United States ^ '•
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
{4204}
EPA832-R-99-001
March 1999
vvEPA
Wastewater Treatment Rant Operator
On-Site Technical Assistance Training
Program- 104(g)(1)
End of Fiscal Year 1998
Accomplishment Report
^^gS§S"%gg«ggS»=gggSi5iTO^^aemiC!Cg-
-------
II
Ill I ill Illllll I III Illllllll III III III Illlllllll
Ill I llllllllll I Illlllllll Illlllllll Illlllllll
I I II I ,1
,,, ... II I IIII 111 III
III llll(lllllllllllllllllllllllllll Illllll Illlllllll III I II II I Illlllllll Illlllllll
tillj i iiiiilli
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiiii mi in in i in 11
ill! 11 "i
iliiiii iilliiiil
111 II |ii|| Iiiiilli Illlllllll i Illlllllll
in iiiiiii iliiiii
tin -
IIIIII 111 Illllll
ill 11 iliiiii)
-------
Purpose
This report summarizes the assistance efforts that the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training Program -
104(g)(l) has provided to small, under-served community wastewater treatment plants throughout the
fiscal year of 1998. Small under-served communities are communities with populations less than or
equal to 10,000 people, which have inadequate wastewater collection or treatment facilities, and would
be best served by conventional, decentralized, or alternative technologies to meet their wastewater
treatment needs.
Summary
The Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training Program
assisted 999 facilities throughout fiscal year 1998. Compliance was achieved, maintained, or
performance was improved at 890 of these facilities. A regional breakdown of the total number of
facilities assisted by regions or states are as follows: region 1 = 78, region 2 = 48, region 3 = 109, region
4 = 97, region 5 = 239, region 6 = 97, region 7 = 67, region 8 = 103, region 9 = 37, and region 10 = 124
(see table 1).
The majority of the work that was conducted during fiscal year 1998 consisted of assisting
facilities to achieve compliance and improve performance. These facilities fall into two categories; 1)
completed training and 2) continued training. Facilities that completed training activities in fiscal year
1998 needed the most assistance in achieving compliance at the treatment plant site. However, the
facilities that continued training activities from fiscal year 1998 into fiscal year 1999 need assistance
mainly in the area of improving performance at the treatment plant location (see Tables B and C of
Attachment #1).
Program Background
Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training Program. The program was implemented to address the
problem of non-compliance at small, publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants, with a discharge of
less than 5 million gallons per day, through direct on-site training and other operation and maintenance
assistance. Federal funding for the program is administered through grants to states, often in cooperation
with educational institutions or non-profit agencies. In most cases, assistance is administered by an
environmental training center.
The need for individualized technical assistance is real. There are over 12,500 municipal
wastewater treatment plants that discharge less than 1 million gallons per day operating in this country.
Over half of these plants have sophisticated activated sludge treatment technologies which require
highly-developed operating skills. Operator turnover rates at small wastewater treatment plants are
high, budgets and salaries are low, and community support may be lacking. These are the ingredients for
wastewater treatment plant failure/non-compliance. These types of small, under-served wastewater
treatment plants are candidates for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical
Assistance Training Program.
The program's goal is to provide direct on-site assistance to operators at small under-served
community wastewater treatment facilities, in order to help them achieve and maintain consistent permit
compliance and maximize the community's investment in improved water quality. In a cooperative
effort with EPA regional office coordinators, states, state training centers, municipalities, and operators,
the assistance endeavor focuses on issues such as, wastewater treatment plant capacity, operation
training, maintenance, administrative management, financial management, trouble-shooting, and
laboratory operations. There is no cost incurred by the facility in need of assistance. The only
requirement of the program is the willingness to work with a trainer to correct the facility's problems.
-------
-2-
Furthermore, the program can help identify any need to repair or build new facilities to meet
existing or future permit limits, assists in selecting consultants and design review, recommends ways to
improve preventive maintenance of equipment and structures, and often reduces energy and chemical
costs through more efficient operation techniques. Most importantly, the program gets plant operating
staff and local elected officials working together on the problems at the treatment plant, in order to
improve water quality through efficient use of treatment equipment for maximum environmental benefit.
$1.794 million was allocated to the Operator Training Program in fiscal year 1998, this money is
used by the states; $294,000.00 came from EPA's budget request and the remainder ($1.5 million) from a
congressional add-on. Financial support for this program has remained relatively constant over the past
five years with little or no change in funding levels.
Number of Facilities Assisted - Assistance Provided
Please see Appendix "A" for a detailed explanation of the following abbreviations; C, M, I, N, CT, MT,
IT, and NT.
• A total of 218 facilities have achieved compliance, and the assistance effort is completed at the
facility {see Attachment #3 - (C)};
• A total of 140 facilities have been assisted with compliance maintenance, and the assistance
effort is completed at the facility {see Attachment #4 - (M)};
• A total of 93 facilities have improved performance (preventative maintenance), and the
assistance effort is completed at the facility {see Attachment #5 - (I)};
• A total of 34 facilities have no improvement, and the assistance effort is completed and has
failed to produce a desirable result at the facility {see Attachment #6 - (N)}. The majority of
these facilities have decided to try and achieve compliance at their wastewater treatment plants
through their own methods;
• A total of 98 facilities have been assisted in achieving compliance, but are still being trained by a
program training center {see Attachment #3 - (CT)};
• A total of 70 facilities have been assisted in compliance maintenance, but are still being trained
by a program training center {see Attachment #4 - (MT)};
• A total of 271 facilites have been assisted in improving performance, but are still being trained
by a program training center {see Attachment #5 - (IT)}; and
• A total of 75 facilites have had no improved performance, but are still being trained by a
program training center {see Attachment #6 - (NT)}- These facilities have decided to continue
to work with the program to achieve compliance at their wastewater treatment plant.
-------
-3-
Tabie / Graph Information - Success Stories
Attachment #1, Table-A outlines the number of facilities that have been assisted (by either states
or regional offices) in each Region. Table-B and Table-C break the program's assistance efforts down
into two categories; completed training assistance and continued training assistance, respectively. These
tables outline the assistance efforts that are occurring in each region. As stated above in the Summary,
the bulk of the work that is being conducted in the program consists of assisting facilities to achieve
compliance and improve performance at the treatment plant site.
The bar graph, labeled as Attachment #2, provides a comprehensive view of the number of
facilities assisted in each region for fiscal year 1998. This graph outlines the breakdown of whether the
facility achieved or maintained compliance; improved performance; or in rare instances, did not
improve, as a result of the Operator Training Program's assistance effort.
The attached pie charts represent a specific breakdown of the amount of assistance that was
achieved in each region by outlining the number of facilites assisted and a Regional percentage
breakdown, please see Attachments #3, #4, #5, and #6.
The cover photograph on the left-hand side of this document is Petersburg Wastewater
Treatment Plant located in Petersburg, Michigan - Region 5. This facility was assisted by representatives
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency - Region 5, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Management.
The Petersburg facility, a 0.2 million gallon per day activated sludge wastewater treatment plant,
had difficulty meeting its NPDES permit pollution discharge limitations for 5-day Biological Oxygen
Demand, Total Suspended Solids removal, and pH, several times in 1997. The wastewater treatment
plant operation had improved significantly when a new superintendent took over at the beginning of
1998, but low pH and equipment maintenance problems persisted.
During a one week period in August of 1998, the Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant
underwent a diagnostic evaluation lead by EPA Region 5 trainers. The evaluation identified problems
with the treatment capabilities of the facility's aeration basin and secondary clarifier.
As a result of the 104(g)(l) program's assistance, the low pH problems have been eliminated
through the careful control of digester decanting and the addition of quick lime during critical treatment
periods. Additionally, process control improvements and the installation of a custom designed
laboratory software program helped the plant maintain more efficient compliance. Since the period of
the evaluation, despite the maintenance problems of some inoperable and outdated equipment, the plant
continues to achieve compliance. Petersburg Wastewater Treatment Plant continues to await state
funding assistance to help with the replacement of the equipment necessary to assure long-term
compliance.
-------
-4-
The cover photograph on the right-hand side of this document is the City of Abbeville
Waste-water Treatment Plant located in Abbeville, Louisiana - Region 6. This facility was assisted by
representatives from the Louisiana Environmental Training Center.
The City of Abbeville completed construction of its existing wastewater treatment facility in
October, 1989. The facility is an oxidation ditch and extended aeration treatment system, and is designed
to handle flows of more than 2.3 million gallons per day, which are discharged to the Vermillion River in
South Louisiana.
Approximately seven years ago the facility began to experience problems with both capacity and
effluent quality. The City's engineer, believing that the facility was "over-loaded", took steps towards
expanding the facility. Prior to approving this action, the mayor and city council requested the services
of the Louisiana Environmental Training Center in evaluating the possible problems at the treatment
plant. The Louisiana Environmental Training Center discovered that the problem was a tremendous
build-up of sludge in the aeration basins due to improper operations. It was recommended that the basins
be drained and the sludge removed; when this work was completed, the facility was successfully put
back into operation.
Because of the work done by the above-mentioned trainers, the Petersburg Wastewater
Treatment Plant and Abbeville Wastewater Treatment Plant were able to realize a cost savings of over a
million dollars. These are two examples of the value of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-
Site Technical Assistance Training
Program - 104(g)(l).
If you have any question, comments, or require more information on this subject matter please
do not hesitate to contact Curt Baranowski at 202-260-5806, you may also access this program's Internet
web-page at www.epa.gov/owm/tomni.htm, or contact the appropriate regional coordinator listed below.
REGIONAL OFFICE 104fgUT> COORDINATORS:
Region 1 — Charles Conway/Mark Malone/Anthony DePalma
Region 2 = John Mello
»
Region 3 = Jim Kern
Region 4 =• Jim Adcock
Region 5 = Russ Martin
Region 6 = Bill Black
Region 7 = Rao Surampalli
RegionS = Pauline Afshar
Region 9 = Helen McKinley
Region 10 = Terry Moan
-------
Attachment #1:
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
ON-SITE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TRAINING PROGRAM
'TABLE-A" TOTAL NUMBER OF FACILITIES ASSISTED IN EACH REGION
REGION
TOTAL
1
78
2
48
3
109
4
97
5
239
6
97
7
67
8
103
9
37
10
124
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
COMPLIANCE(i)
13
6
22
22
57
27
16
27
1
27
2JTS
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
MAINTAINED
COMPLIANCE^)
9
3
4
3
72
5
2
38
2
2
-740
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE^
2
6
4
26
22
5
10
7
1
10
95
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
HADNOIM-
PROVEMENTw
8
0
,i
i
5
12
6
0
0
1
34
TOTALS
32
15
31
52
156
49
34
72
4
40
485
See APPENDIX "A" for an explanation of footnotes 1 through 4.
-------
Attachment #1 continued;
"TABLE-C" FISCAL YEAR 1998 - CONTINUING TRAINING ASSISTANCE
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
COMPLIANCE^
14
4
2
0
28
30
6
8
4
2
98
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
MAINTAINED
COMPLIANCE^)
17
23
0
0
6
2
4
4
11
3
70
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE^
14
5
50
36
43
14
15
11
9
74
271
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
HAD NO IM-
PROVEMENT(8)
1
1
26
9
6
2
8
8
9
5
75
TOTALS
46
33
78
45
83
48
33
31
33
84
514
See APPENDIX "A" for an explanation of footnotes 5 through 8.
-------
Attachment #2:
Number of 104(g)(1) Facilities Assisted for FY 1998
80
70
60
20
10
0
1
3 45 6 7
Regions
II (C) Achieved Compl., completed
M (I) Improved Perf., completed
D (N) No Improvement, completed
91 (M) Compl. Mainten., completed
El (CT) Achieved Compl., training
SI (IT) Improved Pert., training
^1 (NT) No Improvement, training
W( (MT) Compl. Mainten., training
8
10
-------
Attachment #3:
(C) Achieved Compliance, completed training for FY 1998; Regional Breakdown - 104(g)(1)
16
7.3%
27
12.4%
22
10.1%
n 1 n G
H 2 • 7
• 4 Bl9
H 5 H 10
(CT) Achieved Compliance, continued training for FY 1998; Regional Breakdown - 104(g)(1)
30
30.6%
28
28.6%
Hi De
-------
Attachment #4:
(M) Compliance Maintenance, completed training for FY 1998; Regional Breakdown - 104{g)(1)
2.1%
9%
1%
11 D6
13^8
M 4 Md
Is H110
51.4%
(WIT) Compliance Maintenance, continued training for FY 1998; Regional Breakdown - 104(g)(1)
11
15.7%
8.6%
17
24.3%
I 1
12
I 3'
• 4
15
6
7
8
9
10
32.9%
-------
Attachment #5:
(I) Improved Performance, completed training for FY 1998; Regional Breakdown - 104(g)(1)
10
10.8%
22
23.7%
,3%
26
28.0%
H 1 De
• 4 H9
(IT) Improved Performance, continued training for FY 1998; Regional Breakdown - 104(g)(1)
74
27.3%
43
15.9%
50
18.5%
':Zl!!^ ii"!:'""I!'':!v^iS;H'']:• fl'" ^*n*H ft™1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-------
Attachment #6:
(N) No Improvement, completed training for FY 1998; Regional Breakdown - 104(g)(1)
6
17.6%
12
35.3%
8
^T 23.5%
1 De
3 H 8
489
5 El 10
14.7%
(NT) No Improvement, continued training for FY1998; Regional Breakdown - 104(g)(1)
12.0%
L9
12.0%
Hi De
• 4 • 9
^ 5 H 10
-------
APPENDIX "A"
1. Achieved Compliance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the
beginning of the compliance assistance. After the facility has completed its assistance, the facility was in
compliance with its NPDES permit. In order to be rated as achieved compliance at the end of assistance,
the facility needs to be in compliance with all elements of its NPDES permit for three consecutive
months.
2. Maintained Compliance starts with the facility in compliance with its NPDES permit at the
beginning of the compliance assistance. However, the facility is demonstrating performance problems
which could lead to non-compliance with its NPDES permit. After the facility completed its assistance,
the facility has halted any further deterioration in performance, improved its performance, and continued
to stay in compliance with its NPDES permit. The underlying theme with compliance maintenance
facilities is that there is "something wrong" with performance but it is not "wrong" enough to exceed
NPDES permit levels.
• This type of assistance continues to increase as compliance levels progress, trainers
become more skilled, and monitoring and communications improve between operators
and trainers.
3. Improved Performance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the
beginning of the compliance assistance. However, compliance assistance is leading the facility to better
operation and maintenance. After the assistance has been completed at the facility, "total" compliance
may have not been achieved on a consistent basis, but the facility is definitely operating better. The
facility has reduced periods of non-compliance, reduced levels of pollutants discharged, or has had
significant increases in efficiencies such as: lower energy usage, better (and often lower) chemical usage
for proper operation, and adequate financial support enabling operators to better address problems in a
more timely fashion. The facility may not be in "total" compliance with its NPDES permit, but it has
"significantly" increased its performance. The facility has completed its compliance assistance training
with the Program and may still be out of compliance, this is due to circumstances beyond the Program's
control such as, the need for an upgrade to the treatment facility.
• Money saved by better operation can be utilized to finance needed improvements
necessary for longer term compliance.
4. No Improvement starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of
the compliance assistance training, and continues to be out of compliance with little or no improvement.
The facility has opted to discontinue its participation in the Program.
5. Achieved Compliance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the
beginning of the compliance assistance. Even though the facility has achieved compliance, it is
continuing its assistance to ensure a permanent compliance status.
6. Maintained Compliance starts with the facility in compliance with its 'NPDES permit at the
beginning of the compliance assistance. However, the facility is demonstrating performance problems
which could lead to non-compliance with its NPDES permit. After the facility has completed its
assistance, the facility has halted any further deterioration in performance, improved its performance,
and has continued to stay in compliance with its NPDES permit.
-------
APPENDIX "A"contmued
7. Improved Performance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the
beginning of the compliance assistance. However, the assistance is leading the facility to better
operation and maintenance. After the assistance has been completed at the facility, "total" compliance
may have not been achieved, but the facility is definitely operating better. The facility has reduced
periods of non-compliance, reduced levels of pollutants discharged, or has had significant increases in
efficiencies such as; lower energy usage, better (and often lower) chemical usage for proper operation,
and adequate financial support enabling operators to better address problems in a more timely fashion.
The facility may not be in "total" compliance with its NPDES permit, but it has "significantly" increased
its performance. The facility continuing its compliance assistance with the Program is working on
bringing the facility into "total" compliance with its NPDES permit, but has not achieved this status on a
consistent basis.
8. No Improvement starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of
the compliance assistance training, and continues to be out of compliance with little or no improvement.
The facility has decided to continue to work with the Program to solve its compliance problems.
-------
------- |