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 ------- |