V
      vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of
Water
(4204-M)
EPA-832-R-01-001
March 2001
   EPA
   832
   R-
   01-
   001
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-Site
Technical Assistance
Training Program - 104(g)(1)


End of Year 2000
Accomplishment Report

-------

-------
                       Table of Contents



Program Background[[[pg. 2-3


Recent Programmatic Achievements.............................pg. 3-5


Success Stories...........	..........—..............—.............pg. 6-9


Future[[[pg. 9


U.S. EPA Regional Office 104(g)(l) Coordinators	pg. 10
Table B - Number of Facilities that have Completed
Training Assistance...	.........	.......	.............pg. 11
Table C - Number of Facilities that are Continuing
M.••UHIJ1&
Appendix "A"
Definitions of the following terms: achieved
compliance, maintained compliance, improved
performance, and no improvement; under the

-------

-------
WASTEWATER OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM - 104(g)

           Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act, added in 1982, authorizes funding for the
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training Program. Assistance
is provide to small, publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities with effluent discharges of less
than 5 million gallons per day. The program was implemented to provide on-site technical
assistance to wastewater treatment plants struggling with compliance and performance issues. The
assistance efforts of the program helps to protect human health, improves water quality, and
safeguards capital expenditure investments and upgrades at these treatment plants.  Federal funding
for the program is administered through grants to 47 states and one interstate agency, often in
cooperation with educational institutions or nonprofit agencies. In most cases, assistance is
administered by an environmental training center.

           The facilities the program assists each fiscal year fall into two different categories: those
that have completed training, and those at which training is continuing. Completed training is
defined as the assistance work at the facility has produced the desired result, and assistance is longer
needed at that time.; A few facilities (less than ten percent) choose to drop out of the Program and try
to achieve compliance through alternative methods. Continued training is defined as the facility
requires further aid, and support will continue until the fulfillment of the desired result. In fiscal year
2000, at an  average federal cost of less than $1,950.00 per facility, the program accomplished the
following:        ;

•          Assisted 875 facilities;

•          Achieved or maintained compliance, or improved performance at 772 of these
           facilities, an 87% success rate;

*         Completed training at 425 of these facilities; and

*         Achieved or maintained compliance, or improved performance at 380 of the 425
           above-mentioned facilities, a 90% success rate.

Program Background:

           The need for individualized technical assistance is real. There are over 15,000 municipal
wastewater treatment plants in the U.S., of those 15,000, almost 14,000 (>90%) discharge less than 5
million gallons per day.  Over half of these plants have sophisticated activated sludge treatment
technologies which require highly-developed operating skills. Operator turn-over rates at small
wastewater treatment plants are high, budgets and salaries are low, and community support may be
lacking.  These are the ingredients for wastewater treatment plant non-compliance.  These types of
small community wastewater treatment plants are candidates for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training Program.
                                           -2-

-------
           The goal of the program is to provide direct on-site assistance to operators at small
community wastewater treatment facilities, to help the facility achieve and maintain consistent
permit compliance.  Consistent permit compliance maximizes the community's investment in
improved water quality. The program is a cooperative effort with EPA regional office coordinators,
states, state training centers, municipalities, tribes, and operators. Assistance focuses on issues such
as wastewater treatment plant capacity, operation training, maintenance, administrative management,
financial management, trouble-shooting, and laboratory operations. These organizations work in
tandem with compliance and enforcement programs to improve water quality throughout the United
States. There is no cost incurred by the facility in need of assistance. The only requirement of the
program is the willingness to work with a trainer to correct the facility's problems.

           The program also helps identify any need to repair or build new facilities to meet
existing or future permit limits, assists the town during the process of selecting consultants and
design review, recommends ways to improve preventive maintenance of equipment and structures,
and often reduces energy and chemical costs and usage through more efficient operation techniques.
Most importantly, the program gets plant operating staff and local elected officials working together
on the problems at the treatment plant, to improve water quality through efficient use of treatment
equipment for maximum environmental benefit.

           Congress added on $1.425 million for the Operator Training Program in fiscal year
2000. EPA budgeted $274,000.00 for this Program in fiscal year 2000, as it has historically over the
years. In some cases, federal funds act as "seed money" for the program training  centers to access
additional funds for providing assistance. However, in other instances the only addition to the
104(g) allotment is the required 25% match from the grantee.  Funding levels for  this program have
remained relatively constant over the past ten years.
Recent Programmatic Achievements;	

           The Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training
Program, through the EPA Regional Offices and state partners, assisted 875 facilities in fiscal year
2000. Of these 875 projects, nine tribal and nine U.S./Mexico border systems were assisted.
Compliance was achieved or maintained, or performance was improved at 772 (87%) of these
facilities. A summary of achievements by EPA Region is detailed in Tables A, B, and C on pages 5
and 11 respectively.
                                            -3-

-------
                                     NUMBER OF 104(g) PROJECTS NATION-WIDE
                                                      1998 through 2000
                             1200

                             1000

                              800

                              600

                              400
                                t

                              200

                                0
Total Assistance Projects 1998
Total Assistance Projects 1993
Total Assistance Projects 2000
                        There was a 14% decline in assistance projects from fiscal years 1998 to 2000. Not only
             did the number of assistance projects diminish over the past year, but the Program's,success rate was
             reduced by six percent.
                                 i                                            .          •
                        The majority of the work that was conducted in the program for fiscal year 2000
             consisted of assisting facilities to achieve compliance and improve performance.' Facilities that
             completed training activities in fiscal year 2000 needed the most assistance in achieving compliance
             at the treatment plant site. The facilities that are continuing training activities from fiscal year 2000
             into fiscal year 2001 need assistance mainly in the area of improving performance at the treatment
             plant location.  See Tables B and C on page 11 for more details. This pattern is the same as in fiscal
             years 1998 and 1999.
                      _
                      I
                                                    104(g) Funding History
                              I   I   I   I   Mill	I   I..I...  1.1.1   I   I
S
                                                          -4-

-------
                           Total Number of Facilities Assisted in
                             Each Region for Fiscal Year 2000
                                       "TABLE A"
REGION
NO. OF
FACILITIES
ASSISTED
FY-2000
1
81
2
32
3
115
4
99
5
128
6
118
7
65
8
102
9
46
10
90
TOTAL
875
                                                                                                 V
           A total of 425 facilities completed training in fiscal year 2000, 380 of which achieved or
maintained compliance, or improved performance, a 90% success rate. One hundred and fifty two of
these facilities have achieved compliance, 112 maintained compliance, and 116 facilities improved
plant performance (including preventative maintenance).  Forty-five facilities had no improvement,
and have decided to try and achieve compliance at their wastewater treatment plants through
alternative methods. For a more detailed explanation see Table B on page 11.            -

           A total of 450 facilities are continuing training from fiscal year 2000 into fiscal year
2001. These facilities are still in need of assistance in order to improve performance and maintain
long-term compliance. One hundred and six of these facilities have achieved compliance, 84
maintained compliance, and 202 facilities improved performance.  Fifty-eight facilities have had no
improved performance, but are still being trained by a program technical person.  These facilities
have decided to continue to work with the program to achieve compliance at their wastewater
treatment plant. For a more detailed explanation see Table C on page 11.

                  Total Proiects (vs.) Carrv-Overs for FY 2000
                      CU Total Projects 2000
                      •• Carry-overs from FY 00 Into 01
                                          L
  150
   100
    50
                                                                           9      10
Of the 875 facilities assisted in fiscal year 2000, 558 of them were new starts and 317 of them were
"carry-overs" from the previous fiscal year.
                                            -5-

-------
 Success Stories:
                              WARWICK. RHODE ISLAND
           The Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RIDEM), with the assistance of the New England        ^
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, initiated biological
nutrient removal (BNR) training for a number of communities during the
Spring of 2000. Selected as one of five communities for this assistance, Warwick, Rhode Island
built its first wastewater treatment facility in 1965. Presently, the city with a population of 41,000
             people, is spending $110 million dollars to upgrade and expand its system, increase
             flow capacity, as well as to meet new discharge limits for nutrients. Warwick
             discharges at a rate of 3.9 million gallons per day to the Pawtuxet River, which
             eventually empties into Narragansett Bay. With 13 operators and mechanics, the
             operations and maintenance staff oversees the wastewater facility and 30 pump
             stations. Based on current projections, the staff will be responsible for maintaining an
             additional 20 pump stations as the collection system expands to the outlying areas of
             the city.
OEIV1
                                          -6-

-------
As part of this upgrade, a dechlorination system is being
constructed, along with pre-discharge aeration.
Warwick, along with a number of other Rhode Island
.communities were issued NPDES permits in 1989 that
required reductions in ammonia, total suspended solids,
and biological oxygen demand to improve oxygen levels
in the Pawtuxet River. As required by the existing
consent decree, Warwick has completed 50% of the
design of the required facility modifications as of April
of 2000.  The RIDEM reissued a NPDES permit to the
facility this past summer, with included seasonal
nitrogen limits, seasonal phosphorous limits, and year
round ammonia limits: The plans submitted by
Warwick include the modifications necessary to achieve
the proposed total nitrogen and phosphorous limits.
           Warwick's Wastewater Treatment Facility began removing ammonia and some of its
 nitrogen this past summer, implementing the information obtained through its-BNR training.  The
 facility has seen dramatic drops in ammonia and nitrogen levels in its effluent discharge. The plant
 is operating just below future permit limits for these parameters. With ammonia and nitrogen levels
 once in the 20-30 mg/L range, the plant is achieving levels of 2 mg/L and below. Furthermore, these
 improved BNR levels are attributed to merely modifying the existing facility infrastructure, this work
 provided information to the design engineers to construct a better treatment facility. Hopefully, the
 information will translate to a cost savings for the community in the near future. Without the
 invaluable on-site BNR training provided, Warwick would have been able to improve upon the
 proposed design, or face the possibility of saving a substantial amount on design and construction
 costs in the future.  In addition to cost considerations, there have already been reduced nutrient
 loadings to the Pawtuxet River.
                              OLD FORGE. NEW YORK

                             New York State Department
                            of Environmental Conservation
       The Old Forge Wastewater Treatment Plant generally produces an effluent quality well
 within permit discharge limits.  However, in  1997 the plant experienced sporadic problems with high
 effluent settleable solids. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's
 (NYSDEC) Operator Training Program trainers worked with the chief operator of the Old Forge
 facility, to identify the cause of high settleable solids and correct the problem.
                                            -7-

-------
       The Program technical assistance trainer
identified two potential causes for the problem:
escaping Nocardia foam and denitrificatiori. Since the
plant design does not include a chlorine contact tank,
any floating solids leaving the clarifier were ending up
in the plant effluent. Therefore, the operator had no
safety factor to polish the secondary effluent. A work-
group consisting of the plant staff and the NYSDEC
inspectors and Program trainers was assembled to
address the plant's Nocardia foaming and
denitrification problems.
                                                              35 gallon drum in (he aeralion tank:
                                                             hoist provides drum height ndjustmcm.

       To combat Nocardia foaming, a low cost foam collection and pumping system was
implemented.  When a Nocardia bloom occurs, the drum is lowered into position, the water spray
turned on, and the sump pump moves the foam to the aerobic digester. Removing the foam provides
positive Nocardia control without affecting the treatment process.

                                          Next the workgroup developed a method to solve the
                                    denitrification problems by running the plant's secondary
                                    clarifiers in a series. The effluent line from clarifier #1 passes
                                    through clarifier #2, by valving this line, the plant staff can
                                    open the valve and run the clarifiers in series when needed.
                                    This remedy provides additional clarification time to treat any
                                    denitrification or additional foaming problems that might
                                    occur in clarifier #1. All work was done in-house by the
                                    plant's staff. As a result of this cooperative effort, the plant's
                                    effluent quality has been greatly enhanced, thereby protecting
                                    human health and the environment.'
       in divert flow 10 clarifier #2.
       EFFLUENT QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OVER THE ASSISTANCE PERIOD
Time Period
Monthly Avg. Effluent
BOD in mg/L *
Monthly Avg. Effluent
TSS in mg/L *
Monthly Avg. Effluent
Settleable Solids in ml/L **
Before Assistance Program
June 1997 -May 1999.
13
12
0.8
After Assistance Program
June 1999 -May 2000,
Percent Improvement
9
31 %
8
33%
0.1
88%
  * Permit Limits for BOD and TSS are 30 mg/L daily maximum and 45 mg/L monthly average.
  ** Permit Limit for Settleable Solids is 0.3 ml/L daily maximum.
                                                     fi."\ '"T* V

                    ,                        _g_     j*»—»	     :

-------
       Because of the work done by Program trainers, the above-mentioned treatment facilities were
able to realize a tremendous cost savings. Furthermore, the pollution discharges from these facilities
have been reduced and future pollution discharges have been prevented. These are just two
examples of the value of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance
Training Program -104(g)(l).


Plans  for the Future:


•      Continue to work with EPA Regional Offices and state partners to improve water quality
       through the Wastewater Operator Training Program's assistance efforts;

•      Work with EPA's Regional Offices to track pollutant reduction amounts through the creation
       of a national assistance Microsoft Access database, to exhibit outcome based environmental
       benefits of the Program's assistance efforts; and

•      The Office of Water's Indian Strategy, which was issued in December of 1998, states several
       program objectives regarding wastewater issues:  1) EPA has committed to reduce the number
       of homes in Indian country with inadequate wastewater sanitation systems by twenty-five
       percent (25%) by the year 2005. 2) The strategy also discusses the need to increase
       coordination with other Federal and State agencies and organizations to provide support to
       tribes to  develop their financial management and operational capacity to operate wastewater
       systems successfully. Through section 104(g) of the CWA, a pilot tribal training center is
       being established at Northern Arizona University located in Flagstaff, Arizona. This center
       will provide no-cost, direct, on-site training and technical assistance to tribal wastewater
       treatment facilities, and act  as a clearinghouse for environmentally related information.

       If you have any questions or comments, or require more information on this subject matter
please do not hesitate to contact Curt Baranowski at 202-564-0636.  You may also access the
Program's Internet web-page at www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm.
                                            -9-

-------
              U.S.  EPA Regional Program  Coordinators:
*
y.
 David Chin
 REGION I {CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT}
 John F. Kennedy Federal Building
 1 Congress Street
 Boston, MA 02114
 Office of Ecosystem Protection /
 Municipal Assistance Unit
 Telephone: 617-918-1764
 Fax:617-918-2064
 E-mail: chin.david@epa.gov

 JohnMello '
 REGION U {NJ, NY, PR, AND VI}
 290 Broadway
 New York, NY 10007-1866
 Division of Environmental Planning & Protection
 Telephone: 212-637-3836
 Fax: 212-637-3891
 E-mail: mello.iohn@eoa.gov

 James Kern
 REGION III {DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, and WV}
 1650 Arch Street (3WP23)
 Philadelphia, PA 19106
 • Water Management Division
 Telephone: 215-814-5788
 Fax:215-814-2318
 E-mail: kcm.iim@cpa.gov

 James Adcock
 REGION IV {AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, and TN}
 61 Forsyth Street
 Atlanta, GA 30303
 Municipal Facilities Branch
 Telephone: 404-562-9248
 Fax: 404-562-9224
 E-mail: adcock.james@epa.gov

 Russell Martin
 REGIONVflL,IN,MI,MN,OH,andWI}
 77 West Jackson Boulevard (WN- 16J)
 Chicago, IL 60604-3590
 NPDES Support/Technical Assistance Branch
 Telephone: 312-886-0268
• Fax: 312-886-0168
 E-mail: martin.niS5eil@epa.gov

' Catherine Scudieri
 REGION V flL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI}
 Telephone: 312-353-2098
 E-mail: scudieri.caiherine@epa.gov

 Bill Black
 REGION VI {AR, LA, NM, OK, and TX}
 Fountain Place 12th Floor, Suite 1200
 1445 Ross Avenue
 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 ..
 Water Management Division
 Telephone: 214^665-7168
 Fax: 214-665-6490
 E-mail: black.hiHv@epa.eov
Rao Surampalli
REGION VII flA, KS, MO, and NE)
901 North 5th Street
Kansas City, KS 66101
Wastewater Management Division
Telephone: 913-551-7453
Fax:913-551-7765
E-mail: surampal II .rao@epa.gov

Brian Friel
REGION VIII {CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, and WY}
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Telephone Number 303-312-6277
Fax:303-312-6131
E-mail: I'riel.brian@epa.gov

Helen McKinley
REGION IX {AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU}
75 Hawthorne Street WTR-6
San Francisco, CA 94105
Water Management Division
Telephone: 415-744-1943
Fax: 415-744-1078
E-mail: mckinlcv.helen@ena.gov

Joann Cola
REGION IX {AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU}
75 Hawthorne Street WTR-6
San Francisco, CA 94105
Water Management Division
Telephone: 415-744-2238
Fax:415-744-1078
E-maii:cola. ioann@epa.gov

Bryan Yim
REGION X  {AK and WA}
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: 206-553-8575
Fax:206-553-0165
E-mail: vim.brvan@CDa.gov

Mike Silverman
REGION X  {ID}
EPA - Idaho Operations Office
1435 North Orchard St.
Boise, Idaho 83706
Telephone: 208-378-5754
Fax: 208-378-5744
E-mail: silverman.mike@epa-aov

Will Olandria (Oregon)
REGION X {OR}
EPA - Oregon Operations Office
811 S.W. 6th Avenue  <
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-326-2653
Fax: 503-326-3399
E-mail: Qlandria.willic@ena.gov
 ti ~ — •?•' v^  ,
 •'  ••  - ••  «-~'-^
                                                                 -10-

-------
         Fiscal Year 2000, COMPLETED Training Assistance / "TABLE-B"
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
COMPLIANCE^)
9
3
28
23
27
16
11
3
5
27
152
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
MAINTAINED
COMPLIANCE®
7
3
6
9
21
14
5
46
0
1
112
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE^)
6
4
14
22
25
18
10
4
2
11
116
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
HAD NO IM-
PROVEMENT
7
1
12
3
6
7
1
5
0
3
45
TOTALS
29
11
60
57
79
55
27
58
7
42
425
See APPENDIX "A" for an explanation of foot notes 1 through 4.




          Fiscal Year 2000, CONTINUING Training Assistance / "TABLE-C"
REGION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTALS
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED
COMPLIANCE^
11
15
10
3
24
13
4
10
10
6
106
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
MAINTAINED
COMPLIANCE^
26
1
8
4
3
10
2
14
10
6
84
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE^
11
5
25
32
19
26
27
11
16
30
202
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
THAT HAVE
HAD NO IM-
PROVEMENTo)
3
0
12
3
3
14
5
9
3
6
58
TOTALS
51
21
55
42
49
63
38
44
39
48
450
See APPENDIX "A" for an explanation of foot notes 5 through 8.
                                       -11-

-------
&
                                                         APPENDIX  "A"

               1. Achieved Compliance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the compliance
               assistance. After the facility has completed its assistance, the facility is in compliance with its NPDES permit. In order to be
               rated as achieved compliance at the end of assistance, the facility needs to be in compliance with all elements of its NPDES
               permit for three consecutive months.

               2. Maintained Compliance starts with the facility in compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the compliance
               assistance. However, the facility is demonstrating performance problems which could lead to non-compliance with its NPDES
               permit. After the facility has completed its assistance, has halted any further deterioration in performance, improved its
               performance, and continued to stay in compliance with its NPDES permit. The underlying theme with compliance
               maintenance facilities is that there is "something wrong" with performance, but it is not "wrong" enough to exceed NPDES
               permit levels.

               •       This type of assistance continues to increase as compliance levels progress, trainers become more skilled, and
                       monitoring and communications improve between operators and trainers.

               3. Improved Performance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the
               compliance assistance. However, compliance assistance has led the facility to better operation and maintenance. After the
               assistance has been completed at the facility, "total" compliance may have not been achieved on a consistent basis, but the
               facility is definitely operating better. The facility has reduced periods of non-compliance, reduced levels of pollutants
               discharged, or has had significant increases in efficiencies such as: lower energy usage, better (and often lower) chemical usage
               for proper operation, and adequate financial support enabling operators to better address problems in a more timely fashion.
               The facility may not be in "total" compliance with its NPDES permit, but it has "significantly" increased its performance. The
               facility has completed its compliance assistance training with the Program and may still be out of compliance, this is due to
               circumstances beyond the Program's control, such as the need for an upgrade to the treatment facility.

               *       Money saved by better operation can be utilized to finance needed improvements necessary for longer term
                       compliance.

               4. No Improvement starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the compliance
               assistance training, and continues to be out of compliance with little or no improvement. The facility has opted to discontinue
               its participation in the Program.

               5. Achieved Compliance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the compliance
               assistance. Even though the facility has achieved compliance, it is continuing its  assistance to ensure a permanent compliance
               status.

               6. Maintained Compliance starts with the facility in compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the compliance
               assistance. However, the facility is demonstrating performance problems which could lead to non-compliance with its NPDES
               permit. After the facility has completed its assistance, the facility has halted any further deterioration in performance,
               improved its performance, and has continued to stay in compliance with its NPDES permit.

               7. Improved Performance starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at die beginning of the
               compliance assistance. However, the assistance is leading the facility to better operation and maintenance. After the assistance
               has been completed at the facility, "total" compliance may have not been achieved, but the facility is definitely operating better.
               The facility has reduced periods of non-compliance, reduced levels of pollutants discharged, or has had significant increases in
               efficiencies such as; lower energy usage, better (and often lower) chemical usage for proper operation, and adequate financial
               support, enabling operators to better address problems in a more timely fashion. The facility may not be in "total" compliance
               with its NPDES permit, but it has "significantly" increased its performance.  The  facility continuing its compliance assistance
               with the Program is working on bringing the facility into "total" compliance with its NPDES permit, but has not achieved this
               status on a consistent basis.

               8. No Improvement starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the compliance
               assistance training, and continues to be out of compliance with 'little or no improvement. The facility has decided to continue
               to work with the Program to solve its compliance problems.
                                                                     -12-

-------

-------