Wastewater Operatorofthe
104 (g) (1) Training Program
produced by the
Maryland Center for Environmental Training
of the College of Southern Maryland
in partnership with the
104(g)(1) grantees
with funding from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 2000
-------
The Maryland Center for Environmental Training performed the 1999 National Program Evaluation
and developed this report under EPA grant number X-993916-01-0. :.'
The Maryland Center for Environmental Training and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
contributing agencies, organizations, and individuals cannot assume any liability for the accuracy or
completeness of the information in this publication. Inclusion in this report is not an endorsement of
die companies, products, technologies, or techniques mentioned. •'•'•'."•...'"' V
Cover photograph by Jake Bair, Maryland Center for Environmental Training
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Curt Baranowski
EPA National Program Coordinator
Mail Code 4204
Office of Wastewater Management
Municipal Assistance Branch
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5806
baranowski.curt@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm
Maryland
Karen Brandt
Maryland Center for Environmental Training
College of Southern Maryland -
_P.O'Box 910, 8730 Mitchell Road
La Plata, ,MD 20646 " !
(301)934-7500 : ; "* "•.;'.'; .'
Fax: (30D.934-7685 " ' ' .." > [
kbrandt@mcet.ofg •
.http://www.mcet.org '' ,
J--\
Printed with vegetable inks on recycled paper
-------
,1999
National Evaluation
Wastewater Operatorofthe
104(g) (1) Training Program
produced by the
in partnership wi
with funding from the
April 2000
Maryland Center for Environmental Training
ofthe College of Southern Maryland
hthe
104(g)(1) grantees
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Acknowledgments
The 1999 National Evaluation of the
104(g)(l) Wastewater Operator
Training Program was performed by
the Maryland Center for Environmental
Training. The report was written, edited, and
desktop published by Laura Ford and Susan
Craton of the Maryland Center for Environ-
mental Training, a department of the Eco-
nomic and Community Development Institute
at the College of Southern Maryland.
Generous contributions, including detailed
survey responses, photographs, advice, and
guidance, for this report were provided by the
104(g)(l) grantees and regional EPA coordi-
nators.
Curt Baranowski, EPA's National 104(g)(l)
Program Coordinator, provided project
oversight and valuable assistance. Gary
Hudiburgh, Branch Chief of the Municipal
Assistance Branch, EPA Office of Wastewater
Management, provided important direction
for the project. Jim Kern, EPA Region 3, was
the Grants Project Officer and played an
instrumental role in bringing this report to
completion.
Jake Bair, retired Director of the Maryland
Center for Environmental Training and
former key spokesperson for the 104(g)(l)
program, contributed text and photographs for
the report.
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 1
National Overview of the 104(g)(1) Program 5
Region 1 15
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,Vermont
Region 2 23
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Region 3 . 27
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia
Region 4 33
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,Tennessee
Regions 39
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Region 6 47
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahomajexas
Region 7 51
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska :
Region 8 55
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,South Dakota, Utah,Wyoming
Region 9 61
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
Region 10 65
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Appendix 69
-------
-------
Abstract
This report is intended to present an overview of the 104(g)(l) Wastewater Operator
Training Program as it is currently being implemented throughout the country. All
104(g) (1) grantees and EPA regional coordinators were surveyed in April 1999 to
collect data on:
• funding :
• program staffing
• numbers of facilities assisted
• types of assistance provided
• referral sources
• circumstances for delivery of assistance :
• factors limiting performance at plants
• factors limiting the assistance program's success
• reasons for and types of program successes
The survey responses and data from other program resources have been summarized arid are
presented in the Program Evaluation Report. Case studies are published in this evaluation to
present vignettes of the program and the ways it works throughout the country.
The Operator Training Program began in 1982 to provide technical assistance to small
wastewater treatment plants that were experiencing difficulties in meeting their discharge
permits. Benefits to systems receiving 104(g)(l) assistance include improved compliance,
cost savings for communities, enhanced operator professionalism and improved operations,
maintenance, and safety.
Annual federal funding for the program has been less than $2 million per year, plus matching
funds from state and local governments and others. In FY99, 988 facilities received 104(g)(l)
assistance, with a 93 percent success rate for achieving or maintaining compliance or improv-
ing performance. The assistance was provided at an average federal cost of $1816 per project.
The 104(g)(l) on-site help is provided by technical assistance providers with substantial
understanding of the challenges facing small systems. Assistance is comprehensive and often
long'term. Approximately 550 small communities throughout the country are currently
receiving assistance under the Operator Training Program.
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Small community wastewater treatment
plants have considerable difficulties
complying with the regulatory require-
ments of the Clean Water Act. Fortunately,
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Wastewater Management
sponsors an innovative technical assistance
program. The national "Operator Training
Program" is designed to help smaller commu-
nities struggling to provide effective wastewa-
ter treatment. The program thereby improves
surface water quality and protects public health.
The Operator Training Program provides on-
site technical assistance at no cost to small
communities experiencing difficulties comply-
ing with their wastewater discharge permits.
Authorized under section 104(g)(l) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), the Operator
Training Program provides on-site operator
training, financial management, troubleshoot-
ing, and other operations and maintenance
assistance designed to address the chronic
problems of non-compliance which trouble
many small, publicly-owned wastewater
treatment plants. Assistance provided by the
Operator Training Program was effective in 93
percent of projects, according to program data
for the 988 facilities served in FY99.
The need for improved compliance and
assistance for small systems has been docu-
mented extensively by General Accounting
Office reports, EPA's Clean Water Needs
Survey, and other sources. Compliance
problems are caused primarily by poor opera-
tor understanding and application of treat-
ment process control. These difficulties often
are aggravated by capital improvement needs.
Of the more than 12,500 wastewater treat-
ment plants in the United States which
discharge less than 1 million gallons per day,
many currently use, or are preparing to
upgrade to, sophisticated advanced treatment
technologies. These technologies require
operating skills that many operators of smaller
plants have been unable to acquire. As the
number of systems using advanced treatment
steadily grows, so does the need for operator
training. The Operator Training Program is
uniquely designed to meet this need.
Federal funding of the Operator Training
Program enables experts all over the country
to provide free technical assistance to public
Wastewater treatment plants discharge effluent to the
nation's recreational waters, like those at this site near
Smoke Hole, West Virginia. In many cases, these
waters ultimately become the drinking water supply for
millions of customers.
1999 Program Evaluation
-------
facilities. Funding is provided as grants to state
environmental agencies or to training centers
housed at local colleges and universities.
About 40 percent of the time, systems in need
of assistance are referred to the program by
regulatory agencies. A trainer then works with
die community, plant operators, and local
officials to evaluate the facility's problems and
to develop a remedial training plan. Plant
operators receive assistance in areas such as
process control, maintenance management,
laboratory analysis and reporting, sludge
treatment and disposal, financial manage-
ment, safety, energy conservation, and right-
to-know compliance.
Almost 550 small wastewater plants nationwide
currently are receiving assistance under the
Operator Training Program. In a recent EPA
national "customer service" survey of commu-
nities served by the program, more than 95
percent of respondents indicated that the
assistance provided through the program was
helpful and that they would recommend this
type of assistance to another facility. Further-
more, 92 percent agreed that the skills of their
staff were enhanced as a result of the technical
assistance provided by the program. Finally,
more than 70 percent of respondents stated
that the technical assistance program helped
them return to compliance.
Since 1982, the Operator Training Program
has provided a valuable service, at no cost to
communities and at low cost to the federal
government. With average federal funding of
less than $2 million per year, the program has
carried out approximately 6,000 assistance
projects throughout the country, almost
exclusively in rural or non-metropolitan areas.
Data published in EPA's FY99 104(g)(l)
Program Report show that operator outreach
training is being provided nationally at an
average federal cost of only $1,816 per project.
Most states receiving federal funding for the
program are able to leverage funding from
state and local resources to meet the federal
matching requirement of 25 percent cash or
in-kind contribution. More importantly, many
state governments are so impressed by the
program that they contribute substantial
funding to provide for expanded operator
outreach and training. For example, Pennsyl-
vania, Maryland, and Ohio each adds more
than $100,000 annually for on-site technical
assistance.
However, the success of state and local
fundraising appears to be highly dependent
upon the availability of federal funds. Forty-
one percent of the 48 grant recipients re-
sponding to the 1999 Program Evaluation
Survey indicated that if federal program funds
were eliminated, they would be unable to
deliver on-site technical assistance to waste-
water treatment plants. Another 50 percent of
respondents indicated that if federal funding
were lost they would be forced to reduce the
number of systems helped, the length of time
invested at each system, the number of staff
employed, and/or the number of services
offered. Most grantees designated insufficient
operating budgets as the primary factor
limiting their outreach efforts.
The Operator Training Program targets
assistance to smaller communities that are
severely challenged by their wastewater
discharge permit requirements, limited
financial resources, and often deteriorating
infrastructure. In most cases these communi-
ties cannot afford engineering assistance or
staff training and have been unable to plan
effectively for their communities' future
treatment needs. The Operator Training
Program provides urgently needed assistance
that improves compliance, while protecting
the environment and public health.
104{g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Executive Summary
Summary of Program Evaluation Findings
• 58 percent of 104(g)(1) grantees are state agendes,and 42
percent of 104(g)(1) grantees are environmental training
centers at non-state agencies.
• Each of the 48 grantees receives federal 104(g)(1) funding
of approximately S25-50K per year.
*lf 104(g)(1) funding were lost, 41 percent of respondents
said that they would be forced to eliminate technical
assistance for WWTPs (77 percent of these were environ-
mental training centers at colleges, universities, and non-
profit organizations).
• If 104(g)(1) funding were increased, grantees said that
they would expand services, increase the number of
systems assisted, increase the length of time invested on
projects, and increase staff (in that order of priority). Some
noted that staffing increases were a low priority choice
because of uncertainty of continuation of funding.
• 104(g)(1) prdgrams in each state make heavy use of part-
time staff and consultants.
• Most referrals for technical assistance come from state
regulatory or other agencies (41 percent) or from plant
operators or managers (37 percent). Contacts made during
classroom training are another key source of referrals.
• The top reasons for assistance are non-compliance, high
risk for non-compliance,and inexperienced operators.
• The top five factors that limit proper performance at small
WWTPs are poor understanding and application of process
control by operators (first choice of 76 percent of survey .
respondents), inflow and infiltration, staffing problems,
difficulties with solids handling and sludge disposal, and
operability/maintainability considerations.
• The state 104(g)(1) programs are limited primarily by
insufficient operating budgets, inadequate staffing,travel
considerations, and insufficient support for operators by
local officials and managers.
* Key program successes were identified as improved system
compliance and, therefore, improved environmental
protection, enhancement of operator professionalism,and
financial savings or other direct economic benefits for
communities.
• Key reasons for program success were identified as
commitment to long-term and comprehensive on-site
assistance and technical assistance by professionals with
plant operating experience (peer group assistance).
The program evaluation survey is included in the Appendix.
Typical Assistance Provided by the
104(g)(1) Training Program
Improve treatment efficiencies at municipal plants
Evaluate the effectiveness of overall plant operation
Refine process control strategies for the treatment plant
Aid in start-up procedures at treatment facilities
Devise process control standard operating procedures
Provide sampling and lab training for WWTP personnel
Develop manual and computerized maintenance
management programs
Assist in the development of QA/QC plans
Evaluate recordkeeping programs
Evaluate overall operation and maintenance program
Evaluate biosolids disposal and handling program
Train plant personnel on preventive maintenance program
Train personnel to evaluate and modify plant equipment
and performance standards
Evaluate the effectiveness of pollutant removal from the
plant wastestream
Help standardize lab bench sheets for plant personnel
Assist in the selection, set-up, and implementation of
laboratory equipment
Train personnel on chlorination/dechlorination and other
disinfection technologies
Evaluate and train personnel on safety practices
Analyze outfall alternatives
Provide low-cost treatment alternatives
Evaluate collection systems and lift stations
Provide training on wet weather flows and collection
system maintenance
Evaluate monitoring programs and provide training for
effective sampling
Assist in the formulation of corrective action plans
Assist in the formulation of toxicity reduction evaluations
1999 Program Evaluation
3
-------
-------
National Overview
National Overview of the 104(g)(1)
Program
The Operator Training Program
funding was authorized under section
104(g)(l) of the 1982 reauthorization
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
104(g)(l) Operator Training Program pro-
vides on-site operator training, financial
management, troubleshooting, and other
operations and maintenance assistance
designed to address the chronic problem of
non-compliance by small, publicly-owned
wastewater treatment plants. These plants
discharge less than 5 millioixgallons per day,
serve populations of less than 10,000, and
often are in danger of being out of compliance
with their discharge permit requirements.
This 1999 Wastewater Operator Training
Program Evaluation reviewed historical data
and surveyed all 104(g)(l) grantees about
their work in fiscal years 1995 through 1998.
The survey requested information about
funding, program successes, program limita-
tions, and case studies. Survey questions are
included as an appendix to this report. Key
findings are summarized at the end of the
Executive Summary.
History and Background
The 104(g)(l) program was designed origi-
nally to protect the huge investment of federal
funds spent on construction and upgrades of
small publicly-owned wastewater treatment
plants. An October 1999 Congressional
Research Service report indicates that since
1972 Congress has provided $69 billion to
help communities with municipal wastewater
treatment plant construction. In addition,
state and local governments have invested
more than $25 billion in capital improve-
ments at imunicipal wastewater plants.
As early as the 1980s, compliance problems at
wastewater treatment plants were extensively
documented in a series of reports published by
the General Accounting Office (GAO). A
GAO report published in November 1980
pointed out that many of the country's out-of-
compliance municipal wastewater treatment
plants had been built with Construction
Grants Program funds authorized under the
CWA. :
The report estimated that between 50 and 77
percent of major municipal plants with at least
secondary treatment capability were reporting
1999 Program Evaluation
5
-------
high incidences of non-compliance with their
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits. As of 1980, federal
funds of $34 billion had been appropriated for
the Construction Grants Program, making it
the second largest public works program in
U.S. history. Despite the significant funding,
many small systems still lacked the financial
resources needed for capital improvements
and for optimal operation. The continued
widespread failure to meet standards was
described in the report as "the potential waste
of tens of millions of dollars in federal, state,
and local funds." Performance problems were
attributed primarily to design and equipment
deficiencies, infiltration and inflow, industrial
waste overloads, and operation and mainte-
nance deficiencies. Small treatment plants
continue to struggle with many of these
problems today.
In December 1983, another GAO report
estimated that 82 percent of all dischargers
exceeded their permit limits at least once
during the 18-month period reviewed. The
report also stated that municipal dischargers
were in significant non-compliance more than
twice as often as industrial dischargers.
The CWA Construction Grants Program's
substantial expansion of treatment capacity
and upgrading of treatment standards from
primary to secondary was expected to lead to
improved effluent quality. However, the GAO
and others documented that many of the
systems which received funding continued to
exceed their permit levels for pollutants. This
finding led Congress to appropriate funds for
operator training and technical assistance,
with the motive of protecting the country's
vast investment in wastewater treatment
infrastructure. As a result, the 104(g)(l)
program was implemented.
"The key to the success of the [104(g)(1)]
program is knowing that building wastewater
treatment systems alone will not protect and
preserve water quality—educating people on
how to operate and maintain them does."
—Michael Jefferson, 104(g)(1) outreach coordinator
for Missouri's technical assistance program
Since its inception in 1982, the 104(g)(l)
program has received annual appropriations of
about $2 million each year. Funding has not
grown to keep pace with inflation. In fact,
EPA's budget request for the program has
shrunk to a mere $294,000 in recent years.
Each year, members of Congress who recog-
nize the program's benefits have added more
than six times the requested amount to the
104(g)(l) appropriations during the final
Conference Report preparation, bringing the
appropriation to $1.794 million for the past
eight fiscal years. For FYOO, the congressional
add-on was reduced by about five percent,
eliminating nearly $75,000 from the program's
allocation.
Fortunately, considerable non-federal funds
have been leveraged with federal 104(g)(l)
dollars, increasing the program's services and
even expanding the types of technical assis-
tance and training services offered. These
funds have come from state governments,
private organizations, and professional associa-
tions for wastewater operators. Many states use
a combination of federal and other funding to
provide comprehensive, long-term, on-site
assistance, as well as classroom training, for
wastewater operators. The focus of these
additional services is to move plants beyond
compliance, to a position where they can
proactively address challenges that might
contribute to future non-compliance.
104(g){1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
National Overview
Before the pristine waters of the South Branch
Potomac River, near Smoke Hole, West Virginia,
reach the Chesapeake Bay, they will pass more than 40
wastewater treatment plants in three states.
A number of state training programs which
began with shoestring funding from the
104(g)(l) Operator Training Program have
been able to leverage additional funding for
expanded training and technical assistance for
wastewater treatment professionals. Many
state training programs now also receive
separate funding to provide complementary
training for drinking water treatment plant
operators and managers and other environ-
mental protection systems operators.
Since 1982, the 104(g)(l) program has helped
the operators of more than 6,000 small
systems develop and implement sound process
control strategies, forward-looking preventive
maintenance procedures, good housekeeping,
record keeping, correct NPDES reporting, and
better budgeting. The net result has been to
help ensure the compliance longevity of
treatment facilities, and thus protect both the
environment and the investments in infra-
structure construction.
Although CWA construction grants have now
ended, public investments in infrastructure
continue under the Clean Water State Re-
volving Loan Fund (SRF) program. The 1987
CWA Amendments authorized the new SRF
program to provide federal funds to states. The
states, which deposit a 20 percent match of
the federal funds, offer loans to be used for
wastewater construction. These loans are
repaid by borrowers to the state, so that funds
are available on a "revolving" basis for future
construction in other communities.
EPA's 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
(CWNS) described the water quality program
needs for small communities as "significant,"
noting that "there is a greater requirement in
small communities for basic infrastructure,
when compared to the needs for larger com-
munities." It is important to note that, be-
cause of smaller tax bases, the cost for
upgrades presents a greater taxpayer burden on
the typical small system user. Small commu-
nity systems are therefore often eligible for
public funds and, in fact, make up 71 percent
of the total number of communities which are
eligible for SRF monies for capital costs.
However, small systems need help in taking
advantage of these types of funding opportuni-
ties. The Congressional Research Service said
in its October 1999 briefing on CWA reautho-
rization that:
"Many small towns did not participate
in the previous [construction] grants
program and consequently are likely
to require major projects to achieve
compliance with the law. Yet these
communities often lack an industrial
tax base and thus face the prospect of
very high per capita user fees, if their
citizens are required to repay the full
capital cost of sewage treatment
projects."
1999 Program Evaluation
-------
It is precisely because of these communities'
limited resources that the 104(g)(l) program
is needed. The assistance offered is at no cost
to communities because it is fully funded by
federal, state, and local monies. The program
can also help communities locate and secure
additional sources of financial aid to meet
needs that are identified during technical
assistance.
With funding of $1.794 million and 988
facilities assisted across the country in FY99,
the average federal cost per project was less
than $2,000. The clear benefits include
improved operations, reduced operating
expenses, and enhanced protection of public
health and environmental resources.
The 104(g)(l) program successes are evident
in the data reported to EPA for FY99. Nine
hundred and eighty-eight facilities received
assistance. Of these, 915 had either achieved,
improved, or maintained compliance. These
figures show the program's success rate at
almost 93 percent for last year.
Program Approaches to
Improving Compliance
Operator Professionalism
As plants built secondary treatment systems
funded under the CWA Construction Grants
Program, the 104(g)(l) program marshalled
assistance to address compliance problems at
plants struggling with new technologies and
more stringent regulations. The vigorous and
successful crisis intervention through the
104(g)(l) program addressed the chronic
violations that occurred due to a lack of
professional capacity and financial resources.
Top Five Causes of Non-Compliance at
Wastewater Treatment Plants
1. Poor understanding and application of process
control by operator (first choice of 76 percent of
survey respondents)
2. Inflow and infiltration
3. Staffing
4. Solids handling and sludge disposal
5. Operability/maintainability considerations
Source: responses to 1999 National Program
Evaluation Survey of 104(g)(1) grantees and technical
assistance providers
At the 104(g)(l) program's beginning in
1982, many factors contributed to the need for
greater professionalism of the wastewater
treatment workforce. Communities faced
more stringent discharge requirements,
necessitating more careful process manage-
ment. In addition, the adoption of secondary
discharge standards brought wide application
of activated sludge and other secondary
treatment technologies. At that time, these
processes were new to most small system
operators and had to be learned and mastered
within very short periods of time. The opera-
tors of small wastewater treatment systems
faced a period of rapid technical change and
needed capable assistance. Many of the same
challenges which drove the need for training
in the 1980s continue to stress small systems
even today.
For example, in a typical small community the
wastewater operator may be a veritable "jack
of all trades," who, in addition to being the
wastewater treatment plant operator, may also
be the drinking water treatment plant opera-
tor, the~streets superintendent, or the recy-
cling and solid waste collection manager.
These varied duties intensify the challenges of
complying with stringent regulations and
operating wastewater treatment plants in a
safe, cost-effective, and responsible manner.
8
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
National Overview
The 104(g)(l) program continues to address
the changing technologies and process control
training needs of small system operators. For
example, many systems are upgrading to
sophisticated nutrient removal systems that
require advanced treatment skills. In response
to the 104(g)(l) program's recent customer
service survey, 73 percent of respondents
indicated that controlling treatment processes
continues to be a problem. When surveyed for
the program evaluation, 76 percent of
104(g)(l) technical assistance providers
confirmed this statistic by choosing process
control as the leading performance limiting
factor at the plants they assist.
The number of days committed to each
technical assistance project varies between one
and almost 50, but the national average is 3
days of assistance, sometimes carried out in
small blocks of time over a period of months or
even years.
Effective process control requires careful
monitoring and adjustment. It can be affected
by outside forces, such as industrial and
population growth, that put great pressure on
treatment systems, many of which were
originally designed for smaller capacity and
lower standards. Nationally, a large number of
systems that were constructed with CWA
Construction Grants Program funding are
now, more than twenty years later, reaching
the theoretical end of their useful design life.
It is especially important to optimize the
performance of these plants to maintain
compliance. The 104(g)(l) assistance program
helps operators find low-cost solutions to
treatment problems, design deficiencies, and
inadequate capital funding.
Another key challenge related to operator
professionalism is the difficulty associated with
recruiting, paying, arid keeping trained
operators in small communities. Lack of
financial resources for salaries and training can
.lead to increased turnover in small systems, as
operators leave for more lucrative and career-
enhancing positions at larger facilities.
To address these challenges, the 104(g) (1)
program provides long-term, on-site assis-
tance. The number of days committed to each
technical assistance project varies between
one and almost 50, but the national average is
3 days, sometimes broken down to a few hours
at a time and carried out over a period of
months or even years. During these long-term
projects, the trainer often develops strong
professional relationships with the operators
and superintendents, local officials, and
community leaders. The trainer working on a
long-term project has the opportunity to work
on-site with the operator to optimize plant
Plant Superintendent, Jon Castro, with Maryland
Department of the Environment Compliance Specialist
Larry Schultz, holds up a beaker of his WWTP plant's
effluent. The Chesapeake Beach WWTP has received
I04(g)(l) assistance to help its dedicated operators
meet one of the most stringent discharge permits in
Maryland. Effluent consistently tests at less than
15—20 percent of its permit limits for suspended solids
and biochemical oxygen demand and less than 50
percent of, its limits for total nitrogen and phosphorus.
1999 Program Evaluation
9
-------
performance during a variety of changing
conditions, including changes of seasons; wet
weather events; changes in flow volume,
contaminant type, and concentration; equip-
ment failure, maintenance, and replacement;
and even plant upgrade and startup. Notably,
technical assistance providers often get at the
root of problems by helping local officials
improve the management structures which
support small system operators.
Cost Effectiveness and Savings for
Communities
The 104(g)(l) program operates cost-
effectively, with an average federal cost per
project of only $1,816 in FY99. The modest
federal investment of $1.794 million also
ensures the continued flow of funding from
other sources. The 104(g)(l) grants to states
require matching funds or in-kind contribu-
tions equal to at least 25 percent of the federal
cash grant. This match requirement is a
challenge for many of the grantees, but the
availability of federal funding does create an
incentive for the contribution of additional
funds from other sources.
Many small systems also face serious financial
challenges. They often lack financial manage-
ment skills and have difficulty funding plant
construction and upgrades. The 104(g)(l)
program has been able to help communities
with limited resources seek capital funding, as
well as ensure that their operators learn to
optimize treatment efficiencies and thus save
money. As the plants built with CWA Con-
struction Grant Program funds reach the end
of their design life, some are experiencing
significant compliance problems, further
stressing operating budgets.
The 104(g)(l) assistance is offered at no cost
to communities except for their willingness to
participate, and technical assistance often
>r^--^n™l
This site near Hooper's Island in Maryland and other
backwaters surrounding the Chesapeake Bay are
critical nurseries for many fish species, including the
regional favorite, therockfish.
results in dramatic improvements in compli-
ance. As noted earlier, more than 90 percent
of systems that receive assistance under the
Operator Training Program maintain, im-
prove, or achieve compliance, thereby im-
proving surface water quality and protecting
public health. The improved compliance has
remarkable cost savings for small communities
that could otherwise be subject to thousands
of dollars in fines each day and require costly
private assistance. Additionally, by optimizing
treatment, it is often possible to reduce plant
operating expenses and pass on the savings to
customers or reinvest the savings into plant
improvements.
Many 104(g)(l) technical assistance providers
offer help not only with improving plant
compliance but also with helping systems
discover opportunities to move beyond mere
permit compliance. These voluntary, "spin-
off' programs abound and include pollution
prevention, energy audits, and mentoring or
"twinning" to facilitate training and informa-
tion exchange. More than 85 percent of
104(g)(l) grantees offer complementary
training and technical assistance for environ-
mental professionals.
10
104(g}(1)Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Nationa) Overview
A large, stable, well-networked bank of
providers has been developed to offer training
for publicly-owned facilities. The average
assistance provider in the program has many
years of operations experience, much of it
with small systems. Many technical assistance
providers have worked in this program for
more than a decade, and some have been
involved since the program's beginning. The
educational background of providers varies
from high school to doctorate, but most
providers have at least a bachelor's degree.
Length of service in the program, educational
background, experience, and networking
capabilities all represent a significant invest-
ment in development of technical expertise.
The unique technical qualifications of
104(g)(l) assistance providers, coupled with
their long-term experience in the program
and, therefore, substantial expertise with small
systems, make their assistance cost effective.
This expertise enables 104(g)(l) trainers to
help system operators optimize plant opera-
tion, sometimes deferring costs for engineering
services and expensive upgrades, while ex-
tending the design life of older plants.
Partnerships Between Agencies to Meet
Water Quality Goals
Regulatory agencies often lack staffing,
expertise, and funding to address the many
responsibilities facing them—addressing non-
compliance, developing of regulations, and
assisting industry. For example, it has been
well documented that some regulatory agen-
cies perform facility inspections and other
interventions almost exclusively in response
to public complaints, violations noted in
monitoring reports, or other crises. However, a
proactive approach to compliance is more
effective than a reactive one. Early referral of
non-complying systems and at-risk plants to
the 104(g)(l) program enables timely and
appropriate intervention to correct and
prevent compliance problems.
Referrals to the 104(g)(l) program from state
and localregulators, via inspection referrals
and review of discharge monitoring reports,
result in increased regional capacity to address
small communities' wastewater treatment
problems; Regulatory inspectors and permit
writers rarely have the funding or time to
provide assistance needed at small systems.
The close partnership that often exists be-
tween regulators and 104(g)(l) technical
assistance providers contributes to effective
problem solving and resolution of compliance
difficulties. The assistance providers work
with regulators to pinpoint problems and
devise appropriate solutions. In some cases, a
system's agreement to accept technical assis-
tance is a component of an enforcement
action against a system and results in reduced
or suspended fines, delivery of appropriate
assistance to system operators, and protection
of public'health and water quality within the
community.
Much of the success of the 104(g)(l) program
hinges oh these partnerships between federal,
state, and local regulatory agencies, the
regulated communities, assistance providers,
and other interested parties. Although the
104(g)(l) program has limited EPA staffing at
regional and national levels, EPA regional
coordinators provide a wide range of services,
including collection of data, monitoring of
referrals,1 reporting, follow-up, and even a
modest amount of direct delivery of technical
assistance. The regions are given flexibility in
the way that they administer their own
programs, so that they can set up delivery
systems that most effectively meet the needs
of small systems in their areas. Current efforts
to standardize regional and national data
collection will facilitate 104(g)(l) program
1999 Program Evaluation
11
-------
reporting and evaluation and enable the use of
environmental outcome measures to deter-
mine which technical assistance methods are
working and why. EPA's national and regional
104(g)(l) coordinators were recognized with a
commendable service award from EPA in 1999
for their accomplishments in this program.
Adequate and effective communication seems
to be one of the keys to the program's success.
Each year one of the EPA regions and its
states host the National Wastewater Operator
Trainers' Conference, which brings together
key people working in the program to network
and exchange information. Periodic program
evaluations and community surveys are also
used to gather data and report program
successes and needs.
Community Assistance
One of the 104(g)(l) program's greatest
successes is helping communities stretch their
limited financial resources. The program helps
communities protect their significant invest-
ments in system infrastructure and keep their
utility service rates low. Communities also
receive unbiased advice about system opera-
tion, maintenance, capital improvement
planning, rate setting, and plant upgrades.
Assistance providers, who often have worked
with operators for extended periods and who
are familiar with specific plants and the needs
of their owner-communities, often are able to
provide impartial assistance in devising
engineering procurement documents such as
requests for proposals.
Another way the program helps communities
is to ensure that their systems are operating
optimally, so that they can accept increased
flows of waste from residential and business
growth. Technical assistance enhances man-
agement of treatment facilities and their
relationships with industrial dischargers. The
104(g)(l) program teaches operators ways to
avoid negative impacts from industrial dis-
charges, so that an inability to effectively treat
industrial wastes does not limit economic
development in the community. The
program's technical assistance providers work
with industrial pretreatment programs to
ensure effective treatment and local protec-
tion of public health, water quality, and
economic development.
The 104(g)(1) program teaches operators ways
to avoid potential negative impacts from
industrial discharges.This is important because
the ability to effectively treat wastes from
industry may enhance economic development
in the community.
In many cases, the 104(g)(l) technical
assistance has increased the ability of the
community to accommodate industrial and
residential growth without expansion of
existing treatment facilities. Communities
have testified that the program's technical
assistance often helps to improve existing
sewer infrastructure capacity, which enhances
development opportunities in small communi-
ties. Optimized plants can accommodate
additional flow from new residential and
commercial sewer hookups. Thus, assisted
communities have voiced strong support for
the program. Many of the 104(g)(l) grantees
surveyed during the program evaluation sent
letters of support and appreciation from the
communities they helped.
The 104(g)(l) program's technical assistance
is uniquely structured to provide tools so that
the community can solve its own problems.
Assistance providers work not only on-site at
12
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
National Overview
the plants with operations staff—-they also
work with local officials and the public to
ensure that problems are solved in an effective
and sustainable manner. They may attend
town meetings and work with local officials,
planners, and financial experts to ensure long-
term system viability and optimized operation.
Descriptions of 104(g)(l) technical assistance
projects, approaches, successes, and challenges
are included in the ten regional sections
which follow this overview. More information
about the 104(g)(l) Operator Training
Program can be obtained from the national
coordinator and from regional coordinators
throughout the country.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
National Office
Curt Baranowski
EPA National Program Coordinator
Mail Code 4204
Office of Wastewater Management
Municipal Assistance Branch
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5806
baranowski.curt@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm
Region 1
David Chin
EPA Region 1 Coordinator
Office of Ecosystem Protection
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-0001
(617)918-1611
chin.david@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/regionl
Region 2
John Mello
EPA Region 2 Coordinator
Wastewater Management Division
290 Broadway, Room 2435
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3836 .
mello.john@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region2
Region 3
James Kern
EPA Region 3 Coordinator
Mail Code 3WP23
Water Management Division
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 814-5788
kern, j im@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region3
Region 4
James Adcock
EPA Region 4 Coordinator
Mail Code GPTSB-4WMD
Municipal Facilities Branch
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
(404)562-9900
adcock. j ames@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region4
Region 5
Russell Martin
EPA Region 5 Coordinator
Mail Code WN-16J
77 Westjackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-0268
martin.russell@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region5
1999 Program Evaluation
13
-------
Region 6
Billy Black
EPA Region 6 Coordinator
Mail Code WQ-AP
Water Management Division
Fountain Place, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-7168
black.billy@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region6
Region 7
Rao Surampalli
EPA Region 7 Coordinator
Mail Code WWPD/NFMB
Wastewater Management Division
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 551-7453
surampalli.rao@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region7
Region 8
Pauline Afshar
EPA Region 8 Coordinator
Mail Code P-W-MS
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)312-6267
afshar.pauline@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region8
Region 9
Helen McKinley
EPA Region 9 Coordinator
Mail Code WTR-6
Water Management Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1943
mckinley.helen@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region9
Region 10
Terry Moan
EPA Region 10 Coordinator
Water Division-Financial Assistance Section
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-1837
moan.terry@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/regionl 0
14
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
Region 1
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode island, Vermont
Regional Center Coordinates
Assistance and Outreach
New England Interstate Environmental
Training Center
Each of EPA's ten regions has been given the
opportunity to organize and promote its
104(g)(l) programs in the way that best suits
its individual region's needs. One of the
unifying aspects of Region 1's program is the
New England Interstate Environmental
Training Center (NEIETC), located in
Lowell, Massachusetts.
EPA Region 1, the six New England states,
NEIETC, the New England Water Environ-
ment Association, and state operator associa-
tions work as a team to identify and meet the
training needs of the region's wastewater
treatment plant operators. All 104(g}(l)
technical assistance providers in Region 1 are
state agencies, except for the NEIETC itself.
The NEIETC receives 104(g)(l) funding to
provide some on-site technical assistance;
however, NEIETC's role is largely as a coordi-
nator of the region's classroom wastewater
training programs, as well as 104(g)(l)
meetings, technology transfer conferences,
and specialized public education projects. In
addition to their educational value, these
events have enhanced the operators' profes-
sional development and sense of pride in their
careers.
"This technical assistance program for
municipalities has been highly successful in
achieving compliance with state and federal
water quality goals. Furthermore, our emphasis
on technical assistance rather than
enforcement has helped us avoid legal conflicts
with municipalities and prevent water quality
degradation in the first place."
—RobertW.Varney,Commissioner
Department of Environmental Services, State of New Hampshire
t
Technical assistance and classroom training
have made a significant difference in compli-
ance at wastewater treatment plants around
the region. For instance, after the program
provided technical assistance, operator
training, and related services for 10 years, only
one Connecticut facility out of 82 was exceed-
ing its discharge limits. Regionwide, 309
wastewater treatment plants were brought into
compliance during the program's first 10 years.
Region 1 states and the NEIETC take a lot of
pride in these statistics. The 104(g)(l)
funding provides training and on-site assis-
tance so that residents of New England can
continue to avail themselves of "the carefree
flush."
1999 Program Evaluation
15
-------
Region 1
Small Community Faces Up to
Treatment Responsibilities
Readsboro WWTP, Vermont
As in many small Vermont communities,
there was a feeling in Readsboro that the
town's wastewater treatment plant had been
foisted upon them by the state. Beyond having
an operator at the plant, local officials re-
mained detached from the plant's operation,
financing, and especially its problems. That
attitude changed in 1990 when Vermont's
Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) alerted the town of impending enforce-
ment action against the neglected treatment
facility.
Because of delays in needed sludge removal
projects and due to repeated permit violations,
the DEC issued Readsboro an assurance of
discontinuance. The assurance included an
upfront penalty of $16,000, as well as a list of
maintenance and equipment replacement
activities that the town would be required to
carry out.
Readsboro is a community of just over 400
residents and was not in a position to both
fund improvements and repairs to its facility
and pay the fine. Fortunately, the 104(g)(l)
program was able to assist Readsboro by
providing both financial management and
technical assistance.
Assistance providers worked with Readsboro
on budget preparation, recovery of delinquent
accounts, facility staffing issues, and imple-
mentation of a new connection fee. As a
result of this 104(g)(l) assistance, staffing was
increased at the facility, the O&M budget
increased from $32,000 to $50,000 per year, a
contingency fund was established, and delin-
quent user fees dropped from 18 percent to
one percent. In addition, Vermont's DEC
agreed that the fine money owed by
Readsboro could be applied to the required
plant improvements rather than going to the
state's general fund.
A 104(g)(l) technical assistance provider
from the DEC then assisted the facility in a
long-neglected lagoon sludge cleanout project,
an electricity-saving retrofit-arid upgrade of
the aeration system, and installation of needed
equipment. Before these alterations the
Readsboro plant was experiencing monthly
biochemical oxygen demand violations, as
well as regular violations of total suspended
solids limits and pH violations. No violations
occurred in the year following the 104(g)(l)
on-site assistance.
The dramatic alteration of attitude and
operation at the Readsboro WWTP won it
second place in EPA's Most Improved Plant
Award category for 1993.
The backview of the Richmond Cheese Company
factory showing the 25,000 gallon equalization tank
and blower/sampler building, installed as a result of
permit change and an order coming out of the
104(g)(l) assistance project, which imposed hourly
BOD limits to force equalization of the plant's
loading.
16
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
Industrial Waste Complicates
Treatment Needs
Richmond WWTP, Vermont
Richmond is a small town that borders the
western slopes of Vermont's Green Mountains.
It is located on the edge of the rapidly growing
greater Burlington area. Increasing population,
however, was not the key to the problems
A dissolved oxygen probe in the aeration tank controls
the mechanical aerator at Richmond WWTP.
plaguing Richmond's WWTP in the early
1990s. In addition to residential waste, the
facility had to deal with the unique problems
associated with industrial waste from a local
cheese factory.
In 1992, the Richmond facility was in signifi-
cant non-compliance for exceeding its waste-
water discharge permit limits for biochemical
oxygen demand for three quarters in a row.
Furthermore, the facility reported a number of
total suspended solids and fecal coliform
violations. In the 17 months prior to technical
assistance there had been 10 violations of the
monthly average effluent biochemical oxygen
demand limit. Describing the plant as a
facility in "desperate need" of assistance,
officials from the state's permits and compli-
ance division contacted Paul Olander, a
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider with
Vermont's Department of Environmental
Conservation, to assess Richmond's problems.
"Having just completed work with another
municipality and a dairy pretreater, I sus-
pected, as did the Richmond Chief Operator,
that the organic loading from Richmond
Cheese, some 60-80 percent of the total plant
load, was the major impact here. I also saw
that this'20 year old plant was
understaffed.. .and was suffering from neglect,"
Olander reported of his initial assessment.
The number of reportable discharge permit
violations dropped from 60 in 1992-1993 to
only one violation in 1996.
The plant had a variety of difficulties which
were addressed through the program—
financial management, process control, solids
management, and maintenance. The techni-
cal assistance included work on continuous
dissolved oxygen monitoring of aerators,
Dennis Bryer and Paul Olander ofVTDEC installing
the original mid-tank clarifier baffles. Dennis is
mounting cleats on the wall, and Paul is checking the
gas detector (darifiers are confined spaces).
1999 Program Evaluation
17
-------
Region 1
return sludge flow control, staffing, dechlori-
nation, and clarifier mid-tank baffle installa-
tion. In addition, the 104(g)(l) trainer
worked with Richmond Cheese and with
Vermont's discharge permits section to change
the dairy's permit to require and implement
more effective load equalization.
"These are positive, self-help programs that
foster municipal responsibility, promote
compliance and increase facility longevity.
These are the kinds of programs that will
maintain the nation's investment in the 15,000
municipal wastewater facilities constructed in
the last thirty years."
—Christine Thompson, Chief, O&M Section
Department of Environmental Conservation
Agency of Natural Resources, State of Vermont,
describing the 104(g)(1) program
Results from the 104(g)(l) assistance to
Richmond have been spectacular. The number
of reportable discharge permit violations
dropped from 60 in 1992-1993 to only one
violation in 1996. The 104(g)(l) assistance
fostered community cooperation and en-
hanced the relationship between the treat-
ment facility and the cheese factory. The
Richmond WWTP was the national winner of
EPA's 1997 Most Improved Plant award.
Problems at Plant Threaten
Fishing Industry
Stonington Sanitary District, Maine
The Stonington Sanitary District system,
located in Maine's Penobscot Bay, is a primary
treatment facility which discharges to marine
waters that support a significant commercial
fishing industry. In addition, the area supports
some tourist industry. In 1995, local officials
and inspectors were concerned with the
Stonington Sanitary District's inconsistent
fecal coliform test results.
To maintain low bacteria counts, chlorine
dosages had to be very high, resulting in very
high dosages of the dechlorination agent and
imposing a financial burden on the District.
There were also some mechanical problems in
the system that controlled the chlorine dosing
pumps. Thus, at times, the effluent was over-
chlorinated, and at other times there was no
disinfection of the effluent.
Because of 104(g)(1) assistance,the Stonington
Sanitary District is saving approximately $1,000
a year in reduced chlorine and dechlorination
chemical costs.
Richard Darling, a 104(g)(l) technical
assistance provider with the Maine Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, found that
the treated effluent was being contaminated
from a dripping pipe. The system's vent pipes
were fitted with risers to prevent this contami-
nation. He recommended replacing faulty
baffles, cleaning the chlorine contact chamber
more frequently, and altering the method used
to pace the chlorine pumps.
18
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
As a result of 104(g)(l) assistance, the
Stonington facility is no longer experiencing
the frequent and alarming violations of fecal
coliform limits. Instead, the facility shows
more consistent compliance with few viola-
tions. In addition, the District is saving
approximately $ 1,000 a year in reduced
chlorine and dechlorination chemical costs.
Program Assists Town With New
Technology
Mars Hill Utility District WWTP, Maine
While many 104(g)(l) projects are initiated
in reaction to severe non-compliance or other
problems at a facility, sometimes the
104(g)(l) assistance is more proactive. Tech-
nical assistance can provide the help needed
for successful transition to more advanced
treatment or other alterations that a small
community might find it needs to implement.
This was true of the 104(g)(l) work at Mars
Hill, Maine.
For approximately the first 25 years of its
operation, the wastewater treatment plant at
Mars Hill provided only primary treatment. It
became apparent in the late 1980s, however,
that despite the best efforts of its operators,
the aging plant was unable to meet the
increasingly stringent water quality require-
ments set by the state.
To meet the need for more advanced treat-
ment options, Maine's Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection had spent years studying
lagoon systems and refining how they work in
Maine, where weather and flow conditions
vary seasonally. When the Mars Hill Utility
District chose to build an aerated lagoon
system for secondary treatment, 104(g)(l)
technical assistance providers with Maine's
DEP understood the technology well, having
already worked with such systems in many
towns in the state.
A 104(g)(l) technical assistance provider who
was particularly experienced in the operation
of such systems helped with the planning and
start-up of the plant, including assistance with
chlorination, flow monitoring, and general
lagoon operation. "Having [the 104(g)(l)]
assistance during the licensing and start-up of
our plant helped us make the major switch
from primary to secondary treatment," wrote
officials from Mars Hill, in their description of
the project.
Widely varying seasonal flows are a big
problem for Maine's wastewater treatment
plants. For instance, flows are low (around 0.1
million gallons per day) in the summer and
extremely high during the springtime melts (as
high as 1.6 million gallons per day). "Having
an experienced lagoon operator as our DEP
regional contact has been very helpful to us
dealing with these seasonal changes," Mars
Hill officials wrote. "His experience at other
lagoon plants as an operator and inspector
gave him knowledge that he passed on to us.
As we learned more about lagoons and their
peculiarities, having [him] to answer our
questions or respond to our ideas helped us
make sure the plant ran without any
violations."
1999 Program Evaluation
19
-------
Region 1
The lagoon system was started up in 1993.
The plant's remarkably smooth transition to
secondary treatment, and the enthusiastic
work of all those involved, won the Mars Hill
Utility District the EPA Most Improved Plant
Award in 1998.
Ongoing Relationship Provides
Valuable Support
Sunapee WWTP, New Hampshire
Wastewater treatment is seldom static—after
operators learn to deal with one problem, they
can be fairly certain that a different challenge
is just around the corner. For this reason, an
ongoing, supportive relationship with
104(g)(l) trainers is a real bonus in helping
operators to successfully "roll with the
punches."
For instance, during the first half of the 1990s,
operators at the Sunapee WWTP were faced
with upgrades to their facility, a more strin-
gent NPDES permit, changes in personnel and
personnel responsibilities, periodic compli-
ance problems, and equipment problems. The
facility, located in southern New Hampshire,
relied heavily on assistance from 104(g)(l)
trainers to overcome these challenges.
"The support, encouragement, and technical
assistance provided by the trainer has given
the operators the ability to handle the unique
problems of Sunapee. The EPA 104(g)[l]
Program has given the operators increased
confidence, professional approach, and
[positive] attitude toward their positions," the
chief operator of Sunapee wrote in his descrip-
tion of the plant's history.
In 1989, when Sunapee operators noted that
their influent contained elevated levels of oil
and grease, 104(g)(l) trainers from the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services advised them how to raise commu-
nity awareness about laws governing proper
disposal. Then, in 1990, Sunapee began
having filamentous bacteria problems, result-
ing in bulking problems. The 104(g)(l)
trainer helped the operators identify the type
of filament present and helped network New
Hampshire facilities to share techniques for
troubleshooting filamentous problems. When
Sunapee's new NPDES permit required more
tests and the system began to struggle with
toxicity levels, 104(g)(l) trainers worked
closely with the operators to evaluate and
solve the problem.
With guidance from the 104(g)(l) program
and because of its successful management of
these and other challenges, Sunapee won
EPA's Most Improved Plant Award in 1996.
State and Local Partnerships Help
Plant Meet Challenges
Block Island WWTP, Rhode Island
The Block Island WWTP project offers an
example of the way that 104(g)(l) projects
often enhance partnerships between regula-
tory agencies and local governments. In 1994,
the Rhode Island Department of Environmen-
tal Management (DEM) and the New
Shoreham Sewer Commission determined
that seasonal demands on the Block Island
WWTP had exceeded normal operating
parameters beyond acceptable limits. The
facility was plagued with rising operating
costs, discharge violations, and. odor com-
plaints. Both the commission and the DEM
recognized that without a proactive position,
the town would be facing enforcement actions
in response to the non-compliance.
20
104(g){1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Rhode Island,Vermont
The resulting 104(g)(l) technical assistance
project was a model of state and local coopera-
tion. State trainers coordinated with plant
operators and the town's consultant to pin-
point specific technical and training needs.
Upgrades were planned and designs drawn up.
With the town's eagerness evident, the state
reorganized its priority list of projects to be
funded, enabling New Shoreham to start work
quickly.
Just as construction was being completed, the
community found itself facing another chal-
lenge. The plant operator left for another job
in a less demanding environment than Block
Island, and a new, less experienced operator
was handed the reins. On-site technical
assistance funded through the 104(g)(l)
training program provided the young staff
with much-needed support. The state helped
the operators maintain compliance during the
final construction phase and provided the
technical fundamentals necessary to coordi-
nate with the town's consultant, construction
crews, and regulators.
Continued visits by state trainers and state-
subsidized classroom training provided critical
information after construction, and each
training session provided the operators with
motivation as well as information. The DEM
encouraged the town to supply its operators
with a microscope, and the 104(g)(l) training
showed the new operators not only how to use
their new equipment, but also how laboratory
testing and microscopic examination can
improve process control.
Importantly, the 104(g)(l) training helped
operators implement new safety protocols.
One of DEM's biggest concerns was mainte-
nance of the new and old equipment, and
training on maintenance programs resulted in
a first-rate maintenance plan that since its
inception has kept the facility in top shape.
Thanks to training and encouragement
provided by the 104('g)(l) program, the town's
non-compliance issues are over, the staff has
been well trained, and neighbors and tourists
no longer complain about the smell. In 1994,
the Block Island WWTP won an EPA O&M
award for Most Improved Plant. The
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider, Bill
Patenaude, also won EPA's Trainer of the Year
for his work at the Block Island facility.
"Rhode Island DEM has long valued pre-emptive
efforts to prevent pollution through technical
assistance rather than respond to problems
after the fact.The federal 104(g)[1] program is
crucial for our work in helping local
communities be on the cutting edge of
wastewater treatment."
—Jan Reitsma, Director,
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
1999 Program Evaluation
21
-------
Region 1
Region 1 Contacts
Environmental Protection Agency
David Chin
EPA Region 1 Coordinator
Office of Ecosystem Protection
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-0001
(617)918-1611
chin.david@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/regionl
Connecticut
Roy Fredricksen
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
79 Elm St.
Hartford, CT 06102
(860) 424-3750
roy.fredricksen@po.state.ct.us
http://dep.state.ct.us
Maine
Don Albert
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
Station 17, State House
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 287-7767
don.j .albert@state.me.us
http://janus.state.me.us/dep/home.htm
Massachusetts
Joe DuPuis
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Water Pollution Control, Training
Center
Millbury, MA 01527
(508) 756-7281
roland.dupuis@state.ma.us
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/dephome.htm
New Hampshire
George Neill
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95 - Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-3325
g_neill@des.state.nh.us
http://www.des.state.nh.us
Rhode Island
Bill Patenaude
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management
235 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401)222-4700, ext. 7264
bpatenau@dem.state.ri.us
http://www.state.ri.us/dem
Vermont
Paul Olander
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation
103 South Main St.
Waterbury, VT 05767
(802) 241-3746
paulo@dec.anr.state.vt.us
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/fguide/fguide4.htm
New England Interstate
Charles Conway
New England Interstate Environmental
Training Center
NEIWPCC
Boott Mills South
100 Foot of John Street
Lowell, MA 01852-1124
(978)323-7929
Fax: (978) 323-7919
cconway@neiwpcc.org
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neietc.html
22
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin islands
Region 2
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sharing Lessons Learned Has
Benefits for Treatment
HerkimerWWTP, New York
A great benefit of the 104(g)(l) program is
the way that assistance providers can apply
their experience and expertise to a large
number of facilities. When they find an
innovative and low-cost solution for one
facility, they can often apply it to other
facilities without having to "reinvent the
wheel."
For instance, 104(g)(l) technical assistance
providers with the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation have
found that the installation of low-cost baffles
can solve the common treatment problem of
marginal treatment in secondary clarifiers that
have short-circuiting currents. A two-step
technical assistance approach to this problem
involves determining the intensity and
location of the flow problems and then
strategically installing the low-cost baffles to
reduce the current in problem areas.
"It is estimated that in 1972 approximately
2,000 miles of New York's rivers and streams
were impaired by water pollution.Today, efforts
to control wastewater discharges have reduced
that figure to 700 miles."
—EPA Region 2,"State of the Environment,"1998
At a treatment facility in Herkimer, New
York, a $100 baffle improved solids removal by
32 percent and allowed the community to
avoid a half-million dollar upgrade. Other
communities also have benefitted from this
approach.
A $100 baffle at the Herkimer WWTP improved
solids removal by 32 percent and enabled the commu-
nity to avoid a half-million dollar upgrade.
1999 Program Evaluation
23
-------
Region 2
Technical Assistance as a
Compliance Tool
Village of Chatham WWTP, New York
Most regulatory agencies recognize that
enforcement is only one of their available
tools. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation uses three
tools—enforcement, assistance, and monitor-
ing—in its stated compliance strategy.
The case of Chatham, New York, is an ex-
ample of a situation where monitoring identi-
fied a problem and then regulators suggested
technical assistance as a means to overcome
that problem and achieve compliance. The
Village of Chatham is located in the foothills
of the Berkshire Mountains on the eastern
side of New York State. In 1994, when
Chatham's Wastewater Treatment Plant began
to discharge elevated effluent ammonia, New
York State officials requested 104(g)(l)
technical assistance to address the small
system's problems.
Working with Chatham plant staff, the
104(g)(l) providers determined that a lack of
oxygen in the plant's oxidation ditches was
the main factor impairing ammonia removal.
A second ditch was put on-line to increase the
amount of dissolved oxygen so that nitrifica-
tion could occur. Oxygen levels were maxi-
mized further by adjustments to the treatment
process. These alterations immediately im-
proved Chatham's effluent readings.
Average ammonia-nitrogen levels in the
facility's effluent were reduced by 92 percent.
With these alterations, the average ammonia-
nitrogen level in the facility's effluent dropped
from 4.8 mg/L to only 0.4 mg/L—a 92 percent
reduction. The cooperative effort between the
village and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation significantly
improved nitrification and put the facility
back into compliance with its discharge
permit.
Wet Weather Events Cause
Problems for Treatment
Ticonderoga WWTP, New York
Often, difficult weather conditions create
problems at treatment plants. For example,
the Ticonderoga Wastewater Treatment Plant,
which is located in the Adirondack Moun-
tains at the northern tip of Lake George,
struggled each year with its widely varying
inflow from springtime snow melts and heavy
rains. Inflow ranged from 0.5 mgd in dry
weather to 4 mgd during wet conditions.
Ticonderoga's facility has three 0.5 million
gallon tanks to hold storm flow until treat-
ment can be provided. However, when those
holding tanks are full, any flow that-cannot be
treated through the facility is diverted directly
to a receiving stream. Technical assistance
providers were called in to help optimize
operations under high hydraulic loads.
24
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Settling columns proved valuable in optimizing plant
performance at Ticonderoga WWTP.
The 104(g)(l) assistance at Ticonderoga
WWTP focused on minimizing bypass events
and on maximizing treatment during rain
events. The two keys to successful operation
during high hydraulic loads are to optimize
sludge quality and plant operation and to give
the operator a tool to control the process.
Sludge quality was improved through chlori-
nation, sludge wasting, and mode change to
sludge reaeration. The need to have a process
strategy "tool" to operate this unique facility
was recognized as an important step in the
successful treatment of the maximum amount
of wastewater. The 104(g)(l) trainer showed
Ticonderoga's operator how to use settling
velocity and state point analysis to determine
acceptable loading rates to the secondary
clarifiers. Using settling columns and spread-
sheets with graphs, the operator can now
"predict" how much flow the plant can
successfully treat at any given time. This
approach has proved invaluable in treating
storm flows well above the plant design and in
emptying the storm tanks as quickly as pos-
sible to prepare for future storm events.
Since receiving 104(g)(l) assistance, the
Ticonderoga facility has successfully treated
over 4 mgd of wastewater during a simulated
storm event—well above its design flow of 1
mgd. The 104(g)(l) assistance is credited with
helping the operator greatly reduce the
amount of pollutants discharged from
Ticonderoga WWTP into the receiving
stream.
Nitrification Problems Stress
Small Treatment System
Atlantic County WWTP, New Jersey
In 1996, the Atlantic County Utilities Au-
thority (ACUA) found elevated biochemical
oxygen demand at its wastewater treatment
plant. The plant's influent was at normal
levels, and there were no unusual dissolved
oxygen demands. However, even with crystal
clear effluent and low total suspended solids
levels, the biochemical oxygen demand was
just over 30 mg/L, when the average usually
ran about 12 mg/L.
Chris Hoffman, 104(g)(l) technical assistance
provider with New Jersey's Department of
Environmental Protection, was informed of
the facility's problems. Because he suspected
that the plant was incorrectly nitrifying,
Hoffman suggested that the plant effluent be
analyzed for both total and carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand.
When the analysis confirmed nitrification,
Hoffman suggested wasting activated sludge to
lower the mean cell residence time, and he
also advised that the Authority request a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit modification of effluent
limitation from biochemical oxygen demand
to carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand.
As a result of Hoffman's experience and
assistance, the facility was able to achieve
effluent values within its permit conditions.
1999 Program Evaluation
25
-------
Region 2
Community officials were pleased with the
104(g)(l) assistance. In a letter of apprecia-
tion to Hoffman for the 104(g)(l) work,
William Hiller, Director of Operations for the
ACUA, wrote, "From the opinions and
suggestions you conveyed to me, it was
obvious you have an extensive background
and personal interest in the wastewater
treatment field. In addition, your opinions
played an important role in daily process
control decisions, and ultimately ACUA
achieved effluent values within our permit
conditions."
Region 2 Contacts
Environmental Protection Agency
John Mello
EPA Region 2 Coordinator
Division of Environmental Planning and
Protection
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212) 637-3836
mello.john@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region2
New Jersey
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Christian T. Hoffman
P.O. Box 029
401 East State Street
Second Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625-0029
(609) 984-6840
Fax: (609) 777-0432
choffma2@dep.state.nj .us
http://www.state.nj.us/dep
New York
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Phillip T. Smith
Room 340
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3506
(518) 457-4225
Fax:(518)485-7786
ptsmith@gw.dec.state.ny.us
http://www.dec.state.ny.us
Puerto Rico
Not currently participating in the 104(g)(l)
program
U.S. Virgin Islands
Not currently participating in the 104(g)(l)
program
26
104(g}(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia
Region 3
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Virginia
Community Reduces Chemical
Usage and Energy Costs
Mount Pocono Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Pennsylvania
The Mount Pocono Municipal Authority had
funded an upgrade to its wastewater treatment
plant, but found that the manufacturer could
not make the new equipment work properly.
The new facility could not achieve the level
of nitrification required by its National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit. To improve performance, the Author-
ity resorted to using costly powdered activated
carbon to enhance treatment.
Through the technical assistance, the plant was
brought into compliance, and the Authority
saved $60,000 a year in carbon addition
expense and $4,200 a year in energy savings.
The plant's operator then contacted the local
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider.
Together, the operator and trainer optimized
plant operation by changing the timing
sequence of the sequenced batch reactor.
Through these efforts, they brought the plant
into compliance and saved the Authority
$60,000 a year in carbon addition expense.
In addition, Pennsylvania's energy audit team,
led by a 104(g)(l) technical assistance pro-
vider, identified metering errors at the plant.
Correction of these errors and implementation
of additional controls resulted in a $350 per
month energy savings for the facility. More-
over, since the metering error occurred during
a 15 year period, the Authority is negotiating
a significant refund from the electricity
supplier.
New Operators7 Skills Are
Improved
Fairfield Municipal Authority, Pennsylvania
Inexperienced operators were struggling to
correct compliance problems at the Fairfield
Municipal Authority's wastewater treatment
plant. A 104(g) (1) technical assistance
provider stepped in to help the new operators
bring the plant into compliance by establish-
ing a process control strategy and developing
an effective laboratory testing program.
1999 Program Evaluation
27
-------
Region 3
Together, the operators and the technical
assistance provider replaced the facility's
blowers and air piping, changed the plant flow
scheme, and installed wasting and return
capabilities. Technical assistance also provided
the operators with computer-based training for
their licensing test.
Eastern Armstrong County saved millions of
dollars due to 104(g)(l) assistance. To remedy
NPDES violations, the County's Sewer
Authority planned to spend approximately $2
million to upgrade the facility. Plans and
specifications for the plant expansion were
completed.
".. .the training and technical assistance
received thus far has indeed been a Godsend to
our small community."
—Vice-Chairman and Secretary/Treasurer
of Fairfield Municipal Authority,
Patricia Smith, 1991
Using Process Control to Avoid
Construction
Eastern Armstrong County Sewer
Authority, Pennsylvania
Confronted with operational problems and
compliance issues, decisions are often reached
for plant upgrades without thorough examina-
tion of process control methods. Technical
assistance under the 104(g)(l) program has
been invaluable in helping communities
optimize process control, thus avoiding costly
construction.
The facility was brought into compliance within
only a few days, and the community saved
millions of dollars by avoiding unnecessary
plant construction.
A 104(g)(l) technical assistance provider
visited the plant before the new construction
began. The provider recommended shutting
down approximately half of the existing
facility to change the hydraulic and solids
loadings. As a result of this suggestion, the
facility was brought into compliance within
only a few days, and the community saved
millions of dollars by avoiding the unnecessary
plant construction.
Between 1990 and 1997, Pennsylvania assisted
230 facilities. Recognizing the benefits of
technical assistance to communities, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environment
Protection contributes more than three quarters
of the funding for outreach.This type of
combined state and federal funding offers
significant assistance for communities which
often have very limited alternative resources.
Specialized 104(g)(1) teams offer help with
energy conservation, pretreatment, safety,
right-to-know, and collection systems.
28
104(g)(1) Operator Outreach Training
-------
Delaware, District of Columbia, Mary/and, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia
Planning for Pollution Prevention
Town of Centreville WWTP, Maryland
The 104(g)(l) technical assistance program
has gradually moved from crisis intervention
toward proactive, preventive approaches to
environmental protection. This shift has led
to the creation of complementary activities
and programs that enable assisted facilities to
comply with regulatory requirements.
Maryland's Municipal Wastewater Pollution
Prevention (MWPP) Initiative is one such
program.
In the early 1990s, the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE) launched the
MWPP initiative with a grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. In partner-
ship with MDE, the Maryland Center for
Environmental Training (MCET) developed a
procedure for auditing the physical and
financial status of local publicly-owned
wastewater treatment systems. The initiative
demonstrated that periodic, systematic
auditing is a valuable tool that encourages
cost-saving pollution prevention strategies.
In Maryland, funding from EPA and the
Maryland Department of the Environment
provides outreach as part of a statewide
strategy to help operators implement biological
nutrient removal (BNR) and other emerging
nutrient reduction technologies.
Centreville, a small town of 2,100 residents on
Maryland's Eastern Shore, was one of the
communities that volunteered to participate
in the MWPP program. Centreville was
struggling with a variety of problems. Histori-
cally, staffing was inadequate, and there was a
long history of deferred or inadequately
performed maintenance, which had taken a
steep toll at the facility. Serious equipment
problems and structural concerns left the
plant vulnerable to discharge permit viola-
tions and expensive fines for non-compliance.
In addition, Centreville's operators were
required, to "work around" a variety of design
deficiencies. For instance, if any part of the
facility's treatment unit needed to be shut
down for repair, the whole plant had to be
shut down. Sludge management was a major
challenge.
A complete evaluation of the plant identified
a variety of problems, all of which pointed to
the immediate need for planning to replace
the treatment plant within a few years. The
assistance provider reported the evaluation
findings to the town council, helped the town
secure grants and loans for construction, and
continued to work with the plant staff to
ensure optimized treatment. After extensive
consultations and assistance, the town com-
mitted funds to replacement of the existing
plant and began its construction process.
Compliance has improved greatly.
1999 Program Evaluation
29
-------
Region 3
Maryland's 104(g)(1) grantee,the Maryland
Center for Environmental Training, cosponsored
one of the state's first nutrient removal
conferences, demonstrating to communities the
benefits of nutrient removal and directing
communities to appropriate grant assistance for
plant upgrades.The technical assistance
provided by MCET focused on low-cost retrofits
and technical feasibility studies, as well as plant
operational strategies.
New Plant Start-Up Challenges
Operators
City of Frederick WWTP, Maryland
When the City of Frederick upgraded its
trickling filter system to a new secondary
treatment plant, two 104(g)(l) technical
assistance providers trained the staff and
helped optimize operations. The trainers
assisted the operators in starting up the three
activated sludge process trains, which in-
cluded an oxidation ditch and an intra-
channel clarifier.
Once all three trains were successfully operat-
ing and producing an acceptable effluent,
efforts shifted to development of a compre-
hensive process control test program for the
operations staff to follow. During this process,
excessive growth of filamentous bacteria
became a serious problem. The trainers
assisted the staff in implementing a chlorina-
tion system, using multiple addition points in
each ditch to control the filamentous growth.
The combination of the process control
monitoring program and filamentous control
strategy enabled the staff to achieve compli-
ance with all parameters of the NPDES
permit.
This 104(g)(l) assistance eliminated the need
for a $500,000 modification/replacement
grant, which the City thought would be
needed to construct additional facilities and
which would have been requested from EPA
under a federal grant program for failed
innovative technologies.
Implementing Compliance
Strategies and Improvements
Millsboro WWTP, Delaware
In the mid-1990s, the Millsboro Wastewater
Treatment Plant was struggling with signifi-
cant compliance issues and lack of funding for
needed improvements.
Technical assistance provider Lenny Gold
began helping the Millsboro operators imple-
ment an effective process control testing
program. In addition, he worked with the
operators to convince the town managers to
construct lab facilities and to purchase needed
equipment.
"Over the past 25 years, we have seen significant
improvements in our nation's water quality.
Much of this improvement can be attributed to
better wastewater treatment facilities.This
award publicly recognizes the outstanding job
that Millsboro is doing to protect our rivers and
streams."
—W.Michael McCabe,EPA Mid-Atlantic
Regional Administrator
30
104(g)(1) Operator Outreach Training
-------
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia
After just one year of assistance, the Millsboro
WWTP was in compliance with its discharge
permits. The Town of Millsboro WWTP was
selected for EPA's Annual Operations and
Maintenance Excellence Award in 1999.
Addressing Serious Compliance
Problems in a Very Small
Community
Central Boaz WWTP, West Virginia
The Central Boaz Wastewater Treatment
Plant, serving a community of 1,100 people,
was in major disrepair and out of compliance
when 104(g)(l) trainers first began assessing
the plant and its problems.
The trainers spearheaded an energetic process
control teaching effort, to improve plant
operations. A sludge management program.
was implemented, and the operator received
personalized tutoring to pass West Virginia's
certification exam.
The revitalized plant was brought back into
compliance after an 18 month period during
which 58 violations were reported. The
performance turnaround, in combination with
outstanding management involvement, won
the Central Boaz Public Service District the
EPA's Most Improved Plant Award in 1996.
In FY98, the West Virginia Environmental
Training Center, which has a full-time staff of
only two, delivered on-site technical assistance
and over 50 workshops and seminars to 1,000
water quality professionals using volunteer
instructors.
The South Branch Potomac River, near Petersburg,
West Virginia, is one of the east's great trout streams.
Protecting a Sensitive Trout
Stream
Meadow Bridge WWTP, West Virginia
Meadow Bridge is a small community south-
east of Charleston, West Virginia, in the
Appalachian Mountains. The wastewater
treatment plant in Meadow Bridge discharges
into a sensitive trout stream area. This was of
special concern since the facility was having
difficulty complying with its discharge permit.
The 104(g)(1) assistance saved Meadow Bridge
$4,000 in equipment costs, in addition to
approximately $6,000 annually in lab fees.
A 104(g)(l) technical assistance provider
from the West Virginia Environmental
Training'Center trained the operators in
process control testing, plant maintenance,
lab certification, and quality control. To re-
build the facility's sludge beds, the technical
assistance provider suggested using economical
spent water filter media. The timely 104(g)(l)
assistance saved Meadow Bridge $4,000 in
equipment costs, in addition to approximately
$6,000 annually in lab fees.
1999 Program Evaluation
31
-------
Region 3
Region 3 Contacts
Environmental Protection Agency
James Kern
EPA Region 3 Coordinator
Mail Code 3WP23
Water Management Division
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 814-5788
kern, j im@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region3
Delaware
Jerry Williams
Delaware Technical and Community College
Corporate and Community Programs
P.O. Box 610
Georgetown, DE 19947
(302) 856-5776
Fax: (302) 856-5779
jwilliams@outland.dtcc.edu
http://www.dtcc.edu
District of Columbia
Not currently participating in the 104(g)(l)
program
Maryland
Karen Brandt
Maryland Center for Environmental Training
College of Southern Maryland
P.O. Box 910, 8730 Mitchell Road
La Plata, MD 20646
(301) 934-7500
Fax:(301)934-7685
kbrandt@mcet.org
http://www.mcet.org
Pennsylvania
Thomas J. Brown
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Water Supply Management
P.O. Box 625
RD#3, Wilmore Road
Ebensburg, PA 15931
(814) 472-1900
Fax: (814) 472-1898
brown.thomas@dep.state.pa.us
http://www.dep.state.pa.us
Virginia
Wayne Staples
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 698-4106
Fax: (804) 698-4032
dwstaples@dep.state.va.us
http://www.deq.state.va.us
West Virginia
Richard Weigand
West Virginia Environmental Training Center
Cedar Lakes
Ripley.WV 25271
(304) 372-7878
Fax: (304) 372-7887
rweigand@citynet.net
32
104(g)(1) Operator Outreach Training
-------
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Region 4
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Assistance Improves Quality of
Discharge to Gulf
Cedar Key Water and Sewer District, Florida
Cedar Key is a small island, only about one
mile long, located in the Gulf of Mexico. The
wastewater treatment plant is in the middle of
downtown, disguised as a two-story condo,
with a view of palm trees and ocean from the
top. In 1993, the operators of the WWTP on
Cedar Key were reporting bulky sludge and
poor settling characteristics. In fact, effluent
quality was so poor that half of the time
operators could not meet the effluent param-
eters for discharge to their new drip irrigation
system and, therefore, discharged effluent to
the Gulf of Mexico.
Ed Toby, a 104(g)(l) technical assistance
provider from the University of Florida Center
for Training, Research, and Education for
Environmental Occupations (UF/TREEO),
assessed the facility and found that poor
settleability, excessive nitrate levels, and
insufficient digester detention time were the
most pressing problems. Through operator
training and minor equipment alterations
these issues were improved dramatically; For
instance, the plant's excessive return activated
sludge rate was reduced from 500 percent to
75 percent. Toby even designed a software
program to help operators learn about how
sludge age affects plant performance.
Toby also determined that a flawed computer
program was causing the plant to be operated
as a totally aerobic process, rather than
operating as it was designed, to alternate
between anoxic and aerobic conditions. The
program was altered, and the nitrate level was
reduced from 17 mg/L to 5.3 mg/L. Finally,
Toby trained the staff in jar testing to deter-
mine lime dosages for sludge stabilization, and
the plant was brought into compliance with
new sludge regulations.
"In Florida we know a healthy environment is
key to a strong economy and a good quality of
life."
; —Connie Mack, U.S.Senator,Florida,July 1999
Within one year of initiating 104(g)(l)
assistance, the difference in the plant's opera-
tion was significant. The operators were
properly conducting process control tests and
using the results for informed plant operation.
Plant effluent was being directed entirely to
the drip irrigation site rather than to the Gulf
of Mexico. This project won second place in
EPA's Most Improved Plant Awards for 1994.
1999 Program Evaluation
33
-------
Region 4
Program Collaborates on
Innovative Solution
Waldo Wetlands Project, Florida
During recent years, effluent from the City of
Waldo's secondary wastewater treatment plant
has failed to consistently meet its discharge
permit levels. Percolation ponds were not
working adequately and were overflowing into
adjacent natural wetlands. This was particu-
larly alarming since the affected wetlands are
located within the headwaters to the Santa Fe
River system, a designated Outstanding
Florida Water.
In 1997, 104(g)(l) technical assistance
providers from UF/TREEO evaluated the
Waldo WWTP facility. It was decided that the
City of Waldo should redesign the percolation
pond system into a man-made wetland system
for tertiary wastewater treatment. Construc-
tion began in February 1999. In addition to
creatively solving the city's wastewater prob-
lem, the man-made wetland is expected to
provide watershed protection, wildlife habitat,
community recreation, and education oppor-
tunities.
During construction, UF/TREEO has been
working with the operators to optimize
performance of the old plant. Because dis-
charge to a natural wetland from a man-made
wetland requires final effluent to meet strin-
gent nutrient parameters, the UF/TREEO staff
will train the City of Waldo operators in
proper sampling and analysis techniques for
these tougher limits. Staff will also be trained
on removing nitrogen and phosphorus biologi-
cally and chemically.
The Waldo Wetlands project is possible only
through a collaborative effort by federal and
state agencies and institutions. In addition to
the 104(g)(l) assistance provided by UF/
TREEO, other groups contributing to the
project include the Suwannee River Water
Management District, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, the Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, and the
University of Florida Center for Wetlands.
Solids Wasting Program Improves
Compliance
Union Point WPCP, Georgia
Union Point, Georgia, is a community of
approximately 2,000 residents, located east of
Atlanta. In early 1998, Union Point's waste-
water treatment plant was struggling to meet
its effluent discharge permit levels. That
February, Joe Porter, a 104(g)(l) technical
assistance provider with the Environmental
Protection Division of Georgia's Department
of Natural Resources, began assisting the small
system to bring it back into compliance.
Porter worked with Union Point's operator to
develop a solids wasting program. Together,
they devised a sampling plan and reorganized
the facility's daily operating worksheets. They
also designed new process control and preven-
tive maintenance programs.
34
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
After only eight months of 104(g)(l) assis-
tance, the Union Point facility was operating
in compliance with its discharge permit.
Approximately $5,100 of 104(g)(l) funds
were used for this assistance—far less than the
estimated $18,000 it would have cost this
small community for equivalent services from
private consultants.
Improved Operation Minimizes
Use of Chemical Additives
Vine Grove WWTP, Kentucky
Vine Grove, Kentucky, is a small community
located just south of Fort Knox. In 1997, Vine
Grove's wastewater treatment plant was
teetering at the edge of non-compliance.
Based on reported data, the plant was operat-
ing at 90 percent hydraulic capacity and was
in danger of having enforcement action
initiated.
Assessments by 104(g)(l) technical assistance
providers from Kentucky's Department for
Environmental Protection revealed that the
facility's reported flows were double the actual
flows, because an erroneous multiplier was
being used for flow totalizer readings. Opera-
tors were manually adding chlorine and sulfur
dioxide. The trainer suggested an alternative
flow proportioned feed system to cut down on
chemical additions.
Newly implemented process control proce-
dures for determining solids inventories and
wasting rates resulted in lower levels of total
suspended solids and biochemical oxygen
demand levels in the facility's effluent—levels
that normally have been in the single digits
since the 104(g)(l) assistance.
Program Applies Solutions to
Plants With Similar Problem
Pembroke WWTP, North Carolina
A greatbenefit of the 104(g)(l) program is
the technology transfer that takes place.
Technical assistance providers apply lessons
learned from one facility's troubles to a large
number, of facilities with similar problems.
This is what happened at the Pembroke
Wastewater Treatment Plant in southern
North Carolina.
Tony Arnold, a 104(g)(l) technical assistance
provider with the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources'
Division of Water Quality, assessed the out-of-
compliance facility in early 1999. Arnold
found that the major problem involved
improper sludge settling in the plant's
clarifiers.
"After investigating [the] Pembroke situation I
found that several plants with this type of
sludge redrawai system experienced problems
with an imbalance in the sludge collection
system," Arnold wrote in his assessment of the
facility. Drawing on his experiences with other
plants, Arnold was able to suggest a fix for the
sludge problem, in addition to improvements
in several other weak areas. The town also
received a list of recommended repairs de-
signed to improve the Pembroke facility's
operation.
1999 Program Evaluation
35
-------
Region 4
Expert Training Brings Plant Back
into Compliance
City of Darlington WWTP, South Carolina
The City of Darlington is a small community
of approximately 3,040 families in northeast-
ern South Carolina. In 1997, the City's
wastewater treatment plant was struggling
because its solids discharge levels were exceed-
ing the plant's permit requirements.
Technical assistance providers from South
Carolina's Environmental Training Center
assessed the plant's problems. During monthly
on-site visits, the Darlington operators were
trained in proper solids handling techniques.
Laboratory personnel were trained to test for
biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended
solids, and fecal coliform levels. The trainers
recommended alternative solids loading
strategies and ways to reduce the plant's
infiltration and inflow problems. A trainer
also helped develop an operation and mainte-
nance program for the struggling plant.
The 104(g)(l) assistance brought the
Darlington facility back into compliance by
1999. Approximately $30,000 of 104(g)(l)
money was spent on this facility during that
time, a huge savings over the estimated
$180,300 that private engineering consultants
would have required to do the same work. In
addition, the City was able to save by avoiding
enforcement action and fines for non-
compliance.
Region 4 Contacts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
James Adcock
EPA Region 4 Coordinator
Municipal Facilities Branch
Mail Code GPTSB-4WMD
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
(404) 562-9900
adcock. j ames@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region4
Alabama
Not currently participating in the 104(g)(l)
program
Florida
Ed Toby
University of Florida TREEO Center
3900 S.W. 63rd Boulevard
Gainesville, FL 32608-3848
(352) 392-9570, ext. 115
etoby@treeo.doce.ufl.edu
http://www.doce.ufl.edu/Treeo
36
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
Georgia
GaynellHill
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Suite 110
4244 International Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 362-2629
gaynell_hill@mail.dnr.state.ga.us
http://www.georgia.org/dnr/environ
Kentucky
A. Charles Clark
Operator Certification Section
Kentucky Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410, ext. 362
acharles.clark@mail.state.ky.us
http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/dwhome.htm
Mississippi
Nick Gatian
Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality
1141 Bayview Avenue, Suite 208
Biloxi, MS 39530
(228) 432-1056, ext. 105
nick_gatian@deq.state.ms.us
http://www.deq.state.ms.us/newweb/
homepages.nsf
North Carolina
Tony Arnold
North Carolina Water Pollution Control
System Operators Certification Commission
1618 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1618
(919)733-0026, ext. 315
tony.amold@ncmail.net
http://www.ehnr.state.nc.us/EHNR
South Carolina
Cindy Murphy and Nancy Bishop
Environmental Training Center
Central Carolina Technical College, South
Carolina
506 North Guignard Drive
Sumter,SC 29150-2499
(803) 778-7873
cynthiadmurphy@netscape.net
http://www.sum.tec.sc.us/test2/scet.htm
Tennessee
Roger Lemasters
Tennessee Division of Water Pollution
Control
LNC Annex - 6th Floor
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615) 532-0625
rlemaster@mail.state.tn.us
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/
index.html
1999 Program Evaluation
37
-------
-------
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Onio, Wisconsin
Region 5
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Coordinated Effort Improves
Plant Operation
Sandwich WWTP, Illinois
The Sandwich Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Illinois was floundering in multiple compli-
ance problems during the first seven months
of 1995. In fact, compliance limits were
exceeded every month for at least one param-
eter, and in April the only limit not exceeded
was pH.
In January 1996, the plant was evaluated by a
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider, who
later reported that "process control was sort of
trial by MLSS [mixed liquor suspended
solids]." The microscope was seldom used for
process control, and internal plant processes
not well managed. Another problem was that
the plant influent occasionally bore a distinct
solvent aroma.
Ongoing process control monitoring allows the
plant to address problems before they become
compliance issues.
In an amazing turnaround, the plant was
brought back into full compliance through a
coordinated effort by area experts—104(g)(l)
funded assistance from the Ohio Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, EPA trainers and
enforcers, a Twin Cities Metro WWTP
microbiologist, and Sandwich operators and
administrators. The partnership addressed the
problems of industrial loading and process
control, and the plant was returned to full
compliance just three months after the initial
diagnostic evaluation. In that period of time,
ammonia levels dropped by 98 percent,
oxygen demanding pollutants were 60 percent
lower, and solids decreased by one third.
Ongoing process control monitoring allows
the plant to address problems before they
become compliance issues.
Since receiving 104(g)(l) assistance, the
Sandwich WWTP has continued to achieve
exceptional performance. The notable efforts
of the 104(g)(l) trainer and the community
won the Sandwich WWTP 2nd place in U.S.
EPA Region 5 as the Most Improved Plant for
1999. •
Chlorine addition at the Sandwich WWTP controb
filamentous bacteria.
1999 Program Evaluation
39
-------
Region 5
Finding Qualified Operators
Challenges Small Communities
Granville WWTP, Illinois
A common weakness of wastewater treatment
plants in smaller communities is their limited
hiring base. All too often this translates to
inexperienced and untrained operators being
put in charge of increasingly complex equip-
ment and conducting increasingly complex
processes. The 104(g)(l) program provides
die necessary training for these new environ'
mental professionals.
The situation at Granville, Illinois, is just such
an example. Granville is a former coal mining
town of about 1,400 people located in north-
western Illinois. Granville's former police
chief Lou Verda had taken the job as operator
at the town's wastewater treatment plant. In
addition to the problem of his inexperience,
die facility's package plant was "completely
septic, with high solids levels," according to
the 104(g)(l) report on the facility.
In early 1999, Dennis Connor of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency began
Operations personnel re-piped the plant influent and
automated the activated sludge wasting process. These
changes improved effluent quality and reduced operator
time at the plant. The city of Granville saved money
on both.
coordinating 104(g)(l) assistance to the
Granville facility. In addition to a variety of
plant alterations and improvements, Connor
coordinated the former police chief's operator
training. Connor reported that the new
operator, Lou Verda, "enthusiastically" applied
these new skills to Granville's facility. Chuck
Corley, another 104(g)(l) provider, even
attended one of Granville's town council
meetings, to discuss the treatment plant's
situation and additional needs.
The results of 104(g)(l) assistance included
both significantly cleaner effluent and a well-
trained operator.
Limited Help Yields Big Results
NewberryWWTP, Michigan
In early 1998, non-compliance caused a
district office of Michigan's Surface Water
Quality Division to refer the Newberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant to the 104(g)(l)
Operator Training Unit of Michigan's Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality. The plant
was out of compliance with all permit limits.
Both the concentration of biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids in the
effluent often reached 70 to 80 mg/L—well
over the 30 mg/L limits. Also, the phosphorus
concentration often exceeded the 1 mg/L
limit.
The 104(g)(l) technical assistance provider
determined that the primary reason for the
non-compliance was the development of
filamentous organisms in the plant's secondary
system. Poor control of secondary sludge
return flows, inconsistent control of wasting,
poor solids handling practices, and periodic
equipment failures were all found to be
contributing to the plant's problems.
40
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Primary clarifiers at the Newberry WWTP, where
technical assistance greatly enhanced process control.
The situation was immediately improved by
the eradication of the filamentous bacteria
and by improved control practices. The length
of the 104(g)(l) assistance was extended
because of plant" personnel problems, includ-
ing the replacement of the superintendent
twice. The new superintendent was instructed
in proper control practices and gained a good
understanding of process control, the applica-
tion of secondary control practices, proper
solids handling procedures, and the impor-
tance of a good preventive maintenance
program. As a result of only four 104(g)(l)
visits to the plant and a couple of dozen phone
calls, the facility's effluent biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids are now consis-
tently below 10 mg/L, just one-third of the
permit limit. All other permit limits are also
being met.
Assistance Lowers Phosphorus
Levels
Carson City WWTP, Michigan
The wastewater treatment plant that serves
Carson City, Michigan, had never met its
permit limits for phosphorus. In an effort to
bring those levels down, the plant's operators
had been adding ferric chloride to the influent
at about 100 gallons of solution per day. Even
though the amount of chemical being fed was
higher than the calculated amount required, it
was not removing the phosphorus.
Michigan's Surface Water Quality Division
referred the situation to Doug Hill, a
104(g)(l) assistance provider with Michigan's
Department of Environmental Quality's
Operator Training Unit. In late 1992, Hill
coordinated jar testing on samples at the five-
cell lagoon system to determine a better point
for phosphorus removal than the first-cell
application. At Hill's recommendation, in the
summer of 1993, a temporary ferric chloride
feed system was installed between the fourth
and fifth lagoons. The phosphorus concentra-
tion dropped throughout the summer, and by
the fall, the phosphorus level was well under
the facility's 1 mg/L limit.
The temporary feed system was replaced with
a permanent line, and the plant has been in
compliance with the discharge permit from
that time to the present.
A temporary ferric chloride feed system was instalkd
between the fourth and fifth lagoons to reduce the
phosphorus concentrations at the Carson City
WWTP.
1999 Program Evaluation
41
-------
Region 5
Community Dodges Costly
Upgrades
Village of Richwood WWTP, Ohio
In 1995, multiple problems plagued the
Richwood WWTP. Operator neglect and the
inexperience of newly hired employees were
chief among these, causing an average of 112
permit violations annually in 1995 and 1996.
As a result, the village of Richwood was
suffering not only from the effects of excessive
pollutant discharge and resultant enforcement
action, but officials were facing an unexpected
$1.9 million construction grant repayment
because the plant was not meeting its certifi-
cation requirements.
"The words EPA and cooperation and help are
often considered to be an oxymoron.Yourteam
certainly helped to dispel that myth."
—R.A. Bell, Mayor of Lodi, Ohio, 1994
Through the 104(g)(l) Operator Assistance
Program, Jim Borton of Ohio's Environmental
Protection Agency Compliance Assistance
Unit evaluated the system's problems and
prioritized its needs to bring it back into
compliance as quickly as possible. Borton,
working with the highly motivated village
officials, concentrated on intensive operator
training, while coaching village officials on
appropriate steps they could take to assist in
the plant's recovery.
Borton also noted that the facility suffered
from infiltration and inflow problems, espe-
cially during rain events, when flow levels
sometimes more than tripled. Borton's recom-
mendations concerning this issue helped the
village qualify for and receive a $225,000 state
Jim Borton and Plant Superintendent discussing
process control by SBR at Richwood WWTP.
grant and $300,000 community development
block grant for a sewer rehabilitation project.
As a result of approximately one year of
104(g)(l) assistance, the plant's pollutant
discharge was reduced dramatically, including
an 80 percent reduction in carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand and an 84
percent reduction in total suspended solids.
Effluent violations were reduced by 85 per-
cent. The plant earned a positive certification,
and the village was able to avoid the $1.9
million grant repayment. If the 104(g)(l)
assistance had been provided by private
engineering consultants, the village would
have had to pay approximately $75,000—a
more than ten-fold increase over the state and
federally funded 104(g)(l) assistance.
Based on these dramatic changes, the
Richwood WWTP won second place in EPA
Region 5 as the Most Improved Plant for
1998.
42
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Struggling Plant Turned Around
Through Assistance
City of FostoriaWWTP, Ohio
In the first part of 1996, the wastewater
treatment plant for the City of Fostoria, Ohio,
was almost continuously in violation of its
ammonia and suspended solids limits and was
occasionally exceeding its carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand limit. Scott
Ankrom of the Ohio Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's Compliance Assistance Unit
began providing 104(g)(l) assistance to the
struggling plant.
Ankrom's initial evaluation found that,
despite recent upgrades, the WWTP was
experiencing significant loss of solids, as well
as difficulty in achieving complete nitrifica-
tion. It was determined that the nitrification
and suspended solids problems resulted from
"starvation" of the activated sludge biomass.
Essentially, the primary clarifiers and trickling
filters were removing too much organic waste,
which is food for the biomass.
Ankrom suggested an alteration to the system
that would allow the development of the
proper biomass in the activated sludge system.
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
In addition, dye testing of the secondary
clarifiers revealed a problem that degraded
clarifier performance. Weirs and baffles were
installed to improve clarifier performance.
The 104(g)(l) assistance also included process
control and laboratory training.
The assistance reduced the plant's discharge of
suspended solids by 67 percent and ammonia
discharge by 64 percent. The reduction of
chemical usage by 39 percent led to total
chemical cost savings of $20,750. After only
15 months of alterations and operator train-
ing, the plant was in full compliance during
normal flows.
"The plant operators and [I] gained a better
understanding of operations and theory
regarding our specific treatment plant.The
program that you are involved in is very
beneficial to all wastewater plants."
—Michael L. Ritter, Chief Operator,
Fostoria Water Pollution Control Center
By documenting compliance, Fostoria was able
to gain a positive certification on a construc-
tion loan through Ohio EPA's Water Pollution
Control Loan Fund program. The City was
also able to gain the dismissal of an enforce-
ment action through the Ohio Attorney
General's Office. If the City had sought
assistance through a private engineering firm,
it is estimated that the 104(g)(l) help would
have cost approximately $112,500.
Activated sludge, basins at Fostoria WWTP.
1999 Program Evaluation
43
-------
Region 5
Newly Hired Operator Benefits
from 104(g)(l) Training
Pleasant Valley Regional Sewer District
WWTP,Ohio
Taking on almost any new job carries with it
the risk of inheriting problems from your
predecessor. This is what happened to the
newly hired manager of the Pleasant Valley
Regional Sewer District in Ohio. He quickly
realized that his sewer district was struggling
with some serious problems that would be
difficult to resolve without outside help.
In the spring of 1994, the plant manager
contacted the Ohio EPA's 104(g)(D Compli-
ance Assistance Unit and requested an
evaluation of the system. The evaluation
identified 15 factors limiting the performance
of the treatment system. Aeration capabilities
in the oxidation ditches were inadequate, and
only one of the two ditches was operational.
The out-of-compliance system was suffering
from excessive infiltration, insufficient
staffing, inadequate financial planning and
equipment, and communication problems.
"I must take a moment to express my pleasure
with [Ohio] EPA's proactive approach in helping
operators of failing POTWs. It certainly is
encouraging to see Ohio EPA assuming a
mentoring posture toward operators who are
experiencing problems meeting NPDES
permits."
—Larry Cole, Superintendent of Beavercreek Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Beavercreek, Ohio
Treatment plant staff in partnership with
104(g)(l) technical assistance providers
quickly addressed each of these concerns. For
instance, they pursued loans to purchase
necessary equipment, contracted out for
smoke testing to assess infiltration problems,
doubled the treatment staff, and designed the
18-year-old system's first operating budget.
This aggressive approach to problem solving
paid off. The once-out-of-compliance system
was totally turned around within 18 months.
Number of reportable NPDES violations
1996 84 violations reported
1997 52 violations reported
1998 6 violations reported
This impressive turnaround won the facility
EPA's 1999 Most Improved Plant Award.
Plant Overcomes Many Problems
to Win EPA Award
Elk Mound WWTP, Wisconsin
The Elk Mound Wastewater Treatment Plant
in western Wisconsin is an excellent example
of a community successfully overcoming the
wide variety of challenges that face smaller
facilities.
Extreme wet. weather conditions, an aging
collection system, limited financial resources,
stringent effluent requirements, and multiple
demands on the operating staff were all
problems at Elk Mound. With assistance from
104(g)(l) trainers from Wisconsin's Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, these problems
were overcome, enabling the facility to win
first place in the 1999 EPA awards for Opera-
tion and Maintenance in the Small Advanced
Category.
The collection system in Elk Mound consists
of two lift stations and approximately 4 miles
of 30-year-old clay pipe installed in an area of
44
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
shallow bedrock and high groundwater. In
recent history, the wet weather flow has risen
from a normal average of 50,000 gallons per
day to an extreme peak of over 1.0 million
gallons per day. Heavy rains often resulted in
the discharge of raw sewage.
To control this situation, the village under-
took an aggressive program that included
budgeting and repairing all failing areas,
rebuilding the lift stations, doubling the
amount of storm sewer capacity throughout
the collection system, and implementing a
door-to-door inspection and education
program. They were rewarded for these efforts
by a 60 percent reduction in their infiltration/
inflow rate.
In addition to conquering its infiltration
problems, the Elk Mound facility recycles all
sludge from the facility to agricultural land as
a soil amendment and fertilizer. Approxi-
mately 80,000 gallons of sludge are spread
each spring and fall. Minor plant modifica-
tions and diligent attention to details contrib-
ute to the facility routinely going beyond
normal compliance and producing effluent
with concentrations in the single digits.
Violations Reduced After
Following Recommendations
Dale Sanitary District WWTP, Wisconsin
In the late 1980s and into the early 1990s, the
Dale Sanitary District WWTP in Wisconsin
was struggling with numerous violations of its
effluent limits. Dissolved oxygen, biochemical
oxygen demand levels, pH and total sus-
pended solids levels were all problems. At the
facility's request, a team of 104(g)(l) techni-
cal assistance providers from EPA Region 5
undertook a week-long evaluation of the
facility's aerated pond system.
The 104(g)(l) team's major recommendations
included immediately removing the 20-year+
bed of sludge from the polishing pond and
implementing a regular schedule of sludge
removal. In addition, they suggested installa-
tion of pond baffles to eliminate short circuit-
ing, at a cost of $10,000. As a result, the plant
returned to compliance and the need for a
new expensive wastewater treatment plant
was eliminated.
The treatment plant began producing accept-
able effluent and has remained in compliance
since 1996. In 1998, the facility won second
place in EPA's Most Improved Plant Award
category.
Region 5 Contacts
U.!>. Environmental Protection Agency
Russ Martin
EPA Region 5 Coordinator
Mail Code WN-16J
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-0268
martin.russell@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region5
Illinois
Charles Corley
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
WPC/FOS.
4302 North Main Street
Rockford, IL61103
(815) 987-7760
Fas:: (815) 987-7005
epal601@epa.state.il.us
http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/municipal-
wastewater-assistance/index.html
1999 Program Evaluation
45
-------
Regions
Indiana
David Denmarx
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management
Operators Assistance & Training Section
(OATS)
Office of Water Management
100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)232-8794
Fax:(317)232-8406
ddenman@dem.state.in.us
http://www.state.in.us/idem/owm/npdes/oats/
oats.html
Michigan
Doug Hill
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality
Environmental Assistance Division
P.O. Box 30457
Lansing, MI 48909-7957
(517) 373-4754
Fax: (517) 241-0325
hilldf@state.mi.us
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/ead/tasect/eac.html
Minnesota
Steve Duerre
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division, Point Source
Compliance Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 296-9264
Fax: (651) 297-2343
steve.duerre@pca.state.mn.us
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/netscape4.html
Ohio
Keith Kroeger
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Compliance Assistance Unit
Division of Surface Water North
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216-1049
(614) 644-2014
Fax: (614) 644-2329
keith.kroeger@epa.state.oh.us
http://www.epa.ohio.gov
Wisconsin
Toni Glymph
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Watershed Management
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 264-8954
Fax: (608) 267-2800
glympt@dnr.state.wi.us
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm
46
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region 6
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Improved Operations Make
Upgrade Unnecessary
City of Abbeville Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Louisiana
Officials in the City of Abbeville, in southern
Louisiana, had budgeted $1.5 million for
upgrades to their activated sludge treatment
plant. The plant was non-compliant with its
permit and was under a compliance order.
However, with the help of Jay Adams, a
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider with
the University of Southwestern Louisiana's
Environmental Training Center, city officials
were able to avoid the costly upgrades, offer-
ing a huge savings to the community.
In 1995, when Adams assessed the plant and
its performance, he found problems with the
plant operator's understanding and application
of process control. Inadequate technical and
administrative support from the city was a
problem, as were operability and maintainabil-
ity concerns. The plant also had infiltration
and inflow problems.
"By helping small wastewater treatment
facilities achieve compliance with regulations,
we can alleviate water pollution from
improperly treated sewage as well as the need
for [Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality] to take enforcement action against the
facilities. It's a win-win situation."
—Louis RJohnson, Administrator, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality's Water Quality Management Division
During two years of intermittent assistance,
Adams trained the superintendent in aeration
and clarifier maintenance and assisted the
city's mayor in having the plant's discharge
permit revised. The facility's improved process
control resulted in removal of the compliance
order, and no upgrades to the facility were
required.
1999 Program Evaluation
47
-------
Region 6
Creative Use of Effluent Helps
Solve Plant Problems
RamahWWTP, New Mexico
The Ramah WWTP in northwest New
Mexico is a 0.025 mgd plant, which was
designed originally to discharge its treated
effluent to the nearby Zuni River. However,
plant officials were concerned that the
system's unlined lagoon cells were also allow-
ing effluent to impact groundwater quality in
the area. In essence, Ramah was "discharging"
both to the area's groundwater and to the Zuni
River, a surface water body. The 104(g)(l)
technical assistance providers from New
Mexico's Water Utilities Technical Assistance
Program suggested that it-was logical to stop
the stream discharge altogether and upgrade
the facility so that it could obtain a New
Mexico groundwater discharge permit (which
Ramah previously did not have because of
New Mexico's grandparent clause).
In this case, 104(g)(l) technical assistance
providers suggested eliminating stream dis-
charge by using the plant effluent to supple-
ment irrigation of die numerous acres of
alfalfa around the treatment plant. The
solution suggested by die 104(g)(l) technical
assistance provider is expected to mitigate the
environmental impact of the plant's discharge
and benefit Ramah in the form of a reliable
irrigation supply. Another key advantage to
Ramah is the reuse of the water, which is, of
course, a more profound issue in New Mexico
than in many other states.
The 104(g)(l) technical assistance providers
helped the town officials complete the neces-
sary application for the new groundwater
discharge permit. The New Mexico Environ-
mental Department Ground Water Protection
Bureau required synthetic liners and a ground-
water monitoring program as conditions for
permit approval. Ramah was required to
secure state grants to fund a facility upgrade so
that the terms of the groundwater permit
could be met. In addition, the operator has
been encouraged to pursue state certification,
and, once construction of the new lagoon
system is completed, the operators will be
provided with more 104(g)(l) on-site training
to ensure compliance with the new permit.
Although the solution to Ramah's problems
would not work everywhere, it is an excellent
example of innovative thinking and the
coordinating role played by 104(g)(l)
providers.
"We... act as a link between the [State of New
Mexico Environmental Department]
Certification Office and the [New Mexico] Water
and Wastewater Association which represents
the operators of the state... .We have also
been instrumental in integrating New Mexico's
21 Pueblos and Indian Tribes into the
mainstream of operator training and
certification through our Indian Health Service
funded field trainer."
—Robert Gott, Water Utilities Technical Assistance Program
Coordinator, New Mexico State University
48
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Texas Office Promotes Smoke
Testing to Check for Infiltration/
Inflow Problems
PottsboroWWTP, Texas
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) are significant
problems in many aging wastewater collection
systems, increasing flow dramatically during
wet weather events. Excess rain water enters
the sanitary sewer collection system through
cracks in pipes and manholes. This water can
overload the piping system and the wastewater
treatment plant. Elimination of leaks helps
save ratepayers money by reducing the amount
of water that has to be transported and .
treated.
Infiltration and inflow problems are the
second most common performance limiting
factor found at small wastewater facilities,
according to a survey of the nation's 104(g)(l)
technical assistance providers. Operator
training providers at the Texas Engineering
Extension Service listed I/I as the most
common performance limiting factor in small
systems in Texas. Identifying where I/I prob-
lems are occurring, therefore, is one of the
most frequent challenges that technical
assistance providers face.
Smoke testing sends smoke through manholes
into the sewer system so that crews can note
where smoke is escaping the pipes. These
locations may indicate breaks in the lines that
need repair. In their work for Pottsboro, Texas,
104(g)(l) assistance providers did smoke
testing on 28 of the city's manholes.
Other towns have also benefitted from smoke
testing, and the Texas 104(g)(l) providers
recommend that it be part of a routine pro-
gram to check for inflow and infiltration.
Smoke testing is an easy test for a common
and potentially expensive weakness in any
wastewater treatment system.
Region 6 Contacts
U.Si. Environmental Protection Agency
Billy Black
EPA Region 6 Coordinator
Mail Code WQ-AP
Water Management Division
Fountain Place, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-7168
black.billy@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region6
Arkansas
James W. Bailey
Arkansas Environmental Academy
SAU-Tech Station
Camden,AR 71701
(870) 574-4550
Fax: (870) 574-4565
jbailey@titus.sautech.edu
http://www.sautech.edu/nontrad/aea.htm
Louisiana
Elaine Livers
Louisiana Environmental Training Center
University of Southwestern Louisiana
P.O. Box 41690
Lafayette, LA 70504
(318)482-6391
Fax:(318)482-6392
livers@louisiana.edu
http://www.usl.edu
1999 Program Evaluation
49
-------
Region 6
New Mexico
Robert Gott
New Mexico State Training Center
Dona Ana Branch Community College/
New Mexico State University
P.O. Box 4192
SanteFe.NM 87502
(505) 984-0676
Fax:(505)982-3137
wutap@swcp.com
http://www.nmsu.edu
Oklahoma
Laird Hughes
Oklahoma Environmental Training Center
Rose State College
6420 S.E. 15th Street
Midwest City, OK 73110
(405) 733-7364
Fax: (405) 736-0372
lhughes@ms.rose.cc.ok.us
http://www.rose.cc.ok.us/ce
Texas
Christine Landphair
Water and Wastewater Training Program
Texas Engineering Extension Service
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, TX 77843-8000
(409) 862-4355
Fax: (409) 845-3419
pslandph@teexnet.tamu.edu
http://teexweb.tamu.edu/pstd
50
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Region 7
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Small System Struggles with
Upgrade Problems
City of dimming WWTP, Iowa
Sometimes just a little problem can cause
serious complications in a wastewater treat-
ment plant. The broad experience of a
104(g)(l) trainer can be the difference in
identifying and fixing the problem.
Officials in the City of Gumming, located just
southwest of Des Moines in Iowa, were not
sure what was causing their relatively new
wastewater treatment system to discharge
increasingly poor effluent. The sand filter
system was installed in 1991, and two years
later the system was discharging effluent that
had some readings almost twice as high as its
legal limit. The community was facing a
serious reprimand from the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources and possibly a fine.
Fortunately, DNR officials referred the case to
104(g)(l) technical assistance providers at
Kirkwood Community College. After only
two months of assistance, the facility's effluent
dropped from a carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand level of 48 mg/L to 7.8 mg/L,
and the total suspended solids level went from
49 mg/L to only 6.5 mg/L. Tim Robbins, the
104(g)(l) trainer on the Gumming project
found that the treatment plant's operators had
been misinformed about how to properly
maintain their new system. During the
assessment of process control a small broken
part was discovered in one the tanks. The
broken dosing siphon bell, which cost only
about $270 to replace, was found to be the
chief culprit in Cumming's poor performance.
"It is my opinion that the City of Gumming
will be able to maintain an excellent rate of
compliance in the years to come. With the
understanding and knowledge that the
operators gained from this experience, there
should be very little that will come along that
will change this. One of the biggest benefits
from this was the added confidence that they
gained by going through the trials of an
incident like this," Robbins wrote in his
description of the project.
1999 Program Evaluation
51
-------
Region?
Assistance Reduces Waste and
Provides Savings
St. James WWTP, Missouri
Sometimes more efficient operation of a
wastewater treatment plant can pay big
dividends for a community. In St. James,
Missouri, for instance, 104(g)(l) assistance
resulted in significant financial savings.
The St. James WWTP, an activated sludge
facility with two oxidation ditches, received
assistance from the Environmental Resource
Center at Missouri's Crowder College. St.
James' operators received 104(g)(l) training
in proper process control and wasting proce-
dures.
"Many small communities feel more
comfortable with the training center providing
assistance rather than the regulatory agency."
—Michael Jefferson, 104(g)(1) Outreach Coordinator,Missouri
The recommended alterations in operations
reduced the facility's solid waste by an amazing
56 percent. Instead of having to haul about
400 loads of solids per year to disposal sites, St.
James operators only had to deal with hauling
approximately 175 loads per year. As a result,
the plant is painlessly saving several thousand
dollars per year in labor and equipment costs.
Common Struggles Lead to High
Levels of Chlorine Additions
Mountain View WWTP, Missouri
The wastewater treatment plant in Mountain
View, located in southern Missouri, had a long
history of troubles—with operator turnover
and non-compliance heading the list.
A four-year (1991-1994) study performed by
Crowder College revealed that 2.7 dollars were
saved for every one dollar spent on the
104(g)(1) assistance program in Missouri.
When 104(g)(l) assistance providers from
Crowder College's Environmental Resource
Center first began working with the Mountain
View facility, the operators were using ap-
proximately 22 pounds of chlorine a day to
adequately disinfect the plant's effluent. And
even with all those chemicals thrown at the
problem, the facility was struggling to meet its
discharge permit.
The 104(g)(l) program helped a full-time
operator acquire proper operational skills, to
reduce the chlorine demand to only 2 pounds
a day—with, a 90 percent reduction in chemical
costs. The suggested changes were also instru-
mental in bringing the troubled facility back
into compliance with its discharge permit. To
reduce their employee turnover problems, the
104(g)(l) program provided operator training
and a renewed sense of professionalism to the
facility's newly hired operator. This project
won an EPA Region 7 award for Most Im-
proved Plant in 1991.
52
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri Nebraska
Region 7 Contacts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rao Surampalli
EPA Region 7 Coordinator
Mail Code WWPD/NFMB
Wastewater Management Division
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7453
surampalli.rao@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region7
Iowa
Doug Feil
Environmental Science Department
Kirkwood Community College, Iowa
6301 Kirkwood Boulevard, S.W.
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
(319)398-5678
dfeil@kirkwood.cc.ia.us
http://www.kirkwood.cc.ia.us
Wayne Farrand
Wastewater Permits
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
(515) 281-8877
wayne.farrand@dnr.state. ia.us
http://www.state.ia.us/govemment/dnr/
organiza/epd/wastewtr/wastwtr.htm
Kansas
Mike Tate
Kansas Department of Health and
the Environment
Technical Services Section
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka,KS 66620-0110
(785) 296-5504
mtate@kdhe.state.ks.us
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us
Missouri
Deron Alien and Mike Jefferson
Crowder College
601 La Clede Avenue
Noesho, MO 64850
(800) 848-8726
mj effers@crowdercollege.net
http://www.crowder.cc.mo.us
Nebraska
Steve Goans
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-2580
deq046@mail.deq.state.ne.us
http ://www.deq.state.ne.us
1999 Program Evaluation
53
-------
-------
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Region 8
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Springtime Melts Strain Small
System Capacities
Saguache WWTP, Colorado
Wastewater treatment plants near mountain'
ous areas often have to deal with the chal-
lenges of spring run-off—unusual amounts of
water entering the system as a result of melt-
ing snow.
This was the problem at the Saguache
WWTP, located in the San Luis Valley in the
south central mountains of Colorado. Moun-
tains surround the valley, with the Sangre De
Cristo Mountains to the east and the La
Gartia mountain range to the west. The
valley is home to many ranches and farms and
a vast wildlife preserve of wetlands. In the
spring, many millions of gallons of water
stored in the surrounding mountains' snow
caps start to flow to the valley bottom. This
enormous volume of water raises the ground
water level to within five feet of the ground
surface in the same timeframe as the seasonal
run-off.
In 1996, the Saguache WWTP began working
with Mike Daniels, a 104(g)(l) assistance
provider from the Red Rocks Community
College Environmental Training Center. The
WWTP was having compliance problems due
to this seasonal run-off and an aging collec-
tion system with infiltration problems. The
widely varying demands on the facility's
system were stressing the facility's capabilities.
For instance, in 1998, the peak flow was 167
percent of the facility's design. The average
flow is only about 70 percent of design
capacity.
Daniels trained the Saguache operator on
proper sampling procedures, thus improving
the facility's reporting accuracy. Daniels also
trained all the facility's maintenance person-
nel on troubleshooting and repair of the
chlorine system, eliminating a short-circuiting
problem. Together they located and repaired
an underground chlorine leak. In addition,
Daniels trained the crew on grounds mainte-
nance and cleaning weeds and algae out of the
final settling pond.
After 18 months of training and minor
alterations, the Saguache facility dramatically
improved its effluent quality. "The operator's
dedication to his job with assistance from the
maintenance crew has produced a consistently
clean effluent—reducing effluent biochemical
1999 Program Evaluation
55
-------
Region 8
oxygen demand by 17 percent, total suspended
solids by 56 percent, and fecal coliform levels
by 13 percent," Daniels wrote in his descrip-
tion of the project.
Aging Treatment Plant Receives a
104(g)(1) Overhaul
Town of Lavina WWTP, Montana
The Lavina WWTP was built over 40 years
ago, with a lift station upgrade in 1967. The
facility serves 151 customers and discharges to
the Musselshell River. In July 1997, Steve
Habener, a 104(g)(l) technical assistance
provider, began working with the Lavina
facility, which was out of compliance with its
effluent permit.
Habener found that the facility had a number
of potentially serious weaknesses, including
incorrect operation, an inflexible facility
design, lack of financial reserves, and no
facility operation and maintenance manual.
Habener also noted several safety concerns,
including lack of necessary safety equipment
and an uncovered lift station.
Total suspended solids levels dropped
dramatically, from an average of 12.6 pounds
per month to 1.8 pounds, preventing more
than 105 pounds of pollutants per year from
entering the environment.
By addressing these weaknesses in the system,
the town of Lavina was able to move back
into compliance after less than a year of
training and alterations. Biochemical oxygen
demand dropped below permit limits. Total
suspended solids levels dropped dramatically,
from an average of 12.6 pounds per month to
1.8 pounds, preventing more than 105 pounds
of pollutants per year from entering the
environment.
Problems Plague New Facility
Melrose WWTP, Montana
Melrose, Montana, is situated between Butte
and Dillon on the Big Hole River and is
famous for its great fishing. Unfortunately, in
1994, this idyllic community of approximately
130 residents was struggling with the opera-
tion—and even the existence—of their fairly
new wastewater treatment facility, which was
built because septic tank failures were con-
taminating the drinking water supply.
The facility was receiving complaints of
"extreme odors." In response, the state was
considering requiring the town to upgrade its
facility, even though it was only three years
old. Within the community there was a
remarkable lack of financial and public
support for the facility.
Doris Roberts, 104(g)(D assistance provider
with Montana State University (Northern),
noted all these difficulties in her assessment of
the Melrose facility in the fall of 1994. "The
lack of support for the system is, and will
continue to, impede decisions that must be
made by the Board. Education and public
relations are the only way -to eliminate this
factor," Roberts wrote in her description of the
project. Another major problem she noted was
that a preventive maintenance schedule was
not being followed at the facility. Seals and
bearings were wearing out in the dry well
pumps. The collection systems were not being
flushed, and the generator was not exercised.
In a public advocate role, Roberts spoke at a
Sewer Board meeting and educated residents
56
104(g)(l) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Colorado, Montana, Morth Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
about their facility's problems. "The public
realized that they would never get their septic
tanks back and that their attitude toward the
lagoon facility was resulting in higher costs,
and the board agreed to be more responsive to
the citizens," Roberts wrote of the meeting.
At this meeting, the town also decided to hire
a new operator. Roberts helped the operator
set up a preventive maintenance schedule, as
well as a system of recordkeeping. As a result
of these efforts, the facility's odor problems
were eliminated without having to resort to an
unnecessary and costly upgrade.
Operator Training Pays Back Big
Dividends
Pukwana WWTP, South Dakota
Limited finances and a limited work force
make inadequate operator training a common
problem for systems serving small communi-
ties. This was the main problem discovered by
Randolf Hilding, a 104(g)(l) technical
assistance provider with South Dakota's
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, when he began working with the
Pukwana WWTP in 1995.
Hilding discovered that a person with no
experience in wastewater treatment had been
hired to operate Pukwana's two-cell stabiliza-
tion pond system. The previous operator had
not trained the new employee, and no opera-
tions and maintenance manual was available.
In addition, Hilding found that no discharges
had ever been reported from the facility, even
though the pond volume was inadequate for
total retention. Infiltration and inflow rates
sometimes increased the flow to five times
what was normal. The facility's lift station
needed rehabilitation, and the town's waste-
water budget had no dedicated capital im-
provement fund.
Hilding helped to develop an operations plan
that could serve as an O&M manual. He
trained the operator in sampling and reporting
and in using lift station run time to calculate.
influent flow. Pumps were calibrated and
effluent flow measurement options were
demonstrated to the operator. Hilding also
helped the operator through proper discharge
procedures. Since the 104(g)(l) assistance
began, the operator has attended training
courses and has become certified.
In addition to helping with operator training,
Hilding made recommendations to the
operator and town council about ways to
reduce the system's infiltration and inflow and
the need for increasing the wastewater budget.
The lift station was rehabilitated, an effluent
flow measurement device was installed, and
sewer rates were established for a capital
improvements fund.
Hilding's help through the 104(g)(l) program
cost only about $4,800. The program's assis-
tance saved the town of Pukwana approxi-
mately $36,000 in enforcement action.
Tougher Standards Met Through
104(g)(1) Assistance
Town of Baggs WWTP, Wyoming
The Town of Baggs is a rural community
located in south central Wyoming. The town
has a three-cell aerated lagoon system that
eventually discharges to the Little Snake
River. The town was having problems with
new NPDES ammonia limits when the
Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality referred toto the 104(g)(l) program at
Casper College in the.spring of 1996.
1999 Program Evaluation
57
-------
Regions
The 104(g)(l) program provided a compre-
hensive performance evaluation (CPE) which
indicated that the lagoon should meet bio-
chemical oxygen demand and total suspended
solids requirements. Sludge and dissolved
oxygen profiles were also conducted as part of
the CPE. After analyzing several years of lab
data, Bill Mixer, the 104(g)(l) trainer, realized
that the lagoon would not be capable of
meeting the winter NPDES ammonia level of
4.7 mg/L. It also appeared that the high winter
ammonia levels were causing violations of the
NPDES biochemical oxygen demand values,
due to nitrification taking place during the
BOD test.
Mixer performed calculations regarding the
possibility of the town running the lagoon in a
draw and fill mode so that there would be no
discharge during the winter months. The
calculations indicated that the intermittent
mode could work. The winter of 1996-97 was
the first year for the intermittent discharge
program. During this period there was only
one violation for ammonia, which occurred in
the month of April. This is compared to three
or four violations per year for ammonia in
years past. There were also no violations for
BOD during this period. The operator was
able to hold flows during the months of
December through March.
During the 1997-98 winter, the intermittent
discharge program was from December
through April. This time there were no
violations of the NPDES permit. This program
was implemented with a minimal cost to the
town, and it appears that this method of
operational control will keep the plant in
compliance for the foreseeable future.
Regional Partnerships for
Technical Assistance Reap
Benefits
Moab WWTP, Utah
Sometimes more than one program or organi-
zation is trying to achieve the same goal as
104(g)(l)—cleaner water through more
effective wastewater treatment. When these
programs can be coordinated, each calling on
their specific strengths, everyone wins. This is
happening in EPA Region 8, where the states'
104(g)(l) providers work cooperatively with
the local Rural Water Associations and other
environmental professionals.
"In Region 8 states where good relations exist
with Rural Water, facilities are referred by
them. In many cases, Rural Water works
alongside the trainers to assist the facility,"
Pauline Afshar, EPA Region 8 Coordinator of
the 104(g)(l) Program, wrote in her descrip-
tion of this cooperative relationship. The
Montana 104(g)(l) grantee indicates that
one-quarter of their work comes from referrals
from the Montana Rural Water Association.
For instance, at a project at the Moab Waste-
water Treatment Plant, in Utah, a 104(g)(l)
technical assistance provider, a Rural Water
trainer, and the Moab operator worked
together to build baffles in the facility's
clarifiers and save money for the small town.
In addition to on-site assistance, this coopera-
tive arrangement in Region 8 extends to other
training areas. All Region 8 trainers identify
training needs in their areas and then work
with other state training organizations to
coordinate and participate in presenting
needed workshops, according to Afshar.
Afshar notes that the 104(g)(l) trainers have
also worked with state and other environmen-
58
104(g)(1} Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
tal professionals to provide on-site and class-
room training on subjects such as advanced
treatment and microbiological
troubleshooting.
Region 8 Contacts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pauline Afshar
EPA Region 8 Coordinator
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)312-6267
afshar.pauline@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region8
Colorado
Michael F. Daniels
Environmental Training Center
Red Rocks Community College
13300 West 6th Avenue
Lakewood, CO 80228-1255
Phone/Fax: (303) 279-2584
mfdent@rmi.net
http://www.rrcc.cccoes.edu/business/cetc.html
Montana
Doris Roberts
Hagener Science Center
Montana State University - Northern
Havre, MT 59501
(406) 265-3757
Fax: (406) 265-3777
doris@hi-line.net
http://www.msun.edu/stuaffairs/admissions/
potentia.htm
North Dakota
Craig Bartholomay
North Dakota Department of Health
Environmental Health Section
1200 Missouri Avenue
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58506-5520
(701) 328-6626
Fax: (701) 328-5200
cbarthol@state.nd.us
http://www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/environ/
mf/train/~otc.httn
South Dakota
Randy Hilding
Akeley Science Center
414 East Clark
Vermilion, SD 5 7069
(605) 677-6146
Fax: (605) 677-5895
rhilcling@usd.edu
http://www.usd.edu
Utah
Paul Krauth
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
(801) 538-6146
Fax: (801) 538-6016
pkrauth@deq.state.ut.us
http://www.eq.state.ut.us/eqwq/dwq_home.ssi
Wyoming
William Mixer
Environmental Training and Resource Center
Casper College
125 College Drive
Casper, WY 82601
(307) 268-2670
Fax: (307) 268-2051
wmixer@acad.cc.whecn.edu
http://www.cc.whecn.edu/et.html
1999 Program Evaluation
59
-------
-------
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
Region 9
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
Community Avoids Costly Fines
Patagonia WWTP, Arizona
When Gail Hackney, a 104(g)(l) technical
assistance provider from the Pima Community
College Arizona State Environmental Tech-
nology Training Center, began working with
the Patagonia WWTP, the plant was in daily
violation for chlorine and total suspended
solids. Without any changes to the system and
its operation, the town could have been fined
as much as $50,000 each day of the 18 months
it was out of compliance. Excessive pollutants
were being discharged into an environment
that is home to coyotes, deer, mountain lions,
desert tortoises, and over 260 species of birds.
The assistance at Patagonia WWTP prevented
approximately 100 pounds per month of total
suspended solids from being released into the
environment during a year and a half time
period.
In this ongoing project, Hackney has helped
the system by providing operator training and
suggesting repairs to the system, including
disinfection, flow monitoring, and solids
handling. She also has served as an intermedi-
ary between the operators and the town
council to increase operator pay and to
allocate funding for improvements needed to
fully meet the system's permit requirements.
The assistance is estimated to have cost less
than $5,000 in 104(g)(l) funds. The
104(g)(l) assistance resulted in significant
savings to the town in consulting costs and
deferred fines. In addition, the intervention
prevented approximately 100 pounds per
month of total suspended solids from being
released into the environment over the past
year and a half.
Underused System Learns to
Optimize Operations
City of Yerington WWTP, Nevada
Increased demand caused by unexpected
growth is a common problem at wastewater
treatment plants. Sometimes, though, less
demand than expected can leave a community
with a more expensive operation than it
needs.
Officials in the City of Yerington, Nevada,
believed that their wastewater treatment plant
was being underutilized. Their facility con-
sisted of two complete mix ponds, followed by
two large polishing ponds with mechanical
aeration. For several years, the strength of
sewage in the plant was moderate to weak.
The plant was meeting its discharge limits, but
the clarity of water in the final two ponds
promoted algae growth that had a measurable
impact on effluent biochemical oxygen
demand and total suspended solids concentra-
tions. Because of these conditions, city
1999 Program Evaluation
61
-------
Region 9
officials wanted to reduce the aeration opera-
tion. They looked to 104(g)(l) technical
assistance providers from Nevada's Division of
Environmental Protection for an evaluation of
their planned approach.
The Yerington plant now uses half of its
potential capacity and has reduced its power
requirements from 95 to 40 horsepower.This
reduction saves the city approximately $20,000
a year.
A 104(g)(l) technical assistance provider
worked with the utility manager, plant opera-
tor, and design engineer to assess the
community's actual aeration requirements.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in all ponds
and biochemical oxygen demand from the first
pond were measured. Results indicated that
the oxygen present was more than what was
needed to adequately treat incoming wastes
and continue permit compliance. The
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider,
therefore, recommended that the city go
ahead with a new aeration schedule and new
flow configuration.
The Yerington plant now uses half of its
potential capacity and has reduced its power
requirements from 95 to 40 horsepower. This
reduction saves die city approximately
$20,000 a year. The plant has continued to
maintain permit compliance and, based on
recent sampling results, is producing an even
higher quality effluent than before. Project
costs for this 104(g)(l) assistance were
approximately $500.
Objective Advice Aids Small Town
Town of Alamo WWTP, Nevada
Small towns generally cannot afford to have
experts on their payroll. This sometimes
leaves them to the mercy of outside experts.
Technical assistance providers in the
104(g)(l) program, however, can serve as the
small town's experts and can question outside
professional advice on the town's behalf. This
is how the 104(g)(l) program served the small
town of Alamo, Nevada.
Town officials were aware that their aging
wastewater treatment plant required upgrad-
ing. Flows were approaching plant design
capacity, the effluent's nitrate level was too
high, and the lift station was deteriorating. In
addition, the town's sewer rates were barely
sufficient to pay the $400,000 still owed on
the existing plant, much less to carry the cost
of any upgrades. Based on these concerns, the
town hired an engineering firm that designed
an upgrade that would expand the facility's
treatment capacity from 85,000 to 600,000
gallons per day.
The 104(g)(l) program at the Nevada Divi-
sion of Environmental Protection reviewed
the proposed design and helped the town
evaluate the proposal and address potential
design problems.
62
104(g)0) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada
In February 1999, a town board meeting was
held at which 104(g)(l) representatives were
able to present their evaluation of the pro-
posed design. In addition, the board was given
information explaining the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection's permitting and
design approval processes and tips on selecting
and working with consulting engineers.
"The advantage of this arrangement is that
travel costs are substantially reduced, multiple
visits are practical, and increased familiarity
with, a plant and its personnel are achieved,"
according to Paul Lohman, a 104(g)(l)
assistance provider with the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection.
Nevada Program Uses Unique
Approach to Delivering Assistance
Nevada applies the 104(g)(l) program in
conjunction with a private contracting firm,
with an eye toward stretching their 104(g)(l)
dollars as far as possible.
To encourage and maintain compliance in the
state's 43 small rural treatment systems,
Nevada contracts with a private company to
perform the field-related aspects of the
104(g)(l) program. The company, SPB
Utilities, performs 104(g)(l) activities along
with normal company operations throughout
the state. The 104(g)(l) technical assistance
providers, then, are freed up to spend the
majority of their time:
• Offering recommendations about condi-
tions that lead to equipment failure or non-
compliance
• Assisting operators in increasing treatment
efficiency
• Offering solutions to existing conditions
that are causing permit non-compliance
• Analyzing community fee structures to help
properly finance treatment systems
1999 Program Evaluation
63
-------
Region 9
Region 9 Contacts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Helen McKinley
EPA Region 9 Coordinator
Mail Code WTR-6
Water Management Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1943
mckinley.helen@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/region9
Arizona
Robert A. Flood
Arizona State Environmental Technology
Training (ASETT) Center '
Pima County Community College
8181 East Irvington Road
Tucson, AZ 85709-4000
(520) 206-7884
Fax: (520) 206-7825
rflood@pimacc.pima.edu
http://www.pima.edu/~asett/calendar.htm
California
Not currently participating in the 104(g)(l)
program
Hawaii
Not currently participating in the 104(g)(l)
program
Nevada
Joe Maez
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
333 West Nye Lane, Room 138
Carson City, NV 89706-0851
(775) 687-4670
Fax: (775) 687-5856
jmaez@ndep.carson-city.nv.us
http://www.state.nv.us/ndep/index.htm
64
104(g){1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Region 10
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Grantees Across Country
Coordinate Efforts
City of Palmer WWTP, Alaska
The 104(g)(l) program provides a unique
environment for professional networking—
making it possible for even a small community
to receive assistance from the nation's top
experts. For instance, Kerry Lindley, a
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider with
the State of Alaska's Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, arranged to have Paul
Olander, a 104(g)(l) technical assistance
provider from Vermont and an expert on cold-
weather operation of lagoons, help the City of
Palmer with its aerated lagoon system.
"Without these types of programs, small
communities are left with no support and few
choices."
—James H.Giyer,PublicWorksSuperintendent,
Palmer, Alaska, 1997
The City of Palmer was out of compliance
with its permit and was under a compliance
order when Lindley and Olander began
evaluating the facility and its problems in
1997. The facility was having odor problems
in the spring and was violating its permit
because of an inadequate aeration system and
possible short-circuiting in the system's
lagoons.
"[The 104(g)(1) program] has allowed the
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation to provide on-site technical
assistance to many rural communities
throughout our state over the past 10 years.
Their training and technical assistance has
contributed greatly to wastewater discharge
quality and other operational improvements,
while actually lowering costs to the
communities by reducing energy consumption.
In addition, many local operators have received
their certification through the assistance of this
program."
—Frank H. Murkowski, United States Senator, Alaska, 1994
Lindley suggested some short-term solutions to
the odor problem, while Olander evaluated
the lagoon's performance and worked with the
city's engineers toward a permanent fix. The
project is ongoing, and city officials are
enthusiastic in their praise of the assistance
and its results. The 104(g)(l) program has
provided information and documentation to
Alaska's Municipal Grant Section, resulting in
grant funding to Palmer for lagoon manage-
ment.
1999 Program Evaluation
65
-------
Region 10
Assistance Helps With Common
Problem of Untrained Operators
Star WWTP, Idaho
The Star Wastewater Treatment Plant project
is not an award-winning situation or even a
very innovative one. It is, however, very
typical of many 104(g)(l) assistance projects.
In spring 1999, the Idaho legislature passed a
law requiring certification of wastewater
operators in the future; however, before
certification can be made mandatory, a
negotiated rulemaking committee must first
hammer out certification details. In Idaho, not
requiring certification "has meant that the
larger cities have certified people, but that the
rural communities (far the greatest in number)
have mechanics or police [officers].. .who run
die wastewater system as a kind of after-
thought," wrote Veronica Shawcroft,
104(g)(l) technical assistance provider from
Boise State University, in her description of
the Star project.
In Region 10, during FY99146 small municipal
facilities were provided with wastewater
technical assistance and training. Of the facilities
completing training in FY99,63 percent have
completely returned to compliance with their
NPDES permits. Another 33 percent of facilities
obtaining training during FY99 have improved
performance at their facilities.
Shawcroft's assistance to the Star Wastewater
Treatment Plant was essentially to train the
plant's operator. At the beginning of the
104(g)(l) assistance, Shawcroft found that
the operator did not understand the plant's
lagoon process. Violations were occurring
whenever the sand filters were out of service
and plugging was occasionally a problem.
Shawcroft developed an operational checklist
along with a maintenance checklist for the
filters. She also helped the operator become
certified.
Shawcroft helped prepare the operator for the
new challenges that would come with an
expected changeover from a lagoon system to
a secondary treatment plant. She suggested
guidelines for evaluating the engineering
proposals the city has received and advised the
operator about ways to research the perfor-
mance records of suggested systems.
New Regulations Challenge
Operator Skills
Castle Rock WWTP, Washington
The Castle Rock Wastewater Treatment Plant
is an excellent example of the substantial
environmental benefits and huge financial
savings that have been realized through the
104(g)(l) assistance program—savings that
have been achieved with relatively insignifi-
cant initial outlays.
Carl Jones, a 104(g)(l) technical assistance
provider with the Washington State Depart-
ment of Ecology, needed only one week to
teach the Castle Rock operators how to
achieve compliance with new regulations that
limited chlorine use. Jones demonstrated how
a dechlorination system works, trained opera-
tors on the equipment they needed, and
taught them how to control chlorine limits.
At the end of this assistance, the operators
were trained, and the treatment plant was in
compliance with the new regulations.
Jones' assistance required only about $100 of
104(g)(l) funds, and it saved Castle Rock
66
104(g){1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
approximately $2,500 in reduced operating
expenses, in addition to avoiding a probable
fine of $10,000 for each day the facility was
out of compliance. The 104(g)(l) assistance
also eliminated an estimated 450 pounds of
excess chlorine from being released each year
into the environment.
Region 10 Contacts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Terry Moan
EPA Region 10 Coordinator
Water Division, Financial Assistance Section
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 5534837
moan.terry@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/regionl 0
Alaska
Kerry Lindley
Alaska Department of Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue
Suite 102
Juneau,AK 99801-1795
(907) 465-5143
klindley@envircon.state.ak.us
http://www.state.ak.us/iocal/akpages/
ENV.CONSERV/home.htm
Idaho
Veronica Shawcroft
Outreach Program Coordinator
Boise State University
2407 Caldwell Boulevard
Nampa, ID 83651
(208)426-4751
vshawcroft@boisestate.edu
http://www.idbsu.edu
Oregon
Holly Ploetz
Linn-Benton Community College
Water/Wastewater Department
6500 S.W. Pacific Boulevard
Albany, OR 97321-3779
(541) 917>4621
ploetzh@gw.lbcc.cc.or.us
http://www.lbcc.cc.or.us
Washington
Carl Jones
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(360)407-6431
cjon461 @ecy. wa.gov
http://www.wa.gov/ecology/org.html
1999 Program Evaluation
67
-------
-------
Appendix
Appendix
104(g)(1) Operator Outreach Program Evaluation Survey
State
EPA Region _
Organization _
Contact name
Phone number.
Fax
E-mail
1.
Please identify whether you are a
109(b) environmental training center
State regulatory agency
Other
2. What was the first year in which you received 104(g) funding?
Please provide information about all of your recent funding for wastewater. treatment plant outreach. We are
looking for a complete financing profile of your program.
Fiscal Year •
1998
1997
1996
1995
W4(g) Funding
Amount
Federal
Expenditures
State Match
Other Funding (in-
kind, etc.)
3.
If funds other than 104(g) are received, please indicate the source(s) and amounts (attach additional pages if
needed).
Source (Federal, State, local, or other)
Agency or Organization
Amount $
Brief Project Description
Please provide as much information as possible about the total numbers of wastewater treatment facilities assisted
and the person days provided. Include all on-site operator and manager training, as well as technical assistance in
O&M, financing, and capital improvement planning. These numbers will be used to derive typical service levels
(number of person days divided by number of projects = average length of project) and average cost per project.
These responses will not be used to compare one training center to another.
Fisca! Year
1998
1997
1996
1995
Goal (as
specified to
EPA)
Actual # of
Facilities
Assisted
Total # of Person
Days Provided
# of Carry-Over Visits
(one year to the next)
# of Follow-Up
Visits
1999 Program Evaluation
69
-------
4. Please provide information about the 104(g) assistance providers and identify support personnel for your program.
Indicate numbers and "FT" for full time and "FT" for part time. In the comments section, please also note their
years of experience and the source of their funding (F-federal, S-state, O-other).
Fiscal Year
Example
1998
1997
1996
1995
Number of
Technical Staff
(employees)
1FT
Number of
Contractors/
Consultants
Providing Technical
Assistance
2PT
Number of Support Staff
(administrative assts,
secretaries, budget
specialists, grant
managers, etc.)
1 FT secretary (funded
50% by 104)
1 FT budget analyst
1 FT grants specialist
Comments
Technical personnel have
more than 15 yrs exp. each,
funded 75% federal and 25%
state. Admin support, grant
mgmt provided by college.
5. If you lost your 104(g) funding, what would happen to your program?
Elimination of technical assistance for WWTPs
Continued program, but with reduction in staff, reduction in services offered, reduction in number
of systems assisted, or reduction in length of time invested at systems (please underline all that
apply)
Other (please describe)
6. If your 104(g) funding were increased, what would be the effect on your program? (check all that apply)
Increase in staff
Expansion of services offered
Increase in number of systems assisted
Increase in length of time invested at systems
Other (please describe)
7. Where do your requests for technical assistance originate? (please indicate approximate percentage of frequency;
e.g., 35% operators, 40% regulatory agency referral, 25% classroom training)
Operators
Utility or WWTP managers
Local officials
Referral by State regulatory or other agency
Technical assistance as part of enforcement action
Contacts during classroom training
Other (please describe)
8. Please rank the circumstances for delivery of 104(g) assistance.
(F "frequently"; S "sometimes"; N "never")
System is not complying with NPDES permit
System is in compliance with NPDES permit, but at high risk of non-compliance
System is in compliance with NPDES permit, but has a new operator on staff
System not required to have NPDES permit, no discharge to receiving waters
System should have a permit, but it has not been issued
System has other permit violations; i.e., 503b, UIC, state inspection reports, other state permits,
tribal permits
System is in start-up status
System received 104(g) assistance, project was closed, but system needs help again ("repeat work")
Other(please describe)
9. Please estimate the percentage of total facilities you have served by:
Assisting out-of-compliance plants to helping maintain compliance
Optimizing operations
Helping plants in danger of non-compliance
70
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Appendix
10. Please list the top 10 performance limiting factors, in order from most to least important, that you see in the field
(use EPA PLF codes attached, but add descriptions if necessary for clarity).
11. If you believe that your program's outreach is limited, please describe what you believe are your program's
•"performance limiting factors." Please rank each factor on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most significant.
Please include comments, if appropriate.
Insufficient operating budget
Poor public awareness and understanding of the program
Inadequate marketing of the program
Lack of administrative support and communication between EPA and grantees
Inadequate staffing
Lack of support for program at the local level
________ Insufficient support for operators by local officials and managers
Insufficient funds for equipment replacement and repair
Interference or lack of support from other agencies
Response time problems
• Travel considerations (time, funding)
Other (please describe)
12. What do you see as the key successes of the 104(g) program? Please rank each factor on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1
being the most significant. Please include comments, if appropriate.
Improved system compliance
Enhanced community and public education about wastewater treatment
Financial savings or other direct economic benefits for communities
Increased managerial and capital improvement planning skills at the local level
Enhanced operator professionalism (certification, involvement in professional
associations, participation in training)
Development of a skilled technical assistance workforce, with special understanding of small
communities' financial and political constraints
Other, please specify
13. What do you see as the main reason(s) for the 104(g) program's success? Please rank from in order of priority,
with 1 being the most important.
Commitment to long-term and. comprehensive on-site assistance
Assignment of technical assistance providers with special expertise
in working with small communities
Technical assistance by professionals with plant operating experience
(peer-group assistance or mentoring approach)
Partnerships with State agencies (non-monetary support such as referrals)
Other, please specify
14. It is commonly believed that the 104 program has launched other, complementary programs. What other services
do you offer which have been developed in response to needs identified through 104(g) funded work? Please
check all that apply.
Energy audits
Pollution prevention audits
Train-the-trainer
Local official training
Management training
Preparation of requests for proposals
Development of standards for community review of engineering proposals
Advanced operations training
Classroom training (in general)
Drinking water (or other media) technical assistance and training
1999 Program Evaluation
71
-------
Case Studies
Please describe three to five of your State's most successful, innovative, or impressive assistance projects. Try to pick
examples that are recent and that represent the key themes outlined in the cover letter. If possible, please provide
photographs, charts, and other visual cads to present key information. Also send quotations from those who received
assistance, including their name, title, and facility/community. We will use these in the report to support case study
presentations and other findings. Please-complete the following for each case study provided:
1, Name of Facility
2. Design Capacity, MOD
3. Size of Population Served
4- Type-of Treatment
5. Contact Person/104 Technical Assistance Provider(s)
6. Brief Description of the Trainer's Assessment of the Problem (can use PLFs)
7. Description of Assistance Provided
8. Date of Project Start-Up and Length of Time That Project Was Open
9. Compliance Status at Beginning of Project and at End of Project
10. Approximate Amount of 104(g) Money Spent
11. Approximate Amount(s) and Source(s) of Supplemental Funding
For each case study, ifpossibk, please provide the following information to help evaluate quantify benefits:
• Estimate the cost of equivalent advice and training from private engineering consultants (base figures on $15,000
per 40 hour week of OME analysis, including travel and overhead)
• Estimate the probable cost to the state agency of added inspections, consent orders or other enforcement
activities that would have been necessary had the 104(g) program not provided assistance
• Estimate fines and other penalties that the system would have borne
• Estimate reduced operating expenses, including energy efficiency improvements, as a direct result of the 104(g)
assistance (base figures on actual savings in operating expenses; provide separate estimates of postponed capital
expenditures)
• Estimate the pounds of pollutants prevented from entering the environment (base figures on quantifiable
reductions in pollutants released by comparing pre- and post-assistance discharge monitoring reports, also note
permit limits; show figures in pounds or tons per year reduced)
PLFs = Performance Limiting Factors Codes
A—Poor understanding and application of process control by operator
B— Staffing (too few staff, low pay, turnover, etc.)
C— Support from municipality (administrative and technical)
D— Operating budget and user charge system
E— Operability/maintainability considerations (process flexibility, automation, standby units, alternate power source)
F—I/I
G— Construction problems
H—Process design errors (clarifiers, aerators, disinfection, etc.)
1— Over design
J— Underdesign
K— Solids handling and sludge disposal
L— Pretreatment, industrial dischargers, and toxics
M—O&M manual
N—O&M program
O— Spare parts inventory
P— Chemical inventory
Q— Laboratory capability for process/NPDES testing
R— NPDES reporting
S— Equipment/unit processes broken down/inoperable
T— Hydraulic overload
U—Poor aeration system
72
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
-------
Appendix
104(g)(1) Operator Outreach Program Evaluation Survey
EPA Regional Coordinators
EPA Region _
Contact name
Phone number.
Fax
E-mail ,
Please provide information about the personnel working on 104(g) coordination in your region. Indicate
numbers and "FT" for full time and "FT" for part time. In the comments section, please also note their years of
experience
Fiscal Year
Example
1998
1997
1996
1995
Number of
Personnel and
Roks
I FT
Coordinator
(funded 100%
bv 104)
.
Number of Support Staff
(administrative assts,
secretaries, budget
specialists, grant managers,
etc.)
1 FT secretary (funded
50% by 104)
1 PT budget analyst
1 PT grants specialist
Comments
Coordinator in program for 15 yrs
2. What types of services do you offer?
General program coordination (administration of grant funds, reporting)
Technical oversight of state projects
Provision of on-site technical assistance
Coordination of regional meetings of 104(g) providers
(if so, how often? )
Individual meetings with state 104(g) providers (if so, how often? ' )
Meetings with community representatives to market the 104(g) program
(if so, how often? )
Other (please describe)
3. What criteria do you use to determine the 104(g) funding allocation for each state in your region?
Overall success of the state's assistance program
Quality of technical assistance provided
Number of systems assisted
Technical assistance needs in a state
Historical allocations of funding (roughly same amount each year)
Requests from states
Other (please describe)
1999 Program Evaluation
73
-------
4. If you believe that your program's outreach is limited, please describe what you believe are your program's
"performance limiting factors." Please rank each factor on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the most significant.
Please include comments, if appropriate.
Insufficient operating budget
Poor public awareness and understanding of the program
Inadequate marketing of the program
Lack of communication between EPA headquarters, regional offices, and grantees
Inadequate staffing
Interference or lack of support from other agencies
Travel considerations (time, funding)
Other (please describe)
5. What do you see as the key successes of the 104(g) program? Please rank each factor on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1
being the most significant. Please include comments, if appropriate.
Improved system compliance
Enhanced community and public education about wastewater treatment
Financial savings or other direct economic benefits for communities
Increased managerial and capital improvement planning skills at the local level
Enhanced operator professionalism (certification, involvement in professional
associations, participation in training)
Development of a skilled technical assistance workforce, with special understanding of small
communities' financial and political constraints
Other, please specify , _
6. What do you see as the main reason(s) for the 104(g) program's success? Please rank from in order of priority,
with I being the most important.
Commitment to long-term and comprehensive on-site assistance
Assignment of technical assistance providers with special expertise
in working with small communities
Technical assistance by professionals with plant operating experience
(peer-group assistance or mentoring approach)
Partnerships with State agencies (non-monetary support such as referrals)
Other, please specify :
74
104(g)(1) Wastewater Operator Training Program
------- |