A-5
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the report of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the
United States Congress on the development of wastewater treatment plant opera-
tor training programs for improved publicly owned facilities compliance re-
quested in the May 23, 1984, report (98-803) of the House Subcommittee on
Appropriations for HUD and Independent Agencies.
Background
EPA and the States agree that effective operator training is an important
factor in a treatment facility's ability to meet its effluent and operations
and maintenance requirements. However, it is also clear that lack of effective
enforcement, problems with facility design and construction, infiltration and
inflow; and inadequate local financial management and lack of local support to
effective operations and maintenance also contribute significantly to plant
performance and compliance problems. EPA and States need to implement coordi-
nated, compliance-oriented programs that ensure the most appropriate responses
to identified compliance problems.
With respect to the operator training component of this approach, EPA's
long-term strategy has been to build an effective, self-sufficient State train-
ing base. Between 1971 and 1981, EPA's efforts focused on training of State
trainers, development of curricula and materials, and construction of State
training centers. EPA also established the Instructional Resources Center at
Ohio State University to serve as a repository for training and instructional
materials and to operate a national information clearinghouse and retrieval
system. The Center recently became self-supporting. Since 1982, using con-
gressional add-on funds, EPA also has been providing grants to States to de-
velop onsite training and technical assistance capability for solving problems
in small communities and grants to a national organization to identify and
help States implement the elements of effective, compliance-results-oriented
State and local training programs. EPA has also developed computerized diag-
nostic models to help States identify operations, management, and design and
construction problems to target responses to noncompliance.
Although nearly all States already have sane elements of a model training
program in place and a few States are very close to achieving effective and
self-sufficient training programs, each State will require additional actions
to achieve the overall objectives of an integrated State/local/private sector
training and technical assistance program oriented to achieving compliance
results.
Although State and Federal compliance, assistance, and training efforts
are increasing, local governments have primary responsibility for operating and
maintaining their facilities in compliance. While most larger facilities are in
compliance, small communities continue to have significant compliance and
performance problems. Small communities have not received comparable levels of
compliance attention and have not been able to obtain governmental or private
sector technical and financial management assistance to solve problems.
-v-
-------
Several national training and other associations that received EPA finan-
cial and institutional support provide comprehensive coordination and assist-
ance to State and local governments. An estimated 24 State operator associa-
tions sponsor ongoing operator training activities. The Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation is promoting a national operator association that will coordi-
nate information and encourage operator training. In addition, many State and
local operations and maintenance and training programs rely heavily on private-
sector training and technical assistance. There are increasing opportunities
for the private sector to assist grantees implementing first year performance
certification requirements; to develop contractual arrangements for contract
construction, operations and maintenance; and to develop innovative ways to
deliver training and technical assistance to small communities.
Status of State Grant Projects
Since 1982 Congress has added $11,953,000 to EPA's budget to support oper-
ator training. Congress added $4,103,000 in 1982 and approximately $2,600,000
each for fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985. As directed by Congress, the bulk
of the 1982 and 1983 add-on training funds have been awarded to States to help
850 communities by providing compliance-oriented on site training and technical
assistance to operators of small Federally funded treatment plants. The 1984
funds were awarded to 31 States late in the fiscal year; these States will
initiate work shortly to conduct diagnostic evaluations and provide technical
assistance to additional operators. Using these funds, several States are also
developing financial management guidance and assistance programs.
Although States will not complete work until 1985 in most of the 842
projects funded in 1982 and 1983, compliance has already been attained at 352
plants, and effluent and operations and maintenance performance has been im-
proved at 132 additional plants. In addition, State efforts have resulted in
improved local decisionmaker involvement in plant operations and maintenance
and financial management; improved process control methods and laboratory and
recordkeeping practices; introduction of preventive maintenance programs and
improved repair of equipment; reduced energy and sludge handling costs; im-
proved infiltration/inflow management; and identification of operator certifi-
cation and continuing education needs.
A major objective and accomplishment in award of FY 1982 and 1983 funds
was to obtain maximum State participation in this program. By the end of 1984,
only one State, certain territories, and the District of Columbia were not
participating in this training effort. Award of FY 1984 funds was more selec-
tive. Funds were awarded to 31 States that had demonstrated a commitment to
this effort as reflected in funds expenditures and compliance improvement.
Award of FY 1985 add-on funds will also emphasize support to results-oriented
State programs.
National Survey and Evaluation
To help evaluate State and local training capability, to identify the
essential elements and costs of an effective State operator-training program,
and to develop Federal, State, local, and private sector action plans, EPA has
funded studies by the National Environmental Training Association (NETA), the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA), and the National Demonstration Water Project (NDWP). Representa-
tives of NETA, ASIWPCA, and the National Association of Towns and Townships
(NATaT) also have participated on a work group with EPA in developing this
report.
-vi-
-------
Characteristics_of.._St_ate Operator Training Programs
States report total 1984 operator training budgets of approximately $10.2
million. About 19 percent or $2 million was from local sources, 38 percent or
$3.8 million from State sources, and 43 percent or $4.3 million from EPA funds.
Annual State training budgets range from $25,000 to over $900,000, with most
ranging between $100,000 and $400,000. Local funding is generally from course
tuition, fees and certification charges. Federal funds are obtained under
Clean Water Act sections 106, 205(g), and 104(g)(l).
States average about four full-time trainers, but the vast majority of
staff are part-time. It appears that a significant amount of additional train-
ing and technical assistance is provided by other State personnel in conjunc-
tion with management of construction grants and compliance programs.
Operator training programs are conducted mainly through State environ-
mental agencies and State training centers. State training centers are gener-
ally associated with junior colleges or vocational education institutions.
These centers serve as Statewide training resource centers and provide primar-
ily entry-level and upgrade training. As State training programs have matured,
program objectives and resources have expanded to emphasize continuing educa-
tion and technical assistance as well as operator certification. Nearly all
States (44) have mandatory operator certification programs. The majority of
operators are certified and receive continuing education training annually.
Conclusions
Roles and Responsibilities
As the Agency, the States, and local governments work toward improved
publicly owned facilities compliance, including coordinated, compliance-orien-
ted, and self-sufficient operator training programs, it is important to articu-
late the basic roles and responsibilities that Federal, State and local govern-
ments and the private sector will be expected to fulfill.
Overall responsibility for operator training and plant compliance rests
with local and State governments. Local governments are expected to see that
their plants comply with their effluent-discharge permits, maintain effective
financial management and user-charge systems and operations and maintenance
programs, and obtain training for their operators where needed. States are
expected to develop, administer, and finance effective training programs, to
help especially small municipalities comply with discharge requirements, and to
take appropriate enforcement actions where necessary. The Federal role is one
of oversight and assistance where needed to assure that needed programs are
developed and implemented to improve compliance.
-vi i-
-------
Model State Program
As requested by Congress, EPA has defined the essential elements of a
model State operator training program and is working now with NETA and States
to identify the implementation costs in each State. The elements of a model
program include: 1) an integrated compliance program that provides coordination
among all involved State agencies and the private sector; 2) a training needs
assessment process; 3) an action plan that meets training needs, sets prior-
ities, and allocates resources; 4) a training delivery system that coordinates
training delivered by government and the private sector and provides the most
appropriate types of training, training materials, and technical assistance;
5} a mandatory operator certification program that measures operator competency
in the plant, and provides for annual inservice training and recertification as
appropriate; 6) a management information system that provides essential inform-
ation for program management and documents compliance results of training; 7)
State staff training to ensure that trainers remain current in new technologi-
cal developments and training approaches and can provide effective outreach
assistance to operators and communities; 8) a public education program target-
ed to local officials and the general public to promote improved understanding
of compliance responsiblities and support for investment in operations and
maintenance and operator training; and 9) adequate long term fiscal support
from local and State sources to maintain effective training programs once
Federal funding support is no longer provided.
Action Plans
EPA has been working with representatives of each level of government,
trainers, and the private sector, to develop proposed Federal, State, local,
and private sector action plans to achieve overall compliance goals and objec-
tives. These detailed action plans, described later in the report, define
needed overall management actions for coordinating each aspect of the compli-
ance program and actions keyed specifically to operator training program devel-
opment. States and local governments should evaluate these recommendations in
light of their current programs and begin to implement needed improvements as
quickly as possible.
EPA has already taken a number of actions. These include issuance of the
National Municipal Policy and Financial Capability Policy, revised regulations,
and new financial and technical information and guidance for State and local
governments. The agency also conducted a national conference in May at Atlanta,
Georgia bringing together State training officials and EPA staff to discuss
development of effective, self-sufficient operator training programs and to
share information on onsite training and technical assistance programs. An
Administrator's Task Force on Incentives for Improved Operations and Mainten-
ance was established and issued a report that has formed the primary basis for
a number of additional initiatives that are currently underway or being con-
sidered. EPA also is working with NETA on a 3-year project to help States
develop specific action plans for implementing more effective operator training
programs.
At the State level, support for additional, compliance-oriented operator
training and technical assistance efforts appears to be increasing. States also
appear to support development of self-sufficient operator training programs as
quickly as possible. Local governments, especially in small communities, need
to begin placing more emphasis on and committing more resources to effective
operations and maintenance of their plants and to operator training. The addi-
tional actions identified at each level of government will, over time, improve
compliance by all publicly owned wastewater treatment plants.
-viii-
-------
REPORT TO CONGRESS
ON
TRAINING FOR OPERATORS
OF PUBLICLY OWNED WASTFWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
This is the report of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the
United States Congress on the development of improved wastewater treatment
plant operator training programs to assist publicly owned facilities compli-
ance. The report was requested by the House Subcommittee on Appropriations
for HUD and Independent Agencies in Report 98-803 dated May 23, 1984.
B. Background
1. Federal, State, and Local Roles
EPA and the States agree that effective operator training is impor-
tant to help ensure that local wastewater treatment plants, many of which have
been constructed with Federal funds, meet effluent permit requirements and are
operated and maintained effectively. Primary responsibility for operator
training and plant compliance rests with State and local governments. States
are expected to develop and administer coordinated Statewide compliance pro-
grams, including effective operator training programs, to provide technical
assistance where appropriate to help municipalities comply with requirements,
and to take appropriate enforcement actions. Local governments are required to
maintain their plants in compliance with effluent-discharge permits; maintain
effective financial management, user charge, and operations, maintenance and
management programs; retain trained operators; and obtain training for their
operators where needed. The Federal role is to assure development and implemen-
tation of comprehensive and coordinated State and local programs to improve
overall municipal wastewater treatment facilities performance and compliance.
2. Large Plant - Small Plant Compliance
A top priority of the EPA is to assure that municipal wastewater
treatment facilities are constructed, operated and maintained to meet design
and effluent discharge permit requirements. Since 1972 the Federal Government
has spent almost $37 billion to help conmunities pay for construction of pub-
licly owned wastewater treatment plants that meet the effluent requirements
of the Federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500). as amended. Although the vast
majority of plants funded since 1972 that treat more than 1 million gallons
of wastewater a day comply with their permits, small plants tend to have sig-
nificant performance and compliance problems. Small plants represent about
90 percent of the total number of facilities built since 1972 though they
account for only about 10 percent of total municipal wastewater flow. While
overall EPA and State municipal compliance efforts have increased substan-
tially, small plants are unlikely to receive substantial direct compliance
emphasis due to limited Fodpral and State resources and national emphasis on
nonccmplying plants with the greatest water quality impacts.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Matt code 3201
~l ~ 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
3. Operator Training and Small-Plant Compliance
A key factor in compliance problems at small plants is that the
operators, although usually certified, often lack the necessary technical
knowledge and itechancial skills needed to operate, maintain and manage the
treatment plant. Typically these plants are operated by one person who is
responsible for all aspects of plant operations and maintenance and who also
often has to combine plant operations with other municipal duties. This has
meant insufficient attention to plant operation and maintenance and little or
no time for needed offsite classroom instruction or "hands-on" training at a
wastewater treatment training facility. These small plants generally have not
received much State attention or assistance and have not been able to obtain
private sector help.
4. Results-Oriented Operator Training
Effective operator training and technical assistance are important
elements in the treatment plant's ability to meet its effluent permit. Im-
proved plant performance and permit compliance are the ultimate gauges of
training success. Head counts of operators trained, upgraded, or certified,
important as these factors are, represent only intermediate, process measures.
Training programs must be able to deliver personal on-the-job assistance to the
operator at the treatment plant as well as traditional classroom and textbook
instruction and must bp oriented to improved plant performance and compliance.
Training programs must demonstrate that training produces cost-effective solu-
tions to plant noncompliance to draw needed financial support from State and
local governments.
5. Other Factors Affecting Compliance
Problems with facility design, selection of treatment technologies,
infiltration and inflow, inadequate financial management by the local govern-
ment, lack of effective enforcement to spur corrective action at problem plants,
and lack of information by local officials on their responsibilities also
contribute to poor plant performance and noncompliance. This report focuses on
operator training but also interrelates overall Federal, State, local, and
private sector efforts needed to frame integrated approaches to improve per-
formance and compliance at municipal wastewater treatment plants.
C. Congressional Add-on Funds
The fiscal 1985 appropriation of $2.6 million additional Congressional
add-on funds brought to S11.3 million the total amount of operator training
funds added by Congress to EPA appropriations for fiscal years 1982 through
1985.
-2-
-------
1. Grants to States
As directed by Congress, the bulk of the add-on training funds are
at work in the States assisting compliance-oriented training programs for
operators of treatment plants with capacities of less than 5 million gallons a
day (mgd). Onsite training and technical assistance programs are underway in
49 States, reaching approximately 1,000 small plants with compliance problems.
Most of the plants have capacities of less than 1 million gallons per day and
serve fewer than 10,000 people. Training and technical assistance is provided
onsite and over-the-shoulder by experienced trainers selected by State training
centers, other responsible State agencies, or a national training association.
Trainers use EPA-developed computer-diagnostic programs to identify a plant's
design, operational, and financial management problems that are causing poor
plant performance and noncompliance and to target needed training and technical
assistance activities. State and EPA data show that the program is having a
very significant impact in bringing plants into compliance, improving effluent
performance, and improving overall operations and maintenance.
2. Grants to National Organizations
The EPA Office of Water has provided funds to several national
organizations to identify essential elements and costs of State operator train-
ing programs, to help States implement coordinated, compliance-oriented opera-
tor training programs, and to evaluate State training capability. The national
organizations include the National Environmental Training Association (NETA),
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA), the National Demonstration Water Project (NDWP), and the American
Clean Water Association (ACWA). These organizations have provided invaluable
assistance in developing this report and formulating action plans for effective
operator training and improved municipal facilities compliance.
D. Final Report
The material in this report reflects significant input by representa-
tives of NETA, ASIWPCA, the National Association of Towns and Townships,
selected local officials, and EPA regional offices. The report provides updated
information on the status of State operator training programs; State accom-
plishments to date using congressional add-on section 104(g)(l) funds; EPA,
State, local, and private sector roles and responsibilities; the elements
of a model State operator training program; and a multiyear plan for needed
additional actions by each level of government and the private sector for
improved operator training and publicly owned facilities compliance.
-3-
-------
II. HISTORY AND STATUS OF FEDERAL OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAMS
A. Federal Program Summary
The Federal goal is to protect the public investment by developing a
national base of skilled water pollution control personnel, technical informa-
tion materials, and effective State and local programs to assure that waste-
water treatment plants, especially those built with Federal funds, are opera-
ted, maintained, and managed to comply with their effluent discharge permits.
The Federal operator training effort has progressed through various stages.
From 1967 to 1971, the focus was on direct training of operators. Fran 1971 to
1977, the program shifted to greater reliance on the States by training State
trainers and building State training centers. Fran 1977 through 1981, extensive
curricula and training materials were developed for State use. Since 1981, EPA
has been working with States and national organizations, primarily using con-
gressional add-on funds, to implement onsite training and technical assistance
programs for small communities; to define the elements and costs of effective,
compliance-oriented State and local operator training programs; and to accel-
erate implementation of more effective, self-sufficient programs.
In support of these objectives and activities, EPA's National Munici-
pal Policy requires compliance by these facilities as scon as possible, and not
later than July 1, 1988, except in extraordinary circumstances. The policy
requires that all publicly owned treatment works meet statutory compliance
requirements whether or not they receive Federal funds. Already constructed
publicly owned treatment works that are not in compliance must develop a plan
and schedule for achieving compliance. Municipalities that rpquire construction
must also develop a plan that documents treatment needs, costs, a financing
approach, and a schedule for achieving compliance as soon as possible. Opera-
tor training has an integral role in the plan's implementation since training
can improve plant performance and, through effective operations and maintenance,
minimize the need for capital investments.
B. Federal Program Accomplishments
Over the past 17 years, EPA and predecessor agencies have invested
approximately $75 million in operator training-related programs, including
specific training programs and other State grants support. Over 20,000 opera-
tors and State trainers have been trained. A wealth of water pollution control
curricula and training materials have been developed and are being used by
State agencies, training centers, other educational institutions, and training
and water pollution control associations.
-4-
-------
Of the total Federal funds, $15.6 million went to programs funded under
the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act (P.L. 87-415) which funded entry
level and upgrade training. Approximately $27 million went to programs funded
under section 5 of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-224)
and section 104(g)(l) of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
(P.L. 92-500) which authorize operator training pilot programs; and S10 million
went to fund establishment of 27 State training centers under section 109(b)
of the 1972 Act and 1977 Amendments (P.L. 95-217). Significant amounts of con-
struction grant funds have been used to provide facility startup assistance to
communities and operators and to develop operations and maintenance manuals.
In addition, the 1981 Amendments (P.L. 97-117) provide expanded statutory
requirements for communities to include operator training under first-year
startup assistance. States also have continued to receive Clean Water Act
sections 106 and 205(g) funds for operator training and operations and main-
tenance management activities. Section 104(g)(l) congressional add-on funds
have been provided since 1982 to support onsite training and technical
assistance to operators of small treatment plants. Uses of these funds are
discussed in detail in a later section of this report.
The Instructional Resources Center (IRC) at Ohio State University in
Columbus, Ohio, established under an EPA grant, operates a national information
clearinghouse and serves as a repository for training and instructional mater-
ials developed by EPA, States, and the private sector. IRC houses the Instruc-
tional Resources Information System (IRIS), a national computer information and
retrieval system that lists thousands of available instructional resources.
IRC also publishes a quarterly newsletter; sponsors conferences, workshops, and
seminars; and operates a lending library of audiovisual materials. The Center
handles over 4,000 requests each month primarily from plant operators and
supervisors. The IRC reviews training materials and annually accepts about
1,000 into IRIS. The Center mails out 20,000 newsletters each month and
receives approximately 200 requests for information daily. Over 1,500 slides
and 20 videocassettes are duplicated for loan each month. The Center became
self-supporting in 1984.
More detailed information on the history and development of the Federal
program is contained in a report issued by EPA's Office of Water in 1983 en-
titled "Operator Training Programs" and in the Preliminary Report to Congress
on Training for Operators of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants submitted
March 1, 1984.
C. Elements of National Training Base
1. State Training Centers
Twenty-six States, the District of Columbia, two territories, and
one interstate agency now operate dedicated training centers; 27 of the centers
were funded under section 109(b) of the Clean Water Act. The States of Alabama,
Alaska, Louisiana, Nebraska, Montana, Hawaii, Oregon, and Puerto Rico are
considering establishing 109(b) centers. Attachment A lists existing training
centers.
-5-
-------
2. National Associations
Several national associations that received startup or continuing
financial and institutional support from EPA continue to provide a comprehen-
sive coordination and assistance capability to State and local governments.
These associations include the Joint Training Coordination Committee (JTCC),
the National Environmental Training Association (NETA), the National Demon-
stration Water Project (NDWP), the American Clean Water Association (ACWA),
and the Association of Boards of Certification for Operations Personnel in
Water and Wastewater Utilities (ABC). The Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) provides an important coordi-
nation function across all State water pollution control programs. The Water
Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) is also actively involved in education and
private sector coordination. The Federation is prcmoting establishment of a
national operator association to coordinate information and encourage operator
training. The Federation publishes a monthly magazine on plant operations
written for and directed to plant operators.
3. Operator Associations
An estimated 24 State operator associations sponsor some of the
strongest and most effective operator training activities. Some work closely
with State agencies to conduct and coordinate training courses and Statewide
conferences. These associations generally were established with strong sup-
port frcro the Water Pollution Control Federation.
4. Private Sector
Every State and many local governments rely heavily on the private
sector to provided needed training and technical assistance. In several cities
private contractors ar<=> responsible for overall facility operations and mainten-
ance and operator training. Contractor involvement in operator training is
expected to expand in conjunction with new statutory requirements that grantees
certify that their facilities are in compliance with effluent requirements by
the end of the first year of plant operation. There are also increasing oppor-
tunities for private sector support in small conmunities using innovative on
site approaches and computer technology.
-6-
-------
III. STATE ON SITE TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
A. Allocation of Section 104(g)(l) Congressional Add-on Funds
In FY 1982, Congress added $4.1 million to EPA's budget to assist
State operator training program activities and to pay salaries of EPA staff
responsible for administering operator training programs. The congressional
Conference Committee on Appropriations language directed that the funds be
used to improve municipal wastewater treatment facilities compliance, especial-
ly in small facilities, through onsite training and technical assistance. Of
the add-on funds, $3,292,000 was awarded to 35 States. Implementing Congress-
ional directions, funds were allocated to States based on the following
criteria:
o The majority of the funds should be awarded to States with State
training centers established under section 109(b) of the Clean Water Act or
other State authority;
o Funds should be targeted to small Federally funded facilities
(generally under 5 mgd effluent discharge) experiencing compliance problems;
o A diagnostic evaluation should be performed for each facility
selected by the State to determine whether compliance problems were operator-
training-related and, if so, to determine the types of site-specific technical
assistance needed;
o Onsite, over-the-shoulder technical assistance should be provided
by experienced operations and maintenance personnel, preferably State employ-
ees;
o Followup site inspections should be conducted to evaluate the
effect of training and technical assistance and to assure continuing perform-
ance improvement; and
o The State should evaluate and document the training and technical
assistance efforts, including before and after facility performance and ef-
fluent data.
In addition, $575,000 was awarded to a consortium of the National
Demonstration Water Project (NDWP), the National Environmental Training Assoc-
iation (NETA) and the American Clean Water Association (ACWA) for technical
assistance to 6 States; and $67,200 was awarded to the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to summarize
and evaluate State operator training programs.
In FY 1983, the Congress added $2,625,200 to EPA's budget request.
Conference committee language directed EPA to continue the policy direction
established in 1982. The language also required the Agency to conduct a
.national study through a national environmental training organization to
determine the effectiveness of the onsite training and technical assistance
approach, to define the critical common elements of effective State operator
training programs and the costs of implementing such programs, and to evaluate
the status of each State with respect to achieving programmatic and financial
self-sufficiency for operator training.
-7-
-------
The majority of the FY 1983 funds were awarded to 48 States and 1 terri-
tory, 35 of which had also received FY 1982 funds. By the end of FY 1983, only
2 States, the other territories, and the District of Columbia were not partici-
pating in this effort. A 2-year grant was also awarded to NETA in 1983 to
conduct a national program evaluation. Information from the NETA project is
contained in the following sections on overall State programs status; develop-
ment of model State programs; and Federal, State, and local and private sector
action plans.
The agency's FY 1983 funding guidance essentially continued the FY 1982
funding criteria. However, the Agency also urged States to use a portion of
the funds to providp financial management technical assistance to communities
in addition to operator technical assistance, and to develop Statewide finan-
cial management policy guidance. This additional emphasis was based on the
Agency's recognition that performance and compliance problems are also caused
by inadequate local financial management and inadequate user charges for opera-
tions and maintenance. Improved financial management and updated local user
charge systems are also critical to improved compliance. Limited funds were
also awarded to selected States to describe their operator training programs.
The FY 1984 appropriation again provided $2,625,000 to EPA to maintain
this effort. The Conference Committee also directed submission of a report
which was submitted by the agency on March 1, 1984. Using FY 1984 funds, a
$500,000 grant was awarded to NDWP to continue their successful training and
technical assistance efforts and to work with selected States to assist opera-
tor training program development, provide financial management technical assist-
ance, and support progress toward self-sufficiency. A grant was also awarded
to NETA to work with 13 States identified as having generally effective opera-
tor training programs to develop individualized action plans for achieving
programmatic and fiscal self-sufficiency. These States also received supplemen-
tal grant funds for needed program development support. Allocation of FY 1984
funds to States was completed by March 1984 and all grants were awarded by
September 30, 1984.
A major objective and accomplishment in award of FY 1982 and FY 1983
funds was to obtain maximum State participation in this program. Award of FY
1984 funds was more selective. The FY 1984 funds were targeted to States that
had demonstrated a commitment to this effort as reflected in funds expenditure
and local compliance improvement. States that had not made significant prog-
ress since award of FY 1982 funds and that had adequate funds remaining did
not receive FY 1984 funds. A total of 32 States received FY 1984 funds, includ-
ing one State (Kentucky) that had not accepted a grant previously.
Congress added $2,600,000 to EPA's FY 1985 budget. These funds will be
allocated almost entirely to States in the near future. The agency intends to
use the same allocation approach as with the FY 1984 funds, emphasizing support
to selected States with demonstrated compliance improvement results and commit-
ment to onsite training and technical assistance in small communities. A
portion of the funds will be awarded to NETA to continue assisting development
of effective State operator training programs in 23 selected States. The ele-
ments of a model State program are described in detail in the State Action
Plan section of this report.
-8-
-------
B. Status of Grant-Funded Projects
Attachment B lists State accomplishments to date in each community
provided assistance using 1982 or 1983 section 104(g)(l) grants. Attachment C
provides State-by-State funding status, diagnostic inspection and technical
assistance commitments, and summary accomplishments to date.
States awarded FY 1982 funds have generally completed the majority
of their work in most of the initial communities selected for technical assist-
ance. However, most of the grants provide for extended followup monitoring
and assistance through FY 1985. Most States experienced startup delays on
their initial grant (in FY 1982 or 1983} averaging 9 months for staffing,
internal State coordination and approvals, and grant-funded procurement of
minicomputers and diagnostic modeling programs. As a result, even some FY
1983-funded work programs are just completing the problem diagnostic evalua-
tions in communities prior to selecting plants for onsite training. Grants
using FY 1984 funds were generally not awarded until late September 1984, and
work has not been initiated in any of the additional communities.
Based on negotiated FY 1982 and FY 1983 grant work plans, funds were
provided to 48 States and to the National Demonstration Water Project (NDWP)
to conduct over 1,100 facility problem diagnostic inspections, to provide
onsite technical assistance and training at about 850 small facilities, and
to develop 10 Statewide financial management guidance and assistance programs.
The funds awarded NDWP supported a 2-year technical assistance demonstration
project in six southern States, including West Virginia, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky.
The information from States and the NDWP project indicates the
onsite training and technical assistance program efforts are achieving impor-
tant compliance improvements and demonstrating the value of training and tech-
nical assistance to these small communities. Operators in a total of 842 plants
are being provided training and technical assistance. States are still working
in 412 of these plants. As of November 1984, full compliance has been attained
in 352 of these plants with significant performance improvement shown at 132
additional plants. With the exception of a few plants where design, construc-
tion, or major institutional problems preclude a training and technical assist-
ance solution, the agency expects that essentially all of these plants will
achieve compliance by the end of FY 1985. The data also show that the onsite
assistance is:
o Improving local decisionmaker involvement in plant operations
and maintenance and financial management;
o Improving treatment process control management;
o Introducing preventive maintenance programs and ensuring repair
of equipment;
o Reducing energy and sludge-handling costs;
o Improving laboratory, recordkeeping, and reporting practices;
o Improving infiltration/inflow management; and
o Identifying operator certification and continuing education needs.
-------
Evaluation of the NDWP and State efforts has also identified a number
of issues and pitfalls for States to avoid. Evaluation has indicated the im-
portance of:
o Problem diagnostic modeling and inspections to assure that problems
relate to training rather than to design or financial management;
o Good effluent, monitoring data and reports upon which to base an
evaluation of compliance improvement;
o Effective local treatment and financial management and community
recognition of compliance problems;
o Onsite followup to ensure continuing attention to problems;
o State coordination and support, including compliance actions, to
reinforce operator training, operations and maintenance, user
charge, and effluent monitoring/reporting requirements.
-10-
-------
IV. STATUS OF STATE OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAMS
In support of the March 1984 EPA Preliminary Report, ASIWPCA and NETA
queried States on organizational structure; budgets; staffing; training program
objectives, procedures, and requirements; and future training directions and
needs. Appendix D reflects updated data on current programs in all States.
A. State Organization
Operator training programs are conducted primarily through State
environmental agencies and State 109(b) or other established training centers.
Within the State agencies, training may be a separate organizational function.
More often, operator training functions have been integrated into the compli-
ance or construction grants program management organization. Even where the
State 109(b) training center is identified as the lead State entity, training
also occurs within other elements of the water pollution control program.
State water pollution control personnel often exercise multiple
responsibilities, including operator training, delegated construction grants
management, operations and maintenance, and compliance and enforcement. Train-
ing personnel may be involved, appropriately for integrated program management,
in conducting facility plan and specification reviews; providing facility start-
up services; and conducting operations and maintenance reviews, compliance
evaluations, and compliance inspections. Staff directly responsible for these
activities also may provide onsite technical assistance and informal training
to operators while working with new facilities concerning performance certif-
ications or while conducting compliance evaluations.
Section 109(b) or other training centers generally are associated
with State junior colleges or vocational education institutions under the State
education departments. Their responsibilities may include Statewide training
coordination. These centers are usually training resource centers and provide
primarily entry-level/certification and upgrade training. State departments of
health also have significant direct or coordination responsibilities in a
number of States relating to operator certification training.
B. Training Program Administration
As State training programs have matured, program objectives and re-
source allocations have expanded to include continuing education and technical
assistance as well as operator certification. Although there are a wide range
in individual categories among the States, the "average" State's priorities
and resources are distributed as follows: certification 25 percent, continuing
education 30 percent, technical assistance 35 percent, and support to construc-
tion grants management and permitting 10 percent. The levels of technical
assistance are being influenced by section 104(g)(l) funding guidance, but
increased technical assistance emphasis coincides with the direction States
want to take. The percentages of resource commitments to certification and
continuing education training are also skewed slightly because a few States
reported technical assistance and support to other programs in these categories.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N W
Washington DC 20460
-------
All States have operator certification programs and nearly all
States (44) have mandatory certification requirements. Operator certification
requirements are generally similar among States, providing four classes of
certification based on the size and complexity of facilities. However, nation-
wide, approximately 25 percent of operators are not certified and, based on
1983 data, 40 percent of operators were not certified for their levels of
operations responsibility. States report a total of about 96,000 operators
nationally. Of the approximately 73,000 certified operators in the States,
approximately 40 percent receive continuing education annually. These continu-
ing education courses are usually of 1 to 2 days duration; States offer 30 to
60 courses annually. States are increasingly expanding certification require-
ments to include continuing education and knowledge of industrial wastewater
treatment processes. Some are also considering requiring testing of both
wastewater treatment theory and demonstrated performance.
States also report redirection of their training programs toward
achieving improved compliance. Shifts from prior emphasis on training for
certification or upgrade as primary objectives are becoming apparent. These
results-oriented approaches by States to program management are fully consis-
tent with EPA and congressional objectives.
C. Funding
States report total FY 1984 operator training budgets of approxi-
mately $10.2 million. About 19 percent or $2 million was from local sources,
38 percent or $3.8 million from State sources, and 43 percent or $4.3 million
from Federal funds.
Total annual State training budgets range from $25,000 to over
$900,000, average about $200,000, and are generally in the range of $100,000
to $400,000. The majority of funds in State budgets are composed of State
appropriations and Federal grants under Clean Water Act sections 106, 205(g)
and 104(g)(l). Although State budgets often have some local-funding component,
usually tuition and fees, the local portion generally does not represent a
significant part of most individual State budgets. A total of 34 States receiv-
ed less than 25 percent of funds and 43 States received less than 50 percent
of funds from local sources in 1984. However, five States received all or the
majority of funds from local sources. These include Ohio, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Florida, and Oklahoma. Although not reflected above, support
fron local funds generally appears to be most significant in western States.
Only 7 States have no direct State appropriations and 7 additional
States obtain less than 20 percent of funds from other sources. Only 9 States
report more than 50 percent of budget from State funds. The percentage of
State funding to total annual funding ranges up to 71 percent in 2 States with
an average of slightly over 29 percent. A total of 23 States receive less than
50 percent of funds from Federal sources. Of the remaining States, only 12
States obtain more than 75 percent of budgets from Federal funds. Federal
funding is obtained primarily from State agency allocations of section 106
State program grants or State targeting of available section 205(g) construc-
tion management grants. Section 104(g)(l) add-on funds have represented a
significant additional funding source since early FY 1983 in many States.
-12-
-------
There is a wide range of State training investment on a per-oper-
ator basis. Annual spending per operator ranges from about S15 to over $550,
with an average of about S160 per operator. Overall, States with relatively few
operators, States with a technical assistance emphasis, and States with larger
annual budgets tend to spend more per operator than other States.
The agency believes the available funding information underesti-
mates total State contributions to operator training programs. The operator-
training-related activities by State construction grants management, operations
and maintenance, and compliance and enforcement personnel are generally not
included in these budget figures. Based on overall data, the agency believes
that the support provided by these programs may represent a significant addi-
tional contribution to the total State training program.
State self-sufficiency, as defined by EPA, is the ability to main-
tain an effective operator training program using only local tuition and fees
and State appropriated funds as necessary. From reviewing State program des-
criptions, it is clear that only a few States approach a comprehensive, inte-
grated, and self-sufficient training program. However, a number of States
also appear to be moving toward improved overall programs, to increasing State
funding, and to developing cost-based local tuition and fee systems for self-
sufficiency.
The agency continues to support the objective of full State/local
self-sufficiency. The agency also recognizes that Federal funding should con-
tinue to support the development of overall effective, integrated municipal
compliance programs, including operator training and technical assistance,
until States can achieve and maintain self-sufficiency. In 1984, Federal funds
supporting State municipal and industrial permitting and compliance totaled
approximately $32 million. Federal funds for operator training and technical
assistance totaled approximately $4.3 million from both sections 106 and
104(g)(l) add-on funds.
D. Staffing
Many States rely heavily on part-time trainers, both salaried and
volunteer. A total of 75 percent of the 786 staff reported were part-time.
This is particularly true in large States such as New York, Pennsylvania,
Illinois and Minnesota that have a total of over 300 part-time trainers. States
average about 4 full-time trainers, with a range of zero to 19. In most States
these trainers have a significant number of years of experience. Qualifications
of staff include professional engineering, training/vocational education, and
facility operations, obtained both academically and on-the-job. The part-time
trainers are generally responsible for short-course continuing education and
onsite technical assistance. The full-time trainers are primarily responsible
for training-center administration, materials development, certification test-
ing, and entry-level training through the State departments of education or
health.
-13-
-------
V. CONCLUSIONS
Since submission of EPA's Preliminary Report to Congress in March 1984,
the agency has obtained and evaluated updated status and accomplishment data
from States and has worked with a work group to formulate the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report. The conclusions and action plans
that follow reflect their views as well as EPA's. The following information
describes A) the appropriate roles and responsibilities of each level of
government and the private sector for operator training and improved compli-
ance; B) the elements of model State operator training and conpliance programs
that support these roles and responsibilities; and C) proposed multiyear action
plans for activities at each level of government and by the private sector for
improved operator training, effective operations and maintenance, and permit
compliance.
A. Federal, State, Local and Private Sector Roles and Responsibilities
Stated as goals and objectives, the following outlines complementary
Federal, State, local and private sector roles and responsibilities for achiev-
ing improved municipal facilities compliance. The definition of roles and
responsibilities is provided as a basis for developing a model State operator
training program and for defining Federal, State, local, and private-sector
action plans to achieve improved overall municipal facilities compliance.
Because improved operator training programs are only one element in achieving
the overall objective, these roles and responsibilities relate to other needs
at each level of government.
1. Federal
a. Goal
To achieve improved water quality through implementation of
effective Statewide programs that provide for coordinated operator training,
operations and maintenance management, and enforcement.
b. Objectives
o To provide Federal oversight to implementation of the National
Municipal Policy and State-local efforts to ensure coordinated, com-
pliance-oriented programs.
o To promote development of State self-sufficiency to maintain
effective operator training programs through State-local fee systems and State
appropriated funds approaches (and financial assistance under sections 205(g)
and 106 of the Clean Water Act).
o To increase local awareness of statutory requirements through
construction grants, permitting, and operator training activities, and the
cost-effectiveness of operator training and improved operations and maintenance.
o To promote maintenance of local financial management and
user-charge systems that recover current costs of operations, maintenance,
routine equipment replacement, operator training, and facility expansion needs.
-14-
-------
o To provide technical and program management assistance and
information to local officials, facility operators, and private sector consul-
tants and trainers to ensure use of appropriate, cost-effective technologies
and improved operating facilities compliance.
o To support use of section 109{b) or State funds to construct
State training centers that provide an institutional focus in the State, com-
prehensive operator training, and onsite technical assistance.
o To support use by States of sections 205(g) and 106 funds to
assist their transition to full State self-sufficiency.
o To promote communication among States, municipalities, pro-
fessional associations, interest groups, and the private sector to create
public awareness of the importance of operator training, to share ideas, and
develop coordinated approaches for improved municipal facilities compliance.
o To promote operator professional status, certification,
training, and local salary structures that attract and retain qualified
personnel.
2. State
a. Goal
To ensure municipal facilities compliance through comprehen-
sive, coordinated, and self-sufficient operator training programs; operations
and maintenance programs; technical and financial management assistance pro-
grams; and enforcement programs.
b. Objectives
o To develop strategies to bring noncomplying facilities in-
to compliance using training in conjunction with other State activities and
local communities to achieve National Municipal Policy requirements.
o To provide Statewide policies, guidance, and standards for
local governments on operations and maintenance, user charges, and operator
training and certification.
o To monitor municipal facilities compliance and to respond
to evidence of noncompliance in accordance with the National Municipal Policy
with appropriate technical assistance, training, and compliance actions.
o To identify and implement appropriate self-financing mech-
anisms, including user-fee systems and appropriated State funds, in order to
maintain adequate local utility management and effective Statewide operations
and maintenance oversight, operator training, and technical assistance programs.
o To establish and implement an institutional focus in the
State for training and Statewide compliance-oriented programs that provide for
certification and inservice training and onsite techical assistance.
-15-
-------
3. Local
a. Goal
To construct, operate, and maintain publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities that comply with design and effluent requirements and that
become self-sustaining utilities.
b. Objectives
o To prepare necessary compliance and correction plans to
ensure that the municipality can achieve and maintain compliance.
o To ensure that proposed wastewater treatment facilities
are within the community's financial management capability, can meet effluent
requirements, and are operated and maintained effectively.
o To ensure that financial management and user charge sys-
tems are established and maintained that identify and recover the costs of
operations, maintenance, routine equipment replacement, operator training, and
expansion needs.
o To ensure that facilities are staffed by operators trained
to operate and maintain the facilities in compliance with requirements and
that salary structures and the working environment attract and retain qualified
and certified operators.
o To administer and enforce pretreatment requirements.
4. Private Sector
a. Goal
To maintain a competent work force, available as needed, to
provide operations and maintenance assistance to facility owners and State and
Federal agencies on a contract basis.
b. Objectives
o To develop diagnostic services and procedures aimed at
identifying the factors at a facility that are preventing compliance with
discharge requirements
that are performance
training needs
To develop and maintain training delivery capabilities
based and geared to facility- and operator-specific
o To provide operations, maintenance, and management
services by maintaining personnel who can, for a period of time, assume direct
operational control of a wastewater treatment facility to restructure opera-
tions and maintenance procedures and change behavior through demonstrated
performance
o To actively participate in local, State, and Federal
operator training and technical assistance programs that support the continuing
upgrading and professional status of operators.
-16-
-------
B. Model State Operator Training Program
Hie following describe the overall functional and process elements of
a model Stat« operator training program. An effective program is one that
implements defined State roles and responsibilities for operator training,
improved local operations and maintenance and permit compliance. The definition
of these elements are the result of intensive analysis by NETA and review by a
task force composed of State, local, and EPA representatives.
A model compliance-oriented State program includes:
1. Integrated Compliance Program
Operator training and technical assistance should be integrated in-
to the State's overall water pollution control program. A coordinated, and
ultimately fully integrated, system should be established to provide formal
communication and organizational links between training and technical assist-
ance programs with operations and maintenance, compliance and enforcement, and
construction grants programs in the State. In addition, the use of private
sector support, including consultants and State operator associations, as well
as peer matching, local cooperative arrangements, and self-help systems should
be encouraged and assisted. An integrated system should ensure coordinated,
timely, and most appropriate responses to noncompliance, create incentives for
compliance and improved facility management, provide the means to help resolve
training-related plant performance problems, and provide mechanisms for annual
evaluation of results.
A formal coordination ccnmittee, composed of representatives of
all appropriate State agencies, should meet quarterly to identify plant per-
formance problems throughout the State to assign responsibility for training,
technical assistance or informal/formal compliance action based on diagnosis
of the problems and ensure continuous followup and feedback on results. One
lead agency should be identified by the State to coordinate and manage the
overall effort. In the long term, the State regulatory agency appears to be
the most appropriate organization to manage these functions.
The State program should also ensure operability and maintainabil-
ity reviews of proposed plant designs and specifications; use of startup ser-
vices; review of O&M manuals and development of useful manuals; use of diagnos-
tic evaluations; and support to Composite Correction Plan (CCP) and Municipal
Compliance Plan (MCP) development and implementation under the National Munici-
pal Policy.
2. Assessment of Training and Technical Assistance Needs
Training and technical assistance needs assessment should be a
continuous process. However, the State agency should formally assess needs at
least annually, with quarterly updates that coincide with review of compliance
reports. The needs assessment should be based on feedback from the formal
interprogram coordination process above as well as on deficiencies identified
in problem diagnostic and compliance inspections. Ongoing training needs,
including entry level and inservice training needs, should also be part of
the needs assessment. The needs assessment should be based on diagnostic
evaluations of compliance problems and determination of the types, quantity,
and procedures for technical assistance and training needed by each community
and operator.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Ubrary
Mail code 3201
-1 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
3. Action Plan
An annual action plan should be developed linked to the needs assess-
ment as well as feedback from the trainers and trainees. At a minimum, the
action plan should identify and set priorities for who will be trained, what
training and technical assistance will be provided, who will provide it, how it
will be provided, and the source(s) of funding. The action plan should serve
as a primary basis for developing and justifying annual budgets.
4. Training Delivery System
A delivery system should be developed and coordinated among State,
local, and private sector training entities. The system should reflect all
aspects of training delivery, including conventional and on site instruction,
curricula, instructor qualifications, delivery methods, technical content, and
training materials. States need to manage and coordinate training delivered
directly through State training centers and other State agencies and by the
private sector to ensure that programs meet identified needs and are oriented
to assuring compliance. The training program and delivery system should ensure
a balanced mix of entry level and inservice training and technical assistance.
The State should establish quality control criteria for courses, and
training and technical assistance materials; provide training materials based
on "need to know" criteria; periodically evaluate courses, materials and in-
structors; and maintain and disseminate a list of approved courses and
materials.
The delivery system should encourage development of local peer match-
ing, cooperative arrangements and other self help systems and use of nontradi-
tional methods, such as mobile training facilities, hotlines, circuit riders,
minicomputers and other remote audiovisual delivery.
State training centers exist in 28 States, the majority of which were
established under section 109(b) of the Clean tfeter Act. Several additional
States are also considering or in the process of establishing centers. These
centers can serve as an institutional training focus for the State, as well as
a primary source of training delivery. However, State training centers, typic-
ally located in State education departments, must support identified Statewide
needs, priorities and policies; operate in close coordination with State regu-
latory agencies; provide a Statewide delivery capability; and maintain an
outreach program particularly for small community assistance.
5. Mandatory Operator Certification
Most States (44) now have mandatory certification programs. These
programs, however, usually do not measure operator competency to operate and
maintain the specific facilities in the community, require annual inservice
training to maintain certification, or assure that operators are certified for
their levels of responsibility in the plant. An effective mandatory certifica-
tion program should provide that operators demonstrate in-plant competency, be
certified for operation of the appropriate treatment process, and obtain in-
service training and recertification as appropriate.
-18-
-------
6. Management Information System
A management information system should be maintained to support inte-
grated compliance efforts, training needs assessment, training and technical
assistance delivery priorities and approaches, documentation of results, and
program evaluation. The system should document the compliance results of train-
ing and technical assistance for feedback to compliance response decision-
making; maintain records of operator certification status, training obtained
and needed; be used to notify communities of requirements; and maintain a
list of approved courses.
7. State Staff Training
To provide effective operator training and technical assistance,
State training staff need to maintain and upgrade their own technical and
training skills. States should ensure that funds are provided for train-the-
trainer workshops and conferences, professional development, and purchase of
materials. Recognizing that training is also provided in most States by per-
sonnel in regulatory and construction grants programs, training also should be
provided to these State personnel in training approaches and in identifying
plant performance problems that can be solved through training or technical
assistance.
8. Public Education
Achieving improved plant performance and compliance depends heavily
on how well State and local decisionmakers and the general public understand
and support the importance of effective wastewater treatment, the level of
public capital and operations and maintenance investment in the plant, local
compliance responsibilities under the National Municipal Policy and the Clean
Water Act, and the need for operator training. The State should maintain an
ongoing education effort targeted at local officals and the general public to
promote improved understanding and political and financial support.
9. Adequate Long-term Fiscal Support
Long-term funding mechanisms must be established and maintained to
support effective training and assistance programs. The funding mechanisms
should emphasize achievement of self-sufficiency through local user fees and
dedicated State funds. Federal funds, under sections 106, 205(g), and poten-
tially 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act, should be used to develop effective
programs and, to the extent necessary, to maintain effective programs until
programmatic and fiscal self-sufficiency is achieved.
The costs of implementing an effective program will vary signifi-
cantly among States depending on their current programs and current mix of
local, State, and Federal funds. Appendix D documents the range of types and
levels of programs among the States. A few States are presently very close to
implementing the full range of elements and achieving self-sufficiency. Other
States have reasonably effective programs that would require relatively little
additional program development, State and local investment, and time to meet
objectives. There are also a number of States with very limited programs and
budgets that will require major program, statutory, and staffing adjustments
and an extended period of time to do so.
-19-
-------
The agency has provided funds to NETA to develop and test a workload
and costing methodology, based on these elements of quality training, to help
States and EPA develop estimates of implementation costs. The draft model and
pricing methodology is presently being tested and evaluated in a number of
States and only preliminary data are available. The data from 11 States show
incremental costs ranging from less than $10,000 to more than $450,000 on an
annual basis. The incremental costs vary significantly because of the current
status of the State program and the number and size of facilities in the
State. The total cost of a model training program in these selected States
ranges from $950,000 in a very large industrial State to $165,000 in a rural
western State. The average incremental cost of the model program in these 11
States would be approximately $200,000 annually. The national annual cost of
the model State program, based on the average of this small sample, would be
about twice the total 1984 cost of the current programs in the States.
C. Action Plan
Following submission of the Preliminary Report to Congress in March
1984, EPA convened a working group of State, local, and other appropriate
officials to define realistic short-term and long-term policies, programs,
and activities, consistent with agreed on Federal, State, and local roles
and responsibilities for ensuring improved municipal compliance. Although
this plan has been coordinated within the Agency and with representatives of
State and local interest groups, and reflects broad agreement on the framework
and many individual elements, the plan does not represent a commitment by
States or local governments to implement all needed actions in the near future.
Given resource and other constraints to some of the actions, the wide range
of existing programs at State and local levels, and the number of governmental
entities involved, the agency believes that identified State and local actions
will likely be implemented over an extended period of time.
Meeting overall municipal compliance objectives, including effective
plant operations, maintenance, management, operator training and technical
assistance requires a comprehensive management approach to the problem at all
levels of government. Improving operator training and technical assistance
programs is an integral part of the needed strategy, but these programs can
address only those municipal compliance problems that can be resolved through
improved operations and maintenance. Effective programs must also rely on
enforcement and overall operations and maintenance incentives. Programs must
also recognize that significant design, construction, and laboratory capability
problems also exist that cannot be resolved through training, and may not be
solved through enforcement.
The EPA, State, local and private sector action plans that follow are
built on the above assumptions. The plans first define a number of overall
management actions that are needed to coordinate with and reinforce training
and techical assistance program efforts. The action plans then identify opera-
tor training-specific actions that should be implemented at each level of
government. The actions listed do not assume any prerequisite actions by EPA
or States.
-20-
-------
1. Current EPA Actions
EPA has a number of activities underway to improve municipal
treatment facilities compliance and that support operator training needs. In
addition to working closely with various national organizations, EPA is manag-
ing the congressional add-on section 104(g)(l) funds to meet congressional
directives and agency compliance improvement objectives. The agency and States
are implementing the requirements and intent of the National Municipal Policy.
The agency is already beginning to implement several of the actions called for
in the following section including establishment of awards programs, issuing
new program coordination policies and guidance, developing new information
materials, working with interest groups and professional associations, and
targeting available funds and staff resources to improved operations and main-
tenance. The agency is also now considering other compliance and funding
initiatives. The agency is also incorporating operations and maintenance in-
centives into a study it has conducted on future Federal funding approaches
to wastewater treatment facility construction.
Computer diagnostic modeling programs are being enhanced to im-
prove front-end identification of design and operations and maintenance prob-
lems and to target operator training and technical assistance. A complementary
financial/organization management diagnostic model has also been developed to
help communities identify issues in these areas that affect plant performance.
A national training conference was conducted in May 1984. The
conference was directed primarily to State and EPA training officials respon-
sible for administering grant-funded programs to exchange information on train-
ing needs, technical assistance approaches, training delivery issues, and
accomplishments to date. A second national conference is being scheduled for
June, 1985.
The agency is also issuing local financial management guidance and
assistance materials to help ensure improved facility performance through
first-year grantee performance certifications. Revised construction grants
program management, delegation management, secondary treatment regulations, and
a financial management capability policy also have been issued.
2. Additional EPA Actions
a. Overall EPA Management Actions
o Issue agency policy requiring enforcement of O&M require-
ments in permits.
o Maintain internal EPA coordination to ensure consistent
interpretation and implementation of National Municipal Policy. Ensure opera-
tor training and technical assistance are included as integral components of
Composite Correction Plan (CCP) development and implementation.
o Promote improved coordination and organizational integration
of State enforcement, O&M, training, technical assistance, and construction
grants programs through policy, guidance, and grants management.
o Require annual or biannual independent audit of local finan-
cial management systems and update of user charge systems by noncomplying
communities to ensure funding of effective operations and maintenance, includ-
ing operator training.
-21-
-------
o Require that States include adequate startup services and
process management laboratory equipment funding in all new facility grants.
o Maintain adequate EPA staffing to provide needed State/local
O&M/operator training programs assistance and coordinated, results-oriented
State oversight.
o Develop and disseminate information materials to States,
grantees, and communities not expected to receive Federal funds on cost-effec-
tiveness of good operations, maintenance and management? low cost treatment
technologies? and treatment cost-reduction approaches.
o Establish EPA awards programs and promote establishment of
State and local operator awards programs to recognize and encourage effective
plant operations and maintenance. Disseminate information on State O&M subsidy
programs.
o Request legislative changes to incorporate significantly
weighted O&M element in State construction grants priority systems criteria.
o Establish high priority for use of State grant funds to
develop and implement improved operations and maintenance, operator training
and technical assistance programs that support overall municipal compliance
priorities.
b. Operator Training - Specific Actions
o Issue O&M and operator training policy and guidance coordi-
nated with permits and enforcement policy to encourage development of coordina-
ted Regional and State programs and implementation of compliance-oriented
operator training.
o Expand work with interest groups, professional associa-
tions, other organizations, and other Federal agencies providing wastewater
treatment funding to develop increased awareness and support to compliance-
oriented training and technical assistance. Consult with representative State
and local officials on the development of consistent, coordinated O&M, training,
and technical assistance policy and guidance.
o Compile and disseminate information for States and local
governments on the compliance improvements obtained as a result of training
and technical assistance and on feasible approaches to establishing effective,
self-sufficient facility O&M and operator training programs.
o Target Clean Water Act sections 106, 205(g), and 104(g)(l)
add-on funds to development of effective, self-sufficient State training pro-
grams that support overall municipal compliance objectives. Condition grants
as necessary to ensure priority implementation.
o Identify levels and duration of needed Federal funding to
support development and implementation of operator training and technical
assistance components of State municipal compliance programs.
o Promote use of 205(g) and 109(b) funding authority for
development of improved State outreach training capabilty.
-22-
-------
o Provide treatment facility diagnostic modeling capability
to States to assist in identifying compliance and operations management prob-
lems and related training needs.
o Develop and disseminate criteria and costing approaches for
establishing effective State and local training programs and assist State
implementat ion.
o Promote increased private sector involvement in training
through the Water Pollution Control Federation, other professional associ-
ations, and the EPA Management Advisory Group.
c. EPA Implementation Requirements
The agency is already implementing several of these actions and
is now considering early action on a number of others. With only a few except-
ions, EPA can implement these needed actions within existing statutory author-
ity. There are seme resource constraints to implementing all of these recom-
mendations in the very near term, but the agency is generally supportive of
early action to improve operations and maintenance and operator training in
conjunction with other municipal compliance efforts.
2. State Actions
EPA has been working with representatives of NETA, ASIWPCA, the
National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT), and selected other offic-
ials to define the critical, common elements of effective State operator-train-
ing programs, and the costs of implementing effective programs.
The following functions and activities comprise the agreed ele-
ments of a fully effective State operator training program, including compli-
ance and operations and maintenance program relationships, and represent a
recommended action plan for State program development.
a. Overall State Management Actions
o Establish and maintain formal interagency coordination and
organizational integration mechanisms among State O&M and operator training
programs with enforcement/permits and construction grants programs.
o Issue coordinated Statewide policies and local guidance
using all program authorities, including training and technical assistance
programs in addition to enforcement under the National Municipal Policy, to
bring communities into compliance quickly and effectively.
o Require, where lacking, minimum analytical laboratory
equipment in all facilities and train operators in treatment process control
management. Ensure adequate laboratory capability exists onsite or through
certified contract labs for effective NPDES permit effluent monitoring and
reporting.
o Provide communities with financial management and user
charge guidance and assistance prior to facility construction.
-23-
-------
o Require corrmunities to establish sound financial management
systems to monitor and to recover current costs of operations, management,
equipment and facility repair and replacement, training, and construction.
o Implement information programs to increase awareness of
local officials and operators of statutory requirements and cost-effectiveness
of O&M and training.
o Conduct operability and maintainability reviews of proposed
construction designs and specifications to prevent O&M compliance problems.
o Encourage local review of operator salary structures and
working environment to ensure communities dan attract and retain qualified
personnel.
b. State Operator Training-Specific Actions
o Assess needs annually. Develop results-oriented State
training, O&M, and compliance strategy and action plan that assigns roles,
responsibilities, priorities, and resources annually and provides the basis
for coordinating needed technical assistance, training, and enforcement.
o Reorient and expand State training programs, including
training centers, to a compliance-results orientation.
o Establish onsite training and technical assistance programs
for small noncomplying communities' management officials and operators using
Federal, State, local, and private sector resources; help local governments
develop network arrangements among sources of assistance.
o Maintain effective conventional classroom training programs.
o Implement and and enforce mandatory competency-based opera-
tor certification and upgrade training programs. Evaluate training materials
and recommend the most useful to communities.
o Conduct computerized and onsite facility diagnostic evalua-
tions to identify training-related problems, design and construction problems
not susceptible to a training/technical assistance solution, and enforcement
needs.
o Incorporate and enforce O&M and training requirements in
permits and construction grants.
o Use Federal 106, 205(g), 104(g)(l), and 109(b) funds as
appropriate to develop and implement effective State O&M, training, and techni-
cal assistance programs.
o Examine and implement appropriate State-local funding mech-
anisms to achieve programmatic and fiscal self-sufficiency and earmark funds
to meet identified operator training and technical assistance needs.
o Promote expanded private sector (i.e., consultants, opera-
tors, nonprofit and volunteer) O&M and training role, especially in small
communities, through contracted O&M and laboratory support, circuit-rider
training, peer match or contract technical assistance, computer modeling, and
audiovisual approaches.
-24-
-------
c. State Implementation Requirements
Because State programs are at different stages of development
and operate under different constraints, every State will not need to, or
choose to, make significant early changes to current programs. The agency has
provided funding to ASIWPCA and NETA to evaluate the current status of State
training programs. EPA has also provided funding to NETA to compare current
State programs with the elements of the model program and to work with at
least half of the States during the next two years to assist them directly in
developing an action plan to implement needed changes. The remaining States
will be provided information from the States assisted directly on approaches
for achieving more effective programs. Implementation of effective, compli-
ance-oriented programs in half of the States can probably be accomplished
within five years. Although EPA and ASIWPCA intend to encourage early needed
action in all States, given the status of current operator training programs
in other States, implementation in all States will probably require at least
ten years.
3. Local Government Actions
Local governments have the primary responsibility to achieve and
maintain compliance through effective operations and maintenance, financial
management, and operator training. Data tend to show that the majority of
noncompliance is now in small communities with facilities discharging less
than 1 million gallons per day. These small communities tend to have more
training needs, more financial problems, and consequently more operations and
maintenance problems. They also generally have received low priority for
enforcement and little technical assistance. The action items that follow
emphasize the need for increased awareness by local officials of their respons-
ibilities for wastewater utility management, the need to maintain effective
local operations and maintenance management systems to keep the plant in com-
pliance, and the need to attract, retain, and train operators.
a. Local Government Management Actions
o Implement a comprehensive (i.e., preventive and corrective)
maintenance management program, including, for example, scheduling, account-
ability, safety, parts. Establish a preventive maintenance budget to maximize
facility life.
o Develop and maintain an effective treatment process manage-
ment control system and procedures to monitor treatment operations and to
respond to influent, treatment process, and effluent problems.
o Ensure the community's financial management capability for
a proposed facility. Maintain financial management systems to identify and
recover costs of operations, maintenance, management, equipment and facility
repair and replacement, and needed operator training. Update user charge sys-
tems as needed to fully recover costs.
o Maintain essential inhouse laboratory capability for
process management; maintain or secure certified analytical laboratory capabil-
ity for permit reporting. Submit accurate and timely discharge monitoring
reports to delegated States or EPA.
o Request that proposed construction plans and specifications
be reviewed by State personnel and local operators for operability and main-
tainability.
-25-
-------
o Develop awareness of importance of management of facilities
to the community and basic understanding of wastewater treatment technologies
to promote selection of most affordable, appropriate facility.
o Ensure the community establishes operator salaries and
training opportunities that attract and retain qualified operators.
b. Operator Training-Specific Actions
o Ensure facilities are staffed by adequate numbers of opera-
tors and supervisors.
o Ensure operators and supervisors are trained to operate
facility in compliance with permits, certified at appropriate level, and obtain
continuing education annually.
o Obtain private sector, peer, or State technical assistance
to solve operator-related compliance problems.
c. Local Government Implementation Requirements
The time frame for achieving effective operations and mainten-
ance management and compliance by local government will vary significantly,
depending on the appropriateness of the current facility's design, the under-
standing by local government officials of their compliance responsibilities
and methods to maintain compliance, and competent management of the facility
by the community and plant personnel. Facilities that are out of compliance
because of minor operational or financial problems can probably generally
achieve compliance by the statutory deadline. Communities with major design
or construction problems, major management problems, or that need significant
new construction will require significant additional time.
4. Private Sector
The private sector has always had a significant role in publicly
owned facilities construction, operations and maintenance, and, to a lesser
extent, operator training. This role is increasing and the private sector
should continue to represent a major element in a coordinated overall effort.
Smaller communities have not been a significant user of private sector training
and technical assistance services, principally because of costs and geography.
Nevertheless, the need is apparent and, through innovative approaches, there
are additional opportunities for private-sector training. The private sector
could:
o Develop independent or State-sponsored multicommunity service
arrangements, including "circuit-rider" approaches to on site training and
technical assistance.
o Develop and market teleconferencing, "hot-lines", and micro-
computer software programs for plant process control, effluent control, and
financial management. Develop videotape and self-teaching materials for opera-
tor continuing education for inplant or home use.
o Develop wastewater treatment management information materials
and education programs for local elected and appointed officials as well as
operators.
-26-
-------
o Develop information materials and analytical models for munic-
ipal officials to use in evaluating the operational costs and effectiveness of
their facilities.
The agency believes that the information and proposals contained in this
final report establish an effective foundation for State and local action and
fully meet congressional directives to EPA. Following submittal of this Report
to Congress, the Report will be transmitted to each State, various interest
groups, and professional associations with strong recommendations for early
action to begin to implement these recommendations. The agency is committed
to meeting its responsibilities with States to assure overall municipal facil-
ities compliance and to provide policy, guidance, oversight, and management
assistance for development of the compliance-oriented, self-sufficient State
and local operator training and operations and maintenance programs.
THE END
-27-
-------
-------
HASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
STATE TRAINING CENTERS
Attachment A
Page 1 of 5
Location
New England Regional
Wastewater Institute
South Portland, Maine
NERWI
Southern Maine Technical
College
2 Fort Road
Portland, Maine 04106
New Hampshire, Concord
Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
Massachusetts, Boston
Department of Env. Quality
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02109
Connecticut, Hartford
D.E.P.
State Office Building
Hartford, CT 06106
Region I
New England Regional
Wastewater Institute
Franklin Regional
Treatment Center
Contact
Kirk Laflln
Phone
(207)
799-7303
Robert Livingston
(Concord)
(Franklin)
Upper Blackstone District Marc Perry
Worcester, MA
Connecticut Wastewater
Technology
State Training Center
Bethany, CT
Region II
Roy Fredricksen
(603)
271-3503
934-6463
(617)
292-5698
(203)
393-2705
New Jersey, New Brunswick
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dept. of Environmental
Science, Cook College
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
New Jersey State Training Vince Gregorlo
Center
Region III
(201)
932-9185
Maryland, La Plata
Maryland State Training
Center, Charles County
Community College
Box 910 Mitchell Rd.
La Plata, MS 20646
Virginia, Richmond
J. Sargent Reynolds
Community College
16SI Parham Road
Richmond, VA 25305
Maryland State Training
Center
Operator Training Center
Jake Balr
Jack Vanderland
(301)
934-2251
ext. 431
(804)
257-6436
-28-
-------
-------
Attachment A
Page 2 of 5
Location
West Virginia, Charleston
Department of Education
1900 Washington St. E.
Charleston, WVA 25305
Washington, D.C.
Depc. of Environmental
Science
Bur. of Wastewater Treatment
SOOO Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
Tennessee, Hurfreesboro
Rte 11 Box 388
Blanton Drive
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Georgia, Carrollton
Georgia Water and Wastewater
Institute
P.O. Box 1476
Carrollton, GA 30117
Operator Training Center
(Under Construction)
Cedar Lakes
Department of Environmental
Services
Contact
Adam Sponaugle
Charles R. Martin
Phone
(304)
348-3075
(202)
727-5757
Resign IV
Murfreesboro State
Training Center
Georgia Water and
Wastewater Institute
Jack Hughes
Jim Bennett
(615)
890-7008
(404)
834-1468
Florida, Gainesville
The U. of Florida
TREEO Center
3900 S.W. 63 rd Blvd.
Gainesville, FL 32608
South Carolina, Sumter
Sunter Area Technical
College
506 N. Guignard Drive
Sumter, SC 29150
Ohio, Columbus
State Training
Operator Training Committee
of Ohio Inc.
3972 Indianola Avenue
Columbus, OH 43214
Illinois, Edwardsville
Environmental Resources
Training Center
Southern Illinois U.
P.O. Box 75
Eduardsville, IL 62026
TREEO Center
South Carolina Water
Quality Institute
Region V
Ohio State Training
Center
Environmental Resources
Training
Dr. Barbara Mitchell (904)
392-2464
Dr. William Engle (803)
778-1961
Richard F. Mellet (614)
846-2812
TOD Woocers
(217)
692-2030
-29-
-------
Attachment A
Page 3 of 5
Location
Name
Contact
Phone
Arkansas, Camden
Southern Arkansas University
Technical Branch
P.O. Box 3048
East Camden, AK 71701
Region VI
Southern Arkansas
Environmental Academy
Richard VanPelt
(501)
574-4550
New Mexico, LaaCruces
Dona Ana County
Occupational Education
Branch, Hew Mexico
State University
P.O. Box 3 DA
LasCruces, HM 88003
Oklahoma, Midwest City
Rose State College
6420 Southeast 15th Street
Midwest City, OK 73110
Iowa, Cedar Rapids
Hastewater Treatment Plant
Operator
Training Center
Kirkwood Community College
P.O. Box 2068
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
Kansas, Topeka
State Technical Training
Kansas State Department of
Health and Environment
Topeka, KS 66620
Missouri, Neosho
Missouri Water and
Wastewater Operator
Training Facility
Crowder Community College
Neosho, MO 64850
Hater Utilities Technology
Program
Eugene E. Nelms (505)
646-2730
Hater Utilities Training
Center
Region VII
Dr. William Roach (405)
733-7364
Waste & Wastewater
Technology Center
Doug Fell
(319)
393-5677
Fort Scott Community Coll.
Salina Community College
Dodge City Community Coll.
Missouri Operator Training
Center
Region VIII
Karl Mueldener
Richard Thexton
(913)
862-9360
(417)
451-3583
Colorado, Denver
Community College of Denver
Red Rock Campus
1600 Downing Street
Denver, CO 80218
Colorado Wastewater Tom Feeley
Operator Training Center
(303)
988-6160
ext. 334
-30-
-------
Location
Utah, Provo
Utah Technical College
1395 N. ISO East
P.O. Box 1609
Provo, tJT 84603
Wyoming, Casper
Casper College
125 College Drive
Casper, WY 82601
Ha»e
Wastewater Operator
Training Facility
Casper College
State Wastewater
Training Center
Contact
Debra Korton
Gale Zimmerman
Bill Mixer
Attachment A
Page 4 of 5
Phone
(801)
226-5000
(307)
268-2542
268-2670
Region IX
California, San Marcos
California State CSWRCB
Hater Quality Institute
810 W. Vallecitos Street
Suite A
San Marcos, CA 92069
Government of Guam
P.O. Box 23609
Agana, Guam
Commonwealth of the
Marianas, SAIPAN
Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands
SAIPAN, CM 96950
Arizona, Tucson
Plma County Coam. College
8202 East Poinciana Drive
Tucson, A2 85730
Washington, Auburn
Washington State Water/
Wastewater Training Center
Green River Community College
12401 SE 320th Street
Auburn, WA 98002
Idaho, Boise
Boise State University
School of Vocational
Education
2221 N.W. 8th Street
Meridian, ID 83642
CSWRCB Water Quality
Quality Institute
Guam Community College
Office of Planning and
Statistics
Arizona Wastewater
Operator Training
Center
Region X
Waste Training Program
Michael Poplchak (619)
744-4150
Stan Malkln
<617)
734-4311
Charles D. Jordan SAIPAN
9333
David Landsburg (602)
886-3812
Fred Delvecchio
Wastewater Training Center Veronica Fitz
(206)
833-91U
ext. 369
(208)
382-3735
-31-
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
Attachment A
Page 5 of 5
State Training Centers Being Considered
Puerto Rico
Alabama
Louisiana
Nebraska
Montana
Hawaii
Alaska
Oregon
-32-
-------
Region I
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 1 OF 20
STATE
*
Connecti-
cut
Maine
Massachu-
setts
New
Hanpshire
Rhode
Island
Vermont
NAME OF CCtMDNITY
Bethel
Branford
Bridgeport East
Bridgeport West
Bristol Forrestville
Bristol Main
Manchester
New Hartford
North Haven
Seymour
Stoning ton Borough
West Haven
Brewer
Lisbon
Paris Utility District
Attleboro
Edgartown
Holyoke
Merrimack
North Attleboro
Somerset
Ashland
Concord (Penacook)
Derry
Franklin
Hampton
Lisbon
Milford
Newfields
Sollinsford
Salem
Strafford Co. Hone
Sullivan Co. Hone
Sunapee
Trey
West Swanzey
Woodsville
Smithfield
Chester
Lydonville
Pittsford
Richmond
West Ruthland
Woodstock
SIZE
(MGD)
1.0
4.5
12.0
30.0
5.0
3.5
6.7
0.07
4.6
1.0
0.67
12.7
3.0
1.5
1.85
8.6
0.35
7.5
0.45
4.6
1.6
1.6
10.1
0.75
11.5
4.7
0.37
2.15
0.12
0.15
1.3
0.05
0.05
0.64
0.26
0.16
0.33
3.5
0.18
0.75
0.07
0.22
0.325
0.24
TYPE
AS
AS
AS
AS
TF
TF
EA
EA
TF
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
2Stage
EA
AS
CO
AS
EA
AL
AS
AL
AS
AS
SP
EA
AL
OD
TF
AL
AL
OD
AL
AL
EA
AS
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE!
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-33-
-------
Region I
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUM, PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
ATEftCHMENT B
PAGE 2 OF 20
STATE
NEIWPCC
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Fort Kent
Limestone
Blue Hill
Bar Harbor
Orono
Lewiston-Aufaum
Anesbury
Manchester
South Bridge
Ipswich
Erving-flillers Palls
Saxton's River
Wallingford
White Rider Jet.
(Hartford)
Poult-Tey
Brandon
Castleton
Fair Haven
Orleans
Barton
SIZE
(MGD)
0.7
0.162
0.07
1.4
1.64
14.2
1.9
0.67
2.3
1.8
1.0
0.1
0.12
0.97
0.35
0.7
0.36
0.2
0.19
0.26
TYPE
OD
AS
EA
AS
AS
AS
EA
EA
EA
EA
AS
00
OD
EA
EA
OD
EA
OD
AL
AL
IN
CXHPUANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*"
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-34-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 3 OF 20
"Region II
COMPLIANCE STATUS Of INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
*
New
Jersey
New York
Puerto
Rico
-
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Aberdeen
Harrington
Bell Manor
Bryan TWP Int. SC.
East Windsor
Florence
Glouoester-Bloclcwood
Hamilton
Paljnayra
Pennsauken
Brownville
Buchanan
Canden
Clayton
Cableskill
Deferiet
Dekalb
Delhi
Pulton (City)
Livingston Manor
Lloyd
Potsdam
Rose.Tdale
Walton
Bayanon Covadonga
Bayamon Gardens
Bayamon-Las Teresasas
Bayamon-Royal Town
GUrabo
Hamacao
Loiza Valley Canovanas
Naran j ito
8io Grande
Truijillo Alto
SIZE
(MGD)
0.8
1.2
1.8
0.018
2.23
1.5
.625
6.75
0.5
4.0
0.65
0.55
0.80
0.30
0.75
0.08
0.03
0.575
3.30
0.80
1.25
3.30
0.10
1.17
1.0
0.670
0.375
2.062
0.60
0.25
0.513
0.5
0.375
0.50
TYPE
AS
AS
AS
AS
TF
AS
TF
TF
TF
AS
AS
OD
TF
AS
AS
AS
TF
TF
AS
RBD
AS
AS
TF
AS
TS
CG
TS
AS
AS
CG
AS
CS
CS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STILL IN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•-35-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 4 OF 20
Region III
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLWIS
82/83 FUNDING
STA1E
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsyl-
vania
Virginia
Nest
Virginia
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Bridgeville
De Seashore Park
Harrington
Laurel
Lewes
Milton
nfinoboul
Selfayville
Accident
Betterton
Broadneck
Centreville
Friendville
U^vwiAl?
HAIiOOCK
Millington
Oxford
Princess Anne
Queenstown
Ridgely
Snow Hill
Adamstown
Alexandria
Clarks Sumnit
Greenfield Township
Lynn Township
Media Borough
Nilleville
Mt. Pocono
Saxonburg Borough
Sunbury
Colonial Beach
Kilraamack
Mathews
Middleburg
Plains Marshall
Purcellville
Reedville
South Boston
anithfield
West Point
Alderson
Beverly
Bruce ton/Brandonv i 1 le
Buffalo
Cheylan
SIZE
(MGD)
.08
.13
.75
.75
.75
.25
.3
.70
.075
.2
4.2
.375
.1
.2
.07
.125
.7
.2
.2
.5
0.30
0.12
1.20
.25
0.08
1.80
0.14
0.40
0.50
3.50
0.80
0.20
0.10
-
0.16
0.50
0.20
2.0
0.5
0.30
.4
.34
.06
.75
.3
TYPE
TF
L
L
AS
EA
AS
TF
AS
L
CS
L
TF
TF
AS
RBC
CS
CS
EA
CS
EA
TF
CS
CS
EA
AS
Packed
Tower
EA
CS
RBC
EA
EA
EA
AS
OD
TF
AS
AS
TF
AS
AS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-36-
-------
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
Region III 82/83 FUNDING
•Training provided by National Demonstration Vfater Project (NDMP)
ATTACHMENT B
PAS: 5 OF 20
STATE
w
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Colfax
Culloden
Delbacton
Glen Rogers
Romnex
Roncervete
New Haven
Shepherds Town
St. Marys
Wardensville
Wellsburg
Bradlex
Huttonsville
Jane Lew
Arbuckle
•Ansted
•Beliagton
•Belmont
•Cairo
•Cameron
*Davis
•Elizabeth
*Elkins
* E 1 lenboro-Larabe rton
•Farmington
•Follansbee
•Gle.iville
•Grantsville
•Harrisville
*Hcx3versan Heights
•Junior
•Maiden
•Mannington
•Middleboume
•Monogah
•New Mart insvi lie
•Rivesville
•Rowlesburg
•Rupert
•Spencer
•Suntnersville
•Thonas
•Tunnel ton
•Weirton
*Wellsburg
•West Hand in
•Williamstown
SIZE
(MGD)
.08
.2
.25
.1
.4
.32
.22
.4
.3
.11
1.2S
.4
.25
.15
.35
TYPE
AS
AS
TF
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-37-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 6 OF 20
Region IV
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Florida
Georgia
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Belleaire
Deland
Ft. Walton Beach
Iimekalee
Kisairaonee
New Symrna Beach
Nioeville
Pahokee
Scoring
Sneads
Andersonville
Baconton
Bowdon
Braner
Buchanan
Clarksville
Cleveland
Conroerce
Franklin
Ft. Gaines
Glennville
GzBenboro
Haipton
Plains
Beaulaville
Boonville
Dunn
Farmville
Hsnlet
Highlands
Kenansville
ftobbinsville
Jtobersonville
Swansboro
Barnwell
Batesburg
Cayce
Edgefield
Johnston #1
Johnston #2
Land O Lakes
Manning
N. Augusta
Newberry #1
Newberry *2
Prosperity, E. Lagoon
Prosperity, W. Lagoon
Ridgeway
SIZE
(MGD)
0.9
8.0
4.5
5.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.2
2.0
.26
0.1
2.275
3.5
1.0
0.246
0.17
0.13
1.2
0.3
1.0
1.3
4.0
0.61
0.66
0.12
.003
1.0
0.05
0.500
0.015
TYPE
AS
EA
RBC
CD
AS
AS
CS
AS
AS
EA
EA
EA
AL
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
OD
EA
EA
OD
TF
EA
EA
00
TF
OD
CS
AS
EA
L
CS
0.800) AL
0.015
0.120
AL
EA
Wade Hampton 4.00 AS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANCE
X
X
X
Willliston .800J AL X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-38-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 7 OF 20
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Sooth
Carolina
Tennesee
"
•
NAME OF COMMUNITY
•Aiken
*Batesburg
"Bennettsville
•Berkeley
•Cayce
*Chester-Sandy River
•Chester-Rocky Creek
•Clemson
•Clover
•Dillon
•Florence
•Gaffney-Clary
•Gaffney-Providence Creek
•Hardeeville
•Hartsville
*Irnan Mills
•Jefferson
•Kershaw
•Kingstree
•Lake City
•Manning
•Marion
•McCormick
•Ninety-Six
•Ridgeland
•Riverdale Mills
•Saluda
•Suimerton
•Vfalterboro
"VCRSA Travelers Rest
•WCRSA Parker
•WCRSA Lakeside
•Vihitmire
•Winnsboro
Alexandira
Bell Buckle
Copper Hill
Decatur
Dyer
Fayetteville
Friendship
Huntsville
Jellico
New Bern
Old Hickory
Oliver Springs
Rockwood
Rutledge
Sharon (enforcettent act)
Signal Mountain
•Caryv i 1 le-Jacksboro
•Crossville
SIZE
(MGD)
.15
0.150
.4
.17
.675
2.66
.093
.08
.4
.4
1.0
1.0
1.65
.16
.15
.4
TYPE
CS
GA
OD
EA
OD
CAS
OD
CS
AS
TF
TF
CS
TF
EA
EA
AS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-39-
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 8 OF 20
Region IV
Training provided by NDMP
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
•Dayton
•Forks of the River
*»2 Knox Utility District
•Oliver Springs
•cneida
•Pikeville
•Sevierville
•faring City
•Sweetwater
•Tellico Plains
•Whitwell
•Albany
•Beattyville
•Benham
•Bledsoe
•Caney Creek
•David
•Elkhom City
Evarts
•Fleming-Neon
*Harlan
•Hazard
•Hindjnan
•Hyden
'Jackson
•Livingston
London
•Loyall
•Martin
•Pikeville
•Salyersville
•Wheelwright
•Vihiteburg
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-40-
-------
legion IV
Training provided by NDHP
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 9 OF 20
STATE
m
lississ-
.ppi
-
NAME OF COMfJNm
•Batesville
*Belzoni
*Bolton
*Burnsville
•Gary
•Charleston
•Cleary Heights
•Coahcma Jr. College
•Coffeeville
•Crosby
•Delta City
•Falcon
•Forest
•Glendora
•Gloster
•Guntown
•Hickory
•Hollandale
•Inverness
•Lexington
•Long Beach
•Mantachie
•Marietta
•Meadville
•Mound Bayou
•Pass Christian
•Picayune
•Reinzi
•Rosedale
•Shubuta
•anithville
•Tchula
•Union
•Have land
•West
•Wbodville
SIZE
TYPE
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HO
CHANGE
X
X
X .
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
-41-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 10 OF 20
Region V
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/63 FUNDING
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
NAME OP COMMUNITY
Ashton
Byron
Hardin
Orion
Riverton
Elizabeth
Wiite Hall
Osgood
North Vernon
Eaton
Goshen
Knox
Lapel
Middlebury
Westville
New Carlysle
North Salem
Whitestown
Bessemer
Ourand
Evart
Harbor Beach
Manistee
Milford
Newberry
Owosso
Paw Paw Lake, Colona
Lowell
Barnum
Brownton
Clarissa
Cemfrey
Editions
Grand Mara is
Le Center
Mable
Sandstone
Staples
Hellesville
Carrollton
Mahoning-Meader Creek
Hahoning-Boardman
Southpoint
Gnadenhutten
Plesant Valley RD6
Eldorado
SIZE
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PACE 11 OF 20
Region V
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Wisconsin
NAME OP COMMUNITY
Hllbert
Marathon City
Heyerhauser
Clinton
Mount Horeb
Waldo
Galesville
Pli» City
DOT Rest Stops 26, 36
Iron Belt
Central Wisconsin Airport
Coleman
SIZE
(MGD)
.171
.3
.04
.305
.79
.2
.31
0.06
.009
.032
.025
TWE
AL
AS
SP
TP
RBC
AS
TP
AS
SP
SB
EA
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
K
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-43-
-------
ATTAOWENT B
PAGE 12 Of 20
Region VI
•Training provided by NTHP
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Louisiana
New
Mexico
Arkansas
Texas
Oklahoma
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Abita Springs/Lynn -
Bridges
Basile
Blanchard
East Hodge
George torn
Lake Authur
Merryville
Pleasant Hill
•Delhi
*Gilbert
'Livingston
Loureauville
•Madisonville
•Port Barre
•Walker
Ruidoso
Cloudcroft
Aztec
Reserve
James Brings
Eunice
Brook land
Calvin
Dardanelle
Greenbrier
Huntington
Madison
Magazine
Pangbum
Paris
Prescott
Stanpo
Taylor
Deavers
Harris County FWSDi 6
Kings land MUD
Lake LBJ MUD
Orchard
Shape rd
W. Tawakoni
Broken Bow
Checotah
Eufaula
Hartshorn
Kingston
Lexington
Stringtown
Yale
Grove
SIZE
(MGD)
.12
.45
.19
.06
.6
.75
.25
.10
2.6
1.0
1.5
.075
.045
.3
.12
.12
1.0
.2
.1
.3
.15
.1
.75
1.0
.6
.12
.08
.2
.04
.165
.3
.30
.4
.3
.25
.3
.2
.15
.2
.042
TYPE
OD
00
OD
EA
EA
TF
OD
OD
EA
TF
EA
EA
EA
TF
SP
AL
AS
AL
OD
AS
AS
SP
OD
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
CS
CS
EA
AS
OD
OD
OD
AS
AS
AS
AS
FA
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-44-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 13 OF 20
Region VI
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
-
NAME OF COWWNinf
Bristol*
Pittsburs
Ardcraore
Braggs
Broken Arrow
Henryetta
Miami
Okay
Porter
Vinita
Wagoner
Locust Grove
Beggs
Jay
Tecunseh
Choceteau
Sali.na
Carney
SIZE
(MGD)
.4
.05
1.0
.022
.225
.3
.048
.016
.02
.048
.042
.022
.033
.092
.075
.042
.04
.02
TYPE
EA
AS
EA
OD
EA
EA
EA
EA
OD
OD
EA
TF
EA
EA
EA
TF
L
AL
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
NO
CHANGE
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 14 OP 20
Region VII
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Missouri
Nebraska
NAME OP OMKJNm
Alba
Atlanta
Bolivar
Bourbon
Buffalo
Butler
Cassville
Charleston
Crane
Cuba
Edina
Farming ton
Harrisonville
Homestead Village
Kearay
Licking
Louisiana
Haoon
Moberly
Miangya
Mount Vernon
Newburg
Noel
Osoeola
Pevley
Pineville
Platte City
Seed Springs
Rhoch Port
Seymour
Shelbina
Slater
St. James
Tipton
Van Buren
waverly
Brownville
Cambridge
Coleridge
Crawford
Crofton
Egkhorn
Geneva
Hebron
Laurel
Murray
Pilger
Riverside Lakes
Spencer
SIZE
(MGD)
.07
.05
.40
.10
.35
.70
1.25
.6
.07
.3
.5
1.075
1.0
.03
.15
.64
.75
2.1
1.6
.035
1.0
.75
.50
.06
1.5
.075
.80
.03
.25
.225
1.25
.40
.46
.435
.40
.12
.015
.257
.075
.150
.100
.28
.322
.217
.142
.05
.045
.060
.056
TYPE
OD
TF
OD
OD
OD
OD
OD
TF
TF
CS
OD
TF
CS
EA
CS
CS
CS
TF
TF
OD
TF
CS
OD
CS
AS
CS
EA
CS
OD
CS
EA
OD
OD
OD
OD
OD
AS
OD
AS
TF
OD
AS
RBC
OD
OD
RBC
AS
AS
AS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
X
X
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-46-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 15 OP 20
Region VII
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
"
Iowa
•
NAME OF COMMUNITY
WahOO
West Point
Winser
Weeping Watyer
Wood River
Yutan
Adair
Akron
Bloomfield
Cascade
Central City
Dayton
Denson
Dewitt
Eldora
GturxJy Center
Hills
Hundsoo
Janes vi lie
Jefferson
Keystone
Lake Mills
Logan
Manchester
Maquoketa
Maxwell
Milford
North English
Orange City
Readlyn
Red Oak
Rock Rapids
Rockwell City
Runnel Is
sibley
Solon
Steamtoar Rock
Stratford
Swisher
Vinton
Kaukon
Webester City
West Liberty
west Union
Whihemore
Wi Hams burg
Winfield
Winterset
SIZE
(MOD)
.69
.575
.160
.148
.200
.120
.10
.967
1.14
.250
.187
.090
2.73
.520
1.0
.832
.037
.50
.165
1.1 1
.07
.360
.20
.823
2.5
.108
2.6
.075
.2
.1
.796
.384
.288
.070
.670
.400
.049
.071
.09
1.8
.89
2.3
1.37
.435
.147
2.1
.239
1.25
TYPE
AS
AS
AS
AS
RBC
RBC
TF
CS
TF
RBC
TF
TF
EA
TF
SBR
SBR
EA
EA
EA
EA
SP
TF
CS
EA
RBC
TF
RBC
TF
TF
EA
TF
TF
TF
EA
EA
EA
TF
EA
EA
EA
TF
RBC
CAS
TF
TF
EA
TF
TF
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-47-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 16 OP 20
Region VII
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Kansas
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Atchison
Belleville
Bennington
Blue Mound
Buffalo
Crinarron
Colony
Deerfield
Douglass
Ellinwood
Frontenac
Goodland
Handover
Hiawatha
Holton
Hoxie
lola
LaHarpe
Lamed
Lincoln
Madison
Medicine Lodge
Mulvane
Oakley
Osage City
Prescott
St. George
Wilson
Yates center
SIZE
(MQJ)
2.8
.461
.1
.0372
.04
.216
.490
0.7
.22
—
-
-
.1
1.10
.336
.2
1.62
.135
.65
.37
.15
-
.4
-
.4
.03
.045
1.0
.3
TYPE
AS
RBC
AS
AS
AS
TF
AS
AS
AL
TF
CS
AS
AS
TF
RBC
TF
AL
AS
TF
RBC
AS
TF
RBC
TF
AS
AS
EA
TF
AS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_48-
-------
ATTAOWENT B
PAGE 17 OF 20
Region VIII
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Colorado
Montana
>lorth
Dakota
.
,
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Glenwood Springs
W. Glenwood Springs
Rifle
Silt
Carbondale
Brighton
Ft. Morgan
New Castle
Forsyth
Kalispell
Livingston
Missoula
Washburn
Steele
Tappen
Streeter
Linton
Hazen
Bowman
Abercrambie
Christine
Dwight
Zap
New Leipzig
Garrison
Par shall
Wilton
Dodge
Regent
Golva
Medora
Richardton
Taylor
Hoople
Crystal
Edinburg
Fordville
Mountain
Glenbum
Flasher
Kulm
Crosby
Noonan
Ray
Forbes
La Moure
Williston
Portal
SIZE
(MGD)
2.7
2.0
10.0
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
TYPE
RBC
AS
Lagoon
Lagoon
AS
TF
Lagoon
SP
SP
RBC
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
-49-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS PAGE 18 OF 20
Region VIII 82/83 FUNDING
STATE
North
Dakota
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Columbus
Powers Lake
Haddock
Hinnewaukan
Uphan
Munich
Towner
Horace
Butte
Dunn Center
Ashley
Berthold
Courtenay
Bowdon
Dazey
Alexander
Bowbells
Forbes
SIZE
(MGD)
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
LaMoure SD
South
Williston Portal SD
Bryant SD
Dakota jChanberlain
JGuster State Hospital
(Custer State Park
Game Lodge SD
TYPE
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
IN
COMPLIANCE
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
OD
AS
SP
Sylvan Lake SD SP
Legion Lake SD SP
Blue Bell SD SP
Elkton SD SP
|Ft. Pierre SD SP
| Iroquois SD SP
Utah
Wycming
Newell
Pierre
Salem
Tooele
Silina
Payscn
Cedar City
Sandy
SD SP
RBC
SD
1.5
.45
1.25
2.25
1.5
Aspen .1
South Cheyenne .8
Midwest .04
SP
TF
TF
TF
TF
AS
AS
AS
AS
Hulett .04 AS
Gillette 1.2
JThennopolis
0.6
AS
TF
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
NO
CHANGE
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
-50-
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PAGE 19 OF 20
•Region IX
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
*
Califor-
nia
Hawaii
*
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Mamroth Co Water District
Bass Lake
City Bishop
City of Ridgecrest
Carmelle
Hilton Creek
Blithe
Kailua Ke.ia
Kulaiman
SIZE
(HGD)
3.0
.5
.9
2.9
2.3
.05
1.4
1.0
0.5
TYPE
AS
CS
PT
PT
AS
AS
TF
AS
AS
IN
COMPLIANCE
X
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
-51-
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PA5E 20 OF 20
Region X
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
82/83 FUNDING
STATE
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washing-
ton
NAME OF COMMUNITY
Eagle River
Nenana
KalMOck
Mountain Village
Fairbanks
Haines
Hailey
Ketchun
Harriaon
Grace
Priest River
Stites
Juliaetta
Pacific City
Dallas
Estacada
Cascade Locks
Nyssa
Brewster
Crystal Mountain
Cusick
Elma
Leavenworth
Tekoa
Tulalip
Vashon Sewer District
SIZE
(MO))
2.0
0.8
0.2
0.1
4.5
.250
TYPE
RBC
AS
AS
AL
OD
OD
L
AS
AS
EA
EA/OD
EA/OD
IN
CCMPLIANCE
X
X
X
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
X
X
NO
CHANGE
X
X
STILL IN
TRAINING
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Type of Plant
TF - Trickling Filter
AS - Activated Sludge
CS - Contact Stabilization
CG - Clarigestor
R8C - Rotating Biological Contactor
SP - Stabilization Pond
AL - Aerated Lagoon
L - Lagoon
PC - Physical-Chemical; Carbon Absorption
EA - Extended Aeration
OD - Oxidation Ditch
Size of Plant
SD - Seasonal Discharge
-52-
-------
STATUS OF STATE ONSITE OPERATOR TRAINING
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS FUNDED IN PY 1982 AND FY 1983
*Training provided by NDWP
ATTACHMENT C
Page 1 of 3
STATE
«
Region I
Ventont
New Hampshire
Ma ssachuse tts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
NEIWPC
Maine
Region II
New Jersey
82/83
ALLOCA-
TION
* PLANTS IN
STATE UNDER
5 MGD BUILT
W/FEDERAL $
$ 50, 000 | 82
|
126,000) 65
i
50, 000 | 96
i
90, 000 | 59
50, 000 | 20
275,000
N/A
50,000] 100
i
125, 000 | 46
New York 120,000
Puerto Rico 104,000
Region III
Pennyslvania 110,000
Maryland 137,000
Delaware 33,000
Virginia
West Virginia
Reqion IV
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Tennessee
North Carolina
»
South Carolina
Mississippi
250
25
193
40
40
137,000) 42
32,000) 36
!
148,917] 131
|
141,260) 259
-
-
101,260] 201
60,000] 232
I
75,000| 196
38,763] 304
1 OF t OF
MEGHAN- JDUCNOS-
ICAL TIC EVAL
PLANTS tUATIONS
I
I
82 | 19
65
96
59
20
N/A
100
46
250
25
193
40
40
42
36
129
179
152
204
103
39
20
13
8
20
14
20
32
10
20
20
15
10
20
10
20
* PROVIDED
ONSITE TNG
/TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
6
16
6
12
1
20
ft OF ft SHOWING
PLANTS ] PERFORMANCE
BROUGHT IN] IMPROVEMENT
COMPLIANCE
6
10
5
7
~
17
3
10
14
10
10
12
8
10
20
32*
10
1
3
3
1
4
9
16*
8
14 6
22* 10*
—
6
-
5
~
3
2
-
ft PLANTS
STILL IN
TRAINING
6
9
-
12
1
20
3
10
14
10
4
2
1 3
-
6*
1
-
8*
8
10
10
10*
8
8*
21 16 11 3 10
14* 8* 3* 5*
25 10 3 4 10
30 16 5 7 9
34* 19* 9* 6*
58 | 10 36* 14* 17* 5*
Alabama 54,800| 211 107 10 -
1
t 1 t
-53-
-------
ATTAOWENT C
Page 2 of 3
STATUS OF STATE ONSITE OPERATOR TRAINING
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS FUNDED IN FY 1982 AND PY 1983
STATE
Region V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Region VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Region VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Region VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
82/83
ALLOCA-
TION
$180,000
63,184
40,000
65,966
40,000
78,850
180,000
102,000
100,000
270,000
140,000
236,000
222,000
237,000
158,000
143,000
78,000
60,000
88,000
143,000
130,000
t PLANTS IN
STATE UNDER
5 MGD BUILT
W/FEDERAL $
377
232
263
330
302
423
280
221
127
456
782
702
707
688
348
156
124
235
188
80
66
# OF
MECHAN-
ICAL
PLANTS
377
232
263
330
302
422
120
137
117
252
666
323
474
371
174
123
39
3
42
24
10
* OF
DIAGNOS-
TIC EVAL
UATIGNS
7
15
10
10
8
11
32
22
18
48
37
85
50
40
21
21
16
95
14
5
6
t PROVIDED
ONSITE TNG
/TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
7
15
10
10
8
11
18
16
*7
6
42
15
49
33
36
21
16
10
95
14
6
-5
t OF
PLANTS
BROUGHT IN
COMPLIANCE
4
5
4
-
2
6
7
«
*2
5
20
15
19
25
31
15
6
3
-
2
-
-
4-
1 SHOWING
PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENT
2
2
2
4
5
4
2
*4
1
-
-
16
2
-
2
-
1
1
4 PLANTS
STILL IN
TRAINING
7
10
10
10
8
11
11
16
*4
3
34
15
16
7
12
3
2
-
41
-
-
_ *
-------
ATTACHMENT C
Page 3 of 3
STATUS OF STATE ONSITE OPERATOR TRAINING
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS FUNDED IN FY 1982 AND FY 1983
STATE
Region IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Reaion X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
-
82/53
ALLOCA-
TION
$ 35,000
163,000
25,000
40,000
178,000
132,000
155,000
'"# PLAINS IN-
STATE UNDER
5 MOD BCTILT
W/PEDERAL $
50
365
16
22
145
# OP
MECHAN-
ICAL
PLANTS
25
360
16
20
35
183 I 153
322 ! 302
1
I
1
1
1
» OP
DIASNOS-
TIC EVAL
UATIOSS
-
30
5
17
49
43
12
a PHOTO*
ONSITE TNG
/TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
-
7
2
6
7
5
8
i
i
1 i
I
i
i
|
# OF
PLANTS
BROUGHT IN
COMPLIANCE
-
3
1
-
1
2
-
# SHOWM
PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENT
-
3
-
1
-
1
1 1 \
\ \
j PLANTS
STILL IN
TRAINING
-
4
-
6
7
1
3
-55-
-------
flu
Q
i
s
6
1
i
*
Z
^«
I
0
A
y
ggg
£ *• H
Bai
i s
pi
|_jj|
&*!!
a b. K En
s rii
i
S i
S • w
^ ^™* uQ Z £
JJoo*
0 Q 1 J tfl
slgas
Z M g w W
PS|
h '
fl C i
fe E H
ill2
SHO
3T ^ ^3
z 5 £
a i £
ORGANIZATION
§
— I •» V —t H ro r- *
-1 _ (N -H
So ro in -H r- oo
o oo >n c— .
P*
« •-» ^- CM l*> -H -H o 1 ^ 1
^H
o tn i/^ o o tf> co
in O
-^ o o o o tn i
o m ?N
iT» O l/> lA -^ -H *N
^
*fi o © Q r>< o v
O O krt Q \f\ ITI O
lf> ^ (N rl CN P* rO
^
O O O O O lA
H "-* C --H wj -"-f O M •*-* En O
8a*8 £ l» c~"S fi>H»§^"*
W C 03 -^ UC Cil C W C '— UJJ JCCC U3 C —
OQ-U O W 5w c *"u-^ OBI
M-i -^ C T3 u-f* UJ «-i -^H C Muia> tw Vj IM-^C
O AJ T3 C O->-> C>f O J-> 0 OE O *-i S O JJ Q
OJJ-^O A> O — ^ » 0$ U"""
» w w *o *w • -*H * ® to * n» • c • *J -«-* ^S ^>«-**1 Jj iJ -.-1
p» O W Q fitO Q* S Q Q|C CU > at Qi Q >
fiT Cj W O a>£i m 3 oj ti **H Q) A aT-M C ftj t »M
aa! z
in XD
r-
-H O
CM 1
O CM
§in
as
CO
CM
1 §
1 t
(U 3
Dept. of Envirarm
Conservation
Department of Nat
Resources
£ BJ
i i
ve
-------
o.
Q
|
*fc
s
rM
5j
w
§
2
g
1
fe
0
So
!ii
idg
£S
i s
uj C
pi
£ 3
o"ll
•*^ «*3 ^
tg &- g y>
f\ X *J
s u
S a
i
8 z
M M 2 fc;
lpP
Q ^
gpsi
^iii
£ — = g
^ 1^1
|i^
lls
lia
z o u.
Si|
5 &• oS
z O U
j
a
<£
S
9s O O 00 ON
f*1 O f*1 fM ^~i
^ r- 00 vo m
in in
o • os
^ M in os
m \o •*
oo m
m » r- in -H
o -H n m
r-
O> 00 O 1 O
O O O 1 O
O O O 1 O
o o <*> o
m o n i i-i
•— i
/v fl O
i o m r flo
O mo
ITJ O ffl 1 rH
iTl VO O O O
i-H
in o o ON o
\£) ~* O ^ i— I
•* fS
o o o irt
CO O O ^
i >• j-> c c 4J « iQC S3
c pi •" 3 •" 5
— 3 $ C £4J 5^-1
C O -i 3 I) 4JIB Ci a
•FH^^^ e •u'D •— 10 ^a
IB C C iBkj 103 >'H
^WCJ O 4->5 ^*t3 CO
^^>,° "'S31 "'S
Q>klJJ14J 10 UJ1M U-l3
4JIB-- 0 » — •rj OO OIC
io.ce ucp -~ o
4JU3 ••"•• *^M ••XI »»*^
111 Ji II III III
< "
M Z
5 3
o y < x
Z )-3 t— i *H itf
3 >• z > 5
i 1 s s 1
i s > s a
•* 0 rsi p-<
* in o T
in v o in
-H
m en
o m o v
ac
in o O o
ss
i -t I m
1 1 (N
o oo o
i m ip in
o -H m
I in CN m
. " S °°
moo
os O in
1 ~* S m
in N *
m m o o
-H r- o ^
in I-H o ^^
In
O ^4 u
4J E ••H fl)
gj y c p x w p^s
C H CJ CX, U> C 0) — <
U •f-l .^H U •*-! <0
tj^e-*- ^'™< > O .^Hfc,.^
-r" A J3 -u fl c > >
> (A •v *»^ *J UJ *• C * *^
CC^ >-HC C UCQ
wOo (ooj "^0 0
-^ ^-t 5 g C O -*H yj -4 M
^ jj o c o jj c *J i1
OtOU p-^ 30 00
—t UdU fl}$kj *$•!-<
P( Si c jj > > ij O ^ CX O *•<
A ^ ^ S ^- pp^ 3 ^ -S JK^$
k™l
a.
S
S 5 s £2
| § i g
^ o S £
0
M
S
^
00
CM
S
o
1C
o
§
o
8
i
|
— 1 IB
of Environmenta
. , (Operations Br
II
uJ
_
1
z
I
r-
-------
------- |