EPA-430/9-76-004
MODEL
PLAN OF STUDY
Supplement to: Guidance for Preparing
A Facility Plan
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
X
March 1976
& s. £,',,;,_..
U.S. ENVIR8iit*TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
MCD-24
-------
NOTES
To order this publication, MCD-24, Model Plan of Study, write to:
General Services Administration (8FSS)
Centralized Mailing List Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
This publication should be placed in Part III, Guidelines of the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program
manual.
-------
FOREWORD
A Plan of Study (POS) is the most important element required as
part of an application for a Federal grant to prepare a Facility Plan
for construction of publicly-owned treatment works. The POS must describe
the local needs for treatment works, the scope of the required planning
effort (including a list of principal tasks to be accomplished), a
schedule, and estimated costs. Approval of the POS by the Regional
Administrator is a prerequisite for award of a Step 1 grant (40 CFR
35.917(e)).
The POS is required to assure that a Facility Plan will be com-
pleted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and also to
provide EPA with a basis to judge any requested grant increases for
additional work that may be necessary because of unforeseen circum-
stances. The POS is not intended, however, to be a Facility Plan or
even a part thereof. The cost of preparing a POS is ineligible for
grant assistance (40 CFR35.917-3(a) and 35.925-18(a)(1)).
This model POS for James City (a fictitious community) is illustra-
tive of the amount of detail required from a grant applicant to fulfill
regulatory requirements (40 CFR 35.920-3(a)(1)) for preparing a POS for
a small or medium-sized community. For a larger city (for example, a
population of 100,000 or more) with very complex pollution problems and
numerous environmental concerns, the POS should reflect greater detail
commensurate with the problem.
I would note that other elements required in an application for a
Step 1 Facility Planning grant are administrative in nature and include:
(1) State Priority Certification (EPA Form 5700-28) ; (2) Application for
Federal Assistance (Construction Grants) (EPA Form 5700-32); (3) a
description of proposed subagreements or methods of awarding subagree-
ments; and (4) comments or approvals of relevant State, local, and
Federal agencies (including "clearinghouse" requirements of OMB Circular
A-95).
EPA and the States schedule pre-application conferences with grant
applicants and consultants as time allows. The conferences are to
discuss facility planning requirements in detail. Grant applicants (and
consultants) are encouraged to request such pre-application assistance
from the State or EPA regional office where conferences are not already
scheduled.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Irogram Operations (WH-546)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
1. Facility Planning Area 1
1.1 Planning Area and Political Jurisdictions 1
1.2 Entities That Will Conduct the Planning 1
2. Nature and Scope of the Problem 1
2.1 Existing Systems (brief summary of major features) 1
2.2 Nature of the Problem 4
2.3 Tentative Treatment Works Needs 4
2.4 Facility Planning Requirements 5
3. Tasks, Schedule, and Costs 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I - Planning Area 2
Figure II - Municipal Improvement District No. 1 3
-------
1. FACILITY PLANNING AREA
1.1 Planning Area and Political Jurisdictions
James City, one of four incorporated cities in Smith County, is
situated approximately midway between San Francisco and Eureka.
Local officials of the City, the County, and the State Water Quality
Management Planning Agency (responsible for Section 208 planning in non-
designated areas and Section 303(e) basin planning of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500) discussed several
geographic areas upon which the Facility Plan might focus to analyze
cost-effective alternative methods and environmental effects of waste
transport, treatment, effluent disposal, and sludge disposition. It was
determined that the facility planning area (Figure I) should include all
of James City and a large portion of the county. The 1970 population of
the facility planning area was 5,500. The population was determined by
the Smith County Planning Department based on the 1970 Census.
1.2 Entities that will Conduct the Planning
James City operates and maintains the existing waste treatment and
collection facilities within the multi-jurisdictional Municipal Improve-
ment District No. 1 (Figure II). James City and the nearby areas experi-
encing urban growth constitute the District.
The Smith County Health Department has jurisdiction over all other
wastewater treatment facilities within the County, and the North Coast
Regional Water Quality Control Board exercises over-all jurisdiction.
James City, with the support and concurrence of the County Health Depart-
ment and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, has been
authorized by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water
Quality, to act as the lead agency for developing the facility plan.
Development of the Facility Plan will be coordinated closely with
the County, the 'Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water
Quality Management Planning Agency. Population and economic projections
for the planning area will be consistent with the approved interim-
output projections, if available, from the State Water Quality Manage-
ment Program.
Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 35.936-19 and 35.937, Copan Architects &
Engineers, Inc., 1550 Main Street, James City, California, has been
selected by the City to assist in the development of the Facility Plan.
2. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
2.1 Existing Systems (brief summary of major features)
The City's wastewater treatment facility, completed in 1971, is a
modified secondary treatment plant utilizing a single primary clarifier
and a single biofilter followed by effluent disinfection and with separate
-------
>L\ V'-Mb-j™—-1*-!*.**-..
/£uiQ^i-^., ; .;
'.iL^tr--\ 3l"~\ ' ""-f-^*"^^*:;
^ , J '• I" A :'-T
M ' • ' Jo'-0 :^V
' -- . "* >^^—~r^--—^j /''«v
H
HH
u
<
S
O W
w ^
-------
o
z
H
O
H
HH H _
u « s
c* s g
td w O
2 o
, Bu
U
Z
I I
-------
sludge digestion. Treated effluent is discharged through a relatively
short ocean outfall to James Bay. Digested sludge is mixed with wood
chips and dried on paved sludge drying pads. The dried sludge and wood
chip mixture is disposed of as land fill.
The treatment plant was originally designed to handle an average
daily flow of 1.0 MGD and a peak daily flow of 5.0 MGD. Presently, the
average daily flow ranges from about 0.5 MGD in July to more than 2.0
MGD in January. Several times a year the instantaneous peak wet weather
flow exceeds 5.0 MGD.
The treatment plant was designed to remove approximately 160 mg/1
of the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD ) and suspended solids (SS) from
essentially domestic sewage. The plant achieves a 60 percent reduction
of the influent BOD and SS waste loads. The treatment plant was designed
also to be upgraded to provide full secondary treatment by the possible
future addition of a secondary clarifier and sludge thickener.
More than seventy-five percent (75%) of the existing sewer system
was constructed before 1960. With the exception of the sewers built in
the last 15 years, the City's sewer collection system contains a large
proportion of small pipes in poor or questionable condition.
2.2 Nature of the Problem
The treatment plant has reached its average daily flow design
capacity and frequently encounters flows exceeding its peak design flow
because of high infiltration/inflow rates. Further, the treatment plant
cannot meet the secondary treatment effluent limitations for discharge
to the ocean nor the water quality standards for ocean disposal estab-
lished by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board.
No serious environmental concerns have been identified by the local
communities at this time.
2.3 Tentative Treatment Works Needs
Tentative treatment works needs include expansion of the existing
capacity to accommodate future flows from expected population increases
and adequate treatment capability to meet secondary treatment and other
ocean discharge effluent limitations.
The Facility Plan will analyze alternative Best Practicable Waste
Treatment Technology (BPWTT) techniques (flow reduction measures, expan-
sion and upgrading of the existing treatment system, treatment and
discharge or reuse, and treatment by land application) to determine the
most cost-effective and environmentally sound solution to the problem.
-------
2.4 Facility Planning Requirements
A Facility Plan will be prepared in accordance with the Title II
Final Construction Grants Regulation, 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, dated
February 11, 1974; Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan, revised May
1975; Final Regulations for Preparation of Environmental Impact State-
ments, 40 CFR Part 6.512, dated April 14, 1975; and Regulations for
Public Participation, 40 CFR Part 105, dated August 17, 1973.
The environmental assessment included as part of the Facility Plan
is expected to provide sufficient information to assist in selecting a
cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative without significant
adverse impacts.
-------
3. TASKS, SCHEDULE, AND COSTS
Preparation of the Facility Plan will entail the following tasks:
Effort
Task (Man-Weeks) Schedule Costs
1. Effluent Limitations
(to be provided by the State) 0 - $
2. Assess Current Situation 10 ——
a. Evaluate existing system
(Optimum Performance)
b. Planning Area Description
c. Demographic and Economic Data
d. Water Quality Data
e. Environmental Inventory
(including cultural resources)
f. Infiltration/Inflow-Analysis
g. Sewer System Survey
3. Assess Future Situation 5 -• <
a. Future environment with
"No Action"
b. Land Use Projections
c. Demographic and Economic
Projections
d. Flow and Wasteload Forecasts
(Basis for Industrial Flow
Forecasts)
4. Develop and Evaluate Alternatives 15 •
a. Alternative BPWTT Waste
Management Techniques
(Expanding and Upgrading Exist-
ing System, Regional Solutions,
Alternative Treatment Sizes and
Configurations, Alternative
Residual Waste Management
Techniques; Environmental
Effects)
b. Public Participation
5. Select Plan 2
a. Public Meetings and Hearings
b. Environmental Impacts of
Selected Plan
c. Summary of Public Participation
0123456
Months
-------
3. TASKS, SCHEDULE, AND COSTS (CONT'D)
Task
6. Preliminary Design of
Selected Treatment Works
a. Full Process Design Layout,
Design Criteria, Sizing,
Loading Rates, Detention
Times
b. Detailed Cost Estimates
(Design, Construction, and
Operation & Maintenance)
7. Implementation Arrangements
a. Institutional and Legal
Requirements
b. Preliminary Operation
& Maintenance Plan
c. Non-Federal Costs, User
Charges and Debt-Service
Charges
d. Financial Arrangements
to meet Non-Federal
Costs
e. Resolutions of Plan
Acceptance
8. Report Preparation and
Printing
Effort
(Man-Weeks)
Schedule
Costs
42
1234
Months
5 6
The grant applicant and its consultant should consider carefully the
nature and scope of the problem and the Federal and State requirements
for addressing the problem. The level of effort, the time schedule and
the costs should be commensurate to the tasks.
"The Infiltration/Inflow Analysis (following procedures outlined in EPA
Technical Report, EPA 430/9-75-021, Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation and
Rehabilitation, dated December 1975) will determine the need for a Sewer
System Survey. If such a survey is required, then a request for an amendment
to the Step 1 Facility Planning Grant will be submitted requesting additional
funds for the timely completion of this element.
l S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1976—678-401/355 REGION NO 8
------- |