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

-------