Code of Maine Rules › 06 - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION › 096 - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - GENERAL › Chapter 528 - PRETREATMENT PROGRAM › Appendix 096-528-A - Program Guidance Memorandum

Current through 2024-29, July 17, 2024
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
December 16, 1975.
Program Guidance Memorandum--61
Subject: Grants for Treatment and Control of Combined Sewer
				  Overflows and Stormwater Discharges.
From: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
				  Program Operations (WH-546).
To: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X.
This memorandum summarizes the Agency's policy on the use of
				  construction grants for treatment and control of combined sewer overflows and
				  stormwater discharges during wet-weather conditions. The purpose is to assure
				  that projects are funded only when careful planning has demonstrated they are
				  cost-effective.
I. Combined Sewer
				Overflows
A. Background
The costs and benefits of control of various portions of
				  pollution due to combined sewer overflows and by-passes vary greatly with the
				  characteristics of the sewer and treatment system, the duration, intensity,
				  frequency and a real extent of precipitation, the type and extent of
				  development in the service area, and the characteristics, use sand water
				  quality standards of the receiving waters. Decisions on grants for control of
				  combined sewer overflows, therefore, must be made on a case-by-case basis after
				  detailed planning at the local level.
Where detailed planning has been completed, treatment or
				  control of pollution from wet-weather overflows and bypasses may be given
				  priority for construction grant funds only after provision has been made for
				  secondary treatment of dry-weather flows in the area. The detailed planning
				  requirements and criteria for project approval follow.
B. Planning Requirements
Construction grants may be approved for control of pollution
				  from combined sewer overflows only if planning for the project was thoroughly
				  analyzed for the 20 year planning period:
1. Alternative control techniques which might
				be utilized to attain various levels of pollution control (related to
				alternative beneficial uses, if appropriate), including at least initial
				consideration of all the alternatives described in the section on combined
				sewer and stormwater control in ``Alternative Waste Management Techniques and
				Best Practicable Waste Treatment'' (Section C of Chapter III of the information
				proposed for comment in March 1974).
2. The costs of achieving the various levels
				of pollution control by each of the techniques appearing to be the most
				feasible and cost-effective after the preliminary analysis.
3. The benefits to the receiving waters of a
				range of levels of pollution control during wet-weather conditions. This
				analysis will normally be conducted as part of State water quality management
				planning, 208 area wide management planning, or other State, regional or local
				planning effort.
4. The costs and
				benefits of addition of advanced waste treatment processes to dry-weather flows
				in the area.
C. Criteria
				for Project Approval
The final alternative selected shall meet the following
				  criteria:
1. The analysis required
				above has demonstrated that the level of pollution control provided will be
				necessary to protect a beneficial use of the receiving water even after
				technology based standards required by Section 301 of Pub. L. 92-500 are
				achieved by industrial point sources and at least secondary treatment is
				achieved for dry-weather municipal flows in the area.
2. Provision has already been made for
				funding of secondary treatment of dry-weather flows in the area.
3. The pollution control technique proposed
				for combined sewer over flow is a more cost-effective means of protecting the
				beneficial use of the receiving waters than other combined sewer pollution
				control techniques and the addition of treatment higher than secondary
				treatment for dry-weather municipal flows in the area.
4. The marginal costs are not substantial
				compared to marginal benefits. Marginal costs and benefits for each alternative
				may be displayed graphically to assist with determining a project's
				acceptability under this criterion. Dollar costs should be compared with
				quantified pollution reduction and water quality improvements. A descriptive
				narrative should also be included analyzing monetary, social and environmental
				costs compared to benefits, particularly the significance of the beneficial
				uses to be protected by the project.