United States National Training EPA-430/1 -81 -024
Environmental Protection and Operational May 1981
Agency Technology Center
Cincinnati OH 4S268
Water
SERA Construction Grants
Process for State
Agency Personnel
Videotape Instructor
Manual
-------
EPA-430/1-81-024
May 1981
Wastewater
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROCESS
FOR
STATE AGENCY PERSONNEL
COURSE 250,2
VIDEOTAPE INSTRUCTOR MANUAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Training and Operational Technology Center, Cincinnati, Ohio;
Office of Water Programs Operations, Municipal Construction Division,
Washington, D. C.
i
-------
US/EPA
This is not an official policy and standards document. The
opinions, findings and conclusions are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Every attempt has been made to represent the current policies
and regulations of the EPA at the time of publication. How-
ever, periodic changes are made based upon the EPA's desire
to improve the efficiency of administering the Construction
Grants Program.
The Instructor and Student Manuals were prepared by
Albert T. Bowyer of A. T. Bowyer, Inc., Towaco, New Jersey.
Project direction and guidance were provided by Mr. Joseph F.
Santner of NTOTC, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Mr. Albert L.
Pelmoter of OWPO, U.S. EPA, Washington, D. C.
ii
-------
In 1 97 2 Lli*; ConyreoH enacted the "Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments" and authorized
$18 billion for the construction of needed
wastewater treatment facilities. This complex
and far-reaching legislation stated, "it is
the national goal that the discharge of pollu-
tants into the navigable waters be eliminated
by 1985" and "...wherever attainable, an
interim goai of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water be achieved
by July 1, 1983."
In 1977 the Congress enacted "The Clean Water
Act" which strengthened and provided antici-
pated midcourse corrections to the earlier
legislation. The Congress reaffirmed its
commitment to water pollution abatement as
represented by the authorization of an
additional $24.5 billion for fiscal years
78-82 for the construction of needed waste-
water treatment facilities.
The funds as authorized by Congress are
allotted to the states and territories of
the United States based on their need for
water pollution abatement projects. Each
state or territory in turn is required to
identify and rank on a priority basis all
needed projects within its territorial
borders. Municipalities or other legally
constituted bodies are then encouraged or
required to construct these projects in
order to abate water pollution.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
is authorized to provide grants of 75% (up
to 85% for eligible projects) to those
municipalities certified by the states as
entitled to priority over all other projects
on the states' priority list. Grants are
for planning, design, and construction
of these projects.
The Construction Grants Program is, of
necessity, very complex considering the
potential social, economic, engineering and
111
-------
environmental impacts of the construction
of wastewater treatment facilities. The
responsibilities placed on grantee munici-
palities are at times overwhelming, and a
need exists for regulatory agencies to help
these municipalities in satisfying regula-
tory requirements. State agencies in turn
require knowledgeable dedicated personnel
to work with grantees and efficiently
administer the grants program.
The Construction Grants Program is adminis-
tered by the Municipal Construction Division,
Office of Water Program Operations, through
each of EPA's ten regional offices. The
EPA regional offices work in concert with
their counterparts in state agencies to
insure that projects conform to the statutory
and regulatory requirements of the Act.
In addition to providing the authority and
funds "The Clean Water Act of 1977" also
stated that "it is the policy of Congress
that the states manage the Construction
Grants Program under the Act..." The dele-
gation of management functions to the states
began in 1978 and requires that states
wishing to assume delegation develop an
organizational structure, and hire and
train the required personnel to carry out
the program. Each EPA Regional Administrator
is authorized to enter into individually
negotiated agreements with his/her respective
states for this delegation.
During the winter of 1979/80 a training
seminar entitled "Construction Grants Pro-
cess for State Agency Personnel—Course
250.2" was developed and delivered to 14
of the 24 states desiring delegation. This
seminar series provided the training for
the initial influx of new state employees.
A need exists, however, for additional
training of new state employees as more and
more of the program functions are delegated
to the states.
In an effort to assist with the additional
training requirements, EPA has prepared this
iv
-------
training seminar in two formats. The
course may be conducted "live" by expe-
rienced state/federal personnel using
Instructor and Student Manuals with
accompanying slides in a classroom set-
ting. Alternatively, the seminar may be
presented using prepared videotapes accom-
panied by Instructor and Student Manuals.
This Instructor Manual is designed for
use with the videotape presentation.
The Instructor and Student Manuals were
prepared by Albert T. Bowyer of A. T. Bowyer,
Inc., under contract to EPA. Questions or
clarifications of items contained in these
manuals may be directed to Mr. Bowyer at
Box 134, 698 Main Road, Towaco, New Jersey
07082/ telephone 201-263-2707.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
PART I - INSTRUCTOR MANUAL 1
Introduction and Purpose 1
Course Objectives 3
Required Facilities and Equipment 4
Instructional Faculty Requirements 5
Precourse Planning 5
Course Length 6
Handout Material 6
Final Preparation 7
PART II - COURSE DELIVERY 8
Classroom Viewing 8
Instructor Lesson Plan 8
Course Opening 9
Official Welcome and Course Objectives 9
Handout Material Use 10
Student Evaluation 12
Special Videotape Notes 12
PART III - INSTRUCTOR LESSON PLANS 14
ILP # 1 Evolution of Federal Role in Financing
and Abating Water Pollution 15
ILP # 2 From Legislation to Practice 26
vi
-------
Page
I LP # 3 State Program 38
I LP # 4 Facilities Plan Review 51
ILP # 5 Avoiding Delays and Resolving Problems
During Facilities Plan Preparation 76
ILP # 6 Step 1 Grant Processing 89
ILP # 7 Step 2 Grant Processing 104
ILP # 8 Problems and Delays During Step 2 117
ILP # 9 Plans and Specifications Review 121
ILP #10 Step 3 Grant Processing 131
ILP #11 Procurement of Construction Contracts I42
ILP #12 Monitoring of Construction Activities 155
ILP #13 Summary of Financial Considerations 171
ILP #14 What Delegation Means to the State
of 10°
APPENDIX 184
Sample Student Course Evaluation Form 185
Source Course Materials 186
v11
-------
PART I INSTRUCTOR MANUAL
INTRODUCTION
AND PURPOSE
This Instructor Manual has been prepared
to aid instructors in the planning and
delivery of training for the administra-
tion of the Construction Grants Program
using prepared videotapes. A separate
Instructor Manual is available for "live"
presentations of the course. In both
cases, students use an identical Student
Manual when taking the course.
The course is designed as an introduction
to the construction grants process and is
geared toward new state agency personnel.
Under "The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977"
state agencies are authorized to assume
program functions that were formerly
carried out by EPA. States are adding new
personnel to their staff and students
attending this course may be engineers,
scientists, planners, environmentalists,
or grants administration personnel.
This course was initially developed in 1975
to provide training to over 300 new EPA
and state employees. The original forty
hour course was delivered at EPA's ten
regional offices. In 1979 the course was
revised to reflect changes brought about
by the CWA and restructured to reflect
experiences gained during the initial
offering. The resulting course provides
an overview and substantial detail of the
entire Construction Grants Program. The
revitalized course was delivered at eight
locations during the winter of 1979/80
and attended by students representing
fourteen state agencies.
The subject of the course is the management
and administration by state agencies of
the Construction Grants Program. However,
the object of the grants program is the
construction of needed wastewater treat-
ment facilities which abate water pollution
1
-------
and do so without creating worse environ-
mental problems. Projects may include
new, upgraded or expanded sewage treatment
plants, pumping stations and force mains,
intercepting sewers, collection sewers, and
the storage and treatment of combined sewer
overflows.
The course addresses technical issues to
be considered in the planning and design
of treatment facilities. However, the
course is not intended to be a sanitary
engineering design nor environmental impact
statement preparation course. The purpose
of the course is to introduce students to
the Construction Grants Program and provide
a foundation from which students will grow
in their technical and administrative duties.
As the course was being revised in 1979,
thought was given to developing the course
in modules such that states which were
receiving limited delegation functions
would only train their employees in those
functions. While that is still possible
due to the breakdown of topics, it is not
recommended. Rather, it is recommended
that all students receive the entire course.
The program is so complex (52 other federal
laws impact the Construction Grants Program)
that no one person or group can nor should
administer all functions. Therefore, it
is important for the students to understand
the interrelationship between various depart-
ments and functions in order that they better
understand their job and coordinate their
activities with others.
The course begins with a legislative history
of federal involvement in water pollution
abatement. Understanding the history of
the program is not a prerequisite for
students to perform their duties. However,
the history reveals the evolution of prob-
lems and the congressional response to solve
them. This in turn places the various
planning functions, which precede a project,
in proper perspective. Following the
legislative history the course briefly
2
-------
explores the many planning and coordina-
tion functions carried out by the state
and EPA. The planning functions are
designed to assure the efficient expendi-
ture of public funds to projects of highest
priority. Thereafter, topics are presented
for the processing and review of Step 1-
planning, Step 2-design, and Step 3-construc-
tion of the resulting projects.
A second purpose of the course is to train
students in the awareness and use of other
reference documents. No one publication
nor regulation contains all the information
for all the material to be reviewed during
the processing of a grant. Rather, informa-
tion is contained in handbooks, regulations,
program requirements memoranda (PRM's),
executive orders, agency policy statements,
etc. The students, therefore, must be aware
of and know how to use the various publica-
tions in order to seek out necessary infor-
mation. The author of this manual found it
very instructive when asked a question to
have students look up the answers first in
the Handbook of Procedures (MCD-03) or
regulations. If these documents did not
answer the question, the instructor provided
additional information to fully answer the
question. This procedui^e is strongly
recommended for it forces the students to
use the course handout material which in
turn prepares the students for independent
work.
The instructor is reminded to carefully set
the stage for this course. Students will
not enter as neophytes and at the conclusion
exit as experts. The course marks the be-
ginning of their formal education in the
construction grants process.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
This manual is intended for use by instruc-
tors to train new state employees in the
administration of the Construction Grants
Program. At the conclusion of the course
the students should have:
3
-------
1. A familiarity with water quality manage-
ment planning;
2. An understanding of a state's priority
system and list for candidate projects;
3. A working knowledge of the contents of
and procedures for reviewing facilities
plans;
4. A working knowledge of the procedures
for processing Step 1, Step 2, Step 2+3
and Step 3 grants;
5. A working knowledge of the procedures
used in reviewing plans and specifica-
tions and monitoring construction
activities;
6. An awareness of the considerations for
determining the allowability of project
costs;
7. An understanding of financial considera-
tions in processing grants; and
8. A thorough familiarity with and working
knowledge of the Handbook of Procedures
and regulations 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E.
As an indirect objective of this course,
the students should become aware of their
own ignorance and project an appreciation
of the problems and frustrations faced by
new municipal grantees. Perhaps with this
awareness students will strive to gain
knowledge and help grantees in satisfying
their responsibilities.
REQUIRED FACILITIES
AND EQUIPMENT
The equipment for the videotape presentation
of this course includes a color television and
a 3/4" U-matic video cassette recorder. Optional
equipment includes a blackboard or large
drawing pad as necessary.
It is recommended that class size be limited
to no more than 10 students. Classes larger
4
-------
than this may have difficulty viewing the
television screen. Each student should be
seated at a desk which allows for writing
notes or spreading out course materials.
Students should be encouraged to write down
questions or note in their outlines points
which are not clear. At the conclusion
of each video segment, the instructor will
entertain questions and clarify items which
were not clear to students.
INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY
REQUIREMENTS
Instructors should be current EPA or state
employees with three or more years experi-
ence in the Construction Grants Program.
Ideally, three faculty members should be
used, each representing a different per-
spective such as engineering, environmental
evaluation, and grants administration.
One faculty member should be designated as
the lead instructor and assume responsibility
for the overall scheduling and coordination
of the course. It certainly is possible to
use one instructor but this requires con-
siderable time for that instructor and limits
opinions to one perspective.
PRECOURSE PLANNING
Plans for this course should be made a few
weeks in advance. Preparation will include:
1. Student selection - the ideal student
should be a new employee with between
thirty days and six months on-the-job
experience. It may be necessary to
request candidate names from other
departments or divisions. Class size
should be limited to 10 students.
2. Faculty selection - the faculty must be
selected and provided with a copy of
this Instructor Manual in order for
them to become familiar with the material
being presented. Whenever the instructor
wishes to supplement the prepared mater-
ials, supplementary notes should be
prepared and included in the Student
Manual.
5
-------
3. Schedule classroom facilities including
television, VHS videotape recorder,
tables, chairs, etc.
4. Course announcements and/or invitations
should be distributed three weeks in
advance.
5. Handout materials (Handbook of Procedures,
MCD-03, and regulations 4 0 CFR Part 35
Subpart E 9/27/78) should be ordered
from EPA well in advance of the course
delivery. Also, student outlines must
be reproduced and assembled in notebooks.
COURSE LENGTH
The "live" presentation of this course is
designed for three full days. However, the
videotape presentation should be given over
a much longer period of time, recognizing
that videotape viewing can become rather
taxing for students. A recommended schedule
includes six hours per week which, for example,
may include two hours each on Monday, Wednes-
day and Friday. At this rate the entire
course would last slightly over three weeks
(37 parts each at one-half hour). The
instructor should take care to insure that
complete topics are given at each session
or at least by the end of a week. Splitting
topics from one week to the next will cause
confusion and preclude continuity. For
example, Topic #4, Facilities Plan Review,
contains seven parts (3.5 hours) all of which
should be presented in one week.
HANDOUT MATERIAL
The basic handout materials consist of the
following:
1. "Handbook of Procedures, Construction
Grants Program for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works" - MCD-03. This hand-
book is extremely helpful to students
and is essential for course delivery.
2. Regulations 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart E -
Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works (Federal Register Vol. 43, No. 188,
Wednesday, September 27, 1978). EPA has
printed multiple copies of these regula-
tions, and it is important to obtain the
copy which includes the preamble.
6
-------
3. Student Manual - Each student is to
receive a manual which contains outlines
of the material to be discussed. The
outlines are similar to the instructor's
outlines contained in this manual, but
omit all of the special instructor notes.
4. Course critique, copies of which are
attached.
5. Other regulations or materials which
represent later or supplementary infor-
mation which, in the opinion of the lead
instructor, will improve the course
delivery.
The lead instructor shall contact the local
EPA regional office to obtain multiple copies
of items 1 and 2 above. Generally, copies
may be ordered from:
General Services Administration (8 FSS)
Centralized Mailing List Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
(Indicate the publication title and
MCD number.)
FINAL PREPARATION
If more than one course instructor will be
used, the instructors should meet at least
one week in advance of course delivery.
This will allow instructors to decide which
instructor will be present for each session,
provide an opportunity to clarify points in
the Instructor Manual and prepare new
material, if any, based"on revised regula-
tions, PRM's, etc.
As a final check the instructor should insure
1. Handout materials all received and
assembled in notebooks;
2. Classroom facilities ready, TV and VHS
available;
3. All students notified of dates and
starting time;
4. Directions to meeting room clearly dis-
played in lobbies, hallways or elevator
exits.
7
-------
PART II COURSE DELIVERY
CLASSROOM VIEWING
Instructor Lesson
Plan (ILP)
Instructor lesson plans have been prepared
for each topic. With videotape presenta-
tions the instructor need only review the
outlines paying particular attention to
the notes, and be prepared to discuss the
subject matter at the conclusion of each
video part. The instructor is encouraged
to use his/her own experiences as a supple-
ment to the videotapes.
The instructor will note that each video
part includes questions to be answered by
the students. A brief pause occurs after
the question and the instructor may wish to
turn off the TV and allow students time to
answer the question. The instructor may
then wish to have a discussion with students
concerning the question and answer. After
the discussion the TV may be turned on and
the answer will be provided. After each
part or topic the instructor will entertain
additional questions from the students.
Instructors are cautioned about duplication.
For example, the review of the state priority
certification form appears in Step 1, 2 and
3 grant processing. This subject need only
be covered once in any detail and later merely
referred to. The same duplication appears
for UC/ICR, pretreatment, application form,
A-95 clearinghouse comments, procurement
for A/E services, etc. The lead instructor
must insure that instructors coordinate
their comments and avoid duplication.
8
-------
Course Opening
The lead instructor should welcome students
and introduce himself/herself. The instructor
will state the course name and indicate the
course purpose and objective. Handout mater-
ials should be displayed to insure that all
students have the required material. The
instructor will briefly list the material
to be covered and indicate the starting and
completion times for each day.
It is often helpful to indicate the location
of rest rooms and when and where coffee or
other refreshments may be obtained.
In general, it has been found beneficial to
explain to students what they can expect
from the course and indicate the ground
rules. It appears that the more students
understand what to expect, the more receptive
they are.
Official Welcome and
Course Objectives
It is recommended that a senior agency official
welcome the students to the course and make
a few appropriate comments. The appearance
of the senior official lets the students
know that the agency feels the training is
important and that the students warrant his/
her attention. The senior official may want
to state the overall course objectives as,
for example
"I welcome you to this course in the Construc-
tion Grants Process. As you will learn during
the course, the issues, regulations and pro-
cedures are rather complex. We expect that
you will become familiar with some of the
details of the grants program and realize
that this is the beginning of your grants
education. We also trust that you will learn
how to use the reference materials in order
that you will be able to work as independently
as possible. Once you have had this exposure,
we expect that you will continue in your
education through independent actions and by
attendance at other courses which the agency
will offer.
9
-------
It should be apparent to you at the conclu-
sion of this course that you require addi-
tional on-the-job training. Can you imagine
how a grantee feels when he finds out his
responsibilities? Grants are not a full-time
job for grantees as it is for you. Grantees,
we in the state, and the federal government
need your dedicated help. As you proceed
through the regulations and procedural
requirements, never lose sight of the main
objective, that is, the abatement of water
pollution but not at the expense of creating
worse environmental problems."
Handout Material
Use
The handout material was discussed in Part I
of this Instructor Manual. It has been found
to be instructive to review the material
with the students at the beginning of the
course. The Handbook of Procedures should be
described briefly, including the procedures
for updates (TM's). It should be explained
that most items in the handbook are broken
into four elements, namely, purpose, dis-
cussion, review procedures and references.
The handbook will be retained by the students
for their own use.
The regulations are a second reference source
and will be retained by the students.
Students will follow the lectures by using
their outlines. Notations or underscoring
may be made by the students in the margins,
etc. Hopefully, the outlines are complete
such that students will not have to take
copious notes.
As was mentioned earlier, one of the objec-
tives is to acquaint students with the refer-
ence materials. Below is an example of how
this may be done based on a student question.
Assume during the Step 2 grant application
that a student asks the question -
Student: "I was told that applicants needed
to have executed intermunicipal
agreements at the time of Step 2
10
-------
application. You indicated it is
up to the Regional Administrator
of EPA to determine on a case-by-
case basis whether these agree-
ments must be executed. I assume
you are correct but could you cite
your source please?"
Instructor: "Let's assume this question is
raised by an applicant during
a phone conversation with you.
Your boss is on vacation and
everyone else in the office is
out. What do you do. First,
advise the applicant that you
will find the answer and get
back to him/her. Next, turn to
the contents of your Handbook
of Procedures. Look under
Step 2 Grant Processing."
Instructor: Ask everyone to follow the
instructions above and ask the
students, "Does anyone find
intermunicipal agreements?"
The table of contents shows
this topic as Chapter V, item
E.4., page V-ll. Have all
students turn to this page in
the Handbook of Procedures and
read the entire section. The
discussion and review procedures
state that the Regional Adminis-
trator has the authority to
determine if the agreements must
be executed or not. Assume,
however, that the student wants
more verification. Have the
students check the regulations.
Instructor: Ask everyone to look up 40 CFR
35.920-3(b)(6) in the Septem-
ber 27, 1978 regulations on
page 44063. Ask one student
to read item (6) aloud.
The instructor will make the point that the
Handbook of Procedures can and should be
used as the first source of answers. If
the handbook does not fully answer the
question, references should be checked.
11
-------
STUDENT EVALUATION
It is helpful to the instructional staff to
obtain some feedback from the students re-
garding the course and its presentation.
One means of obtaining this feedback is
through the use of student evaluations of
the course contents, videotape visual aids,
course length, presentation, etc. The
student evaluations should be objectively
reviewed, taking into account their varied
backgrounds.
A sample student course evaluation form is
included in the appendix.
SPECIAL VIDEOTAPE
NOTES
Topic #5, "Avoiding Delays and Resolving
Problems During Facilities Plan Preparation,"
is not included in the videotape presentations.
Rather, the two problems are to be presented
by the instructor as described in the ILP.
Instructor lesson plans (ILP) are provided
for each topic in the next section. The
ILP's show the topic number, objective,
videotape running time for each part, the
required equipment (color television and
VHS videotape recorder except for Topics
#5 and #14) and the location of the questions
and answers as they appear on the tapes.
In addition, the ILP's have an introduction
summary and various instructor notes through-
out the outline. The videotapes contain all
of the information in the ILP. However, the
instructor notes are provided as supplements
to the tapes and student outline to insure
that the issues being addressed are clearly
noted. The videotape instructor may wish
to read the introduction or summary as he/
she feels appropriate at the beginning or
end of each part. The ILP's also indicate
by horizontal lines the location where each
part ends and a new part begins. Following
each ILP the questions and answers from the
videotapes are included for the instructor's
information.
12
-------
Topic #14, "What Delegation Means to the
State of is not included in the
videotape presentations but may be included
or omitted as the instructor desires. The
ILP containing suggestions for discussion
of Topic #14 is included.
13
-------
PART III
INSTRUCTOR LESSON PLANS
14
-------
INSTRUCTOR H
LESSON PLAN I
Topic #1: EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL ROLE IN FINANCING
AND ABATING WATER POLLUTION
Objective: Students should observe the growth and changes in the
federal role of abating water pollution. Particular
attention should be directed toward the following changes:
incentives/enforcement; 2% loans/85% grants; engineering/
comprehensive planning; few million ?/multi billion $.
Videotape Part 1 14:27
Running Part 2 28:30
Time: Part 3 30:03
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" U-Matic Video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
The federal concern for water pollution abatement was first recog-
nized by the U.S. Public Health Service. The USPHS is charged with
maintaining and reporting on the nation's health. Water pollution is a
known vehicle for the transmission of communicable diseases and as such
actions are necessary to control this source of disease. However,
over the years water pollution is also recognized to have a significant
impact on the social, economic and environmental well-being of a
community. Recognition of these additional concerns is reflected
in the elevation and restructuring of the federal agency responsible
for implementing water pollution abatement programs. Beginning with
the U.S. Public Health Service, responsibility for water pollution
control moved through the following agencies to its present location
in EPA.
1. Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
U» S. Public Health Service, Department of HEW; thence
2. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA),
Department of HEW; thence
3. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA),
Department of the Interior;
15
-------
Lesson Outline #1
Question
& Answer
Location
4. Federal Water Quality Administration (FWQA),
Department of the Interior;
5. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Executive Branch.
The U. S. EPA was created in 1970 and brought together many of
the federal programs concerned with man and his environment. In
corresponding fashion, the Congress recognized the growing problems
in water pollution control as noted by the following legislation.
NOTE: The instructor alerts students to observe the changes in the
legislation, particularly regarding:
i) from incentive grants to enforceable requirements
ii) from loans of 2% to federal grants of 85%
iii) from engineering feasibility to comprehensive planning
iv) from a few million to multi billion dollars
I. P.L. 80-845 "1948 Water Pollution Control Law"
- $22.5 million/yr; FY 1949-1953; 2% loans for construction of
wastewater treatment works; limited to $250,000 or one-third
project cost
- $1 million/yr; FY 1949-1953; grants to states for pollution
control studies
- $800,000/yr; FY 1949-1953; grants to develop plans and
specifications for construction
II. P.L. 82-579
- passed in 1952; extended 1948 Act for three additional years
NOTE: Neither of the two laws was funded bv Conqress and therefore
no loans or grants were made. The real beginning of federal
involvement began with P.L. 84-660.
III. P.L. 84-660 "1956 Water Pollution Control Act"
$50 million/yr; grants to construct wastewater treatment
works; limit 30% or $250,000/project for interceptor or STP
16
-------
Lesson Outline #1
Question
& Answer
Location
$3 million/yr for states to prepare pollution control plans
NOTE; The instructor points out that a limit of $250,000/project is
not much help for large cities and therefore these cities en-
couraged Congress to raise the grant limits. Also, primary
treatment ("primary treatment or its equivalent resulting in
substantially complete removal of all settleable solids") was
the only federal standard required for a grant. The legislation
provided a modest beginning for states to begin for planning
how they would attack water pollution.
The instructor points out that students may hear reference
in their offices to "660" projects. These are older projects
funded under this legislation or later amendments.
IV. P.L. 87-88 "1961 Amendments to P.L. 84-660"
extended P.L. 84-660; raised grant limitation to $600,000/
project or 30%; limit of $2.4 million/project or 30% for
multimunicipal projects
NOTE: Grant limit raised to assist larger municipalities. Also,
larger limit for multimunicipal projects - first signs of
planning beyond one's own political boundaries.
V. P.L. 89-234 "Water Quality Act of 1965"
- states required to establish water quality standards by 6/30/67
NOTE: Incentives alone could not get municipalities moving. Required
states to establish water quality standards as prelude to
enforcement.
VI. P.L. 89-753 "Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966"
grants to 30%; no $ limit
- grants to 40%; if state made 30% grant
- grants to 50%; if state made 25% grant and had adopted
enforceable water quality standards
17
-------
Lesson Outline #1
grants to 33%, 44% or 55% as above if project approved by
metropolitan or regional planning agency as conforming with
comprehensive plan
NOTE: No dollar limitation - large cities finally get fair share.
More incentive if states help with grant monies - projects
too expensive for municipalities on their own. Grants to 50%
if states establish enforceable water quality standards -
"carrot and stick" policy. Each grant could be increased by
10% i£ part of metropolitan or regional plan - planning
becoming more important.
Question
& Answer
Location
Q & A
1-4
End
Part 1
NOTE: Comparison - The comparison material below is not in the student'
outline. Current information may be obtained from "Clean Water
Fact Sheet" published each month by the Office of Water Program
Operations, EPA, 202-426-9404. The reason for using this mater-
ial is to introduce the next major piece of federal legislation
(P.L. 92-500) and show the large commitment Congress made toward
abating water pollution.
Between 1956 and 1972 over 14,000 projects assisted with EPA funds.
Active projects as of December 31, 1979 number 11,434, There-
fore in 16 years the federal government funded only 14,000
projects but now has over 11,000 active projects.
Between 1956 and 1972 grants totaled $5.2 billion stimulating
$14 billion of construction.
P.L. 92-500 authorized grants of $18 billion for 5 years.
Again, note the dramatic increase in funding.
Since most people do not have a true comprehension of what
$1.0 million means, the instructor dramatizes the $18 billion
as follows. If a person were to be paid $1 per second to
remain seated, it would take 571 years to earn $18 billion.
Almost 3 times the age of the U.S. Also,
$l/sec = $3,600/hr = $86,400/day = $31,536,000/yr
This would be a very nice salary for anyone.
The point of the above comparison is to dramatize to students
that they are involved in a very large national program using
public funds. These funds must be spent properly and achieve
the desired result, namely, abate water pollution but not at
the expense of creating a worse environmental problem.
Start
Part 2
18
-------
Lesson Outline #1
Question
& Answer
Location
in introducing P.L. 92-500 the instructor does not define each
of the items in great detail but merely points out that these
are generally new items not included in previous legislation.
The result of these new items was to initially slow down con-
struction while grantees, engineers and regulatory personnel
learned the new requirements.
VII. P.L. 92-500 "The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972"
grants to 75% of eligible cost for STP, interceptor collection
systems and storm water separation; minimum secondary treatment
- $18 billion? FY 1972-1977
- all discharges in state to be inventoried
- Areawide Waste Treatment Management (208)
- Basin Plans (303[e])
3 step grant process
Step 1 - planning
Step 2 - plans and specifications
Step 3 - construction
- Facility Plan including
alternative displays and evaluation
environmental assessment
infiltration/inflow analysis
public input
- NPDES permit
- UC/ICR
NOTE: Grants may include collection systems and storm water separation
which was not the case in earlier legislation. Also, minimum
of secondary treatment for grant as distinct from primary
treatment for earlier legislation.
VIII. P.L. 95-26 "Supplemental Appropriations Act"
- $1 billion supplemental appropriations to P.L. 92-500
Q & A
5-7
End
Part 2
Start
Part 3
19
-------
Lesson Outline #1
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE; In introducing P.L. 95-217 the instructor points out that Con-
qress envisioned a 10 year cleanup program in 1972. P.L. 95-217
is considered midcourse corrections to P.L. 92-500 and resulted
from oversight hearings conducted by Congress. The items
included under this legislation are the changes to P.L. 92-500
and are not discussed in detail at this point but merely
summarized to introduce the students to current legislative
requirements.
IX. P.L. 95-217 "Clean Water Act of 1977"
- $24.5 billion; FY 1978-1982
individual systems privately owned eligible for grants
under certain conditions
cost effectiveness modified for innovative and alternative
technology not to exceed 15% of most cost effective alternative
grants to 85% for components of treatment plant meeting
innovative or alternative technology guidelines
- combined Step 2+3 grants where construction is $4 million or
less ($5 million in designated high cost cities) and population
25,000 or less
NOTE: This was an attempt by Congress to minimize the paperwork for
small communities.
ad valorem (value added) tax base as method assigning user
charges okay in certain circumstances
NOTE; The decision on ad valorem taxes as a base for assigning user
charges had vacillated between being okay and not okay.
P.L. 95-217 gives clearer guidance as to when ad valorem is
acceptable.
- ICR exempts users with 25,000 gpd or less and postponed
for 18 months repayment of recovered funds to U.S. Treasury
NOTE: Original postponement to June 30, 1979; was later extended to
June 30, 1980. Also, grantee must still develop the ICR
system but does not have to collect funds. If funds are
20
-------
Lesson Outline #1
Question
& Answer
Location
collected, they are not to be returned to U.S. Treasury but
placed in an interest bearing account.
small community set aside
NOTE; For states with 25% or more rural population, 4% of each year's
allotment must be set aside to fund alternative technology
projects not for conventional treatment works. States with
less than 25% rural population may exercise this option.
- state delegation of program functions
NOTE; Known as the Cleveland/Wright Amendment this part of legislation
provides for the states to assume more and more responsibilities
for administering the Construction Grants Program. This train-
ing seminar was designed specifically for new state employees.
reimbursement extended
NOTE; Some municipalities prefinanced all or part of the federal grant
at a time when grants were at the 30-50% level and reimbursement
was legal. This provision of the law allows federal monies to
reimburse the municipality which advanced monies.
no grants for treatment of pollutants from separate storm sewers
NOTE; P.L. 92-500 had allowed grants for treatment of pollutants
from separate storm sewers but the problem is so large that
insufficient funds are available. Therefore, these projects
are no longer eligible for grant.
buy American clause
NOTE; Requires that preference be given to American manufactured
products primarily in Step 3 activities.
- modification of secondary treatment requirement under certain
conditions (generally when justified for ocean discharges)
21
-------
Lesson Outline #1
Question
& Answer
Location
extends secondary treatment deadline on case-by-case basis
NOTE: P.L. 92-500 required that all point discharges (both municipal
and industrial) provide secondary treatment by July 1, 1977.
Sixty percent of industries and 30% of municipalities met
deadline. P.L. 95-217 allowed for extension as contained in
NPDES permit.
- municipal pretreatment system
NOTE: Requires industries to pretreat prior tc discharge into municipal
system. Program getting underway in 1980 and will require
extensive work on part of grantee, engineers and regulatory
officials.
NOTE: It should be emphasized that the provisions of P.L. 95-217
are embodied in the regulations 40 CFR Part 35 published
September 27, 1978. These regulations are preceded by a pre-
amble which is must reading for anyone involved in the Con-
struction Grants Program. The preamble presents in clearer
language than the regulations the logic and thought process used
by EPA in developing the implementing regulations. Also to be
emphasized are the public participation regulations 40 CFR
Part 25 and the pretreatment regulations 40 CFR Part 403.
Q & A
8-12
Summary:
In summary, the federal involvement in water pollution control
and abatement has grown significantly over the years. The current
legislation is very complex and applicants/grantees need your help
to understand their responsibilities and satisfy the legislation
and regulatory requirements. Fifty-four other federal laws have an
impact on the Construction Grants Program and, if the program is to
be successful toward achieving "elimination of pollutants discharges
into navigable waters by 1985," it will be necessary for you (the
students) to understand and carry out the provisions of the law and
regulations.
End
Part 3
22
-------
QUIZ
- TOPIC #1
Evolution of Federal Role in Financing
and Abating Water Pollution
1. In what year did the federal government first become involved
in a grant and loan program for the construction of sewage
treatment works?
2. What law is considered the true beginning of the Construc-
tion Grants Program?
3. What minimum level of treatment was required under the 1956
Water Pollution Control Act?
4. What was the maximum percentage grant for the construction of
treatment works under legislation prior to 1972?
5. Collection systems were eligible for grant participation
under P.L. 84-660. True or False
6. The three step grant process was first introduced under
P.L. 92-500. True or False
7. User charges and industrial cost recovery systems have been
required for all grantees since P.L. 84-660. True or False
8. The Clean Water Act of 1977 placed an 18 month moratorium
on the collection of user charges. True or False
9. Under P.L. 95-217 all point dischargers were required to
achieve secondary treatment by July 1, 1977. True or False
10. For states required to set aside 4% of the states' allotment
for small community projects, these funds may be used for
either conventional concepts of treatment or alternative
technology. True or False
23
-------
Topic #1 Quiz (Cont'd.)
11. Under P.L. 95-217 grants may not be made for the treatment
of pollutants from separate storm sewers. True or False
12. The current legislation under which the grants program is
administered is (1) P.L. 84-660; (2) P.L. 92-500; (3) P.L.
95-217?
24
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #1
1. 1948
2. P.L. 84-660
3. Primary treatment or its equivalent resulting in substantially
complete removal of all settleable solids
4. 55%; 50% if state made 25% and had adopted enforceable water
quality conditions plus 10% of the grant amount if project
conforms with appropriate comprehensive plan
5. False - only treatment plants and intercepting sewers
6. True
7. False - introduced in 1972 under P.L. 92-500
8. False - placed moratorium on industrial cost recovery for
18 months; later a one year extension was added
9. False - required by P.L. 92-500; extended on a case-by-case
basis by P.L. 95-217
10. False - must be used only for alternative technology
11. True - possible under P.L. 92-500 but eliminated under
P.L. 95-217
12. P.L. 95-217
25
-------
INSTRUCTOR r>
LESSON PLAN
-------
Lesson Outline #2
Question
& Answer
Location
I. Terminology
A. P.L. 95-217; Public Law, 95th Congress, 217^ law
B. Rules and regulations, promulgated in Federal Register,
effect of law
C. Program requirements memoranda (PRM's formerly PG's);
policy statement and clarification, not law
D. Guidelines, Handbook of Procedures, etc. helpful
suggestions
E. Technical bulletins; particular subjects "state-of-the-art"
F. Process design manuals; latest advances in various
sanitary engineering processes
II. P.L. 95-217
A. Five titles
1. Research and Related Program
2. Grants for Construction of Treatment Works
3. Standards and Enforcement
4. Permits and Licenses
5. General Provisions
NOTE: Generally students will be concerned with Title II - Grants
for Construction of Treatment Works
B. Sections within law
1. Section 201 - Title II
2. Section 303(e) - Title III
III. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Q & A
1 & 2
A. Implementation regulations
B. Published in preliminary and final form
27
-------
Lesson Outline #2
Question
& Answer
Location
C. Full force of law once published in final form
D. Example
1. Title 40 - Protection of Environment
2. Title 3 - The President
3. Title 10 - Energy
4. Title 22 - Foreign Relations
We are concerned with Title 40
NOTE: The instructor discusses the contents of Title 40 and its
chapters pointing out that many subdivisions of regulations
are reserved for later use. Example below shows Chapters II
and III reserved. The instructor continues pointing out
the subdivisions of the CFR to demonstrate its organizational
structure and ease of use once understood.
- Title 40-3 chapters
I - EPA
IV - Low Emissions Vehicle Certification Board
V - Council on Environmental Quality
II & III - Reserved
- Subchapters of Chapter I
A - General
B - Grants and Other Federal Assistance
We are concerned with Subchapter "B"
Parts of subchapters
Part 30 - General Grant Regulations and Procedures
Part 33 - Subagreements
Part 35 - State and Local Assistance
Part 39 - Loan Guarantees for Construction
of Treatment Works
28
-------
Lesson Outline #2
Question
& Answer
Location
Part 40 - Research and Demonstration Grants
Part 45 - Training Grants and Manpower Forecasting
Part 46 - Fellowships
Parts 47 through 49 - Reserved
We are concerned with Part 35
Subparts of parts
Subpart A - Reserved
Subpart B - Program Grants
Subpart C - Grants for Construction of Wastewater
Treatment Works
Subpart D - Reimbursement Grants
Subpart E - Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works - Clean Water Act
Subpart F - State Management Assistance Grants
Subpart G - Grants for Water Quality Planning,
Management and Implementation
Generally we are interested in Subpart E
Sections of subparts
Section 917 - Facilities Planning
- Subsections of sections
917-1 Contents of Facilities Plan
-2 State Responsibilities
-3 Federal Assistance
Example: 40 CFR 35.927-1 means
Title 40 - Protection of Environment
Chapter I - EPA
Subchapter B - Grants and Other Federal Assistance
Part 35 - State and Local Assistance
Subpart E - Grants for Construction of Treat-
ment Works - Clean Water Act
Section 927 - Sewer System Evaluation and
Rehabilitation
Subsection 1 - Infiltration/Inflow Analysi
or
40, I, B, 35, E, 927, 1
Too cumbersome, therefore abbreviated to 40 CFR 35.927-1
Q & A
3-6
29
-------
Lesson Outline #2
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The bound CFR published by the GPC allows all separate pre-
ceding regulations published in the Federal Register before
that date to be discarded. However, the bound CFR does not
include the preamble to regulations which may be necessary for
clarification.
End
Part 1
IV. Guidelines
A. Facilities planning (MCD-46)
B. Sewer system evaluation survey (MCD-19)
C. Innovative and alternative technology assessment (MCD-53)
D. Mainly MCD's (Municipal Construction Division)
NOTE: Guidelines are published in two forms. Those which appear
in the regulations as appendices
-------
Lesson Outline #2
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE; POM's, because they address internal operations only, are
distributed only to those who process grants applications
(viz., regional and state construction grants staff).
C. Transmittal Memoranda (TM's) - used to update "Handbook of
Procedures" (MCD-03); issued periodically
D. Executive Order (EO's) - President's policy statement;
usually translated into PRM or other EPA document where
applicable to Construction Grants Program
E. Others
Facilities Requirement Division publications (FRD's)
Technology Transfer publications
VI. Handbook of Procedures (MCD-03)
A. Day-to-day procedures for reviewing and processing
construction grants projects
B. Specific elements of processing a grant
Purpose
Discussion section
Review procedures
Reference section
C. Major sections include
General handbook discussion and user's guide
State Program
Step 1, 2, 3 and 2+3
Financial Consi derations
D. Updated by TM's
NOTE: The instructor holds up the "Handbook of Procedures" and asks
each student to look at his/her copy. The "Handbook of
Procedures" supplements the outlines for this course and con-
tains the course contents in greater detail. The instructor
points out that the handbook was written after interviewing
operating personnel in four EPA regional offices and eight
state agencies. Each topic is broken into four elements as
appropriate.
Q & A
7-9
31
-------
Lesson Outline #2
Question
S> Answer
Location
Purpose - brief statement
Discussion - places subject under review in context
Review Procedures - a checklist of items to review
Reference - appropriate regulations, PRM's, MCD's, FRD's,
etc. are given in the event that the reviewer
requires more detailed information; note
references are restricted to EPA publications
Since one of the objectives of the course is to familiarize
the students with reference material, the instructor may wish
to have students open their "Handbook of Procedures" to page
IV-9 and review the material on "Priority List Compliance and
Certification." The instructor should point out that the
"Handbook of Procedures" is designed so that approximately 80%
of the projects may be reviewed using the handbook alone. Other
more complex projects may require the use of other publications
or special procedures. If all possible contingencies were
addressed in the "Handbook of Procedures," it would be too
large for practical use.
VII. Other Terminology
A. Authorization
The amount of money specified in the basic legislation.
In the case of P.L. 95-217 the authorization is $4.5 billion
for FY 78 and $5.0 billion for each of the next four FY's.
B. Appropriation
The amount of money Congress appropriates each year for
a specific program. Appropriations may range from zero
to the authorization. For example, Congress appropriated
$3.4 billion for FY 80 while the legislation authorized
$5.0 billion.
C. Allotment
The amount of money assigned to each state based on the
appropriation and a formula in the law.
Q & A
10 - 13
32
-------
Lesson Outline #2
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The instructor discusses how regulations are derived from law.
For example, Section 201 of P.L. 95-217 is cited as the section
of the law requiring facilities planning. A review of Section
201 and the corresponding regulations (40 CFR 35.917-1) shows
little resemblance. As EPA officials prepare regulations, they
review the "legislative history" of the law including both
House and Senate Subcommittees' proceedings, testimony and
conference reports. The discussion of this material assists
students in having a better understanding of how the law evolves
into day-to-day procedures.
Summary:
Laws are implemented through the publication of regulations in
the Federal Register. In addition, the EPA publishes other documents
designed to further explain and clarify the laws. Students need to
be familiar with the various publications and know how to seek out
answers to specific problems or questions. The two main sources of
information to be used initially are the "Handbook of Procedures"
and 40 CFR Part 35 regulations.
End
Part 2
33
-------
QUIZ - TOPIC #2
From Legislation to Practice
1. Define each letter or number in P.L. 95-217.
2. Section 201 refers to regulations or a part of the law?
3. What does CFR mean?
4. Regulations carry the force of law once published in final
form in the Federal Register. True or False
5. Title 40 of CFR contains regulations for the Department of
Energy. True or False
6. Using the 9/27/7 8 regulations, what is the heading for
40 CFR 35.927-1?
7.- What words do the following letters represent?
a.
MCD
b.
PRM
c.
POM
d.
EO
e.
FRD
f.
TM
8. PRM's are used to update the Handbook of Procedures (MCD-03).
True or False
9. The Handbook of Procedures was written exclusively to assist
grantees' consultants. True or False
10. The terms authorization and appropriation are synonymous?
True or False
34
-------
Topic #2 Quiz (Cont'd.)
11. P.L. 95-217 authorizes $5 billion for FY 81 for the con-
struction of wastewater treatment facilities. Congress
may appropriate $4 billion without changing P.L. 95-217.
True or False
12. Allotment is the amount of money assigned to each state
based on the appropriation and a formula. True or False
13. What is the federal fiscal year?
35
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #2
1. P.L. - Public Law
9 5 - 95th Congress
217 - 217th Law passed by 95th Congress
2. Part of the law - Title II Section 201
3. Code of Federal Regulations
4. True
5. False - Title 40 contains regulations for Protection of
Environment
6. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis
7. a. Municipal Construction Division
b. Program Requirements Memoranda
c. Program Operations Memoranda
d. Executive Order
e. Facilities Requirements Division
f. Transmittal Memoranda
8. False - TM's are used for this purpose
9. False - The Handbook was written primarily for use by federal
and state employees to aid in the processing of projects.
It is used by grantee's consultants to determine what
information should be included in each document.
10. False - Authorizations are contained in the enabling legislation;
appropriations are authorized each year.
11. True - Congress may appropriate between zero and the full
authorization ($5 billion)
36
-------
Topic #2 Answers (Cont'd.)
12. True
13. October 1 through September 30
37
-------
INSTRUCTOR 0
LESSON PLAN O
Topic #3: STATE PROGRAM
Objective: Students must understand that the projects for which
grants are to be made have resulted from a logical series
of comprehensive studies prepared by the state agency and
approved by the EPA. Also, students need to understand
the coordination activities with other programs within
the state prior to approving projects.
Videotape Part 1 16:56
Running Part 2 29:40
Time: Part 3 26:05
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" U-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
This topic briefly describes the state programs which precede or
occur concurrently with the development of specific construction grants
projects. A Step 1 project may be considered the implementation step
and in the ideal sense should have been preceded by basin planning
(Section 303[e] of the CWA) and areawide waste treatment management
planning (Section 208 of the CWA). The latter two planning functions
and other state programs are currently grouped together and labeled
Water Quality Management (WQM) planning. Regulations implementing
the revised WQM planning were published in the Federal Register on
May 23, 1979 and are contained in 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart G. The
instructor is encouraged to review Subpart G prior to delivery of this
lesson. Unfortunately, the regulations are not entirely clear and an
understanding of them will require time and study. The outline below
highlights the key elements of each program and attempts to show a
logical progression of how construction grants projects resulted
from the state programs.
I. Components
A. State/EPA Agreement (covers Sections 106, 208, 205(g) and 314)-
an annually negotiated agreement between EPA and state agency
identifying
38
-------
Lesson Outline #3
Question
& Answer
Location
- Problems
- Objectives
- Priorities
- Coordination and integration with other programs
and includes the annual state work program
B. Continuing Planning Process (CPP) - a document that describes
a process for establishing and revising
- Policies
- Procedures
- Practices
of the state agency for achieving the goals of the CWA.
Revisions to the policies, procedures and practices result
from state work program outputs and comprise the WQM
process. The CPP will also contain
- State priority system
NOTE: The instructor makes a clear distinction between state priority
system and state priority list; the latter is the ranking of
projects to be funded by name, cost, etc., while the former
is the method for ranking projects.
C. State Priority System - the procedure and criteria for rating
and ranking of needed projects; criteria takes into account
- Severity of pollution
- Existing population affected
- Need for the maintenance of high quality waters
- Category of need from "Needs Survey"
- Innovative and alternative technology projects
and projects requiring 100% replacement grants
- Other criteria
- small and rural communities
- not considered
- project area's development needs not related
to pollution abatement
39
-------
Lesson Out.lj.ne #3
Question
& Answer
Location
- the geographic region within the state
- future population growth projections
- Step sequence, allotment deadline and total funds
available
The resulting state priority list includes needed projects
over a five year period and idertifies those for the coming
fiscal year (fundable portion of list).
D.
State Strategy - part of the annual work program and updated
annually, the state strategy addresses
- 5 year goals
- Identification of responsible agencies for conducting
activities
- Summary of anticipated federal and other funds
The state strategy shall address the problems, solutions and
priorities in approved WQM plans and recommend revisions
to WQM plans where appropriate.
E.
Annual Work Program - part of the state/EPA agreement and
consistent with the CPP; includes the state strategy. The
annual work program shall also contain
- Summary and evaluation of the current year's program
including outputs
- Outputs to be produced during the next year in 16
categories (see 40 CFR 35.1513-5[c]) . Included
in the categories are
- Person years
- Costs
- Funding sources
- Milestone for completion of outputs
- Disbursement schedule
Q £ A 1
- Responsible agencies
End
- State priority list
Part 1
F.
WQM Agencies - an entire state is subjected to areawide waste
treatment management planning to the extent appropriate and
as agreed upon between the state and EPA. The WQM agencies
Start
Part 2
40
-------
Lesson Outline #3
Question
& Answer
Location
may be either
- Designated by the Governor (sometimes called 208
agencies, COG's, county planning agencies, etc.)
- State agency (for nondesignated areas)
Designated agencies may receive grants directly from EPA but
must coordinate and integrate their activities with the
other state programs.
G. Water Quality Assessment - a biennial document required by
Section 305(b) of the CWA which assesses current water quality
and addresses
- Monitoring to determine the impact of nonpoint source
pollution ,
- Classification of stream segments (either effluent
limited or water quality limited segments)
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of existing point and
nonpoint controls in achieving water quality goals
- Determination of relative pollutant loading attributablt
to point and nonpoint sources
- Determination of the impact of air and other nonwater
environmental pollution sources on water quality such
as population changes, changes in land use or economic
conditions
H. WQM Plans - a document which is the output from the annual
work program and incorporates information developed in the
water quality assessment. The WQM plan resolves specific
pollution control problems and includes
- Control needs
- General
- Total maximum daily loads, wasteload allocation:
- Dredged or fill program
- Nonpoint source control
- Municipal and industrial needs
- Urban stormwater
41
-------
Lesson Outline #3
Question
& Answer
Location
- Residual waste control, land disposal
- Water quality standards
- Water conservation
- NPDES permit conditions
- Regulatory and other programs needed to implement the
conclusions of the plan
- Identification of the management agencies which will
be responsible for implementing the conclusions of
the plan (note 201 facilities planning grantees will
be identified in this section)
- Environmental, social and economic impacts of the
implementing plans including population projections
- An analysis of open space and recreational opportunities
- An analysis of urban impacts and mitigative measures
- Coordination with other agencies and government bodies
- A method of evaluating implemented portions of the plan
and methods of plan revision as necessary
Q & A
2 & 3
End
Part 2
II. WQM Planning's Relationship with Construction Grants Program
A. WQM plans identify agencies eligible for construction grants
and may designate the facilities planning boundaries
B. WQM plans will specify wasteload allocations and population
projections to be used in facilities planning
C. Step 1 facilities planning grants must conform with approved
WQM plans
NOTE: The instructor -uses a graphic at this point and stydents should
turn to the corresponding drawing in their outlines* The graphic
is an illustration of a stream and surrounding municipalities
and attempts to bring together the relationship between 208
areawide waste management planning boundaries, 201 facilities
planning boundaries, point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
303(e) basin planning, state priority list, etc. The graphic
lists the five planning steps beginning with the "given" water
quality standards thence wasteload allocations, 208 planning,
priority listing, facilities planning and construction. The
instructor points out that "effluent limited segments" of streams
are those for which all point discharges achieve secondary
Start
Part 3
Q & A
4-9
42
-------
Lesson Outline #3
Question
& Answer
Location
treatment and water quality standards are met. If all point
sources achieve secondary treatment and water quality standards
are not met, the stream segment is classified as "water quality
limited" and higher levels of treatment will be required.
Designated areawide waste management planning is generally done
along water quality limited segments of streams which, in turn,
are generally in urbanized or industrialized areas.
The classroom instructor should try to stimulate discussions
after this part to insure students fully understand 303(e)/
208/201 relationships.
43
-------
Regional Solution
Point
Source
Poin
Source
Water Quality
Limited Segment
Flow
?'on-point Source
STATE CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS
Given: Water Quality Standards
Solution: 1. 303 (e) Plan: (X^f Xj, X^ , Xj = Waste Load Allocation'
2. 208 Plan (if designated)
3. Priority Listing
4. 201 Plan
5. Construct Facilities
Existing STP
Has NPDES Permit
State Priority List
1. City Xj
2. Townships X2 and
3. Borough X^
A. County X^
llity Planning
Area (201)
New System
No NPDES
Permit Yet
Water
Min. Seconds
Treatment
Effluent
Limited
Segment
Po int
Source
Rapids
Reaeration
Non-point Source
-------
Lesson Outline #3
Question
& Answer
Location
III. Section 205(g) Delegation of Administration
A. Policy: EPA's policy is to decentralize management of the
wastewater treatment Construction Grants Program to the
maximum extent possible
B. Goal: prevent federal/state duplication; increase operating
efficiency; make states more responsible for day-to-day and
project-by-project management of the Construction Grants
Program
C. Delegation agreement terms
1. Designation of an organizational unit within the state
agency responsible for implementing the program
2. Staffing including hiring and training of new personnel
3. Accounting and auditing procedures
4. Schedules for assumption of delegated functions
5. Cost estimates, (not to exceed 2% of state's allotment
or $400,000, whichever is greater)
6. Plan for coordination with WQM planning
7. Detailed procedures for each delegated function
8. EPA review procedures
NOTE: The instructor quickly reviews the items below as some of the
items will not be understood as yet by the nev employees.
Later, when all the items are described, students may return
to this section for review of delegable and nondelegable items.
D. Delegable functions
1. Step 1 - Preapplication conference, plan of study,
subagreements, subagreement cost analysis, infiltration/
inflow analysis, facilities plan, environmental assess-
ment and related documents, public participation, reloca-
tion plans, cost-effectiveness analysis, and analysis
of EPWTT and innovative and alternative wastewater
treatment technology application .
45
-------
Lesson Outline #3
Question
& Answer
Location
2.
Step 2 - Subagreements, subagreement cost analysis, user
charge and industrial cost recovery systems, plans and
specifications for construction, preliminary plan of
operation, and the plan and schedule for the Operation and
Maintenance Manual
3.
Step 3 - Subagreements, subagreement cost analysis, bid
solicitation and contract documents, contract change
orders and amendments, draft and final Operation and
Maintenance Manuals, final plans of operation, interim
and final inspections, sewer use ordinances, and audits
4.
Small community assistance - the state may serve as a
community's contracting agent and undertake
(a) Negotiating and administering planning, design and
construction subagreements
(b) Providing technical advice (especially on cost-
'effective and innovative alternatives
(c) Assisting grantees in exercising their resident
engineering responsibilities
E. Nondelegable functions
1.
Award of Step 1, 2, 3 and 2+3 grants and amendments
2.
Decision whether to prepare an EIS or issue a finding
of no significant impact (FNSI) in accordance with the
NEPA; also preparation and issuance of EIS
3.
Civil rights determination and enforcement
-
4.
Final dispute determinations for ineligibility
5.
Determinations of protests
6.
Resolution of audit exceptions
7.
Determination that an overriding federal interest exists
which requires greater federal oversignt or participation
8.
Determinations under federal statutes other than the
Clean Water Act
9.
AST/AOT determinations
46
-------
Lesson Outline #3
Question
& Answer
Location
Summary:
As a student begins working on a specific project, he must recog-
nize that a great deal of planning has taken place prior to the
development of the project. The project must be reviewed in light of
other planning functions and coordination must be accomplished.
End
Part 3
47
-------
QUIZ - TOPIC #3
State Program
1. What is the difference between the state priority system and
state priority list?
2. Mathematical modeling of river basins to determine waste
load allocations is generally performed under authority of
Section 208 of P.L. 92-500, Areawide Waste Treatment Manage-
ment. True or False
3. Water Quality Management (WQM) planning encompasses both
basin plans and areawide waste treatment management. True
or False
4. If water quality standards are achieved for a segment of
stream in which all point source discharges need only provide
secondary treatment, the segment is classified as an effluent
limited segment. True or False
5. Approved WQM plans specify populations projections which
may not be exceeded in facilities plans? True or False
6. An applicant municipality for a grant must be the one identified
in an approved WQM plan? True or False
7. If the government has not designated a 208 area, no further
studies are required for that area. True or False
8. Construction grants monies are used to fund WQM planning.
True or False
9. When a facilities plan is reviewed by the state, it is not
necessary to compare the selected plan with an approved
WQM plan? True or False
10. Mark "D" next to the functions which may be delegated to a
state by EPA and "ND" next to those which may not.
48
-------
Topic #3 Quiz (Cont'd,)
a. Award of Step 1, 2, 2+3, or 3 grants
b. Review and certification of architectural/engineering
procurement procedures
c. Review and certification of infiltration/inflow analysis
d. Review and certification of environmental information
document
e. Decision as to whether environmental impact statement
is necessary
f. Preparation of environmental impact statement to
satisfy National Environmental Policy Act
g. Review and certification of plans and specifications
h. Review and certification of Operation and Maintenance
Manual
i. Advanced secondary treatment/advanced wastewater
treatment determinations
j. Preparation of environmental assessment
k. Review and certification of value engineering analysis
1. Resolution of audit exceptions
49
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #3
Tr.c- systc-rrs defines the cnvris ar.d procedures used to establish
zhe list The ixcx. is a rni ncj in order of priority of a] 1
proiects m tne sta^e whjc... fir *.'i Loible for grants..
i ^ i i« J: > - Js ^
ction 393 ! e) be: . -,
,\u functions as v-e.. '
7. false - ^reav;j.ae planning ir.asi done, to a limited extent,
for all areas m tne sci:e
8, False - -..CM ror.ies sre aft'T-priated separately by Congress
5. False - Ir.e facilities plan be compared and conform witn
zY'e conclusions ci an approved WQM plan
o
50
-------
INSTRUCTOR a
LESSON PLAN H
Topic #4: FACILITIES PLAN REVIEW
Objective: The student must become familiar with the contents
of and review procedures for facilities planning.
Videotape Running Time:
Part 1 19:45 Part 5 23:14
Part 2 21:12 Part 6 27:43
Part 3 25:38 Part 7 27:30
Part 4 25:15
Required Color television
Equipment: and 3/4" U-Matic
video cassette
recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
The classroom instructor will note that the Facilities Plan Review
is out of sequence, i.e., it precedes Step 1 Grant Processing. This is
done intentionally since in Step 1 Grant Processing many unfamiliar
terms are used which are better defined in their context during
Facilities Plan Review. For example, to define infiltration/inflow
in the context of a preapplication conference is not nearly as effec-
tive nor meaningful as it is to define it in the context of Facilities
Plan Review, when facilities planning elements are later addressed in
Step 1 Grant Processing, the student will better understand their
importance and relevance to the preapplication conference and plan of
study.
I. General
After a Step 1 grant offer has been made and accepted, the grantee
and his consultant will begin preparing the facilities plan.
During its preparation the state/federal project manager should
contact the grantee at periodic intervals and offer help and
assistance in understanding the requirements and resolving problems,
Site visits to the grantee or consultant's office during this
51
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
time are a demonstrated method of avoiding delays and precluding
omissions in the facilities plan.
A. Help grantee during facilities plan preparation
B. Approvals prior to EPA receipt of facilities plan
1. Clearinghouse (A-95)
2. State certification (if not delegated) that project
Q & A
1
conforms with WQM plans and regulations
II. Contents of Facilities Plan (40 CFR 35.917-1)
NOTE: In this part it is intended to briefly review the required con-
tents of a facilities plan. This review is intended to alert the
students that a facilities plan is complex and requires a great
deal of objective and subjective evaluations at all levels
(grantee, consultant, public, state, federal, etc.).
Since one of the objectives of this course is to familiarize the
students with the "Handbook of Procedures" and regulations, the
instructor will:
1. Review pages IV-19 and 20 of the "Handbook of Procedures"
(MCD-03);
2. Review 40 CFR 35.917-1, Contents of Facilities Plan. The
instructor will indicate that item 35.917-1(d)(7) "An ade-
quate environmental assessment..." has been changed to "An
adequate environmental information document..." 40 CFR
6.507(c) published in the Federal Register 11/6/79. The
instructor will then indicate the elements which constitute
an adequate environmental information document (see below)
since the students may or may not have a copy of 40 CFR
Part 6;
3. Review the items below which are summarized from 40 CFR
35.917-1 and 40 CFR 6.507(c).
A. Required elements
1. A description of the treatment works for which plans and
specifications will be prepared including:
- Engineering data
Cost estimates
Schedules for completion of
design and construction
52
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
2. A description of the complete treatment system of which
the works are a part
3. Infiltration/inflow documentation
4. A cost-effectiveness analysis of 1, 2, and alternatives
including evaluation of
a. The relationship of capacity to needs and reserve
b. Flow and waste reduction, including nonstructural
measures
c. Optimum performance of existing system
d. Ability to meet effluent limitations
e. Application of best practicable waste treatment
technology for each of the following waste treatment
management techniques
(1) Biological or physical-chemical treatment and
discharge to receiving (surface) waters
(2) Reuse of wastewater and recycling of pollutants
(3) Land application techniques (EPA preferred
alternative)
(4) Revenue generating applications
(5) On-site and nonconventional systems (heavy
emphasis)
f. Ultimate disposal of effluent and sludge
g. The environmental impacts as contained in an adequate
environmental information document
h. Innovative and alternative technology processes
l. Primary energy requirements
5. Effluent limitations or NPDES permit
6. Clearinghouse comments
7. A final responsiveness summary of public participation
8. A statement that grantee has resources to construct,
operate and maintain the treatment works
9. A statement of compliance with Civil Rights Act
10. A description of recreation, open space and water access
opportunities analyzed in the recommended plan
53
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
11. A municipal pretreatment program
12. An estimate of total project costs and charges to
customers
13. A statement on the availability and estimated cost of
proposed sites
Item 4.g. above is further defined in EPA's regulations
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
40 CFR 6.507(c) and reads in part, "An adequate environmental
information document [EID] should be an integral part of any
facilities plan submitted to EPA or to a State." The EID
should address the following;
1. A description of the existing environment, with emphasis
on the conditions relevant to the analysis of alternatives
2. A description of the future environment without the pro-
ject (no action)
3. A discussion of the purpose and need for wastewater
treatment in the planning area
4. Documentation of sources used in the evaluation
5. An evaluation of alternatives, with attention given to
long term impacts, irreversible impacts and induced
impacts
6. A discussion of the environmental consequences, including
direct and indirect effects of the proposed action
7. A description of steps to minimize adverse effects, both
structural and nonstructural, considered in the plan or
identified during review, including any which should be-
come contingencies to award of further grant assistance
B. Helpful documents
To assist the grantee the EPA has published two helpful
documents:
1. "Guidance for Preparing A Facilities Plan" (MCD-46) - this
document contains a suggested format for facilities plan
presentation which may or may not be followed by grantee
at their option. Most facilities plans do follow the
54
-------
•
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
format, however. The "Handbook of Procedures" (#CD*-Q3)
assumes the suggested format for review purposes.
2. "Environmental Assessment of Construction Grants Projects"
(FRD-5)
End
Part 1
C. Major components of facilities plans
1. Preliminary studies and background
2. Future situation
3. Alternatives
4. Public input
5. Plan selection
NOTE: The instructor defines in more detail preliminary studies and
background. As each item is presented, the instructor discusses
the elements it includes and how the information may be presented.
D. Preliminary studies and background
1. Area description (environmental inventory)
2. Population (historical and present) and land use
3. Water quality (existing for both ground and surface waters)
4. Environmentally sensitive areas (steep slopes, rare and
endangered species, unique features, etc.)
5. Existing flows
6. Existing system performance (bypass, sewer backups,
treatment performance)
7. Sewer system evaluation
NOTE: The instructor limits the discussion of sewer system performance
as a more detailed discussion follows. Also, effluent limita-
tions are not discussed at this point as experience has shown
it is better to define effluent limitation later.
Start
Part 2
Q & A
2
55
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
E. Sewer system evaluation (40 CFR 35.927; see MCD-19)
NOTE: The topic sewer system evaluation has been broken out for
separate discussion because of a general lack of understanding,
its potential for delaying the completion of a facilities plan,
and to emphasize that an I/I analysis may be done independently
from the facilities plan. The I/I analysis must only determine
one figure for use in the facilities plan, namely, the non-
excessive I/I. Therefore, the instructor discusses this subject
separately and brings it back into the context of facilities
planning later. The instructor defines each of the terms below
and specifically points out the use of exception (c) (40 CFR
35.927-5[c]).
1. I/I analysis
2. Sewer system evaluation survey
3. Rehabilitation
NOTE: The instructor points out that items 1, 2 and 3 are sequential
and that the sewer system evaluation may be stopped after item 1
or 2 if it is determined that the system is not subject to
excessive I/I. The instructor then defines each of the terms,
namely, excessive, nonexcessive, infiltration, inflow. Prior to
the passage of P.L. 92-500 most treatment plants and possibly
pumping stations contained bypasses. Since bypassing of raw
sewage is now forbidden, the grantee has the choice of treating
all flows, eliminating all I/I or a combination of partial removal
and partial treatment. At this point the instructor discusses
exception (c) (40 CFR 35.927-5[c]) and how it may be employed
to allow a facilities plan to be completed while concurrently
performing a sewer system evaluation survey.
The instructor points out that a state agency may or may not
certify to EPA that excessive I/I does or does not exist.
The state certification must have some basis in fact (40 CFR
35 = 927-5 [a]).
NOTE: A graphic shows the inside of an 8" sewer and is helDful for
students to understand how infiltration may occur. The instruc-
tor points out the crack in the top of the sewer. Unfortunately#
the groundwater was not high enough to allow this crack to
leak. If it was leaking, however, it would be necessary for an
experienced person to estimate the amount of infiltration in
gpm and estimate the type and cost of repair. Generally, closed
circuit televising of sewers is not done unless fully justified
Q & A
3-9
56
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
and approved by the state or EPA as part of the SSES. The
graphic is used only to provide students with a better understand-
ing of the problems a sewer system evaluation survey is trying
to define and detect.
End
Part 2
Start
Part 3
F. Future situation
1. Planning period (20 years for treatment plant capacity,
up to 40 years for intercepting sewers)
NOTE: The instructor points out that the planning period is 20 years
but the construction of treatment works may be phased over a
10, 15 or 20 year period depending on the growth and cost-effec-
tiveness analysis (40 CFR Appendix A). Also, the instructor
discusses the controversy concerning sizing interceptors for
40 years and the likely secondary environmental impacts (develop-
mental pressures) versus the potential for constructing a parallel
relief sewer at higher cost in the future.
2. Population projections
a. WQM plans (208 projections)
b. State disaggregation
c. Recent trends
Q & A
10 & 11
NOTE: The instructor discusses population projections in detail.
Population projections in urbanized areas have been very con-
troversial but are of utmost importance since they form the
basis of the treatment works capacity.
G. Alternative development
1. Preliminary work
a. Needs survey (PRM 78-9)
57
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The instructor discusses PRM 78-9 as it relates to establishing
a need for the project. Many facilities plans have justified
the need for sewers based on failing septic tanks and the result-
ing public health hazard. Too often the "failure" has not been
defined and could be an easily correctable 0 & M problem. Also,
many times the failures are not well documented. In addition,
the instructor points out that although PRM 78-9 is specifically
directed to "Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects" some
EPA regional offices are applying the PRM requirements to pro-
jects for treatment plants only.
b. Study area population versus service area population
NOTE: The instructor discusses the concept that an entire facilities
planning area may not need sewer service. Rather, the facilities
planning area may include a core or centralized developed area
requiring a conventional sewer system while more remote or rural
areas within the facilities planning boundary may need nothing or
septage management or other concepts of treatment. Therefore,
there may be a distinction drawn between study area and service
area population. In addition, this introduces the possibility
of small wastewater treatment systems including on-site systems.
c. Future flows
(1) Existing average daily base flow (ADBF)
(2) Nonexcessive I/I
NOTE: The instructor ties in the previous discussions of I/I at this
point.
(3) Projected flow from
- Residential
- Commercial
- Industrial
(4) Flow reduction measures (water conservation)
Q & A
12
58
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
2. Conceptional alternatives
a. No action
b. Optimum performance of existing systems
c. Regional and subregional systems including
on-site systems
NOTE: The instructor points out that the combinations and permutations
of alternatives are potentially astronomical when one considers
the various site locations, process designs, sewer and inter-
ceptor routings, capacities, etc. Therefore, a method of
screening and evaluation is necessary to reduce the number of
alternatives to a manageable size.
The instructor also discusses the economies of scale to be
realized from a large regional system (the generally accepted
philosophy in the late 60's and early 7Q's) versus the current
approach of looking more closely at smaller, perhaps on-site
systems,
3. Waste treatment management techniques employing best
practical waste treatment technology (BPWTT) for
a. Treatment and discharge to surface waters
b. Recycle/reuse
c. Land treatment (preferred choice of EPA)
d. Revenue generating systems
e. On-site and nonconventional systems
Q & A
13 - 15
NOTE: The instructor emphasizes that the above waste treatment manage-
ment techniques are applicable to each of the conceptual alter-
natives discussed in item 2 above. For each such technique
the BPWTT has been defined in the regulations.
End
Part 3
Start
4. Effluent limitations
Part 4
a. Select correct set for each alternative from
(1) BPWTT
59
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
(2) NPDES permit as applicable
(3) WQM plan
5. Summary of alternative development - major alternatives
a. Effluent
(1) Small alternative wastewater systems
(2) Land treatment alternatives
(3) Conventional concepts of treatment
(4) Optimum performance or integration of
existing systems
b. Sludge disposal
(1) Landfill
(2) Land application (including composting)
(3) Incineration
(4) Codisposal
Q & A
16
NOTE: The instructor suggests that the major alternatives listed
above for "effluents" and "sludge disposal" form the basis of a
logic train, each of which will be carried through cost-effective-
ness analysis and each of which may have several subalternatives
(different sites and sizes of land application, for example).
Each of these major alternatives must be addressed in detail in
the facilities plan, and if rejected, the reasons for rejection
must be clearly documented and explained in the facilities plan.
End
Part 4
Start
H. Innovative and alternative technology (See MCD-53)*
Part 5
NOTE: The instructor discusses I & A in detail hereafter, and places
I & A into the context of facilities planning and as a further
means of alternative development and analysis. Several graphics
are used to assist in the definition of I & A but not all of the
details are included in the student's outlines. The instructor
indicates that all facilities plans begun after September 30,
1978 must address I & A processes or techniques. Also, he indi-
cates that I & A technology requirements are part of a three
* See page 61 for visual
60
-------
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY DECISION METHODOLOGY
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
Specifically identified forms of
treatment and unit
processes
Effluent Treatment
Enerqy Recovery
- land treatment
- co-disposal of
- aquifer recharge
sludge and refuse
- aquaculture
- anaerobic digestion
- silviculture
with >90X methane
- direct reuse
recovery
(non potable)
- self-sustaining
- horticulture
incineration
- revegetatlon of
disturbed land
Individual and On-
- containment ponds
S1te Systems
- treatment and storage
prior to land
- on-site treatment
application
- scptaye treatment
- preapplIcation treat-
- alternative col-
ment
lection systems
for small com-
Sludqe
munities
- land applIcation
- composting prior to
land application
- drying prior to
land application
fully proyen
In Circumstances
heet Innovative
Criteria
YES
NO
<>A
YES
NO
<>B
CONVENTIONAL CONCEPTS OF CENTRALIZED TREATMENT
YES
>
Generally defined biological or physical chemical
processes with direct point source discharges to
surface waters
NO
OA
YES
NO
Ab
Cost-Effective
Classification aro
Funding Decision
YES
NO
YES
USX cost pre-
ference for
pub)lcly owned
NO
151 cost pre-
ference for
pub)lcly owned
8SX alternative
not funded
8SX innovative
not funded
not funded
YES
NO
YES
£
-7SX conventional
no cost
preference
NO
J
USX cost pre-
ference for
publlcly owned 1f
energy criteria
Is net
not funded
8SX Innovative
not funded
not funded
-------
],osson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
year program and may result in 85% grants for ISA components
(Steps 2 and 3 only) rather than 75% for conventional concepts
of treatment.
Students may follow the lecture on I & A technology by referring
to the figure in their outline entitled "Innovative and Alterna-
tive Technology Decision Methodology." This figure appears in
the I & A Assessment Manual (MCD-53) and students may wish to
review this manual later for a more complete discussion of
I & A.
1. Alternative technology - proven processes or techniques
which either reclaim or reuse water, recycle wastewater
constituents, eliminate discharge of pollutants or
recover energy
NOTE: Next two graphics list the defined alternative technologies as
shown in the top left box of the figure entitled "Innovative
and Alternative Technology Decision Methodology."
NOTE: The next graphic indicates that sewers are not part of
alternative technology except if they are alternatives to con-
ventional treatment works for small communities (population
under 3,500) or part of individual systems.
NOTE; The next series of graphics briefly discuss on-site treatment
systems and land application and are intended to present EPA's
current policy and emphasis on these two alternative tech-
nologies.
a. On-site and nonconventional systems
(1) Reduce costs, resource conservation, preclude
adverse secondary environmental impacts
(2) Include septic tanks, septage treatment, cluster
septics, mounds systems, small diameter gravity
(6" or smaller), pressure or vacuum sewers
(3) Must reading is PRM 79-8 dated 5/9/79
62
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The graphic indicates the management functions for small on-site
systems. The material is not included in the outline but is
addressed in PRM 79-8.
b. Land treatment
(1) Potentially reduces costs, conserves resources
(2) Preference of EPA
(3) Three systems of which first two must be
evaluated in detail
- Slow rate (crop irrigation)
- Rapid infiltration
- Overland flow
(4) Potential conflict with state preapplication
treatment requirements
(5) Land costs for land used as integral part of
treatment process or storage is eligible for
85% grant
NOTE: Some states require a minimum of secondary treatment prior to
land application. EPA has taken the position that across-the-
board requirements for secondary treatment are not justified
but rather each system or project must be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis. In the worst case, EPA may not financially
participate in a project beyond the pretreatment requirements
it feels are justified.
It will be noted in the material above that land treatment is
the preferred choice of EPA, To encourage this process, land
acquisition for land treatment projects or the temporary storage
of wastes (winter months) is allowable for grant participation.
This is not true for other processes not employing the land as
an integral part of the treatment process.
2. Innovative processes and techniques
- Developed processes or techniques which are not
fully proven in the circumstances of contemplated use
(risk but corresponding benefit)
63
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
- May be alternative technology or conventional
concepts of treatment but must provide significant
advancement over the state-of-the-art
- Definition flexible and subject to interpretation
by EPA
Q
17
& A
- 19
NOTE: The instructor will use the next graphic "I & A Decision Method-
ology" to prepare students for a further discussion of innovative
technology. He points out that all alternatives are either
classified as alternative technology (list defined in top left
box) or conventional concepts of treatment {lower left box).
Either alternative technology or conventional concepts of treat-
ment may qualify as innovative if certain conditions are met.
The first step is fully proven (risk with benefit), the six
criteria, cost-effectiveness analysis, 15% cost preference
and finally grant computation as 75%, 85% or none. Each phase
in the decision methodology is now discussed.
NOTE: The next two qraDhics discuss fullv Droven or risk assessment.
Since "risk" is not quantifiable (no such thing as 40 risk
units), the next graphic assists in defining what is meant by
risk, i.e., not university research bench scale and not
conventional treatment processes - it's something in between.
a. Criteria to be applied
(1) Life cycle cost (LCC) 15% less than nomnnovative
(2) Net primary energy requirements are 20% less
than noninnovative
(3) Improved reliability
(¦4) Better management of toxics
(5) Increased environmental benefits
(6) New or improved methods of joint municipal
and industrial treatment
(7) Regional Administrator's discretionary authority
Q
20
&
A
22
64
-------
Question
Lesson Outline #4
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The next graphic illustrates that alternative technoloav can
meet any one of the six criteria listed above while conventional
concepts of treatment must meet either the 15% cost savings
or 20% net primary energy savings. Also, first two criteria
quantifiable, last four not quantifiable.
I. Cost-effectiveness analysis
1. Comparison
a. Alternatives must be comparable in terms of
population and area served, and effluent limitations
b. Noninnovative alternative must be identified which is
- Least costly
- Least net primary energy
c. Noninnovative alternative must be cost-effective
NOTE: The instructor points out that an alternative may save 20%
or more net primary energy but be five times as costly as the
least costly noninnovative and therefore not quality as a
viable alternative.
End
d. Cost basis for comparison is the present worth cost
Part 5
2. Cost preference
Start
Innovative or alternative technology may be as much as 15%
Part 6
more expensive than the least costly noninnovative alter-
native and still be considered equal
a. Less than 50% - if the proposed innovative components
of a treatment project represent less than 50% of the
total present worth of the treatment project, then only
the replaced noninnovative components receive the
115% cost preference
b. Equal to or more than 50% - If the proposed innovative
components of a treatment project are greater than or
equal to 50% of the total present worth of the treat-
ment project, then the entire system receives 115%
cost preference
Q & A
23 - 25
65
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The instructor refers students to the table in their outlines
which illustrates the 15% cost preference and grant computations.
This table is from the I & A Assessment Manual, Figure 2-1 page
2-11, and has been slightly modified. The instructor indicates
that the cost preference is for present worth costs while the
grant is computed on capital costs.
End
Part 6
J. Alternative evaluation
All alternatives must meet the enforceable requirements of the
CWA and be evaluated on the basis of
1. Engineering - feasibility and energy analysis
2. Environmental - primary and secondary impacts
3. Economics - present worth cost-effectiveness
4. Institutional considerations - implementation capability
5. Public participation
K. Public participation
An active public participation program must be conducted by
the grantee in accordance with the regulations 40 CFR Part 25
(2/16/79) and include either
1. Basic program
2. Full scale program
L. Plan selection
1. Recommended plan must be
a. Cost-effective
b. Environmentally sound
c. Capable of implementation
d. Acceptable to the public
2. All facilities plans must include
a. Discussion of NEPA criteria
b. Schedule for implementation
c. Clearinghouse comments
Start
Part 7
Q & A
28
Q & A
26 & 27
66
-------
Project Preference
or Eligibility
Portion of Total Project That Is Eligible
For Project Portion
Less Than 50% of
Total Project
For Project Portion
Greater Than 50% of
Total Project
Authority
or
Reference
115% Cost-Effectiveness
Preference for Innovative
and Alternative (I & A)
Technology
(c)
Only I & A
Portion
Entire Project
CEAG
Paragraph 7
Appendix A
75% to 85% Grant Increase
for Innovative or Alter-
native (I & A) Technology
(d)
Only I & A
Portion
Only I & A
Portion
202 (a)2
202 (a)4
35.908(b)
Preamble
(a) Project eligiblity is based on present worth cost of total project eligible portions excluding
sewer related costs except for projects qualifying as alternatives to small communities (a
municipality with a population of 3,500 or less or a highly dispersed section of a larger
community).
(b) Conventional concepts of treatment qualifying as innovative under the energy criteria must
meet the overall 115% cost-effectiveness criteria to be eligible for funding.
(c) Cost preference is applied to present worth costs.
(d) Grants are computed on capital costs.
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
d. Summary of public participation
e. NPDES permit compliance
f. Civil Rights Act of 1964 compliance
g. Legal authority of management agency to implement plan
h. Municipal pretreatment program (where applicable)
i. Statement on availability of proposed sites
3. Recreation and open space opportunities
III. Facilities Plan Review Process
Decision - approve, disapprove, do EIS
A. Considerations for decision
1.
NEPA criteria - significant environmental impacts or
highly controversial
2.
Historic and archaeologic sites
3.
Wetlands (Executive Order)
4.
Floodplains (Executive Order)
5.
Coastal zones
6.
Wild and scenic rivers
7.
Threatened or endangered species (fish, wildlife, flora
and fauna)
8.
Prime agricultural lands (EPA policy)
B. Decision
1.
No EIS
a. Environmental assessment prepared
b. Public notified of finding of no significant impact (FNS
)
c. Project approved
2.
Prepare EIS
a. Public notified of intent to prepare EIS
b. Draft EIS prepared
c. Project modified or approved
Q & A
29 & 30
68
-------
Lesson Outline #4
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The instructor indicates that the NEPA implementing regulations
have been revised and the terminology has changed as follows.
NOTE: Change in Terminology
1. Environmental assessment prepared by grantee now called
environmental information document
2. Environmental appraisal prepared by state or EPA now
called an environmental assessment
3. Negative declaration prepared by EPA now called a finding
of no significant impact
Summary:
The instructor states,
"Alternative evaluation and plan selection is an iterative
process during which many of the considerations previously
described are reevaluated. Alternatives which are eliminated
must be described and the reasons for elimination explained."
"Trade-offs and value judgements must be exercised by the
grantee in concert with the public, state and federal regu-
latory agencies. The resulting project must abate water
pollution without creating a worse future environmental
problem."
End
Part 7
69
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12,
QUIZ ~ TOPIC #4
Facilities Plan Review
Comments of the appropriate clearinghouse (A-95 review)
are required for each facilities plan. True or False
List the five major components of a facilities plan.
List the three sequential steps in a sewer system evaluation.
Rainwater from a downspout on a house is considered infiltra-
tion? True or False
What determines if I/I is excessive?
Is an I/I analysis required for all projects?
May a grantee complete a facilities plan if excessive I/I
exists?
Is closed circuit television inspection of sewers a part of
an I/I analysis?
Is cleaning of all sewers within a municipality an allowable
cost for grant participation?
The planning period for facilities plans is 10, 15 or 20 years,
depending on the circumstances. True or False
Straight line population projections using 1940, 1950, I960,
1970 and 1980 census figures is the only acceptable means of
determining future populations. True or False
The use of 100 gal/capita/day is an acceptable method of
projecting future flows. True or False
70
-------
Topic #4 Quiz (Cont'd.)
13. Septic tanks should be eliminated in all cases. True or False
14. What are the five waste management techniques that must be
evaluated in each facilities plan?
15. Treatment and discharge to surface waters is EPA's preferred
waste management technique. True or False
16. The NPDES permit may contain the effluent limitations for
treatment and discharge to surface waters at an existing
treatment plant. True or False
17. Alternative technology projects include land application and
on-site systems. True or False
18. Alternative technology projects are fully proven processes or
techniques. True or False
19. Innovative projects may be either alternative technology or
conventional concepts of treatment. True or False
20. Alternative technology projects or those employing conventional
concepts of treatment may be classified as innovative by meet-
ing any one of the six qualifying criteria. True or False
21. A conventional project which saves 15% LCC may be automatically
classified as innovative and receive an 85% grant. True or False
22. An alternative technology project automatically receives an
85% grant. True or False
23. The 15% cost preference is applied to
a. capital costs
b. present worth costs
c. construction costs
71
-------
Topic #4 Quiz (Cont'd.)
24. In computing net primary energy for a particular project, the
energy value of coal used to generate electricity by the
utility company is included in the computations. True or False
25. I & A projects receive an 8 5% grant for Step 1, 2 and 3 work.
True or False
26. A formal public hearing is the only requirement for public
participation. True or False
27. Comments of the public must be included in the facilities
planning document. True or False
28. What five broad criteria are used to evaluate alternatives?
29. An EIS is prepared for every facilities plan. True or False
30. An EIS, if required, is prepared by the state agency. True
or False
72
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #4
1. True - If a clearinghouse has been designated
2. (1) preliminary studies and background; (2) future situation;
(3) alternatives; (4) public input; (5) plan selection
3. (1) I/I analysis; (2) SSES; (3) sewer rehabilitation
4. False - inflow
5. I/I is excessive if it is more expensive to treat than to remove.
6. No - Only for municipalities with existing sewers
7. Generally no unless exception c (40 CFR 35.927-5[c]) is
applicable
8. No - It is part of an SSES and must be justified in an I/I
analysis as being cost-effective.
9. No - Only those sewers which require cleaning prior to CCTV
inspections as part of the SSES
10. False - Planning period is always 20 years; construction of
the project may be staged for a 10, 15 or 20 year period.
11. False - The WQM (208) projections must be used as a ceiling;
state disaggregations are also used.
12. False - Flow projections are based on actual consumptive flows
or lacking this data per capita flows shown in Appendix A.
13. False - Septic tanks may be made to operate satisfactorily if
a program of septage management is employed. A needs
survey (PRM 78-9) will indicate those septics which
are not operating properly and may need to be replaced
with alternative technology or conventional concepts of
treatment.
73
-------
Topic #4 Answers (Cont'd.)
14. (1) treatment and discharge to surface waters; (2) recycle/
reuse; (3) land treatment; (4) revenue generating systems;
(5) on-site
15. False - Land treatment is.
16. True
17. True
18. True
19. True
20. False - Alternative technology one of the six; conventional
projects must meet either 15% LCC savings or 20%
net primary energy reduction.
21. False - It must have risk and corresponding advancement of the
state-of-the-art (benefits).
22. False - It must be cost-effective when compared with the least
costly noninnovative projects although it is given a
15% preference.
23. b. present worth cost
24. False - Only primary energy is computed, i.e., energy crossing
the boundary of the waste treatment system.
25. Since tapes were made, the law h.3? been changed sp th,at 85%
applies to Steps 1, 2 c^d 3,
26. False - An active basic or full public participation program
is required.
74
-------
Topic #4 Answers (Cont'd.)
27. True - Responsiveness summaries and generally a full tran-
script of public hearing must be included; the grantee
must address meaningful public comments.
28. (1) engineering; (2) environmental; (3) economic; (4) institu-
tional considerations (iniplementability) ; (5) public participa-
tion
29. False -
EPA decides which projects will require an EIS and
which will not.
30. False -
An EIS must be prepared by a federal agency (consul-
tants may be used); an EAS may be prepared by the
state if this function has been delegated.
75
-------
INSTRUCTOR r~
LESSON PLAN D
Topic #5: AVOIDING DELAYS AND RESOLVING PROBLEMS
DURING FACILITIES PLAN PREPARATION
Objective: An example problem is presented to insure that students under-
stand how the 15% cost preference is applied to innovative
and alternative projects. A case study is presented and
discussed to illustrate common errors in facilities plans
and insure that students understand some of the concepts and
requirements for facilities planning discussed in lesson plan 4.
Suggested Time: 60 minutes
Required
Equipment: None
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
T.nna1-n on
Cost Preference and Grant Computations for ISA Projects
Introduction:
It has been observed that many regulatory personnel and consulting
engineers do not understand the application of the 15% cost preference
as applied to innovative and alternative technology projects. The class-
room instructor may wish to review Table 2-1 "Cost-Effectiveness and
Grant Increase Project Portion Eligibility" on page 2-5 of the I & A
Technology Assessment Manual (MCD-53). This table has also been
reproduced in lesson plan 3. The example is given below with "notes"
for the classroom instructor.
EXAMPLE
A proposed innovative system has passed the risk test and
fulfills the requirements of 20% net primary energy savings. The
components which are being considered as innovative are the
primary and secondary process equipment.
NOTE: A project may not be considered innovative unless there is an
acceptable degree of risk (not fully proven in the circumstances <
f
76
-------
Lesson Outline #5
Question
& Answer
Location
contemplated use) and corresponding benefits (advancement of
the state-of-the-art). The risk and benefits are assumed for
this example. Also, a project must meet one of the six inno-
vative criteria - 20% net primary energy savings in this
example. The question remains is the project still within the
cost-effective range?
The present worth costs of the proposed system and the
least costly noninnovative system are shown below.
Least Costly Proposed
Noninnovative Innovative
System System
Capital
PW *
Capital
PW *
Primary
S 100
$ 110
$
31
$ 35
Secondary
720
753
830
905
AWT
873
971
873
971
Total
$ 1,693
$ 1,834
$
1,734
$ 1,911
* PW includes 0 & M
Computations:
NOTE: The first step is to determine if the proposed innovative
components represent 50% or less of the total proposed
innovative system. The present worth costs are used for
this computation, not the capital costs.
1. 35 + 905 = 940
NOTE: Since the innovative components are less than 50%, only the
replaced noninnovative components are given the 15% preference,
These figures from the table above are:
3. (a) 110 + 753 = 863
(b) 863 x 1.15 = 992.45
77
-------
Lesson Outline #5
Question
& Answer
Iiocatipn
NOTE: The figure in (b) above, when added to the AWT portion of the
project (noninnovative component), represents a ceiling which
the proposed innovative system may not exceed.
(c) 992.45 + 971 = 1,963.45
Result;
$1,911 is less than $1,963.45; therefore, the proposed
system is considered to be within the cost-effective limit and
may be selected by the grantee.
NOTE: Students have erroneously used the present worth costs of the
replaced components in applying the 50% rule. For example,
110 + 753 = 863. 863 * 1,834 = 47% which in this example
also happens to be less than 50%. This may not be the case
in real projects and the students should be cautioned about
this potential error.
Grant Calculations;
Capital costs of innovative components:
(31 + 830) x .85 = 731.85
Capital cost of noninnovative component:
873 x .75 = 654.75
Total Grant $1,3B6.60
NOTE; The instructor will emphasize that only the innovative or al-
ternative components receive the 85% grant. Noninnovative
components receive a 75% grant. Also, grants are given on
the capital costs, not the present worth costs.
The instructor may wish to illustrate the application of the
50% rule and 15% cost preference by telling the students to
assume that the AWT is the proposed innovative component.
The corresponding computations for this assumption are as
follows and are included in the student outlines.
(1) innovative component $971
971
(2> i 9ii x 100 = 51%
(3) 1,834 x 1.15 = 2,109
78
-------
Lesson Outline #5
Question
& Answer
Location
Result:
$1,911 is less than $2,109; therefore, proposed innovative
system is considered to be within the cost-effective limit and
may be selected by the grantee.
Grant Calculations:
Capital cost of noninnovative component:
(31 + 830) x .75 = 645.75
Capital costs of innovative components:
873 x .85 = 742.05
Total Grant $1,387.80
Summary of Example;
Insure that the 50% rule is applied to the present worth
costs of the proposed innovative or alternative system. Apply
the 15% cost preference to either the replaced noninnovative
components or the entire noninnovative treatment project
(excluding collection system) depending on the outcome of the
50% test. Establish the upper limit for the I or A proposed
system to determine if it is cost-effective. Compute grant on
capital costs at 85% for I or A components and 75% for non-
innovative components.
Case Study
Introduction:
The case study requires the students to spend approximately
15 minutes reading the project summary and approximately 20 minutes
answering the discussion questions. The instructor is to pose the
questions to the students and lead a discussion indicating the
79
-------
Lesson Outline #5
Question
& Answer
JyQca,t;ion
deficiencies in the facilities plan. The case study is based on a
real project but the na»es have been changed to protect the innocent
(guilty?). The case study is presented below and the points to be
drawn out are presented in the discussion questions.
Project Name: Quadri-Municipal Facilities Planning Area
Location: 75 miles NSE of Gotham City
History: Several comprehensive sewer studies performed in the
late 60's calling for a Regional POTW discharging to
the Moy River
Existing Conditions:
Total land area - 29,200 ac
Residentially zoned vacant land - 19,200 ac
Vacant land constrained by wetlands, - 12,600 ac
floodplains, steep slopes or prime
agricultural land
Developed land - 10,000 ac
Total zoning capacity Call residential land) - 116,000
Present population - 46,000
208 projection (year 2000) - 75,000
Facilities plan population projection - 102,000
Existing Facilities:
A 1 mgd primary plant serving Village of Katztown and a portion
of Spinneyton. A number of small facilities (some secondary
and some AWT) serving individual housing developments. Total
wastewater flow is 2 mgd. All plants discharge to surface
waters. All but Kat2town plant discharge to small streams
which, according to state policy, require high levels of
treatment (AWT). There are large areas where the soil has a
shallow depth to groundwater and there have been a number of
complaints in regard to failing septic systems according to the
80
-------
l.oc'ion Outline #5
Question
& Answer
location
facilities plan. Because of this, the facilities plan recom-
mends that a centralized system of sewers and treatment
facilities should be extended to all unsewered developed areas.
Alternatives Evaluated:
1. A single regional secondary treatment facility discharing
to the Moy River and serving the entire 201 planning area
2. Two facilities, one on Hoehleinville Kill serving the
village and surrounding area and one on the Moy River
serving the remaining study area
3. Several interceptor configurations
4. Several sites for the Moy River facility
Project Size:
Design flow (year 2000) of 10 mgd
Interceptors designed for 20 mgd
Selected Plan: (see map)
Alternative 1 with elimination of all existing facilities
81
-------
QUADRI-MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES PLANNING
AREA
VanSchor
Park
Town of
LaLarned
Town
Hoehlein
f
I
Town of
Spinneyton ;
Villa
own
Town
Facilities Planning Area
Municipal Boundaries
Stream
A Existing STP's
Developed Areas
82
-------
QUADRI-MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES PLANNING
AREA
VanSchoi
Park
Town/.of'
LaLafrne
,
Town
Hoehlein
Town of
Spinneyton /
Environmentally Sensitive
Area (Floodplains, Steep
Slopes, Wetland)
Prime Agricultural Land
-------
QUADRI-MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES PLANNING
AREA
VanScho
Park
Town of
LaLarned
Recommended Plan
Town of
Hoehlein
Town of
Spinneyton /
Village of
Katztown
Town of
Palagonia
Abandoned STP's
Regional POTW
Intercepting Sewer
Pump Station and
Force Main
-------
Lesson Outline #5
Question
& Answer
LQCattgn
Discussion
1. Was there adequate alternative evaluation?
NO.' Grantee did not consider
a. Land application - preferred by EPA
b. Upgrading of existing facilities
c. Innovative technology
d. Small wastewater systems including
- Rehabilitation of septic tanks
- Cluster septic tanks or mound systems
2. Comment on population projection used
a. Grantee proposed 102,000
WQM (208) plan shows 75,000
Grantee may not exceed WQM approved projection except in
very unusual circumstances. Therefore, population is
unacceptable.
b. From a density viewpoint
Residentially zoned vacant land 19,200 ac
Constrained vacant land 12,600 ac
Residentially zoned vacant land available
for development 6,600 ac
^ , 46,000 present population . , ,
Present density = , _ — = 4.6 persons/ac
1 10,000 developed land r
Future growth at same density 4.6 persons ,
x 6,600 acres
acre
= 30,360 additional population
Future population at same density = 46,000 present
+ 30,360 future
= 76,360 which is close to
WQM (208) projec-
tion
The point may be made that if the communities want to maintain
their present character they may possibly do this by maintaining
a similar density. If the proposed population of 102,000 was
85
-------
Lesson Outline #5
T
Question
& Answer
Location
used, the density would be 102,000 t (10,000 + 6,600) 6.1 persons/
acre or 33% increase over the present density.
3. Do per capita flows seem reasonable based on total flow and popu-
lation served?
^0, .— = 98 gal/cap/day
102,000 population y y
This is very close to the 100 gpcd figure used by many engineers
and state design standards. EPA has taken the position that unless
flows higher than those shown in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 35
are well documented, they may not be used. Appendix A shows:
Non-SMSA cities and towns with
projected total 10 year populations of
5,000 or less -60 to 70 gpcd
Other cities and towns - 65 to 80 gpcd
Using the WQM population projection of 75,000 and per capita
consumption of 80 gpcd, the total design flow of the treatment
plant would be 6.0 mgd or 60% of what has been proposed. Therefore,
the proposed per capita flows are not acceptable .
Some students had indicated the proposed 10 mgd plant is a fivefold
increase because in the description of the existing facilities it
states, "Total wastewater flow is 2 mgd." This flow represents
flows at existing facilities but does not include the unsewered
population presently on septic tanks.
4. Interceptor routes chosen were designed to minimize the loss of
trees and impacts to surface waters. Facilities plan, therefore,
states that adverse environmental impacts are not significant.
Do you agree?
NO - Woefully inadequate. Facilities plan must specifically
address:
Primary and secondary impacts
86
-------
Lesson Outline #5
Question
& Answer
Location
Impacts on agricultural land
Impacts on wetlands and floodplains
Loss of vegetation along interceptor route
Siltation, etc.
5. The site chosen (on the banks of the scenic Moy River) is adjacent
to Van Schory Park which was originally part of the Van Schory
estate which according to local historians was the original (c. 1643]
settlement in the area. Legend has it that a gristmill and large
mansion once existed somewhere on the property. A preliminary
archaeological survey (walk through) was done during facilities
planning and no remains were seen. How would you approach the
problem of its potential historical significance?
The grantee must document that the National Register of Historic
Places has been adequately reviewed. The state or federal reviewer
will obtain advice from the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO). Depending on the SHPO advice a more detailed investigation
by a qualified archaeologist may or may not have to be done.
Additional investigations (perhaps preliminary digs) may require
a grant amendment to cover the costs.
The procedures to identify and investigate archaeological or
cultural resources vary from state to state. Therefore, the
instructor will modify his discussion of this question to the
specific procedures of the state.
Summary of Case Study;
The case study was based on a real project and approved by the state
agency. EPA reviewed the project and determined that an environmental
impact statement should be done. The project has been in progress for
seven years and as of this date (March, 1980) the facilities plan has
not been approved. How could this fiasco have been avoided? Communi-
87
-------
Lesson Out.line #5
Question
& Answer
Location
cations and contact between the regulatory agencies (state or EPA)
and the grantee or his consultant. The case study indicates that
although EPA had published regulations, handbooks, guidelines, etc.
and the state may have distributed these materials, neither the grantee
nor his engineer read and/or understood what they read.
Construction grants regulatory personnel have an obligation to
manage their projects. One aspect of managing projects is to make
periodic contact with the grantees to review progress, problems,
misunderstandings, etc. While it cannot be said with absolute
assurance, it is very likely that the project discussed in this case
study could have avoided the preparation of an E1S had better communi-
cations taken place with the grantee.
88
-------
INSTRUCTORo
LESSON PLANO
Topic #6: STEP 1 GRANT PROCESSING
Objective: The students must be aware of the many construction grants
publications published by EPA, be able to define an
eligible applicant, be able to conduct a preapplication
conference, and know how to review and process Step 1
project applications.
Part 1 25:24
Videotape Part 2 26:49
Running part 3 27:08
Time: Part 4 28;40
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" U-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
In lesson plan 4 students were exposed to the complex details of
facilities planning. As the Step 1 grant processing lesson is presented
the instructor points out those items which are potential problems or
areas of delay. In this manner students will be aware of the items to
emphasize at a preapplication conference or to be critically reviewed
in the application package.
I. Preapplication Information
A. General
1„ Be aware of and distribute to applicants information pub-
lished by EPA and state agencies including handbooks
(particularly MCD-04), guidelines, rules and regulations,
etc.
NOTE: The instructor holds up and displays a copy of "How to Obtain
Federal Grants to Build Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works"
(MCD-04). This publication, published by EPA, has been
specifically written for municipal (lay) officials. It is
written in easily understood language and attempts to minimize
references to regulations or other documents. The objective
of this publication is to get municipal officials involved in
their project and not leave it just to the "professionals."
89
-------
Lesson Outline #6
Question
& Answer
Location
2. Most desirablt- to meet with applicant, state and con-
sultant at preapplication conference (consultant may or
may not be present)
NOTE: The instructor notes that technically the applicant's consultant
should not be at the preapplication conference since the
applicant should not have hired a consultant at this point.
However, the applicant may have satisfied EPA's procurement
requirements and it is possible that the consultant will be
present.
B. Applicant eligibility
3.
Public body created under state law which has as one of
its responsibilities the treatment, transport or disposal
of liquid wastes of the general public in a particular
geographic area
Must have authority to plan, design, construct, finance,
operate and maintain treatment works under state law or
have reasonable expectation of doing so
Does not include airport, turnpike, port facility or
other municipal utility such as school or park districts,
water treatment works nor power plants
4. Clean Water Act of 1977 permits grants for privately
owned treatment works serving principal residences or
small commercial establishments constructed and inhabited
prior to December 27, 1977; however, applicant must
be a public body, as defined above, applying on behalf
of a number of individual units
Preapplication conference
1. Include state, applicant, and ideally consultant
Clarify which functions, if any, have been delegated
to state and establish lines of communication
Discuss three step process but emphasize plan of study
(POS) and facilities plan
2.
3.
Q & A
1 & 2
Q & A
3
90
-------
I,f:',son Outline #6
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The specific items listed below in 4. are recommendations of
subjects to be discussed at a preapplication conference.
Many states or EPA regional offices have checklists or out-
lines for preapplication conferences. In this case, the
students should use prescribed form. In any case, the
students will be advised to discuss only those items applicable
to the specific project in order not to overwhelm and confuse
the applicant. For example, if a project is for upgrading
of a treatment plant (no extension of collection system or
expansion of the treatment plant), it will not be necessary
to discuss the collection system limitations or on-site
disposal systems.
4. Specific items to discuss
a. Important dates
(1) 10/18/72 - P.L. 92-500 passage, collection
systems (35.925-13[a])
(2) 12/27/77 - P.L. 95-217 passage, privately
owned systems (35.918-1[a])
(3) 9/30/78 - I & A requirements, primary energy
and open space opportunities
(35.917[d][8], [9])
(4) 6/30/79 - UC/ICR systems approved before
award of Step 3 grant
(35.935-13 [c], 15[c])
(5) 10/1/79 - Compliance with approved WQM plans
(35.917 [e])
(6) 12/31/80 - Certain pretreatment requirements
met before Step 2 grant award
(35.920-3[b][9])
(7) 12/31/81 - All Dretreatment requirements met
before SteD 3 grant award
(35.920-3 f c] [4])
NOTE: A/E procurement is not discussed at this point but is discussed
in greater detail later in the grant application review. How-
ever the applicant must be made aware of the importance of A/E
procurement and the satisfaction of MBE goals. Therefore, this
is one item to stress at the preapplication conference.
91
-------
Lesson Outline #6
Question
a Answer
Location
b. Contracts for architectural/engineering (A/E) services,
including type of contract and procurement procedures
(emphasize Minority Business Enterprises [MBE] partici-
pation per 40 CFR 35.936-7)
End
Part 1
c. Administrative requirements
(1) Application and supporting documents
Start
Part 2
(2)
A-95 clearinghouse reviews
(3)
Prior costs
NOTE: The instructor indicates that fewer and fewer proiects are beina
submitted which have allowable prior costs. Important dates •
are April 1, 1980 and April 1, 1981 and the classroom instructor
may wish to review-40 CFR 35.925-18 before discussing this item.
(4)
Force account
(5)
Intermunicipal agreements
(6)
Nonfederal share of funds
(7)
Priority list
(8)
Recordkeeping
(9)
Limitations on collection systems
(10)
User charge/industrial cost recovery (UC/ICR),
ad valorem taxes (a tax based on property value)
(11)
Public participation
(12)
Civil Rights Act of 1964
(13)
Small alternative wastewater systems
(14)
Coordination of grant funding with other federal
agencies (FHA, EDA, HUD)
(15)
Payment requests
d. Technical requirements
(1)
Degree of detail in Plan of Study (POS) and
Facilities Plan
92
-------
3
Lesson Outline #6
Question
& Ar.swer
Location
NOTE: EPA regional offices have been observed to vary the amount of
detail they wish to see in a POS and FP. However, the point
to be made is to tell the applicant and/or his consultant how
much detail is expected in the POS and FP in order to preclude
future correspondence, time delays and disagreements. Some
regions expect the facilities plan to contain a detailed
engineering design report for the selected plan. Others will
accept lesser details. No matter what the regional policy
is, it should be explained to the applicant at the preapplica-
tion conference.
(2) Project tasks and costs in POS including a
public participation work plan
(3) Weir overflow rates, BOD loadings, etc. in
facilities plan
(4) Unique features, historical and archaeological
(5) Cost-effectiveness (including innovative and
alternative technology and energy requirements
for Step 1 projects begun after 9/30/78)
(6) Sewer system evaluation, infiltration/inflow (I/I),
sewer system evaluation survey (SSES), and
rehabilitation
(7) Environmental information document (EID) as
part of the facilities plan
(8) Pretreatment and incompatible wastes
(9) Compliance with NPDES permit
(10) Waste treatment management techniques; BPWTT for
- Treat and discharge
- Land disposal (heavy)
- Recycle, reuse
- Revenue generating systems
(11) Potential opportunities for recreation and
open space
(12) Estimated project cost and user charges
(13) Other federal requirements - flood insurance,
hometown plan, Davis Bacon (minimum wage), scenic
rivers, etc.
End
Part 2
Start
Part 3
93
-------
Question
Lesson Outline #6 & Answer
Location
NOTE: The instructor indicates that the preapplication conference
may be the first contact with an applicant. Therefore,
it is of utmost importance that applicable requirements be
explained in clear, concise language.
II. Application Review and Grant Offer Preparation
A. Application package contents
NOTE: The instructor briefly lists the items to be included in the
application package. Later each item is discussed in detail,
1. Plan of study
2. A-95 clearinghouse comments
3. Application form (57Q0-321
4. Proposed or actual subagreements tgenerally
engineering agreements)
5. Application submitted to state for review, approval
and issuance of priority certification
NOTE: The next item to be discussed in detail is the plan of study.
The instructor points out that the POS is the most important
item in the application. Also, the cost of preparation of a
POS is not grant eligible and this has created some conflicts,
Most smaller communities ask their engineers to prepare the POS,
In theory the engineer should not have been hired at this point.
However, some communities pay the engineers with local funds
to prepare the POS. The regulations require four items to be
included in the POS as shown below. At first glance these items
appear simple, but they can be rather complex. EPA regional
offices and state agencies vary in the amount of detail they
require in the POS. This is why the point of "degree of detail"
was emphasized in the preapplication conference discussion.
The instructor again makes the point that the state or EPA
personnel need to advise the applicant the level of detail they
require in the POS. The instructor holds up and displays a copy
of "Model Plan of Study" (MCD-24) which students will provide
to the applicant as a guide to fulfilling the regulatory
requirements.
94
-------
Lesson Outline #6
Question
& Answer
Location
B. Plan of study - regulations require four items
1. Designation of planning area - generally a map
(USGS, for example)
2. Identification of planning entity and agreement
between entities when more than one involved
3. Nature and scope of project including schedule of
tasks and public participation program
4. Itemization of costs - generally by task
C. Processing of application
1. Plan of study must
a. Demonstrate applicant understands requirements -
after 9/30/78 particular attention must be given to
Q & A
4
(1)
(2)
(4)
(5)
Innovative and alternative technology alternatives
Recreational and open space opportunities
(3) On-site and small alternative wastewater treat-
ment systems
Energy requirements
Pretreatment requirements
b. Contain a payment schedule as appropriate
c. Agree with state designated boundaries
d. Comply with requirements of WQM plans
e. Agree with requirements of NPDES permit if issued
f. Include prior costs, if any, with explanation
g. Demonstrate resolution of conflicts with any of above
h. Be circulated to other branches for review and con-
currence (EIS Branch, Enforcement Branch, Planning
Branch, etc.)
NOTE; In discussing the A-95 review process, the instructor indicates
that there is nothing magic about the number A-95. It happens
that this is the numbering system used by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget (0MB), and for lack of a better name "A-95"
has been attached to this review procedure. The object of the
A-95 review is to insure that coordination is provided between
and among many of the state, federal and local activities
that take place in a specific area. For example, we do not
95
-------
Lesson Outline; #6
Question
& Answer
Location
wish to see a POTW located on the same site as a nuclear power
plant through which an interstate highway is proposed. Also,
the level of review and the comments provided by the A-95
clearinghouses vary from meaningful comments to nothing.
2. Clearinghouse comments (A-95)
a. OMB circular A-95 established procedures
b. Generally grantee submits POS to clearinghouse
c. Adverse comments must be addressed and resolved
NOTE: In discussing the priority certification form the instructor
points that the state prepares it and the EPA reviews it. The
discussion below is for the EPA reviewer.
3. Priority certification
a. Properly signed by state
b. Project included on approved state priority list
(unless funded from 10% reserve) and certified as
being entitled to priority for grant over all other
projects below it
c. Name, description and all other data agree with POS
and application form
4. Application form (5700-32)
a. Applicant must have authority to plan, design,
finance, construct, operate and maintain wastewater
treatment facilities under state law
NOTE: Generally, the attorney for the municiplaity will cite the
state statute which provides authority of the applicant to plan,
design, etc. Students need to be familiar with the state sta-
tutes to insure the applicant does in fact have this authority.
b. Site requirements not necessary
NOTE: At the Step 1 stage, the applicant does not know what his final
project will be and, therefore, cannot address the interests
he has in the site. This information, therefore, is not neces-
sary at this stage of the grant process.
96
-------
Lesson Outline #6
Question
& Answer
Location
c. Funding assurances for nonfederal share
NOTE: The grantee may use local funds for his portion of the project
or may show funds from other sources (FmHA, EDA, ARC, etc.).
Also, the applicant may show a state grant or revenue sharing
funds to offset the local cost. In any case/ students need
to be assured that the other sources of funds are available or
that a firm commitment exists for 'these funds.
d. Part V assurances must be attached
NOTE: The applicant assurances are contained in Part V of the
application (EPA form 5700-32). Some regions have noted that
applicants remove this page from the application. In this
case, the regions have sent a letter with page 11 to the
applicant requesting acknowledgement and the signature of the
authorized official.
e. Resolution authorizing official to sign
f. Reviewer will insure all costs requested for grant
participation are allowable (see MCD-03, Chapter VII)
Q & A
5-7
End
Part 3
NOTE: The next subject is subaqreements and qenerally refers to A/E
procurement. The instructor discusses this complex subject
in detail. Special emphasis is given to minority business
enterprises goals and requirements as they relate both to
the applicant and his engineer. It should also be noted
that the regulations allow a grant offer to be made in the
absence of an engineering agreement if the applicant describes
how he will procure engineering services in accordance with
EPA's regulations. However, the material below assumes that
the procurement procedures have taken place and an explanation
of the procedures used and a proposed engineering subagree-
ment are submitted for review.
It is important to point out that the regulations do not re-
quire competitive bidding but do allow the comparison of
prices at the applicant's option (tantamount to competitive
bidding). The instructor discusses advertising, review of
qualifications statements, requests for detailed proposals
Start
Part 4
97
-------
Lesson Outline #6
Question
& Answer
Location
including prices, interviews of candidate firms, negotiation
of prices and selection procedures. It is important that the
grantee documents the procedures used in procuring A/E or other
professionals. Highlighted requirements for procurement are
listed below and included in the students* outline. A complete
discussion of procurement is included here but is not discussed
in detail later in the Step 2 and Step 3 grant processing
procedures.
5. Subagreements (or intended method of awarding
subagreements)
a. Satisfaction of procurement regulations
(40 CFR 35.936, ,937)
b. Percent of construction not allowed
c. Appendix C-l to be included in subagreements
(see 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E)
d. Include EPA form 5700-41 showing profit
e. Must include completion schedules, method of payment
f. Must demonstrate satisfaction of MBE requirements
Q & A
D. Grant award procedures
8 & 9
1. Complete agreement per Grants Administration Manual
NOTE: The "Handbook of Procedures" (MCD-03) provides some detail on
the procedures to be followed in awarding grants. However,
the "Grants Administration Manual" provides much greater detail
on how to complete each item of each form. Therefore, the
instructor points out to those students working in grants
administration that they should obtain a copy of and become
familiar with the "Grants Administration Manual."
NOTE: The next topic addresses regional or state internal procedures
which vary from state to state, region to region. Three
example regional procedures are listed below, and the classroom
instructor may wish to supplement these with the specific regional
procedures if these are known.
2. Regional and state procedures such as
a. Notify financial management branch
b. Prepare briefing memos for Regional Administrator
c. Preparation of transmittal letters to state,
applicant, consultant, etc.
98
-------
Question
Lesson Outline #6 & Answer
Location
3. Complete EPA form 5700-1B and transmit to headquarters
for advance (5 days) congressional notification
NOTE: The instructor cautions students not to confirm to an applicant
nor his engineer that a grant offer has been signed by the
Regional Administrator. The congressional liaison office is
very strict about providing five days advance notice to con-
gressional representatives prior to EPA official announcement.
4. Complete Government Information Control System (GICS)
coding sheets
NOTE; The instructor discusses the Government Information Control
System (GICS) and indicates its importance as a management tool.
GICS contains a complete tracking history of all projects indi-
cating future milestones, completed items, etc. The print-outs
may be used to "manage" projects and reallocate resources in the
event that more projects are in Step 2 or Step 3, etc. However,
as with all computer data systems, the output information is only
as good as the care and timeliness of the information put into
the system. Therefore, students are encouraged to keep the GICS
up to date and utilize this information to manage their projects.
5. Clearinghouse notification (if required) both A-95 and
Treasury Department Circular No. 1082
E. Grant agreement/amendment
1. EPA form 5700-20
2. Contract between grantee and EPA
NOTE; The instructor points out that when a grant offer is made and
accepted it forms a contract between the grantee and EPA.
This contract constitutes an "obligation" on the part of EPA
to reimburse the grantee for work completed on the project. The
obligation of funds means that these funds have been set aside
for that project and will not be lost at the end of the appro-
priation period. However, no cash has changed hands as yet.
EPA makes payments of grant funds only for work that has been
completed, i.e., not advance payments. This point is emphasized
since some grantees expect payment of the grant funds before
they incur debts.
99
-------
Lesson Outline #6
Question
& Answer
Location
Must dr-f]iv! scope of project
4. Contain special conditions, if any
NOTE: Special conditions contained in the grant offer vary widely
depending on the nature of the pro]ect. A few typical examples
are: requirements of the clearinghouse; requests for special-
ized procedures from the state agency; archaeological inves-
tigations; contact with the Department of Interior for rare or
endangered species identified in the POS; etc.
5. Require grantee to complete "Summary of Costs of
Planned Treatment Works Scheduled by Project and
Category"
6. Grantee has three weeks to accept
7. Official signing grant offer must be same as
designated or submit new resolution
Q & A
10 & 11
Summary:
Students have been exposed to the complexities involved in pre-
paring and reviewing facilities plans. In reviewing and processing
a Step 1 application, the reviewer must insure that the applicant
fully understands the requirements for facilities planning as
described in the Plan of Study. In addition, the applicant must
clearly understand his responsibilities for maintaining accurate records.
procurement of professional services and the need to conduct an active
public participation program. The applicant's first and most influ-
ential exposure to these items will take place at the preapplication
conference. Thereafter, the reviewer has a responsibility to manage
the project and follow up with the grantee.
End
Part 4
100
-------
QUIZ - TOPIC #6
Step 1 Grant Processing
A sewage treatment plant owned and operated exclusively by
an airport authority is a grant eligible payment. True or
False
An individual homeowner may apply for a grant to repair his/her
privately owned septic tank. True or False
At a preapplication conference should the requirements for
a plan of operation be emphasized?
List the four regulatory elements of a plan of study.
Are the costs of preparing the application and POS allowable
for grant participation?
Must a project be included on the state's priority list by
name before a grant can be made?
The applicant must show in the application form or other
documents the source of funds for the local share. True or
False
An engineer's contract shows that his fee is a percentage of
construction costs in accordance with the American Society of
Civil Engineers' fee schedule. Is this acceptable?
May the applicant merely state in a letter that there are no
MBE firms interested in the project?
Once the grant offer is signed by the Regional Administrator
of EPA, may it be mailed to the grantee?
101
-------
Topic #6 Quiz (Cont'd.)
11. Once a grant offer is accepted by the grantee, 10% of the
grant funds may be paid to the grantee. True or False
102
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #6
False
False
No - Primary emphasis should be placed on the Step 1
requirements of facilities planning.
(1) planning area (map); (2) planning entity; (3) scope of
project; (4) itemized costs
No
Generally yes unless the state has opted for setting aside
10% for Step 1 or 2 projects.
True
No - Percentage of construction costs not allowed; generally
cost plus fixed fee or fixed price type contracts are
used.
No - The grantee must take positive actions to solicit MBE
firms and document these actions.
No - Must wait 5 days for congressional notification.
False - Grant payments are made only to reimburse grantee
for costs incurred; no advance payment.
103
-------
INSTRUCTOR -7
LESSON PLAN /
Topic #7: ,r;Ti:p 2 grant processing
Objective: Students must know the requirements for and contents
of a Step 2 grant application, be able to conduct a
predesign conference, and know how to review and
process Step 2 project applications.
Videotape Part 1 26:36
Running Part 2 23:53
Time: Part 3 28:39
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" U-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
This topic discusses the technical and administrative requirements
of processing a Step 2 and Step 2+3 grant application. Later topics
discuss the review of the work performed by the grantee under the
Step 2 or Step 2+3 grant. Therefore, this topic is relatively brief
and includes some material that was discussed in the Step 1 grant
processing (A-95 clearinghouse comments, priority certification, etc.).
The instructor briefly reviews the duplicate materials but places
most of the emphasis on the newer materials.
1. Type of Step 2 Grant Projects
A. General - In general most applicants will have applied for
and received a Step 1 grant prior to applying for a Step 2
grant. However, exceptional projects are sometimes discovered
for which some or all of the Step 1 work was initiated prior
to a grant. These older or "woodwork" projects are discussed
below indicating important dates and the requirement that
"all allowable costs incurred before initiation of construction
of the project must be claimed in the application for grant
assistance for that project before the award of the assistance
104
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
& Answer
Location
or no subsequent payment will be made for the costs" (40 CFR
35.945, .925-18). In other words grantees are required to
claim all prior costs in their first application or else
these costs will be considered nonallowable.
B. Projects not previously funded
1. Project work begun after 10/31/74 but before 6/30/75
- Must have had an approved plan of study or
facilities plan (in accordance with applicable
regulations at that time)
- Must obtain Step 2 grant before 4/1/81
- Prior costs may be allowable for grant participation
2. Project work begun before 11/1/74
- Must obtain Step 2 grant before 4/1/80
- Prior costs may be allowable for grant participation
NOTE: The instructor indicates that there are fewer and fewer
projects not previously funded as time goes on. However,
the dates described above are primarily directed toward
limiting these projects and the associated earlier costs.
These costs and the work they represent are difficult to docu-
ment and may not always be pertinent to the proposed projects.
Students who are new to the Construction Grants Program will
want to discuss these types of projects with their super-
visors or other more experienced personnel.
C. Projects which are segments of larger projects
1. Must insure that the statutory requirements of facilities
planning are satisfied
2. Facilities plan must be essentially complete and
proposed project is in agreement
3. Applicant must agree to complete facilities plan and/or
other segments of project resulting in an operable
treatment works meeting the enforceable requirements
of the CWA
D. Projects which have satisfied Step 1 facilities planning
requirements
Q & A
1
105
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
& Answer
Location
II. Afjplication Review and Grant Offer Preparation
A. Application package contents
1. Approved facilities plan - If facilities plan has been
previously approved, applicant need only submit copy of
approval letter. Proposed project must conform to
approved facilities plan and any special conditions of the
approval (requirements for further archaeological surveys,
for example).
2. Priority certification - prepared by state for
submission to EPA
3. Application form
a. Applicant must have authority to design, finance,
construct, operate and maintain wastewater treatment
facilities under state law
b. Statement (generally legal opinion) regarding the
availability of the proposed site or status of
necessary easements
c. Funding assurances for nonfederal share
d. Part V assurances must be attached
e. Resolution authorizing official to sign
f. Reviewer will insure all costs requested for grant
participation are allowable
4. Subagreements (or intended method of awarding
subagreements)
NOTE: The subject of subagreements was discussed in Step 1 grant
processing (the preceding topic) and the instructor limits
his discussion here. However, Step 2 engineering fees are
larger than Step 1 or Step 3 engineering fees and the instructor
106
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
& Answer
Location
emphasizes that these costs require careful review on the part of
the state and/or federal employee. As of the writing of this
Instructor Manual, a recent PRM, 80-2, entitled "Step 2 and
Step 3 Architect/Engineer Level of Effort Study" dated
December 20, 1979 was issued announcing a computerized program
to guide grantees and regulatory reviewers on the reasonable-
ness of these costs. The classroom instructor may wish to
follow up on this study in the event more information is avail-
able to help train the students. The elements of subagreemer.ts
are listed below and in the students outlines.
a. Satisfaction of procurement regulations
(40 CFR 35.936, .937)
b. Percentage of construction cost not allowed
c. Appendix C-l to be included in subagreements
d. Include EPA form 5700-41 showing profit
e. Must include completion schedules, methods of payment
f. Must demonstrate satisfaction of MBE requirements
5. Intermunicipal agreements
a. Regional Administrator will determine if inter-
municipal agreements must be executed or proposed at
the time of Step 2 grant application
b. Must agree with the institutional considerations
contained in the approved facilities plan
Q & A
2
NOTE: The instructor emphasizes that intermunicipal aqreements have
been a major factor in causing project delays. For some reason
(whether new officials are elected or are running for office)
intermunicipal agreements have a way of becoming quite con-
troversial thereby causing delays. The instructor points out
that EPA does not want to see a Step 2 grant used to design
a project only to find out that the participating municipalities
could not come to agreement on the project.
6. Value engineering proposal
107
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
& Answer
Location
a. Required for all Step 2 projects for which Step 3
total estimated costs are expected to be $10 million
or greater
b. May be done by a firm specializing in VE analysis or
by A/E selected to design project. In latter case
VE interdisciplinary team must be different from
original design team
c. Scope, team makeup, level of effort and schedule
must be commensurate with complexity of project
d. Costs and profits for VE services must be shown
Q & A
separately
3
NOTE: The instructor briefly describes the objectives and components
of a VE analysis. Two publications have been produced by EPA
and the classroom instructor may wish to point these out to
students (MCD-27 and 29). Also, as a simple example of VE
for the nontechnical personnel, the classroom instructor may
wish to use a small bar of soap as found in most hotel/motels
where the center part of the soap bar is indented. Items such
as objective of soap - wash, throw away, most economical size,
cannot be too small but do not need all the soap, etc. - may
be discussed as an analogy of the type of reviews conducted for
each component part of a treatment plant.
End
Part 1
7. Project progress and payment schedule
Start
Part 2
a. Reasonable and include milestones
b. Complies with NPDES
8. Evidence of compliance with
a. User charges - plan and schedule for completion
of user charge system prior to Step 3 grant award
b. Industrial cost recovery - where applicable, plan
and schedule for completion of ICR system prior to
Step 3 grant award; letters of intent from significant
108
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
& Answer
Location
i r J nJ iiBCf! (10% or more of design waste flow
or strength) indicating agreement to pay their share
and intended period of use of treatment facility
NOTE: The instructor indicates that the CWA placed a moratorium
on the implementation of ICR systems until June 30, 1979 (later
extended to June 30, 1980). The moratorium delays the imple-
mentation or collection of funds from industrial users but
does not delay the development of the ICR system. This point
is often misunderstood by grantees and new regulatory personnels
c. Sewer use ordinance - applicant must assure that a
sewer use ordinance prohibiting illegal connections
and construction of new connections will be enacted
prior to completion of construction
d. Relocation requirements - if project will result in
acquisition of private property or displacement of
persons, applicant must provide assurance of com-
pliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisitions Act
e. Civil rights provisions - completion of EPA forms
4700-1 and 4700-4
f. Section 404/Section 10 permits - if project involves
the discharge of dredge or fill material either the
permit(s) must be issued (by U. S. Army COE) or
indication that COE is prepared to issue such permit(s
9. Pretreatment requirements - For Step 2 grants made after
12/31/80 the applicant must have satisfied the pretreat-
ment requirements of 40 CFR Part 403 for industrial
contributors. This will have been done as a part of
facilities planning or as an amendment to the Step 1
grant. The issues to be addressed in a pretreatment
Q & A
4 & 5
)
109
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
& Answer
Location
program include
a. Industrial survey
b. Legal authority of applicant to enforce requirements
c. Revenue sources to carry out program
d. Determination of technical information needed for
development and enforcement of program
e. Monitoring program
f. Pollutant removals in existing facilities
g. Determination of monitoring equipment
h. Determination of tolerance of treatment facilities
to toxic pollutants
i. Determination of equipment needed to analyze
industrial wastes
NOTE; The instructor indicates that the pretreatment program and
regulations are in the process (as of January 1, 1980) of being
implemented. As the program develops, more and more work will
be required on the part of grantees necessitating additional
reviews on the part of regulatory personnel. Students need to
keep up to date with the latest requirements for satisfying
the pretreatment regulations.
10. Public participation work plan - if necessary a continuing
public participation program may be included in the Step 2
project and the application must include the costs and
work plan for this element
Q & A
6
End
Part 2
B. Combination Step 2+3 grants
1. Limitations
- Community population of 25,000 or less
Start
Part 3
110
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
£ Answer
Location
- Construction cost estimated at $4 million or less
($0 million or less in states with unusually high
construction costs)
- Satisfy all Step 1 requirements and Step 2
application requirements above
2. Additional requirements
- Step 3 construction estimate
- Schedule for submission of P&S, UC/ICR systems,
sewer use ordinance, plan of operation including
Q & A
7
O&M manual
NOTE: The instructor indicates that a combined Sf.ep 7+1 grant in
essence must satisfy all of the requirements for both
Step 2 and Step 3 grants individually. The objective,
however, is to accelerate the grant processing procedures for
smaller communities. The topics to be discussed later, such
as procurement of construction contracts, are also applicable
to combined Step 2+3 grants.
NOTE: The grant award procedures and arant aoreement/ampnrimpnf
(next two items below) for a Step 2 or combination Step 2+3
grant are identical to those discussed in lesson plan 6.
The key elements are included below for ease of reference.
C. Grant award procedures
1. Complete agreement per Grants Administration Manual
2. Regional and state procedures such as
a. Notify financial management branch
b. Prepare briefing memos for RA
c. Preparation of transmittal letters to state, appli-
cant, consultant, etc.
3. Complete EPA form 5700-1B and transmit to headquarters
for advance (5 days) congressional notification
Ill
-------
Lesson Outline #7
Question
& Answer
Location
4. Complete GICS coding sheets
5. Clearinghouse notification
D. Grant agreement/amendment
1. EPA form 5700-20
2. Contract between grantee and EPA
3. Must define scope of project
4. Contain special conditions, if any
NOTE: The instructor indicates that any mitigative environmental
measures addressed in the approved facilities plan may be
specifically pointed out as a special condition to insure
their consideration in the project design.
5. Require grantee to complete "Summary of Costs of Planned
Treatment Works Scheduled by Project and Category"
6. Grantee has 3 weeks to accept
7. Official signing grant offer must be same as designated
or submit new resolution
Q & A
8
III. Predesign Conference
A. General
1. Predesign conference is optional but encouraged
2. Opportunity to review administrative and technical
requirements of Step 2 project with grantee and
consultant
NOTE: The following list are items which may be discussed at the
predesign conference. The instructor indicates that many
states and EPA regions have checklists or forms for con-
ducting a predesign conference. These checklists should
112
-------
Question
Lesson Outline #7
& Answer
Location
be
used where applicable but may include:
B. Discussion items
1.
Bidding procedures, contract documents and inclusion
of 40 CFR 35.936, .938, .939 and Appendix C-2 in
specifications
2.
Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) goals and requirements
3.
Design considerations beyond those shown in approved
facilities plan (F/M ratios, system head curves, etc.)
4.
Pretreatment design considerations
5.
Environmental considerations (soil erosion and sediment
plans, traffic control plan, archaeological surveys, etc.)
6.
Intermunicipal agreements
7.
Phasing of contracts
8.
Flood protection insurance requirements
9.
Record of costs
10.
Site acquisition and easements
11.
UC/ICR, sewer use ordinance, SSES scheduling (as
applicable), plan of operation, and O&M manual
12.
VE analysis
13.
Construction management
14.
Incentive clauses in construction contracts
15.
"Or equal" and buy American provisions
16.
17.
Eligible and ineligible cost separation in bid proposal
Local funding and sale of bonds
Q &
9 &
A
10
Summary:
While
processing of a Step 2 application includes activities
which were
also discussed in Step 1 grant processing, the additional
and new requirements for VE analysis, UC/ICR, pretreatment require-
ments must
be clearly understood by the grantee if delays are to be
avoided.
End
Part
3
113
-------
9UJJL JC #7
Step 2 Grant Processing
May a Step 2 grant be made for a segment of a larger project?
An executed intermunicipal agreement must be submitted with
the application form. True or False
The costs of a value engineering analysis must be included
with each application. True or False
Costs for developing a user charge and industrial cost recovery
system must be included in all Step 2 applications. True or
False
Grantees need not develop an industrial cost recovery system
until after June 30, 1980 because of the moratorium. True
or False
A pretreatment program must be completed for all Step 2
applications. True or False
Combination Step 2+3 grants may be requested at the grantee's
option. True or False
Industrial contributors with flows greater than 10% of the
design capacity need to submit a letter of intent to the
grantee. True or False
114
-------
Topic #7 Quiz (Cont'd.)
9. A predesign conference is mandatory. True or False
10. Archaeological investigations may be an allowable cost
of the Step 2 activities. True or False
115
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #7
Yes - Provided facilities planning requirements met, facili-
ties plan essentially complete and applicant agrees to
complete remaining projects resulting in operable
treatment works.
False - Regional Administrator of EPA will determine if
required on a case-by-case basis.
False - Required only for projects with estimated construction
costs in excess of $5 million.
True - For all Step 2 grants made after June 30, 1979.
False - The system must be developed; the moratorium only
delayed collection and return of funds to U.S.
Treasury until June 30, 1980.
False - Only for Step 2 grants made after June 30, 1980; earlier
projects may complete pretreatment programs during
Step 2 activities or as a Step 1 grant amendment.
False - Only for communities under 25,000 population and
projects less than $2 million ($3 million in some
states).
True
False - Predesign conferences are optional although strongly
encouraged by EPA; could possibly be required in
delegation agreement.
True - Provided further investigations were recommended
and approved in the Step 1 project.
116
-------
INSTRUCTOR o
LESSON PLAN O
Topic #8: PROBLEMS AND DELAYS DURING STEP 2
Ob j6Ctive. The students should be made aware of those common
problems which are encountered during the Step 2
phases of the project.
Videotape
Running Part 1 19:05
Time:
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" U-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
The intent of this topic is to alert students to some of the
more common problems encountered during the Step 2 project which very
often result in project delays. Knowing these problems, students may
emphasize them at a predesign conference (last items in preceding
topic) by separate letter to the grantee or by meetings with the
grantee and his consultant during the Step 2 project.
The classroom instructor will add to or delete from the items
discussed below based on his/her own experiences. As a means of
assistance, the instructor has provided a brief discussion of his
experiences.
I. Known Problems
A. Incomplete submissions
NOTE: For projects that did not receive a Step 1 qrant, verv often the
applicant forgets or is not aware to include all prior costs wit
the first application. Later this creates bad feelings when
the grantee discovers that these costs may have been allowable
if he had applied for them with his first application. Also,
for the older projects engineering subagreements may not conform
l
117
-------
Lesson Outline #8
Question
& Answer
Location
to the present procurement regulations. In this case, con-
siderable time may be lost while renegotiating a new contract
or agreeing to how the costs may be handled. For engineering
agreements that predate the procurement procedures (12/17/75)
the classroom instructor may wish to review Appendix D to 40
CFR Part 35 entitled "EPA Transition Policy - Existing Consult-
ing Engineering Agreements." In general, however, the complex
issues of "Existing Consulting Engineering Agreements" is beyond
the scope of material to be discussed in this introductory course
Rather, the classroom instructor will alert the students to this
potential problem and suggest he/she seek assistance from a more
experienced coworker.
B. Intermunicipal agreements
NOTE: Of all the items which have created delays, intermunicipal
agreements appear to be the worst. While applicants are not
required (unless determined to be by the Regional Administrator)
to have executed intermunicipal agreements, they must, at a
minimum, submit proposed agreements. These must be carefully
reviewed, keeping in mind that neither the federal or state
governments want to pay for the design of a project that may
not be built due to lack of agreement between participating
municipalities. There is no specific criteria for the reviewer
to use in making an evaluation other than common sense and good
judgement. When doubts exist, the reviewer has the regulatory
prerogative to make inquiries or request additional information
C. Easements and site acquisition
NOTE; The application form requests a statement (generally by legal
counsel) regarding the availability of proposed sites and the
status of necessary easements. Easement and site acquisition
can be time consuming procedures, particularly when disputes
arise,, Also, if the applicant has and must exercise his right
of eminent domain, delays may be encountered. Therefore, the
reviewer needs to review closely the applicant's response to
this subject and provide guidance to insure that when the pro-
ject is ready for bid (Step 3) the easements and sites are
available. In the event that the project involves a land
treatment process, in which case the land costs are allowable
for federal grant participation, special care must be taken
to insure that the land purchase procedures, including the
federal interest, are carried out properly. Finally, if the
land purchase involves the relocation of people, special
118
-------
Lesson Outline #8
Question
& Answer
Location
procedures need to be followed in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act.
D. Value engineering
NOTE: Many grantees do not understand the purpose and requirements
for value engineering analysis. Therefore, the cost of this
service is often not included in the application. For those
projects which require a VE analysis the reviewer must insure
that the applicant includes the costs in his application.
E. UC/ICR (as of 6/30/79 systems must be approved prior to
Step 3 grant)
NOTE: This is a change in the regulations resultinq from the passaqe
of P.L. 95-217. (Prior to P.L. 95-217 UC/ICR did not have to
be completed until the 80% Step 3 construction stage.) While
this has not been a problem to date, the fact that UC/ICR
systems must be developed during Step 2 activities has the
potential of causing delays. The costs for these studies must,
therefore, be included in the Step 2 application and generally
in the scope and costs of the consulting engineer's agreement
(sometimes separate subagreements are negotiated with firms
specializing in this field).
F. Pretreatment requirements (as of 12/31/81 all pretreatment
requirements must be satisfied prior to Step 3 grant;
see page 100 for details)
NOTE: This is an entirely new requirement and has the potential for
causing delays. If tne applicant has not conducted the neces-
sary surveys, determinations, and evaluations during the Step 1
project, they must be done during the Step 2 project. There-
fore, costs and schedules for completing pretreatment studies
must be carefully reviewed.
G. Secondary environmental impacts
1. Oversizing
2. Change in population projections
119
-------
Lesson Outline #8
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTK: The; regulatory requirements and specifically the secondary
environmental impacts limitations often cause frustration on
the part of those applicants who wish to encourage rapid growth.
On a few projects applicants have tried to frustrate these
limitations by having their engineers overdesign the projects
or increase the population projections. One method of achieving
this result is to use conservative design criteria for treat-
ment works (600 gallons/day surface settling rate for primary
clarifiers rather than 700 or 800 gallons/day as the process
may allow) or to increase peaking factors for interceptor
sewer design (4.0 rather than 2.5). Where reviewers are sus-
picious that this potential exists, they may wish to caution
the applicant against it or insure that a rigorous review of
the plans (and design engineering reports if necessary) is
conducted.
II. Avoidance of Problems
A. Communication with grantee and consultants during Step 2
activities
B. Clear definitions of work required as a consequence of
predesign conference and communication
Summary:
This topic discusses real and potential delays that have been or
may be encountered during Step 2 projects. The best cure is pre-
vention. Again, it is the regulatory reviewer's responsibility to
manage projects rather than just process papers. Contact with the
grantee offers the best hope for success.
End
Pazt 1
120
-------
INSTRUCTOR r\
LESSON PLAN y
Topic #9: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
Objective: The students need to know administrative and
technical requirements for reviewing plans
and specifications.
Videotape
Running
Time:
Part 1 21:11
Part 2 25:31
Part 3 18:52
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" u-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
This topic is primarily directed toward the engineers working
within the Construction Grants Program. The topic is not intended to
be a detailed discussion of sanitary, structural, electrical or mechan-
ical engineering design principles. Rather, the topic covers the
administrative and contractual contents of the contract documents and
a number of technical requirements which have a basis in regulations,
PRM's, state design standards or sound engineer practices. The
instructor indicates to the students that the material presented
is intended to highlight those areas deserving of special attention
during the reviews.
I. Administrative Review
The administrative review insures that bidding documents
are in order and that the specifications include amy required
provisions.
A. Bidding documents - must include:
1. Statement of work and completion schedule
2. Terms and conditions of contract
3. Method of bidding and basis of award
121
-------
Lesson Outline #9
Qu2stion
& Answer
Location
4.
Criteria for evaluating bidders
5.
Copy of 40 CFR 35.936, 35.938 and 35.939 (procurement
regulations for construction contracts)
6.
Standard statement concerning the funding of the project
by EPA (40 CFR 35.938-4lcJ[5])
NOTE:
Item
B below lists the contents of Appendix C-2 to 40 CFR
Part
35. Appendix C-2 is to be included in all contract
documents as shown in item 5 above. The grantee satisfies the
regulatory requirements by including these items in the specifi-
cations. Enforcement and implementation takes place during the
Step
3 activities. The instructor discusses these items to the
extent deemed necessary, particularly since they are not
discussed in later topics.
B.
Supplemental general provisions - Appendix C-2 (see 40 CFR
1.
Part 35, Subpart E)
Changes, suspension or termination
2.
Labor standards
3.
Utilization of small or minority business
4.
Audit, access to records
5.
Price reduction for defective cost or pricing data
6.
Covenant against contingent fees
7.
Gratuities
8.
Patents
9.
Copyrights and rights in data
10.
Clean air and water clause
11.
Buy American provisions (PRM 78-3)
C.
Other provisions
1.
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
a. Must be followed in contracts $10,000 or greater
b. Construction costs greater than $1 million - need
for a preaward compliance review
c. Executive Order 11246 and hometown or imposed plans
- Affirmative action to promote and insure EEO
in the work force under the contract
122
-------
Lor;son Outline #9
Question
& Answer
Location
d. Reviewer should contact Civil Rights and Urban
Affairs office within EPA region for specific
instructions
2. Davis Bacon Act
a. Must be followed in all contracts over $2,000
b. Require payment of prevailing minimum wage for
various trades (published weekly in F.R.)
c. Modification to wage rates to be included in
bidding document
3. Flood insurance
Contractor is required to obtain the necessary flood
insurance during construction where project requires
flood insurance
4. Bonding and insurance
For contracts less than $100,000 bonding and insurance
requirements are determined by state and local practices,
otherwise the following minimum bonding and insurance
practices must be met:
a. Bid bond - 5%
b. Performance and payment bond - 100%
c. Fire and extended coverage, workmen's compensation,
public liability, property damage, "all risk"
d. Flood insurance during construction as applicable
Q & A
2 & 4
Emi
Part 1
II. Technical Review
NOTE: The items listed below are taken verbatim from the "Handbook
of Procedures" CMCD-Q31 Chapter V pp. V-30 through V-34, Since
one of the objectives of the training course is to familiarize
the students with reference materials, the classroom instructor
may wish to have the students turn to these pages in the hand-
book to follow the lecture rather than use the student outlines.
The handbook has a short paragraph Below each item and includes
references as appropriate.
Start
Part 2
123
-------
hr;::son Ou 11J ne #9
Question
& Answer
Location
A. General - is the project design based upon
1. The cost-effectiveness provision of the regulations?
(Appendix A, 40 CFR Part 35)
2. The achievement of applicable effluent limitations
or BPWTT?
3. The sewer system evaluation and rehabilitation
requirements (where applicable)?
4. Value engineering provisions (where applicable)?
B. Policy of Review - "Structural, electrical and mechanical
details of the design are not critically reviewed because
they are the responsibility of the engineer whose seal
appears on the drawings. However, obvious irregularities
should be noted." (MCD-03# Chapter V, p. 30)
NOTE: The instructor discusses legal problems associated with reviewing
the plans and specifications. Approval of P and S by state or
federal personnel does not relieve the consulting engineer of
his responsibility and liability. Irregularities are to be
noted and brought to the attention of the grantee with the
expectation that the consulting engineer will make corrections.
However, if a consulting engineer refuses to make recommended
changes or will only dc so if he is relieved of responsibility,
the reviewer should seek advice from legal counsel before
proceeding.
C. Specific items
1. Environmental considerations
a. Compare design and mitigative environmental measures
with those in the approved facilities plan or EIS
b. Example - erosion control plan, hours of operation,
backfilling and seeding, design for buildings in a
floodplain
2. Safety
a. Occupation Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
124
-------
Lesson Outline #9
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The subject of OSHA is very controversial. In essence, the
specifications are to be written in such a way that all contrac-
tors and subcontractors are made responsible for compliance
with OSHA regulations. However, enforcement of these regula-
tions presents a problem and generally construction grants
reviewers will observe safety provisions and notify OSHA
officials where suspected violations occur.
b. Design of chlorine facilities (compliance with PRM
79-1; storage, ventilation, handling, emergency
procedures, glass windows, etc.)
c. Explosion-proof motors where appropriate
3. Bypassing - none except where prior approval obtained
from state and RA
4. Project sign
NOTE: EPA has provided specifications for a project sign to be used
on all EPA funded construction projects. The specifications
contain an example drawing using Fairfax County, Virginia, as
a project name. The author has seen photographs of a project
sign in a northcentral state which was identified as "Fairfax
County." The grantee or contractor obviously followed the
exact letter of EPA directives.
5. Reliability and flexibility - standby power, bypassing of
individual units, adequate pumping capacity with largest
pump out cf service, etc.
6. Operation and maintenance - markings for ease of operation
and accessibility for maintenance
NOTE: 0 S M is discussed in more detail in Step 3 0 & M Manual.
7. Public water supply - backflow preventors, air gap, etc.
8. Chemical storage - curbing to contain accidental spills,
safety, etc.
125
-------
Lesson Outline #9
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The storage of chemicals may be addressed in more detail in
the near future and reflect provision of the "Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act" or the "Toxic Substances Control Act."
9. Ventilation - wet well, dry well, chlorine and chemical
storage rooms
10. Laboratory facilities - sufficient to conduct control and
reporting tests
11. Emergency alarms - notification of equipment failures or
malfunctions
12. Hazardous materials - mercury seals not allowed in trick-
ling filters, grout for rehabilitating pipe joints
13. Sewers - acceptable levels of infiltration and required
testing; maintenance of minimum scouring velocity (2 fps);
adequate capacity including peaking factor (be careful
peaking factor not too high to provide flows beyond those
approved in facilities plan)
NOTE: The instructor discusses how the peaking factor has been used by
some consulting engineers to provide for greater flows than those
allowed in the facilities plan. This has been used in the past
as a means of frustrating the population forecasts when the munic: -
pality disagrees with the 208 or approved population and tries
to "slip in" additional capacity in'intercepting sewers.
14.
15,
16.
Equipment - two trade names and "or equal" on all major
items except where based on performance specifications,
demonstration purposes or innovative components (require
state or EPA prior approval for sole source innovative
specifications)
Shellfish waters - appropriate protective measures to be
exercised where effluents will discharge to shellfish
producing waters
Pretreatment requirements - insure provisions for adequate
pretreatment of industrial wastes before discharge into
municipal system
End
Part 2
126
Start
Part 3
-------
Lesson Out 1ine #9
Question
s Answer
Location
III. Corps of Engineers Review
NOTE: EPA headquarters entered into a national agreement with U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to provide Corps staff to assist EPA
and states in Step 3 activities. Each EPA region entered into
a written agreement with the corresponding Corps of Engineers
Division. Agreements vary in some detail and procedures from
region to region. Therefore, the classroom instructor will
determine the specific agreement between EPA/COE for the seminar
location. The COE staff act as agents or staff extensions of EPA
and states. The COE is in an advisory capacity and their recom-
mendations do not have to be followed. However, experience has
shown that the COE is providing constructive reviews of P & S and
the EPA/state reviewers would be wise to seriously consider the
comments of the COE.
The COE is provided an opportunity to review the plans and
specifications prior to EPA/state approval. In general, the
COE is given 30 days in which to submit their comments. These
comments are combined with the EPA/state comments and forwarded
to the grantee for response. The COE review has been labeled a
"B" or "C" review, i.e., biddability and constructability as
briefly defined below.
A. Biddability
1. Documents are simple, clear and include necessary items
2. Total construction project is divided into reasonably
biddable contract packages
3. Appropriate to enable realistic evaluation of bids received
4. Sufficient detail
B. Constructability
1. Adequate consideration of site limitations
2. Resolution of plan conflicts
3. Restrictive specifications
4. Compatibility with usual construction procedures
5. Consideration of construction difficulties
Q & A
1, 3 & 5
127
-------
Lesson Outline #9
Question
& Answer
Location
Summary:
Plans and specifications are reviewed to insure that all federal
and state statutory requirements are included. The P & S must be
based upon sound engineering design practices and translate the
approved project from the facilities plan into a project which will
achieve the approved effluent limitations. The P & S must reflect
the results of a value engineering analysis if appropriate.
End
Part 3
128
-------
QUIZ - TOPIC #9
Plans and Specifications Review
1. Plans and specifications are reviewed and certified to the
state agency by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers only.
True or False
2. Specifications may incorporate 40 CFR 35.936, .938, .939 and
Appendix C-2 by reference. True or False
3. Specifications must contain "or equal" provisions. True
or False
4. Prospective bidders must be required to submit a bid bond
or certified check in the amount of 5% of their bid.
True or False
5. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required to do a detailed
takeoff of plans and specifications to confirm the engineer's
estimates of project costs. True or False
129
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #9
1. False - The COE conducts a concurrent review of P & S and
submits its comments to the state and/or EPA.
2. False - Specifications must include the regulations verbatim.
3. True
4. True
5. False - COE performs biddability and constructability reviews.
130
-------
INSTRUCTOR
LESSON PLAN 1L
Topic #10: STEP 3 GRANT PROCESSING
Objective: The students must know the requirements for and
contents of a Step 3 grant application and the
procedures for processing the grant.
Videotape Part 1 28:45
Running Part 2 29:15
Time:
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" U-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
This topic discusses the technical and administrative requirements
of processing a Step 3 grant application. This topic is relatively bri<
and includes some material that was discussed in both Step 1 and Step 2
grant processing (application form, priority certification, grant
award procedures, etc.). The instructor briefly reviews the duplicate
materials but places most of the emphasis on the new materials.
I. Types of Step 3 Grant Projects
A. General - In general most applicants will have applied for
and received a Step 1 and Step 2 grant prior to applying for
a Step 3 grant. However, exceptional projects are sometimes
discovered for which some or all of the Step 1 and/or Step 2
work was initiated prior to a grant. These older or "woodwork"
\
projects are discussed below and require that, "all allowable
costs incurred before initiation of construction of the project
must be claimed in the application for grant assistance for tha
project before the award of the assistance or no subsequent
payment will be made for the costs." (40 CFR 35.945, .925-8)
In other words, applicants are required to claim all prior cost
if
t
5
131
-------
l.rBbon OuLJjrif; #J0
Qjestion
& Answer
Location
in their first application or else these costs will be con-
sidered nonallowable.
B. Projects not previously funded - Projects not previously
funded with a Step 1 or Step 2 grant will be required to
satisfy the requirements of facilities planning to the extent
deemed necessary by the Regional Administrator. To satisfy
these requirements, an applicant will generally obtain a
Step 1 or Step 2 grant and, therefore, it is very unlikely that
an applicant would get a Step 3 grant as his first grant.
C. Projects which are segments of larger projects
1. Must insure that the statutory requirements of facilities
planning and Step 2 design are satisfied
2. Proposed segment of project must be in agreement with
the facilities plan
3. Applicant must agree to complete the balance of the project
resulting in an operable treatment works meeting the en-
forceable requirements of the CWA
D. Advance acquisition or construction
1. In general Step 3 project work is discouraged prior to
receiving a grant
2. Prior approval of Regional Administrator required for
a. Advance acquisition of major equipment items re-
quiring long lead times
b. Acquisition or an option for the purchase of eligible
land
c. Advance construction of minor portions of treatment
works
E. Projects which have satisfied Step 1 and Step 2 requirements
(normal project)
Q & A
1
End
Part 1
II. Application Review and Grant Offer Preparation
A. Application package contents
Start
Part 2
132
-------
Lesson Outline #10
Question
& Answer
Location
1. Priority certification - prepared by state for submission
to
EPA (see details in Topic 6 Step 1 outline)
2. Application form
a.
Applicant must have authority to finance, construct,
operate and maintain wastewater treatment facilities
under state law
b.
Assurance that all required property rights have been
obtained or bonafide options taken or formal condemna-
tion procedures have been initiated
c.
Funding assurances for nonfederal share
d.
Part V assurances must be attached
e.
Resolution authorizing official to sign
f.
Reviewer will insure all costs requested for grant
participation are allowable and based on latest
engineer's estimate
g.
Evidence of compliance
(1) Flood Disaster Protection Act - if community is
eligible must insure structures > $10,000 during
construction and life of project
NOTE:
The instructor defines structures to be insured as new or
reconstructed surface structures which are walled and roofed
(control building or pumping station). Sewers or other struc-
tures not likely to be damaged during flooding need not be
insured
•
(2) Sewer Use Ordinance - must submit ordinance
or intent that ordinance will be enacted by all
participating municipalities before completion
of construction. Prohibits illegal connections.
requires proper design and construction for new
connections
133
-------
Lesson Outline #10
Question
& Answer
Location
(3) Sewer System Rehabilitation Schedule - where
necessary, sewer rehab must be on schedule and
ideally completed prior to completion of the
treatment works
(4) Public Participation Work Plan - if necessary
or desired by applicant and public
3. Contracts and subagreements (or intended method of awarding
subagreements)
NOTE: The subiect of subaqreements (qenerallv A/E) was discussed in
both the Step 1 and Step 2 grant processing procedures. The
instructor points out that some municipalities use their own
employees (force account) to provide resident inspection ser-
vices and only require the design engineer to make periodic
inspections or render decisions or interpretations of the P & S.
Other possible contractors at the Step 3 application stage may
include archaeologists, where necessary, or an environmental
consultant. In all cases, the procurement procedures outlined
below must be followed.
a. Satisfaction of procurement regulations
(40 CFR 35.936, .937)
b. Generally prefer cost reimbursement type contract
for engineering inspection services
c. Appendix C-l to be included in subagreements
d. Include EPA form 5700-41 showing profit
e. Must include completion schedules and outlay schedule
f. Must demonstrate satisfaction of MBE requirements
4. Intermunicipal agreement - where two or more jurisdictions
will be served by the project, final executed intermunici-
pal agreements must be submitted. These agreements will
require compliance by all jurisdictions with financial
arrangements and procedural requirements under the grant.
134
-------
Lesson Outline #10
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE: The instructor emphasizes that intermunicipal agreements have
been a major factor in causing project delays. The reviewers
will give close examination to the agreements to insure that all
points of agreements are clearly spelled out and that no loop-
holes exist which could frustrate the project.
5. Plan of Operation - review the preliminary plan to insure
costs and milestones are included. These milestones may
include
NOTE: The detailed requirements of a plan of operation are discussed
in Topic #12. At the Step 3 application stage it is necessary
for the reviewer to determine that sufficient costs and a sche-
dule of completion of a plan of operation have been included in
the application package. A cost breakdown of a schedule may
include the items listed below.
a. Timing of hiring and training of plant personnel
b. Timing of 0 & M manual preparation
c. Development of safety and emergency operation programs
d. Development of records, filing and laboratory procedures
e. Timing of start up procedures
f. Preparation of budget and operational reports
Q & A
2-4
End
Part 2
NOTE: The pretreatment requirements may have been satisfied in the
Step 2 project activities. However, these requirements must
be satisfied before the award of a Step 3 grant after December 31
1981. The items to be addressed in a pretreatment program
are referred to below.
6. Pretreatment requirements - for Step 3 grant awards made
after 12/31/81, the applicant must have completed the nine
items listed in Topic #7.
NOTE: The user charge system and industrial cost recovery system
(UC/ICR) were not discussed in detail in any preceding topics.
The instructor reviews UC/ICR at this point but indicates to
students that in the future UC/ICR systems will be reviewed as
part of the Step 2 project submissions. Students are made
Start
Part 3
135
-------
J,c*BSon Outline #10
Question
& Answer
location
.jwar'.- that UC and ICR systems were part of the Step 3 activities
prior to the revised regulations of 9/27/78. Those regulations
provided a transition period such that after 6/30/79 both UC and
ICR approval will be required prior to Step 3 grant award.
7. User Charge System - after 6/30/79 no Step 3 grant may be
awarded without an approved user charge (UC) system. The
user charge system determines the amount of funds to be
collected from all users to offset operation and maintenance
(including replacement) costs. Criteria to be used in
reviewing UC systems include:
a. Must distribute costs of O & M uniformly to all
classes of users
b. Must consider wastewater characteristics, such as
BOD, SS, bulk discharges, ,etc.
c. Surcharge for extra strength discharges
d. Must determine first year's charges
e. Must provide for annual review and updating of charges
f. System must recover all 0 & M costs (including reserve
funds for replacement components)
g. System must be enacted into municipal legislation
h. Quantity discounts which encourage use not allowed
i. May be based on water consumption
j. All participating municipalities must implement
and enforce UC systems
k. Ad valorem (value added) taxes may be used as a basis
for proportioning user charges under certain special
conditions (see 40 CFR 35.929-1[bj)
136
-------
Lesson Outline #10
Question
& Answer
Location
8. Industrial Cost Recovery - after 6/30/79 no Step 3 grant
may
be awarded without an approved industrial cost recovery
(ICR) system. ICR requires significant (> 25,000 gal/day
or
equivalent BOD/SS) industrial users to repay their pro-
portionate share of the capital costs. An ICR system
requires
a.
All classes of industries must be treated uniformly
and recovered costs are based on all significant cost
factors (flow, BOD, SS, etc.)
b.
Each industry is charged only for the portion of the
treatment facilities allocated for its use
c.
Industries have as long as 30 years, interest free,
to repay their costs
d.
Funds are to be collected at least annually
e.
System is reviewed annually and revised based on waste
character changes, expansion or upgrading or in the
event an industry discontinues use of treatment
facilities
f.
50% of recovered funds returned to U. S. Treasury;
50% to grantee of which 80% must be used solely for
expansion or reconstruction of treatment facilities and
20% may be used for any purpose except construction of
industrial pretreatment facilities or rebates to
industry
g-
Costs not included in ICR payments are I/I correction
or treatment, correction of combined sewer overflows
(CSO), and collection or treatment of storm waters
137
-------
Lesson Outline #10
Question
& Answer
Location
h. System is mandatory for recovery of federal funds,
optional for state and local funds
i. All participating municipalities must implement and
enforce ICR system
j. The CWA of 1977 placed a moratorium on the ICR system
until 6/30/80. Funds need not be collected from
industries during the moratorium; if funds are collected,
they must be placed in escrow in an interest bearing
account. The moratorium addressed only the collection
of funds; ICR systems must still be developed by the
grantee.
NOTE; The instructor emphasizes the moratorium since many grantees
and consultants think they do not have to develop the ICR
system; they do, they just do not have to collect funds.
9. Approved plans and specifications - additional sets of
P & S may be required; specifications may need to be
revised to include later wage rate decision (Davis
Bacon Act; Department of Labor)
B. Grant award procedures
NOTE; The grant award procedures and grant agreement/amendment
procedures are identical for those in Step 1 and Step 2
grant processing. The classroom instructor may wish
to review the noted comments in lesson plan 6.
10 Complete agreement per Grants Administration Manual
Q & A
5 & 6
138
-------
Lesson Outline #10
Question
6 Answer
location
2.
Regional and state procedures
3.
Complete EPA form 5700-1B (.congressional notification)
4.
Complete GICS coding sheets
5.
Clearinghouse notification
C. Grant agreement/amendment
1.
EPA form 5700-20
2.
Contract between grantee and EPA
3.
Must define scope of work
4.
Contain special conditions, for example
a. 0 & M manual - 50% and 90% payment limitation
b. Sewer use ordinance - 80% payment limitation
c. Sewer rehabilitation schedule - 60% payment limitation
5.
Grantee has three weeks to accept
6.
Official signing grant offer must be same as designated
or submit new resolution
Q & A
7
Summary:
While
processing of a Step 3 grant includes activities which were
discussed also in Step 1 and Step 2 grant processing, the additional
material of plan of operation, details of UC/ICR and payment limita-
tions must be clearly understood by the grantee if delays are to be
avoided. Therefore, the students need to be told to emphasize the
other items beyond construction to insure grantee compliance.
-
End
Part 3
139
-------
QUIZ - TOPIC #10
Step 3 Grant Processing
Applicants may order long lead items required for construction
before receiving a Step 3 grant. True or False
Applicants must submit a copy of an acceptable and implemented
sewer use ordinance at the time of application. True or False
Final executed intermunicipal agreements are required at the
time of Step 3 grant processing. True or False
The 0 & M manual is the only portion of the plan of operation
that must be completed during Step 3 construction activities.
True or False
A pretreatment program, if not previously approved, must be
completed prior to Step 3 grant application after December 31,
1980. True or False
UC/ICR systems are part of the Step 3 activities. True or
False
List three grant payment limitations which are generally
spelled out in the special conditions of the grant offer.
140
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #10
False - They may order but unless prior approval has been
obtained from EPA costs are nonallowable.
False - Applicant may submit ordinance or letter of intent
that ordinance will be enacted before completion
of construction.
True
False - The entire plan of operation must be completed during
the Step 3 activities.
True
False - After June 30, 1979 UC/ICR systems must be completed
prior to Step 3 application; for older projects
UC/ICR systems were completed during Step 3.
a. 0 & M manual - 50% and 90%
b. Sewer use ordinance - 80%
c. Sewer rehabilitation on schedule - 80%
d. Pretreatment program (pre 12/31/80) - 90%
141
-------
INSTRUCTOR
LESSON PLAN I I
Topic #11: PROCUREMENT OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Objective: Since construction of treatment facilities involves the
largest portion of grant funds, the students must be
familiar with the procedures for advertising for bids,
receipt of bids, review of bid documents and award of
construction contracts.
Videotape Part 1 28:09
Running Part 2 25:02
Time: Part 3 29:40
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" U-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
The procurement of construction contracts is a very sensitive
matter since it involves the future expenditure of perhaps millions of
dollars. Students are not generally party to the bid opening but
merely review documents submitted by the grantee after receipt of bids.
Past experience has shown that many of the students have never attended
a bid opening and do not realize how formal the procedure is. The
instructor describes in his own words the atmosphere and procedures
used in advertising and opening bids. It is recommended that the
classroom instructor supplement the videotape and describe his own
experience.
The outline below follows the routine regulatory procedures for
procurement of construction contracts.
I. Administrative Procedures
NOTE: Item A below assumes the qrantee has accented the arant offer
and returned the grant agreement/amendment to EPA. Therefore,
the regulatory reviewer is prepared to authorize the grantee
to advertise for bids. Items 2 through 6 are items which many
states and EPA regional offices specifically point out to the
grantee in the letter authorizing the grantee to advertise.
142
-------
Lesson Outline #11
Question
& Answer
Location
Authorization and formal advertising for bids
1. Preparation of authorization letter reminding grantee of
the points in items 2-6 below
2. Grantee compliance with 35.938-4 formal advertising
a. Advertise project > $10M on nationwide basis
b. Allow minimum 30 days (more for larger, more complex
projects) for bid preparation
c. Make available to all prospective bidders at conven-
ient times and places copies of approved plans and
specifications Onost often a deposit is required)
3. MBE compliance
NOTE: The instructor emphasizes the need for the grantee to
aggressively seek out and encourage MBE's to bid on the
proposed project. All actions with regard to MBE's must
be documented.
4. List of documents to be submitted after receipt of bids
(see item B below)
5. Warning to grantee not to award contracts prior to
receiving authorization to do so from state or EPA
6. Warning to grantee not to prematurely reject all bids
until concurrence is received from state or EPA
NOTE: Item B assumes grantee has received bids and submits bid
documents to state or EPA. The reviewer insures all documents
are included in the submission and are complete and properly
certified.
B. Review of bids
1. Documents submitted
a. Tabulation of bids
NOTE: The instructor indicates that reviewers should check the
arithmetic computations on the bid tabulation to insure
correctness.
Q & A
1-3
143
-------
Lesson Outline #11
Question
& Answer
vocation
b. Proposal form and bonds from successful bidder
NOTE: The proposal will be checked closely by the reviewer to insure
arithmetic is correct and that arabic numbers and words agree
($1,250 - one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars).
c. Grantee statement naming bidder
NOTE: It is amazing how often a grantee assumes it is obvious who the
low bidder is. However, most, if not all, states and EPA require
the grantee to specifically name the contract amount and the
contractor to whom the grantee wishes to award the contract.
d. Proof of advertising
NOTE: Generally, the advertisement is notarized by the publication
which carried it indicating the dates of advertisement. The
reviewer needs to insure that nationwide advertisement was
obtained for projects > $10M.
e. Addenda issued and received
NOTE: The proposal forms generally provide space for bidders to
acknowledge receipt of addenda. The reviewer checks to insure
that all addenda were received by the apparent successful bidder.
f. Contractor certification of EEO compliance
g. MBE results
NOTE: Again, the instructor emphasizes MBE. The grantee has
previously committed to achieve the MBE goal in terms of
percentage participation in the project. Should this goal not
have been achieved, the grantee is to document his efforts in
trying to achieve MBE participation. The reviewer may need to
consult with the designated MBE officer in the agency.
h. Statement concerning nonresponsiveness of lowest
bidder (if applicable)
144
-------
Lesson Outline #11
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE:
This is a very delicate area, and the reviewer will need to seek
the advice of agency counsel before proceeding. In general,
contracts are to be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible
bidder. Where a bidder is judged not to be responsive and/or
responsible on the part of the grantee, the grantee's legal
counsel will generally submit justification for this decision,
citing state law. The reviewer must seek advice of his/her
supervisor in this case.
i. Revised cost estimate
NOTE:
Bids may have been higher or lower than those estimated in the
Step 3 grant application and, therefore, a grant adjustment may
be necessary. This is discussed in item C below.
j. State and local legal requirements
NOTE:
Grantees are required to comply with state and local laws
provided they do not conflict with federal statutes.
2. Review by state and EPA
a. Complete and properly executed documents
b. Careful review of reasons why lowest bidder was
not chosen 'discuss with legal counsel)
c. Validity of bids
d. Proper waye determination
NOTE:
The specifications approved at the conclusion of the Step 2
project should have contained a wage rate determination. How-
ever, wage rates may have changed prior to bidding and the
reviewer must insure that the latest wage rate determination
was incorporated into the contract documents at the time of
bidding.
e. Timeliness of addenda
145
-------
Lf.sson Outljne #11
Question
& Answer
Location
NOTE. Were addenda acknowledged by the contractor and received in
sufficient time (generally 5 days) to allow the bidders to
incorporate the changes into their bid prices?
f. State or local preference of contractor - not allowed
g. Ambiguous references to subcontractors
NOTE: The contract documents are to clearly identify information con-
cerning subcontractors that is to be submitted with the bids.
If this information is not included, the contract documents are
to clearly indicate that this is a reason for declaring the bid
nonresponsive.
Q & A
4-7
End
Part 1
C. Grant increases/decreases - adjustment of grant
1. Contingency allowance (generally 10%)
NOTE: Generally, at the Step 3 application stage a contingency of
10% of the construction costs is allowed. Hopefully the contin-
gency can be used to offset higher bids. However, the contin-
gency allowance is generally reduced to 3 to 5% of the construc-
tion cost after receipt of bids. In either case, higher or lower
bids, the grant may need to be adjusted.
The instructor indicates that reducing the contingency to 5%
after bids may release additional funds which can be used for
another Step 1 or Step 2 project. Therefore, it is important
for the reviewer to initiate this action where appropriate, even
if the grantee has not requested an adjustment.
2. Insure that bids are reasonable
NOTE: Judgement is required here, particularly if the bids are hiqher
than the estimate. If three or more bidders are within 10% of
each other, it is generally assumed that the bids are reasonable.
3. State certification - required for grant increase
4. Meeting to review scope if change is significant
Start
Part 2
146
-------
Lesson Outline #11
Question
£ Answer
Location
NOTE: If bids are unreasonably high, it may be prudent for the reviewer
to request a meeting with the grantee and his consultant. The
meeting will focus on the scope of the project and examine ways
of reducing construction costs.
D. Protests (see 40 CFR 35.939)
NOTE: The topic of protests is quite lengthy and is the subject of
40 CFR 35.939. Rather than cover all the possible details of
how to handle protests, the instructor merely highlights the
items below, since it is recommended that the reviewer seek
legal assistance when a protest is received.
1. Time limit - protestor, grantee and EPA must all meet
specific time limitations in handling protests
2. Primary responsibility rests with grantee for resolution
of protest; EPA must concur
3. Protestor has responsibility to notify all affected
parties and document allegations of wrongdoing
4. Appeals by protestor to EPA are allowed if protestor
disagrees with decision
5. Regional Administrator's decision is final unless
protestor appeals to court
Note: Because of the complex issues involved and the body
of law concerning protests, advice of legal counsel
should be sought immediately as soon as a protest
arises. Familiarity with 40 CFR 35.939 is essential.
E. Authorization to award contracts
1. If regulatory requirements have been satisfied
2. If protests have been resolved, then
3. Notify grantee to award contracts, and
4. Arrange for preconstruction conference
Q & A
8-12
End
Part 2
Start
Part 3
147
-------
Lesson Outline #11
Question
& Answer
Location
II. Preconstruction Conference
A. General
1. Initiation by grantee, state or EPA
NOTE: As EPA delegates program functions to states, it is encouraging
states to assume the initiative and schedule a preconstruction
conference.
2. Use state or EPA regional "Preconstruction Conference
Checklists"
NOTE: Many EPA regional offices and states have developed a checklist
or other form to be used at preconstruction conferences. The
students are encouraged to use these checklists where available.
3. Separate conference relating to EEO optional
NOTE: The EEO officer, based on his own criteria, may initiate a
preconstruction conference with the grantee and contractors
if it is felt appropriate. The preconstruction conferences may
be separate or combined.
B. Purpose
1. Resolve problems, reach understanding
2. Provide definition of roles and responsibilities (grantee,
consultant, state, EPA, COE, EEO officer, etc.)
3. Review sample inspection reports
NOTE: Since state, EPA or COE will be conducting on-site inspections,
it is helpful to show the grantee the type of information which
must be available at the time of inspection in order to com-
plete the inspection report. It is recommended that a blank
inspection report be left with the grantee.
C. Items to be discussed
148
-------
Question
Lesson Outline #11
fi Answer
Location
NOTE: The
following items are those which the instructor found to be
problems
during construction. However, the use of a regional
checklist is recommended where it exists.
1.
Responsibilities of grantee
a.
Administration in compliance with laws and regulations
b.
Administration of subagreements
c.
Contractor compliance
(1) Labor standards (including minimum wage)
(2) Civil rights and EEO requirements
(3) Construction requirements
(a) Inspection and supervision
(b) Project changes
(c) Material and workmanship
(d) Payment and retainage policy
(e) Historical and archaeological findings
(f) Mitigative environmental measures
(g) Estimates of work in place and progress
(h) Availability of funds, records, bonds and
insurance, flood insurance, audit
(i) Preparation of payment requests
2.
Modifications to contract
3.
Responsibilities for submittals
4.
Commencement, prosecuting and completion of work
a.
Notice to proceed
b.
Completion time
c.
Completion schedule
d.
Liquidated damages
5.
Quality control
a.
Materials and equipment testing
b.
Storage and protection of equipment and materials
c.
Housekeeping procedures during construction
d.
Reporting and correction of deficiencies
149
-------
Lesson Outline #11
Question
& Answer
Location
6. Environmental protection
a. Compliance with local, state and federal laws
b. Bypassing prohibition
c. Protection of vegetation
d. Dust control
e. Burning
7. Other submissions
NOTE: The instructor emphasizes that the other submissions are
extremely important since, as will be discussed later,
grant payments will be limited until the items below are
submitted. Note that after June 30, 1979 UC/ICR is a
prerequisite for Step 3 grant award and will no longer be
discussed at preconstruction conferences.
a. Sewer use ordinance
b. Sewer rehabilitation
c. Plan of operation
d. 0 & M manual
e. UC/ICR
f. Municipal pretreatment program
Q & A
13 - 15
Summary:
The procurement of construction contracts is extremely important
since it involves the future expenditure of large sums of public funds.
Students must be careful to insure that these funds are expended
properly and in accordance with the law. The preconstruction con-
ference offers an opportunity for reviewers to insure that a project
gets started on the right foot.
End
Part 3
150
-------
QUIZ ~ TOPIC #11
Procurement of Construction Contracts
Upon receipt of the Step 3 grant offer, the grantee may
advertise for bids. True or False
Grantee must advertise all projects in journals with nation-
wide distribution. True or False
Grantee is required to take affirmative action in seeking
MBE participation in Step 3 construction. True or False
After receipt of bids grantee must submit completed bidding
documents to state and/or EPA before awarding contracts.
True or False
At the time of bidding, specifications may include wage rate
determination (Davis Bacon Act) which was included in the
Step 2 specifications. True or False
Grantee may reject all bids if contractors are all from out
of state. True or False
Contracts must be awarded to the lowast responsible responsive
bidder. True or False
Grantees should refer all bid protests to EPA for resolution.
True or False
151
-------
Topic #11 Quiz (Cont'd.)
9. Bid protests generally require advice from legal counsel
prior to resolution. True or False
10. Construction contracts should always be bid on a fixed price
basis. True or False
11. Unbalanced bids are cause for rejection of bids. True or
False
12. Failure to name subcontractors and supply detailed information
about subcontractors is sufficient cause to reject a bid.
True or False
13. Preconstruction conferences are arranged with the grantee's
consultant only. True or False
14. It is preferable to review a sample inspection form at the
time of a preconstruction conference. True or False
15. After receiving bids a grantee needs only complete construc-
tion and has no other grant responsibilities. True or False
152
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #11
False - Must receive authorization to advertise from state
or EPA.
False - Must for projects over $10 million; optional for
smaller projects.
True
True
Generally false unless rates have not changed during period
which is highly unlikely.
False - No preference may be shown for local bidders; bids
may not be rejected without good and sufficient reason.
True
False - Grantees have the responsibility to resolve all protests;
the resolution must be reviewed and approved by EPA.
True
False - Generally combination of unit and fixed price.
False - Bids must be carefully reviewed if unbalanced, but
in and of itself unbalanced bids are insufficient
reason for rejecting a bidder.
True - Provided the information was clearly required in the
specifications and a warning of bid rejection for non-
compliance was clearly stated in the specifications.
153
-------
Topic #11 Answers (Cont'd.)
13. False - Grantees, engineers, state, EPA, COE and contractors
should all attend (at least one of the regulatory
agencies should be present).
14. True
15. False - Grantee may have to complete sewer use ordinance,
sewer rehabilitation, plan of operation including
0 & M manual, UC/ICR (for older projects) or
pretreatment program (for older projects).
154
-------
INSTRUCTOR ho
LESSON PLAN I
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
3. Insure project remains on schedule
4. Insure other requirements are being completed (plan of
operation, SSES rehabilitation, sewer use ordinance)
5. Insure grantee is managing project and fulfilling legal
responsibilities
II. Responsibilities
A. Grantee
1. In accepting grant, grantee provides assurances that he
will comply with and fulfill all legal responsibilities
2. Grantee is ultimately responsible since contract is
between federal government and grantee
3. Grantee may choose to delegate some functions to consulting
engineer or project manager but is responsible for seeing
that project is constructed per approved P £ S and change
orders
4. Must maintain adequate records, particularly with regard
to receipt of and disbursement of monies
B. Consultant
1. Grantee may hire professional firm as his agent for resi-
dent inspection (consulting engineer, construction manage-
ment firm)
2. Functional responsibilities of grantee's agent must be
delineated in contract and clearly defined in construction
contract documents
3. Generally required to maintain inspector's logs, prepare
and/or review estimates of work in place, provide day-to-
day guidance or interpretation of plans and specifications
Note; Regulatory reviewers may want to review the experience
record of the grantee's inspector to insure "adequate
supervision" is being provided.
C. State
1. Monitoring responsibilities may vary from state to state
156
-------
Lesson Outline #12
"Question
& Answer
Location
in accordance v.ith state law
2.
Generally, state will be concerned to see project is con-
structed in accordance with approved plans, specifications
and change orders
3.
If monitoring activities have been delegated from EPA to
state, state may insure grantee fulfills federal and
state legal requirements
D.
Federal
1.
Essentially acts as a monitor to insure grantee fulfills
his responsibilities
2.
EPA may have negotiated an agreement with U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to act as its agent; EPA maintains respon-
sibility however; procedure varies from region to region
III. On-
-Site
Surveillance
A.
Surveillance
1.
Distinct from resident inspection
2.
Surveillance inspections imply observing and reporting
deficiencies to grantee for correction, not issuing
instructions to resident engineer nor contractor
B.
Interim surveillance inspections
1.
Frequency
a. As many as necessary for project
b. Generally not before 20% completion
c. Generally 2 to 4 for average project
2.
Advance notice
a. Provide advance notice to all interested parties
b. Consider sending blank inspection form in advance
to insure information readily available
c. Where necessary, conduct unannounced inspections
(cautiously)
3.
Technical items to be inspected
a. Approved P & S available at job site
b. Approved change orders available at job site
157
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
c. Posting of wage determination (Davis Bacon)
d. Project sign erected
e. Contractor insurance not expired
f. Construction in general agreement with latest estimate
of work-in-place and payment request
NOTE: The regulatory observer is not expected to carry a tape measure
and compute all the quantities in place. Rather, the observer
is to compare visually the amount of construction with the
estimate of work-in-place.
g. Workmanship and general housekeeping of contractors
h. Progress of project as compared to completion schedule
l. Storage of delivered equipment
NOTE: Often contractors have equipment delivered to the job site
early to insure availability and/or to request payment (up front
money). However, it is necessary to insure that the equipment
is properly stored in order to preclude start up or operational
problems.
j. Shop drawings received and approved
NOTE: The classroom instructor mav need to exDlain shoD drawinas.
k. Construction techniques are sound and customary
practice
1. Materials testing to be done by grantee (slump test,
etc.)
m. Maintenance of treatment during construction
NOTE: The grantee is not to allow for bypassing of an existing
treatment plant during construction except in unusual circum-
stances and with the prior written approval of the state or EPA.
n. Adequate method of resolving problems with contractor
158
-------
J.osson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
Note: EEO compliance (hometown plan) not the responsibility
of EPA, COE nor state; also for large complex pro-
ject full time on-site presence may be provided by
state, EPA or COE.
Q & A.
1-3
End
Part 1
4. Administrative items to be inspected
a. Accounting records
(1) Separate eligible and noneligible costs
(2) Separate from other town financial records
(3) Entries for cash receipts and disbursements
(4) Disbursements supported by vouchers
(5) Contractor payroll forms submitted
b. Evidence of progress on
(1) Plan of operation (0 S M manual and others)
(2) Sewer use ordinance
(3) Sewer system rehabilitation
c. Force account
NOTE: The instructor defines "force account," i.e., when the grantee
uses his own employees to perform grant eligible work. To be
allowable for federal grant participation, the grantee must
obtain the prior approval of the EPA Regional Administrator.
At the time of inspection the regulatory observer will check
time sheets for force account employees to insure that all
time is being accounted for including nonallowable work.
(1) Separate records maintained for direct and
indirect costs
(2) Prior written approval has been obtained from EPA
d. Inspection report form
(1) To be completed during inspection
(2) Copies may be left with grantee
(3) Copies to be distributed as agreed to
(4) Documentation of deficiencies and problems
(5) Recommendations on correction of deficiencies
or followup inspection
Start
Part 2
159
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
(6) Only complete new items; not repeat information
previously obtained
NOTE: After the first inspection, the regulatory observer should
complete portions of the inspection form in his/her office
before proceeding to the job site in order not to waste every-
one's time. Information such as name, address, project number,
etc. can be obtained from the first inspection report.
C. Final surveillance inspections
1. Purpose same as interim but also insure project complete
and operating and will meet effluent limitations per NPDES
permit
2. Project conforms to approved P & S and change orders
3. All equipment operational and performing satisfactorily'
NOTE: The regulatory observer may require that all equipment be startec
up during the inspection. For example, it may be desirable to
cut off the main power source to insure that the standby genera-
tor is functioning.
4. 0 & M staff hired and trained
5. Laboratory complete and sufficient
6. 0 & M manual readily available
7. Account records adequate and available for audit
8. Industrial dischargers pretreating as required
9. Other administrative items conpleted (sewer use ordinance,
SSES rehabilitation, etc.)
10. Grantee has accepted project
11. UC/ICR systems implemented
12. Municipal pretreatment program implemented
Q & A
4-6
End
Part 2
IV. Change Orders
NOTE: EPA has come under severe criticism for the number and amount
of change orders for federally funded projects. This criticism
was one of the motivating factors in having the Corps of Engi-
neers become involved in the review of P & S and inspection
Start
Part 3
160
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
of projects. Change orders must be carefully reviewed to insure
they are necessary and that the costs are reasonable. Also, at
the time of inspection work required for previous CO's should
be checked and new pending CO's should be reviewed.
A. Purpose
1. Modify construction contracts after work has begun
2. May increase or decrease construction costs
B. Types
1. Requiring prior approval if they alter
a. Design or scope of work
b. Type of treatment
c. Location, size, capacity or quantity of major component
d. Federal grant amount
2. Not requiring prior approval if
a. Required for minor corrections
b. Required to protect life, property or emergency
conditions
C. Potential problems
1. Potential source of grantee/contractor dispute
2. May overrun project
3. Therefore need to be processed and reviewed as early as
possible
D. Review procedures
1. Grantee must justify and approve
2. Contract increase/decrease sufficiently detailed for
review of reasonableness of costs
3. Does not include work already in contract or previously
reviewed
4. Agrees with unit price or other costs in contract; if
quantities exceeded by 15%, may need to renegotiate
NOTE: In some states or regions of the country, when a change order
exceeds + 15% of the quantities in the proposal, it may be
necessary to renegotiate the unit price to insure that the
amount of profit is reasonable.
161
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
5. Does not circumvent nonrestrictive specifications
NOTE: Change orders may not be used to frustrate the "or equal" pro-
visions of the contract documents, i.e., the grantee may not
substitute one piece of equipment for that bid unless there
is good and sufficient reason to do so.
6. If exceeds $100,000 requires negotiation per regulations
(40 CFR 35.938-5[d] and [e])
NOTE: If CO's exceed 5100,000 it is necessary for the contractor
to submit a complete price breakdown including profit (EPA
form 5700-41) and special review procedures are followed.
Students should be careful that CO's are not broken into
smaller CO's, each less than $100,000, in order to frustrate
this requirement.
7. Grant increase/decrease paperwork prepared if CO exceeds
contingency allowance
Q & A
7-9
End
Part 3
V. Plan of Operation
NOTE: in the earlier years of the program, the plan of operation did
not receive as much attention as it does now. Initially,
emphasis was placed on the 0 S M manual because of the grant
limitation. However, inspections of projects have shown that
many of the problems associated with the operation of a treatment
plant are related to poor operator training or lack of sufficient
budget to attract and hire competent staff. Therefore, the plan
of operation must be emphasized as an important element of
the Step 3 activities.
A. General
1. Always part of regulations but initially 0 & M manual
received most attention
2. Current policy places emphasis on entire plan of operation
3. Preliminary plan of operation as part of Step 3 grant
application
start
Part 4
162
-------
Lesson OulJine #12
Question
& Answer
Location
B. Staffinq and training
1. Staffing plan including salaries and organization
2. Chief operator hired by 50% construction completion
3. Preoperation training schedule 30 days after chief operator
hired
4. All hiring problems solved 60 days prior to startup
5. Submission of positions filled and qualifications of new
hires submitted 30 days prior to startup
6. Continuous training plan and schedule developed 30 days
prior to startup
C. Administration
1. Laboratory facilities adequate to perform required tests
for control
2. Provisions for submission of operational reports to state
3. Operational procedures during startup
4. Employee safety training
5. Provisions for maintenance management program
D. Budget
1. To consider costs for salary, administration, supplies,
utilities and others
2. Salaries commensurate to attract qualified personnel
E. Emergency operating plan must consider
1. Effacts of emergency on operation
2. Vulnerability analysis of system
3. Protective measures
4. Emergency response program
5. Periodic revision as necessary
F. Operation and maintenance manual to include
1. Design information
2. Process control information
3. Maintenance requirements for equipment
4. Laboratory procedures
5. Safety requirement
163
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
6. Records and reports
7. Troubleshooting procedures
8. Grant limitation
Q & A
10 & 11
a. Draft manual before 50% grant payment
End
Part 4
b. Manual approved before 90% grant payment
VI. Payment Conditions - Outlay Schedule
Start
Part 5
NOTE: EPA has placed a great deal of emphasis on "Outlay Management"
during the past few years. The instructor indicates that the
federal government faces the same problems as does any small
business, namely, "cash flow." When a Step 3 grant offer
is made, an outlay schedule is generated for internal use by
EPA and eventually the U.S. Treasury. If construction is
delayed or accelerated, this schedule needs to be revised to
reflect as accurately as possible when funds (cash) will be
needed. In 1976, "outlays were more than anticipated, and in
May of that year no additional cash was available to honor pay-
ment requests. This created hardships on many grantees and
contractors and resulted in more attention to "Outlay Manage-
ment." Students need to be aware of this management problem
and insure that the outlay schedule is modified to reflect the
most accurate project conditions.
The grant payment limitations contained in this section need
to be emphasized to the grantee in order to preclude future
problems. To illustrate this point, the instructor cites the
case of a large southern municipality which had not completed
its UC/ICR system (no longer applicable for current Step 3
projects) by the 80% grant payment stage. EPA was unable to
honor the payment request. The municipality did not have the
funds to pay the contractor. The contractor closed down the
project due to nonpayment and charged the municipality $50,000
remobilization when the project was restarted. The municipality
was required to make this payment and the costs were not allow-
able for federal grant participation. It is this type of
situation which must be avoided by good project management.
A. 0 & M manual
1. No more than 50% payment until
a. Draft manual submitted
b. Evidence of timely development submitted
2. No more than 90% payment until
a. Manual approved by regulatory agency
164
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
B. Sewer use ordinance
No more than 80% payment until ordinance approved by regulatory
agency
C. Sewer system rehabilitation program
No more than 80% payment until evidence of compliance
with schedule
D. UC/ICR systems
NOTE: As was mentioned previously, the UC/ICR systems will be part
of the Step 2 grant activities in the future. However, the
payment limitations are discussed here for those older projects
which received Step 3 grants prior to June 30, 1979.
1. Pre 6/30/79 Step 3 grant awards
a. No more than 50% payment until evidence of timely
development
b. No more than 80% payment unless system approved
by regulatory agency
2. Post 6/30/79 Step 3 grant awards
a. UC/ICR systems require approval before Step 3
grant award (Step 2 work)
3. Step 3 awards between 4/24/78 and 7/1/79
a. Must obtain approval before 7/1/79 or no payments
E. Municipal pretreatment program
1. Step 3 grants post 10/1/79
a. No more than 90% payment unless program approved
unless
b. Grants after 10/1/79 but before 12/31/80 - Regional
Administrator determines that progress is being made
and likely that progress will continue
2. Step 3 grants post 12/31/81 - require approvable
municipal pretreatment program prior to Step 3 grant award
F. Final payment
1. Requires final inspection to insure
165
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
a. Constructed in accordance with approved P & S and CO's
b. Compliance with grant agreement
VII. Role of U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
A.
Headquarters agreement
1. Negotiated for 3 years to provide additional resources
2. Each region to negotiate regional agreement
3. COE personnel act as agents of EPA
B.
Regional agreement
1. Vary from region to region, state to state
2. Provides for COE to review P & S for biddability and
constructability
3. Provides for periodic or full time inspections and
processing of Step 3 grants
VIII. Construction Management
NOTE:
While construction management by a firm specializing in these
activities is not required by EPA, it is encouraged in order
to insure professional project management. The outline shows
that 85% of the grantees are municipalities under 50,000
population. As such, these municipalities do not have full time
experienced staff that can manage the projects. Therefore, it
is the EPA's position that construction management may provide
an opportunity to see that projects are constructed more
efficiently and on schedule, thereby reducing costs and saving
time. Generally, this service is provided by a separate firm
from the design engineers.
A.
Requirements (35.936-5[b])
1. None
2. Encouraged by EPA, however
B.
Definition
1. Independent multi-disciplined team acting as agent of
grantee
2. Generally responsible to manage budget, schedule coordina-
tion of all activities
C.
Best to engage in Step 1 activities and maintain through
construction completion
166
-------
Lesson Outline #12
Question
& Answer
Location
D. Why ? 85% of grantees are municipalities under 50,000
population
Summary:
Monitoring of construction activities is the final step in the
Construction Grants Program (final audit excepted). Finally, after
years of planning and design, the project is being constructed. Since
the construction involves the expenditure of large sums of public
funds, it is of utmost importance that the project be monitored closely.
Many opportunities exist during construction for a project to get into
trouble, and it is up to the construction grants reviewer to insure
that he/she and the grantee monitor and manage the project.
Q & A
12 & 13
End
Part '5
167
-------
QUIZ ~ TOPIC #12
Monitoring of Construction Activities
The state or EPA employee acts as the resident engineer
and interprets P & S and advises contractors. True or
False
At least one copy of the approved P & S must be available
at the job site. True or False
The wage rate determination must be posted in a prominent
place at the job site. True or False
Grantees accounting or fiscal records should be reviewed at
the first inspection. True or False
State, EPA or COE personnel are responsible for enforcing OSHA.
True or False
At the final inspection all equipment should be operational.
True or False
Change orders for minor corrections of P & S require prior
EPA and/or state approval. True or False
Change orders in excess of $100,000 require only grantee
approval. True or False
168
-------
Topic #12 Quiz (Cont'd.)
9. Every approved change order requires a grant increase.
True or False
10. The chief operator of the treatment plant must be hired by
at least the 50% construction completion stage. True or
False
11. A draft 0 & M manual must be submitted to EPA or the state
before releasing more than 50% of the grant. True or False
12. The COE is required to enforce EEO requirements. True or
False
13. Construction management is required on all projects over
$5 million. True or False
169
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #12
1. False - State or federal inspector is an observer and may
only direct grantee's activities.
2. True
3. True
4. True
5. False - The contractor is responsible; apparent violations
should be brought to the attention of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor.
6. True
7. False
8. False - All change orders except for minor corrections or
emergencies require state and/or EPA approval; CO's
in excess of $100,000 require price and profit nego-
tiations .
9. False - The contingency allowance of 5% should cover CO's.
10. True
11. True
12. False - Done by the Department of Labor.
13. False - No requirements for construction management; optional.
170
-------
INSTRUCTOR ho
LESSON PLAN lO
Topic #13: SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Objective: This topic presents information which is common to
the processing of Step 1, 2, 2+3 and 3 grants. It
is necessary that students not only understand
the material presented but more importantly know
where to look for the answers to specific questions.
Videotape Part i 22:33
Running Part 2 25:31
Time:
Required Color television and
Equipment: 3/4" u-Matic video
cassette recorder
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
This topic presents information common to the processing of all
construction grants projects. The instructor asks students to review
Chapter VII in the "Handbook of Procedures." This procedure is used
since one of the objectives of the course is to familiarize the students
with the "Handbook of Procedures." Students are asked to turn to pre-
selected pages in Chapter VII and review specific points. It is also
recommended that the students leaf through every page in order to observe
the information contained therein.
I. Handbook of Procedures, Chapter VII
A. Allowable and unallowable costs
NOTE: The terms "eliqible," "ineliqible." "allowable." "unallowable"
are not interchangeable and were specifically selected to connote
different situations.
The term eligible refers to an entire project. For example,
the construction of an airport is ineligible for grant funds
under the CWA of 1977. In like fashion, the construction of a
highway, water treatment plant, etc. are all ineligible under
the CWA of 1977.
The construction of a wastewater treatment works is eligible
for grant participation under the CWA of 1977.
171
-------
Lesson Outline #13
Question
fi Answer
Location
An eligible project may contain allowable and unallowable costs.
For example, construction of the treatment plant and associated
engineering design fees are allowable costs for grant participa-
tion. The purchase of land (except where land is a part of the
treatment process), rights of way and easements are unallowable
costs of an eligible project. Interest during construction or
costs associated with the sale of bonds are unallowable costs
of an eligible project.
The distinction between these terms is pointed out to students.
Unfortunately, however, when the regulations were revised on
September 27, 1978, the terms were used interchangeably. There-'
fore, confusion exists among these terms, and the instructor
advises students of this confusion and instructs them to be
careful when interpreting regulations and other documents.
1. General
Chapter VII
Page No. Item Comment
2 Allowable and Unallowable Students are asked
Costs
B.l.a, b, c, d
to read entire
general section.
Distinction made
between eligible and
allowable. Emphasis
placed on general
guiding principles
listed in a, b, c, d
2. Allowability and miscellaneous costs
Chapter VII
Page No.
Item
Comment
4
Bond Costs
Indicated as
unallowable.
6
Public Liaison
Indicated as general-
ly unallowable excep :
for public participa' ¦
tion.
172
-------
Lesson Outline #13
Question
& Answer
Location
Chapter VII
Page No. Item Comment
9 Site Acquisition vs Points out distinction
Site Preparation Costs between land used as
integral part of treat-
ment process (allowable
)
and not part of treat-
ment process (unallow-
able) .
14 Replacement Parts Critical components
allowable; other rou-
tine 0 & M items
unallowable.
NOTE: The classroom instructor may wish to cite other specific example!
Those listed above are representative of allowable, unallowable
and combinations requiring judgement. The instructor asks
students to turn to page VII-2 and leaf through to page VII-21
observing the underlined headings. The instructor indicates
that pp. VII-22 through VII-26 have been left blank to allow
for future allowability/unallowability decisions.
•
B. Force account
NOTE: The instructor requests students to turn to page VII-27 of the
"Handbook of Procedures" and review the conditions under which
force account work may be accomplished. While the agency does
not encourage force account (primarily because of the adminis-
trative problems and records to be maintained by the grantee),
it has been used by some knowledgeable grantees to save sub-
stantial monies. The instructor points out one project for
which the grantee (executive director is former EPA construc-
tion grants employee) was able to reduce resident inspection fee
by two-thirds with the use of force account compared with the
costs of a consultino enoineer.
¦
173
-------
Lesson Outline #13
Question
& Answer
Location
Chapter VII
Page No. Item Comment
26 General Students to read
C.l.a, b through item 1.
26 EPA Prior Approval Students to read
C.2. through item 2.
27 Other Considerations Students to read
C.3. items a - d.
C. Payments
NOTE: Because of the cash flow needs of grantees and their contractors
or consultants, the EPA has attempted to process payment re-
quests in 48 hours from the date of receipt. Unfortunately,
this short time is not realized often enough but is a goal that
grants administration personnel should strive for. Also, other
regulatory personnel involved in the handling or processing of
payment requests should give the requests priority treatment
in order not to delay payments.
NOTE: In general, the grants administration section of EPA receives
and processes payment requests. The first and final payment
requests are sent to the construction grants project manager for
review. Intermediate payment requests are routinely processed
by grants administration based on the assumption that the re-
quest is legitimate. Exceptions to the routine processing are
50%, 80% and 90% payment requests for Step 3 grants. These are
the limitations milestones in the regulations covering the
completion of 0 & M manual, sewer use ordinance, etc. At
these milestones the payment request is also reviewed by the
construction grants project manager.
Chapter VII
Page No. Item Comment
29 Payments D.l. Students to read all
of the general section
(item 1).
Q & A
1 " 6,
8 & 9
174
-------
Lesson Outline #13
Question
& Answer
Location
Chapter VII
Page No. Item Comment
32 Documentation b. Students to read
item b entirely.
End
Part 1
D. Increases and decreases
Start
Part 2
34 Increases and Decreases Students to read
E.l. item 1 entirely.
E« Audits
NOTE: The main point made in the discussion of audits is that the
state or EPA project manager can preclude substantial problems
and bad feelings if he/she helps the grantee set up records
and other documents in anticipation of an audit.
Auditors prepare audit reports and where appropriate make ex-
ception to certain items as being allowable for grant participa-
tion. The audit report is first submitted to the state or EPA
project manager for review. Resolution of exceptions may take
place at this level. If the project manager agrees with the
exception(s), the grantee is provided an opportunity to explain
the exception and/or supply additional information as to why the
costs should be considered allowable. Where an exception is
not clearly defined by regulation or other agency policy, the
final decision rests with EPA headquarters.
Chapter VII
Page No. Item Comment
36 Audits 1. and 2. Students to read
items 1 and 2 entirely
39 Audits 6. Students to read
item 6 entirely.
Q S A
7 & 10
175
-------
:—i
Lesson Outline #13
Question
& Answer
Location
Sjmmary:
The topic Financial Considerations contains information and
procedures common to all construction grants. The information and
procedures are contained in Chapter VII of the "Handbook of Procedures.'
Students should first review this chapter when questions arise
and resort to the references contained in the chapter as necessary.
End
Part 2
176
-------
QUIZ - TOPIC #13
Summary of Financial Considerations
The construction of a water treatment plant is (a) not
eligible, (b) unallowable for a grant under the CWA.
(Circle a or b)
The cost of selling municipal bonds to finance the construc-
tion of a sewage treatment plant is
a. allowable
b. unallowable
c. eligible
d. ineligible
A pickup truck to be used 50% at the treatment plant and 50%
by the Street Department is purchased by the grantee. Half
the costs of the truck are allowable for grant participation.
True or False
The cost of land purchase is allowable for grant participation
if the land will be an integral part of the treatment plant.
True or False
Costs for startup services are not allowable for grant
participation. True or False
The use of force account labor requires justification and
prior EPA approval. True or False
Step 3 grants may be decreased after receipt of bids and
reduction of contingency allowance (assumes bids are lower
than estimated). True or False
Advance payments are made for large construction projects
True or False
177
-------
Topic #13 Quiz (Cont'd.)
9. Final grant payment is made prior to final inspection
requested by grantee. True or False
10. Audits are conducted on all projects. True or False
178
-------
ANSWERS - TOPIC #13
1. (a) not eligible
2. (b) unallowable
3. True
4. True - Land acquisition costs for conventional forms of
treatment are not allowable.
5. False - Up to 90 days for most plants and 300 days for large
complex plants.
6. True
7. True - This allows other projects to be funded.
8. False - Payments made only after costs have been incurred.
9. False
10. False - Generally only on projects with grants > $250,000.
179
-------
INSTRUCTOR-!
LESSON PLAN 14
Tfjpi C #14 i WHAT DELEGATION MEANS TO THE STATE OF
Objective: The students are presented state plans on the
implementation of State Delegation Agreement.
Suggested Time: 45 minutes
Required
Equipments None
Lesson Outline
Question
& Answer
Location
Introduction:
This topic does not have a prepared outline but has been set aside
for senior state management personnel to address new employees. During
the year preceding the preparation of this instructor manual, this
course was delivered eight times throughout the United States. Approxi-
mately fourteen states were represented by the students attending this
course. The presentation of material for this topic ranged from ten
minutes of extemporaneous comments to sixty minutes of planned instruc-
tion.
In many instances, the assemblage of students represented the first
time that all new employees in the Construction Grants Program were
gathered in one place at the same time. The most effective presentation:
were made by a series of senior state management personnel followed
by a question and answer period. Following is a series of topics that
are recommended for presentation.
I. Delegation Agreement
A. Schedule of delegation - a list of dates and functions which
will be assumed by the state beginning with the signing of
the delegation agreement between the state and EPA
180
-------
Lesson Outline #14
question
& Answer
Location
B.
Functions and responsibilities retained by EPA - a listing of
functions which are not anticipated to be delegated by EPA
and a discussion of the sampling reviews to be conducted by
EPA for those functions delegated
C.
Responsibilities of the state under delegated functions - speci-
fic details of the responsibilities to be carried out by the
state for the delegated functions. For example, with regard
to environmental reviews, the state may or may not prepare
the environmental assessment statement (EAS) (formerly environ-
mental appraisal) based on the grantee's environmental informa-
tion document. EPA must by law retain the final decision as to
whether an EIS will or will not be prepared. However, the
state may prepare the EAS.
II. Organization
Many states have had to reorganize their departments, divisions
or
other unit of government in order to efficiently handle the
increased responsibilities. This topic should include organiza-
tion diagrams showing the various units of government and their
interrelationship.
A.
Location within state government
B.
Division or department organization including subsections,
such as
1. Engineering section
a. Engineering reviews and inspection
b. 0 & M review and monitoring
c. Environmental review
d. Technical support services
2. Administration section
a. Project coordination
b. Program support
3. Staff training
4. Personnel
181
-------
Lesson Outline #14
Question
& Answer
Location
III. Staffing
This topic may show the number and grade of various positions
which will be filled durinq the delegation process. Positions may
be identified by disciplines and prerequisite years of experience,
etc.
IV. Staff Training
This topic may present the type and dates for specific training
programs, such as
A. Management staff training
B. Basic training (new employees)
C. Advanced training
V. Questions and Answers
VI. Summary
The state senior manager may wish to summarize the three day
seminar as follows.
"Having completed the Construction Grants Process course, you have
been exposed to the entire Construction Grants Program from the
history of federal involvement through construction and final audit
You are now aware of the complicated procedures that you and a
grantee must follow in satisfying the federal requirements for a
construction grant. We do not now consider you an expert; rather,
we consider this training seminar as the beginning of your educa-
tion. You should now have a reasonably good idea of how the
program functions and how the many parts fit together.
Some of you will work in only one specific area of the program
during the next year or so. However, you should have learned
how each function is interrelated to other program functions
in order that you can better coordinate your actions with others.
It should be obvious that the program is rather complex. You
will spend full time administering the program. Can you imagine
182
-------
Lesson Outline #14
Question
& Answer
Location
how municipal officials must feel when they are exposed to all
the forms, paperwork and responsibilities which they assume after
receiving a grant? They do not spend full time on their sewage
treatment project. They need your help, not hindrance. The success
of the program depends on you working cooperatively with grantees
and applicants. You must seek out every opportunity to help them.
You must manage the program so that the public monies are spent
effectively. We all tend tc get bogged down in regulations and
paperwork. We must not forget, however, that the primary objective
of this program is to abate water pollution, but not at the expense
of creating worse environmental problems.
We thank you for your attendance at this training seminar and trust
it has been fruitful. Please keep in mind that we welcome your
suggestions for improvement to the efficient administration of
the program and are available to meet with you at any time."
183
-------
APPENDIX
184
-------
STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION
TITLE:
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROCESS FOR
TIME
LEVEL OF
INSTRUCTOR
VISUAL
STATE AGENCY PERSONNEL (250.2)
ALLOTTED
INSTRUC-
PRESENTATION
AIDS
TION
LOCATION
1
DATES:
¦u
c
¦H
in
w
c
o
¦ *4
c
• H
a
Basic
X)
«
c
o
•
«rl
to
V)
c
o
c
H
a
DAY
TOPIC
O
CO
c
w
Wl
a
a
0)
>
<
Gooc
o
z
(/>
c
M
a
a
<
o
X
w
o
z
#1
1
Evolution of Federal Role
2
From Legislation to Practice
3
State Program
4
Facilities Plan Review
5
Avoiding Delays
#2
6
Step 1 Grant Processing
7
Step 2 Grant Processing
8
Problems and Delays
9
Plan and Specifications Review
10
Step 3 Grant Processing
#3
11
Procurement of Construction Grants
12
Monitoring of Construction
13
Summary of Financial Consideratioi
s
14
What Delegation Means to the
r> f
ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS:
PLEASE RATE THE ENTIRE
COURSE FOR THE FOLLOWING
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Inadequate ( )
Average ( )
Good ( )
Outstanding ( )
No Opinion ( )
REFERENCE MATERIAL
Insufficient ( )
Appropriate ( )
Excessive ( )
No Opinion ( )
CLASSROOM FACILITIES
Insufficient ( )
Appropriate ( )
Excellent ( )
No Opinion ( )
If insufficient, pis comment
QUIZZES
Inadequate
Average
Good
Outstanding
Not Necessary
-------
SOURCE COURSE MATERIALS
Federal Regulations
The major regulations used as source material are taken
from Title 40 Code of Regulations, Chapter I. The major
parts and/or subparts are listed below in their general
order of importance.
a. Part 35 Subpart E - Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works - Clean Water Act
Subpart F - State Management Assistance Grants
Subpart G - Grants for Water Quality Planning,
Management and Implementation
b. Part 6 Subpart E - Environmental Review Procedures for
Wastewater Treatment Construction
Grants Program
c. Part 25 - Public Participation in Programs under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, The Safe Drinking
Water Act, and The Clean Water Act
d. Part 30 - General Grant Regulations and Procedures
e. Part 33 - Subagreements (used for other than A/E
subagreements)
f. Part 403 - General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing
and New Sources of Pollution
Municipal Construction Division (MCD) Publications
a. Handbook of Procedures (MCD-03)
b. Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation
(MCD-19)
c. Model Plan of Study, Supplement to Guidance for
Preparing a Facility Plan (MCD-24)
d. Value Engineering Workbook for Construction Grants
Projects (MCD-29)
186
-------
e. Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan (MCD-46)
f. Innovative and Alternative Technology Manual (MCD-53)
Environmental Assessment of Construction Grants Project
(FRD-5)
Program Requirement Memoranda, Office of Water Program
Operations
Program Operations Memoranda, Office of Water Program
Operations
187
------- |