United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Program Operations (WH-547)
Washington, DC 20460
January 1980
Water
Program Requirements
Memoranda
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program
MCD-02.9
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOTICE TO ALL HOLDERS OF THE EPA
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM MANUAL OF REFERENCES (MCD-02)
Because the material contained in the "Manual of References" is
obsolete, further printing and distribution will cease. However, the
program policy documents incorporated in that manual, and subsequently
updated by the publication of supplemental issuances of new and revised
Program Requirements Memoranda (PRMs), will continue to be made available
to that segment of the public involved in various aspects of the
Construction Grants Program. Hence, holders of the MCD-02 will continue
to receive copies of Program Requirements Memoranda (MCD-02.00) as they
are printed. So that PRM recipients are kept apprised of the completeness
of their policy document library, a full index of PRMs issued will be
included with each printing.
-------
MCD 02.1
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDA
Table of Contents
PRM 75-1
PRM 75-2
PRM 75-3
PRM 75-4
PRM 75-5
PRM 75-6
PRM 75-7
PRM 75-8
PRM 75-9
PRM 75-10
PRM 75-11
PRM 75-12
PRM 75-13
PRM 75-14
PRM 75-15
PRM 75-16
PRM 75-17
Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for Waste 6/25/73
Treatment Projects
Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers 7/11/73
Waste Stabilization Ponds 9/11/73
Standardized Construction Contract Documents 4/15/75
Non-Restrictive Specifications 8/8/75
Adequacy of Treatment Certification 11/8/73
Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation 2/7/74
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 3/1/74
Supplement to PG No. 25; Flood Disaster 11/4/74
Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)
User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery System 4/5/74
Approval of Reimbursement Projects Not 4/17/74
Previously Serviced by EPA
Obligation, Recovery and Reallotment of Contract 5/13/74
Authority Funds
Management of Construction Grants Funds 4/19/74
Grant Funds and Project Segmenting 5/10/74
Class Deviation—Use of Force Account Work 5/7/74
on Construction Grant Projects
Title II Regulations, Section 35.915(1)-- 6/3/74
Reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 Projects
Construction of Pretreatment or Treatment 6/5/74
Facilities for Municipal Utilities
-------
PRM 75-18
PRM 75-19
PRM 75-20
PRM 75-21
PRM 75-22
PRM 75-23
PRM 75-24
PRM 75-25
PRM 75-26
PRM 75-27
PRM 75-28
PRM 75-29
PRM 75-30
PRM 75-31
PRM 75-32
PRM 75-33
PRM 75-34
PRM 75-35
PRM 75-36
Eligibility of Wastewater Treatment Facilities 9/17/74
at Municipally Owned Water Treatment Works for
Construction Grants
Cancelling PG-28 - User Charges and Industrial 7/9/74
Cost Recovery System
User Charge Systems 7/16/74
Overruns, Reserves and Priority Lists 10/16/74
Policy Re Retention of Payments 11/18/74
Escalation Clauses in Construction Grant 12/9/74
Projects
Large City Problems in State Priority Lists 1/9/75
Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for Land
Treatment Processes
Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects 6/6/75
in the Construction Grants Process
Field Surveys to Identify Cultural Resources 7/2/75
Affected by EPA Construction Grants Projects
Flood Insurance Requirements Effective 7/8/75
July 1, 1975
EPA Procedures in Initiating Debarment Actions 8/5/75
Against Grantee Contractors
Cost Control 9/8/75
Facilitating EIS Preparation with Joint 9/75
EIS/Assessments (Piggybacking)
Compliance with Title VI in the Construction 2/11/76
Grants Program
Discount Rate 8/11/75
Grants for Treatment and Control of Combined 12/16/75
Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharges
Allowable Costs for Construction of Treatment 12/29/75
Works that Jointly Serve Municipalities and
Federal Facilities
Value Engineering in the EPA Construction 1/20/75
Grants Program
-------
PRM 75-37
PRM 75-38
PRM 75-39
PRM 75-40
PRM 76-1
PRM 76-2
User Charge System: Plan and Schedule
Relationship Between 201 Facility Planning
and Water Quality Management (WQM) Planning
Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for the
Ultimate Disposal of Residues from Wastewater
Treatment Processes
Priority List Supplement to FY 1977
Construction Grants Guidance
Construction Grants Program Issuances
Cancellation of Certain Program Guidance
Memoranda (PGM)
3/17/76
2/9/76
4/2/76
5/7/76
7/25/76
7/26/76
MCD 02.2
PRM 76-3
PRM 75-4
PRM 76-5
Presentation of Local Government Costs of
Wastewater Treatment Works in Facility Plans
Coordination of Construction Grants Program
with EPA-Corps of Engineers Section 404/
Section 10 Permit Programs
Flood Insurance Requirements
8/16/76
10/14/76
8/16/76
MCD 02.3
PRM 77-1
PRM 77-2
PRM 77-3
PRM 77-4
PRM 77-5
Treatment Works for Recreational Parks, Industrial 11/23/75
Parks and Institutions
Grant Eligibility of Start-up Services 11/29/76
Plan of Operation for Municipal Wastewater 11/29/76
Treatment Facilities
Cost Allocations for Multiple Purpose Projects 12/3/76
Grant Eligibility of Land Acquisition by Lease- 12/15/76
holds or Easements for Use in Land Treatment
and Ultimate Disposal of Residues
-------
MCD 02.4
PRM 77-6
PRM 77-7
PRM 77-8
Easements
Management of State Project Priority Lists
Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects
5/4/77
5/13/77
6/21/77
MCD 02.5
PRM 77-9
PRM 78-1
PRM 78-2
PRM 78-3
PRM 78-4
PRM 78-5
PRM 78-6
PRM 78-7
PRM 78-8
PRM 78-9
PRM 78-10
Reallotment of Recovered Funds 8/5/77
Erosion and Sediment Control in the Construction 12/29/77
Grants Program
Discount Rate 1/26/78
Buy American 2/17/78
Grant Eligibility of Land Acquired for Storage 2/17/78
in Land Treatment Systems
Interim Management of FY 1978 State Priority 2/17/78
Lists Under the 1977 Amendments
Industrial Cost Recovery—Interim Guidance 2/17/78
Combined Step 2 and Step 3 Construction Grant 2/17/78
Awards (Step 2+3)
Rejection of All Bids: Guidance for EPA 2/13/78
Concurrence Function
Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects 3/3/78
Infiltration/Inflow Program Guidance 3/17/78
MCD 02.6
PRM 78-11
PRM 78-12
Toxicity of Chemical Grouts for Sewer
Rehabilitation
Preconstruction Lag Management
5/11/78
6/12/78
-------
MCD 02.7
PRM 78-13
PRM 79-1
PRM 79-2
PRM 79-3
PRM 79-4
PRM 79-5
PRM 79-6
Interim Priority List Guidance for the 6/29/78
Development and Management of FY 1979 State
Priority Lists
Safety Requirements for the Design and Operation 10/23/78
of Chlorination Facilities Using Gaseous Chlorine
Royalties for Use of or for Rights in Patents 11/13/78
Revision of Agency Guidance for Evaluation of 11/15/78
Land Treatment Alternatives Employing Surface
Application
Discount Rates 11/17/78
Construction Incentive Program 12/28/78
Priority List Guidance for the Development 1/8/79
and Management of FY 1980 State Project
Priority Lists
MCD 02.8
PRM 79-7
PRM 79-8
PRM 79-9
Grant Funding of Projects Requiring Treatment
More Stringent than Secondary
Small Wastewater Systems
Outlay Management in the Construction Grants
Program
3/9/79
5/9/79
5/11/79
MCD 02.9
PRM 79-10
PRM 79-11
PRM 80-1
PRM 80-2
Qualification of Major Items of Equipment 7/12/79
Funding of Waste Load Allocations and Water 9/6/79
Quality Analyses for POTW Decisions
Discount Rate 11/26/79
Step 2 and Step 3 Architect/Engineer Level of 12/20/79
Effort Study
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SHINGTON, D.
20 DEC 19/9
, ,0 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
°
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM 80-2
SUBJECT: Step 2 and Step 3 Architect/Engineer
Level of Effort Study r
FROM: Henry L. Longest II
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (V/H-546)
TO: Regional Administrators
Attention: Water Division Directors
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to initiate a multi-phase approach
to establishing final Agency policy and guidance for evaluating the price
for architect/engineer (A/E) services during Step 2 and Step 3 projects
funded under the Construction Grants Program. In addition, it provides
interim guidance for this evaluation which is to be used until the final
policy and guidance are promulgated. For the purpose of this memorandum,
the terms cost, price and profit have the meanings conveyed in 40 CFR
35.936 and 35.937.
The specific phases are as follows:
Phase 1. Pending development of final Agency policy and guidance
discussed below, "Exhibit II" of the EPA Region VI publication
entitled Engineering Costs and Fees for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works, An_ Estimating Technique for Design ojF
Treatment Plants, Publication No. EPA 906/9-78-003, may be
utilized as an additional tool in analyzing the cost segment
of A/E services to design treatment plants funded under the
construction grants program. Profit should continue to be
analyzed in accordance with specific policies or guidelines
you currently use. These reviews of cost and profit should
be initiated only when the grantee employed Brooks-bill type
negotiations or otherwise did not consider price (the sum of
cost and profit) as the prime criterion in selection of the
engineer.
Phase 2. A computer model will be developed to provide estimates
of the level of effort (work-hours) required to design
treatment facilities (including sewers) of varying sizes
and types. The model will also provide estimates of the
level of A/E effort required during the Step 3 phase of
a project.
-------
-2-
Phase 3.
Phase 4.
Phase 5.
Each Regional Office will accumulate level of effort
and related information on recently completed Step 2
and Step 3 projects in its Region. This phase will
be done simultaneously with Phase 2.
The information obtained from Phase 3 will be used to
verify and "fine tune" the computer model being developed
during Phase 2. It will also be used to develop a family
of curves or charts relating work-hours, and perhaps price,
for elements of Step 2 and Step 3 services to the size
and type of treatment works. These curves or charts
can be used separately or in addition to the computer
model when it becomes available. These curves or charts
will be prepared by an EPA task force which includes
Headquarters and Regional Office personnel. The exact
nature and format of the guidance documents has not
yet been determined.
The curves or charts and computer model, when fully
operational, will be used by Regional Office personnel,
State Agency personnel and grantees in conjunction with
appropriate cost, overhead and profit data, to determine
if the price proposed by the engineer is reasonable.
DISCUSSION
Since publication of EPA regulations governing procurement of A/E
services in December 1975 which prohibited A/E contracts based upon a
percentage of construction cost or cost plus a percentage of cost, EPA
Regional Offices have had a difficult time determining if the proposed
price of A/E services was fair and reasonable. Most of the attention
has focused on review of the profit segment of the engineers price and
the State of California and several Regional Offices have developed
policies and guidance for evaluating profit. This has led to numerous
complaints about the lack of a uniform policy and the disparity in
application of similar guidelines among the ten EPA Regions.
Based on data accumulated from firms and projects in its Region,
Region VI developed the publication referenced above as a guide for reviewing
the cost segment of A/E services to design treatment works. The cost data is
probably not applicable to other Regions, but we believe that the estimate of
work-hours required to design various type of treatment plants, which is shown
in Exhibit II of that publication, may be a useful additional tool in analyzing
the work effort required to design plants in other Regions. However, in
utilizing the Region VI publication for this purpose, consideration must be
given to regional differences in design due to climate and other factors,
established State or local practice as to the number of construction contracts
required, level of detail shown on plans, an individual firm's approach to
design and changes in Agency Regulations since the Region VI data was
collected. By applying an engineer's salary scale to the work-hour estimate,
as modified by the previously cited considerations, adding other direct
expenses and applying the appropriate overhead rate, a reasonable estimate
of the cost segment of A/E services for design can be determined.
-------
-3-
Our objective is to expand the Region VI study to incorporate data
from all other Regions. To accomplish this, we are requesting that
members of your construction grants staff extract required information
from your files and visit A/E firms in your Region to collect level of
effort and other data related to activities such as preparation of plans
and specifications, preparation of UC/ICR systems, preparation of plans
of operation, including O&M Manuals, resident engineering services during
construction and other Step 2 and Step 3 engineering services. The visits
may be combined with your other activities such as review of financial
systems and records or consultation on other matters. To assist in this
effort, Mr. Le Young of Region VI and a cost/price analyst will spend a
week to ten days with your staff to explain the methodology and procedures
to be used in collecting the required data and may accompany them on some
of the field visits.
The cooperation of the consulting engineers is essential to the success
of this effort. Therefore, it should be explained at the outset, that as a
result of this study, more emphasis will be placed on the fairness and
reasonableness of the price of A/E services and less on level of profit.
Also, experience in Region VI showed that it is helpful to seek the
cooperation and assistance of the professional societies such as the
American Consulting Engineers Council, American Society of Civil Engineers,
National Society of Professional Engineers or similar professional organizations.
Representatives of these organizations at the national level are acting as
advisors to the EPA task force.
The Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with EPA, has developed a computer
model, known as CAPDET, which, when given certain basic information, provides
preliminary designs and construction cost estimates for treatment facilities
of various types. This system is to be expanded to provide an estimate of the
level of A/E effort (work-hours) required to design and construct treatment
facilities. It has been decided to estimate "level of effort" rather than
cost so that the model will be applicable nationwide and will not be quickly
outdated by inflation. However, the model will be capable of translating
level of effort information into dollar values when the appropriate cost
information (labor rates, indirect costs, other direct costs) and profit
levels are entered into the computer system.
The computer model will be developed by consultants under contract
to the Corps of Engineers operating under an Interagency Agreement with EPA.
The initial contract for this work is expected to be executed in the near
future and the development of the computer model will be done concurrently
with the Regional data gathering.
IMPLEMENTATION
When the grantee employed Brooks-bill type negotiations, or otherwise
did not consider price (the sum of cost and profit) as the prime consideration
in selection of the engineer, Exhibit II of the Region VI publication may be
used as an additional tool in determining whether the cost segment of A/E
services is reasonable. Profit should continue to be analyzed in accordance
-------
-4-
with specific policies or guidelines you currently use until such time as a
decision is made as to the advisability of establishing National Guidelines.
Further guidance for review of profits will be provided in the near future.
It is requested that an appropriate person be designated to coordinate
your participation in this study. Please advise James R. Murphy, Chief
Eastern Construction Branch at (FTS) 426-8945 as to the name and telephone
number of the person so designated. Mr. Murphy can also answer any questions
you may have regarding this PRM.
In the near future, the appropriate Area Program Manager will contact
your designee to arrange for Mr. Young's visit to your Region.
The methodology, work plan and schedule, and appropriate guidance for the
conduct of this study are being developed by Headquarters and will be mailed
to you as soon as the material is completed. Should you need additional copies
of any document referenced in this memorandum, they are available from the
Municipal Construction Division, EPA Headquarters.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 80-1
SUBJECT: Discount Rate
FROM: A^-Henry L. Longest II
' Deputy Assistant AdmTn'istratXr""
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
TO: Water Division Directors
Regions I - X
Attached is a copy of the notice published by the
Water Resources Council of the new discount rate of
7 1/8 percent. The new rate was effective as of
October 1, 1979. Cost-effectiveness analyses in new
facility planning starts are to be based upon the rate of
7 1/8 percent.
We have arranged to distribute the attached
information to consulting engineers through the newsletter
of the Consulting Engineers Council. Please distribute
copies of this information to the States for use in their
programs.
Attachment
-------
1, No. 210 / Monday, October 29, 1979 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 21
hursday, November 8,1979, if the
> drawn on a bank in another
' Reserve District.
ks received after the dates set
the preceding sentence will not
pled unless they are payable at
'icable Federal Reserve Bank.
t will not be considered
•„> where registered securities are
•d if the appropriate identifying
is required on tax returns and
ouments submitted to the
Revenue Service (an
il's social security number or an
r identification number) is not
1. When payment is made in
a cash adjustment will be
>r required of the bidder for
••nee between the face amount
• s presented and the amount
n the securities allotted.
very case where full payment
pleted on time, the deposit
I with the tender, up to 5
the face amount of securities
."••all. at the discretion of the
of the Treasury, be forfeited to
' States.
•'ered securities tendered as
.id in payment for allotted
•re not required to be
ihe new securities are to be
• n the same names and forms
n the registrations or
resentative, must
ie securities presented.
Jered in payment should
•I to the Federal Reserve
h or to the Bureau of the
Vashington, D.C. 20226.
must be delivered at the
•sk of the holder.
• securities are not ready
the settlement date,
y elect to receive interim
?se certificates shall be
.- form and shall be
"or definitive securities of
such securities are
y Federal Reserve Bank
ihe Bureau of the Public
m, D.C, 20226. The
interim certificates must be returned at
the risk and expense of the holder.
5.5. Delivery of securities in registered
form will be made after the requested
form of registration ha^ been validated,
the registered interest account has been
established, and the the securities have
been inscribed.
6. General Provisions
6.1. As fiscal agents of the United
States, Federal Reserve Banks are
authorized and requested to receive
tenders, to make allotments as directed
by the Secretary of the Treasury, to
issue such notices as may be necessary,
to receive payment for and make
delivery of securities on full-paid
allotments, and to issue interim
certificates pending delivery of the
definitive securities.
6.2. The Secretary of the Treasury
may at any time issue supplemental or
amendatory rules and regulations
governing the offering. Public
announcement of such change will be
promptly provided.
Supplementary Statement
The annoucement set forth above does not
meet the Department's criteria for significant
regulations and, accordingly, may be
published without compliance with Ihe
Departmental procedures applicable to such
regulation.
Paul H. Taylor.
fiscal Assistant Secretary.
|FR Doc. 79-33577 Filed 10-25-79; 4:02 pm|
BILLING CODE 4810-40-M
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
Principles and Standards for Planning
Water and Related Land Resources,
Change In Discount Rate
Notice is hereby given that the
interest rate to be used by Federal
agencies in the formulation and
evaluation of plans for water and
related land resources in 7'/s percent for
the period October 1,1979, through and
including September 30,1980.
The rate has-been computed in
accordance with Chapter IV, D.. "The
Discount Rate" in the "Standards for
Planning Water and Related Land
Resources" of the Water Resources
Council, as amended (39 FR 29242), and
is to be used by all Federal agencies in
plan formulation and evaluation of
water and related land resources
projects for the purpose of discounting
future benefits and computing costs, or
otherwise converting benefits and costs
to a common time basis.
The Department of the Treasury on
October 18,1979, informed the Water
Resources Council pursuant to Chapter
IV, D., (b) that the interest rate would be
fl'/t percent based upon the formula set
forth in Chapter IV, D., (a): "* * * the
average yield during the preceding
Fiscal Year on interest-bearing
marketable securities of the United
Stiites which, at the time the
compulation is made, have terms of 15
years or more remaining to maturity
• ' "." However, Chapter IV, D., (a)
further provides "* * * that in no
even! shall the rate be raised or lowered
more than one-quarter of one percent for
any year." Since the rate in Fiscal Year
1979 was 6Vs percent (42 FR 58232), the
rate for Fiscal Year 1900 is 7Vs percent.
Dalod: October 24,1979.
Gerald D. Seinwill,
Acting Director.
|KR !)„(. 7SI-33200 Filed 10-26-79;8:45am)
BILLING CODE 8410-01-M
INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION
Directly Related Motor Carrier
Applications
AGENCY: Interstate Commerce
Commission.
ACTION: Notice for proper filing of motor
carrier applications directly related to
finance applications.
SUMMARY: Persons filing motor carrier
applications [for instance, related
gateway elimination or conversion
applications under 49 U.S.C. 10922 or
related securities applications under 49
U.S.C. 11301] which are directly related
to motor finance applications filed under
49 U.S.C. 1343-11344 are instructed to
write in bold print at the top of page one
of the directly related application the
words: "Directly Related." Also, persons
are instructed that one copy of all such
directly related motor applications must
be mailed to the Supervisor of the
Finance Support Unit, Room 5414,
Interstate Commerce Commission,
Washington. D.C. This will improve the
ability of the Commission to consolidate
and process together all motor
applications which are directly related
to finance transactions.
DATES: These instructions will apply to
all directly related motor applications
filed with the Commission on and after
November 1,1979.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Erenberg, 202-275-7245; Frank
Buane; 202-275-7643 or 7615.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
16.1979, the Commission's final decision
in !• x Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 35),
Summary Grant Procedures (Finance).
44 FR 41203-41205 (1979). was issued.
That rulemaking
for quicker grant
applications, as
applications whi
to these flnancp .
instructions we i
these directly re!
(whether they ai
finance applic'iti
therefrom) are Ir
coordination ami
Too often, a diriv
application (for L.
conversion, seen'
applicants or Civ
in delays In the p
applications whi<
and decided t'/gis
The instruction
applicants filing c
applications (for ;
OR-9 for convors
elimination or ' >•
securities issuam
bold print at '•"<" t
application thy li
"Directly Related
application nnH<"
purchase, control
operating rights o
instructions .iUo i
of each such
application b
of the Financ< <;i
Interstate {Jomrm
Street and Cor^i
Washington, U-.
Dai d: October Z'.i
By the Commiesc
Dirucinr. Office of I'
Agatha L. Mergenov
Secretary.
|FR !)»•. 70-33241 Filed 10
BILLING CODE 703-, 1!-
Fourth Section Ar
October 24,1979.
This applicat-' n
haul relief has bfi(
Protests are t)>''
days from the dati
notice.
FSA No. 43760.1
intei modal rates o.
commodities in CO'
carriers' terminals
Pacific Coast to po
by way of Atlantic
points, in itsTcriff
No. 2'» Rates beca'
7,1979.
competition.
-------
USB,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 79-11
SAM 38
Subject:
From:
TO:
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Funding of Waste Load Allocations
and Water Quality Analyses for POTW D
Swep T. Davis, Deputy Assistant
for Water Planning & Standards
Henry L. Longest II, Acting Deputy Assistan/dmiXistrator
for Water Program Operations
Regional Administrators
ATTN: Regional Water Division Directors
Purpose
This memorandum establishes policy and procedures for the funding
of waste load allocations and water quality analyses required for publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) decisions.
Background
EPA, recognizing the costs and energy requirements of publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) providing treatment greater than secondary
(AST/AUT), has taken several steps to insure that such facilities are
only Federally funded when based upon technically adequate effluent
limitations. In June 1978 a joint OWPS/OWPO guidance memorandum was
issued which contained a checklist to be completed before a project
providing AST/AWT could receive construction grant funding. On November 2,
1978, SAM 37 was issued by OWPS which established policy and procedures
for the use of Section 208 funds to review and revise waste load allocations
for POTWs subject to permit limitations requiring AST/AWT. On March 9,
1979, PRM 79-7 was issued by OWPO which established policy and procedures
for the review and funding of proposed AST/AWT projects. Reduced
Section 106 and 208 FY 80 appropriations coupled with increasing demands
on Section 106 funds to support the issuance of second round NPDES
permits and expanded monitoring programs may result in some states being
unable to provide adequate funding for the timely review and revision of
waste load allocations. It is therefore necessary to provide additional
-------
- 2 -
policy and procedures for FY'80 on the use of Section 201 and 205(g)
funding to augment Section 106 funds to support these tasks.
Policy
Nothing in this memorandum is to affect the responsibility and right
established by Sections 303 and 510 of the Clean Water Act for each State
to develop water quality standards and waste load allocations. The State
water quality management program will continue to exercise overall manage-
ment responsibility for assuring that water quality analyses and waste
load allocations are conducted in a satisfactory manner. The primary
sources of funding for these activities are program grants and State funds.
The amount of Section 106 and State funds currently expended for POTM-related
waste load allocations should not be reduced because Section 201 and
205(g) funds may be used, on a case-by-case basis and subject to require-
ments in this memorandum, to augment State and Section 106 funds to provide
for the development of POTW-related waste load allocations and supporting
water quality analyses. Except where EPA and the State have determined
that existing limitations should be revised, Section 201 and 205(g) funds
may not be used to review effluent limitations or to develop alternative
effluent limitations; e.g., costs associated with the development of data
in support of Section 301(h) permit modification request are solely the
responsibility of the requesting municipality and are not grant eligible.
Where Section 201 or 205(g) funds are used, the areal extent of waste
load allocation and water quality data collection activities must relate
directly to needed waste load allocations for projects that are on the
State 5-year construction grant priority list.
The priority for use of Section 201 and 205(g) funds to conduct
waste load allocations and water quality analyses is:
1. POTWs which have been determined by EPA and the State, as a
result of a PRM 79-7 review, to require a revised waste load allocation.
2. POTWs on the State 5-year construction grant priority list for
which the State and Regional Administrator have determined, through the
State/EPA agreement process, that existing waste load allocations are
probably insufficient to support AST/AWT requirements.
SAM 37 continues to apply to the use of FY'78 and 79 Section 208
funds for waste load allocations and water quality analyses. FY'80
Section 208 funds may not be used to initiate POTW-related waste load
allocations.
-------
- 3 -
Procedures
1. FY 80 State/EPA Agreement: If Section 201 or 205(g) funds are
to be used for waste load allocations, the FY 80 State/EPA Agreement
(SEA) must contain or provide for the development of a detailed State
review of the 5year construction grant priority list. Specific provision
for the review may be contained in the SEA itself or in the Section 106
program plan or the 205(g) delegation agreement. Wherever a POTW has
effluent limitations potentially requiring AST/AWT and Section 201 and
205(g) funds may be used, the SEA, Section 106 program plan or 205(g)
delegation agreement shall provide for:
0 an informal review of applicable water quality standards to
determine whether they contain unsupported requirements or
criteria; e.g., blanket discharge prohibitions or criteria
substantially more stringent than contained in Quality Criteria
for Water or any subsequent criteria documents published by EPA.
0 the review of existing waste load allocations, if any, to
determine whether they are technically valid and sufficient to
support AST/AKT effluent limitations.
0 the review of any other water-quality based permit limitations
not derived from water quality standards or waste load
allocations to determine whether they are valid.
Wherever the State and EPA determine that an effluent limitation is not
valid or supportable, the State shall provide a program to rectify the
inadequacy. One component of this program shall be a list of projects
for which it is necessary to substantiate inadequate AST/AWT effluent
limitations. This list should subdivide these projects into those
requiring new or revised waste load allocations and those requiring
other work. Projects requiring new or revised waste load allocations
should be subdivided into the two priority classes described above.
Until this listing is complete, Section 201 and 205(g) funds may not be
used to fund waste load allocations.
For all cases where the State has determined that effluent limitations
are unsupported for reasons unrelated to waste load allocations, the
priority of resolution shall be determined by the State and Regional
Administrator.
2. Funding: The SEA shall allocate costs to produce valid effluent
limitations as follows:
0 Section 106 funds may be used in any situation.
0 where tasks relate to the basin-wide revision of waste load
allocations, or to waste load allocations/water quality analyses
not directly related to a POTW on the SEA needs list, only
Section 106 or State funds may be used.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20*60
-------
- 4 -
Section 201 and 205(g) funds may be used to augment Section 106
funds for priority one projects upon issuance of this memorandum.
Section 201 and 205(g) funds may be used to augment Section 106 funds
for priority two projects upon EPA approval of the State waste load
allocation program.
3. Headquarters Assistance: PRM 79-7 provides for OWPO and OWPS
review of the adequacy of effluent limitations and facility planning for
certain proposed AWT facilities. Upon request, OWPS will provide technical
assistance and advice on the review of existing water quality standards
and waste load allocations, the development of work programs, and on
draft work products.
4. Relationships: The use of Section 201 and 205(g) funds for
waste load allocations and the involvement of 201 grantees is new so
that additional guidance is necessary:
0 responsibility for the validity of waste load allocations lies
with each State in accordance with Section 303(d)(l)(C) and
303(e)(3) of the Clean Water Act.
0 accountability for Section 201 funds used for waste load
allocations and supporting water quality analyses will rest
with the Section 201 grantee even though the grantee may
execute a contract or intergovernmental agreement with the
State or the State and an areawide 208 agency to perform the
work.
0 in order to prevent a conflict of interest, it is recommended
that waste load allocations and supporting water quality analyses
not be conducted directly by the Section 201 grantee. It is
recommended that the Section 201 grantee instead execute a
contract or intergovernmental agreement with either the State
or the State and an areawide 208 agency, which may subcontract
the work, if necessary.
0 wherever Section 201 funds are to be used for waste load allocations/
and water quality analyses, the scope and schedule of work and
the consultant contract shall be approved by the State and EPA.
The terms of this approval shall be made a condition of the
grant and shall be contained in a memorandum of understanding
entered into by EPA, the State, the 201 grantee, and, when
appropriate, the areawide 208 agency. EPA and the State should
be intimately involved in all phases of the work as discussed in
the attached management guidance.
0 the conduct of joint waste load allocations is encouraged.
Some previous waste load allocations funded by EPA ultimately failed
to be valid because of inadequate data, inexperienced personnel and improper
use of mathematical models. Consultant contracts should include specific
performance standards and a quality assurance program covering, where
-------
- 5 -
applicable, model calibration and verification, sampling and analytical
methodologies, statistical adequacy of data, and personnel requirements
(see the attached management and technical guidance).
5. Municipal Enforcement Strategy: The "Final National Municipal
Policy and Strategy for Construction~Srants, NPDES Permits, and Enforce-
ment Under the Clean Water Act" (August 1979} provides that for projects
undergoing an AWT review, NPDES permits should not generally be reissued
until this review is completed. Procedures for modifying or reissuing
permits for these projects are detailed in this document.
Attachments:
Management Guidance
Technical Guidance
-------
Management Guidance for Funding of WLA Studies
Background
In order to ensure that grant funds for WLAs are used in an effective and
efficient manner, OWPS will be working with the Regions to ensure that
all Regions using 106, 201, 205(g) or 208 funds for WLAs have at!east a
minimal technical capability in the WLA program area. In addition, there
should be a strong State program in this area or a committment by the
Region to guide and take responsibility for WLA work done in States lacking
a strong WLA program. This part of the guidance describes what factors
Headquarters will consider in evaluating the Region's technical capability
in the WLA area. It also addresses what factors the Regions should use
in evaluating State WLA programs.
I. Regional Management Guidance
OWPS is presently conducting a study of the AWT/WLA program in each
Region. Each regional contact has received a copy of the draft
report on their Region for their comment and review. Our aim is
to work with any Region needing assistance to ensure that all Regions
develop the necessary minimal technical capability by FY 80.
Based upon our work thus far, the following factors appear to be critical:
(a) Regional Staffing Levels
The Region should have an identifiable staff for guiding and
reviewing:
Work-plans for development of WLAs
Contract Work Statement for WLAs
Interim output of WLA Studies
Final WLA
State WLA effort
(b) Regional Staff Qualifications
Staff responsible for overseeing WLA work must include individuals
trained and experienced in all aspects of the development of
WQ based effluent limits, e.g., planning and conduct of WQ
intensive surveys, mathematical modeling of receiving waters
including calibration/verification, etc.
-------
-2-
II. State Management Controls for 201 and 205(g) Funded WLA Studies
1.
(a) The State must have an identifiable staff which is qualified
and capable of, developing if necessary, or guiding and
reviewing:
Work Plans for development of WLAs
Contract Work Statement for WLAs
Interim outputs of the WLA Study
Final WLA
(b) State Staff Qualifications
Staff responsible for overseeing or developing WLA studies
must include at least one individual trained and experienced
in all aspects of the development of WQ based effluent
limitations, e.g., planning and conduct of WQ intensive
surveys, mathematical modeling of receiving waters including
calibration/verification, etc.
2. EPA approved State Procedures
State technical procedures and policies, (including math
models used, safety margins, data requirements, modeling
assumptions, etc.), for WLA development must be documented
by the State and reviewed and approved by the Region.
3. EPA approved WQ Standards
EPA approved WQ standards must be in place prior to
commencement of the study.
4. Procedures for approval to initiate a WLA Studies
The State and Region must guide the development of WLA, and review
and approve the following prior to initiation of the study:
(a) Remedies to previous deficiencies
Deficiencies that caused the original WLA to be rejected must be
identified and solutions or remedies proposed.
(b) Selection of contractor/consultant to perform the WLA
This selection must be jointly made by the grantee, State and
Region, and should be based largely on the contractor's
previous performance in conducting such studies.
-------
-3-
5. Work Plan for development of the WLA
A detailed work-plan must be developed by the grantee (or
contractor). The work-plan must include details on all
tasks necessary in the development of the WLA. The major
elements of the study will be (1) Data Needs and Collection
(2) Water Quality Analyses/modeling and (3) Allocation of
pollutant loads and determination of effluent limitations
on the basis of the WQ analysis. Tasks for each element
must be described in detail, including description of
work, cost, output of the task and projected date of
completion.
(a) Approval of Work-Plan
The Work-plan must be reviewed and approved by the State and
EPA prior to conduct of the study. The plan will serve as
the guiding document for development of the WLA.
(6) State-EPA tracking of the Study
The Region and State must closely scrutinize every major
output of the study as it proceeds. A review mechanism
must be developed, which will provide for timely reviews
with recommendations for any mid course changes necessary.
The study should proceed in stages or phases that are
designed to produce concrete reviewable outputs at the
end of each phase. EPA and the State must review each
output prior to initiation of the next phase. Errors
or shortcomings must be flagged immediately, and steps
taken to correct the situation before the study resumes.
-------
Preliminary Technical Guidance for WLA Studies
Objectives
This package provides technical guidance on development of WLA's.
The guidance establishes the basis for a credible procedure for WLA
computations. Experience concerning what to emphasize has come from EPA
water quality reviews of POTW projects requiring treatment more stringent
than secondary. EPA's concern is that all future WLA's be sound, reason-
able, and technically defensible.
This preliminary guidance will
are encouraged.*
be refined and improved. Comments
It is EPA policy (PRM 79-7) that: "That Agency will conduct a
rigorous review of projects designed for treatment more stringent than
secondary"; and, with respect to WLA, that: "The waste load allocations
or other analyses resulting in the effluent limitations, along with the
assumptions on which the analysis is based, are scientifically supported
by intensive water quality surveys or appropriate field investigations
conducted on the water bodies in question, and calibrated and verified
models or other technically sound analyses".
on:
2.
This guidance seeks to aid these policies and presents information
1. the typical level of analysis expected for most WLA studies
to satisfy EPA review. Exceptions, of course, are possible
and should be justified. Examples are simple cases needing
only "desk top" computations or complex cases needing very
specialized mathematical models.
a "norm" for a scientifically defensible WLA procedures. A
justification process that follows the norm would not be
expected to cause controversy in the EPA review. Departures
from the norm should be discussed and rational explanations
presented.
3. the list of representations and presentations that a well
documented WLA should have according to current EPA review
procedures.
4. a checklist of problem areas that have stalled EPA WLA reviews
or which are expected to cause difficulties in scoping future
WLA studies; these areas will be further clarified as this
guidance is refined.
*Comments should be directed to Dr. Tim Stuart (FTS-426-7766), Chief
Monitoring Branch, Monitoring & Data Support Division (WK-553)
-------
-2-
EPA Expectations
The typical situations are described in this section. Unusual
situations, as they occur, will be judged as departures from the
following normal factors and criteria. The logical core of typical
WLA analyses and water quality concerns can be summarized with three
main points.
1. For most projects, EPA anticipates that the WLA will be based on
dissolved oxygen and/or nutrient (N,P) water quality criteria. Of
course, other water quality criteria will be considered when rele-
vant to the particular project being reviewed. (A significant
additional criterion is ammonia, in relation to fish toxicity).
Within this context:
a. If D.O.-related WLA's are proposed (BOD, NH3/TKN, reaeration),
specify the D.O. criterion in the WQS for the surface waters in
question. Are there minimum and average components in the D.O.
criterion?
b. If nutrient (N or P) WLA's are proposed, are there numerical
ambient criteria for these nutrients, if yes, specify. If not,
are there other provisions in the WQS that address nutrients,
such as narrative criteria that water should be free from aquatic
nuisances, algal counts, chlorophyll criteria? Explain.
c. If WLA's are proposed for parameters other than those related to
D.O. or eutrophication, are there provisions in the WQS for their
control?
2. EPA will use the following criteria when evaluating WLA's related to
dissolved oxygen (BOD, TKN, reaeration.)
a. A steady-state, Streeter-Phelps-type analysis or model (considering
both carbonaceous and nitrogenous wastes) at the critical flow
condition is acceptable, unless existing water quality data or
the hydraulic setting clearly indicates significant time and
flow varying D.O. problems.
b. The predictive capabilities of the analysis/model must be adequately
demonstrated. This can be accomplished through calibration and
verification using two independent sets of water quality data
for the receiving water in question. If calibration and verifi-
cation are not done, the WLA documentation must explicitly describe
how the predictive accuracy of the analysis was established.
-------
-3-
c. Weather-related nonpoint sources (NFS) loadings do not have to be
considered directly in low-flow situations; however, the analyses
should make reasonable allowances for any leachates, benthic
oxygen demands, and background D.O., BOD, and ammonia.
d. An analysis based on historical data should have been made to
determine the critical conditions for streamflow and temperature
if not prescribed by State WQS.
e. If the critical flow situation is not a low flow, then it must
be indicated how NPS loadings were considered; this is particularly
true for combined-sewer situations.
3. EPA will use the following criteria when evaluating WLA's for nutrients
(P, N):
a. The analysis must demonstrate why a nutrient/eutrophication
problem is anticipated based on existing ambient water
quality data and field observation.
b. Sources and loadings of nutrients from both point sources
and NPS must be evaluated, including estimates of the
relative contributions from each. Annual mass balances
should be presented.
c. The analysis must indicate how the limiting nutrient was
identified and evaluated for the water body in question.
d. The analysis must indicate how the decision criteria for
maximum nutrient loadings were established for the water
body in question.
e. If NPS loadings will be the major source of nutrients after
the proposed plant is operating, the justification must
describe what BMP's were considered and selected or rejected.
How and when will the BMP's be implemented?
Scientifically Accepted Procedures
The objective of this section is to define an approach to the
methodology of wasteload allocation. The approach anticipates
linkages to coordinate complex analysis techniques. Analysis and
the related policy problems are complicated by a large number of
interacting factors. Among these factors are included: point
source (PS) wasteloads, nonpoint source (NPS) loads contained in
land washoff, possible combined sewer overflows (CSO) and inter-
actions of meteorologic conditions that effect pollutional stress
including streamflow, rainfall and water temperature.
Within this framework there exist mathematical computer models
with which the environmental impacts to water quality can be studied.
These models range from simple to complex. Models are tools for esti-
mation of water quality impacts for constant or steady pollutant loads.
The intent of EPA is that when one uses complex models to handle a
complex situation, the margin of safety for load allocation can be
reduced.
-------
-4-
Water Quality Standards
The WLA approach assumes that stream standards are given, and are
consistent with the designated use classification of the receiving stream.
In this regard, it should be noted that all waters, including intermittent
streams, regulated by State water quality standards must be classified and
meet the criteria applicable to that classification. These standards may
provide for time-limited variances for specific dischargers, as long as
existing uses are protected. In general, a specific variance proceeding
is preferred to a general downgrading.
Where intermittent streams do not currently meet designated uses and
cannot attain these designated uses due to 1) natural background features;
2) irretrievable man-induced conditions; or 3) widespread adverse econo-
mic and social impact (See 40 CFR 35.1550 (c)(2) ), a downgrading is
warranted. However, no downgrading may impair or preclude existing water
uses. EPA is developing guidance on downgrading of use classification
based on widespread adverse economic and social impact (item #3
above).
Wholesale downgradings are not permitted, and would violate EPA regu-
lations 40 CFR 35.1550* Also, intermittent streams often serve an impor-
tant role in stream ecology as spawning and feeding grounds. Therefore, to
determine whether a downgrading from the "fishable" classification is
warranted, a site-specified investigation of the particular inter-
mittent stream segment by qualified engineers or scientists is required.
For downgrading to be approved based on natural background or irretrievable
man-induced conditions, this field survey would have to show that the
site does not support fish survival or propagation, and even with dis-
charges at normal levels meeting existing water quality standards would
not support a fishable use.
The link between wasteload allocations and stream standards is a
mathematical model to predict water quality as a function of waste
discharges. Such models exist and are integral parts of the methodo-
logy. For such a method, the wasteloads are one of a set of required
input data. Other members of the set include: geometric definition,
upstream and tributary streamflows, water quality of streamflows, quan-
tification of forces other than gravity that influence the water move-
ment including tides and radiation, and parameters that define the
transformations of the water quality.
The WLA methodology has the following elements, any of which may
be greatly simplified given technical justification:
1. Based on a preliminary review of the discharge site and the
expected impact of the pollution load, selection of a model
is required. This model should be calibrated and verified
for use in the WLA. For DO, the normal model will be a
Streeter-Phelps type (Considering both carbonaceous and
nitrogenous waste) unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
For nutrients, a rational and defensible approach should
be defined; a typical acceptable method for a lake is an
annual mass balance linked to a Vollenweider assessment.
*Refer to OGC #58 dated March 29, 1977-
-------
-5-
2. A determination of the magnitudes of the wasteloads as a
function of location and future population and land use.
a. The point source loads are subjected to various treatment
levels in accordance with current policy and may be trans-
ported to various points according to different local
and regional collection schemes. The array of these
possibilities becomes the alternative set for allocation
analysis.
b. The NPS loads may or may not be a factor in the final WLA.
At the beginning of a WLA analysis, NPS loads must be
evaluated to determine if they should be directly consid-
ered in situations involving nutrients and eutrophication.
3. A determination of what constitutes the "design event" or critical
conditions is required. The design event, expressed in terms of
such variables as streamflow, temperature and waste discharges,
describes a specific condition under which water quality standards
must be met. One allocates waste loads for the design event but
should, if appropriate, make allowances for seasonal variability.
This design event takes into consideration discharger exemptions
from portions of WQS, when natural background conditions, such as
flow, naturally high pollutant concentrations, etc. preclude
attainment of some existing or designated uses. However, all
WQS required to support uses that exist under low flow conditions
must be met. Furthermore, effluent must not cause a nuisance, due
to objectionable deposits, floating debris, or objectionable color,
odor, taste, or contain toxic pollutants in toxic concentrations.
For point source loadings, low summertime flows are usually used.
For nonpoint source loadings no usual condition or standard of
practice exists. In some cases, the problem of defining the
"design event" can be avoided by using continuous simulations
with a mathematical model. A continuous simulation continuously
translates a time series of hydrologic, meteorologic and waste-
load conditions into a continuous representation of water quality.
The results of continuous simulations can be inspected and the
failure frequency can be evaluated more directly.
4. The acquisition of data pertaining to how the waters respond
to wastes is necessary. Either existing data may be assembled,
or a field program is needed. Such field programs should be
of short, intense duration and should measure waste inputs and
water quality responses simultaneously for at least two separate
situations (high and low flows or warm and cold water or two
other events for which water quality responses are different
for the same receiving waters).
-------
-6-
5. EPA recognizes the concept of tranferability of water quality
data from one discharge site to another similar discharge
site. However, it should be emphasized that transferability,
although an acceptable concept, is not applicable in every
situation and calls for considerable judgment on the part of
the water quality analyst to determine whether a situation is
amenable to modeling based on transferred water quality data.
EPA is currently developing detailed guidance on the use of
transferred water quality data, and the criteria and constraints
within which such transference may be attempted.
6. The fitting of the forecasting method (mathematical model) to the
data is necessary. A two data set approach is the standard practice:
a. The first data set is used to adjust the transformation
parameters of the model until observed water quality
agrees with forecasted water quality. This process is
called calibration.
b. The second data set is used in the calibrated model to
independently check the forecast. If the model can
forecast the second data set the model is verified.
7- The forecasting of water quality for the "design event" using alternative
WLA's is conducted in order to prescribe the WLA. Two strategies
are possible in the implementation of this element, each of which
is oriented to determining whether or not carrying capacity is
sufficient to prevent violation of water quality standards.*
a. The alternative projected loadings can be individually
analyzed and the water quality forecast. Degree of
treatment levels are gradually increased until the
water quality standards are satisfied.
b. It is possible to work directly with the carrying capacity.
The maximum amount of wasteload that can be introduced into
the water and still satisfy the water quality standards is
determined. This amount is allocated to the dischargers.
8. An analysis of the impacts of errors, or changes in parameters, forecasts,
and modeling assumptions upon the wasteload allocation is desirable.
This sensitivity analysis is useful for the WLA review process.
*Note that Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations require
that an margin of safety be included in the WLA. Also, note that nondegradation
requirements apply for the National Resources Water listed on page 6 of PRM-79-7.
-------
-7-
The methodology of wasteload allocation studies is complex and the
normal mathematical model is a Streeter-Phelps type that handles carbon-
aceous and nitrogenous components. Other methods exist and all methods,
from simple hand calculations to computer models, require a detailed
data base describing the quality and the hydrology of the receiving
waters. Water quality data should, if possible, quantify and qualify the
following physical, chemical, and biological parameters: BOD, dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, total dissolved solids, pH, coliforms,
chlorophyl-a, biomass information, eutrophication evidence, temperature,
suspended solids, turbidity, and sediment. Other parameters related to
domestic wastewater may be needed in specific cases.
The hydrologic description of the receiving waters generally requires
stream flow data, velocity data, location of tributaries and point
source discharges, nonpoint source contribution rates, water withdrawal
rates and other alteration of natural stream flow. Stormwater discharges
are also of importance to many models as are meteorological data and
stream channel geometry.
Modeling the impact of nonpoint source pollution requires additional
input concerning land use, topography, and soil types.
The particular emphasis and specifics of each method and site
determine the level of detail as well as the specific categories of data
required for an analysis. Current thinking is that two intensive surveys
of a one to two weeks duration be conducted to support such studies.
One survey supports model calibration and the other supports model
verification. A rule-of-thumb for effort expended in field activities
is that they should be budgeted to the same or higher levels as the
modeling analyses.
Documentation _for_ Evaluation
An EPA WLA review is thorough and detailed. The information needs
for the review cover the water quality management field: Water uses,
water classifications, benefits of cleaner water, standards, data,
modeling and WLA. A list of twelve information areas is presented here
to specify the detailed documentation necessary to thoroughly justify a
WLA:
1. Definition of receiving water, its uses and possible health
issues (maps with demographic features) and the general hydraulic/physical
setting (velocity of waters, gradient, lake or estuary, dimensions
of impact or recovery zone, nature of bottom such as sandy or
rocky and similar details).
2. Specification of impact zone, existing water quality (show
data and evidence of problems) and of future water quality
with proposed facility (for examples give modeling results)
and of existing aquatic growth problems if nutrients influence
level of treatment.
3. Justification and defense of design condition (low flow, water
temperature).
4. Presentation of numerical standards, their relation to uses
and stream classifications and their consistency with Red Book
criteria.
-------
-8-
5. Statement that existing water quality meets adopted WQS, or where
disparities exists, indicate whether downgradings or upgradings
are warranted. (Since most classified streams are designated for
fishable/swimmable uses, proposed downgradings will probably pre-
dominate.) Downgradings must be justified on one of
the three grounds described on p. 3, as specified in the WQS
regulation 40 CFR 35.1550.
6. Specifications of previous field surveys and data used to support
the analysis (quality versus time and quality versus distance
graphs are very useful as well as details of measurements of waste
inputs, instream quality and hydraulic variables) including, if
possible, biological surveys and findings.
7. Tables of annual nutrient loads by category, PS, NFS, background
and by limiting factor (if nutrient problem impairs water use).
8. Details of determination of an allowable nutrient loading with
linkages to nutrient removal requirements (permissible area loading
to lakes and National Eutrophication Survey procedures are typical
level of detail).
9. Technically sound and detailed analysis of NPS and their relationship
to treatment requirements (pull together Basin Plan, 208 and any
EIS studies and tie it into presentation).
10. Presentation, specification, and discussion of methods (models or
otherwise used to analyze field data, calibration and verification)
and give the projections and waste load allocations.
11. Tabulation of calibrated model parameters (carbonaceous decay,
nitrogenous decay, aeration, benthic uptake, temperature cor-
rection factors, logarithmic base (10 or e), and related para-
meters with justifications of their selection).
12. Tabulation of existing and proposed effluent flow and strength;
include nearby PS and NPS data to show relative importance
of proposed project.
-------
-9-
Checklist of Problem Area
This list identifies typical "flaws" observed in materials presented
in support of WLA justifications:
1. Hard data are not presented. Observed data from instream sampling
and effluent sampling both in graphical and tabular form are
desirable to enhance WLA justifications. The data should be
matched by descriptions of how samples were obtained; e.g., grab
samples, composite samples, diurnal effects, etc. In addition,
the standards should be stated numerically. NPDES permits,
existing and proposed, should be included.
2. Modeling results presented have not shown demonstrated calibration
and/or verification. Also needed is the rationale for rates used
and for model inputs, particularly where these differ from field
measurements or particulars presented elsewhere in supporting docu-
ments. The modeled results should demonstrate consistency with
other project justification presented.
3. Benefits of stream clean-up as the result of project implementation
have not been well presented. Typically absent from materials pre-
sented have been details of instream water quality standards vio-
lations or public health problems that the project, as implemented,
would alleviate. Administrator approval of projects is ultimately
based upon such justification.
4. Maps are not detailed enough or are absent. "A picture is worth a
thousand words" is a dictum relevant to WLA justifications.
5. Regional Context and the role of NPS and BMP's have been downplayed.
The project as implemented should result in significant improvements
to water quality and/or the public health. Beneficial results of
the project should not be negated by NPS problems that are not
addressed.
6. Blanket effluent discharge limitations often appear unjustified.
They often do not show thoughtful application to the specific situation.
7. Design treatment flows, population and flow projections often seem
overstated.
8. Critical design conditions are too stringent based on expected
probabilities. In particular, it may not be reasonable to use
the highest one-day temperature of record for any time of year,
with a criterion such as 7Q10 low flow. Temperatures used in
steady-state low-flow analyses should be weekly averages that
would occur during the same calendar period as the low-flow
event.
In addition to these "short run" flaws that will disappear as this
methodology is standardized, there is the major question of model selec-
tion. This issue is expected to dominate the efforts to enhance and
refine this guidance.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^7.7*0*° WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
1 2 JUL 1979
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Construction Grants
Program Requirements Memorandum
PRM No. 79-10
SUBJECT: Qualification of Major Items of Equipment
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator O
for Water Program Operations (WH-546) T
TO: Regional Administrator
Regions I-X
Purpose
This memorandum sets forth guidance for the qualification of major
items of equipment for construction grant projects. This guidance is appro-
priate for use during either Step 2 or Step 3 phases of construction.
Discussion
The following qualification procedures are for optional use by
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grantees who desire to qualify major
items of equipment for construction grant projects with the approval of the
EPA regional offices. Under 40 CFR 35.935-2,(43 FR 44071, September 27, 1978)
the Regional Administrator may review grantee procurements including equip-
ment qualification and may request additional grantee actions consistent
with applicable statutes and regulations.
Qualification is a system that may be used to ease the administrative
burden of determining responsive, responsible bidders on equipment. However,
qualification is not a conclusive determination of responsibility and a
qualified equipment bidder or offerer may be rejected as nonresponsive on
the basis of subsequently introduced information e.g., shop drawings. In all
cases the equipment furnished must comply with the specifications.
-------
There are a number of necessary minimum requirements for any quali-
fication system. Whether the qualification procedure is to take place in
Step 2 or Step 3, all of these requirements must be met. If the qualifica-
tion is to occur during Step 2 the qualification information package will
not contain plans and specifications. Therefore a qualification information
package containing the relevant information must be prepared. This package
must contain enough specific detail regarding performance and quality to
assure that equipment sources will thoroughly understand what is required
of the specified equipment.
Adequate advertisement is critically important to assure that knowledge
of the project is widespread and so that new manufacturers, small firms and
minority businesses are provided an opportunity to compete. Adequate time
must be allowed for submission of the necessary information for qualification
review since an overly strict time frame would limit competition. This
should conform to 40 CFR 35.938-4(b) ,(43 FR 44080, September 27, 1978),
generally 30 days. Adequate time mus't also be provided for the engineering
evaluation of the qualification packages submitted.
Policy
A. Advertisement
The grantee is responsible for accomplishing adequate advertisement for
qualification. Whether qualification occurs during Step 2, or during Step 3,
the advertisement procedure shall conform to Section 35.938-4(a) of the EPA
regulations. The advertisement procedure for qualification shall also conform
to the local regulations regarding advertisements for construction bids.
In addition to advertisements, private mailings to known equipment sources
may be made. Mailing lists of equipment sources are available from trade
journals and technical associations. The advertisement shall contain all
information needed by the sources to properly submit information regarding
their equipment for consideration. The advertisement shall include the
following as a minimum:
1. Address and telephone number of grantee.
2. Name, size and type of plant.
3. Name, address, and telephone number of the designer and
name of contact for inquiries.
4. Location where qualification information package can be obtained.
5. Cost of qualification information package -- (this should not exceed
the price that bidders must pay to obtain bidding documents).
-------
6. Brief schedule of equipment needed in the construction project
that is to be qualified (e.g., filter press).
7. Locations of qualification information for review by interested
individuals. These locations should be the same as those used
for additional information for contractors interested in bidding.
8. Deadline for submittal of qualification packages by equipment
sources. This should be a minimum of 30 days from date of
advertisement to allow adequate time for equipment sources to
prepare their qualification package. Longer time periods should
be provided for qualification submission for complex systems.
B. Qualification Information Package
The qualification information package, prepared by the design engineer,
shall include the construction bid package plans and specifications or
suitable extracts of this information if qualification occurs during Step 2.
These specifications shall be performance specifications where possible and
in all other cases conform to the two brand names or equal requirement. In
addition to the plans and specifications, a description of the package the
equipment sources submit for qualification consideration should be included.
The equipment sources should submit catalog cuts or readily available
specifications and drawings of their equipment and any supplementary information
that would be helpful in the evaluation. It should be stressed that shop
drawing quality submittals are not required or wanted in this phase of the
project.
All equipment manufacturers or distributors interested in supplying their
equipment for the project must submit a qualification package for approval,
including the suppliers who propose to furnish the equipment which may
have been preliminarily named to indicate the salient requirements of the
equipment desired. This is required so that all equipment offerers have the
same opportunity to submit information for consideration, and to assure that
the equipment offered fully meets all requirements of the specifications.
A time schedule of the qualification and bidding process must be
included in the qualification information package.
C. Evaluation
Evaluation of the qualification submission shall be completed by
the design engineer within 30 days from date of closing of submittals of
qualification packages. At the end of the review period, the grantee
will notify all proposers of their status (by registered mail return
-------
receipt requested). Such correspondence should contain notice consistent
with EPA protest regulations described below that any protest actions must
take place within the time limitations described in 40 CFR 35.939(b), (43
FR 44083, September 27, 1978). By addendum to the specifications, the
grantee will notify the holders of the bid package of the equipment that
has been qualified for the specific project.
D. Protest Procedures
Protest procedures regarding qualification must conform to EPA reg-
ulations 40 CFR Section 35.939, (43 FR 44083, September 27, 1978).
The proposer of any equipment qualified as a result of a protest
will be notified by the grantee and a further addendum to the specifications
will be sent to the bid package holders.
In those cases when qualification takes place during Step 3 the
entire process (including protests to the grantee, if any) should take place
within the time frame of the advertisement for construction bids and the bid
opening. When qualification takes place during the Step 2 adequate time
must be allowed for submittals and prompt determination of qualified
equipment must be made. All protests should be resolved before the bidding
process. In order to satisfy this requirement, grantees must state in the
qualification information package and notification to proposers of their
status that any decision on qualification is final grantee action and the
time for protests under 40 CFR 35.939(b), (43 FR 44083, September 27, 1978),
begins to run from the date the proposers receive notification of their
status from the grantee. Failure to protest within one week of this time
period will result in finding the protest untimely. Consistent with the
procedures of this memorandum, after determination of the qualified equip-
ment no other equipment can be considered.
Qualification does not exempt the supplier from meeting the
specifications. The specifications are the final authority for acceptance
of equipment. Approval of a qualification package does not eliminate the
need for shop drawing submittals and approvals during construction.
E. Construction Delays
If bidding is significantly delayed, then the qualification process may
be reopened by the grantee with the EPA regional office approval in order
to allow consideration of equipment sources that may then be interested in
supplying equipment. In such cases the previously qualified equipment need
not be reconsidered.
-------
F. Other Qualification Procedures
Qualification procedures consistent with state or local law which
provide the same considerations in terms of competition may be used
in lieu of these procedures.
G. Public Inspection
On the cut off date for submittal of qualification packages for evaluation
a list of all equipment sources that have submitted qualification packages
shall be published. Whether the packages themselves become available for
public inspection will be decided by local ordinances on the subject of
public disclosure.
H. Costs
The cost incurred by the grantee incidental to qualification of
major items of equipment for inclusion in a construction grant project are
eligible for construction grant funding during the step in which they are
undertaken.
Attachments
-------
GO
O
D.
OJ
3
c:
-o -o m
OJ -S .0
n ID c:
QJ o>
ia -s
en
3
.0 c-h
c:
01 co
—> o
-1- c:
-h -S
-"• O
O fD
Oi fD
CO
o
CL
Q>
O
3
CD
fD
CO
O 3
3 fD
-S
OJ 10
3
CL O
o
m 3
< to
OJ -i.
—' Q.
c: i
Cb fD
3 to
-a
fD
-s
o'
CL
-a
ro
Advertisement for Submittal
Qualification Packages
of
Submittal
'Package
of Qualification
Notification of Equipment Sources
of Outcome of Evaluation
Advertisement for Bid
Attachment 1
-------
CO
o
Q.
Q>
to
o -o m
O> -S .Q
rt- CD C
-j.-o -••
o o> -a
3 -s 3
CD CD
T3 3
&> -O H-
O E
7 CO
a> —' o
U3 -J. C
CD -h -S
to ->• n
I CD
CO
o
Q.
OJ
00
-o o> o
cu rt- n>
O -"•«/>
7T O -••
fll 3 tQ
ua 3
CD O) CD
to 3 -s
Q. to
m o
< o
fa 3
1 tO
c —«•
JU Q.
r+ fD
o' i
3
O)
3
-a -o
fD -S
-S O
-••
------- |