Working for Clean Water
An Information Program for Advisory Groups
Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
Instructor Guide
-------
-------
This program t.ns prepared by
The Pennsylvania State University
Institute of State & Regional Affairs
Middletown, PA 17057
Dr. Charlea A. Cole
Project Director
Dr. S. Drannon Buakirk, Jr.
Project Co—Director
Prof. Lorna Chr. Stoltzfua
Editor
Thvo guide was prepared by
E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Advisory Teccn for the Project
David Elkinton, State of West
Virginia
Steve Frishman, private citizen
Michele Frame, private citizen
John Hammond, private citizen
Joan Jurancich, State of California
Richard Hetherington, EPA
Region 10
Rosemary Henderson, EPA Region 6
George Hoessel, EPA Region 3
George Meiss, EPA Region 5
Ray Pforrner, EPA Region 2
Paul Pinault, EPA Region 1
Eariene Wilson, EPA Region 7
Dan Burrows, EPA Headquertera
Ben Gryctko, EPA Headquartera
Robert Hardaker, EPA Headquarters
Charles Kauffman, EPA Headquarters
Steve Maier, EPA Headquarters
EPA Project Officer
Berry H. Jordan
Office of Water Programs
Operations
Aoknow?.edgcnente
Typists
Jan Russ . Tess Startoni,
Ann Kirach, Janie Fuller
Student Assistants
Fran Costanzi, Kathy DeBatt,
Michael Lapsno, Mike Matilda
Terry Switzer
Graphics support was provided by
the Office of Public Awareness,
Environmental Protection Agency.
This information program was
financed with federal funds from
the (1.5. Environmental Protection
Agency under Cooperative Agreement
No. CT900980 01. The information
program has been reviewed by the
Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily refl ct the
views and policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement of
recommendation for use.
This project is dedicated to the
memory of Susan A. Cole.
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public
Law 92-500, is a landmark piece of environmental legislation. In
addition to setting a national goal of zero pollution discharge, it
provides the basis for managing the nation's water quality. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established rules
and regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act, including
the use of cost-effectiveness analysis in the facility planning
process. Cost-effectiveness analysis permits the selection of a
plan from among alternative proposals. It is an attempt to integrate
all important considerations early in the planning process.
Upon the completion of this session the participant should:
• Know the scope of cost-effectiveness analysis
• Be familiar with the assessment procedures
• Understand the role of citizens in analysis of the alternatives.
Required Materials
DSet of slides and cassette tape for the audiovisual presentation,
"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis"'
DSlide projector, cassette-tape player, and screen
DSet of transparencies with overhead projector and chalkboard or
flip chart with easel for guided discussion
DCopy of the handbook "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis" for each
participant
DCopy of the handouts for each participant. They include: Problem
Background (1 page), Selected Nonmonetary Effects (1 page), Discount
Tables (2 pages), and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Accounts Sheet,
Present Worth Analysis (3 pages)
DElectronic calculators (optional).
-------
Important Notes
1. Several instructional options exist. The instructor may:
a. Show the slide—tape program without 8ubstantive discussion
b. The audiovisual presentation may precede a problem exercise
c. The audiovisual presentation and the problem exercise may
be covered together . In this arrangement, the slide—tape
program is stopped several times at musical interludes. At
these intervals, various aspects of the exercise are discussed.
The arrangement of alternating the slide—tape program and the
exercise should reinforce the cost—effectiveness analysis
principles.
2. In preparing for the presentation, preview the slide—tape
script. This program features a case study. Principles of cost—
effectiveness analysis are not introduced until relatively late
in the program.
3. Charts are used to facilitate discussion. It may be necessary
for the instructor or an assistant to prepare these charts prior
to the presentation. The contents for the charts are listed in
the Appendix.
4. Charts made by the instructor should contain only information
that is essential to the discussion. Charts with many words or
numbers are difficult to read. However, transparencies of
numerical tables may be needed for discussion of the present
worth analysis.
5. Small electronic calculators can greatly speed up the
computations.
6. Do not hand out the answers to the problem exercise (i.e.,
present worth analysis answer sheets) until the end of the session.
These answer sheets are separate from the background information
and worksheets.
7. Some persons have an aversion to economics or mathematics.
In dealing with these problems, the instructor must be able to
present the material with minimum technical jargon, and maximum
practical experiences and anecdotes.
8. Encourage the participants to t,ake notes on the discussion.
Worksheets are provided. Note—taking will reinforce the learning
experience.
2
-------
Suggested Activities
Introductory Comments . . . 5 minutes
Audiovisual Presentation . . 16 minutes
Guided Discussion 34 minutes
Closing Remarks 5 minutes
TOTAL TIME 60 minutes
Introductory Comments (5 minutes)
1. Give a little history of the use of cost—effectiveness
analysis in water quality planning. Mention the impetus of
Public Law 92—500 and The Clean Water Act amendments of 1977.
2. Discuss briefly the procedure’s role, advantages, and dis-
advantages (e.g., bias towards quantified monetary costs).
3. Caution the participants that they are advisors rahter than
analysts who will perform the studies. The analysis can involve
very technical considerations. The objective of this session
is to get the participants familiar enough with
cost—effectivenss to provide meaningful advice, rather than to
develop technical competence.
Audiovisual Presentation - Guided Discussion
(50 minutes)
Note: The A/v presentation may be played in its entirety after See item 6 which
discussion of the first five items OR used step—wise at approp— follows.
nate points throughout.
1. Discuss the scope of cost—effectiveness analysis. The EPA Use chart 1 on
has published guidelines (Federal Register, vol. 43, No. 188. Elements of Cost—
September 27, 1978) for comparing wastewater management alterna— Effectiveness
tives. The topics include effectiveness in meeting goals, Analysis.
monetary costs, financial costs, environmental effects, social
and economic effects, technical reliability, implementation
feasibility, and public acceptance.
2. In the detailed cost—effectiveness evluation, additional
considerations and procedures must be taken into account. They
are:
• Total present worth calculations for monetary costs — a pro-
cedure for estimating costs to a point—in—time
• Flow reduction approaches such as water conservation programs
(watersaving devices, pricing policies, regulations, and public
education)
3
-------
• Staging of collection and treatment facilities.
Use chart 2 on 3. The formation of a facilities plan is not limited to these
Wastewater Manage— topics for cost—effectiveness analysis. Other considerations
ment Options. are required by the law and EPA regulations in developing alt
natives. They include considerations of:
• Treatment and discharge of the effluent by conventional
methods
• Innovative and alternative systems, especially land treatmei
and wastewater reuse.
Cost—effectiveness analysis provides an opportunity to see th
all of these considerations have been included in the plannin
effort.
Use chart 3 on 4. The participant may question where all these considerationE
Water Quality fit into the planning process. Cost—effectiveness analysis
Planning, primarily involves the latter steps of the process in which
the alternatives are formed, evaluated , and displayed for the
selection of a plan.
5. Much information has been introduced. Briefly recap the
main points , as: Cost—effectiveness analysis is a procedure
for comparing alternatives. Monetary costs and nonmonetary
factors such as environmental effects and implementation
feasibility provide the basis for the evaluation.
Ask the participants to keep these points in mind as the case
study and exercise are covered.
Script is in 6. Start the slide—tape program, “Cost—Effectiveness Analysis
Appendix. It documents the case study featured in the citizen handbook.
At this point either show the audiovisual without interruptio .
OR stop it at intervals to discuss the cost—effectiveness
problem. The musical intervals in the presentation provide
appropriate starting and stopping points.
7. The d’evelopment and preliminary screening of alternatives
are not a central focus of cost—effectiveness analysis.
However, they are important because data is gathered, and
assumptions are made at this phase which establish the
boundaries for the analysis.
4
-------
8. Briefly explore the roles that advisory groups have in this Important!
part of the planning process, such as:
• Identifying problems and need areas
sHaving knowledge of local values
‘Questioning analysis assumptions and procedures
Pointing out innovative and alternative technologies, and
multiple use options.
9. Restart the audiovisual presentation if using the second
instructional approach. Stop the tape at the next musical
interval.
10. The evaluation of monetary costs is quite important
in cost—effectiveness analysis.
Discuss the types of monetary costs that should be included in
an analysis, for example: capital, mitigation, opportunity,
operations and management (0&M) and replacement costs.
Which ones are apparently missing in the problem exercise?
Opportunity costs associated with a lost recreation site.
11. Present worth analysis is used to put all monetary costs on
a comparative basis by discounting future costs back to the
present. This procedure works like the interest rate computa-
tion in reverse.
Briefly discuss what is needed for a present worth analysis, such
as:
‘Disaggregated costs and benefits such as revenues from the
sale of waste nutrients
S Facility life span
•Water Resource Council interest and discount rate
‘Estimated salvage value of the facilities at end of the
project period.
12. Pass out the handout materials to the participants. Tell Use handouts on
them to look over the background for the cost—effectiveness Problem Background,
problem. At this point do not pass out the answer sheets to and Discount Tables.
the present worth analysis problem.
5
-------
13. Costs and revenues presented on the problem background
handout have to be calculated for each year for each alter-
native. These separate discounted costs and revenues are ther
aggregated into the following equation which gives the total
present worth (PW) of different alternatives:
Use chart 4 on Total PW = initial capital costs + PW of future costs —
Present Worth PW of revenues and salvage.
Analysis.
Go through one or two sample present worth calculations in thE
problem exercise. Have the participants follow along with tI
worksheets and discount tables. Simple, straightforward
calculations are suggested. These calculations should demons-
trate the use of the discount tables. Sample calculations cc
include upgrading costs and O&M costs.
Use handout on Hand out the answer sheets to the present worth analysis probi
Present Worth
Analysis.
Important. ’ Based upon this limited exercise, discuss how cost—effectiver
calculations can go wrong.
• Use of improper table discount rate and life span
• Costs of monetary benefits attributed to wrong years
• Inaccurate assessment of the magnitude of Impacts
• Avoidance of some costs such as opportunity costs
• Mechanical computation errors.
14. Mention the role of advisory groups in evaluating moneta
costs, such as identifying costs and benefits, and checking
assumptions and procedures of the analysis.
15. Start the audiovisual presentation again if using the
second approach. Stop the tape at the next musical interval.
(fee chart 5 on Non- 16. Nonmonetary effects are another important area in evaluat
monetary Factors. wastewater management alternatives. These additional factors
include:
• Environmental effects, including economic and social
considerations
• Resource use and energy consumption
• Reliability and feasibility
• Implementation capability
6
-------
• Public acceptability.
17. Not only are these considerations difficult to compare
quantitatively, but they are also very complex. Refer parti-
cipants to a list of approximately 30 environmental factors
given in the citizen handbook.
Discuss briefly the nonmonetary impacts of the problem exercise, Use handout on Non—
including: monetary Effects.
• Aquatic enrichment, possibly eutrophication
• Decreased stream diversity
‘Aesthetic losses and recreational losses
• Land owners inconvenienced by sewer construction,
traffic disruption, and noise
• Flexibility of staged—growth alternative
‘Temporary loss of wildlife habitat along sewer.
18. If using the second instructional option, start the slide—
tape program again and play it until the end.
19. The last step in cost—effectiveness analysis is the display
of all information for the comparative evaluation of alterna-
tives. An accounts sheet is often the best way to organize the
diverse categories of information.
Using the handout provided, set up a display of all the Use handout on Cost-
information for cost—effectiveness analysis of the alternatives Effectiveness
given in the problem exercise. Analysis Accounts
Sheet.
Please note that this analysis is abbreviated and incomplete,
and is used only for illustrative purposes.
20. Advisory groups can assist in this last part of the analysis
procedure. They can:
• Assist in identifying tradeoffs, especially the composite Important!
effects of alternatives
‘Evaluate all factors together.
-------
Closing Remarks (5 minutes)
1. Briefly reiterate the main points about cost—effectiveness
analysis that were discussed at the end of the citizen handbook.
They are:
‘Cost—effectiveness analysis permits the systematic com-
parison of wastewater management alternatives. The costs
of achieving comparable goals using different alternatives
are compared.
‘It should result in an integrated documentation of both
monetary and nonmonetary factors — a display that clearly
shows the tradeoffs among the alternatives.
‘The main components of cost—effectiveness analysis are
monetary costs, noninonetary factors such as environment and
social costs, and implementation considerations such as
system reliability.
‘Cost—effectiveness analysis is part of a five—step
planning sequence. It is most useful in the latter steps
of the process — the evaluation of alternatives, and
the selection of a plan.
Costs and benefits of several alternatives are compared
at the same point in time through present worth analysis.
‘Advisory groups can give valuable assistance at several
places in analysis process.
2. Answer any remaining questions.
8
-------
Selected Resources
Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan . EPA—430/9—76—015.
Washington, DC: Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal
Construction Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
May 1975. 32 pp. with references and appendices. Order
No. MCD-46.
This publication briefly discusses the facility
planning process. Featured are the considerations
at each planning step such as cost—effectiveness
analysis, the format of plans, and the relation-
ship of facility plans to other water quality
management and planning programs. More detailed
instructions are given in the January 1974 version
of the same document. This document is available
from the General Services Administration,
Centralized Mailing List Service, Building 41,
Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Give the
order number and the document title when placing
orders.
University of Wisconsin—Extension, Department of Engineering and
Applied Science. Facility Planning for Wastewater Treatment Works .
FP2O1 Second Series, seminar — workshop manual, “Cost—Effectiveness
Analysis” workshop. Atlanta, GA: Region IV, U.S.Environinental
Protection Agency, November 28 — December 1, 1978. pp. Bi—BlO
and El—El3.
This manual is used during an intensive four—day
series of seminars and workshops on current
issues in facility planning. Topics include:
cost—effectiveness analysis, innovative and
alternative systems; noninonetary assessment;
statutory and regulatory requisites; EPA policy
on the review of waste treatment alternatives;
small and Individual systems; project management;
public participation; land treatment, pretreatment;
sludge disposal; sewer system evaluation; plan
development. Order from Professor John Quigley,
University of Wisconsin—Extension, 432 North
Lake Street, Madison, WI 53706.
9
-------
Schmidt, C.J. and D.E. Ross. Cost—Effectiveness Analysis of
Municipal Wastewater Reuse . WPD—4—76—Ol. Washington, DC: Water
Planning Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1975
116 pp. with 5 appendices.
This book pertains specifically to alternatives which
reuse wastewater, but it contains a chapter on cost—
effectiveness analysis. This section gives the basic
procedures for the technique, the EPA cost—effectiveness
guidelines, and formats for present worth calculations.
This document is available from Library Services, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711.
Conclusions Wastewater Management Study of the Central Pennypack .
Publication Number 53. Harrisburg, PA: Bureau of Water Quality
Management, Department of Environmental Resources, November 1977.
78 pp.
The analysis of three wastewater management alternatives
is summarized. The key issues, the cost—effectiveness
evaluation, and an implementation schedule are given.
Appendices make up over half of the document, and
contain consultant reports, letters, and cost calcu-
lations. The position and rationale of the Department
of Environmental Resources are featured. Copies are
available free (as long as they last) from the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
Bureau of Water Quality Management, Division of Water
Quality, P.O. Box 263, Harrisburg, PA 17120
Construction Grants Program. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works.
Appendix A: Cost—Effectiveness Analysis. Federal Register .
Vol. 43, No. 188. September 27, 1978.
Copies of the Federal Register can be obtained through
local libraries.
10
-------
Appendix
A. Contents of charts for use by the instructor in the suggested
activities. These pages may be used to make transparencies, or
the contents may be copied onto flip charts.
1. Elements of Cost—Effectiveness Analysis
2. Wastewater Management
3. Water Quality Planning
4. Present Worth Analysis
5. Nonmonetary Factors
B. Handouts for use by the instructor in the guided discussion.
Copies will need to be made for each participant.
1. Problem Background
2. Discount Tables (2 pages)
3. Present Worth Analysis (3 pages)
4. Selected Nonmonetary Effects
5. Cost—Effectiveness Analysis Accounts Sheet
C. Copy of the script for the slide—tape program, “Cost Effectiveness
Analysis. t ’
1
-------
Elements of Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
Goal effectiveness Environmental effects
Monetary costs System reliability
Economic costs Implementation feasibility
Social costs Public acceptance
-------
Wastewater Management
Conventional treatment and disposal
Alternative and innovative systems
-------
Water Quality Planning
1. Determine problems
2. Define solution objectives
3. Develop alternatives
4. Evaluate options
5. Select plan
-------
Present Worth Analysis
Total Initial PW of PW of
Present = Capital + Future — Revenues
Worth (PW) Costs Costs
L’I
-------
C .’
Nonmonetary Factors
Environmental effects
Resource use
Reliability and flexibility
Implementation capability
Public acceptability
-------
Problem Background
In the screeningprocess, the wastewater management options have been narrowed down
to two alternatives with the same total treatment capacity and the same quality
of effluent. However, they differ as to costs, salvage values, construction
stages, and nonmonetary aspects.
Both alternatives are conventional treatment systems, consisting of a secondary
activated sludge process and gravity sewers. Unfortunately, the site for the
treatment plant is a wooded area that is presently used as a boy scout camp. A
shallow, slow—moving stream is to receive the effluent.
Mnetary Costs
Alternative A Alternative B
Capacity (million gallons per day) 10 mgd 10 mgd
Linear flow increase 2 to 10 mgd 2 to 10 mgd
over 20 years
Planning period (years) 20 20
Initial plant cost $3,000,000 $2,000,000 (@ 5 mgd)
Salvage value at end $0 $750,000
of 20 years
Upgrading cost at $0 $1,500,000
year 10 to 10 mgd
Constant annual $126,000 $84,000
o & M cost,
years 1 to 10
years 11 to 20 $126,000 $165,000
Variable annual $0 to 20,000
o & M cost,
years 1 to 10
linear increase $0 to 68,000
over 20 years
years 11 to 20 $0 to 29,000
linear increase
Interest rate 7% 770
Mitigation costs
Capital — year 1 $113,000 $65,000
year 10 $0 88,000
17
-------
(D
(0
I- ,
‘.
“1-’
(0
U)
I- ..
(1(9
)
-
7 o
0 ,.
I- ..
I- ’.
13
006)
6) rt
L i i
10
6)9)
o ocr
CD
( ( ‘(0
U,
03
00
I- ’ .
0
13
00
0
‘ - 4
(1
(9
I — .
O )
C -)
0
C
—I
-
03
In
C d)
Present Value l/(l+i)”
Present Value of Annuity
[ 1- (1+i) -ni/i
Periods
It ite
n
00 (0 )
0i35 (0 %)
07 7 )
075 (7 %)
08 (8%)
3
2
3
4
0101123
82 ’ ) ’ ‘411
83)0 1024
.7820 0301)
0111007(1
I (S ) ) ) 11 128
827541 )0(1
7773211)0
00457044
$714 1)172
5162117)1.0
7 1 ,28 0521
03021230
$ 0J 3201
8019 6037
.74S8 0033
028 )12501
R . 17.l .1)182
7)) IS .3224
73502685
S
7
8
0
747211S17
71116 0)41
14513 37)1.
6171 11)17
.5(1)8 (15(13
720)15001
O ’I&J ‘I I I .i
5)15 3J&6 I
(1042 JlI’I
5073 5 (2
71208 ’.IS
r, ’. I 1222
11227 4(74
5s4009 10
.5(36 2374
($11801
(1171) ulS?
6027 54011
3007 022J
.11215 5147
08038)20
I , ( ( ‘I 1.91.1
584
11 )02 (18)14
. ,$)2 4597
10
11
12
14
14
55.03 6)78
(.21)7 57’,.)
49(81 O ’IIO
.408)1 IDO l
4423 00011
1,32721,1)1
01512 122 I
4(1(1., 5285
(I II) 11,76
4141 0025
• os:s 4020
47501(9)10
.41101 I’ll)
.4146 0445
3878 1724
.4$ 1 41323
45)3 4)1’)
4)08 5413
3805I1 198
302J 1347
.4631 0 :3)’)
1288 825’
l7I 147 ,
367)) (‘706
.3104 01(1)
15
1 )3
17
1)1
10
4)72 1.1013
,1 (I , 41
37111112
(1101 4,17”
.5303 1301
1300763!
‘ )(,‘4 US) I
34.2)1 1231
.11)8 1 I ’II$I
.30224384
811044002
3 (87 3)110
.3105 7439
‘2939 6302
27650833
3370 (71412
31 I 3 8Lj’”l
2024 3202
.2,20 4,3.12
2.5300014
3152417”
2’! (S ‘ III)
‘2111.20.13
‘30.12 311)),
23)7 12011
20
21
22
2.)
24
31130171
21)11 55)0
277.3 0310
211179721’
246(17855
2017070)
21,647608
1502 1228
23104111
22060103
2584 1000
.24151)00
.2257 1317
2101340 ) 18
.10714062
2351 13)3
2)528327
1037 1007
.189403.10
.17027742
.2)404821
.1951 ,5,173
. 1 Il) .1031
ITO) I S IS
1.37(10934
25
..2
‘27
25
2”
21211 (30(13
211$ I0t ’3
200 )1,1 ’I11
1)36 lOll
1645 5074
207) 3901
1044 11579
10202315
.1714 71102
.1010 1310
1042 4016
1721 05)9
11,003017
.1504 012)
1405 0252
153’) V102
1523 .18 ( .
1413’Iul3
13)’) 1101,3
1227 8701
1410 1700
.1(52 0171.
12215(111!
130 1472
10732752
30
3!
82
3)
.31
1741 1(111
1 ) 125131
111195740
lIt,) 81,22
1370 1 (63
.111)18007
.141)) 3S7
1.132 1)100
1251 5 )2.5
. 117520 12
.13)3 6712
.12277(01
111/41)1
10723(70
.9002 I ’ 134
1142 2)01
11102 32 )2
Q’l$.S 3 ’lII ,
091941)1
08352877
0 ”M 7711
18)2 )1 ) )I5
0)152 (( /15
.078088’)l
01394341
35
.1(1
.17
IS
30
11010322
1227 4077
1 177 (‘3)8
Ill”! lsS 5
10(05354
.11014741
10 ), ) 12’ 17
0172 5117
0’!) I 5)) )
0.057 7)1310
0(13(1(11)04
u072 , ‘(34t ,
(131)1(1.43
((704 7 ”Ii
011.1 5501
070319104
1)740 (US)
0(1)18476’
(11,10 ‘I’3 ’10
O3U513 U
007(’1 III
(‘IL l, I I S O
tl3 ’I 1 .37.2
( II (I’ ‘l I ’,
0117 1)11
40
II
42
4 I
(JOll 72)0
O’IlT lu llS
.0 ”l,c 27)1)
((.8(1.210.1
081)541(75
0751 . 2 I2
071(199331
(11.01, 7371
0(1)7 00.10
(11,211151
IJSR 1 2157
(3543 121,3
031111015
03135204
0(70 (oIl
(514(1 10 I ’l
(11 1, 14 ) ()‘l I
(1111, .12.4
11711(411
0(15 41)1.1
41
07700908
0 ,328 06)9
030’) 4043
01)46804
0438.1)11
45
4(1
47
4(4
49
07211 Sti ) 17
04.0’. 17 ,1
00I1,53lI
0000 ) ‘ 3SlU
.05754566
1)337 “.1311
05’ )! (1711
0 ’ . 182 11 18
042.0 t ,.564
1 ,4560 ) 100
0)71, I’ll ))
0-144 I’1S3’I
041587 1T
,04S25 1 )o7O
.03032410
038 11 026.1
0331) 1)’ 19 )
03340-US
01107375
.02800582
04182788
0 ’2(’O 07.30
.021,85501
02 1S 6008
.02302003
50
.0542 8830
0429 0016
.0339 4770
.0268 8913
.02)3 2)23
Period,
Rate
n
.00 (0%)
.065 (Ilj%)
07 (1%)
.075 (7 %)
.08 (s ’%)
1
22
3
4
0 94338623
1 83330207
2 0730 1105
3.10510501
0 03306714
1 82(1(12642
2 54847.5111
34257 0500
0 03457044
1 501015 )7
2 (1243 1 (194
3 372 1120
0 03023256
3 70550517
‘2 0fl(3 , ‘2374
034032627
0 02592593
1 78320470
2 6770 90011
3 3121268.1
5
0
7
8
0
4 2123 6)70
4 1117.1 1(13
5 582.1 5144
6,2097 07 )81
6 80100227
4 15.3670(4
4 4(10 1156
5 4045 1077
0 0887 60110
0 85011)119
4 (609 6741
4 7005 3)1.0
5 385)28610
.5 97)2 1)86)
0 51523225
4 0453 (‘4’!O
4 01 )334042
5 2008 0)12
5 5373 0355
0 37888704
3 11027 2)114
4 6228 73 10l1
11 1)01.) 701133
& 7 .)1,13 9831
(3 24588701
ID
11
12
13
14
7 31.30870.3
7 84087433
8 3843 4394
8 8520 8200
020408404
7 19.58 2022
7 081)0 4241.
8 I r,37 2532
8 5087 4205
0 01384243
7 ( (2358 )31
7 4”.SG 74 I I
7 84213 81630
8 311765074
8 74546700
6 86400000
7 111342115
7 7352 7827
8 125.04 22 ( 1
8 48 ’J1 6373
0 71008140
7 1 ’0.’3 (1)26
7 6 It,)) 7804
7 ( 133,17 75(14
824423608
15
10
17
18
10
07)224802
20 1(35831527
10 4772 .S ’ll ,O
10 827,30145
11 1581 1649
(1 402o 115$5
0767704(8
10 I I l lS 7,170
10 4(2403338
10 73471(322
0 10701401
0 lt4 4800
0 71,12220))
20 01 (108631
10 3355 (1524
882711975
1) 11150674
0 41341.971 )
0 7060061)8
9 05907821
8801117869
S 1331’) 119111
1) 121634!)
0 27188714
9 00159020
20
2)
22
23
24
II 460’)2)22
II 71,4(171,06
12 0-115 13172
123(1(13781)8
1253035753
II 01530725
11.284’) 843
11 5351 11502
11770) 2o73
11(10(173871
10 50403425
1(3 8.155 273’)
11 0 (112 4(150
11 272)8733
1(4(1933400
10 10440910
11) 4134 80J3
10 6171 9101
105001,8331
10982011589
1)8)014741
19 018)10.110
10 201(7 42111
I I ) 3710 5 5 ’I5
1052)175323
25
2).
27
‘28
2))
12 7493 51,10
1.1 (13)3101,1’)
15 5105, .3414
1.11 4(101 (14’28
1356072)02
12 1078 7073
12 JO?’) 7231
12 5741) ‘1346
12 74 047 121,8
129(3745084
11 083511318
11 8237 751,7
11 1)567(1194
12 1171 192.0
12 277157107
11 140)1 4550
11 21)51481-132
11 441.1 8093
11 78377 1. . 1
110111,10521
19 67)7 7111”
It) $)iI I 77))’.
II) ‘1.31 1,177
IL (1 ’ .I ’i7 ”I’I
11 1331061))
30
31
1 )2
3:s
34
15 76183113
13 1 )200 85,10
14 (12.404.11’)
14 2302 2 (161
14 3u814114
13 058073)11
13 200(1.1103
13 .1331)2025
13 46’Jo 8850
13 87900892
12 40’ 01118
22 51(8 3010
12 1,41,8 65.42
12 75.17(1002
12 55800(136
1) 810(8627
‘1 31)1,19 3 ”4U
12 015,4 7737
12 10712090
12 (112 ) 14970
I I 9177)1.11)
II .31 ’ ll 19
I I 441’! 11)11
29 1)35)0337
11 33u93,IoT
35
. ‘ 1i,
17
:14
39
14 4042’lfl10
14 1.21.138711
II 7)672.11.11
14 8 ,0 1)6
(4 ( 1130741)8
1305(103073
13 70051, ) 170
12 8)1785)107
1.1 07112 1021
14 0(1408011
12 0 )71,7234)
12 ‘(‘.2 117714
11 1171) 11,11)
1.) 111.117(45
1.) 21,402041)
Il 27231111
12 ‘111)52214
12 4)3(093!
12 ‘ )7’ 14 1(31.
12 53868 ’JJl
11 1,3451)022
11 7(71 ‘3.172
I I 7751 71’51
11 ) 12SS
11 871.58240
40
11
4!
4,
44
1504670557
15 (3.80 1502
15 ‘2215, ‘3432
15 3u01 7294
15 ‘38418202
11 14552557
14 .12!) t ’lvO
31 11121 1J ) I I I
14 .1588.1705
14 42144227
133)170cM
13 4111 2011
11 1321 48’)3
1’) 5460 0(07
13 237u0810
123)14401.06
12 01300)53
12 61139 1772
12 7(55 28)1
1 ’2 78002613
1(0211113))
II 0572 1)37
32 (1)10), ¶“. ..7
12 0.1.12 (“SI
12 077U7l !
45
4,1
47
48
41)
50
15.181193200
96 (213691)0
I I, 5,5902821
15 (.5(10 ‘loOt
16.7075 7227
1576180004
14 4S0 ’22S 12
14 535-) 2375
14 587’ ! 5,462
14 (131.’) l ’ 146
14 6210 1151
14 72452067
III 60552150
1.1 1,30020(8
13 01)1 ( 1 070-1
I I 75047143
13 34079833
13.80074029
12 8190 2868
(2 8345.1143
(2 8 ( 47 642 87
1’2 1) 190 101)2
12 0470 2244
112 9748 1157
12 10310130
3? 1374 9’.’.t(
12 1(712 (‘I’ll
12 98’)) lii’)
12 2)21 ( III )
126111811,1
-------
DISCOUNT TABLES (coNTINuED)
Present Value of Gradient Series
n
7%
8%
10%
12%
15%
20%
n
1
2
3
4
5
0.0000
0.8734
2.5060
4.7941
7.6467
0.0000
0.8573
2.4450
4 6501
7.3724
0.0000
0.8264
2.3291
4.3781
6.8618
0.0000
0. 72
2.2203
4.1273
6.3970
0.0000
0.7S61
2.0712
3.7864
5.7751
0.0000
0.6944
1.8519
3.’986
4.9061
1
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10.9784
14.7149
18.7889
23.1404
27.7156
10.5233
14.0242
17.8061
21.808!
25.9768
9.6842
12.7611
16.0287
19.4215
22.8913
8.9302
11.6443
14.4715
17.3563
20.254I
7.9368
10.1924
12.4807
14.1548
16.9795
6.S806
8.2551
9.8831
11.4335
12.8871
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
32.4665
37.3506
42.3302
47.3718
52.4461
57.5271
62.5923
67.6220
72.5991
77.5091
30.2657
34.6339
39.0463
43.4723
47.8857
52.2640
56.5883
60.8426
65.0134
69.0898
26.3963
29.9012
33.3772
36.8005
40.15211
43.4164
46.5820
49.6396
52.5827
55.4069
23.1289
25.9523
28.7024
31 .3624
33.9202
36.1670
38.6973
40.9080
42.9979
44.9676
19.l289
21.1849
23.1352
24.9725
26.6930
28.2960
29.7828
31.1565
32.4213
33.5822
14.2330
15.4667
I6.5883
17.6008
18.5095
19.3208
20.0419
20.6805
21.2439
21.7395
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82.3393
87.0793
91.7201
96.2545
100.6765
73.0629
76.9257
80.6726
84.2997
87.8041
58.1095
60.6893
63.1462
65.4813
67.6964
46.8188
48.5543
50.1776
51.6929
53.1047
34.6443
35.6150
36.4988
37.3023
38.0314
22.1742
22.5546
22.8867
23.1760
23.4276
21
22
23
24
25
30
35
40
45
50
120.9718
138.1353
152.2928
163.7559
172.9051
103.4558
116.0920
126.0422
131.7331
139.5928
77.0766
83.9872
88.9526
92.4545
94.8889
58.7821
62.6052
65.1159
66.7J43
67.7625
40.7526
42 3587
43.2830
43 8051
44.0958
24. 678
24.6614
24.8469
24.9316
24.9698
30
35
40
45
50
Source
Grant, Eugene L., W. Grant Ireson, Richard S. Leavenworth. Prir
Engineering Economy . Sixth Edition., New York, NY: The Ronal
Company, 1972. pp. 606—607.
-------
Present Worth Analysis
Alternative A
Step 1
Initial cost = $3,000,000
Step 2
To find the present worth of operating costs, it will be necessary to
calculate separately the present worth of the constant costs and the
variable costs.
a. Present worth of constant annual costs equals that cost times the
uniform series present worth factor @ 7.0% for 20 years. Thus:
$126,000 (10.5940) = $1,335,000
b. Present worth of a variable cost increasing linearly is found by
first finding the amount of increase per year. This amount is
$68,000/20 years or $3,400 per year. This increase is known as a
gradient series. This series times the correct gradient series
present worth factor @ 7.0% for 20 years yields the present worth
of the variable cost. Thus:
$3,400 (77.5091) = $ 264,000
Step 3
Mitigation costs are at the base year. No discounting is necessary.
$ 113,000
Step 4
Sum of numbers obtained in the steps above yields present worth:
initial cost = $3,000,000
present worth of constant 0&M costs = 1,335,000
present worth of variable 0&M costs = 264,000
present worth of mitigation costs = 113,000
total present worth $4,712,000
-------
Present Worth Analysis (continued)
Step 5
As before, the present worth just derived times the capital recovery
factor @ 7.0% for 20 years will yield the average annual equivalent
cost. Thus:
$4,712,000 (.9439)= $ 444,800
which is the average annual equivalent cost of the plant for 20 years.
Alternative B
Step 1
initial cost $2,000,000
Step 2
Calculate the present worth of the 0&M costs as follows:
a. Present worth of constant annual cost years 1—10 equals given cost
times uniform series present worth factors @ 7.0% for 10 years.
Thus:
$84,000 (7.024)= $ 590,000
b. Present worth of the variable 0&M costs years 1—10 equals the
gradient series ($2,900) times the present worth factor of a
gradient series @ 7.0% for 10 years. Thus:
$2,900 (27.7l56)= $ 80,400
c. The present worth of the constant 0&M costs year 11—20 are first
calculated as in (a) above using the given cost for years 11—20.
This, however, yields present worth in year 11 which must be
converted to present worth in year 1. This is accomplished by
multiplying the present worth (year 11) times the single paymr
present worth factor @ 7.0% for 10 years (.5083). Thus, pr
worth in year 1 equals:
$165,000 (7.024) (.5083)= $ 589,100
d. The present worth of the variable 0&M costs years
calculated as in (b) above using the gradient Se ’
11—20 which is $2,900. This yields the presen t
which again must be converted to present wor
multiplying the present worth (year 11) tir
present worth factor @ 7.0% for 10 years
$2,000 (27.7156) (.5083)=
-------
Present Worth Analysis (continued)
Step 3
To determine the present worth of the upgrade cost which occurs at year
10, multiply the upgrade cost times the single payment present worth
factors @ 7.0% for 10 years. Thus:
$1,500,000 (.5083)= $ 763L000
Step 4
The present worth of the salvage value at the end of 20 years equals that
value times the single payment present worth factor @ 7.0% for 20 years.
Thus:
$750,000 (.2584)= $ 194,000
Step 5
The mitigation of impacts is done in two stages; costs in year 10 must be
discounted. Those in the base year are not discounted.
$65,000 + ($88,000 x .5083)= $ 109,700
Step 6
The sums of the values obtained in Steps 1, 2, 3, and 5 minus the value
obtained in Step 4 will equal the present worth of the plan. Thus:
initial cost $2,000,000
present worth of constant 0&M year 1—10= 590,000
present worth of variable 0&M year 1—10= 80,400
present worth of constant 0&M year 11—20= 589,100
present worth of variable O&M year 11—20= 40,900
present worth of upgrade at year 10= 763,000
present worth of mitigation costs 109,700
TOTAL $4,173,100
Subtract from the total the present worth of salvage value
present worth of salvage value= $ 194,000
total present worth $3,979,100
Step 7
As before, the present worth just derived times the capital inventory factor
@7.07. for 20 years will yield the average annual equivalent cost. Thus:
$3,979,100 (..09439)= $ 375,600
h is the average annual equivalent cost of the plant over 20 years.
-------
SELECTED NONMONETARY EFFECTS
1. Construction of the sewers will cause dust, noise, traffic disruption, and
other inconveniences. The total magnitude, at least initially, should be
less for the staged alternative. Social and secondary impacts such as
development are not considered extensively in either alternative.
2. Aesthetic and recreational losses occur as the woodland is cut for the con-
struction site, and the stream undergoes eutrophication. This impact would
be reduced slightly with the staged alternative.
3. A decline in diversity of aquatic organisms would also accompany the
eutrophication processes and construction activities. Full recovery from the
construction effects may be delayed by the staged alternative.
4. Low stream flows will not dilute the effluent sufficiently. Flow augmentation
with associated mitigative costs will be necessary. Except for timing, no
significant differences seem to exist between the alternatives.
5. Temporary wildlife habitat destruction will occur along the sewer routes from
construction activities. Depending upon the location of the interceptors,
more losses may occur with the nonstaged alternative.
6. Since the two plans for the treatment plant use the same site and same disposal
methods, no opportunity costs exist. However, the location of sewers through
prime farmland in one alternative, but not the other one, could generate
opportunity costs.
7. The staged alternative permits more growth flexibility compared with the other
option.
23
-------
COST—EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS /\CCOUNTS SHEET
Factor Evaluation
Alternative A Alternative B
1. Water Quality Goals
2. Monetary Costs
A. System Outlay Costs
B. Opportunity Costs
3. Financial Costs
4. Environmental Effects
A. Hydrology
B. Biology
C. Air Quality
D. Land
E. Energy and Resource Use
5. Social and Economic Changes
A. Land Values
B. Employment
C. Dislocation
D. Health
E. Aesthetics
6. Technical Reliability
7. Implementation Feasibility
8. Public Acceptability
24
-------
Audiovisual Script
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Slide Description Narrative
1. Cassette Start
2. Title: Cost—Effective Analysis Music
3. Map of Pa. with arrow Near the Southeast border of Pennsylvania is
the large metropolitan area that takes in
Philadelphia, Pa., Trenton, N.J., and
Wilmington, Del. Within this area, a rapidly
dwindling supply of open space and green
areas——and the occurrence of water quality
problems have in recent years been cause
for much concern.
4. Closeup of map of area At the heart of one particular wastewater
management controversy is an area known as
the Pennypack Watershed. It seems that the
area along Pennypack Creek represents the
only significant remaining green belt that
is adjacent to Philadelphia. And to preserve
this area and to deal with pollution problems,
5. Group of people at meeting the three local municipalities and a private
citizens group called the Pennypack Watershed
Association got involved in an interesting
was tewater management problem.
(Graphic)
6. List of alternatives In the early 1970’s, several alternative
wastewater management proposals had been
made; including:
a spray irrigation system
and
an interceptor or pipeline leading to an
existing wastewater treatment plant in
Philadelphia. Well, ——after the various alter-
native proposals were made, the problem
became -—
(Graphic)
7. Question mark over meeting How to decide which of the alternatives was
best for the area?
25
-------
(Graphic)
8. Cost—EffectIveness Analysis
(Graphic)
9. Facilities planning
6—step sequence
1. Determine problems
2. Define objectives
3. Develop alternatives
L4 Evaluate alternatives
5. Select plan
6. Revise plan
(Graphic)
10. Same as above, except number
1. Highlighted.
11. Photo of sedimentation
12. Split scene: Flooding
and dry stream beds
13. Photo of stream encroachment
(Graphic)
14. Facilities planning: highlights
1. Determination of problems
2. Definition of objectives
3. Development of alternatives
4. Evaluation of alternatives
5. Plan selection
6. Revision of continued planning
Cost—Effectiveness Analysis is the basis for
the selection of alternatives.
Cost—Effectiveness Analysis
is part of a 6—step planning sequence and is
most useful in the latter steps of the pro-
cess — the evaluation of alternatives, and
the selection of a plan.
First, of course, water quality problems must
be determined. Sometimes there is no present
problem existing. But, water supply and
wastewater treatment requirements must be
considered for the future.
For example, when it is projected that future
wastewater treatment will exceed present
capacity or if future treatment will fail to
meet water quality standards, then the com-
munity does have a problem.
Water quality problems on the Pennypack that
needed to be evaluated included:
Sedimentation and debris,
Flooding,
Seasonally low stream flows, and
Stream encroachment; developments were
gradually getting closer and closer to the
shoreline of the creek.
If it has been determined that problems do
exist, the next steps are to come up with
some answers to the problems — and develop
some alternative methods of dealing with the
different water quality problems.
26
-------
(graphic)
15. List of alternatives Some of the alternatives might include:
1) No facility needed——perhaps the problem
could be dealt with in another way;
2) the improvement of existing facilities;
3) conventional collection and treatment
systems; and,
4) alternative and innovative systens.
16. Photo of advisory group At this point, in the early planning stages,
Words ; advisory group input is very important.
17. Phased Development These and other considerations involve phased
Energy Requirements development, energy requirements, and multiple
Multiple Use Opportunities use opportunities.
18. Graphic of brainstorming session A good, old—fashioned brain—storming session
is what’s needed as a means of public partici-
pation. With input from all concerned citizens.
Ideas, no matter how unconventional they night
seem, should be discussed and considered.
Other modes of public participation exist, and
should be used.
19. View of Pennypack area In the Pennypack case, the following alterna-
tives were explored:
20. Split screen: -
spray irrigation/interceptor Of all the alternatives, the two that looked
most promising were spray irrigation and an
interceptor. Both of these alternatives net
water quality criteria and standards.
21. Population graphic Population projections were considered ——
and although they varied slightly between
consultants, the difference was not enough
to effect wastewater flow estimates.
22. Map of Pennypack Another consideration was one of the legality
of transferring wastes from one local govern-
ment authority into another.
27
-------
23. Advisory group picture Other assumptions, considerations,
alternatives——and, well ——the whole general
scope of the Pennypack study included:
(Graphic)
24. List —construction site availability
—environmental effects
—social effects
—public acceptability
—implementation feasibility
—legality
—site suitability and capacity
——and last but certainly not least——
—economic costs.
MUSIC
(Graphic)
25. Facilities planning Cost—Effectiveness Analysis, although used
sequence: highlight throughout the planning process, Is primar-
ily involved in the evaluation of alternatives.
—Determination of problems
—Definition of objectives
For each alternative various costs have to
—Development of alternatives
be determined. There are both monetary and
— Evaluation of alternatives
nonmonetary costs.
26. Monetary Costs: Monetary Costs examples might include present
and future capital costs, operation,
—present and future capital costs
maintenance and replacement costs, opportunity
—operation, maintenance and costs such as the loss of potential income
replacement costs or resources , and mitigation costs.
—opportunity costs
—mitigation costs
(Graphic)
27. PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS Since amounts of money and timing of money
outlays will vary among alternatives, it is
necessary to express them on a coimnon basis
——and at the same point in time.
Present worth analysis has been developed for
making such cost comparisons.
28
-------
What information is needed to make a present
worth analysis? Bow is the calculation done?
(Graphic)
28. Present Worth $ x (1 + r)t The present worth of future costs and benefits
Discounting / \ are estimated by a discounting procedure
I which, in essence, is the reverse of interest
Cost Interest Year
calculations. Hence, the discounting equation
Di as shown, is merely the opposite of the
P . interest calculation equation. In both
ate instances, the only information needed is the
cost, the interest or discount rate, and the
year in which the cost occurs.
(Graphic)
29. Total = Initial Capital Such costs are calculated on a year—by—
Worth (PW) Costs year basis, and are aggregated to give the
total present worth of each alternative.
+
PW of Future
Costs
PW of Revenues &
Salvage Values
(Graphic)
30. Same as above with present If all costs, monetary and nonmonetary, are
worth highlighted similar and treatment efficiencies are
comparable, the project with the LOWEST
PRESENT WORTH must be selected to qualify
for federal cost—sharing grants.
Music
31. ?hoto
Ducks -
32. Photo
decaying wood
In the case of the Pennypack, the consultants
did not agree on monetary costs.
As resolved by DER, the following cost
estinates were made:
29
-------
33. Bar graph The spray irrigation alternative had
Capital, operating and higher capital, operation and management,
management costs and replacement costs:
About 1/3 higher, than the interceptor
option.
34. Bar graph
Mitigation Costs Both alternatives would have adverse effects
on stream flows — the costs for lessening
these adverse effects are called mitigation
costs, and they would be about 3 times higher
for the interceptor.
35. Advisory group meeting photo Situations that will need mitigation are
commonly overlooked and advisory groups
can be of special assistance in identify-
ing such possible costs and pointing them
out to the agency or consultant.
(Graphic)
36. List of costs In the Pennypack case, it turned out that
the interceptor, at first, appeared slightly
less expensive than the spray irrigation
but that was without consideration of the
9 million dollar opportunity cost
(Graphic)
37. Same as above with opportunity that should be charged against the inter—
cost highlighted ceptor alternative. Overall, spray irriga-
tion was more cost—effective.
38. Photos split screen Other factors, such as energy use, reliability
and flexibility, and environmental impacts
House and field/geese by must be included in the cost—effectiveness
stream analysis.
Music
30
-------
(Graphic)
39. Nonmonetary evaluation If economic costs were all that mattered,
the alternative with lowest present worth
would be chosen; however, nonxnonetary
factors are just as important.
(Graphic)
40. List These factors are:
—environmental effects (including
social impacts)
—reliability and flexibility
—implementation capability
—resource use and energy consumption, and,
—public acceptance
(Graphic)
41. Same as above but with The environmental assessment is done
environmental highlighted concurrently with other studies in the
facilities planning process.
(Photo split screen)
42. Stream bottom sampling & An inventory of environmental conditions
groundwater sampling should be compiled. It will provide a
base against which predicted environmental
changes may be evaluated——sampling stream
bottom organisms, and taking groundwater
samples are examples of evaluation techniques
that can be included in the inventory.
(Graphic)
43. Direct and indirect effects Both direct and indirect environmental
effects may be revealed in the analysis.
44. Picture of treatment plant Direct effects relate directly to the
location, construction and operation of the
project.
Examples of direct beneficial effects include
recharged groundwaters from land treatment.
45. Photo of sewer overflow Negative effects may include erosion along
sewer lines, overflows from sewer manholes,
odors, loss of open space, noise, and air
pollution from incinerated sludge.
31
-------
(Graphic)
46. With indirect highlighted Indirect effects are the indirect changes
that are induced by a project.
PHOTO:
47. development near stream These include changes in population, economic
growth, and land use such as development
around sewer interceptors.
Split screen:
48. spray/interceptor photo In the Pennypack example, regarding environ-
mental effects, spray irrigation was much
more advantageous compared to the interceptor
alternative.
49. Stream photo Spray irrigation would increase streainf low,
while the interceptor would reduce streamf low.
Spray irrigation would permit more kinds of
aquatic organisms to live.
50. Photo of deer Spray would stimulate less development,
thus disturbing fewer wildlife habitats, and
51. Photo of spray system would require less use of treatment chemicals,
but much greater commitments of land and
energy resources.
52. Photo of Park area
Spray would make feasible open spaces and a
wilderness park.
PHOTO:
53. Advisory group meeting with It is not enough for an advisory group to
different advantages and simply identify the advantages or disadvan—
disadvantages tages of various alternatives because if
the project is to succeed in the long run,
it must be acceptable to the people.
54. News headlines The advisory group should assist in
developing a public participation program
such as informational meetings and media
publicity that reaches all elements in the
community.
55. Field photo: Stream
56. Wildlife photo: Bird
57. Wildlife photo: Deer
32
-------
Music
(Graphic)
58. Plan selection The selection of the alternative plan that is
best suited to a community’s water quality
goals is the main purpose of facilities
planning,
59. Cost—effectiveness analysis and cost—effectiveness analysis provides the
basis for this decision.
60. Sample of accounts sheet All significant costs and effects of each
alternative must be clearly displayed. Costs
and effects can be displayed in various formats,
although an approach suggested by EPA is an
accounts sheet.
61. Pennypack accounts matrix
As shown by the matrix for the Pennypack,
these accounts can be quite lengthy. It
is not always easy to see relationships
among the various items.
Photos:
62. Woman at meeting But individuals do not have to deal with
these costs and effects alone , that’s why
there is an advisory group , to help each
other.
63. Advisory group photos . . . to, as a group, assist in identifying
tradeoffs, especially the composite effects
64. of alternatives ——and to evaluate all
factors together.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69. Pennypack acknowledgement Credit slide
70. Produced by The Pennsylvania Credit slide
State University, The Capitol
Campus, under a grant provided
by U.S. Environemental Protection
Agency
END
•0 S VESflMfl t PSIUTtNC OPPtCS 1980 34 1—0821113
33
-------
Working for Clean Water is a program designed to help
advisory groups improve decision making in water quality planning.
It atms at helping people focus on essential issues and questions,
by providing trained instructors and materials suitable for persons
with non—technical backgrounds. These materials include a citizen
handbook on important principles and considerations about topics
in water quality planning, an audiovisual presentation , and in-
structor guide for elaborating points, providing additional infor-
mation, and engaging in problem—solving exercises.
This program consists of 18 informational units on various
aspects of water quality planning:
Role of Advisory Groups Innovative and Alternative
Technologies
Public Participation
Industrial Pretreatment
Nonpoint Source Pollution:
Agriculture, Forestry, and Land treatment
Mining
Water Conservation and
Urban Stormwater Runoff Reuse
Groundwater Contamination Multiple Use
Facility Planning in the Environmental Assessment
Construction Grants Program
Cost—Effectiveness Analysis
Municipal Wastewater
Processes: Overview Aastewa er Facilities
Operation and Maintenance
Municipal Wastewater
Processes: Details Financial Management
Small Systems
The units are not designad to make technical experts out of citizens
and local officials, Each unit contains essential facts, key ques-
tions, advice on how to deal with the issues, and clearly—written
technical backgrounds. In short, each unit provides the information
that citizen advisors need to better fulfill their role.
This program is available through public participation coordinators
at the regional offices of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
------- |