TD746
.U543
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water and Waste
Management
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1981
C.I
1990
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
STRATEGY FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
OOOD81100C
-------
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1990 STRATEGY FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TASK III - OPERATIONS STRATEGY
OFFICE OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"This paper presents a preliminary draft
strategy, proposed by EPA staff, for
improving the national municipal waste-
water treatment program. EPA is now
considering the positions offered here.
The document is intended for public
review and discussion to assist EPA
in developing its final 1990 Strategy."
January 16, 1981
U.S. Frvircnrr.ent.,! 'rVjt,--ouOii Ag-ncy
Region V, Library
230 South Deai born Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
U,S. Environmental pr^t?^tion Agency
-------
PREFACE
The proposals presented in the Strategy are the result of both
a major effort within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
extensive participation on the part of the interested public through
meetings and the distribution of relevant issue and background papers
prepared by EPA.
The 1990 Strategy was prepared under the guidance of Eckardt C. Beck,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water and Waste Management; James N. Smith,
Associate Assistant Administrator, Office of Water and Waste Management;
and Henry L. Longest II, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Program Operations.
The Chairman of the 1990 Strategy effort within the Agency was
Merna Hurd, Associate Assistant Administrator, Office of Water and Waste
Management. The Deputy Chairman was Carl Reeverts, Office of Water
Program Operations.
The Chairmen of Task III - Operations Strategy were Jane Magee,
Office of Water Program Operations and Joe Franzmathes, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV.
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
Stream!ining Management 3
Streamlining the Process 4
Special Program/Policy Options 5
Summary ., 6
III. CURRENT PROGRAM 7
Legislative Goals and Authority 7
Other Federal Laws and Executive Orders Affecting Current
Program 8
Process 8
Current Program 13
IV. MAJOR PROGRAM ISSUES 19
Process 19
Pol icy 25
V. PROPOSED STRATEGY: AVAILABLE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 29
Streaml ining Management/Administrative Functions 29
Streamlining the Grants Process 39
Special Pro gram/Pol icy Options 47
VI. ACTION PLAN-.......... 55
Streamlining the Management/Administrative Functions 55
Streamlining the Grants Process 55
Special Smal 1 Community Actions 56
Special Program/Pol icy Options 56
APPENDIX: LIST OF 1990 STRATEGY PAPERS AVAILABLE 63
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
As the construction grants program enters its second decade of major
activity, EPA is examining the program in light of the authorizing
legislation and current administration to determine public expectations
for the program, set policy for the coming decade and undertake imple-
mentation actions to achieve those policies. This study, which led to
the drafting of a comprehensive 1990 Strategy for the construction
grants program, has consisted of five tasks, each concentrating on one
of the major aspects of the program: funding, management, operations,
compliance, and planning. A strategy document for each area has been
prepared identifying relevant problems and issues, enumerating and
evaluating options and describing EPA's proposed positions. The
operations strategy must be built on the past operation of the program--
one of the Nation's largest and most complex public works programs--
and attempts to respond to current public policy concerns as it plans
for the future.
The staff papers on which the operations strategy is based are
listed in the Appendix and are available on request to be consulted for
detailed discussions of topics raised in this document. In developing
the strategy papers, EPA has received extensive input from various
interest groups including environmental, rural, engineering, munici-
palities, States, labor and industry interests. Analysis of the strategy
will continue within EPA and in the public review arena as part of the
public participation process. The final Strategy will integrate the
individual components into a unified action program designed to meet
the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act or recommend their
modification, where appropriate.
The objective of the operations task of this study is to develop a
strategy for faster, more efficient development and processing of projects
funded by the construction grants program while at the same time main-
taining or improving the quality of those projects. In this study several
basic assumptions about the operation of the program have been made:
1. The Agency's present emphasis on delegation of the program to
States will continue, leading to somewhat different roles than those
presently taken by EPA and State agencies. EPA's role will continue to
shift away from the review of individual projects to oversight and manage-
ment of the process with special emphasis on quality control, program
analysis, and policy guidance while the States will increase their role
in managing the actual review process. It will also mean that EPA's
contribution to the solution of some problems will have to be indirect,
with the States having the primary direct responsibility.
-------
2. The program must continue to emphasize the need for projects
which balance environmental objectives with social and economic factors.
However, in the future there will be increased emphasis on the need for
grant applicants to closely examine their management and fiscal capabi-
lities in light of the long term operation and management needs of a
proposed project. Experience has shown that one of the major factors
contributing to the inability of some plants to comply with their permit
conditions is the failure to maintain and operate the plant adequately.
A full discussion of these problems and proposed solutions to them is
contained in the compliance task of the 1990 Strategy.
3. The process of planning, designing and constructing a wastewater
treatment project funded by this program is generally agreed to be too
long. A full discussion of this issue is found below, but the study's
basic assumption is that the House Public Works Oversight Committee's
mandate for a reduction of at least 25% in total process time can be
achieved.
4. A variety of reports indicates that small communities which apply
to the construction grants program to solve wastewater treatment problems
have greater difficulty completing the process than their larger municipal
counterparts. (See GAO Report "Small Communities Need Help With Federal
Pollution Control Requirements.") Because small communities are the
majority of grantees in the program it is important to address their
special problems and to assist them as needed.
-------
CHAPTER II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary objectives of the operations portion of the 1990 Strategy
are to reduce the time needed to complete the process while ensuring the
quality of projects developed through that process. Full delegation of
the program, accomplished as expeditiously as States are capable of
fulfilling the new responsibilities, will be a key factor in accomplishing
those objectives. EPA's role will shift from that of reviewer of indivi-
dual projects to one of monitoring the States' management of the process,
ensuring the integrity of national water quality goals, and providing
assistance as appropriate to the States.
In the present transition phase of the implementation of the program
it has been useful to examine the construction grants process through the
development of the 1990 Strategy to identify sources of problems which
have occurred persistently in the operation of the process, and to explore
solutions to those problems.
In general, the delays and problems that have occurred in the process
have resulted from the complexity of the requirements of the process and
a lack of flexibility in administering those requirements. The strategy
examines options for solving those problems and recommends one series of
actions designed to streamline the overall management of the process,
another to streamline specific requirements in each of the three steps of
the process (including the development of a simplified process for small
communities), and a third set of actions designed to clarify and expedite
the implementation of Agency policy in such areas as the use of innovative
and alternative technologies, pretreatment, sludge disposal and integrated
waste management.
STREAMLINING MANAGEMENT
Overall management of the program can be changed in ways that will
save substantial time for grantees. A key element in successful
implementation of this aspect of the strategy will be the full delegation
of administration of the grants process to States with EPA's role as
manager of the program becoming one of oversight and direction. In
this way all duplication of reviews and other inefficiencies can be
eliminated from the process while at the same time the integrity of
overriding federal interests in managing the program can be ensured.
In conjunction with delegation, the Strategy recommends instituting
a process whereby.qualified applicants can be certified to proceed
with certain pre-agreed on steps of the process without need for
individual reviews. It also recommends steps to streamline the procure-
ment process which is now extremely time consuming, and others to simplify
the procedures required to account for grantees' administrative and legal
costs.
-------
Another area of concern which has been identified as a major
contributor of complexity (and by implication, delay) to the process is
the wide range of requirements for compliance with other federal laws.
Because EPA is subject to the regulation of other agencies in complying
with most of these laws, it is not possible to recommend unilateral
action which will solve all the problems or eliminate the delays they
may cause. However, there are a variety of administrative steps that
can be taken to carry out the requirements for compliance more efficiently.
And, in addition to this improved administration of the existing laws, the
strategy recommends that EPA work with other agencies to effect a procedural
consolidation of other federal laws under NEPA.
STREAMLINING THE PROCESS
There are several aspects of the grants process which have been
identified as major stumbling blocks to its efficient operation. To
improve this situation it is generally agreed that an applicant must be
given sufficient guidance throughout the planning process to ensure that
there is adequate attention given to all appropriate alternatives without
investing effort unnecessarily in evaluating unacceptable proposals. This
guidance can be initiated at a preapplication conference and must continue
on a timely schedule throughout the planning process. In addition to
traditional concerns with technical and environmental aspects of proposed
wastewater treatment projects, there is a need for increased attention
to applicants' fiscal management capabilities to ensure both the immediate
and long term viability of the proposal.
The strategy also proposes that a contracted schedule, binding on
all parties, be negotiated between the applicant and reviewing agencies
at the beginning of each step of the process. This will eliminate
unnecessarily long delays either in the submission of documents or the
review of those documents. In any State where delegation is not complete
the strategy also recommends that reviews by the State and EPA be
conducted concurrently rather than sequentially as is now the case.
The need for a comprehensive training program for all State and EPA
staff who review or guide the preparation of facility plans and designs is
identified. Such training would be designed to strengthen the quality and
consistency of the review process while at the same time promoting greater
application of the flexibility incorporated in the program regulations and
guidance.
Further recommendations for streamlining the process in Step 2
relate to establishing stricter accountability in the process through
means such as project managers or the extension of the formal start-up
phase of a plant; allowing the purchase of equipment during Step 2 as
a possible solution to problems which now result from inadequate equipment
purchased under present "or equal" provisions is also recommended.
-------
Many of the delays which have occurred in the construction phase
of the process such as strikes or delayed deliveries are beyond the
control of EPA, the States, or applicants to control. However, four of
the major causes of delay between award of a Step 3 grant and commencement
of construction (i.e., property acquisition, local funding, service
agreements and cultural resources investigations) are activities which
can and should be carried out concurrently with design activities during
Step 2. Agency policy has been modified to ensure this consolidation of
functions to eliminate the present causes of lag.
Small communities have found the complexity of the grants process
particularly burdensome, and so the strategy recommends the development
of a greatly simplified process for communities of less than 10,000 to
be based on a screening analysis to determine community characteristics
and a series of generic plans for use where appropriate. Other recommenda-
tions in the strategy designed to eliminate special problems faced by small
communities include: simplifying administration of the rural set-aside
program by removing its restriction to projects employing alternative
technology; making the full projects funded from set-aside funds (rather
than only their alternative portions) eligible for increased funding;
encouraging all States rather than only those defined as rural States to
set-aside funds for projects in small communities for which there would be
a separate priority list; and urging the addition of groundwater and public
health considerations to the criteria which serve as the basis for priority
list decisions since it is those factors which are often most important to
small communities.
SPECIAL PROGRAM/POLICY OPTIONS
The final category of recommendations in the strategy deals with
special programs and policies which have been identified as the source
of delays in the construction grants process. There are recommendations
to modify the program to promote innovative and alternative technologies (I/A)
which are based on the principle of giving stability and predictability
to the program by extending a set-aside permanently, and enhancing its
attractiveness to States and applicants by simplifying its administration.
Specifically, the strategy recommends a permanent one percent set-aside for
innovative projects which would convert to a national pool for innovative
projects if unobligated by States; and funding the full project at the
higher rate if a significant portion of it employs innovative technology
rather than the present policy of funding only the innovative portions at
the higher rate and the remainder at the standard rate.
The present requirements for addressing potential problems from
infiltration and inflow (I/I) have been identified as a particularly time
consuming and not entirely successful part of the process. Recommended
revisions to the Agency's policy guidelines would include requiring an
acceptable sewer maintenance program as part of the Step 1 planning, revising
the basis on which maximum removal efficiency of excessive I/I is determined,
and modifying the methods for analyzing and quantifying I/I.
-------
In the areas of integrated waste management, pretreatment and sludge
management, the strategy describes several pilot projects presently
underway that are designed to solve existing problems and at the same
time demonstrate the feasibility of approaching these "second generation"
waste water management problems in a coordinated way. Among the key
issues to be resolved in developing national policies in this area are
the questions of whether the goal should be safe disposal of wastes or
whether it should be beneficial utilization of wastes; whether the concept
of zero risk must be the goal of all environmental regulation or whether
there are risk levels which would be "acceptable" to society and, if there
is an acceptable risk level, how that is to be determined; and, of course,
the complex series of problems related to siting disposal facilities persist
for all levels of government.
SUMMARY
The recommendations of the operations portion of the 1990 Strategy
are designed to simplify and speed up the process for all grantees by
improving the overall management and administration of the process,
removing specific problems which have been ideitified in each of the
individual steps of the process, and clarifying and revising, as needed,
policies related to special programs. Full discussions of all issues
are found in the body of the strategy.
-------
CHAPTER III
CURRENT PROGRAM
LEGISLATIVE GOALS AND AUTHORITY
The Clean Water Act states two goals and a wide variety of policies
which have been incorporated, with varying degrees of emphasisand
admittedly, varying degrees of successin the present contraction grants
program. The goals of the Act are "that the discharge of pollutants into
the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985" and "that wherever attainable,
an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provides for recreation
in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983." In addition to these
two goals, the Act declares a wide variety of policies including: provi-
sion of federal aid for the construction of publicly owned wastewater
treatment works; prohibition of toxic pollutant discharges; implementation
of areawide planning for waste treatment management; state rather than
federal management of the construction grants and permit programs; and
provision for public participation in the construction grants process.
EPA's task, in implementing the construction grants program, has been
to design a process which incorporates those goals and diverse policies
and also takes into account the more than 50 other federal laws and execu-
tive orders which apply to it. Section 201 of the Clean Water Act, in
authorizing the Administrator to make grants for the construction of
waste treatment works contains several provisions designed to ensure
attention to the policies of the Act. Specifically, the Administrator
cannot make a grant to a project until the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates the following:
Alternative waste management techniques, which provide for the
application of BPWTT, have been studied.
To the extent practical, future consideration for reclaiming
and recycling water and eliminating pollutant discharges have
been taken into account.
t Excessive infiltration will not affect the project.
Innovative and alternative processes or techniques for
pollution control have been considered.
Potential recreation and open space opportunities have been
considered in planning the project.
In addition to these concrete requirements, the Act instructs the
Administrator to "encourage" the construction of waste treatment manage-
ment facilities which provide for the recycling of pollutants, contained
disposal of pollutants which are not recycled, reclamation of wastewater,
-------
and ultimate disposal of sludge in a manner which will not result in an
environmental hazard. Encouragement is also to be given to waste treat-
ment management which integrates facilities for sewage treatment with
the treatment and disposal of other municipal wastes; and to waste treat-
ment processes which reduce total energy requirements.
OTHER FEDERAL LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS AFFECTING CURRENT PROGRAM
On this broad base of legislative requirements and policy from the
Clean Water Act the regulations to implement the construction grants
program and the policies and procedures which guide the present process
have been built. However, the process must also satisfy the diverse
intents and procedural requirements of the variety of other federal laws
and executive orders shown on Figure III.l.
Meeting the requirements of those other laws has been identified
recently by many as a major cause of delay in the construction grants
process. It is undeniable that the procedural requirements of the other
applicable lawsseen by some as extraneousdo make the construction
grants process more complex. Requirements range from NEPA's mandate for
a determination of the environmental significance of an action to the
requirements for compliance with the Davis Bacon Act provisions for minimum
wages. Many projects have been slowed considerably as a result of require-
ments of those other laws.
All of the regulations, policies and guidance which have been developed
for implementing the construction grants programand there are vast
quantities on recordhave been for the purpose of translating the diverse
goals of the Clean Water Act (or its orerunners) and a host of other
federal laws into concrete actions which will help to realize those goals.
PROCESS
The process which has been developed to carry out the broad goals
and policies of the Clean Water Act consists of three steps that are
explained fully for potential applicants in the recently revised publica-
tion, Handbook of Procedures (MCD-03). In brief, those steps are:
Step 1: Preliminary planning and engineering
Step 2: Detailed plans and specification
Step 3: Facility construction
The steps must be followed in sequence with each step requiring a
separate application procedure (except for small projects where Steps
2 and 3 can be combined). When an application is approved a grant is
provided to finance the planning (Step 1), design (Step 2) or construction
(Step 3) of a wastewater treatment system. The administrative process
involved in each of these steps is described below.
-------
ce
o
>,
u
c
01
Ol
o
«
01
_J
1_
O
i.
Ol
4J
c
=-,
4->
&.
OJ
o.
0
s-
u
i.
o
4-J
I/I
0
4-1
3
14-
E
4/1
4->
c
£
1-
»»
a
o-
OJ
cr:
M-
o
>1
t-
g
I/)
IO
e~
1/1
^
c
o
4J
O
3
L-
C
O
u
c
OJ
3
U
C
o
4-1
IO
>
i.
Ol
on
C OJ
0 1-
i- (X
IO u
> -
i_ i-
ai o
on 4J
O) I/I
a. X
u -a
"- C
S- IO
o
t/i IO
3: **
01
a 0
c
10 O
OJ
IO u
i
_l
^»
u
Ol
o
S
I/)
U i-
<:
Ol
o
o
OJ
CJ
&-
<£
-^
OJ
o.
o
a.
i*-
0
c
o
4-J
IO
>
1-
O)
I/I
s-
D.
OJ
10
4-1
s-
OJ
-a
c
3
3
O
0
t_
o
>
T3
<
C
O
c;
o
4->
3
S-
in
C
o
u
14-
0
4->
o
10
.1
Ol
.c
4->
L-
ai
a
in
c
o
u
T3
C
IO
OJ
c
OJ
4->
Ol
a
V£J
CM
0
4-1
U
<.
c
o
"
IO
>
i.
01
in
OJ
i_
Q.
o
s_
o
in
u:
i»
IO
c
o
4->
IO
^
0
&.
o
in
3Z
C
O
in
4^
S-
ai
o.
o
s_
a.
u
4-J
in
f
c
0
10
s-
1/1
OJ
u
Q.
S-
o
s-
OJ
4->
c
*j on
o 01
OJ -
4J 4-1
o s-
l- OJ
a. D.
o
D 1-
C 0.
le
Ol t.
> o
i. 4->
OJ C
iG $
Q.-I-
OT3
4-> C
IO
OJ
> 01
(- 4->
i- 10
4-1 U
I/I O
0
c «
« 4->
c
O- O>
£ C
VI O
U 1.
(U^
^s
ai OJ
CD 10
X5 i-
r- 3
> 4-1
O
I- 3
a- u
IO
3
^f
=1
14-
0
C
o
4->
E
-<- c
4J O
3 i-
cy >
X C
LU LU
'
od hazard associated with federally- Each Agency
cts.
in
10
OJ
Ol
>
r
4-»
in
c
Ol
I/I
>,
IO
4-1
c
c
o
S-
>
L4J
0
14-
01
4J
Ol
O
-a
Ol
IX.
4J
C
E
a>
Ol
10
c
IO
sr
.H
IO
a.
o
o
o
IZ
CO
CO
CM
r
&-
01
T3
U
o
Ol
>
4->
3
U
OJ
X
UJ
Ol
o
a.
13
OJ
4->
in
in
on
IO
to wetlands as a result of federally- Each Agency
cts.
E
IO
JZ
Ol
N
E
C
X.
c:
O
4-J
o
Ol
o
0.
T3
C
IO
r
+J
T3
i;
0
01
>
4_>
3
U
OJ
X
uu
01
?
Q.
o
OJ
4->
in
in
IO
nsult with lead agency when construction Agriculture or
o
u
in
>>
O
c
OJ
O!
4->
u
=t
in
s-
01
>
a:
u
r-
c
OJ
o
o
c
IO
CJ
3
d adverse" impact on wild or scenic river. Interior
c
10
u
OJ
!_
"O
on
IO
effecting coastal area must comply with Commerce
Zone Management plan.
on
C
o
4-1
u
IO
£
QJ
<
4->
U
tfl
(0
o
(_)
(C
4->
ro
O
cu
4_»
to
(/I -
3 4-»
E «
C
4-> 1-
C QJ
OJ 4J
c 10
o
S- T3
«- c
> 10
c
Ol 4J
C 4J
IO OJ
U "O
OIT3
C OJ
> C
IO IO
.E O.
C u
O (J
*- 10
4^
U OJ
O
4->
U
>!
c
o
-------
u
c
01
en
u
c
01
u
c
111
on
CD
S-
3
0
c
01
o c
1- O
-
o u
IK «>
-a i-
r- O
10
OL 01
01 Q.
.0 O
eu
-U Q.
(XI
c c
o o
i-
01
o
o
u
C O
O CL
4-1 O)
IO U
t. C
(U «
O.4J
O W
O "-
O
3
l/l
D
s_
1
M
s-
t/l
,_
fl3
Q
IO
o
4->
c
g
CL
O
Ol
>
01
Q
if.
4->
C
I
10
CD
S-
c
m
4->
&.
01
01
Q.
O
a
c
o
_J 4J O 0
o
a.
O
3 -i-
O 01
1- U
Ol 01
CD
00
4J a.
10 IO
en
o c
t-
10 a>
°
U "O
I/! C
i- o
01
IO
i-
01
o
u
u
u a.
I IO tt) *. '
JO C O
i . IO
L. *J
IO O VI
JC r- i-
U VI
C 10
O -
(/> a> i
i- u 0)
O^- "S
2 O "4-
m
4*
QJ I/I
to tn
C 10
O I
o
s-
=> o.
QJ o
V} 1.
=1 Q.
IO
O)
o
c
3
o
c
E
O
<§
4-> t/l
10 -t-
U 3
O CT
i U
4->
c
01
O
c
10
J3
i-
o
c
10
C
ai
I
o
c
o
c
o
in oo
CM ro
IO i
i CM
i- i- S.
0) 4J Ol
3 -i-
O X3
01 C
X O
t- l-
4-> CL
3 S.
u ai
CD j->
X C
01
4->
C
o
c
o
10
-------
>]
c
0)
i.
o
Ol
oe
aB
w» O)
Ht
JC -O
u s-
w o
IO U
x: a
in Q.
Ol C
10 o
0)
10 U
I- 1-
01 >
o s.
Ol o>
U. >/)
VI
C 0)
cu
.- Q)
3 o.
o in
01
i. -O
0)
V) C
C 01
IO 4J
i IO
O. Ol
C £
O 4->
*J S-
ID o
Ol
T3
4-1 01
I 0)
01
o c *J
C IO IO
IO -O *»
C i-
C 01 J3
* O ~
10 r-
C U) IO
*- 4-> U
o o -
s_ d> -w
O X- f
o *- t-
a
01 Ol
-C 4->
4-1 in
c in
o in
10
o i
01 >>
in *
IO i
43 10
Ol
s- -o
01 Ol
I-V-
o
JO 10
IO
' l-
o
14- 4.
o
o
I/I »-
I/I (O
10 a.
"5
j=
u
«J r- 4-1
01 IO U
-E O>
I- in fr->
0 0
H- t.
E a.
in i-
Oi O c
cnc O
«o *-
2 >,4->
4-> U
g5- 3
i;
c I c
SOU
3
O
-C
a
co 01
4-»
s- in
Ol -
> in
o in
R)
^ i
i- >.
8 =
IO
>< 1-
c ai
«"g
s- t-
o
M- 1-
o
0 M-
10 -^
ex 01
oil1
.0
s.
4-> 01
in o.
3
E in
1_
U- 3
O
IO £
£
I O
01 ^r
c
o s-
o
T3 I/I
= >>4->
IO IO U
o ai
tU'c?
-i- O) S.
1 Ck. D.
t/l
4-3
U
ai
>->
o
CL
o
ai
4->
i/i
i/i
in
IB
>>
ID
!_
o
4->
10 O
s_ c
o c
«- o 01
I. "- i-
O) 4J IO
*> o
oi 3 in
01 m 10
c c -o
i- o c
4-» O IO
jD 14 in
r- O
OH- 4J
1 *io
in 4-> 3
4J 3 cr
c u
01 s-
E i_ f-
Ol O IO
i- 14.
3 « i-
O X IO
£! J2 1j
Ol
4-> 10 (J
O)
O> >H-
*?""
C
o
M
3
,_
O.
u-
o
(/)
o
£
u
1/1
1
T3
S_
0
4-
W
C
*J
tj
0>
ex
in 10
4J
-O 3
f £
et IE
in
Ol I. in
O -^ 4->
i- 10 c
3 IO
O C i-
1/0 -^ Ol
c
o
O
O
o
c
IO
c
o
c
X
ie
u
at
a
b t-
i-
0)
o
o
(J
o>
o
Ol
1-
01
Ol
t/)
4->
C
i
a>
t.
3
D
ai
a:
4^
U
m
4->
c
o
c
o
u
IO
CO
1
in
>
IO
0
t-
o
3
U
IO
!_
4->
C
O
o
4-*
o
-------
Step 1
The applicant must submit a plan of study, i.e., a document outlining
the work to be done in preparing the initial facility plan. This plan
must include the costs expected and a work schedule. Comments on the
plan's compatibility with the areawide management plan (the 208 plan)
must be obtained as well as comments from the A-95 Clearinghouse.
If the applicant's planned actions are approved, a Step 1 grant is
awarded. The grant provides funds with which to work out a facility plan
(201 plan). This plan defines the problem, examines alternatives solutions,
and selects one solution for implementation. The plan must include the
results of public input, an environmental assessment, an infiltration/inflow
analysis and a sewer survey if required. The plan must then be submitted
to the Clearinghouse, the State, and EPA prior to complete delegation for
comments and approval.
Step 2
The application for a Step 2 grant must include: the approved facility
plan, assurance of compliance with specified federal acts (such as the
Civil Rights Act) and a sewer use ordinance. A reasonable user charge
system must be developed, i.e., a charge system that will cover all operating
and maintenance costs of the treatment facility.
If the State and EPA approve the application, the applicant receives
a Step 2 grant. This grant provides funds with which to draw up a detailed
set of plans and specifications for the project, suitable for bidding by
construction firms. Both technical and administrative project requirements
must be addressed in the plans and specifications. Detailed construction
costs estimates must also be prepared in order to judge the reasonableness
of the bids received. The completed plans and estimates must be approved
before application for a Step 3 grant.
Step 3
The application for Step 3 grant must include: the approved plans
and estimates generated in Step 2, assurance of compliance with specific
federal acts and project requirements, and a realistic grant payment
schedule from EPA to the locality. If both the State and EPA approve
these documents, the applicant receives federal funds for construction
of the project.
Summary
These three steps of the construction grants process are also shown
in Figure III.2, a Critical Path Method Chart based primarily on data
compiled in California, which depicts every component of each stage of
the current process and shows the average time needed to carry out each
12
-------
step as well as the interrelationships among various activities. Recent
analyses of the process have shown that 7 to 11 years is the average time
required to complete the 3 steps, although total time required varies
according to plant size and other factors.
The total time needed to complete the process as well as the
percentage of total time needed to complete each of the three steps of
the process differ according to project size as shown in Figure 111.3.
Step 1 takes a larger portion of the total time for projects costing
less than $10 million than it does for larger projects.
CURRENT PROGRAM
It is helpful, in discussing the operation of the construction grants
process, to see the program in the context of its magnitude. Since its
inception in 1972, more than 19,000 grants have been made valued at $26
billion. Because the planning, design, construction process is long
'many of the projects represented in the total grant amount have not yet
been completed.
Currently construction has been completed,on more than 2100 treatment
projects valued at $2.6 billion. Of the remaining grants for projects
which are at some intermediate stage in the process, some are proposals
with Step 1 grants that have had no action by the applicant or review
agency for a considerable time. Some of these are for projects which are
not included on the State priority list for subsequent steps and so are
not likely to be acted on; others are probably for projects in communities
which are unable or reluctant to fund the local share of the cost; and
still others are for projects which have become entangled in some larger
controversy which is not likely to be resolved soon. Regardless of the
explanations for individual proposals which have not completed the Step 1
process, this situation indicates that in the next several years there
will be two different groups of applicants in the grants process: Those
applying for a Step 1 grant for the first time, and those which have
already received a grant, but have not yet completed Step 1. According
to the 1978 Needs Survey there are approximately 10,000 potential first
time applicants, while the second group is estimated to consist of
5200 projects.
Of particular interest in streamlining the grants process is
determining the size of community which receives grants. Figure III.4
highlights the relative differences in funding for varying community
sizes. The vast majority of places, 80 percent, are small communities
receiving 55 percent of the grants awarded to date which constitutes 12
percent of the awards measured on the dollar basis. Less than one
percent of the places in the U.S. are communities over 100,000. Nine
percent of the awards go to these areas which account for 42 percent of
the 1972-80 funding dollars. Approximately two-thirds of all grants went
to communities under 10,000 population. However, approximately two-thirds
of future dollar needs for treatment are attributed to 106 Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) with particularly high treatment
needs.
13
-------
PREPARE PLAN OF STUDY
A-95
T
A/E PROCUREMENT
PREPARE STEP 1 GRANT APP
15
-------
REVIEW OF
PRETREATMENT PLANS
TOTALS
2.612 WORKDAYS
S22 CALENDAR
WEEKS
10 YEARS
Figure HI. 2
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROCESS (PREDELEGATION)
-------
FIGURE III.3 PORTION OF TIME
ATTRIBUTABLE TO PROJECT STEPS
TOTAL TIME = 5.24 YEARS
TOTAL TIME = 6.22 YEARS
Projects of Less
Than $1 Million
TOTAL TIME = 7.75 YEARS
Projects of
$10-$50 Million
Projects of
$1~$10 Million
TOTAL TIME = 9.34 YEARS
Projects of More
Than $50 Million
Pre Step 1: Start to Award
of Step 1 Grant
Step 1: Award to Step .1
Completed
Step 2: Preparation of Step
2 Application to
Step 2 Completion
Step 3: Preparation of Step
3 Application to
Completion of Con-
struction
Post Step 3: Completion of
Consruction to
Final Project
Close Out
Source: California data.
17
-------
PERCENT
80%
r
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
FIGURE III.4 DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF GRANTS AND PLACES
80% BY COMMUNITY SIZE
11%
12%
j j
PLACES
NO. OF
GRANTS
11%
<5 5-10 10-25 25-50 50-100 >100
COMMUNITY SIZE (Population in 1000's)
Source: Clean Water Fact Sheet. June 30, 1980; 1970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitant*. Table 19.
18
-------
CHAPTER IV
MAJOR PROGRAM ISSUES
Nearly every evaluation of the construction grants program, by its
detractors and defenders alike, identifies similar issues as problems.
One set of major issues is related to the process itself and another set
of issues is related to the Agency's policies in implementing the program.
Although in reality it is impossible to neatly dissect the program along
the lines of process and policy, for the purpose of discussion it is
useful to examine the issues in those groups.
PROCESS
Background
The two factors most often identified as problems with the construction
grants process are the length of time needed to complete the process and
the need to improve the quality of waste treatment projects constructed
through the program. Excessive time requirements may result from the
complexity of the process, or may result from managing the process
inefficiently as will be shown below. Problems with assuring quality
stem from the failure to define quality in terms that are conducive to
broad management initiatives which would improve overall project quality.
Instead, efforts to assure quality have been based on reviewing individual
projects for the purpose of identifying specific strengths or deficiencies.
Time
Issue
The complexity of the process and length of time required to complete
the process reduce the program's potential effectiveness. Small communities
are especially burdened by complexity of the process and the excessive time
needed to plan, design and construct a project.
Discussion
Time is a valuable resource in the process warranting the same careful
management as all other resources. A single project now takes 7 to 11
years to complete all three stages of the process as shown in Figures III.2
and III.3, depending most directly on project size and indirectly on
several other variables. Delays and unduly long processing times diminish
the project's effectiveness in at least four ways: 1) Pollution continues
or even worsens before corrective action is taken; 2) Buying power of the
available funds decreases due to inflation; 3) Project quality can be
lowered due to staff turnovers and changes in field conditions from the
time of the original proposal; and 4) Changes in the law or regulations
can occur, requiring potentially inefficient modification of the project.
19
-------
To understand the value of time in the construction grants process,
consider the fact that appropriations available as of April, 1980, had
lost approximately $666 million in purchasing power by remaining unobli-
gatedenough to satisfy all the projected treatment plant needs of the
State of Alabama and the State of South Dakota. To put it another way,
the cost of delay to an individual project is very high. Figure IV.1
(based on figures compiled for the past ten years of the program's
operation) shows that for every month of delay, inflation increases
project cost by one percent.
FIGURE IV.1 EFFECT OF INFLATION
$_
re
o
D
-------
S>i33M Nl 3Wi NOIlOflcdlSNOO
U
c
*
c
o
1
0 >-
Z3 1
D: 1-1
1 O
oo «t
S^. OL.
85
|*I^ "T"
z^ I
H-3
££
O I-H
_l
Z I-H
o o
^,_
H- UJ
o o
> 1
LU
i, i jr
r> i
i i
u_
C
V
3 C
J- c
VJ C
D U
0 U
> c
J C
J c
cvf
in
0
) C
I U
3 1
> u
> ^
) C
0 U
^1
n c
r v
5
3
if\
5
^
r
c
^
u
t<
3 C
r c
_ «
o^ r^
^j" i
fo
CM
> C
^ ^
3 C
J C
- «.
b|
en
3 u
r> C
3 C
3 a
CO
a>
CO
1
cu
CO
^ c
M c
> c
3 C
L.
5 u
vj C
3 C
D S
|[
1 C
vj
3 C
f c
- ,
SL
en
to
3 U
3 C
- _
""^i
V,
a
NF.7
rqL«
ro i
T C
i
D
0
1
-------
Adding levels of review or additional steps to the construction
grants process also adds considerable time to the process. Based on an
analysis conducted in one Region, the AWT/AST reviews added 6 months to
the process. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement in
compliance with NEPA also contributes significantly--26 monthsto
lengthening the process for the small number of projects affected (less
than 5%).
Among the other factors identified as contributing to the lengthy
construction grants process time are such variables as lengthy periods
for reviews by EPA or State review agencies, the need to modify plans
as a result of reviews, delays in preparation of plans or designs by
A/Es due to lack of priority, the lack of cooperation among participants
in a regional system, inability to raise the local share of funds, delay
in acquiring easements and land, changes in local government administration,
changes in State or federal regulations, delays in delivery of materials,
construction-related strikes, and weather conditions which delay construction,
Needless to say, quantifying the average delay that could be accurately
attributed to most of these factors would be difficult at best. Neverthe-
less, they do slow the process.
Any analysis of the time required to complete the grants process such
as that shown on the CPM chart (Figure 111.2), the Time/Activity chart
(Figure IV.3), or the comparison of times by project size (Figure IV.2)
focuses attention not only on the total time required, but on the relative
time needed for each of the three steps.
This comparison, most clearly shown in Figure III.2, is useful;
but one factor in addition to those identified above must be borne in
mind if the process is to be fully understood. A project may be "stalled"
temporarily or even permanently at some stage in its development simply
because federal funds for it are unavailable due to lack of Congressional
appropriations or the low priority the project has been assigned by the
State. This factor could become increasingly critical in the next several
years since it is calculated that the present Step 1 and 2 grants will
generate approximately $26 billion in Step 3 needs.
Time and its importance in the construction grants process can be
analyzed from a variety of perspectives, but each analysis reinforces the
certainty that it is one of the costliest resources in the process, and
therefore must be managed wisely by applicants and reviewers alike. Each
requirement which complicates the process or lengthens the time needed to
complete the construction grants process must be evaluated, comparing the
benefits to be gained from it with the cost it will add to the project.
Some time consuming requirements, such as NEPA, are mandated by law, and
so regardless of their other benefits or costs, unless there are major
legislative changes, the only alternative is to manage compliance in the
most efficient and effective manner possible. However, many other
aspects of the operation of the program which have been examined through
the development of the 1990 Strategy such as procurement procedures and
public participation requirement are more flexible, and are recommended
for simplification to streamline the process and reduce the time needed
to complete it.
22
-------
o
O
CO
LU
a:
ts
o
in
o
o
o
in
o
o
o
o
0
0
in
CM
CM
O
in
o
O
o
m
o
c
O
4J o3
to
0 2
CN
i C
T3 CO
CO O
ux 3: *->
t~
0
r
4->
*n
^j
r (LTU O3 QJ T-'r
r- -.- S- 0.. T- £
i a. >ro aju > -o a.
Q. OJ3: S-03 O) r;
QL
<
Cs)
*Q . o«3 o?
l/)
3: c 3
CO
1
LO
Q
4_>
O «>3
4->
3 Q. oS 3
5-3:3 O
aro cni/i aro
-4-> QJ+-* -*-1 QJ
i i_ -t- U -r- J_ - S- T- 1/1
> ro to 0> > fO "O C > 03 "O O
a>3: CUCXCLIS - o ai-u 3
-------
Quality
Issue
The program has not defined quality in terms which allow management
of broad quality assurance measures.
Piscussion
The issue of how to define and achieve quality in projects funded by
the construction grants process is more difficult to assess than the
value of time in the process. This is due to the fact that quality is,
at least to some degree, a subjective rather than objective conceptif
beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is quality. If all of the
factors which contribute to quality could be assigned absolute values, it
would be fairly easy for a community to identify and construct the
optimum project for its needs. However, because the relative values of
the factors involved cannot be measured in absolute terms, the process
becomes much more complex. It is often impossible for a community to
find a solution to its wastewater treatment needs which is unanimously
agreed upon, and so the choice must be made among a rather small range of
acceptable alternatives.
Although there is not a generally accepted definition of quality for
waste treatment projects developed through the construction grants
program, there is general agreement about some basic indicators of
qua!ity:
As a minimum, a project or non-structural alternative must
adequately solve the community's wastewater problems, meet the
conditions of its NPDES permit, and be appropriate to the
environmental, social and economic needs of the community it
serves.
The project must be cost-effective to build and one the
community can afford to maintain over the project design life.
t The project must avoid and mitigate, to the degree possible,
adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas.
t The project must have adequate, but not excessive, capacity for
the population it will serve to minimize costs of operation.
The project must maximize the advantages of its locale (e.g.,
winter/summer temperature, lagoons vs. mechanical treatment,
land treatment vs. discharge).
Encouraging quality in the construction grants program will be
carried out more directly by States than EPA as the process of delegation
continues. EPA's role will be to define the range of acceptable quality
and to manage the program in ways that encourage and assure the develop-
ment of projects that fall within that range.
24
-------
POLICY
Background
It is against this backdrop of issues related to time, the complexity
of the process and quality of projects produced by the process that the
second group of major issues, related to EPA's policies for implementing
the construction grants program, should be considered. Current Agency
implementation policies have their roots in the Clean Water Act, as
discussed above. The major policy issues identified as creating problems
in the operation of the construction grants program are those related to
infiltration/inflow, innovative and alternative technology, pretreatment,
sludge management and integrated waste management.
Few, if any critics of the Agency's policies have disagreed with the
desirability of the goals in question. Rather, they have perceived the
Agency's implementation, its inconsistent implementation, and even its
failure to implement its stated policies, as creating serious problems in
the operations of the construction grants program. Each of these issues
is explored fully in the staff issue papers listed in the Appendix. Due to
the scope of this strategy, limited background information and discussion
is contained in the options section to minimize confusion. The following
brief descriptions provide the context for understanding the significance
of these issues in the 1990 Strategy.
Innovative and Alternative Technology (I/A)
Issue
In light of the difficulty some States have had in obligating
set-aside I/A funds and the reluctance of many applicants to consider
I/A technology, what future directions should the program take?
Discussion
During the period October 1978 through June 1980, a total of 248 I/A
technology projects were funded by EPA. The 248 projects totaled over
$27 million in I/A set-aside value (32 percent of the $84 million FY'79
set-aside available). Of the 248 projects funded, 31 included innovative
technology. Currently, most State agencies feel that administering the
I/A set-aside program is too complicated, and that it adds considerable
time to individual project development. The current three year I/A
program mandated by Congress will expire on September 30, 1981.
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I)
Issue
Can a revised I/I program which takes into account both compliance
and program effectiveness while being cost-effective and timely be
implemented effectively?
25
-------
Discussion
The goal of the I/I program, to eliminate excessive I/I, was not
achieved in any of the sewer systems evaluated during a recent study. As
currently administered, the program is not cost-effective. Compounding
the failure of the I/I rehabilitation program to effectively reduce
excessive I/I is the fact that most municipalities are not implementing
an effective long-range sewer system maintenance program. The combina-
tion of these problems has the potential to add substantially to the
non-compliance of facilities.
Sludge Management, Pretreatment, Integrated Waste Management
Issue
Regulating discharges to the environment and waste disposal practices
on a single waste/single media basis, as has been done most frequently until
now, has led to fragmentation of various programs, which in turn has led
to inconsistent, or even conflicting demands being placed on local govern-
ments and operators of POTWs.
Discussion
Waste disposal problems have recently multiplied both in terms of
volume and complexity. Total volume of solid waste alone now being
generated is 407 million tons per year, while problems related to con-
tamination of existing environmental resources and disposal of toxics
multiply almost daily. The problems directly related to the operation
of POTWs typify these problems. The problems related to sludge management
from POTWs have recently multiplied. The volume of sludge has increased
as greater volumes of wastewater are treated and higher treatment levels
are required. At the same time options for disposal are becoming more
limited. Incineration is becoming less viable as a result of the high
energy costs needed for the incineration process as well as strict air
pollution control regulations. Several existing incinerators are in viola-
tion of air standards. Suitable sites for sludge surface impoundments or
landfills are difficult to obtain, in part due to public opposition. In
addition, some sites are not adequate for preventing migration of contaminants
to groundwater. Ocean dumping practices are currently being phased out. One
of the most promising beneficial uses for sludge is in crop production and
soil reclamation. However, concern about the potential toxic components of
sludge from POTWs and its possible harm to the environment has led to greater
restrictions being placed on its use and disposal.
The pretreatment program is designed to eliminate pollutants which
are not susceptible to treatment by the POTW, or which interfere with its
operation, or which make sludge less acceptable for disposal. In addition
to solving the first two serious problemspollutants which remain in a
treatment work's effluent, and those which hinder the plant's operation--
pretreatment helps solve a sludge management problem by eliminating toxics
26
-------
from the POTW sludge, thus making land application a much more viable
disposal option. The pretreatment program is based on EPA's development
of categorical standards and general pretreatment regulations, to serve as
the basis for local pretreatment programs, all of which have been extremely
complex. Since federal regulations require completion of local pretreatment
programs by 1983 (or three years after the modification or reissuance of a
permit), existing grants are being amended as soon as possible to provide
for the development of pretreatment programs.
Integrated Waste Management (IWM), the comprehensive approach to all
aspects of waste management, is a concept which is evolving through a
variety of Agency initiatives to address these and other complex waste
management problems on a multi-media/multi-waste basis. In addition to
the formidable technical issues raised by these problems, final development
of the concept and its implementation must come to grips with several
serious public policy issues including the identification of the level of
risk, and the subsequent benefit/cost impacts, acceptable to the public
interest in environmental regulation. Essentially, IWM orients towards
the management of waste in terms of net benefit to the environment,
rather than the narrower benefits realized through the regulation of
single wastes in single media.
27
-------
Section 205(g) of the Clean Water Act provides funds necessary for
States that are delegated the program to expand their staffs to perform
the evaluations conducted by EPA prior to delegation. With these added
resources the States can simultaneously conduct the two reviews that were
carried on sequentially by their own staff and EPA prior to delegation,
and so reduce the overall grants process time substantially. Figure V.I
shows the potential effects of delegation under 205(g) on the construction
grants process.
In 1977 the California State Water Resources Control Board undertook
an in-depth study of the construction grants process to determine how
much time each stage of the process actually required applicants for
completion. That study resulted in development of a set of Critical Path
Method Charts (that served as the basis for Figures III.2 and V.I) which
showed that the average time required to complete the three steps of the
construction grants process ranged from 7-11 years depending on the size
of the project.
Based on this study and follow-up work to it, several options for
consolidating various aspects of the construction grants process have
been developed. The Critical Path Method analysis shows the interrela-
tionships of the subprocesses and helps identify ways they can be carried
out concurrently in order to maximize resources and minimize the overall
time required. By applying this technique of concurrent processing to
all steps of the grants program a time savings of forty-four weeks was
achieved in California. This technique does have implications, however,
for staff resource needs.
Another management problem which requires attention is the need for
better integration of environmental impact statement requirements and
requirements for compliance with other federal laws with the rest of the
process. The purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act is to make
the consideration of environmental factors an integral part of the planning
of all projects which receive federal funds, not to promote exercises in
environmental assessment to be conducted in isolation. This is to ensure
that federal funds will not be invested in projects which will adversely
affect the environment. Unfortunately in many cases, complying with
NEPA's requirements has become an extremely time-consuming part of
planning a project to be funded by the construction grants program. As
Figure III.2 shows, a project which requires preparation of an environmental
impact statement (EIS) generally takes 26 months longer to complete the
Step 1 planning process than a project which does not require an EIS.
However, it should be possible, through better integration of the EIS
requirements with other aspects of the planning process to shorten that
time considerably.
"Piggybacking" the EIS calls for the submission of the Environmental
Information Document (EID) early in the facilities planning process
rather than postponing that requirement as is often done. The EID is
the document used to determine whether or not the proposed action is
30
-------
CHAPTER V
PROPOSED STRATEGY: AVAILABLE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the process of developing the 1990 Strategy the Agency has studied
every major aspect of the operations of the construction grants program
and has worked with many of the program's constituent groups to identify
potential solutions to major problems. A wide variety of options has
been explored for streamlining the process and improving project quality
but not all are presented here in detail. (A full discussion of all
these options is found in the staff papers listed in Appendix A which
are available on request.) Some of the options explored in those papers
have proven unworkable; others are mutually exclusive, requiring that
choices be made between two conflicting alternatives; and still others,
while not mutually exclusive, might further the goal of improving project
quality to the substantial detriment of efforts to streamline the process
or vice versa. Choices among options in the first two categories
usually are not difficult to make, but those that require a balancing
between streamlining and quality will benefit from a full public
discussion of the issues involved.
Most of the options proposed to streamline the process involve
simplifying the procedural requirements to reduce the total time needed
to carry them out, or improving the management of the process in order to
concurrently undertake several actions that are now taken sequentially.
Proposals to improve quality rely on improving the guidance provided to
applicants, increasing accountability, shortening time, and improving
communication.
The major options to streamline the process and improve project
quality are discussed briefly below. They are organized in four
categoriesone for each of the three stages of the construction grants
process and one for general administrative management of the entire
process.
STREAMLINING MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
Delegation/Improved Program Management
One of the policies of the Clean Water Act amendments of 1977 is the
delegation of the construction grants program to State agencies. This is
based on the premise that State agencies, being closer to the problems
of local communities applying to the construction grants program, will be
better able to assist in solving those problems. Delegation also
simplifies program administration and eliminates the potential for over-
lap and duplication between the State and federal agencies in the program.
EPA will strive to ensure delegation is carried out in a way that allows
States maximum flexibility to implement the program efficiently while
ensuring the integrity of federal concerns with maintaining and improving
water quality.
29
-------
environmentally significant and so serves as the basis for finding of
no significant impact or a decision that an EIS is needed. This early
determination allows the preparation of the EIS to be integrated fully
with the other parts of the facility plan and to eliminate potential
duplication of effort which can result from preparing the EIS. The net
benefit of this procedure can be significant. Figure V.I graphically
presents "piggybacking" the Environmental Impact Statement.
The issues related to delegation and management alternatives are
explored in more detail in the management strategy. However, they do
have important implications for the process time.
Recommendation:
The process of delegating the program to the States is
proceeding and will continue as rapidly as possible. The role
of EPA will change to one of program oversight and assistance.
It is recommended that EPA focus on providing assistance in
program management as appropriate to States. Good management
systems techniques, such as the ones developed in California,
should be documented and made widely available.
Certification
Certification is a logical extension of the concept of delegation,
the transfer of responsibilities for the program to an appropriate lower
level of government. Under this concept qualified grantees could be
certified so they could proceed with pre-agreed upon actions in Step 2
and 3 without waiting for individual review and approval by the State
or by EPA (in the case of a nondelegated State). By eliminating those
review times from the process for qualified applicants, substantial
saving can be realized.
The grants management requirements make no distinction between
grantees that have successfully managed a number of grant project and
first time grantees. After managing a number of grant projects, grantees
in some cases develop a fairly high level of internal grant and project
management expertise. Although grantees in this category represent a
very small percentage of the total number of grantees (less than 2%),
they receive a large portion of the construction grant funds (at least
50%).
To be successful, certification must maximize time savings and
minimize risks to quality. Criteria to be met by a grantee prior to
receiving certification will be based primarily on capability and past
record of integrity in successfully carrying out the required tasks.
The concept will be most useful for applicants who will go through the
grants process repeatedly, due to their size and multiplicity of needs.
Delegated States will manage the certification process. In non-delegated
States EPA will certify qualified grantees.
33
-------
Recommendation:
EPA is proceeding to implement certification. Several
pilot certification projects have been established and will
be used to provide definitive guidance for Regional, State
and grantee personnel.
Simplify the Procurement Process
Procurement requirements for all federal grants programs are complex
and time-consuming. This is at least partly a reflection of the necessity
to manage public funds responsibly; it also reflects the national policy
of using federal funds only for those projects which are compatible with
broad national social policies. The impact of these two factors on the
construction grants program has been the development of procurement
procedures which are lengthy and which are sometimes very difficult and
frustrating for applicants to comply with. The CPM Chart (Figure III.2)
shows that in each of the steps the procurement procedures take longer
than the other activities being carried on at the same time, which means
that speeding up procurement would shorten the total time needed to
complete each step without affecting quality.
Compliance with the MBE and WBE requirements in the construction
grants program has delayed some individual projects and has become the
target for persistent criticism by those who claim the construction
grants program should be single-purpose, and should not be burdened with
other complex social goals. In light of the certainty that all federal
programs are going to continue to embrace a wide spectrum of goals, it
is important to the operation of the construction grants program that
options be explored to more efficiently integrate the MBE and WBE
requirements into the procurement process. Some States now provide a
list of qualified MBE's to grantees to expedite compliance with those
requirements. It may be desirable for this practice to be made standard.
In some areas of the country, and especially in some small rural towns,
it is unrealistic to expect grantees to be able to find legitimate MBE's
or WBE's with whom to do business. In recognition of this obstacle to
compliance, consideration should be given to broadening MBE/WBE goals
from the individual project level to the Statewide or Regional levels.
This would not require reducing the national goals, but could distribute
those goals in ways that are more realistically achievable.
Another option being further investigated to streamline and speedup
the procurement process is the development of bid qualification procedures,
There is also a study being conducted to determine the realistic level
of effort required on various types of projects to serve as a yardstick
for reviewers and grantees alike in assessing engineering estimates
needed on an individual project.
34
-------
OMB Circular A 102 Attachment 0 is designed to simplify procurement
in connection with federal grants for local governments by instructing
federal agencies to rely, to the maximum extent possible, on local
procurement practices. A number of options have been explored to help
accomplish this end. Attachment 0 prefers that the grantor agency review
the grantee's procurement system rather than review individual procure-
ment actions. The Attachment encourages a system review if a continuing
relationship with the grantee is to be used for procurement and a review
of individual contracts is anticipated. The Attachment allows a grantor
agency pre-award review only when the contract will be awarded without
competition, when brand names are used, or when the grantee's procurement
procedures or operations do not meet Attachment 0 standards.
Because of the labor intensive and the time consuming nature of a
complete procurement system review or a pre-award review of all procure-
ment actions, scarce resources need to be focussed on grantees whose
procurement systems do not meet the minimum standards.
To apply resources where they will provide the greatest return three
areas have been identified which give indicators of whether a grantee's
procurement system meets the minimum standards in Attachment 0 a'nd
whether to impose additional requirements or perform pre-award reviews.
They are:
» Grantee responses to a procurement system checklist;
Information contained in the grant application;
Previous experience with the grantee.
If a grantee's responses to the "trigger" review indicate that his
procurement system clearly meets the minimum standards in Attachment 0,
the grantee is a candidate for a procurement system certification review
under Section 4 of Attachment 0, i.e., "self-certification." Grantees
who have portions of their procurement procedures adequate, may "self-
certify" those portions.
For a grantee whose procurement system fails to comply with
significant aspects of Attachment 0 or who does not have a procurement
system, the grantee may be required to:
follow the procedures in EPA guidance, or
adopt a procurement system which meets Attachment 0 standards,
such as the American Bar Association Model Procurement Code, or
the EPA Model Ordinance and Handbook and be eligible for self-
certification.
The combined effect of all these options will be a significant
improvement in the procurement process.
35
-------
Recommendation:
The Agency is revising the procurement regulations to
conform with the intent of Attachment 0. EPA will continue
to serve on the Interagency Task Force under OMB to study
possible further revisions to Attachment 0. The A/E Level
of Effort Study, the National Profit guidelines, and the model
procurement ordinance and handbook are being completed. A
management strategy has been established to authorize major
action items to implement grantee certification. More effec-
tive implementation of MBE/WBE is also being further explored.
Modification of the Step Process
Although the present three step process of the construction grants
program serves the development of most projects quite well, there are some
exceptions which warrant modification of the process. Consolidation of
Step 2 and Step 3 is currently allowed for projects costing less than $2
million or for municipalities of 25,000 population or less (high cost
States are allowed $3 million limit). Consolidation can save grants
processing time, however, it means that Step 3 monies are inactive for
an average of nine months or longer. The major advantage to the grantee
is assurance of the availability of funds. There have been indications
from the Regions that problems have been encountered; often grantees have
not had adequate matching funds. The Clean Water Act Reauthorization
which passed Congress on October 1, 1980, contained a provision to
increase the limits of Step 2 and 3 grants by $2 million. This has the
advantage of giving the States greater flexibility in ensuring obligation
of funds. Encouragement will be given to improve project management in
order to minimize the time between obligation and outlay for all projects.
Under current regulations and procedures, little or no significant
design work can be done until the facilities plan has been reviewed and
approved by the State/EPA, and a Step 2 grant awarded. Nationally, the
average time span for processing a grant award is greater than 90 days
for 65% of the applications and this does not include additional review
time caused by other participants. Thus, there is an interval of several
months after completion of the planning effort in which little is done.
Step 2 activity during this interim period is not prohibited by regulation,
but is not encouraged by present Agency guidance. This time delay adds
to the inflationary cost of the project and can also affect compliance
with implementation schedules in NPDES permits and enforcement actions.
Although the Step 2 grant application can be prepared and submitted
prior to approval of the facilities plan, this apparently is not common
practice. The grantee may proceed with procurement action up to the
awarding of a contract. Procurement expenses may be reimbursed at time
of Step 2 grant award. Some grantees take advantage of these provisions,
but the time lapse from completion of planning to initiation of con-
struction (Step 3) has not been appreciably reduced.
36
-------
For the vast majority of projects, the environmental concerns have
been identified and resolved when the grantee's consultant completes the
planning work. Therefore, it is believed many grantees would favor
advanced work on Step 2 as an option. However, it is likely that only
the larger municipalities will have the resources to take advantage of
advanced work because of the need to "front-end" the design costs and
procurement issues.
Recommendation:
It is proposed that grantees be allowed to proceed with
design prior to formal approval of the facilities plan. All
eligible costs incurred for design, including cost of procure-
ment, negotiations, etc., would be reimbursed at the time the
Step 2 grant is awarded within the limitations of meeting the
enforceable provisions of the Act. It is emphasized that the
grantee would proceed at his own risk; there would be no
guarantee that award of the Step 2 grant was imminent or that
a Step 2 grant would ever be approved, or that changes due to
NEPA review would be reimbursed.
Simplifying Eligibility of Grantee Administrative. Legal. Fiscal Costs
Many grantees have pointed out that ironically, even the process by
which payment is made is complicated in the construction grants program.
Due to the restrictions and the complexity of issues concerning grantees'
legal, administrative and fiscal costs, grantee payment requests submitted
to the Agency are often incomplete, inadequately documented, improperly
segregated into eligible and indligible costs, or simply undocumented.
To a large extent this problem is due to the fact that more than 48% of
the Agency's grantees are small municipalities (less than 3500) which are
not experienced in these procedures.
Simplification of the determination of eligibility of grantees'
administrative and legal costs would be a boon to all involved in the
process. The most promising option to accomplish this end is the
proposal that a cost curve for the typical costs involved be developed,
and that a lump sum, based on that curve, be awarded to the grantee. Any
"windfall profits" this might produce for grantees would not only be kept
at a minimum by the curve's accuracy, but would be more than offset in
the program's funding by the great potential for savings from elimination
of present time-consuming reviews of individual items.
Recommendation:
EPA should revise the regulations to provide an option for
the grantee which would provide a lump sum for grantee adminis-
trative costs based upon cost curves.
37
-------
Other Federal Laws
As previously outlined, there are at least fifty federal laws and
executive orders which affect the construction grants program at all
levels. The experience in the grants program in implementing other
federal laws points toward the need for streamlining and simplifying
the requirements placed on the grantees. Although clear data on the
precise impact of these laws is not available, it seems clear that the
current process is unduly complex, cumbersome, and time-comsuming.
A recent survey of EPA Regions on this subject isolated program
complexity as the principal adverse impact of other federal laws. The
problem identified as critical to smooth compliance with these laws was
three-fold.
The laws are considered either too late or at an inappropriate
time during the grants process, causing the activity to
unnecessarily become a bottleneck;
The existing regulations from other agencies and EPA policy
for implementing these Federal laws is confusing and sometimes
unevenly applied; and
The requirements change frequently or their relative priority
within the Executive Branch shifts, causing EPA to adjust its
grants to meet the changing emphasis.
The principal issue then is related to how the requirements are
applied, not the requirements themselves. Although not totally the
case, the burden of these problems falls primarily on the Step 1 process.
Options were examined which ranged from addressing legislative amendments
to improving coordination to taking administrative actions to streamline
the compliance mechanism.
Recommendation:
EPA should pursue a procedural consolidation of other
federal laws under NEPA as a long term alternative to the existing
proliferation of requirements emanating from separate legislation.
Much of this could be done through interagency coordination
similar to the work currently being done under the rural initia-
tives. All proposed new environmental legislation should be
carefully reviewed for its potential impact and be implemented
procedurally through the NEPA process. At the same time, EPA
will continue to streamline and improve its own compliance
mechanisms in order to both minimize project delays and avoid
legal challenges.
In more general terms, EPA should undertake a major review
of existing laws and standards across all the steps with the
objective of improving the management of these laws and lessening
the administrative complexity they cause.
38
-------
Quality Assurance
One of the major program issues is the failure to define quality in
terms which allow management of broad quality assurance measures. The
management strategy will address oversight evaluation criteria which will
assist in establishing quality measures.
Other options under consideration for improving the quality of
projects developed through the construction grants process involve
providing applicants and grantees with important technical assistance.
Teams of individuals who could provide specialized technical, administrative
and management assistance to applicants on request in areas such as innovative
and alternative technologies, financial planning, and plant operation and
maintenance could serve this purpose. A variation of this option would be
the establishment of a program to assist applicants in hiring project
managers to be responsible for managing development of the project through
all three stages of the construction grants program. Such an arrangement, it
is argued, would eliminate the present confusion about accountability at
various stages of the project and could improve project quality while
eliminating unnecessary delays from the process. Several possible options
for providing third party assistance to local governments for grants
management, including "circuit riders" and State operated programs (such
as the ones currently in use in New Hampshire and Maryland) are discussed
at length in the issue papers. The concept of peer review, whereby qualified
professional engineers review the work of their peers either after completion
to evaluate quality or in progress to help solve unique problems, has been
the focus of vigorous public scrutiny.
Yet another option for improving project quality and speeding the
grants ;:rocess is the increased use of the Intergovernmental Personnel
Act to strengthen the staffs of State review agencies by the temporary
addition of federal employees. These transactions can be targeted to
solve staffing needs at any stage of the process. As with the other
categories of options discussed no single project would benefit from all
these initiatives to provide technical assistance to applicants, but the
overall quality of projects developed through the construction grants
program could be improved substantially by these actions. These options
are explored in depth in the management strategy.
STREAMLINING THE GRANTS PROCESS
In addition to the actions which will streamline the overall management
of the process, reduce its complexity and improve project quality, the
following options for solving problems related specifically to each of three
steps of the process have been identified. Most of the options developed
are concerned with Step 1 which, along with procurement actions, is the
most time consuming part of the entire process.
39
-------
Step 1 - Facility Planning
The facility planning process is a seven step process as indicated in
Figure V.2. Although the statistics available vary somewhat, analysis of
Step 1 shows that 43 months is the average time required to complete the
process. Problems during Step 1 which slow the process and lead to projects
that are deficient in quality fall into five general categories: 1) those
that result from deficiencies in the previous water quality planning efforts;
2) those that result from inadequate guidance being provided to applicants
or from failure to provide timely reviews; 3) those that result from the
failure of applicants and reviewers alike to integrate all the required
elements into their planning efforts; 4) those that result from reviewers'
failure to apply the requirements of the process flexibility; and 5) the
special problems of small communities. The number and range of problems
in Step 1 is broad because the planning process includes environmental,
social and economic considerations in choosing the best alternative to
solve a community's wastewater treatment needs.
Essential to efficient operation of the grant program is development
of sufficient information prior to Step 1 regarding population projections,
service areas, management agencies, waste load allocations, effluent
limitations for permit considerations and project priority lists. This
information can be developed during the facility planning process, but
lengthens the time needed to complete Step 1 substantially. Information
should be contained in the Water Quality Management plan, but deficiencies
in past water quality planning efforts result in delays and complications
for applicants when the review agency is unable to provide effluent
limitations and other needed guidance. The planning strategy explores
solutions to these problems.
When applicants do not receive adequate and timely guidance from
reviewers in the planning process the results are wasted time and effort
and plans which are not of adequate quality. The complexity of the
proposed project and particular applicant needs will dictate the level
of guidance needed. However, it is most important that the review process
provide continuing planning guidance in project development. Options for
solving problems in this area of concern require careful weighing of the
time required with the quality improvements to be gained. Agency assessment
is that the additional time required for recommended pre-application
conference and mid-course review of plans will be justified by the
potential to improve project quality greatly and by saving time which is
now spent by applicants in pursuing unacceptable alternatives and in
correcting problems late in the process that should have been found
early. It would be through this increased guidance that the review
agency would guarantee adequate attention to innovative and alternative
technologies and would ensure that the applicant community has adequate
fiscal and general management capability to build and operate the project
being proposed.
40
-------
UJ >
tt - -
8§3
<
U.
oc < o.
&
oo
LU
CJ
O
D£
a.
CD
<:
a.
>-
* I- «
Sz ui
<}}
H K £
III Q. -I
" I
O-
UJ
I
OO
an
ca
i
U
a.
D.
. *
Z
O
H
Ul
K
a.
0
a.
.
0
S3
fi i
If
K >
&
W
?
Q. Q- <
*- "D
c i:
State Review
EPA Review-
IIS
o > a.
-.i
I/I L.
qj Q)
£ £.2
. 3 S
0 3 U «
US -oo.
u
w
Mid-course
facility plan
review
ements
ic plan
Exerci
flexibil
requir
Gen
35
Hi
s
ni U ^
_ 5 2 r «» £
j|| |a||||
OJa illHll
H m c c« a. ao a< X Q
is
1*1
S S s
-2-S S
i S -
u E £
-ucture
srence to
m grantee
« r
Z (A X
r-
0- 5 5 <
>-OQ
I-HU-
<0
SCO
o
u
41
-------
One of the largest complaints with respect to facility plan requirements
is that excessive demands are made for information which is not relevant.
Although there is an extensive list of requirements, not every one will have
equal significance for every project. The regulations acknowledge this need
for flexibility by making the Regional Administrator responsible for
determining an appropriate level of detail for consideration of each.
Amendment of the regulations to eliminate unnecessarily restrictive require-
ments will be completed so that reviewers, when delegation is complete, will
have maximum flexibility to carry out the program effectively.
The most often expressed criticisms of the operation of the facility
planning process grow from the failure to exercise the discretion presently
incorporated in the regulations leading to excessive demands being placed
on applicants which in turn leads to unnecessary investments of time, effort
and money. For example, some small communities report being required to
justify at some length their failure to choose activated sludge treatmentfrom
their point of view a totally unrealistic possibility which should not require
lengthy justification. Nor are small communities alone in this criticism.
A/E's for several large metropolitan applicants in land scarce parts of
the country claim they have been required to justify at great length their
rejection of the land treatment alternative.
This situation can be greatly improved by Regional Administrators
and responsible State officials ensuring that their legitimate authority
to exercise discretion in determining an appropriate level of detail is
exercised. This will require providing additional training in scoping
facility plans for all staff members who guide the preparation and review
of facilities plans. It will also require increased contact between the
municipality and the reviewing agency early in the preparation of facility
plans in order to provide guidance to the applicant. And so, it may also
require additional staff in the review agency (EPA or the State, depending
on the degree of delegation). However, each of these investments has the
potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process.
Some of the specific requirements of the facility planning process
most often identified as causing delays stem from the failure of
applicants and reviewers alike to integrate all elements of the planning
efforts. The need to better incorporate NEPA's requirements in the planning
process has been discussed above.
Recommendations:
Prior to facility planning, basic water quality planning
should be completed by States so applicants can be provided
necessary data. (See planning strategy.)
A pre-application conference will be encouraged to lay the
foundation for continuing guidance in planning the project.
Wherever delegation is not yet complete, State and EPA review
of submissions from applicants will be concurrent.
42
-------
A contracted schedule, binding on all parties, will be
negotiated as part of every plan of study and updated for each
step of the process at the time of grant award.
A mid-course review of every facility plan as well as other
in-progress reviews to help select appropriate alternatives and
provide timely guidance to applicants will be strongly encouraged.
A comprehensive training program for State and EPA reviewers
is needed to strengthen quality, efficiency, and consistency of
the review program and so that existing authority for flexibility
can be utilized.
Additional attention must be directed to financial management
issues in the facility planning process.
Facility Planning for Small Communities
Over 53 million Americans live in small, rural communities; of these
rural Americans, over 2.4 million lack adequate sewage disposal and
treatment facilities. Yet while the pollution problem facing a small,
rural community may be pressing, the community's position on a State
priority list may be so low as to preclude a solution through the use of
a federal construction grant for many years. And few small, rural
communities have the necessary financial resources or expertise to
complete a sewage treatment project on their own.
Presently 34 States with significant rural populations (25 percent or
greater of their total population residing in areas with a population of
3,500 or less) have been directed to set aside 4 percent of their yearly
allotment to fund projects employing alternative technologies (Puerto Rico
also is required to set aside 4 percent of its allotment). Two urban
States, Connecticut and Massachusetts, have also initially elected to
set aside 4 percent of their allotment. As of September 30, 1980 (end
of fiscal year 1979), of the $77.1 million total of these required
individual State set-asides, $7.63 million of FY 79 monies could poten-
tially have been lost to reallotment.
Some of the reasons for sluggish use of the set-asides and incentives
for alternative systems in particular and for rural dissatisfaction with
the program in general are:
States' failure to give high importance in priority setting to
groundwater considerations and health hazards which are
frequently the greatest impetus for a small cmmmunity to
recognize and attempt to solve its wastewater disposal problems.
Limitation of the set-aside funds to projects employing
alternative technologies is perceived by State officials and
potential grantees as unnecessarily complicating the use of
-------
those funds since communities where alternative technologies
are inappropriate must, in essence, go through the grant
application process twice.
Complexity of the grants process is particularly burdensome to
small communities where staff resources are often extremely
limited.
Recommendations:
EPA will recommend amendment of the law to remove the
restriction of rural set-aside funds to projects employing
alternative technology in order to allow their use for any
cost-effective project in a rural community that employs
appropriate technology, either conventional alternative or
innovative. It is anticipated that redefining rural communi-
ties as those having a population up to 10,000, removing the
restriction to alternative, funding all steps of set-aside
projects, and funding the entire project at an increased rate
will encourage more States to institute a set-aside for projects
in rural communities.
The Agency will also be encouraging States, in water quality
management planning (that serves as the basis for their priority
system), to emphasize groundwater and public health considerations.
This emphasis would probably result in higher State priority for
projects in rural communities where inadequate wastewater disposal
is impacting groundwater or creating a health hazard.
EPA is in the process of refining a set of generic plans to
be made available for small communities. These plans are designed
to greatly simplify the facility planning process for small communi-
ties by first identifying applicants (based on demographic, geogra-
phic and other characteristics) which are suitable candidates for
the abbreviated process, and then ensuring that all requirements
of the process can be met without undue complexity. The Agency
is also exploring ways such as involving existing nonprofit
organizations (i.e., rural electrofication cooperatives) in the
grants process to provide greater management assistance to
small communities.
Step 2 - Design
Compared to the planning activities undertaken during Step 1 of the
construction grants program when various alternatives are weighed on the
basis of their environmental, social and economic impacts, the design work
during Step 2 is relatively straightforward. This is reflected in fewer,
although not necessarily simpler, problems being identified with this step
of the process. Several recent reports on treatment plants' failure to
comply with conditions of their permits have identified design shortcomings
44
-------
as one of the primary causes for those failures. There is general agreement
that the present level of POTW performance is not satisfactory, but opinions
vary on the severity of the problems. Some of the major design-related
problems that have been identified are as follows:
Lack of process flexibility
* Inappropriate application of instrumentation
Improper sizing, selection and arrangement of plants components
Inappropriate processes
Improper sizing of hydraulic/organic components
Use of overly complex technology
Unnecessarily high O&M costs
Inadequate or inappropriate sludge processing and disposal system
Plants that are super-critical to operate in which relatively
minor variations in influent may result in process upset or
hydraulic overload
A wide variety of factors has contributed to these problems. The
basic complexity of wastewater treatment processes is further complicated
by the highly variable flow and content of the typical plant influent.
Add to this situation the fact that treatment plants are currently
designed and built with fairly narrow constraints relating to capital
costs, operating costs, projected influent and allowable effluent; and
they must be operated and maintained by the community building them which
may have severely restricted resources.
Establishing stricter accountability in the process, either through the
project manager or by some other means may help eliminate some of the present
problems with the design and construction of plants, but other options warrant
exploration as well. One possibility is to extend the formal start-up phase
of plant operation in which grants would be available to obtain needed consul-
tant services to assure that the physical plant and operations staff are
prepared for start up and continued operation of the plant. Greater emphasis
by reviewers on the concept of operability will also help solve existing
problems, but even more importantly there may be a need to consider the
adoption of a more conservative approach to design. Results from a
current study comparing the performance of American and more conserva-
tively designed English treatment plants will offer guidance on this
question.
45
-------
And finally, making it possible for a grantee to purchase equipment
during Step 2 would allow the design plan to be prepared based on the
Actual equipment to be used, eliminating the problems which now result
Wi "or equal" equipment purchased during Step 3 which fails to function
jately. These options are explored more fully in the compliance strategy.
Step 3 - Construction
Problems which occur during the construction phase of the process are
of particular concern because that is the costliest phase of the process.
An interagency agreement with the Corps of Engineers has helped offset
delays which would result from EPA staff or State staff shortages by providing
for the Corps to perform such activities as providing on-site presence,
conducting biddability and construct!'bality reviews, processing change
orders and performing interim and final inspections. A continued role (after
full delegation) for the Corps similar to their present role is to be explored
in the management strategy.
Change orders to construction contracts have been a frequent source
of delay primarily because of the inadequacy of many of the submissions
to EPA. To help grantees make the best case for allowability of change
orders a publication is being prepared entitled "Grantee Management of
Change Order Proposals." Most of the present problems with this aspect
of the process should be solved in this way.
Any project which has not begun construction within 6 months of
receiving a Step 3 grant, regardless of the reason, is considered delayed,
a situation commonly referred to as preconstruction lag. As of September 1,
1980, 161 projects with a grant value of $960 million were delayed in
this way. An initial study identified six major problem areas contributing
to this problem:
Acquisition of real property
t Local funding requirements
t Service agreements
t Cultural resources investigations
Bid protests
Incomplete plans and specification
Follow-up resulted in changes in the regulations to solve the bid
protest and incompleteness problems, and the issuance of PRM 80-3
"Management Reforms to Reduce the Time Internal Between Step 3 Grant
Award and Initiation of Construction," with an effective date of October 1,
1980. This policy specifies tha± the acquisition of property^ local
funding requirements, service agreements and cultural resources investi-
gations are to be carried out concurrently with design work in Step 2.
Progress in eliminating pre-construction lag will be monitored monthly,
and further action will be taken if warranted.
46
-------
SPECIAL PROGRAM/POLICY OPTIONS
Innovative/Alternative Program
Innovative and alternative technologies can meet municipal wastewater
treatment needs and at the same time develop technology to assist in
meeting the national goals of greater reuse and recycling of water and
other natural resources, increased energy conservation, improved toxics
management and improved cost-effectiveness in meeting water quality goals.
Encouraging the use of innovative and alternative technologies to
solve wastewater treatment problems was clearly the intention of Congress
in its 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act. The mandated set-asides
for increasing the federal share to be paid on the I/A portion of
projects, the provision for grants to replace or modify unsuccessful
I/A projects, and of course, the requirement that all facility plans
initiated after September 30, 1978, include consideration of I/A were
intended to promote the use of innovative and alternative technology for
municipal wastewater treatment. EPA's policy has been to actively implement
the I/A program through such actions as the assignment of regional staff
to provide technical and administrative assistance in matching I"/A
technology to local problems, publication of a comprehensive I/A Technology
Assessment Manual, presentation of numerous seminars and workshops and
provision for increased fees as an incentive for engineers designing
I/A projects.
The success of the I/A program, which is technically and administratively
complex, has been encouraging in spite of the substantial obstacles it has
faced, including the reluctance on the part of reviewers, applicants and
engineers to modify their traditional approach to municipal wastewater
treatment problems. The necessarily long lead time before projects
initiated under the program are constructed due to the long planning and
design periods has also led to several problems including difficulty for
many States in distributing their set-aside funds: The severity of this
problem is further exaggerated by the tendency to measure the success of
the grants program primarily by the quantity of money obligated. The
Congress1 brief initial authorization period of three years for increased
funding has produced uncertainty among applicants about the availability
of funds when their projects are actually ready for construction, and
hence increased their reluctance to undertake I/A projects.
A number of options are explored for the I/A program including
aggressively identifying innovative projects through design teams,
establishing a national pool for funding, establishing the program
permanently, funding the total project at 85% if a significant portion
is I/A and setting up a reserve for 100 percent replacement grants.
Consideration, however, should be given to the difference between
innovative projects and alternative systems, particularly in small
communities. Promoting the development of these two types of systems
requires different management approaches.
-------
Alternative systems for rural areas can be cost-effective and
environmentally acceptable if properly located and adequately operated
and mantained. Although approximately 40 percent of the U.S. population
is serviced by on-lot systems, there are relatively few examples where
the facilities have been systematically "managed." Poorly located mismanaged
facilities can be a major source of groundwater pollution. Septage manage-
ment is often inadequately considered. If not properly handled the addition
of septage to the wastestream can upset the plant's performance. Therefore,
the agency must consider not only the promotion of alternative systems but
considerations for long term management of these systems once they are
constructed.
Recommendations:
The Agency will recommend to Congress maintaining a permanent
set-aside program for innovative projects but eliminating any
special account for alternative projects. Both innovative and
alternative projects should be funded at an increased rate. The
one percent set-aside would convert to a national pool for inno-
vative projects if not obligated. Higher funding would be available
for the full cost of any project that incorporates significant
(more than half) innovative technology rather than the current policy
of higher funding for only that portion of the project which
actually uses innovative technology. The Agency will also assess
nonpoint/groundwater problems, evaluate existing regulatory programs
and identify alternative administrative and institutional arrange-
ments to remove barriers faced by small communities in undertaking
a project funded through the construction grants program.
Inflow/Infiltration (I/I)
The Environmental Protection Agency has been funding sewer system
evaluations and rehabilitation through the construction grants program
for approximately seven years. During that time, concern has been
increasing about the extensive time required to analyze sewer systems,
the costs of these analyses, the cost of rehabilitating sewers and the
results in eliminating and/or reducing extraneous water. EPA has made
a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the sewer system
evaluation and rehabilitation program, also referred to as the infiltration/
inflow (I/I) program. Figure V.3 illustrates the terms key to the issue.
The intent of sewer systems evaluation and rehabilitation as established
in section 201(g)(3) of PL 92-500 was to eliminate excessive I/I from
sewer systems. This would allow for the construction of smaller wastewater
treatment facilities, thereby saving millions of dollars in constructing
municipal pollution abatement facilities.
48
-------
FIGURE V.3 INFILTRATION/INFLOW
BYPASSES AND
OVERFLOWS
INFILTRATION
/INFLOW
INFLOW
INFILTRATION
TOTAL
FLOW
DOMESTIC
AND
INDUSTRIAL
TIME
FLOWS INCLUDING INFILTRATION/INFLOW
FLOWS NOT INCLUDING INFILTRATION/INFLOW
Experience showed that original I/I requirements which had to be met
by applicants were too burdensome,and so in March 1978, EPA published the
Construction Grants Program Requirements Memorandum 78-10 providing a
technique for rapidly screening out nonexcessive I/I, a simplified scope
of work for I/I investigations, and a mechanism for performing sewer
testing and repair concurrently.
A comprehensive study of 18 sewer systems (pre- and post-rehabilitation)
undertaken between 1978-1980 showed that the expectations of the I/I
program to eliminate excessive I/I were not achieved in any of the sewer
systems evaluated. As currently administered, the program is not cost-
effective. In addition, studies have also indicated that POTWs are faced
with major noncompliance problems, partly due to influent problems. A
1978 study indicated that of the noncomplying plants examined, over twenty
percent had influent problems associated with excesssive I/I.
Compounding the failure of the I/I rehabilitation program to
effectively reduce excessive I/I, is the fact that most municipalities
are not implementing an effective long range sewer system maintenance
program. Municipalities report that O&M costs are escalating, yet
public works budgets are the first to be cut back by public officials.
Operating budgets barely provide enough funding to handle emergency
problems, let alone preventive O&M.
Modifications to the I/I program are necessary due to the inaccuracy
and ineffectiveness of the current system as well as the inordinate
length of time those requirements add to Step 1 completion. However,
an I/I program is technically feasible and sufficiently valuable to retain.
49
-------
Options must be developed for implementation of O&M programs for
sewer systems as required by regulations, but currently not widely
implemented. "One shot" sewer system evaluations will not identify
and/or eliminate all I/I problems. It is in the best interest of the
community, from a cost-effectiveness perspective, to continually
evaluate and remove I/I that is less expensive to eliminate than to
treat.
Recommendations:
Revise the guidelines for the I/I program to incorporate
the following:
Address I/I problems in service lines separately in
terms of quantity and proposed rehabilitation.
t Use concurrent pressure testing and sealing techniques
in place of TV whenever applicable. This would be
especially emphasized where TV was previously used for
quantifying infiltration sources.
Determine excessive I/I on the basis of a 30% to 50%
maximum removal efficiency. This will ensure that
other factors such as groundwater migration and I/I
from service lines will be taken into consideration
in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
Propose an acceptable sewer maintenance program as
part of the Step 1 work.
Minimize field work by limiting it to I/I problem
areas identified by flow monitoring or other means.
* Initiate a joint effort with Office of Research and
Development to develop new approaches and technical
procedures for I/I.
Sludge Management, Pretreatment, Integrated Waste Management
Most of the legislation passed in the last 20 years to protect and
enhance the environment has reflected a single media approach to problems,
It has concentrated on the environmental impacts of individual pollutants
or waste disposal practices to the media in which the pollutant is dis-
charged or the practice occurs (land, air or water). The Clean Air Act,
for example, has successfully eliminated the discharge of many signifi-
cant pollutants to the air. However, one of the by-products of this
improvement has been the production of large quantities of fly ash and
sulfuric acid (from scrubbers) which present new and often complicated
environmental problems in their disposal.
50
-------
Integrated waste management (IWM) which can be most broadly defined as
the search for optimum alternatives for the management of wastes individually
or in combination, is a step forward from the single waste/single media
approach to waste management. It offers the possibility to integrate various
waste management authorities and activities for greater effectiveness and
efficiency, to better evaluate the multi-media impacts of various waste
management practices, and to more effectively facilitate reuse and recycling
of wastes rather than merely regulating waste disposal. It also offers
federal, State and local authorities and the public at large the possibility
to deal more effectively than the single media/single waste approach with
the problems of acceptable risks, costs and benefits in terms of public
health protection, economics and environmental impacts.
Currently there is a variety of activities directly related to the
Clean Water Act and construction grants program which are significant in
considering IWM. Of special interest are the pretreatment and sludge
management programs stemming from thef Clean Water Act. However, all of the
following laws relate to integrated waste management:
Law
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended in 1972 and 1977. Also
referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CM A)
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) 1976
Clean Air Act (CAA)
1970 and 1977
Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) 1977
Authority
Broad authority to regulate
sewaae manaaement oractices.
Provides 201 fundina for
manaaement of POTW sludaes.
Soecial incentive aiven for
innovative and alternative
manaaement technoloaies.
Authorizes reaulations for the
safe disoosal of hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes (includina
sewaae sludae) with financial
assistance for local imolemen-
tation: encouraaes research and
demonstration of resource conserva-
tion and recoverv technoloaies.
Authorizes reaulations for
meetina federal ambient air aualitv
standards, controllina hazardous
air oollutants. includina new
source oerformance standards for
sewaae sludoe incineration.
Effectively chases out ocean
dumoino of sewaae sludoe bv
December 31. 1981.
51
-------
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
1975
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)
NEPA
Requires coordination with CWA
and RCRA to protect drinking
water from contamination
Requires coordination with CWA
and CAA to restrict disposal of
toxic wastes
Requires the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for actions which will have
a significant adverse impact on
the environment; (this may include
sludge management actions)
In light of these broad legislative mandates which necessarily shape the
evolution and development of the concept of integrated waste management, the
Agency intends to expand the role of the construction grants program to
address the management of wastes from a variety of sources in an integrated
manner. It is important that a wide variety of Agency activities (including
the establishment of regulatory deadlines in such areas as solid waste,
hazardous waste and pretreatment) be coordinated. To spearhead this effort
an IWM Coordinating Committee has been formed, consisting of representatives
from the Offices of Enforcement, General Counsel, Research and Development,
Water Regulations and Standards, Solid Waste and Water Program Operations.
In addition to the work of this committee, the Agency has undertaken the
following initiatives which are related primarily, at this stage, to municipal
treatment plant operation and sludge disposal. The intention is that as
experience is gained with the principles of IWM, agency activities can be
expanded to other appropriate areas.
A 40 city toxics study has been undertaken to determine where toxic
pollutants enter the wastewater stream and their fate, thereby
affording the opportunity for integrating where and how best to
treat and dispose of the waste.
Model IWM planning is being done with emphasis on management of
wastewater, on pretreatment and on sludge treatment and disposition.
It is to be carried out with 201 funds in several cooperating
States around the country which wish to move toward an integrated
solution to their waste management problems.
Efforts are underway with the EPA Science Advisory Board, a
National Academy of Sciences Subcommittee, and various research
groups to provide the framework for determining an acceptable
level of risk in regulatory efforts to manage wastes.
The Agency issued POM 80-4 (July 22, 1980) and Addendum 1 to
POM 80-4 (August 8, 1980) to summarize the impact of the
hazardous waste regulations on the management of sewage sludge.
52
-------
"A Guide to Regulation and Guidance for the Utilization and
Disposal of Municipal Sewage Sludge" (EPA 430/9-80-015, MCD-72,
September, 1980) was issued to provide an overview of all
federal regulations and positive guidance for sewage sludge
disposition.
Municipal Pretreatment Program Guidance Package was issued on
September 23, 1980 to provide background information in under-
standing the overall pretreatment picture and to provide specific
guidance for obtaining construction grant assistance for
developing local pretreatment programs.
A draft EPA-USDA-FDA policy statement is being prepared to provide
guidance to food processors and growers of fruits and vegetables by
which they can be assured of safe practice using high quality
sludge for treating soils. It is hoped that a final unified short
statement of policy and guidance can be agreed on in January.
AMSA/EPA committees for industrial pretreatment and for sewage
sludge have been established to work for the implementatipn of
realistic guidelines and regulations, to promote sound management
practices, and to assist in educating the public about such
practices to encourage better acceptance for sludge utilization.
Funds have been provided to conduct two research/demonstration
studies on centralized pretreatment. In Cleveland, Ohio,
centralized pretreatment will enable electroplaters to dis-
charge directly into a stream or indirectly into a POTW; in
Providence, Rhode Island, centralized pretreatment is provided
for 12 electroplaters prior to discharge indirectly into a POTW.
An IWM Bibliography is being compiled to provide a blueprint for
future development of information pertinent to IWM implementation.
The breadth and scope of these activities, the complexity of the issues
raised by the concept of integrated waste management, and the evolutionary
nature of the development of the concept and its implementation, make it
inappropriate to examine options and make recommendations similar to those
related to other aspects of the operations of the construction grants program.
53
-------
CHAPTER VI
ACTION PLAN
The actions outlined below and summarized in Figure VI.1 will be
undertaken to realize the 1990 Strategy objectives of streamlining the
grants process, reducing the time required to complete it, ensuring
high quality of projects developed through it, and greatly simplifying
the process for small communities. As Figure VI.1 shows, some of the
initiatives can be accomplished through administrative action by EPA
or a delegated State; others, however, will require amendments of the
regulations, the law, or both.
STREAMLINING THE MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
1. Propose revisions to the construction grants regulations for the
purpose of allowing maximum flexibility, consistent with realizing
federal goals, in their implementation.
2. Develop and distribute broadly applicable models of successful
management techniques for operations of the grants process.
3. Determine most effective means to integrate implementation of NEPA
and other applicable federal laws in the construction grants process;
follow-up with proposals for any regulatory or legislative changes
deemed necessary; and either implement or assist States, depending
on actions regarding elegability of those activities.
4. Based on results of pilot projects, promulgate agency policy on
certification, revise regulations as required, and proceed to
implement.
5. Simplify the procurement process by continuing inter-agency review
of Attachment 0, revising existing regulations to conform with
Attachment 0, issuing bid qualification procedures and issuing
flexible guidelines for reasonable profits.
6. Allow and encourage appropriate advance work on Step 2 through
amending regulations or urging legislative amendment.
7. Simplify the eligibility of grantees' administrative, legal and
fiscal costs by amending regulations to allow an option for lump
sum payment for those costs.
STREAMLINING THE GRANTS PROCESS
1. Institute or encourage (depending on delegation) a policy which
ensures continuing guidance to applicants throughout the planning
process. This will include pre-application guidance in the form of
a conference if it is needed, and reviews at other appropriate
points in the process to guide applicants in the selection of
alternatives for analysis, etc.
55
-------
2. Institute policy of concurrent reviews by EPA and State in non-
delegated States.
3. Institute strong national training program for State and EPA staff
members responsible for reviewing facility plans to ensure con-
sistency and flexibility.
4. Incorporate a binding schedule, contracted by mutual agreement, in
the plan of study for Step 1 and in each subsequent step of the
process.
5. Develop guidance material for States' use to encourage and assist
applicants in developing sound financial management plans, including
adequate user charge systems.
6. Propose legislative changes neeced to extend eligibility for funds
to a formal start-up period of the POTW to test plant operability
and staff preparation.
7. Follow-up on study of comparative British-American design standards/
operability records as appropriate.
8. Amend regulations to allow grantees to purchase equipment during
Step 2.
SPECIAL SMALL COMMUNITY ACTIONS
1. Test generic plans and refine for wide distribution.
2. Encourage use of generic plan screening procedure as standard process
for communities of under 10,000 applying for a Step 1 grant.
3. Encourage all States to set-aside some portion of their funds for
projects in small communities.
4. Incorporate threat to public health (in the form of groundwater
contamination) in the criteria used to establish priorities.
SPECIAL PROGRAM/POLICY OPTIONS
1. Recommend legislative changes that would make the set-aside program
for innovative projects permanent, eliminate the set-aside program
for alternative projects, and establish a national pool for
innovative projects to receive all unobligated set-aside funds
from States.
2. Amend regulations to allow funding on entire project at increased
rate if more than half qualifies as innovative.
56
-------
3. Form design teams to identify potential innovative projects and
follow-up on their planning and design.
4. Modify I/I program and revise regulations and guidance as needed.
5. Implement an effective O&M program for sewers.
57
-------
LU
LU
a.
o:
co
h?
O.
h-
O
00
LlJ
o
1
00
LU
HH
LU
0
o
o
«=t o:
LU
CM 1
OO «C
CD _J
CO
o;
LU OO
OQ CD
LiJ
o
LkJ
o
0
CO
LU i
03 00
LU i
1
r~
Q.
LlJ
OO
o
CO i
00
LU CD
ra "~
CO
1C 00
CJ O>
z:
o
i i
i
0
^^
^^
z
0
1 1
§
z:
Uj
g^
gr
o
o
LU
DC
ca
LU
1
h-
oo
r
'
>
^
A\
\ /
'
/l\
L
X
\
/f\/tv
/
\ -a
<(- 1 0 CO C.
O CO 3 T3 O
O 1 +-> S- CO -I- C
i-^COco C+JCO +-> EO
f r -I tO CC CO(O l.'r
COO. COC C -i- +->O O+^S.
^» CTE ^O OO CO (O-i f- O roco Oil- Col-
Ci- E-i-5 4-> r -r- O-r-
O) C CO-O.C CO 3-P Ol-tO
§O-i CD +J O+-» OCO ES- +-" -r CO
4-> +JC X:-r-t0.i--'-3 OCO CQi C
O" >> 3CO -t->ScO+->o S-O CO+J.xro-'-
ro C +-> -Q E COCOOS- O. EO3i
C O-r- T-CO E-OrOO. C CUcoCTCO
ro -i-r S-i OO T5O>>S-Cn+J|T3
SC CO T- +->O_ +J +J S_ O--t-> C i 3COCT3T-
O *^~> -O CO E CO CO O- 3 o C ro >> ^ O S- CO *^ 3
cr !->!- !-!- co i i o O3OE-o.cn
C4-> cox "o -O»co 3 ! < co-i c)_ s-co^: «
r-rO S-CO r CO Oil O- CO O CO CO CO
CS- i C OH3CO COO.C i rO COO +-> r-rO30J3
i-4-> T3M-O 1-3 CLUrO t COO S-O- C >,>+->COS-CO
r 10 co -i- o. is) o* >i- z s- o -t->T- co I-CD+JCOSCO
E-i- coCO-M oco-r- E Ol Li- C01- C0>> E -r- Q; «t I-H -o 1-1
rOC OS-rOi COC S-CO r -r- COO COi CO
CO-i- O.3+J COOJ= CO-I->C CL-I-) -r- C r O..C O
S-E pcoc >OO 4->roO ES- >CO Q. E +-> « O - S-
OO«C O-COE O(/)-4-> Q O1+J OottrOi iOO 2 OL
L \
CO
|_>
^*
1
O
Q.
O)
^~
J3
ro
C
o
CO
ro
CO
S-
O0
S-
ro
1-
58
-------
C\J
oo
CTl _l
/\
a: i
LU cc
CQ
O
O
o
n
CQ 00
s: CTI
UJ
O
s\
/K
u_
:E oo
O CTl
O
»i
CJ
DA
STRATEGY RECO
at
o>
(O
(O
^1 08
04J
T3fO(0
G.-l->'r-
ULUOO C
<1» S-<0 - Q.
Q-
(D4->4J
4->n3
OIJ3C
oa>C4-> a;
CL4J(0 34J^-
n* Q W
0> Q.3QJ
i-TS-r-OICU
01
CU
CUQ)(O
-0 (/>!-
59
-------
o
CD
00
3_
3
OO
Jj
n
LU
1
SI
oo
2
LL
C
O
CO S_ N
CL 1 CO O -r- Qj
"O3CO lOCMH-f jj
W 1 S- C J= -r- ci) (0
T3-i->eyn3OQ. coja o 1.3 T>£
C -t-5 S- Q-OO r- CO «4- OJ-Ot- QJIO-^
c-*0"^ = » CL« ° CQJO > 1 r-
C C E ^ O> 08 0) O Q. »r- 4-> Ci)
^Or IO ^ OC O CO CT> O CO Ol/) +J<1)
-IfEQ. J= I^i. "4- -t E CO 4-> 0 t- Q) 4J !- t- M a)C-r-«-ScOQ.S C31 « c5 S.
'5> « 5 r ^ c c ^T; 5 ?;5 «"-^T;0 c° °> E E +JCT3 Q. QJ OJ (O C Q.nj O. T34jEaj
fl, ^"^ 2-5 ? °~ & 2°= *" c"5- * ojc cc3-a
SJ=_^ 3+-> S-'^ <-> J3-r-o -UO rOOi J= 3OO .- Olco Q--r-
SJ -^ ^ ^ S^ 3 t- +J Q. OJ-i- t. CO r (-> C-r--r- (Q ECU CO
OT-O-*-* O "OCTr i-IO r S- 3 IB >r- i- 4-> '^ F= C7)i I m
S^T'1" *~2 F. *" ^ (JT3«= «-T-O EC o onjs-+j
>c?)'^ 1° P ^^ E t- x T- o
a. -i- Q.J3 U.Q. oa> LU D.«f_ ,_ cjo>« oo| c5o<*-io
60
-------
M
00
00
o
o
LJ
D;
CJ
a:
LLl
03 00
Q_
LU
_ o
<_> CM
o
ii
g
o
h-1
<
a:
>-
oo
a) a>
S- 4->
i- rej
!-> S-
c
3 -
4- S-
o »»-
o c
4-> -r- (O
J=
CO 4->
O> «J C
O) rtJ
s- -t-> j:
O -4J
TJ
i- O
s-
O CL
-P 2
C O
E r
O O .O
-------
APPENDIX
LIST OF 1990 STRATEGY PAPERS AVAILABLE
The following issue papers relating to operations of the construction
grants program have been prepared in conjunction with the 1990 Strategy.
These papers are available, on request, from Barry H. Jordan, U.S. EPA,
401 M St., S.W., (WH-595), Washington, D.C. 20460.
Background Paper (III.l)
Certification (III.2.1)
Consolidating Steps 2 and 3 (III.2.2)
Attachment 0 (III.2.3)
Advanced Work on Step 2 (III.2.4)
Simplifying Administrative & Legal Costs (III.2.5)
RA Authority for Diviation (III.2.6)
Peer Review (III.2.9)
Profit Guidelines (III.2.11)
Facility Planning Process (III.3.1)
Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems (III.3.2)
Quality Assurance in Facility Planning (III.3.3)
Generic Plans (III.3.4)
Infiltration/Inflow and Sewer System (III.4.1)
Evaluation Survey
Pretreatment (III.5.1)
Innovative and Alternative Technology Program (III.6.1)
Integrated Waste Management
*o.s. GOVEBNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 -0-720-016/5981*
63
-------
. s. u i i . '
US Cr.:::.-
K-:!'"'. V, Library
r "* <~] c~s -> N r%( ,.* ->, t i- -!"". o, A «-,,-,%
«_v ,J _. v 'j . I jJvJCi W -'i 1 - ». v v, «.
(" - ' -» T -. * *!: *^ -.",-* ^ r*'"r>
------- |