Getting From Here. j IA tE . . . . To There.’ 3 . - . I ------- w PROJECT OFFICERS NEIETC - Kirk Laflin NEIWPCC - Susan Sullivan EPA Region I - Charles Conway This report was developed by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) and Environmental Training Center (NEIETC) through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 104(B)(3) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CP 991558). ------- CETTING FROM HERE To THERE Selecting the Best Wastewater Management Option for Your Community E ach day in the United States, billions of gallons of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater flow through sewers to more than 16,000 publicly-owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs). Since 1970, over $500 billion of public funds have been invested in providing safe and reliable wastewater services to 70 per- cent of the nation’s population and more than 99 percent of the urban population. Owning and operating a wastewater treatment and collection system is a daunting responsibility that requires long-term financial commitment and planning.With cutbacks in federal and state support, communities are faced with the increasing financial burden of operating and maintaining these facilities. Nationally, water and wastewater projects represent one of the largest local expenditures—over $43.5 billion annually. In light of local budget constraints, aging equipment and infrastructure, increased regulato- ry demands, and the perception that municipal services are too expensive and inefficient, many municipalities realize that they have to find a better way to operate and maintain their POTWs. While communities have a number of wastewater services options that they can explore, the enormity of the undertaking can be overwhelming. This document has been prepared to help your community evaluate its wastewater ser- vices options.These options range from self improvement to contract operation/lease arrangements to the outright sale of community POTW assets.The choice is yours! COMMUNITY COMMITMENT -- -Ultimately, the wastewater services solution that you choose should be one that best suits the unique set of conditions in your commu- nity. The process you use to arrive at that solution requires that you take stock of where you are now and then identify the issues you need to consider in order to get to where you need to be—finding the most efficient way for your com- munity to receive the full range of wastewater utility services. As you explore and deliberate your wastewater services options, be sure that your community, as a whole, is aware of the issues associated with this decision. Keep in mind that your commu- nity is responsible for upgrading and protecting the wastewater infrastructure and, most irnpor- tan dy, for meeting environmen- tal requirements and protecting the public health and welfare. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes an officially neutral position as to whether your community’s POTW is pub- licly or privately owned or operat- ed. However, EPA and the state environmental agencies have responsibility for maintaining the long-term viability of the waste- water infrastructure and for ensur- ing that POTWs are operated to meet environmental and public health regulations. Wastewater collection and treat- ment systems are subject to a complex array of state and federal regulations, including permit requirements, sludge regulations, industrial pretreatment require- ments, SARA Title I II readiness and reporting requirements, Clean Air Act permit restrictions, and public health and safety reg- ulations. Although many of the factors that affect privatization are local in nature, there are certain feder- al requirements that have an impact on those decisions. These include IRS regulations, EPA con- struction grant regulations, NPDES permit requirements, and Executive Order 12803, which come into play when choosing the type of privatization. Some of these federal regulations restrict certain privatization activ- ities (e.g., tax law restricts the use of tax-exempt debt for privately- owned facilities). Others require that local governments seek approval for changes to owner- ship/operation of their POTW. EPA requirements apply only if the local government received federal wastewater construction grants. For example, sale of a facility that received construction grants through the Clean Water Act requires that the local gov- ernment apply for a deviation from the EPA grant regulations and EPA review and approval under Executive Order 12803. EPA and many of the state envi- ronmental agencies must also be involved in the privatization process when there is any form of encumbrance placed on the title of a federally/state-funded POTW. Needless to say, both EPA and your state environmental agency should be involved early on so that the process doesn’t get bogged down. To find out more about federal or state require- ments, contact EPA-New England or your state environmental agency. I 4 ------- \ / ® Whichever wastewater ser- vices option you choose and how that choice will be tai- lored to meet the needs of your community dependson the kind of information you bring to the table. For starters, in order to make an informed decision about where you are going with your wastewater services, it’s important to know where you are now. This involves undertaking a candid and thorough self-appraisal qf the current status of your POTW operation and projected future needs and costs. To do this type of self-appraisal, your community can self-evaluate or hire a knowledgeable consult- ing firm. The appraisal should consist of a detailed evaluation of existing management, operation, maintenance, regulatory compli- ance, and financial considera- tions for the POTW operation. In performing this self-appraisal your community or your consul- tant may begin to identify ways to enhance operating efficiencies, reduce costs, and improve ser- vices. THE SELF-APPRAISAL The self-appraisal is essentially a comprehensive diagnostic evalua- tion of the overall performance of a POTW. It encompasses facility capability, staff and management qualifications, permit compli- ance, safety compliance, an ener- gy audit, and limitations in the areas of design capacity, opera- tion and maintenance of equip- ment, and finance. As noted above, this can be done in-house or with the assistance of a quali- fied consultant who has no vest- ed interest in the outcome of the study. Two basic questions shodld drive your self-appraisal: > What am I doing? > How well am I doing it? To begin to answer these ques- tions, the wastewater utility must be viewed much like a business— a closed utility, if you will—that can be evaluated in a totally aggregated, performance-based sense. (While this approach seems perfectly logical, historical accounting practices in many communities tend to lump waste- water services under one large municipal umbrella.) At the end of the evaluation, the full range of wastewater services should be quantified and the total costs of operation, maintenance, and cap- ital replacement provided in detail. When you have compiled this information, you will have answered the first question: “What am I doing?” cUD 1 © UD 7 T he benefits of POTWs go far beyond the treatment of wastewater. The water quality improvements made possible by these facilities have made it possible for communities to restore rivers, lakes, and beaches to swimmable, fishable quality and to convert adjacent lands into pro- ductive assets such as riverwaiks, urban recreational facilities, wildlife preserves, and education centers. Wastewater utilities also provide many other types of services to the community at large. These include: Protecting against sewer backups, fires, and explosions; Implementing the community’s industrial pretreatment program, which includes providing industrial customers with technical assistance on wastewater treatment and waste minimization; Conducting ambient water quality, groundwater, and air moni- toring; Preparing disaster and emergency preparedness and response plans; Entering into cooperative agreements with other community services; Conducting public education and outreach programs; Consulting with state and federal regulatory agencies on policy and rule-making issues; and Opening or expanding tourism opportunities by improving local water quality. I ------- Once you have quantified your ser- vices and costs, you will be ready to answer the next question—”How am I doing?” To answer this, you need to be able to compare, or “benchmark,” your operation with other top-performing, similar sized operations. To do this, use the information derived from your self- appraisal, and develop benchmarks for each component of your opera- tion. The results should provide you with a quantifiable sense of where improvements should be tar- geted. Once you have performed your POTW self-appraisal you will be in a good position to “plug” this information into your decision- making process. If, ultimately, your municipality opts to contract out for services, this appraisal will also provide the information you need to specify to potential contractors what services will be required. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTuoNsl Y our community has several broad options for providing the most efficient full range of wastewater utility services. They include: No CHANGE The municipality is happy with the way its POTW is managed, operated, and maintained. The cost for operation is competitive with other communities, and the condition of the facility is excel- lent. Inasmuch as many POTWs continually strive for excellence, many communities recognize that if the operation and manage- ment system isn’t broken, their best option is to continue to sup- port it. UNDERTAKE A PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM If through your I OTW self- appraisal you have compiled detailed information on existing management, operation, mainte- nance, and finances and, through this process, have identified steps that can be taken to enhance operating efficiencies, reduce costs, and improve services, you and your public employees have the option of moving forward to develop a performance improve- ment workplan. Such a plan should provide details on measur- able and specific steps and proce- dures for carrying out the com- rnunity’s wastewater services. Under this scenario, a municipali- ty may choose to contract out all or some of its wastewater service tasks, or hire a qualified consult- ing firm to help implement the recommendations. Cost-reducing measures can include: Expanding instrumentation and automation capabilities; Instituting energy saving mea- sures; Optimizing process control; Contracting out appropriate functions; Setting up cooperative purchas- ing agreements for materials such as chemicals; Reclaiming byproducts for sale; Selling services; Cross-training staff to perform multiple functions; Downsizing through attrition and human resource reform; Reforming cumbersome pro- curement restrictions; Conducting predictive, planned maintenance; and ‘ Reducing parts and supplies inventories. Your performance improvement program should prescribe a course of action that is both spe- cific and flexible. It should he flexible in the sense that your prescribed course of action is sub- ject to routine reevaluation and adjustment. PRIVATIZE POTW OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT Many communities have grown increasingly interested in explor- ing the potential to improve effi- ciencies and reduce the costs of operating wastewater treatment plants through contracts with the private sector. This option has been used by communities across the country since the late 1970s with varying degrees of success. Currently, over 1,000 POTWs are operated under contract by pro- fessional operating firms. In New England, about 70 of the 550 POTWs are currently operated by private firms. Privatizing the operation and management of a POTW can take many forms. These arrangements, however, can generally be classified as either contract operations or lease/concession agreements. Outright sales of POTWs are rare. These classifications are briefly described as follows: • Contract Operation A private firm assumes respon- sibility for operating, maintain- ing, and managing the waste- water system. Typical contract operation terms are for 3 to 5 years with simple termination clauses. Recent tax law changes L.k ------- now allow for service agree- ments that span up to 20 years, depending on terms of the con- tract. Contract operation does not involve any encumbrance of the title to the POTW, capi- tal investment in the POTW by the private firm, or transfer of funds from the private firm to the public entity. To date, con- tract operations have been the predominant form of privatiza- tion in New England. Lease/Concession In this type of arrangement, a private company may provide capital investment in the POTW and/or transfer private funds to the community in addition to assuming responsi- bility for operating, maintain- ing, and managing the waste- water system. This transfer of funds is usually in the form of a jump sum or periodic lease concession fee. A lease/concession agreement that involves an upfront or periodic payment to the munic- ipality requires EPA review and approval under Executive Order 12803. EPA must also approve the “construction grant condi- tion.” Such an arrangement may require that the municipal- ity or private entity reimburse the state and federal govern- ments for any grant payments that have not been depreciated. Lease/concession agreements can vary widely, running the gamut from mid-range 10- to 20-year contracts that require upfront concession fees to long-term contracts to finance, build, and operate a POTW through concession agreements that can span 20 years or more. Several municipalities in New England are currently evaluat- ing lease/concession options. (Two quite different lease/con- cession agreements are described in “A Tale Of Two Leases” on pages 4 and 5.) If your community is considering entering into a lease/conces- sion arrangement, you should contact EPA-New England as soon as possible. Outright Sale An outright sale or divestiture of POTW assets involves the transfer of the title for a POTW to a private entity for a specific transfer price. This type of arrangement requires a “con- struction grant condition” and EPA review and approval under Executive Order 12803. So far, there has been only one out- right sale of a wastewater facili- ty in the United States. No such sales are currently on the horizon in New England. Municipalities that choose this option will face a relatively unique scenario that involves a host of legal and permit issues. For this reason, it will not be addressed further in this paper. A TALE OF I n 1997, two New England communities—Cranston, Rhode Island and Danbury, Connecticut—entered into long-term lease arrangements with private contractors for the operation and maintenance of their wastewater infrastructures.These are the first two long-term lease arrangements in New England. Both facilities are similar with regard to population served and waste stream treated. Cranston leased the operation and maintenance of its entire wastewater treatment, collection, and pumping system to Triton Ocean State, L.L.C. for a 25-year period.Triton Ocean State is a subsidiary of Poseidon Resource Corporation and was created specifically for the Cranston project.The facility and its 21 pump stations had already been operated by the Professional Services Group (PSG) on a standard contract operations basis since 1989. In the early I 980s, the wastewater treatment plant was upgraded to a 23 mgd capacity and is currently processing about 12 mgd. Under the present lease arrangement, PSG is a subcontractor, responsible for overseeing the 300-mile collection system, all repairs and replacements of the wastewater infrastructure, and managing the pretreatment program. Metcalf & Eddy, another subcontractor, is responsible for designing and building JO capital improvement projects that will cost about $24 million. Triton Ocean State will assume the cost of all capital improvements over the 25-year period. The City of Cranston received a $47.6 million concession fee from Triton Ocean State, which it will pay back with interest.The city will use this money in the following ways: • $26 million to retire general obligation debt on the wastewater treat- ment system; • $8.6 million to repay money owed by the city’s sewer enterprise fund to the general fund; • $7 million to pay off accumulated deficits in the general fund; and • $6 million to establish a surplus in the general fund. ------- To find Out more about the outright sale of POTWs, con- tact EPA-New England. PROS AND CONS OF PRIVATIZATION Municipalities typically cite a combination of reasons vhv they choose to privatize their waste- water services. These reasons include: Access to more sophisticated technologies and capabilities. Less costly operation and maintenance. Flexible financing, including the use of private capital. l)elegation of responsibility and risk. Guaranteed cost of operations. On the other hand, skeptics of privatization have raised several potential concerns regarding pri- vate contracting. For example: What if, in their drive to maxi- mize profits, private firms cut preventative and corrective main- tenance to the point where the long-run viability of the infra- structure and equipment is com- promised? Are communities aware that they will assume direct and indirect financial costs associated with pursuing privati- > zation agreements? These costs can include: Request for Proposals/Requests for Qualifications (RFP/RFQ) preparation, proposal review, and contract negotiation (in some recent agreements the costs associated with these activities were over $500,000); Transferring or retraining pub- lic P01W workers; Overseeing and monitoring the private contract, including revkws of contractor perfor- mance and compliance to terms of the contract; and Profits, dividends, and taxes built into the private contrac- tor’s cost. Another issue that could create problems for municipalities is a privatization arrangement that seems very attractive at the outset but ultimately trades off short- term gains for long-term costs. Please Note: Swiic state’ c.’ilvimii— iiic’iitcil (i’ ’c’iici(’S require a [ otmal rel’ie%%’ and approval of a private o/k’ratio!I proposal. Be sure to check Wit/i i’ulIr state a ’ilci’. Over the past 20 years, munici- palities in New England have had mixed success with private opera- tion of their POTWs. In some cases, service contracts have resulted in improved performance and/or cost savings. In other cases, cost savings have not mate- rialized as expected and opera- tions have not improved. Two LEASES . The city will pay Triton Ocean State an annual fee that will total over $400 million by the end of the contract period.The city retains owner- ship of the wastewater system, collects all wastewater user fees, and enforces the pretreatment program. It is also required to pay for repairs and replacements that must be undertaken because of uncontrollable circumstances, changes in laws, and post-contract improvements request- ed by the city. Danbury leased its wastewater treatment system to U.S. Filter Operating Services (USFOS) for a 20-year contract period.This lease works very much like a standard contract operation arrangement in which the city pays the contractor an annual maintenance fee that includes solids han- dling, staffing, and base electric costs up to $400,000.The maintenance fee will total over $85 million over the life of the contract, based on an estimated annual three percent Consumer Price Index increase. USFOS is responsible for operating and maintaining the treatment plant, force mains, and pump stations. Danbury upgraded its IS mgd facility, force mains, and pump stations in the early I 990s for $76 million, and the sys- tem is currently in excellent condition. Danbury received a $10 million concession fee from USFOS, which it will pay back with interest. Of this amount, $8.2 million will be used to cover the landfill and $1 .8 million to cover additional costs and stabilize the user charge.The city retains ownership of the wastewater system, collects all wastewater user fees, and is respon- sible for any additional costs (e.g., associated with increased flows or electrical costs that exceed $400,000), capital improvements that exceed $3,000/item, and lab- oratory analyses that exceed $5,000/year.The city is fully responsible for maintaining the I 50-mile collection system. j 0 ------- Developing A Win/Win Privatization Program I f your decision-making path leads your community to choose a contract operation or a lease/concession arrangement, the successful outcome of this decision will depend on how you define your goals for privatization, how you solicit, select, and nego- tiate your contract, and how you later monitor and enforce the C( )flt ract. SETTING GOALS By clearly defining your goals, your community can make spe- cific determinations as to who can bid on its wastewater services contract and what type of con- tract operation and/or lease arrangement best suits its needs. If, for example, your community wishes to receive a large upfront concession fee or capital invest- ment, you may wish to eliminate existing public employees and all hut a handful of large companies from bidding on the contract. If, on the other hand, your commu- nity is more concerned about which potential bidder can pro- vide the best services for the least amount of money, then you might open up the bidding process to a “managed competi- tion” scenario, in which your municipal employees bid against the private sector to determine who can do the job most cost- effectively. MANAGING THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS Most municipalities choose their private contractors through the use of a RFPIRFQ. The RFP/RFQ is the basis for a successful contract operation arrangement and is key to obtaining the desired “win- win” situation. The more detailed the RFP/RFQJ the less the possibil- ity for any misunderstanding in the future. Taking the time to spell out your goals and expecta- tions in the RFP/RFQ will attract the appropriate contractors and will provide the details they require to make legitimate bids. From the contractor’s viewpoint, a detailed RFP/RFQ allows all prospective bidders to address the exact services desired by the municipality. To craft a well-written RFP/RFQ you will need a significant amount of input from your cur- rent POTW staff, and you may well need the assis- tance of an expert in the POTW privatiza- tion procurement process. The more time and effort you spend developing an effective RFP/RFQ, the fewer headaches you will encounter down the privatization road. CONDUCTING A TRANSPARENT CONTRACTOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS The contractor selection process should stand the test of public scrutiny. Both the public and the prospective provider should be confident that the selection process is fair and equitable. Here are some tips that can help your community ensure a fair selection process: Select By Committee Entering into a private con- tract is a significant undertak- ing for a municipality. Just as it will take more than one per- son to develop the RFP/RFQ a committee of officials, profes- sionals, and citizens should be organized to review the pro- posals. This approach allows for different viewpoints and helps to build trust within the community. Focus on Quality, Not Just Cost Although cost is a critical fac- tor in the privatization deci- sion, the selection committee should take into account the past performance of the prospective bidders, their attention to details, and com- mitment to community goals. The qualifications of a prospective bidder’s staff are also critical. Seek Input From Current Staff The current POTW staff have invaluable experience that can he tapped during the review process. Hold All Bidders to Same Level of Accountability If the municipality decides to allow managed competition, hold the municipal bidders to the same accountability as the private bidders. Open Books to All Requests for Existing Operating Data All bidders should receive the same information on the POTW (e.g., physical condi- tion, compliance perfor- mance). Ample opportunity should be provided to all qua!- ified potential bidders to inspect the POTW. Maintain an Objective Evaluation Process The selection criteria should have been defined in the RFPIRFQ and the selection committee should follow these guidelines in the selection process. ------- DEVELOPING A WIN-WIN CONTRACT Once your RFPIRFQ has been developed and distributed, the bids submitted, and a contractor selected, the final step in the pro- curement process is drawing up the contract between the munici- pality and the contractor. A con- tract that doesn’t have two win- ners is doomed to failure. In the case of a contract for the operation and maintenance of a POTW, both parties would like to have a document that not only ensures compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, but also protects and improves, as necessary, the wastewater infra- structure. The contractor needs assurance that its costs are covered and that it will be able to make a fair profit on the undertaking. The municipality, as part of its goal- setting and RFP/RFQ process, needs a contract that defines the level of service it expects from the private provider, both financially and in terms of performance. Given the potential for contract misinterpretations, it is extremely important that the community have the proper resources to negotiate a contract that protects its interests. Points of potential misinterpretation can include: Capital Cost Vs. Operation And Maintenance Who is responsible for what cost? Too often, this question has been the source of many arguments after the contract has been signed. Who pays for what should be answered and clearly understood by both the contractor and the municipali- ty prior to signing the con- tract. While each contract is differ- ent, the municipality is typi- cally responsible for capital costs, while the contractor is responsible for operation and maintenance costs. If a munic- ipality agrees to retain respon- sibility for capital improve- ments, projections on what such improvements will cost during the term of the con- tract should be taken into account in the contract. If one of the goals of the communi- ty’s privatization project is to have a consistent annual bud- get, then money should be set aside on an annual basis for capital improvement. Note that most contracts have clauses stating that if a munic- ipality does not provide for necessary capital improve- ments, the contractor is no longer liable for compliance violations. Assignment Of Risk Contracts must clearly identify all risks involved in construc- tion, operation, financing, reg- ulation, personal injury, etc., and must clearly assign responsibility for these risks. For example, most municipal!- ties presuppose that the con- tractor assumes full responsi- bility and liability for environ- mental compliance. However, most contracts limit the con- tractor’s liability in certain cir- cumstances, such as: • When influent exceeds POTW design parameters; • The municipality does not fund needed capital improvements; • There are changes in state or federal regulations; • ‘rhere are delays in trans- portation of supplies, mate- rials, and equipment; and • There are “force majeure risks,” such as fire, explo- sion, flood, or similar occur- rence. Throughout New England, compliance at privately-oper- ated facilities is about the same as at POTWs. However, large (over 10 mgd) POTWs that have been operated by private contractors for over 5 years tend to have more NPDES violations. Concession Fees Recently, the driving force behind several long-term POTW privatization leases has been a requirement for upfront concession fees that are used by municipalities for such purposes as short-term cash infusion to general funds, financing of POTW debt, or needed capital improvements. When a community requires these concession fees, it neces- sarily preempts its existing public employees and all but a handful of contractors from bidding on the contract. A legitimate concern surround- ing upfront concession fees is that some municipal officials may use these fees for short- term gain at the expense of the long-term viability of the community wastewater infra- structure. In some instances, these con- cession fees are being diverted from the sewer fund and are being used to pay off other municipal debt. These “conces- sion fees with interest” are then amortized over the life of the lease as part of the user charge (even though the funds are not used for sewer purpos- es). Municipalities should ensure that payback costs of concession fees are fully explicit (and not hidden) in contract bids. Given the potential for discrepan- cies in contract interpretation, municipalities must take care in order to successfully negotiate a win-win contract. 7 ------- PRIvA’rIzA’rIoN ACREEP1ENTS S igning a contract or lease may be the end of one process, but it is just the beginning of anoth- er, very important development. Like any type of relationship, communication is crucial to the success of the professional associ- ation that is established between the community and the private contractor. ‘This partnership will be effective only if everyone involved accepts their responsi- bilities, which should have been clearly spelled out in the con- tract. Primary contact persons for both the municipality and the contractor are key to successful contract communication. Besides providing a consistent dialogue path, these individuals will have the necessary information to pro- mote support for the POTW activities in both the community and the private company. Extensive monitoring, record- keeping, reporting, and perfor- mance evaluation are critical to a successful privatization outcome. Although the contract will usual- ly specify the level of mainte- nance and upkeep required of the contractor, the municipality must implement an effective strategy for ensuring that these require- ments are met. The lack of appro- priate monitoring and enforce- ment of the agreement could lead to the deterioration of the infra- structure and. the compromise of environmental cornpl lance over the long term. If your municipali- ty cannot afford to maintain skilled in-house staff to monitor the contract, you may want to look into training and sharing monitoring personnel with other communities engaged in con- tract/lease operations, or retain a third-party private firm to per- form this task. Short... .r community has several broad options for securing the most efficient full range of wastewater utility services. Under the right conditions, public, pri- vate, or public-private options can deliver the desired results. No matter which option your munic- ipality chooses, responsibility for the operation, maintenance, and compliance of the wastewater facility rests squarely with the community. The diligence with which your community plans for and executes its wastewater ser- vices decision will determine how performance of either private or public sector services plays out. As you leave the starting gate in getting from where you are now to where you want to be, keep a few key steps in mind: Do your homework. Find out what you need to know before you leave the starting gate. what you’ve got, so you’ll know what you need. If you decide to privatize: • Contact your state environ- mental agency and EPA to check on pertinent rules and regulations; • Contact other similar sized communities to check on their experiences with the privatization process and to find out how things are going now; • Enter the process with a Win/Win attitude; • Spend the time and effort needed to prepare an RFP/RFQ that ensures the best proposals and an effi- cient bidding process; • Check the references of your bidders; and • Negotiate the contract care- fully. Make sure all involved know what it says and what it means. Be sure your community undertakes a performance evaluation of its POTW. Know ------- POTW Contractor Operators in New En Iand (As of March 1998) CONNECTICUT Bridgeport (E&W) - PSG Danbury - USFOS Killingly - AOS Naugatuck - N ugatuck T. C. New 1-laven - OMI Nepndon - PSG North I javen - USFOS Not wa1k-Ma1colm- ?Pirnie PAchfield - OMI (Seymour - PSG West Haven - PSG Machias - JMC Inc. Mapleton - Gil St. Pierre Pittsfield - Acheron Rockland - Earthtech Unity JMCInc. Vassalboro - JMC Inc. Warren - W&C Whitneyville - JMC Inc. RHODE ISLAND C anston - PSG SmitJ fieJtV PSG- - Warren - W&C Westerly - lOS VERMONT Bi idgéwatér - D&H Je fersonv lle - PES Lyndonville - Eárthtech Plttsford - SOS St. Johnsbury - Earthtech Wallingford - Westside Waterbury - PSG Wiiliamstown - SOS Putney - SOS NEW HAMPSHIRE Bethlehem - Welch W&WW Services Canaan - Water System Oper. of NH Qaremont - D&H Doter -OMI Lisbon - Welch W&WW Services Little ton - W&C \ r Newfiéld - PES MASSACHUSETTS Newingtoii - Earthtech \ Brockton - PSG Rollinsford’- RES / Chatham - Eartlhtech Somersworth - OMI Cohasset - PSG Wakefield - W&C ) Concord - W& Wolfeboro - W&C ng - ERESC Fall - Gardner - Earthtech W&C Gloucester - PSG Hull - PSG Leominster - USFOS Lynn - USFOS New Bedford - PSG Orleans - WW Inc. Operations Rocidand - PSG Southbrldge - PSG Sunderland - Warren Bros. MAINE Anson-Madison - Baileyville - W-P Belfast - JMC Inc. Biddeford - OMI Blue Hill - J. Fancy Inc. Canton - W&C East Machias - JMC Eilsworth - W&C Lisbon - Earthtech Loring - W&C Lubec - JMC Inc. Sturbridge - USFOS Taunton - PSG Westboro - USFOS Yarmouth - AOS CONTRACT OPERATION FIRMS A heron, ME A ua-Source Opera1t n Services (AOS), RI 1 ‘ rthtech, MA Dufresne & Henry (D&H),VT J CTii ,. ME j. Pancy Inc. ERESCO, MA Naugatu k T. C., CT Malcolnifjrnie, Y Operatkrnal Management Int’l (OMI), CO Piscataqi a Eni’ithnmental --—-- ---- Ser vice PES), NH Profe sional Service Group (PSG), MA SOS - Simon Operations Serivices, VT Gil St Pierre, ME U.S. Filter Operating Services (USFOS), MA Warren Bros., MA Water S tern Operator ‘-pf $H Wel J i Water Wastewater rvices, NH Westside, VT Wright-Pierce Opera (W-P), ME Woodward & Curran Inc. (W&C), ME Federal Contacts Haig Farmer USEPA - Headquarters Washington, DC (202) 260- 7279 Maine Department of Environmental Protection Augusta, ME (207) 287-7659 Mas a hiise ts Department of Environmental Protection Milibury, MA (508) 756-7281 Charles Conway USEPA - New England New Hampshite partment of Environmentàj Services Concord, NH (603) 271-3503 Rhode Isla Department of Environmental Management Providence, RI ) (401) 222-6820 x7247 Vermont artment of K EnvirØiimental Conservation “— Waterbury, VT (80Z 241-3746 1 Boston, MA (617) 565-3517 _Cp!llI cticut l epartment of En ronme - tal rotectio Hartford, CT — Interstate Contacts New England Interstate Environmental Training Center (NEIETC) South Portland, ME (207) 767-2539 Eng d Interstate Water Poll ntrol Commission ) Wilmington, MA (978) 658-0500 ------- |