, effluents and receiving water quality.
Consumption of energy and resources for construction and
operation will also be estimated.
54
-------
CHAPTER 6
PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 PLAN SELECTION
A. Introduction
This Chapter discusses the principal considerations in
selecting a plan. The discussion presumes that each of the
alternatives being compared would, if implemented, result in
meeting all regulatory requirements applicable to the plan
(i.e., effluent limitations and load allocations, compliance
schedules, etc.). Local authorities may add their own
additional water management goals appropriate to the
planning area. Plan selection would include evaluation of
the contributions of each proposal to these additional goals
as well as the regulatory requirements.
B. Comparision of Proposals
There is no rigorous analytical method of choosing the
most cost-effective proposal, recognizing that cost-
effectiveness covers environmental and social as well as
resource costs and that common units are lacking for
measuring all such costs. Also, individual perceptions of
relative values may vary widely. Other factors, including
public acceptance, reliability, and implementation must be
considered and they will influence choice of the plan.
Under these circumstances, plan selection will involve
making reasoned choices among the alternatives based upon
display of all significant costs and effects of each. This
will aid in identifying tradeoffs between the alternatives
and will also facilitate effective involvement in the
selection process of representatives of concerned interest
groups and organizations. Such involvement is essential to
obtain general agreement on the best plan and the measures
needed for plan implementation. Figure 6.1 provides an
example of the display of costs and effects of alternative
proposals to permit ready comparison of the proposals and
the tradeoffs among them. The effects should be presented,
whenever possible, in quantitative terms. The display
should include any facts obtained from Citizens Advisory
Groups, governmental representatives or other sources.
55
-------
Figure 6.1
COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
PROPOSALS
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS A B C D
1. Environmental Effects
a. Aquatic biota
b. Terrestrial
c. Wildlife habitat
(including wetlands)
d. Cultural areas
e. Groundwater and
surface pollution
f. Air pollution
g. Aesthetics, noise
odor, and dust
h. Land use
i. Social factors
1. dislocation
2. employment changes
j. Other effects
2. Monetary Costs
a. Capital costs
(including schedule
of deferred costs)
1. public
2. total
b. O.M.6R. costs
1. public
2. total
c. Net revenue (public)
d. Average annual costs
1. publi c
2. total
56
-------
Figure 6.1
COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS (continued)
PROPOSALS
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ABC
3, Contributions to Water
Quality Objectives and
Other Water Management
Goals
4. Implementation Capability
a. Institutional
b. Financial
c. Legal
5. Energy and Resources Use
a. Energy (power)
b. Chemicals
c. Land commitment for
planned features
6. Reliability
a. Frequency of plant
upsets
b. Frequency of spills
c. Frequency and effects of
combined sewer overflows
57
-------
C. Ranking of Alternative Proposals
Analysis of the display should be followed by ranking
the proposals. Ranking will be based on evaluation of the
effects and costs presented in the display table and the
supporting analyses. To assist with this procedure, an
analysis similar to that presented in Figure 6.2 may be
used. The steps for a suggested ranking procedure follow.
1. Review each alternative proposal, its effects
and relative merits.
2. Rank all alternatives with respect to one
factor and then proceed to the next factor.
Briefly describe reasons for ranking of
alternatives for each factor. Assistance of a
Citizens Advisory Group (see Chapter 7) may
help in attaining a balanced judgement as to
appropriate rankings.
3. Add the factor rankings for each plan and
translate this sum into a composite ranking of
the alternative plans.
4. Review the ranking by re-evaluation of the
effect of each plan and the tradeoffs among the
plans (see Figure 6.1).
As a note of caution, the proposal ranking determined
through the above numerical procedure should not necessarily
be regarded as the final ranking. Rather, the procedure
should be used only to assist in evaluating the display of
effects and selecting the final plan. There is no
substitute for specific evaluation of the tradeoffs
displayed in Figure 6.1. As indicated in Chapter 7,
representatives of ccncerned interests (the public) should
be involved in the tradeoff evaluation process.
D. Evaluation Factors
The following comments apply to the evaluation factors
and sub-factors shown in Figure 6.2, Since use of this
specific table is not required, the comments are advisory in
nature.
1. Environmental Effects - This factor reflects
analysis of Figure 6.1. All significant
effects must be considered and weighed to
derive an overall value judgement as to the net
58
-------
Figure 6.2
RANKING OF FINAL ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
Rank of Alternative Proposals
P-l P^2 Pj;3 P-4
1. Environmental Effects
2. Monetary Costs
(least total costs)
3. Implementation Capability
4. Contributions to Objectives
and Goals
5. Energy and Resources Use
(overall appraisal)
6. Reliability
7. Public Acceptability
8. Totals
9. Composite Ranking
59
-------
overall effect on the environment relative to
other plans.
2. Monetary Costs - In this case public costs and
total costs are not identical. The public cost
represents the total of capital and operating
and maintenance costs over the period which are
paid by Federal, State and local governments.
The total costs include the cost of private
pollution abatement such as pretreatment of
industrial discharges and privately financed
flow and waste reduction measures. Although
total costs will be the primary monetary cost
factor in determining cost-effectiveness of a
plan, the relationship between total and public
costs should be displayed.
3. Implementation Capability - The ability of and
agreement among the State, local governmental
units or management agencies to implement a
plan are critical. This means that necessary
institutions must exist or that they can
actually be created in time to carry out the
plan, and the local governmental unit must be
capable of bearing the local share of the
costs. Subsequent paragraphs discuss this
matter more fully.
4. Contributions to water quality objectives and
other water management goals - Although each
plan must meet the basic regulatory require-
ments of the Act, the actual contributions of
the proposals to the objectives and goals will
differ. This variation will be analyzed and
assessed.
5. Resources Use and Energy Consumption -
Resources use, particularly those in short
supply, and energy consumption are important in
plan evaluation. Excessive use of such
resources or energy to achieve a goal should be
avoi ded.
6. Reliability - The measures included in the plan
must reliably provide the required abatement
actions over time as discussed in Chapter 3.
The probability and duration of plant upsets or
spills should be minimized.
60
-------
7. Public Acceptability - The plan should be
acceptable to the public in general,
particularly those affected by the plan, their
elected representatives, and community leaders.
While total concensus is impracticable, the
degree of general acceptability is a vital
factor in future implementation of the plan.
E. Preliminary^ Design
Preliminary engineering designs and design data will be
developed in accordance with references (q) and (r) for
those treatment works proposed for initial construction and
scheduled for preparation of construction drawings and
specifications. As appropriate, such information would
include a schematic flow diagram, unit processes, plant site
plans, sewer pipe plans and profiles, and design data
regarding detention times, flow rates, sizing of units, etc.
Cost estimates for design and construction of the treatment
works together with a schedule for completion of design and
construction will be presented.
F. Operation and Maintenance
Suitable arrangements for effective operation and
maintenance must be provided for and thoroughly described in
the plan of operation. This should include, but not be
limited to, items such as the provision of adequate sampling
and analysis for process control, an appropriate staffing
complement, a training and/or re-training program, required
upgrading to meet effluent limitations in operating permits,
and various activities related to effective maintenance
management,
6.2 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A. Introduction
No plan is complete without the agreements among
responsible entities essential to carry out the plan. The
following paragraphs discuss the arrangements necessary to
provide for developing the essential implementation
agreements.
B. Public Support
Implementation of a facilities plan, particularly for a
complex area, may require the solution of difficult problems
affecting many interests and involve substantial local costs
to be repaid by the people in the planning area. Thus, a
61
-------
broad base of public support, including the assistance of
elected officials and other community leaders, usually must
be obtained to implement a facilities plan. To achieve the
necessary public support, the public should be kept informed
and should have an opportunity to express its views at key
points throughout the planning period, including
identification of the goals and discussion of the
alternatives. In some cases, representatives of concerned
interests should be actively involved in planning through
participation in Citizens Advisory Groups. The various
means of obtaining effective public participation in
planning are described further in Chapter 7.
C. Institutional Arrangements
The existing public sewerage agencies or other
wastewater management authorities, together with their legal
authorities, will be reviewed. Next, to provide orderly and
economical implementation of the plan, the necessary
authorities and the extent of centralization of the
wastewater management agency(ies) must be determined. Then,
the capability of existing institutions to meet these
requirements should be assessed along with the need for
modification of local ordinances or State legislation. If
existing institutions cannot carry out the plan, the
necessary arrangements must be made to create a new agency
fully empowered to finance, operate and maintain the
proposed works. As a basis for EPA approval of a facilities
plan, the plan should include copies of resolution(s)
accepting the plan, assuring that it will be carried out,
and stating the legal authorities for financing, operating
and maintaining the proposed works.
D. Financial Program and Schedules
The facilities plan will include a schedule of the
estimated annual non-Federal expenditures (financial costs)
required for implementing the first stage of the plan (see
Figure 6.3 for example).
Where the facilities plan provides for service to
industrial users, a preliminary estimate will be made of the
revenues obtainable from the industries to aid in defraying
the non-Federal financial costs. To determine industry
cost-sharing, costs will be allocated between industrial
users and other users of the proposed wastewater management
system in accordance with reference (1). These regulations
would require that all grantees recover from industrial
users that portion of the grant amount allocable to the
treatment of wastes from such users.
62
-------
Figure 6.3
SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL REVENUES
Capital Annual Expenditures
Requirement ($1,000)
Year ($1,000) Capital Operating Total
197U
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
63
-------
E. Steps for Plan Implementation
Each facilities plan report will specifically outline
all steps necessary for implementation of the first stage of
the plan.
64
-------
CHAPTER 7
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN FACILITIES PLANNING
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Public involvement is necessary for effective
facilities planning and should be incorporated into the
planning process in accordance with references (b) and (u) »
Wastewater management affects a wide range of economic,
social, environmental and institutional interests, and it
must be planned and implemented in a manner which meets with
public satisfaction. When properly developed, public
involvement in the facilities planning process facilitates
the identification of public preferences and fosters the
development of and choice among alternative solutions for
satisfying public needs.
Public involvement should commence with the earliest
possible steps of the planning process and continue
throughout. Such involvement must emphasize identifying
affected public interests and providing opportunities for
those interests to be expressed and considered by other
publics, planners and elected officials. The integration of
public involvement with the planning process increases the
probability of actual plan implementation. It encourages
the timely recognition and handling of public interest
conflicts so that "greater public support and understanding
may be generated for the plans.
72 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ELEMENTS
A Public Involvement Program Objectives
The public involvement program is an integral part of
the planning process. The program should affect the
transmittal of information and elicit feedback in a timely
manner for decision-making. While particular public
involvement program objectives must be formulated in
recognition of the specific situations, a list of public
involvement program objectives with general applicability
follows:
1. Increased Awareness
In order to generate public support and understanding
of proposed plans, it is necessary that the public be made
aware of the needs for abatement of municipal and industrial
65
-------
pollution and the implications of meeting these needs. The
substantive water quality problems should be outlined an a
manner which is understandable to the public.
2. Information and Feedback
In order to develop viable alternative solutions and to
conduct realistic plan evaluations, it is necessary to open
avenues for direct planner-public communications. The
program should assist planners in identifying local
interests and in understanding perceptions of problems and
needs. Public assessments of appropriate institutional
arrangements should be sought, as well as public reactions
to and preferences for alternatives.
3. Resolution of Conflict
In order to realize plan implementation, it is
necessary to minimize the level of plan opposition. The
public involvement program should be responsive to a
representative cross-section of opinions in order that
concerned interests can be identified, conflicts can be
addressed, and decision-making by general agreement can be
achieved.
4. Trust and Commitment
In order to develop a viable puolic involvement program
in which the public maintains interest, it is necessary that
the public reach a commitment to the final plan through
actual involvement in the planning process. The program
should be characterized by frank and open interaction among
planners and the various publics.
B. The Role of the Planner
The role of the planner in a public involvement program
changes during the sequential steps of the planning process.
The planner must not only inform the public as to the
alternative solutions, but must also play the roles of
coordinator, catalyst and advocate planner as appropriate.
Specific activities which the planner should accomplish
include:
1. The definition of issues and the analysis of
information in a manner which clarifies the
relative costs and benefits of various
alternatives. Such clarification can increase
the possible bases for compromise and
negotiation.
66
-------
2. The identification of alternative proposals*
impacts vis-a-vis defined goals in addition to
the assessment of the technical feasibility of
the plan. Planners can assist the public in
prioritizing their values by means of tradeoff
analysis and mutual accommodation between
interests.
3. The representation of the interests of persons
who are not actively represented in the
planning process. The planner should see that
the consequences of alternatives for persons
unaware of the plan, including future area
residents, are considered in the evaluation
process.
4. The prediction of future area development and
the description of probable long-range
consequences of present actions. Discussions
of future development and alternative
consequences can bring out new issues and
highlight additional needs, including
alternative institutional arrangements.
C. The Levgls of Public
In developing a public involvement program, it is
important that the planning agency identify and interact
with a variety of individuals, groups and the interests that
collectively compose the interested public in its area. The
public can be visualized as falling into three general
sectors. These are:
1. Level I, comprised of government institutions
and pollutant dischargers. This level of
public is directly responsible for water
pollution control; government institutions
plan, operate and enforce the water quality
program; the dischargers must respond to
government regulations.
2. Level II, comprised of special interest groups
and opinion leaders. Specialist publics are
exemplified by conservation and environmental
groups, academic interests (especially those in
engineering, ecology, and social policy) ,
professional societies (practicing architects,
engineers and geologists) and other groups with
well-developed interest in water quality
issues.
67
-------
3. Level III, comprised of the general public. It
is important that the planner involve a
representative cross-section of the public so
as to ensure that the interests of all persons
affected by the plan are considered. It is
important to maintain equitable balance during
the planning process between the clearly
articulated concerns of we11"organized interest
groups and the relatively undeveloped concerns
of unorganized publics. Means of accomplishing
this equitable balance of interests include:
a. Establishing an adequate information base
among the publics;
b. Providing a variety of public participation
opportunities; and
c. Providing motivational incentives to the
publics to elicit their time and energy.
D. Public Involvement Functions
Public involvement in the planning process can be
described in terms of three types of relationships between
the public and the planning agency. They are:
* The one-way output relationship in which the
planning staff disseminates information (and
obtains feedback from the public);
2. The one-way input relationship in which the
public generates a flow of ideas and data into
the planning process (and obtains feedback from
the planners); and
3» The two-way interactive relationship in which
the public and the planner interact during the
planning process.
E. Public Involvement Mechanisms
There are various mechanisms which can be utilized
during a public involvement program.
One-Hay Output Mechanisms
- Depositories
- Exhibits
» Mailings
- Newsletters
68
-------
- News Media
- Publications
- Speeches
-.Seminars
One-May Input Mechanisms
- Information Solicitation
- Public Hearings
- Surveys
Interaction Mechanisms
- Advisory Groups
- Correspondence
- Informal Contacts
- Interviews
- Liaison with Citizen Groups
List Development
- Public Meetings
- Simulation and Games
- Task Forces
- Workshops
7.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FACILITIES PLANNING
This section discusses public involvement mechanisms
which may be used during each step of the facilities
planning process as outlined in Chapter 2. Depending upon
the planning agency's manpower and funding resources, the
use of additional public involvement mechanisms is
encouraged. Some of the planning process steps have been
grouped together, where possible, to combine public
involvement efforts.
A. For Steps 1-5 of the planning process {see Chapter
2) the following public involvement mechanisms are
recommended:
1. Development of a List of concerned and affected
area publics.
2- Information Solicitation to identify new
sources of information and expertise. This
involves the dispatching of direct mail pieces
to possible sources of information, such as
college and department chairmen, presiding
officers of professional organizations and
librarians. It is not meant to be addressed to
planning and management agencies which are
known to have information on water quality
management planning.
69
-------
3. Newspaper Articles to inform the public about
the procedures for delineating planning areas
and determining pollution sources, waste loads
and water quality problems and to encourage the
public to participate in determining area goals
and objectives.
4. Interviews with State and local political
leaders, related planning agency and special
purpose district officials, newspaper and
television executives and local opinion makers
to determine their views on the water quality
objectives and goals of the area.
5« Public^Mgetings, particularly at the stage when
water quality objectives and other waste
management goals are being determined. These
meetings should be held in accordance with
reference (u). Notice of the meetings should
be given at least fifteen days before the
meetings are to take place and records must be
maintained. The meetings should be held at
convenient locations throughout the planning
area, summaries of the public meetings should
be prepared and maintained.
B. For Steps 6-9 of the planning process, the
following public involvement mechanisms are recommended:
1. Advisory Committee, having the necessary
expertise and representing the affected
publics, to work with the planning agency in
evaluating and selecting flow reduction
techniques, projecting future waste loads and
flows and developing and evaluating
alternatives.
2« Informal Contacts with locally elected
officials and planners to obtain their views
and assure continuity with other wastewater
management studies.
3. Newsgager Articles to inform the public on the
development of alternatives.
4. Mailinc[s to interested and affected publics,
obtained from the lists generated in the
initial planning phases, which discuss the
major alternatives being evaluated and request
the public's view and comment.
70
-------
The public can be extremely helpful in advising the
planner as to the feasibility of the initial set of
alternatives. It is extremely important that the planner
have access to a well-informed and representative public
during this stage so that the best possible set of
alternatives can be presented for final evaluation and
selection.
C. For Step 10 of the planning process (Refine, Review
and Display Alternative Proposals), the following public
involvement mechanisms are recommended:
! Degositgries in convenient locations throughout
the planning area to display the major
alternative proposals.
2« Mailings to interested publics to obtain their
comments and views.
3. Interviews with locally elected officials to
obtain their comments and views.
4. Radio and Television spots to announce major
alternative proposals.
D. For Steps 11 and 12 of the planning process, the
following public involvement mechanisms are recommended:
! Public Hearing (s)^ to be held prior to the
adoption of the facilities plan by the planning
entity or grant applicant (references b and u)«
A public hearing must be held during the plan
selection step unless received in advance by
EPA. In determining the locations and times
for the hearing(s), consideration should be
given to easing travel hardship and to
facilitating attendance and testimony by a
cross-section of interested or affected persons
and organizations. Notice of the hearing(s)
will generally be given at least thirty
calendar days before the hearing(s) is to take
place. The purpose of the public hearing is to
obtain formal comments of all concerned
interests on the alternative proposals. A
record of the hearing must be kept.
2. Advisory Group to assist in the review of
testimony obtained from the public hearings(s)
in evaluating the proposed alternatives and in
the selection of the plan.
71
-------
3. Informal Contacts with local political leaders
and planners to ofctain their views and comments
on implementation arrangements.
4. Speeches to be made throughout the planning
area explaining the alternative proposals.
7.4 SUMMARY PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT
A Summary of Putlic Participation must be prepared and
submitted as part of the Facilities Plan. The Summary must
describe the measures taken to provide for, encourage, and
assist public participation in the facilities planning
process; the public response to such measures; the
significant suggestions and views of concerned interests;
and the disposition of the issues raised.
72
-------
CHAPTER 8
REPORTS
8.1 REPORT STRUCTURE
The planning report should typically consist of a main
report with supporting appendices containing the following
information:
a. Preliminary Designs, Technical Data and Cost
Estimates for Alternatives;
b. Agreements, Resolutions and Comments; and
c. Supplemental engineering feasibility data on the
features included in the first stage development of
the adopted plan.
For a simple planning situation, the information
included in Items (a) and (c) may be incorporated in the
main report.
A typical outline for the main report is presented in
the following section. The report Appendix (a) will present
in an orderly manner the back-up, including cost and design
data, essential to support the functions and costs of each
alternative plan and the selected plan. This material will
include preliminary design criteria for subsystems and their
estimated costs; unit processes and their costs; analysis of
sewer system sizes, configurations, and costs; and
breakdowns of comparative cost estimates presented in the
main report.
Appendix (b) will include copies of agreements and
resolutions from implementing entities and the views of
concerned local governmental units, agencies, interests,
organizations, and individuals on the plan and the
alternatives.
The main report generally cannot and should not provide
sufficient details or supporting engineering feasibility
analyses necessary for preparing the subsequent construction
drawings and specifications required for the first stage
development of the adopted plan. For these reasons, the
main report should normally be accompanied by one or more
technical appendices, as noted above in Item (c), covering
the first stage measures, particularly the treatment works
73
-------
to be implemented first, in greater detail. The appendices
should include, but not necessarily be limited to:
1. collection system and interceptor
configurations, profiles, sizes, and cost
breakdowns;
2. treatment plant data including site plan,
layouts of unit processes, flow charts, design
and performance data;
3. sludge handling and disposal facilities
information including design and performance
data, disposal site layouts, and sludge
conveyance facilities details;
4. effluent disposal data including layouts and
profiles of outfalls for either inland surface
waters or oceans and descriptions and
illustrations of deep well injection facilities
or land disposal facilities; and
5. wastewater reuse facilities data.
82 MAIN REPORT OUTLINE
The following outline for a main report is suggested.
However, items inapplicable to a specific case may be
deleted.
I. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Study Purpose and Scope
B. Planning Area Description (map)
C. Planning Participation and Coordination
III. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND OTHER WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS
A. Water Quality Objectives (State whether objective
is BPWTT or providing for greater pollutant
reductions based on waste load allocations required
to meet Water Quality Standards)
B. Other Water Management Goals
74
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF POLLUTION SOURCES, WASTE LOADS, AND WATER QUALITY
A. Locations of Municipal and Industrial Point Sources (Map)
B. Municipal Waste Loads
C. Industrial Waste Loads
D, Summary of Receiving Water Quality
V. EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND FLOWS
(see Chapter 2. 6)
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY (See Chapter 5)
VII. FUTURE WASTE LOADS AND FLOWS
A. Land Use
B. Economic Activities (Include growth constraints
and other factors affecting future growth)
C. Population
D. Flow and Waste Load Forecasts
VIII. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preliminary Alternatives (Brief description of each
including component subsystems and operation and
maintenance measures for optimizing efficiency of
existing facilities)
B. Screening of Preliminary Alternatives (See Figure 2.2)
(Include reasons for rejecting each)
C. Evaluation (monetary, environmental, implementation)
D. Description of Proposals (Map and display of proposal
effects)
IX. PLAN SELECTION
A. Views of Public and Concerned Interests
B. Tradeoff Evaluation and Ranking of Proposal
C. Selected Plan and Reasons for Selection
75
-------
X. THE SELECTED PLAN
A. Description and Maps
B. Phasing of Development
C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
D. Cost Estimates (Total and Public)
E. Summary of Environmental Effects
F. Summary of Public Participation
XI. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Institutional Responsibilities
B. Implementation Steps
C. Construction Implementation Schedule
D« Financial Requirements
E. Continuing Data Collection and Monitoring
76
-------
CHAPTER 9
REVIEW, CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS
9.1 PURPOSE
This chapter describes the administrative procedures
and requirements regarding the submission of facilities
plans (and revisions thereof) to State-receiving agencies
and EPA, together with State and EPA actions regarding such
submissions.
9.2 LEVELS OF REVIEW
Three levels of review are required to gain approval of
a facilities plan or for the determination that Step 2 or
Step 3 grant applications are consistent with an approved
plan. These three levels are <1) Clearinghouse review
procedures for grant applications established under the
requirements of OMB Circular A-95; (2) State water pollution
control agency technical and policy review for compliance
with State requirements and for certification that the plan
meets with requirements set forth in 40 CFR, Part 35,
Subpart E; and (3) EFA review for compliance with
requirements of the Act and the above regulations. The
State will have primary responsibility for non-Federal
reviews. The sewer system evaluation elements of a
facilities plan, including the infiltration/inflow analysis
and, when appropriate, the sewer system evaluation survey
plan, may be reported and reviewed separately in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart E.
9.3 COMPLIANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A^95
A. Plans
No completed plans shall be accepted for review for
approval by EPA unless the agency submitting the grant
application, together with the plan, to EPA and the State
shall have first complied with all applicable requirements
of OMB Circular A-95.
B. Determination of Project Compliance with Plan
No application for Step 2 or Step 3 projects will be
reviewed by EPA for certification of complicance with an
approved plan unless the agency requiring such certification
shall have first complied with all applicable requirements
77
-------
of OMB Circular A-95. Further, all such applications will
be consistent with applicable plans.
9.4 SUBMISSION OF PLAN FOR REVIEW
A« Submission to State
The Agency desiring review and approval of a facilities
plan shall submit the following document to the State Water
Pollution Control Authority:
1. 4 copies of the facilities plan.
2. 2 copies of all relevant documents required under
OMB Circular A-95.
3. 1 original and one copy of a letter from the chief
official of the agency preparing the plan requesting
review and approval and stating:
a. that the agency has met all requirements for
public participation relating to the plan.
b. the names of all jurisdictions within the
planning area which either oppose the plan or
have failed to approve the plan.
B. Submission to EPA
EPA will review for approval only those facilities
plans which, having received State approval, are properly
submitted to the appropriate EPA regional office by the
chief official of the State water pollution control
authority having jurisdiction over the planning area. In
order to obtain EPA approval of a facilities plan, the State
will submit the following for the approval of EPA Regional
Administrator:
1. A letter signed by the chief official of the
State water pollution control authority
requesting review and approval and certifying
that:
a. the plan conforms with the requirements of
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E.
b. the facilities plan conforms with the
applicable basin plan developed or being
developed in response to 40 CFR 131.
78
-------
c. the concerned Section 208 planning agency
has been afforded the opportunity to
comment upon the plan and the plan conforms
with any approved 208 plan.
2. 2 copies of the plan
3. 1 copy of the letter from the local agency to
the State required under paragraph 9.4A{3).
9 . 5 PLAN REVISION
Outdated plans or those which have been superseded by
changed conditions provide no valid basis for the investment
of public funds in municipal wastewater management
facilities. Thus, the planning process must be flexible and
continuous rather than simply a one-time effort which
produces a plan diminishing in value as time progresses and
conditions change. To provide the required basis for review
of construction grant applications, such plans should be
reviewed regularly and updated as required by changing
conditions. As a minimum, a facilities plan which has
served as the basis for the award of a Step 2 or Step 3
grant shall be reviewed by the State prior to application
for any subsequent Step 2 or 3 grant to determine if
substantial changes have occurred which warrant revision or
amendment of the plan. The plan shall then be revised or
amended as necessary and submitted for review in accordance
with the procedures described herein. The plan revision
process shall include preparation of a statement on the
status of implementation of the plan as of the date of plan
revision. Such a statement will accompany the modified
planning report and will summarize recommended actions
accomplished or underway to date, pending actions on
recommendation, and changes in recommended actions or
schedules accomplished or pending, and any new plan changes
resulting from plan review. The appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator (s) , A-95 Clearinghouse (s) , and State(s) will
be notified at least 30 days in advance of initiating plan
modification. Processing of revised plans will follow the
procedure indicated above.
9.6 EPA REVIEWING PROGRAM OFFICE
The Air and Water Programs Division, including the
water planning unit or other office designated by the
Regional Administrator shall be responsible for the review
of all facilities plans properly submitted by the States.
79
-------
9.7 CONTENT OF REVIEW AND EVALUATION
The purpose of the review and evaluation is to
determine whether the plan, if implemented, will result in
meeting the regulatory requirements of the Act in an
environmentally sound and cost-effective manner. The basic
requirements are found in Sections 201, 204 and 212 of the
Act and in 40 CFR 35, Subpart E.
The EPA review will ascertain that requirements of the
Act and applicable regulations are met, including specific
determinations that:
1. The plan is consistent with existing State and
NPDES permits.
2. The plan is consistent with the requirements of the
applicable basin plan developed or being developed
under 40 CFR 131.
3. The plan is consistent with any areawide plan
developed under Section 208 of the Act.
4. All requirements for public participation regarding
plan development and approval have been met.
5. The plan will provide for secondary treatment as a
minimum, appropriate application of BPWTT in
accordance with technical criteria established by
EPA or for application of any more stringent
effluent limitations required to meet water quality
standards.
6. The plan is cost-effective and environmentally
sound.
7. Excessive infiltration/inflow does not exist or
that a detailed sewer evaluation survey and
necessary sewer rehabilitation measures will be
accomplished.
8. Implementation of the plan is institutionally
feasible within the time period proposed.
9. The plan shall be compatible with plans developed
for contiguous areas of other States.
80
-------
9.8 APPROVING AUTHORITY
The EPA Regionai Administrator shall have authority to
approve any facilities plan submitted to him by a State
within his Region.
9.9 EPA APPROVAL
After review of a properly submitted plan or amendment,
the EPA Regional Administrator will promptly notify the
chief official of the appropriate State water pollution
control authority of his concurrence and approval or his
non-concurrence and disapproval of the State1s
recommendation and the plan.
In the event the Regional Administrator finds it
necessary not to concur with the State1s recommendation and
disapprove the plan, he will specify his reasons for doing
so in detail and make recommendations for correcting the
plan so that it would be approvable.
«U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974 546-315/Z43 1-3
------- |