Fiscal Year 1999, COMPLETED Training Assistance / “TABLE-B”

REGION | NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTALS
FACILITIES FACILITIES FACILITIES FACILITIES
THAT HAVE THAT HAVE THAT HAVE THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED MAINTAINED IMPROVED HAD NO IM-
COMPLIANCE), COMPLIANCEg) PERFORMANCEs) PROVEMENT«)
1 16 31 1 0 48
2 4 4 4 0 12
3 35 6 31 5 77
4 7 2 20 2 31
5 32 34 26 3 45
6 aT 17 3 3 34
7 16 5 5 4 30
8 14 10 13 1 38
9 5 0) 1 0 6
10 34 2 18 0 54
TOTALS | 174 131 122 igs 445
Fiscal Year 1999, CONTINUING Training Assistance / “TABLE-C”
REGION | NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTALS
FACILITIES FACILITIES FACILITIES FACILITIES
THAT HAVE THAT HAVE THAT HAVE THAT HAVE
ACHIEVED MAINTAINED IMPROVED HAD NO IM-
COMPLIANCE®, COMPLIANCE@) PERFORMANCE, PROVEMENT®
1 15 VW 14 1 47
2 4 18 4 2 28
3 7 2 87 2 98
4 7 0 28 3 38
5 22 10 32 7 7
6 19 3 33 15 70
7 4 1 19 12 36
8 4 2 19 7 32
9 6 10 13 2 31
10 3 3 82 4 . 92
TOTALS 91 66 331 55 543

See APPENDIX “A” for an explanation of foot notes | through 8.

-12-



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, Indian 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 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 appropriated $1.794 million for the Operator Training Program in fiscal year 1999.
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 six years.

Recent Programmatic Achievements:

The Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training Program,
through the EPA Regional Offices and state partners, assisted 988 facilities throughout fiscal year
1999. Compliance was achieved, maintained, or performance was improved at 915 (92.6%) of these
facilities. Comparatively, in fiscal year 1998, the Program assisted 999 facilities. Compliance was
achieved , maintained, or performance was improved at 890 of these facilities. Although the overall
number of assisted facilities decreased by 11, the number of facilities that achieved or maintained
compliance, or improved performance grew by 25, a 3% increase. A summary of achievements by
EPA Region is detailed in Tables A, B, and C on pages 4 and 12 respectively.



PORTAL, NORTH DAKOTA

The City of Portal North Dakota’s wastewater needs are served by a 0.0348 million gallon
per day, two-cell wastewater stabilization pond system that discharges to a constructed wetland
system. In September of 1998 the new superintendent of the Portal Wastewater Treatment Facility
requested that North Dakota’s 104(g) Program trainer assist him in how to properly operate the
treatment facility.

Portal is a very small community of 192
people located in northwestern North Dakota
near the United States and Canadian border. The
Portal facility had fallen into disrepair.
Furthermore, very unexpectedly the treatment
facility found itself without their old operator,
and with a new operator with very little
experience.

Constructed wetlands area at the Portal - North Dakota
Wastewater Treatment Plant.

As a result of the program trainer’s visit, the facility is back on track and running very
smoothly. The operator has become properly certified, and has even established a constructed
wetland system into which the discharge flows. The constructed wetland not only provides excellent
treatment for wastewater, but also furnishes the local wildlife with an important natural habitat.

The State of Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency - Region V
Technical Assistance Training Trip
Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico

Scott Ankrom and Jim Borton, the 104(g) trainers with the Ohio EPA, traveled to Nuevo
Laredo, Tamaulipas, Mexico the week of August 16 - 20, 1999 to participate in a joint
Mexican/United States Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) of the Nuevo Laredo, Mexico
WWTP. Participants in the evaluation included representatives for both the Mexican and U.S.
Sections of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), Nuevo Laredo WWTP
operator and personnel, and two professors from the Monterrey Technical College who were
working under a grant from Foundacion Mexico eua para la Ciencia (FUMEC) to develop this
program. Funding for the entire program and evaluation, including the 104(g) trainer’s expenses
were covered by FUMEC.



A total of 543 facilities are continuing training from fiscal year 1999 into fiscal year 2000; 91
of these facilities have achieved compliance, 66 maintained compliance, and 331 facilities improved
performance. Fifty-five facilities have had no improved performance, but are still being trained by a
program training center. 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 12.

New Projects (vs.) Carry-Overs for FY 1999

Wl Carry-overs from previous FY'
C2] Total Projects for FY"

Region

Of the facilities assisted in fiscal year 1999, 578 of them were not assisted in fiscal year
1998, while 410 were “carry-overs” from fiscal year 1998.

Success Stories:
FT

HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS, COLORADO

The cover photograph on the lower left-hand side of this document is Hot Sulphur Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado - Region VIII. This facility
was assisted by representatives from the Red Rocks Community College 104(g) Environmental
Training Center.

—



+ Total Projects 1999

~* Total Projects 1998

The majority of the work that was conducted
, in the program for fiscal year 1999 consisted of

: assisting facilities to achieve compliance and

20 1 improve performance. Facilities that completed
training activities in fiscal year 1999 needed the

1 A \ - most assistance in achieving compliance at the
/ \ wi treatment plant site. The facilities that continued
40 = : % , training activities from fiscal year 1999 into fiscal

¢

year 2000 needed assistance mainly in the area of

| rm improving performance at the treatment plant
5 <i location. See Tables B and C on page 12 for more
details. This pattern is the same as in fiscal year
1998.

123 4 5 67 8 9 10
Region

Total Number of Facilities Assisted in
Each Region for Fiscal Year 1999

“TABLE A”
REGION | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL
NO. OF
FACILITIES
ASSISTED
Fy-99 95 40 175 | 69 186 104 | 66 70 37 146 988

A total of 445 facilites completed training in fiscal year 1999, 427 of which achieved or
maintained compliance, or improved performance, a 96% success rate. One hundred and seventy
four (174) of these facilities have achieved compliance, 131 maintained compliance, and 122
facilities improved plant performance (preventative maintenance). Eighteen 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 12.



SAGUACHE, COLORADO

The cover photograph on the upper right-hand side of this document is the Saguache
Wastewater Treatment facility, located in Saguache, Colorado - Region VII. The facility was
assisted by representatives from the Red Rocks Community College 104(g) Environmental Training
Center.

The Saguache facility is located in the San Luis Valley in the south central mountains of
Colorado and is surrounded by mountain peaks. Saguache is hit by spring snow melt run-off every
year. The facility had numerous compliance violations, some of which were related to the seasonal
tun-off issue. The facility is one of the last remaining facultative lagoon systems in the State, has a
design flow of 0.15 million gallons per day, receives an annual flow of 0.105 million gallons per
day, and seasonal peak flows of 0.25 million gallons per day (167% greater then the design capacity
flow).

A comprehensive performance evaluation of the facility indicated infiltration problems, as
well as genera} operational control problems and sampling errors. There were also problems with
excessive weed growth in and around the lagoons, and chlorine contact chamber short-circuiting.

A composite correction program was developed and implemented to address these problems.
Training was conducted for proper sampling procedures and general maintenance, such as weed
removal in and around the lagoons and repair of the chlorine contact chamber. A chlorine leak was
discovered and repaired, and an on going program to address excessive infiltration was instituted.
The composite correction program produced a reduction of 17% in effluent BOD, 56% in effluent
TSS, and a 13% reduction in fecal coliform, all numbers being below the facility’s NPDES permit
discharge limits. Effluent flow continues to be a problem on a season basis.

SAINT JAMES, MISSOURI

The Saint James Missouri Wastewater Treatment facility - Region VII, is an activated sludge
plant with two oxidation ditches. The facility received assistance from the 104(g) Environmental
Resource Center at Missouri’s Crowder College.

The Saint James Wastewater Treatment facility operator requested training in proper process
control and sludge wasting procedures. Michael Jefferson, 104(g) trainer at Missouri’s Crowder
College, recommended alterations in operation, resulting in a 56% reduction in the facility’s solid
waste handling. Prior to the adjustments made to the facility, 400 loads of solid waste per year were
hauled to disposal sites. Now approximately 175 loads per year are hauled to disposal sites. The
plant is now saving several thousand dollars per year in labor and equipment costs.

7-



United States EPA-832-R-00-004
Environmental Protection April 2000
Agency

Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operator On-Site

Technical Assistance
Training Program - 104(g)(1)

End of Year 1999
Accomplishment Report



Because of the work done by the 104(g) program trainets, the above-mentioned treatment
facilities were able to realize a tremendous cost savings. These are just a few examples of the value
of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training

Program -104(g)(1).

Future:

° Continue to work with EPA Regional Offices and state partners to improve water quality
through the 104(g) program’s assistance efforts;

° Working with EPA’s Regional Offices on tracking pollutant reduction amounts through the
creation of a national assistance Lotus Approach database, to exhibit outcome based
environmental benefits of the 104(g) 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) By the year 2005, EPA has committed to
reduce the number of homes in Indian country with inadequate wastewater sanitation systems
by twenty-five percent (25%). 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 Tribal training center will be
established to provide no-cost, direct on-site training and technical assistance to small,
under-served Tribal wastewater treatment facilities. Regions will work with Tribal colleges,
institutes, and organizations to consider the establishment of a Tribal training center to
address Tribal wastewater concerns. Proposal have been received and evaluated. A
candidate will be chosen to establish this center and the grant will be made to that grantee in
fiscal year 2000.

If you have any question, comments, or require more information on this subject matter

please do not hesitate to contact Curt Baranowski at 202-260-5806, or you may access this
Program’s Internet web-page at www.epa.gov/owm/tomm.htm.

-10-



The Ohio 104(g) program was involved
because of its reputation as one of the leaders
in the country for performing WWTP
evaluations, and for training and trouble
shooting WWTP problems. The
recommendation to involve the Ohio 104(g)

i program was made by an individual at Texas
A&M University who had leamed about the
Ohio 104(g) program through U.S. EPA and
from a presentation that the Ohio 104(g)
program gave at the National 104(g)
Conference last year.

Ohio’s role in this evaluation was to
train the individuals from the Monterrey
Technical College on how to perform WWTP
CPE’s, utilize training and trouble shooting
techniques so that they can develop a program
in Mexico similar to the Ohio EPA’s 104(g)
compliance assistance program. However,
Ohio wound up taking the lead on the project
due to their experience (at the request of the
other evaluators), to insure that the WWTP
received a through and complete evaluation.

Currently, only the major cities in
Mexico have secondary WWTPs and many of
them are along the Mexican/U.S. border.

Many of Mexico’s plants along the border were
partially funded by U.S. dollars. However,
smaller plants are starting to be built
throughout the country, and such a program
could be used to make sure that proper training
and assistance is provided to smaller facilities.

ee
“The plant staff and other members of the team were very eager to learn as much as possible about
wastewater treatment and ways to optimize the operation of their plant. If operators in Ohio were
as interested and as eager to learn our jobs would be a lot easier!”

- Scott Ankrom, Ohio EPA

a
-9-

“



The Hot Sulphur Springs facility is an aerated lagoon system designed to handle 0.09 million
gallon per day, and receives approximately 0.03 million gallons per day of influent flow. The
facility was having problems with compliance on a seasonal basis. The town has 412 residents and
is located in the northwestern mountains of Colorado. A comprehensive performance evaluation at
the facility was conducted by the Red Rocks training center, the evaluation indicated infiltration and
influent flow meter problems. A sludge profile was also performed, and a significant volume of
sludge build-up was found in the facility’s lagoons. It was also discovered that excessive algae and
duckweed growth was adding to the facility’s problems.

The town’s 16,8500 feet of collection system lines were televised, 75 minor problems were
identified and are being corrected on a priority basis. Furthermore, a new influent meter was
installed at the facility, and the sludge build-up issue will be addressed in the town’s budget for
fiscal year 2000.

As a result of the 104(g) program’s assistance, the town is now in compliance. Furthermore,
the completion of the above-mentioned action items should eliminate the Hot Sulphur Springs
Wastewater Treatment Plant’s seasonal non-compliance problems and put the facility on the path of
long-term compliance.

ARGUSVILLE, NORTH ‘OTA

The Argusville Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the City of Argusville, North
Dakota - Region VII. The 104(g) trainer from the North Dakota Department of Health assisted this
facility.

The City of Argusville has a population of 161 people and is located in the eastern part of the
State. The city is served by a three-cell 0.02 million gallon per day wastewater stabilization pond.
As you can see the from the picture below, the facility’s wastewater stabilization pond was
overflowing. As a result of this unauthorized discharge, the facility was under a consent agreement
with the North Dakota Department of Health.

In the fall of 1998 the 104(g) representative
from the North Dakota Department of Health met
with Argusville’s new wastewater treatment plant
superintendent to discuss proper wastewater
treatment and to evaluate the facility. Since
the 104(g) trainer’s visit, the wastewater
stabilization pond has been reworked,

a new cell has been added to the stabilization
pond, a lift station has been built, the
consent agreement has been closed,

and the plant operator has become properly
certified.

Overflowing lagoon at the Argusville
North Dakota Wastewater Treatment Plant.

-6-



WASTEWATER OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM - 104(g)

Section 104(g)(1) of the 1982 Clean Water Act authorizes funding for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Operator On-Site Technical Assistance Training Program. Assistance is provide to
small, publicly-owned wastewater treatment 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 States, often in cooperation with educational institutions or non-profit 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. Continued training is defined as the facility requires further aid, and support will continue
until the fulfillment of the desired result. In fiscal year 1999 the program:

7 Assisted 988 facilities;

. Achieved or maintained compliance, or improved performance at 915 of these facilities,
a 92.6% success rate;

* Completed training at 445 of these facilities; and

* Achieved or maintained compliance, or improved performance at 427 of the 445 above-
mentioned facilities, a 96% success rate.

Program Background:
ee

The need for individualized technical assistance is real. There are over 12,500 municipal
wastewater treatment plants that discharge less than ] million gailons per day operating in this
country. 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 failure/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-



APPENDIX “A”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. No Improvement starts with the facility out of compliance with its NPDES permit at the beginning of the compliance assistance

training, and continues to be out of compliance with little or no improvement. The facility has decided to continue to work with the
Program to solve its compliance problems.

-13-



Table of Contents

Program Back ground.......escssccecseecsesscecsessesreesseereaseneneeed pg. 2-3
Recent Programmatic Achievement... pg. 3-5

Success Stories

Regional Office 104(g)(1) Coordinators...............0s00+4 pg. 11

Table B - Number of Facilities that have Completed
Training Assistance.

Table C - Number of Facilities that are Continuing
Training ASSistance.........sceccscsssesssesesseseesneeseeseeneenteesesed pg. 12

Appendix “A”

Definitions of the following terms: achieved

compliance, maintained compliance, improved
performance, and no improvement; under the

sub-categories of training assistance

completed and training assistance continuing...............1 pg. 13





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‘ cpa.gov

John Mello

REGION I {NJ, NY, PR, AND VI}
290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

Division of Environmental Planning
and Protection

Telephone: 212-637-3836

Fax: 212-637-3891

E-mail: mello.john@cpa.gov

James Kern

REGION 11 {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: kern.jim@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

Russel} Martin

REGION W (iL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI}
77 West Jackson Boulevard (WN-16J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3590.

NPDES SupporvTechnical Assistance Branch
Telephone: 312-886-0268
Fax: 312-886-0168

E-mail: martin russell@cpa.gov

Regional Office 104(g) Coordinators

-ll-

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. billy@epa.gov

Rao Surampalli

REGION VII {IA, KS, MO, and NE}
901 North Sth Street

Kansas City, KS 66101

Wastewater Management Division
Telephone: 913-551-7453

Fax: 913-551-7765

E-mail: surampalli.rao@epa.gov

Pauline Afshar

REGION VIII {CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, and WY}

999 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance

Telephone: 303-312-6267
Fax: 303-312-6131

E-mail: afshar.pauline@epa.gov
Helen McKinley

REGION IX [{AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU}

75 Hawthome Street WTR-6
‘San Francisco, CA 94105

Water Management Division
Telephone: 415-744-1943
Fax: 415-744-1078

E-mail: mckiniey-helen@epa.gov

Terry Moan

REGION X {AK, ID, OR, and WA}
1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

Water Division-Financial Assistance Section

Telephone: 206-553-1837
Fax: 206-553-1280
E-mail: moan.terry@epa.gov