HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaaefq0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
-~c ALO -'-'- -3 7
COMP T E NERAF THENITEDSTA ES
WASHINGTON, DC, 20548 ft -
B-166506 RELEASED 1974
The Honorable Edmund S. Muskie
Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution
Committee on Public Works
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you requested on May 10, 1973 (see enc.), we have examined
(I) the circumstances surrounding the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) denial of a grant for constructing a waste treat-
ment project for Fort Fairfield, Maine, and (2) the validity of
EPA's approval of grants for 12 other projects you cited. You
expressed concern that EPA's selection of projects for funding was
not equitable, that the Fort Fairfield application was rejected on
the basis of criteria that were not applied to the other 12 projects,
and that the Fort Fairfield project should have been funded under
the same conditions as were applied to the other 12 projects.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
dated October 18, 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), provided that,
effective March 2, 1973, the Administrator could not approve a grant
for constructing waste treatment works unless the applicant had
established a new system of much higher charges to be paid by the
industrial users of the project.
To preclude a rush of applications before the March 2, 1973,
deadline, EPA had established certain criteria on which to select
projects for funding. EPAts primary selection criterion was a
requirement that the applicant have complete plans and specifications
ready for bidding. The Fort Fairfield project was not funded before
March 2, 1973, because the applicant had not submitted complete plans
and specifications.
As of March 2, 1973, applicants for 2 of the 12 projects--Lebanon,
New Hampshire, and Erie County, New York--also had not submitted sub-
stantially complete plans and specifications. EPA subsequently terminated
the Erie grant. We believe the Lebanon grant should be terminated for
the reasons EPA terminated the Erie grant. In addition, although
New Windsor, New York, submitted plans and specifications, EPA did not
consider them approvable because, among other reasons, they did not
appear to meet the minimum secondary treatment criteria. We therefore
believe that the New Windsor grant should also be terminated.
*&~$I9o33a]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaaefq0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)