I.

II.

IItr.

Iv.

vI.

FIGURE 3
SAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION

A. Study Purpose and Scope
B. Planning Area Description (map)
C. Planning Participation and Coordination

WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES and OTHER WATER
MANAGEMENT GOALS

A. Water Quality Objectives
B. Other Water Management Goals

SUMMARY OF POLLUTION SOURCES, WASTE LOADS,
and WATER QUALITY

A. Locations of Municipal and Industrial
Point Sources (map)

B. Municipal Waste Loads

Cc. Industrial Waste Loads

D. Summary of Receiving Water Quality

EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS and FLOWS
A. Municipal

B. Separate Storm Sewers

Cc. Other Wastewater Sources

ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY

16


PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Plan_ Selection

There is no prescribed method for choosing the best
proposal and no rigorous analytical method is available
either. However, there are some minimum criteria for plan
selection, and some evaluation factors can be suggested for
carrying the analysis beyond the bare minimum requirements.

The minimum criterion is that the plan must meet the
applicable regulatcry requirements. These include effluent
limitations and load allocations, compliance schedules, etc.
Additional requirements, imposed by Federal, State, and
local governments, may also apply.

If the public involvement program and the environmental
evaluation have been well done the important issues and
evaluative factors should be known by the time a plan
selection is made. Each alternative should be analyzed from
the standpoint of each of the evaluative factors. The
results of these analyses then need to be displayed in such
a way as to facilitate comparison of the alternatives. The
comparison may be done pairwise, taking two alternatives at
a time, or by means of ranking and/or weighting all
alternatives so that a composite score can be used in making
the selection. The latter approach entails some risk
because it aggregates so much information and because the
relative importance of the evaluative factors will be
different to the various segments of the public, to the
constituent local governments, and to the reviewing
agencies.

One possible list of evaluative factors is given in
Figure 2. Some of these factors are highly aggregated and
are indicative rather than mandatory, although each of the
factors would be relevant to plan selection.

The three essential ingredients for plan implementation
are public support, institutional arrangements, and a
financial program and schedule. Public support is an
outgrowth of the public involvement program.

Institutional arrangements will, of course, vary from

place to place, and will often be an outgrowth or product of
the plan. It must contain, at a minimum, the local

10


INTRODUCTION

As water pollution control activities have progressed
from the scattered construction of sewage treatment plants
to abate very gross pollution problems to the present
situation in which both national and State policies call for
high quality water in all the nation's streams, lakes, and
coastal waters, 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 reaffirmed the importance of planning, and contained
some new provisions intended to help achieve the national
objective of clean water. In emphasizing the process of
planning, EPA is consistent with trends in the planning of
public transportation and other water resources facilities.
Process guidance allows much more flexibility in meeting
local conditions than does guidance prescribing in minute
detail what is to be done. To afford a general
understanding of facilities planning, this summary briefly
describes the nature of the facilities planning process and
the steps involved. More complete procedural guidance
designed to be used by engineers and planners is presented
in the "Guidance for Facilities Planning" published by EPA.

The public facilities planning process is basically one
of stating and clarifying the problems, inventorying the
existing systems, projecting future conditions, setting
goals and objectives, developing alternatives to meet those
goals and objectives, assessing the impacts of the
alternatives, selecting plan elements, and developing
implementation mechanisms. Some of the more specific
aspects of water quality facilities planning are shown in
Figure 1. These steps are not necessarily done in this
sequence, though the general order would be similar.


REVIEW, CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS

The review, certification and approval process for
facilities plans is shown in Figure 4. The three approvals
(A-95, State, and EPA) are sequential. The State has
primary responsibility for non-Federal reviews. The sewer
system evaluation elements of a facilities plan may be
reported and reviewed separately in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR, Part 35, Subpart E.

Because of changing conditions, plans may become
outdated or invalid and should be regularly reviewed and
updated. Prior to application for a design grant or a grant
for building treatment works, the facilities plan is to be
reviewed by the State to determine whether plan revision or
amendment is needed. In the plan revision process, a
statement on the status of implementation of the plan is to
be included in the planning report. The EPA Regional
Administrator (s), A-95 Clearinghouse(s) and State(s) are to
be notified at least 30 days before beginning plan
modification.

The EPA review will include 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 Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology in
accordance with technical criteria established by
EPA, Or for any more stringent effluent limitations
required to meet water quality standards.

6. The plan is cost-effective and environmentally
sound.

17


6T

A-95 Clearinghouse

State water pollu- ~

tion Control Agency

EPA Regional
Office, Air &
Water Programs
Division

FIGURE 4

REVIEW, CERTIFICATION, and APPROVAL OF PLANS

1.

Action Taken

Certify compliance with
OMB Circular A-95
Certify compliance with
project with approved
plan

Technical Review

Policy review for com-
pliance with State
requirements
Certification that plan
meets requirements of
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart
E.

Approves facilities plan

or rejects it.

Gives

reasons in case of re-
jection, in addition to
recommendations for cor-
recting plan.

Reyuired Documents

i. Grant application
2. Plan of Study (Step 1 project)
3. Facilities Plan

(Steps 2 or 3 projects)

1. Facilities plan {4 copies)
2. A-95 documents (2 copies)

3. Letter from chief official of
local agency requesting
review and approval
(Original & 1 copy)

1. Letter from State
water pollution
control official,
requesting review
and approval. **

2. 2 copies of plan

3. 1 copy of letter from local
agency to State.

*Must state that a) public participation requirements have been met and b) names of
jurisdictions within planning area which oppose plan or haven't approved plan.

**Must certify that a) the
b) the facilities

Subpart E,
or being developed,

an opportunity to comment uy

208 plan.

Plan conforms with requirements of 40 CFR Part 35,
plan conforms with the applicable basin plan developed
the concerned 208 planning agency has been afforded the

pon the plan and the plan conforms with any approved


planning period, and should be open to all. The program
should be widely publicized and citizen access to the
process should be easy.

Mandatory Elements

A public hearing or hearings held prior to adoption of
the facilities plan by the implementing governmental units
is required. In exceptional circumstances, the public
hearing may be waived by the Regional Administrator of EPA
at the request of the planning entity.

A Summary of Public Participation must be prepared and
submitted as part of the Facilities Plan. This 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.

REPORTS

The planning report should contajn essentially the
material included in the sample table of contents in
Figure 3. Supporting appendices should contain:

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.

14


evaluation of available options for wastewater management.
When the entire area is considered, the effects of an option
on other parts of the area can be more fully assessed.

Where planning for an entire metropolitan area is not
practicable, the area should be sufficient to permit
realistic comparison of a full range of alternatives
including waste treatment technologies and sludge disposal
options. This is particularly important where joint
facilities for adjacent individual waste treatment systems
may be a feasible alternative.

Plan_of Study

Prior to initiating facilities planning, a plan of
study will be prepared by the planning entity and approved
by the state and EPA. The plan of study will present the
planning area; planning entities; the nature, scope and
complexity of the planning effort; an itemized list of
specific planning tasks; schedule for the tasks; and an
itemized breakdown of planning costs.

Water Quality Objectives_and Other Goals

As a minimum, wastewater management works should
provide secondary treatment immediately and for scheduled
future application of Best Practicable Waste Treatment
Technology. More stringent requirements will pertain in
some places. Other goals would be incorporated as
appropriate.

Future Waste Loads_and_Flows

Forecasts of waste loads and flows should be based on
evaluation of land use plans, economic and demographic
growth trends, growth constraints, zoning restrictions and
permit conditions. Extension of past growth trends should
not be the sole basis for projection. Indeed, it is often
possible to control the amount of future waste loads and
flows by a combination of measures that can be included in
the facilities plan.

Developing_and_Evaluating Alternatives

As an initial step in alternative development, the
performance obtainable through optimum operation and
maintenance of existing facilities should be determined and



PARTICIPAT I O Neww------->

—@-----------P UBLIC

5.

9.

10.

11.

12.

FIGURE 1

FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS

DELINEATE PLANNING AREAS
PREPARE PLAN OF STUDY

ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
and OTHER WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS

REVIEW POLLUTION SOURCES, WASTE LOADS
and WATER QUALITY INFORMATION

INVENTORY EXISTING WASTE TREATMENT
SYSTEMS and DETERMINE EXISTING FLOWS

INVENTORY ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
ESTIMATE FUTURE WASTE LOADS and FLOWS
DEVELOP and EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES «+------ “4

EVALUATE IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ~--~--
and IDENTIFY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

REFINE, REVIEW and DISPLAY ----~----------- >
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS H
1

t

>!

SELECT PLAN ~----~------- ween ene --------- = +

COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS


OBJECTIVES

The 1972 Amendments require application of secondary
treatment as a minimum and provision by 1983 for applying
the Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT).
The later provision applies to facilities funded from FY
1975 and later allotments. The criteria for BPWIT are
described in the Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 137
"Information on Alternative Waste Management Techniques and
Systems to Achieve Best Practicable Waste Treatment"). The
three general approaches are:

a) treatment and discharge to receiving waters,
b) treatment and reuse, and
c) land application.

If the water quality standards cannot be met with the
Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology, additional
measures providing for further pollutant reductions may be
needed. Examples of other measures include advanced waste
treatment, temporary storage of treated effluent, and
facilities for abating pollution from combined sewer
overflows.

Reuse includes a wide range of choices, such as
irrigation of crops or forests, cooling water,
manufacturing, recreation, and esthetic purposes, and
certain municipal supply uses.

PLAN COMPONENTS

All facilities plans are to include at least the
following elements as set forth in Federal Regulations 40
CFR Part 35, Subpart E (Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works) :

a) A statement of the problem.

b) A description of proposed treatment works included
in the first stage for which construction drawings
and specifications are to be prepared. Cost
estimates and schedules are to be included.

¢) A description of the complete wastewater management
system of which the treatment works are a part.


FIGURE 3 (continued)

SAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII. FUTURE WASTE LOADS and FLOWS

A. Land Use

B. Economic Activities

C. Population

D. Flow and Waste Load Forecasts

VIII. ALTERNATIVES

A. Preliminary Alternatives

B. Screening of Preliminary Alternatives
Cc. Evaluation

D. Description of Proposals

IX. PLAN SELECTION

A. Views of Public and Concerned Interests
B. Tradeoff Evaluation and Ranking of Proposals
Cc. Selected Plan and Reasons for Selection

X. THE SELECTED PLAN

A. Descripticn and Maps

B. Phasing of Development

C. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
D. Cost Estimates

E. Summary of Environmental Effects

F. Summary of Public Participation

XI. IMPLEMENTATION

A. Institutional Responsibilities

B. Implementations Steps

C. Construction Implementation Schedule

D. Financial Requirements

E. Continuing Data Collection and Monitoring

15


First, it may appear from Figure 1 that the steps
follow one after another with a clear-cut beginning and end
to each step. Ordinarily this would not be the case. After
some of the basic information is assembled on the nature of
the problem (water quality objectives, pollution sources,
waste loads, present water quality, and existing systems),
alternative plans can be assembled quickly and given
preliminary screening. A large amount of iteration of steps
occurs and the sequence of steps may well be unclear. This
early assembly of alternatives and preliminary screening is
essentially a qualitative, judgement process, which might
take no more than a week or two to complete in simple cases.
(In more complex situations, or where little background
information and experience are available, a longer period
would be required.)

Most of the remainder of the planning process consists
of detailed impact assessment and refinement of alternative
plans. The impact assessment and refinement of plans is
accomplished in part by means of public involvement.
Throughout the impact assessment and alternative refinement
process, the groundwork is being laid for plan selection and
completion of implementation arrangements.

Delineating Planning Areas

The State has the responsibility of establishing
planning areas. It is essential to outline a geographic
area sufficiently large to permit full evaluation of
alternatives. Each planning area should include that entire
area where cost savings, other management advantages, or
environmental improvement may result from interconnection of
sewer systems, provision of joint facilities such as those
for sludge or treated effluent disposal, or collective
Management of individual waste treatment systems. In
addition, the planning area should be broad enough to permit
evaluation of the cumulative environmental impacts of the
feasible alternatives.

The planning area boundaries should ordinarily include
at least the core city, contiguous developed areas, and
areas subject to development within the planning period.
Where joint facilities or collective waste management for
two or more communities may be feasible options, the
planning area should include the community group. Planning
for an area, such as those described, does not necessarily
mean that a single wastewater management agency must be
formed, although this could be one of the options. Rather,
planning for the entire area is needed to permit adequate


FACILITIES PLANNING
SUMMARY

» %

re

2
SS
g WZ
Zz
SB
AL prore

WV AGENCY

%,

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
January 1974


equivalent annual cost over the planning period. These
figures are obtained by means of compound interest
calculations, with the interest rate being the Federal
discount rate published in the Water Resources Council's
“Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related
Land Resources", For the year 1974, that figure is 6 7/8%.
Procedures for making these calculations are well-known and
are described in such books as Principles of Engineering
Economy by Eugene L. Grant and W. Grant Ireson, and
Economics of Water Resources Planning by L. Douglas James
and Robert Lee.

Salvage Value

In making the calculations, salvage values for land are
market value at the time of analysis. The salvage value of
rights-of-way and easements should not be greater than their
market value at the time of the analysis. The salvage value
of permanent structures and equipment can ordinarily be
based on straight line depreciation over the assumed service
life of the item,

Sunk_Costs

Investments and cost commitments made prior to or
concurrent with the facilities planning study are sunk costs
and not included in the monetary evaluation. Examples
include a) investments in existing wastewater treatment
facilities and lands, b) outstanding bond indebtedness, and
c) cost of preparing the facilities plan. The only costs
and revenues to be included in the monetary evaluation are
those costs associated with implementing the plan.

Cost_Estimates

Cost estimates should be accurate enough to assure
reliable selection of the best alternative solutions. In
the preliminary screening of alternatives, these estimates
can be gross costs, with corresponding accuracy. For the
detailed cost analysis, there should be a) unit process and
sewer line costs that apply to the locality, b) preliminary
engineering layouts and quantity estimates, and c) gross
land and easement appraisals.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, costs and
revenues should be calculated on the basis of market prices
prevailing at the time of the analysis. If there is strong


used as a baseline for subsequent planning. There are four
typical sets of subsystems (flow and waste reduction
measures, sewers, wastewater management techniques, and
sludge disposal) to be considered in establishing system
alternatives. Some combination of these subsystems would be
developed for each location to form a system. The
alternative systems are screened and subjected to impact
assessment and evaluative criteria in order to select the
best alternative. This is not an unfamiliar process,

A few additional comments are in order in this summary.
Industrial users of the area should be served whenever
practicable and cost-effective. Flow and waste reduction
measures are encouraged. At least one alternative will be
developed and evaluated for each of the three waste
Management technique categories (see objectives) unless
preliminary screening clearly demonstrates lack of
feasibility. system flexibility and reliability should be
given explicit attention.

Planning Detail

The plan should contain sufficient detail to assure
that the effluent limitations, water quality goals and
technical criteria are met and the selected system is better
than the alternatives considered. Implementation details
should be complete. Ordinarily this will lead to
substantially less detail in simple planning situations than
in the complex cases.

MONETARY EVALUATION

Costs_and Revenues

Monetary costs of the plan include all capital costs;
operation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and costs for
managing or implementing flow and waste reduction measures
that are part of the plan. Revenues included in this
evaluation are those derived from implementing the plan.
Other effects, both costs and benefits, are considered in
the environmental evaluation.

Calculation Methods

All monetary costs and revenues incurred throughout the
planning period are expressed either as a present worth or


a) Sewer system infiltration/inflow documentation.

e) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the selected
system and alternatives to that system.

f) An environmental evaluation of the alternatives
considered.

g) An identification of effluent discharge
limitations, or where permits have been issued, a
copy of the permit for the rroposed treatment works
as required by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.

h) Comments and approvals of State and local agencies,
including compliance with OMB Circular A-95.

i) A summary of any public meeting or hearing held to
consider the plan.

j) A statement demonstrating the authorities
implementing the plan have the necessary legal,
financial, institutional, and managerial resources.

Elements (c) and (e) of the plan are to cover a 20 year
period. Future system expansions and other modifications,
with the appropriate cost estimates, and a program for
staged development and implementation are to be included.

The steps taken in the planning process, including
public involvement, must be documented in the plan.

STATE RESPONSIBILITIES

The State has overall program control for facilities
planning, State priorities for construction of publicly-
owned treatment works, and, where the State has permit
issuance authority, compliance schedules for municipal
permits. The State establishes priorities and scheduling of
facilities plans, delineates planning areas, reviews plans
of study and certifies that the plan meets requirements of
the regulations (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E).

FACILITIES PLANNING PROCESS
The facilities planning process has been outlined in

Figure 1. Many of those steps are self-explanatory. Only a
few highlights will be discussed in this summary.


9.

Excessive infiltration/inflow does not exist or
that a detailed sewer evaluation survey and
necessary sewer rehabilitation measures will be
accomplished.

Implementation of the plan is institutionally
feasible within the time period proposed.

The plan is compatible with plans developed for
contiguous areas of other States.

18


This summary is supplemented by more detailed guidance.
The "Guidance for Facilities Planning" is expected to serve
continuously as a useful planning tool. Thus, the guidance
will be up-dated when necessary to incorporate changes and
additional information as developed.

Copies of this summary or the guidance may be obtained
from the EPA Regional Office in your area.

Ath

Robert L. Sansom
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Water Programs (AW-443)


FIGURE 2

EVALUATIVE FACTORS

ALTERNATIVE
P-1 P-2
Environmental Effects

Monetary Costs
(least total costs)

Implementation Capability

Contributions to Objectives
and Goals

Energy and Resources Use
(overall appraisal)

Reliability
Public Accept akility

Flexibility

11

PROPOSALS

P~3

P-4


Objectives

Some of the specific objectives of public involvement
are a) increased public awareness of the need for pollution
abatement and the implications of meeting those needs, b)
Opening channels of communication between planners and the
public, c) resolution of conflict, and 4) building trust and
commitment.

Planner's_ Role

The planner may play several roles in the planning
process. At times he is an information-giver, informing the
public about the nature of the problem or the alternatives
available for dealing with the problem. At other times, he
is a coordinator, helping various segments of the public,
local government officials, and planners understand each
other and keep pace with developments. He may perform as a
catalyst, bringing about a situation where things happen
without the planner taking a prominant part in the events.
He may even need to be an advocate planner at times.

A number of things should happen in the public
involvement process. Issues should be defined and
Clarified. The nature of the impacts of the various
alternatives should be determined. The feasibility of
alternatives should be established. A continually refined
ordering of public priorities as they pertain to water
quality should be accomplished. A better understanding of
the probable course of future events should be developed.

Not all these things are done by the planner, although
the planner should be active in getting them to happen. The
planner needs to strive especially to represent or have
represented the interests of segments of the public who, for
one reason or another, are not actively represented in the
planning process, including future area residents, and
affected parties outside the boundaries of the area.

Strateay

The details of the public involvement program for
facilities planning will be different in each area because
of differing local conditions. A program or strategy for
public involvement should be developed at the beginning of
the facilities planning process. The program should be
developed with representatives of the public. It should
provide for early and continuous involvement throughout the

13


FOREWORD

The central thrust in EPA implementation of the new
water bill (P.L. 92-500) is maximizing environmental
effectiveness of actions taken, including 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 described in this summary, is intended to
accomplish the ahove 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.


FACILITIES PLANNING

SUMMARY

Title II
Federal water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
January 1974


reason to believe the costs and revenue will depart markedly
from the general levels of prices, an inflation or deflation
factor may be used; although, in general, it is omitted.

Contingency allowances may be included and accompanied
by an analysis, which may be a narrative, regarding over or
under utilization of capacity.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

Facilities plans are subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. An environmental
assessment is to be a part of each facilities plan. This
assessment will facilitate preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement by EPA, in order to carry out the
provisions of that Act.

The environmental evaluation should be an integral part
and major tool of the planning process. It is one of the
major analyses of alternatives, along with the evaluations
of systems performance and monetary factors. The evaluation
should include an inventory of existing environmental
conditions and analyses of expected environmental effects of
implementing significant alternatives.

The environmental evaluation should begin early in the
planning process, for several reasons. First, it takes a
substantial period of time to do an adequate environmental
evaluation, even in cases where the total amount of effort
required is small. (The lengthy time period results from
time lags in assembling pertinent data, interviewing people,
observing environmental conditions at several times during a
year, etc.) Second, the environmental evaluation should
have some impact on the initial assumptions, development and
screening of alternatives.

Note that environmental impact may be either adverse or
beneficial; it is not restricted to the former. These are
the basic questions asked in screening alternatives, and it
may be seen that there is a close parallel between
environmental impact evaluation and the steps in the
facilities planning frocess.


government resolutions of assurance that the plan will be
Carried out. In some cases, it might involve the creation
of a new agency to finance, operate, and maintain the
adopted system. In yet other cases, it might consist of
contracts among the constituent governments.

The financial program and schedule must contain
estimates of non-federal expenditures for implementing the
first stage of the plans, and a method for acquiring those
funds. If industrial users are part of the system, a cost
allocation between industrial users and other users must be
made and a means be available to recover from industrial
users that portion of the grant amount allocable to the
treatment of industrial wastes. The capital and operating
expenditures should be given for each of the first 10 years
covered by the plan.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public involvement is a necessary part of the
facilities planning process. It is required in the 1972 Act
Amendments and is discussed more fully in 40 CFR Part 35,
Subpart E and in 40 CFR 105 (Public Participation in Water
Pollution Control).

Wastewater management affects a wide range of economic,
social, environmental and institutional interests. It must
be planned and implemented in a manner which meets with
public satisfaction. Public involvement in the facilities
planning process facilitates the identification of public
preferences and fosters the development of the choice among
alternative solutions for satisfying public needs.

Public involvement should begin with the earliest
possible steps of the planning process and continue
throughout. It 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 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.

12