816-Z-99-001
Friday
February 5, 1999
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
Final Guidelines for the Certification and
Recertification of the Operators of
Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems;
Notice
-------
5916
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 24/Friday, February 5, 1999/Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-6230-8]
Final guidelines for the Certification
and Recertification of the Operators of
Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final guidelines.
SUMMARY: In this document, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is finalizing the "Guidelines for the
Certification and Recertification of the
Operators of Community and
Nontransient Noncommunity Public
Water Systems." The Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of
1996 require that these final guidelines
be published in the Federal Register by
February 6, 1999. These guidelines
provide States with the minimum
standards for the development,
implementation and enforcement of
operator certification programs for
community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems.
Beginning two years after publication,
EPA must withhold 20% of a State's
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization grant funds unless the
State has adopted and is implementing
an operator certification program that
meets the requirements of these
guidelines or submits its existing
program that is substantially equivalent
to these guidelines. The final guidelines
are published in Appendix A of this
document.
OWES: Effective Date: February 5, 1999.
Compliance Date: Beginning February 5,
2001.
ADDRESSES: Public comments and the
comment response document on the
draft guidelines are available for review
at Water Docket (docket #W-98-07),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Room EB57, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington DC 20460. For access to the
Docket materials, call 202-260-3027
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern
Time for an appointment and reference
Docket #W-98-07.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free
(800)426-4791, can be contacted for
general information about and copies of
this document. For technical inquiries,
contact Jenny Jacobs, Implementation
and Assistance Division, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
(4606), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC, 20460. The telephone
number is (202)260-2939 and the e-
mail address is
jacobs.jenny(2£pamail.epa.gov. For
Regional contacts, see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional Contacts
I. Katie Leo, US EPA Region I, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CMU),
Boston, MA 02114, (617) 918-1623
II. Gerard McKenna, US EPA Region II,
Drinking Water Section, Water
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-
3838
III. Barbara Smith, US EPA Region III,
Drinking Water Branch (3WP22), 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2020, (215) 814-5786
IV. Janine Morris, US EPA Region IV,
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, (404)
562-9480
V. Charles Pycha, US EPA Region V,
Water Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507,
(312)886-0259
VI. Tye Biasco, US EPA Region VI,
Drinking Water Section (6WQ-SD),
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-
2733, (214) 665-2140
VII. Robert Dunlevy, US EPA Region
VII, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides
Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue,
Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-
7798
VIII. Anthony Q. DeLoach, US EPA
Region VIII, Municipal Systems Unit,
Drinking Water/Wastewater (8P-W-
MS), 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-
6070
IX. Kevin Ryan, US EPA Region IX,
Drinking Water Office (WTR-6), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, (415) 744-2052
X. Bill Chamberlain, US EPA Region X,
Office of Water, Drinking Water Unit
(OW-136), 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98101, (206) 553-8515
Background
1. Statutory Requirements
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-182)
direct the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), in cooperation with the States, to
publish guidelines in the Federal
Register specifying minimum standards
for certification and recertification of
operators of community and
nontransient noncommunity public
water systems. The final guidelines are
required to be published by February 6,
1999. States then have two years after
publication to adopt and be
implementing an operator certification
program that meets the requirements of
these guidelines. After that date, unless
a State has adopted and is implementing
an approved program, the Administrator
must withhold 20 percent of the funds
a State is otherwise entitled to receive
in its Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) capitalization grants
under section 1452 of SDWA.
All of the requirements contained in
these guidelines are to avoid DWSRF
capitalization grant withholding. There
are no other sanctions for States with
operator certification programs that do
not meet the requirements of these
guidelines.
2. Guideline Development Process
These guidelines are the result of a
thorough stakeholder consultation
process under which EPA utilized the
combined knowledge and expertise of
two work groups that it appointed on
operator certification. One work group,
the State-EPA Work Group, was
appointed to fulfill EPA's responsibility
under section 1419(a)to publish
guidelines on operator certification "in
cooperation with States." This work
group was composed of seven State and
ten EPA representatives. The other work
group, the Operator Certification Work
Group of the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC), also
referred to as the Partnership, was
formed to provide EPA with views in
addition to those of States. This group
was composed of 23 members
representing public water systems,
environmental and public interest
advocacy groups, State drinking water
program representatives, EPA, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Public
Health Service, Indian Health Service,
and other interest groups.
Procedurally, the two groups worked
closely together. The Partnership
identified potential categories for which
minimum standards would be
developed. The State-EPA Work Group
then developed draft issue papers for
these categories. The Partnership and
the State-EPA Work Group exchanged
reviews of the proposed language on
what both groups referred to as
"baseline standards," and worked
toward achieving consensus on these
standards. The baseline standards were
then forwarded by the Partnership to the
NDWAC. In October 1997, the NDWAC
formally transmitted its recommended
baseline standards to the EPA. The EPA
incorporated the recommendations of
the NDWAC into the "Draft Guidelines
for the Certification and Recertification
of the Operators of Community and
Nontransient Noncommunity Public
Water Systems." The draft guidelines
were published for public comment in
the Federal Register on March 27, 1998.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 24/Friday, February 5, 1999/Notices
5917
The comment period extended for 90
days during which over 90 parties
submitted public comments. During the
90-day public comment period, EPA
held public stakeholder meetings in San
Francisco, CA, Dallas, TX, and
Washington, DC, to brief interested
parties on the draft guidelines and to
accept public comments. The complete
response to comments document is
available for review at Water Docket
(docket #W-98-07), Environmental
Protection Agency, Room EB57, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington DC 20460. For
access to the Docket materials, call 202-
260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30
p.m. Eastern Time for an appointment
and reference Docket #W-98-07.
In August 1998, both workgroups met
to consider the public comments and to
make recommendations for finalizing
the guidelines based on the public
comments. The resulting
recommendations were forwarded to the
NDWAC for consideration. In November
1998, the NDWAC formally transmitted
its recommendations to EPA. The EPA
made changes based on the public
comments and on the recommendations
of its work groups and the NDWAC.
These guidelines set the minimum
baseline standards for an operator
certification program to meet the
provisions of the 1996 Amendments to
the SDWA. These guidelines were
developed to enable states to have
flexibility in the implementation and
enforcement of program details
necessary to administer a successful
operator certification program while
ensuring the protection of public health.
Response to Comments on Key
Certification Issues
1. Public Health Objectives
EPA received a large number of
comments in support of the public
health objectives as stated in the draft
guidelines.
EPA intends to use the public health
objectives in its review and evaluation
of State operator certification programs
and in its determination as to whether
the State programs meet the
requirements of the guidelines.
2. Operator Testing/Exams
EPA received a number of comments
on the type of operator certification
exam (e.g., written, oral, performance-
based) that should be required by the
guidelines. Some commenters felt that
written exams should be required to
ensure that an operator could read and
write. Some commenters felt that other
types of exams (e.g., oral, performance-
based) may be more appropriate, and
therefore, the type of exam should be
left up to the State.
EPA believes that the type of test that
best measures the knowledge, skills,
ability, and judgement of an operator for
a particular classification level should
be left up to the State that is responsible
for the design and administration of the
test.
EPA received several comments on
the requirement that exams be State-
validated. Some commenters asked for
clarification.
In the final guidelines, EPA
eliminated the word "State" from the
above phrase. For clarification, EPA
included a definition of "validated
exam" in the final guidelines.
3. Operator Training
Some comments were received
supporting the inclusion of specific
training requirements in the guidelines
while some commenters supported the
draft guidelines which allow States to
decide what type and amount of
training are appropriate for each level of
classification.
EPA believes that the type of operator
training necessary for each classification
level in each State is best determined by
the State. The final guidelines do not
include specific training requirements;
however, EPA will evaluate State
training programs as part of its initial
and annual review and approval of State
operator certification programs.
4. Classification of Operators
A number of comments were received
requesting clarification as to which
water system personnel must be
certified under the guidelines.
The final guidelines require that "all
operating personnel making process
control/system integrity decisions about
water quality or quantity that affect
public health be certified." EPA believes
that this guideline requirement provides
a framework within which States can
decide which system personnel must be
certified.
J. Grandparenting of Operators
Grandparenting of operators was one
of the most heavily commented upon
issues. The majority of commenters
supported grandparenting in some
fashion while several commenters
opposed the inclusion of grandparenting
in the guidelines. Also, some
commenters requested clarification as to
whether grandparented operators at
renewal had to meet the initial
certification requirements or the
renewal requirements.
EPA believes that grandparenting may
be necessary to allow the many
competent operators who have been
successfully operating water systems
but who can not meet the initial
certification requirements to continue to
work. Accordingly, grandparenting has
been included as an option for States.
For States that choose to allow
grandparenting, the guidelines specify
the following restrictions:
• Grandparenting is permitted only to
existing operator(s) in responsible
charge of existing systems which,
because of State law changes to meet
these guidelines, must for the first time
have a certified operator.
• The system owner must apply for
grandparenting for the operator(s) in
responsible charge within two years of
the effective date of the State's
regulation.
• The certification for the
grandparented operator must be site
specific and non-transferable to other
operators.
• After an operator is grandparented,
he or she must, within some time period
specified by the State, meet all
requirements to obtain certification
renewal, including the payment of any
necessary fees, acquiring necessary
training to meet the renewal
requirements, and demonstrating the
skills, knowledge, ability and judgement
for that classification.
• If the classification of the plant or
distribution system changes to a higher
level, then the grandparented
certification will no longer be valid.
• If a grandparented operator chooses
to work for a different water system, he
or she must meet the initial certification
requirements for that system.
Also, EPA added language that
requires States to pay special attention
to identify specific certification renewal
requirements for grandparented
operators to ensure they have the
knowledge, skills, ability and judgement
to operate the system for which they
were grandparented.
A couple of commenters asked that
the guidelines be changed to make it the
operator's responsibility to apply for
grandparenting and not the system's
responsibility.
In States which choose to allow a
grandparenting provision, application
for grandparenting is the responsibility
of the system owner because
grandparenting is site-specific and non-
transferable. Only existing systems
which must for the first time have a
certified operator because of State law
changes to meet these guidelines can
apply for grandparenting for existing
operators in responsible charge.
6. Renewal Period
EPA received a large number of
comments supporting the establishment
-------
5918
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 24/Friday, February 5, 1999/Notices
of a specific renewal period in the
guidelines. Comments were mixed,
however, as to the maximum length of
time that should be required for
renewal.
EPA, in reviewing existing State
programs, found that most States
already require a certification renewal
cycle of three years or less. EPA believes
that three years is the maximum amount
of time that the guidelines should
permit an operator to go before having
to take more training as part of the
renewal requirements in order to remain
current in the field.
7. Categories of Systems
EPA received numerous comments on
categorizing/classifying systems. Many
of the commenters made
recommendations as to the specific
criteria that they felt should be used to
classify systems. Several commenters
suggested that EPA develop a national
classification system for water systems
while a similar number of commenters
suggested EPA allow States to develop
their own classification system.
Because all of the States currently
have a method for categorizing the water
systems within the State, EPA believes
that establishing a nationally uniform
classification system would be very
disruptive with little benefit. The
guidelines give the States the
responsibility to define the categories of
systems. The language in the final
guidelines was revised to clarify that the
criteria in the guidelines are examples
for States to use in classifying systems
[i.e., (a) complexity, size, source water
for treatment systems, and, (b)
complexity, size, for distribution
systems].
8. Antibacksliding
EPA received mixed comments on the
antibacksliding provision. Several
commenters supported antibacksliding
while several commenters opposed the
provision. For example, one commenter
questioned EPA's authority to prevent a
State from lessening its existing
standards to meet the minimum EPA
standards. This commenter felt that EPA
has no authority to require a State to do
anything else except meet the minimum
standard. Also, a couple of commenters
felt that the antibacksliding provision
enables States to keep their programs
intact without undue pressure to lessen
standards based on the minimum
standards set forth in the guidelines
which may not be as stringent.
EPA believes that Congress did not
intend for States to weaken their
existing operator certification programs
if those programs go beyond the
minimum federal standards. An
antibacksliding provision is, therefore,
essential to help these States maintain
the kind of operator certification
programs that they believe best ensure
public health protection. EPA does
recognize that there may be situations
where it is desirable to lessen a specific
standard while making overall
improvements to a program and has
included a provision to allow States to
do this if they can justify the change and
get approval from EPA. Finally, EPA
believes this provision is authorized by
Section 1419(a) of the SDWA which
states that EPA must take existing
programs into account in developing
these guidelines.
9. Exemptions and Certified Operator
Availability
EPA received a number of comments
both for and against exemptions from
the requirement of a certified operator
for small water systems. On a related
issue, EPA received many comments on
the requirement that a designated
certified operator be available for each
operating shift. A number of
commenters expressed the concern that
this requirement would be cost
prohibitive for small systems and that
small systems should be exempt from
the requirement to have a certified
operator. Some commenters requested
clarification as to the meaning of
"available".
EPA believes that one of the most
important benefits of these guidelines
will be better training for operators of
small systems and consequently, better
public health protection for the
consumers served by these systems.
Historically, compliance problems are
much more widespread in smaller
systems and it is these systems that may
benefit most by training. Congress also
recognized this when it established the
operator certification provisions. As
discussed in the legislative history of
these provisions (S. Rep. 104-169, 104th
Cong., 1st Sess at 61), Congress was
aware that most States already had
operator certification programs and that
many exempted small systems. Congress
was particularly concerned that the lack
of operator training and certification for
small systems could create compliance
problems. In addition, monitoring and
sampling done by a trained operator are
more likely to produce accurate results
and be correctly interpreted. These
concerns were central to the enactment
of the operator certification provisions.
At the same time, Congress also
established a provision for reimbursing
small system operators for training and
certification costs. Considering this, the
guidelines do not allow exemptions.
EPA does recognize, however, that some
small systems provide little or no
treatment and that some nontransient
noncommunity systems (e.g., schools)
may not have distribution systems and
that operators of these systems do not
need the same type and amount of
training that operators of larger systems
may need. The guidelines, therefore,
provide States with discretion to tailor
training requirements consistent with
the level of complexity of systems.
The guidelines do not require these
systems to have a certified operator on-
site full time. States can implement a
program that would allow for a circuit
rider to be the certified operator for a
number of small systems. This
flexibility is provided for in the
definition of "available" that is
included in the guidelines. EPA believes
that this language will reduce the
financial burden on small systems, and
allow for the sharing of certified
operators in areas with a scarcity of
qualified personnel. States have been
provided with flexibility in defining
"available" since its meaning may differ
due to the geographic and demographic
differences among States.
Some commenters felt that
clarification is needed concerning
whether or not people who program or
maintain telemetry/SCADA systems are
required to be certified.
EPA believes that people who
program or maintain telemetry/SCADA
systems are not operators of water
systems and are not required to be
certified. However, if anyone who
programs or maintains these types of
systems is also making process control/
system integrity decisions, that person
would be required to be certified.
10. Flexible vs. Prescriptive Guidelines
Many of the comments that EPA
received supported flexibility for States
in implementing the guidelines while
many of the comments asked that the
guideline requirements be prescribed in
greater detail.
EPA believes that these guidelines
reflect its efforts to balance the intent for
State flexibility with the need for
national program accountability.
Submittal Schedule and Withholding
Process
EPA is developing a revised submittal
schedule and withholding process for
State programs and will solicit public
comments on the revised approach in
the Federal Register within the next few
months.
Source Water Protection
A fully trained operator, as the on-site
professional, should understand the
benefits of multiple barriers to prevent
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 24/Friday, February 5, 1999/Notices
5919
contamination of the sources of public
drinking water supplies and should be
able to provide important insights into
the risks to public water supplies from
different, potential sources of
contamination. EPA encourages States
to include an understanding of drinking
water source protection in the training
for operators.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.\ EPA must
obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
collect the information from the States
required under these guidelines. EPA
plans to prepare and obtain approval of
an Information Collection Request (ICR)
for this information. Advance notice of
the ICR will be published in the Federal
Register for public comment before it is
submitted to OMB. EPA may not
conduct, or sponsor, and a person is not
required to submit to a collection of
information unless the Agency has OMB
approval for collection of the
information.
Dated: January 29, 1999.
J Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
Appendix A: Final Guidelines for the
Certification and Recertification of the
Operators of Community and
Nontransient Noncommunity Public
Water Systems
I. Introduction
II. Operator Certification Guidelines
A. Public Health Objectives
B. Antibacksliding
C. Baseline Standards
1. Authorization
2. Classification of Systems, Facilities, and
Operators
3. Operator Qualifications
4. Enforcement
5. Certification Renewal
6. Resources Needed to Implement the
Program
7. Recertification
8. Stakeholder Involvement
9. Program Review
III. Program Submittal Process
A. Submittal Schedule and Withholding
Process
1. New Programs.
2. Equivalent Programs
B. Submittal Contents
1. Initial Submittal
2. Subsequent Years
IV. Definitions
V. Acronyms
L Introduction
These guidelines were developed to
meet Section 1419(a)ofthe Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-182).
This section directs the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to develop guidelines specifying
minimum standards for certification and
recertification of operators of
community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems
and to publish final guidelines by
February 6, 1999. States have two years
after publication to adopt and be
implementing an operator certification
program that meets the requirements of
these guidelines. After that date, unless
a State has adopted and is implementing
an approved program, the Administrator
must withhold 20 percent of the funds
a State is otherwise entitled to receive
in its Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) capitalization grants
under section 1452 of SDWA.
IL Operator Certification Guidelines
A. Public Health Objectives
The public health objectives of the
guidelines are to ensure that:
• Customers of any public water
system be provided with an adequate
supply of safe, potable drinking water.
• Consumers are confident that their
water is safe to drink.
• Public water system operators are
trained and certified and that they have
knowledge and understanding of the
public health reasons for drinking water
standards.
Ongoing training is necessary to the
public health objectives of this program.
B. Antibacksliding
Because these guidelines represent
only minimum standards, it is expected
that States whose current operator
certification program requirements go
beyond or exceed these minimum
standards not lower their operator
certification program requirements. EPA
will not approve the operator
certification program of any State that
reduces its standards below the level
that existed 12 months prior to the
effective date of these guidelines unless
the reduction can be justified by the
State and is approved by EPA.
C. Baseline Standards
Each State operator certification
program must include as a minimum
the essential elements of the nine
baseline standards described below.
Essential elements to avoid DWSRF
withholding are introduced by words
such as "the States must." For each
essential element, the State must
describe how its operator certification
program complies with the requirement.
Additionally, several of the baseline
standards include highly recommended
elements that are intended to
complement, improve, and expand the
parameters of essential elements of an
operator certification program. These
highly recommended elements are
introduced by words such as "the States
should."
1. Authorization
As evidenced by an Attorney
General's certification, or certification
from delegated counsel, the State must
have the legal authority to implement
the program requiring the certification
of operators of all community and
nontransient noncommunity water
systems and to require that the systems
comply with the appropriate
requirements of the program.
2. Classification of Systems, Facilities,
and Operators
A State's program must meet the
following requirements:
• It must classify all community and
nontransient noncommunity water
systems based on indicators of potential
health risk, which for example may
include: (a) complexity, size, source
water for treatment facilities, and (b)
complexity, size for distribution
systems. It must develop specific
operator certification and renewal
requirements for each level of
classification.
• It must require owners of all
community and nontransient
noncommunity water systems to place
the direct supervision of their water
system, including each treatment
facility and/or distribution system,
under the responsible charge of an
operator(s) holding a valid certification
equal to or greater than the classification
of the treatment facility and/or
distribution system.
• It must require, at a minimum, that
the operator(s) in responsible charge or
equivalent must hold a valid
certification equal to or greater than the
classification of their water system,
including each treatment facility and
distribution system, as determined by
the State.
• It must require that all operating
personnel making process control/
system integrity decisions about water
quality or quantity that affect public
health be certified.
• It must require that a designated
certified operator be available for each
operating shift.
3. Operator Qualifications
States must require the following for
an operator to become certified:
• Take and pass an exam that
demonstrates that the operator has the
necessary skills, knowledge, ability and
judgement as appropriate for the
classification. All exam questions must
be validated.
-------
5920
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 24/Friday, February 5, 1999/Notices
• Have a high school diploma or a
general equivalency diploma (GED).
States may allow experience and/or
relevant training to be substituted for a
high school diploma or GED. Education,
training, or experience that is used to
meet this requirement for any class of
certification may not be used to meet
the experience requirement.
• Have the defined minimum amount
of on-the-job experience for each
appropriate level of certification. The
amount of experience required increases
with each classification level. Post high
school education may be substituted for
experience. Credit may be given for
experience in a related field (e.g.,
wastewater). Experience that is used to
meet the experience requirement for any
class of certification may not be used to
meet the education requirement.
Grandparenting
EPA recognizes that there are many
competent small system operators that
may not meet the initial requirements to
become certified. EPA believes that
States may need a transition period to
allow these operators to continue to
operate the system through
"grandparenting". It is recommended
that grandparenting determinations be
based on factors such as system
compliance history, operator experience
and knowledge, system complexity, and
lack of treatment.
If States choose to include a
grandparenting provision in their
programs, they must include the
following requirements:
• Grandparenting is permitted only to
existing operator(s) in responsible
charge of existing systems which,
because of State law changes to meet
these guidelines, must for the first time
have a certified operator.
• The system owner must apply for
grandparenting for the operator(s) in
responsible charge within two years of
the effective date of the State's
regulation.
• The certification for the
grandparented operator must be site
specific and non-transferable to other
operators.
• After an operator is grandparented,
he or she must, within some time period
specified by the State, meet all
requirements to obtain certification
renewal, including the payment of any
necessary fees, acquiring necessary
training to meet the renewal
requirements, and demonstrating the
skills, knowledge, ability and judgement
for that classification.
• If the classification of the plant or
distribution system changes to a higher
level, then the grandparented
certification will no longer be valid.
• If a grandparented operator chooses
to work for a different water system, he
or she must meet the initial certification
requirements for that system.
4. Enforcement
The State agency with primary
enforcement responsibility for the
Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) Program must have regulations
that meet the requirements of these
guidelines and require community
water systems and nontransient
noncommunity water systems to comply
with State operator certification
requirements. In nonprimacy States, the
Governor must determine which State
Agency will have this responsibility.
States must have appropriate
enforcement capabilities, for example:
administrative orders, bilateral
compliance agreements, criminal or
civil administrative penalties, and/or
stipulated penalties.
States must have the ability to revoke
operator certifications.
States must also have the ability to
suspend operator certifications or take
other appropriate enforcement action for
operator misconduct. Examples of
operator misconduct may include:
fraud, falsification of application,
falsification of operating records, gross
negligence in operation, incompetence,
and/or failure to use reasonable care or
judgement in the performance of duties.
5. Certification Renewal
A State's program must meet the
following requirements:
• The State must establish training
requirements for renewal based on the
level of certification held by the
operator.
• States must require all operators
including grandparented operators to
acquire necessary amounts and types of
State approved training. States may
determine other requirements as
deemed necessary.
• States must have a fixed cycle of
renewal not to exceed three years.
• The State must require an
individual to recertify if the individual
fails to renew or qualify for renewal
within two years of the date that the
certificate expired.
• States must pay special attention to
identify specific renewal requirements
for grandparented operators to ensure
that they possess the knowledge, skills,
ability and judgement to properly
operate the system. This must be done
by one or more of the following
approaches or by an alternative
approach approved by EPA.
• States may specify renewal
requirements for grandparented
operators on a case-by-case basis, taking
into consideration factors such as a
system's compliance history and
operator experience and knowledge. For
systems that have a history of being out
of compliance, any certification renewal
decision should consider whether non-
compliance is the result of actions or
inactions by the system's owner or the
system's operator.
• States may require specific training
requirements for certification renewal at
the first renewal cycle for grandparented
operators. This training should include
all of the information covered by the
initial certification exam for the system
classification level for which the
operator was grandparented even
though an initial certification exam may
not be required for certification renewal.
• States may require operators with
grandparented certificates to meet all of
the initial certification requirements for
the classification level for which the
operator was grandparented, and
thereby obtain certification within a
reasonable time period specified by the
State.
6. Resources Needed To Implement the
Program
States must provide sufficient
resources to adequately fund and
sustain the operator certification
program (components include, but are
not limited to: staff, data management,
testing, enforcement, administration,
and training approval). EPA
recommends that States establish a
dedicated fund that is self-sufficient.
7. Recertification
The States must have a process for
recertification of individuals whose
certification has expired for a period
exceeding two years. This process must
include: review of the individual's
experience and training, and
reexamination. An individual is not
certified with an expired certificate. The
State may develop more stringent
requirements for recertification for
individuals whose certificates have
expired, been revoked, or been
suspended.
8. Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholder involvement is important
to the public health objectives of the
program. It helps to ensure the
relevancy and validity of the program,
and the confidence of all interested
parties.
States must include ongoing
stakeholder involvement in the revision
and operations of State operator
certification programs. Public comment
on rule revisions is not adequate
stakeholder involvement. A stakeholder
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 24/Friday, February 5, 1999/Notices
5921
board or advisory committee is strongly
recommended.
Examples of stakeholders may
include: operators, environmental/
public health groups, the general public,
consumer groups, technical assistance
providers, utility managers, trainers, etc.
9. Program Review
States must perform reviews of their
operator certification programs. EPA
recommends that States perform
periodic internal reviews and occasional
external/peer reviews. Examples of
items to review include: regulations,
exam items for relevancy and validity,
compliance, enforcement, budget and
staffing, training relevancy, training
needs through examination
performance, and data management
system.
HL Program Submittal Process
A. Submittal Schedule and Withholding
Process
1. New Programs
[Reserved]
2. Equivalent Programs
[Reserved]
B. Submittal Contents
The submittal of operator certification
programs to EPA by States must include
the following:
1. Initial Submittal
The submittal of operator certification
programs to EPA by States must include
the following:
• The State Attorney General's
certification, or certification from
delegated counsel, that the State has the
legal authority to implement the
program requiring the certification of
operators of all community and
nontransient noncommunity water
systems and to require that the systems
comply with the appropriate
requirements of the program;
• A full description and explanation
of how the State's operator certification
program complies with or is
substantially equivalent to the
requirements of these guidelines; and
• A copy of the State operator
certification regulations.
2. Subsequent Years
• All annual program submittals
subsequent to the initial submittal must
include documentation and evaluation
of ongoing program implementation;
and
• A new State Attorney General's
certification, or certification from
delegated counsel, if changes were made
to the regulations or statutes and a copy
of the revised regulations or statutes.
IV. Definitions
Administrator—Means the
Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Available—Based on system size,
complexity, and source water quality, a
certified operator must be on site or able
to be contacted as needed to initiate the
appropriate action in a timely manner.
Community Water System (CWS)—A
public water system providing water to
at least 15 service connections used by
year-round residents or regularly serves
at least 25 year-round residents.
Distribution System—Any
combination of pipes, tanks, pumps, etc.
which delivers water from the source(s)
and/or treatment facility(ies) to the
consumer.
Distribution System Complexity—
Examples include: pressure zones,
booster stations, storage tanks, fire
protection, chlorination, non-residential
consumers, cross connection potential,
and/or demand variations.
Distribution System Size—Examples
include: population served, number of
service connections, size of pipes, total
distance of pipe, and quantity of water
distributed.
Grandparenting—The exemption for
the existing operator(s) in responsible
charge, as of the effective date of the
State's regulation, from meeting the
initial education and/or examination
requirements for the class of
certification the system has been
assigned.
Nontransient Noncommunity (NTNC)
Water Systems—Is a public water
system that is not a community water
system and that regularly serves at least
25 of the same persons over six months
per year. Common types of NTNC water
systems are those serving schools, day
care centers, factories, restaurants, and
hospitals.
Operating Shift—That period of time
during which operator decisions that
affect public health are necessary for
proper operation of the system.
Primacy—Primary responsibility for
administration and enforcement of the
primary drinking water regulations and
related requirements applicable to
public water systems within a State.
Responsible Charge—The Operator(s)
in Responsible Charge is defined as the
person(s) designated by the owner to be
the certified operator(s) who makes
decisions regarding the daily
operational activities of a public water
system, water treatment facility and/or
distribution system, that will directly
impact the quality and/or quantity of
drinking water.
Source Water—Examples include:
type (surface water, groundwater,
groundwater under the influence of
surface water, purchased water), quality
(variability), and/or protection (e.g.,
wellhead protection).
Treatment Facility—Any place(s)
where a community water system or
nontransient non-community water
system alters the physical or chemical
characteristics of the drinking water.
Chlorination may be considered as a
function of a distribution system.
Treatment Facility Complexity—
Examples include: difficulty in
controlling water quality, potential
effect to the consumer and/or safety of
the operator.
Treatment Facility Size (capacity)—
Examples include: population served,
number of service connections, and/or
plant flow.
Validated Exam—An exam that is
independently reviewed by subject
matter experts to ensure that the exam
is based on a job analysis and related to
the classification of the system or
facility.
V. Acronyms
CWS—Community Water System
DWSRF—Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund
EPA—United States Environmental
Protection Agency
GED—General Equivalency Diploma
NDWAC—National Drinking Water
Advisory Council
NTNCWS or NTNC—Nontransient
Noncommunity Water System
PWSS—Program Public Water System
Supervision Program
SDWA—Safe Drinking Water Act
[FRDoc. 99-2692 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
------- |