16. How much replication of effort should be carried out?

17. How are types and levels of competence of personnel required? Do we have these people!

18. What facilities, equipment, and instrumentation are required? Are these available?

19. Should the work be performed in-house, by grants, or by contracts? Where can the work best be done? If in-house, which laboratory? If contract, are there contractors with special or unique competence?

20. Are there other approaches to solving the problem? What are they?

21. Does proposed approach and methodology differ substantially from those who are recognized in the field of study? Why?

22. Has the proposed program been subject to technical review? 23. Are there predictable technological developments in this or related field which could substantially affect your research effort? 24. If the program or project is approved, when can the next decision be made as to termination or continuation of work? 25. What is the probability of success?

IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation of approved program plans consists at least of the following aspects:

1. Development of detailed operational plans and resource requirements.

2. Review and approval of detailed plans.

3. Allocation of resources.

4. Reports and reviews of progress and resource utilization.

5. Evaluation of progress.

6. Redirect efforts as necessary to incorporate new decisions, results, and actions affecting program.

7. Publication and dissemination of results.

8. Integration of research efforts into total solution of problem. Broad objectives of the R.D. & D. effort:

SCOPE

The scope of the effort of research, development, and demonstration is quite broad, ranging from:

1. Identification, sampling, and monitoring of water impurities; 2. Fate and persistence of impurities in the environment;

3. New and improved treatment systems;

4. Control through nontreatment methods;

5. Ultimate disposal;

6. Water quality requirements; and

7. Socioeconomic, management, and planning tools.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND PLANNING

Figure 1 illustrates the program structure and elements of the research and development program of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. It represents the framework within which we

95-825-68-14

can plan our program, establish goals, and determine needed resources to achieve goals, allocate available resources, and evaluate the effectiveness of ongoing research.

Subprograms 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 contain the elements dealing with specific sources of wastes; subprogram 16 is a general category containing the elements of pollution identification, fate and persistence of pollutants in the environment, water quality control, eutrophication, water resources planning and resource data, and thermal pollution; subprogram 17 contains the elements dealing with waste treatment; and subprogram 18 is the research on water quality requirements or effects of water pollutants on all water uses.

WATER QUALITY

The element 1608-water quality control-encompasses pollution control techniques such as recovery and reuse, product modification, process change, elimination, dispersion, dilution, detention, diversion, and environmental treatment. These were dealt with in the National Academy of Sciences report on "Waste Management and Control." These alternate ways of alleviating our nationwide pollution problems as they relate to air, water, and land are given in appendix A of my statement. (See p. 212.)

This structure for categorizing our research and development was established last year and we believe will facilitate interagency coordination and cooperation. The categories are compatible with those established by the Committee on Water Resources Research of the Federal Council for Science and Technology.

ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

The research and development program of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is conducted through both in-house and extramural support.

IN-HOUSE RESEARCH

The in-house effort is conducted at laboratories in Ada, Okla.; Athens, Ga.; Cincinnati, Ohio; College, Alaska; Corvallis, Oreg.; Duluth, Minn.; and, although the permanent building has not been constructed, at Narragansett, R.I. Wherever possible, each laboratory is being developed as a center of competence for a designated research effort.

In addition to the laboratory effort, continued emphasis is being placed on research and development work at various field sites and pilot plants or facilities across the Nation.

It is obvious that to have a successful research and development program, in addition to the competence available in the Federal Government, the best scientific and engineering talent in the Nation, including that available in the universities and private research institutions, industries, and in State and municipal organizations, must be incorporated in the national effort to control water pollution. We are doing this through our extramural grant and contract programs.

Our experience has demonstrated the great importance and efficiency in conducting simultaneous and complementary in-house and extra

mural research projects. Experience has also shown that the overall effectiveness of grant and contract research can be very greatly enhanced through the intensive application of technical direction, coordination, and monitoring.

GRANTS AND CONTRACTS

A grant and contract support staff of engineers, scientists, economists, and other professional personnel must provide continuing planning, data interpretation and analyses, and systems optimization services to the program by using the most up-to-date techniques and principles, such as operations research, critical path analysis, and cost engineering.

This staff must develop the interest and obtain the ideas and suggestions of the most competent scientific and engineering minds in the Nation; encourage the submission of proposals in light of the overall broad attack on the problem; monitor, direct and coordinate projects in progress; and interpret and evaluate results and recommend continuance, termination or redirection of the work.

The staff must also conduct adequate liaison with other agencies and organizations, both within and without the Federal Government.

PROJECT REVIEW

From a review standpoint, proposals are considered as to (1) scientific or technical merit, and (2) program merit relating to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration mission, research objectives, or goals.

All new proposals and grant applications for research, development and demonstrations undergo the following sequence of review:

First, preliminary program review. All proposals are transmitted to a project control point in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Research and Development for acknowledgment and transmission for preliminary review. Proposals are forwarded to the Division of Research or the Division of Engineering Development, whichever has responsibility for providing program review and coordinating technical review. If it is obvious that the proposal does not fall within the scope of the agency's responsibilities and mission, the applicant is so notified.

Second, technical review. Assuming that the proposal falls within the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration mission, it is sent out for technical review by the appropriate branch chief in the division. This review is carried out by Federal Water Pollution Control Administration personnel and, when necessary, reviews from scientists and engineers outside our program.

Third, program review. Assuming that the proposal has been recommended technically, an evaluation is made regarding its program relevance and where it stands in program priority.

The review process includes an evaluation by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration regional office personnel and for some types of grants, the project must be approved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency.

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

An overall priority is established based on both the technical and program reviews. The time interval from the receipt of a completed grant application until the time for recommendation for approval or disapproval should not exceed 6 weeks. This is the time schedule which we now have in effect. If, in the course of review, it is determined that funding is not to be recommended, the applicant will be advised sooner.

Most grant awards will be announced on a quarterly basis, probably February 1, May 1, August 1, and November 1. A proposal received 6 weeks prior to those dates would have technical review completed and a recommendation for approval or disapproval.

It would be possible on a very high priority proposal to have the review completed in less than 1 week. Training grants and research fellowships are currently being reviewed by an extramural panel. The time required for final action would, however, be approximately the same.

COMPUTING THE EXTENT OF GRANT AND CONTRACT SUPPORT

We have both grant and contract authority. In general, we use the grant mechanism when the applicant has designed a project for the purpose of meeting the needs of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and, at the same time, is filling a need of his own.

In a grant, the recipient gains specific benefit beyond reimbursement, expenses, overhead and fees. Where the project is being carried out by qualified investigators with no benefit to them beyond reimbursement, expenses, overhead and fees, the contract mechanism is employed.

GUIDELINES

There are several constraints to determining the extent of support. The first guideline is the authorizing legislation and the subsequent amendments. This indicates the broad limitation under which the agency can operate.

Next is the actual appropriation that is given as the maximum limitation to funding.

The third guideline is the Federal regulation (FPR) which indicates the authorized categories of spending.

The fourth guideline indicates the amount of money allocated to a particular program category (fig. 1). With these overall guidelines, all research projects are evaluated in accordance with technical excellence and program relevance. Whenever appropriate, projects are evaluated competitively with each other. From these evaluations, lists of priorities in each of the program categories are created.

The amount of money requested for each project on a priority list is compared to the amount of money available in that category to support the work.

After this comparison is made, the budget requirements of each project that is to be tentatively funded is scrutinized by technical, accounting, and auditing specialists.