c,EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water
Washington DC 20460
March 1984
A Preliminary Report
to Congress
on Training for
Operators of Municipal
Wastewater
Treatment Plants
-------
A PRELIMINARY REPORT TO CONGRESS
ON
TRAINING FOR OPERATORS OF
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
By
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
WASHINGTON, D.C.
March 1, 1984
-------
A PRELIMINARY REPORT TO CONGRESS ON TRAINING
FOR OPERATORS OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose 1
B. Background
1. Federal, State, and Local Roles 1
2. Large Plant—Small Plant Compliance 1
3. Operator Training and Small—Plant Compliance 2
4. Results—Oriented Operator Training 2
5. Other Factors Affecting Compliance 2
C. Congressional Md—on Funds 2
1. Grants to States 3
2. National Survey and Evaluation 3
3. Preliminary Report 3
II. RISTORY AND STATUS OF FEDERAL OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAMS
A. Federal Program Summary and Legislative Base 4
1. 1966 Clean Water Restoration Act 4
2. 1970 Water Quality Improvement Act 5
3. 1972 Amendments to Federal Water Pollution
Control Act 6
4. 1977 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act 6
5. National Municipal Policy 6
B. Federal Program Accomplishments 7
C. Elements of National Training Base 8
1. State Training Facilities 8
2. National Associations 8
3. Operator Associations 8
4. Private Sector 8
III . STATUS OF STATE PROGRAMS
A. Allocation of Section l04(g)(l) Congressional
Add—on Funds 9
B. Status of Grant—Funded Projects 11
C. Characteristics of State Training Programs
1. General Background 12
2. State Organization 12
3. Training Program Administration 13
4. Funding and Staffing 14
5. Planning and Evaluation 15
-------
A PRELIMINARY REPORT TO CONGRESS ON TRAINING
FOR OPERATORS OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
CONTENTS
PACE
IV. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS
A. Federal, State, and Local Roles and Responsibilities 16
1. Federal 16
2. State 17
3. Local 18
B. Model State Program 18
1. Statement of Goals and Objectives 19
2. Planning and Evaluation Program 19
3. Overall State Organization 19
4. Training Program Organization 20
5. Funding and Staffing 20
C. Action Plan 21
1. Current EPA Actions 21
2. Long—Term EPA Actions 22
3. State Actions 23
4. Local Actions 24
5. Private Sector 25
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary of EPA Training Programs 26
B. State Training Centers - - - - — 27
C. States Considering Establishing Training
Centers and Non—1O9(b) State Centers 32
D. Status of 1982n198LOpe; or Training Grants 33
E. Section 104(g)(l) Grantees 36
F. Status of State Training Activities 45
C. Federal Funding Levels for Operator Training 48
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
L is the preliminary report of the Environmental Protection Agency
(-EPA)----to--the United States Congress on the status of State training programs
for operators of municipal wastewater treatment facilities and on the develop-
ment of a multiyear action plan to achieve State self—sufficiency in operator
trainingjThe report responds to the June 23, 1983, directive of the House—
Senate Committee of Conference on Appropriations for 111Th and Independent Agen-
cies in Report No. 98—264 requesting such information.
Background
EPA and the States agree that effective operator training is an impor-
tant factor in a treatment facility’s ability to meet its effluent require-
ments under the 1972 Clean Water Act. In carrying out various mandates for
operator training under the 1972 Act and other legislation over the past 17
years, EPA’s strategy and that of its predecessor agencies has aimed to build
a comprehensive, self—sufficient State and local training base. Federal pro-
grams since the 1965 Water Quality Act have progressed from training opera-
tors directly to construction of State training centers and development of
State capability. Twenty—seven States, territories, and an interstate agency
operate dedicated training centers, 24 of them funded under section 109(b)
of the Clean Water Act. Eight additional States and Puerto Rico have expressed
interest in developing such centers.
The Federal goal through the years has been to protect the Federal in-
vestment in municipal treatment facilities by developing a national base of
skilled water pollution control personnel and technical information materials.
The Instructional Resources Center at Ohio State University serves as a reposi-
tory for training and instructional materials developed by EPA, States, and
the private sector and operates a computerized national information clearing-
house and retrieval system originally established under an EPA grant. The
Center expects to become self—supporting this year.
Several national training and other associations that received EPA finan-
cial and institutional support continue to provide comprehensive coordination
and assistance to State and local governments. An estimated 24 State operator
associations sponsor strong and effective operator training activities. Many
of these associations came into existence with support from the Water Pollution
Control Federation. The Federation is promoting a national operator associa-
tion that will coordinate information and encourage operator training.
Every State and many local governments also rely heavily on private—sector
training and technical assistance.
Status of State Grant Projects
Since 1982 Congress has added $9,353,000 to EPA’s budget to support opera-
tor training. Congress added $4,103,000 in 1982 and $2,625,000 each for fiscal
years 1983 and 1984.
—i—
-------
As directed by Congress, the bulk of the 1982 and 1983 add—on training
funds are at work in the States assisting compliance—oriented training programs
for operators of small treatment plants. Training and technical assistance is
provided onsite and over—the—shoulder by experienced trainers from State train-
ing centers, other State agencies, or a national training association. These
trainers use newly developed EPA computer—diagnostic programs to identify each
plant’s problems and training and technical assistance needs.
Using these add—on funds, States will conduct nearly 1,200 facility diag-
nostic inspections, provide onsite technical assistance and training at nearly
775 small facilities, and develop 10 Statewide financial management guidance
and assistance programs. Although these projects will not complete work until
F? 1985, performance and compliance have improved at 67 facilities. In addi-
tion, State efforts have resulted in improved local decisionmaker involvement
in plant operations and maintenance and financial management; improved process
control methods and laboratory and recordkeeping practices; introduction of
preventive maintenance programs; reduced sludge handling costs; improved inf ii —
tration/inflow management; increased repair of equipment; and identification
of operator certification and continuing education needs.
A major objective and accomplishment in award of FY 1982 and F? 1983
funds was to obtain maximum State participation in this program. By the end
of 1983, only two States, certain territories, and the District of Columbia
were not participating in this training effort. Award of F? 1984 funds will
be more selective. These funds will go to States that have demonstrated a
commitment to this effort as reflected in funds expenditures and compliance
improvement.
National Survey and Evaluation
To help evaluate State and local training capability and to identify the
essential elements and costs of an effective State operator—training program,
the EPA Office of Water also funded studies by national organizations experi-
enced in water pollution control and operator training. These include the
National Environmental Training Association (NETA), the National Demonstration
Water Project (NDWP), the American Clean Water Association (ACWA), and the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA). Much of the material in this report is based on preliminary find-
ings of these organizations. Most State onsite assistance programs have been
effectively underway less than a year and the evaluations by the national
organizations are incomplete.
Characteristics of State Operator Training Program .
Although incomplete, the data in this report appear to represent a good
cross—section of State programs.
Annual State training budgets generally range from $100,000 to $400,000.
Although a number of States obtain significant local funding from course tui-
tion, fees and certification charges, the majority of funds come from State
appropriations and Federal grants under Clean Water Act sections 106, 205(g),
and l04(g)(1). States average about three full—time trainers, but there are
significant numbers of part—time trainers. In addition, it appears that a
significant amount of additional training and technical assistance is provided
by other State personnel in conjunction with management of construction grants
and compliance programs.
—ii—
-------
Operator training programs are conducted mainly through State environmen-
tal agencies and State training centers. State training centers are generally
associated with junior colleges or vocational education institutions. These
centers serve as Statewide training resource centers and provide primarily
entry—level and upgrade training. As State training programs have matured,
program objectives and resources have expanded to emphasize continuing educa-
tion and technical assistance as well as operator certification. Nearly all
States (44) have mandatory operator certification programs. The majority of
operators are certified and receive continuing education training annually.
States report redirection of their training programs toward improving
compliance. These results—oriented approaches are fully consistent with EPA
and congressional objectives. Data also show improved integration of operator
training, operations and maintenance, and compliance programs within State
organizations. Although a number of States appear to be moving toward improved
programs and increased funding, relatively few States maintain comprehensive,
integrated, and self—sufficient programs.
Tentative Conclusions
Federal, State, and Local Roles and Responsibilities
As the Agency, the States, and local governments work toward self—suffic-
ient operator training and improved compliance, it is essential to articulate
the basic roles and responsibilities each sector will be expected to fulfill
to achieve these goals and objectives.
The overall responsibility for operator training and plant compliance
rests with local and State governments. This is in keeping with the Clean
Water Act mandate and EPA’s implementing policies. Local governments are
expected to see that their plants comply with their effluent—discharge per-
mits, maintain effective user—charge systems and operations and maintenance
programs, and seek training for their operators where needed. States are
expected to develop, administer, and finance their own training programs, to
help especially small, municipalities comply with discharge requirements, and
to take appropriate enforcement actions where necessary. The Federal role
now and in the future is one of oversight to assure that needed programs are
developed and implemented to improve compliance at Federally funded facilities.
Model State Program
As requested by Congress, EPA awarded grants to NETA and selected States
to define the essential elements of successful State operator training programs
and the costs to implement them. State programs viewed as possessing essential
elements for financial and programmatic self—sufficiency were selected for
intensive evaluation.
—iii—
-------
Although the data have not been fully evaluated, certain basic components
of an effective State program are emerging. The essential elements include: a
comprehensive statement of State goals and objectives; a planning and evalua-
tion program, including an annual plan that sets priorities and budget levels
and provides a basis to evaluate training effectiveness in terms of improved
compliance; an adequate budget to meet identified training and technical
assistance needs based on local fees and State—Federal funds pending full
self—sufficiency; an adequate number of trained staff; adequate State travel
budgets to assure onsite technical assistance, particularly for small isolated
facilities; mandatory certification testing of both theory and operations
knowledges; and a balanced mix of entry—level training, continuing education
and technical assistance. We do not at this time propose that these elements
constitute the model that all States should develop. A model program descrip-
tion that also addresses qualitative factors and staffing and budget needs
requires further analysis and coordination with other EPA program offices and
State managers.
Elements of National Plan
As with the model State program, the elements of a national coordinated
action plan to achieve Federal, State, and local goals for effective operator
training and municipal compliance are incomplete and require further discuss-
ion with each level, of government. EPA will begin working shortly with Fed-
eral and State officials and others responsible for operator training to dis-
cuss development of realistic, short—term and long—term policies, programs,
and activities to achieve the goals and objectives.
Although the complete national action plan does not yet exist, some basic
components are already in place. At the Federal level, EPA has taken several
actions that set a clear national direction. These include the National Munic-
ipal Policy; the Financial Capability Policy; and revised construction grant,
State delegation, and secondary treatment regulations. It has also implemented
major program management reforms and issued financial and technical information
and guidance for State and local governments. In the immediate future, the
agency has scheduled a national training conference in May at Atlanta, Georgia,
to bring together State training officials and EPA staff to discuss development
of effective, self—sufficient operator training programs and to share informa-
tion on onsite training and technical assistance programs.
At the State level, efforts to provide operator training and technical
assistance appear to be increasing. States appear to recognize that their
operator training programs must become self—sufficient and must be oriented
toward improved compliance.
For the future, increased State, local, and private sector emphasis will
be needed at small facilities. These plants account for the majority of com-
pliance and performance problems. In the past they have received little tech-
nical assistance and operator training and a low priority for enforcment. An
integrated effort to solve problems at these small facilities should help
improve overall municipal facilities operation and maintenance and national
compliance rates in Federally funded wastewater treatment facilities.
-iv-
-------
Final Report on Operator Training
EPA will continue to work with State and local officials and other rep-
resentatives of national training organizations to obtain and evaluate data
on State operator training capability. This information will help provide the
base on which to formulate a realistic, workable model State operator training
program and a national action plan to achieve State self—sufficiency in opera-
tor training. The Agency will submit final recommendations in another report
to Congress in fiscal year 1985.
-------
A PRELIMINARY REPORT TO CONGRESS
ON
TRAINING FOR OPERATORS
OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
This is the preliminary report of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to the United States Congress on the status of State municipal waste—
water treatment facility operator training programs and on the development of a
multiyear action plan to achieve State self—sufficiency in operator training
and improved municipal facilities compliance. The report is required by the
June 23, 1983, directive of the House and Senate Committee of Conference on
Appropriations for HUD and Independent Agencies in Report Number 98—264.
B. Background
1. Federal, State, and Local Roles
EPA and the States agree that effective operator training is impor-
tant to help ensure that municipal wastewater treatment plants, many of which
have been constructed with Federal funds, meet effluent permit requirements
and are operated and maintained effectively. In keeping with the Clean Water
Act mandate and the agency’s implementing policies to delegate management of
the construction grants program to the States, responsibility for operator
training and plant compliance rests with State and local governments. States
are expected to develop, administer, and finance their own training programs,
to help municipalities comply with requirements, and to take appropriate
enforcement actions. Local governments are expected to see that their plants
comply with their effluent—discharge permits, maintain effective user—charge
systems and operations and maintenance programs, and seek training for their
operators where needed. The Federal role now and in the future is to assure
that needed programs to improve overall municipal wastewater treatment facili-
ties compliance are implemented nationally.
2. Large Plant—Small Plant Compliance
A top priority of the EPA is to assure that municipal wastewater
treatment facilities built with Federal tax dollars perform as designed to
meet their effluent discharge permits. Since 1972 the Federal Government has
spent almost $37 billion to help communities pay for municipal wastewater
treatment plants that meet the effluent requirements of the Federal Clean
Water Act (P.L. 92—500), as amended. EPA data show that 87 percent of the
plants funded since 1972 that treat more than 1 million gallons of wastewater
a day (mgd) comply with their permits and that 77 percent of all plants funded
since 1972 are in compliance. In early April 1984, EPA expects to have specific
compliance figures for municipal plants that treat less than 1 mgd. Meantime,
these small plants are known to account for the majority of plant performance
and compliance problems. These plants represent about 90 percent of the total
number of facilities built since 1972 with construction grants funds though
they account for only 10 percent of all municipal wastewater flow.
—1—
-------
3. Operator Training and Small—Plant Compliance
A key factor in noncompliance at small plants Is that the operators
often lack the necessary technical knowledge and mechanclal skills needed to
operate a mechanical treatment plant, often a sophisticated activated sludge
process plant. Typically these plants are operated by one person who is
responsible for all aspects of plant operations and maintenance and who also
often has to combine operation of the plant with other municipal duties. This
has meant Insufficient attention to plant operation and maintenance and little
or no time for off site clas8room instruction or “hands—on” training at a waste
water treatment training facility. These small plants, often located in iso-
lated communities, have not received much State attention or assistance and
have not been able to afford private sector help.
4. Results—Oriented Operator Training
Federal and State experience reinforces the conviction that effec-
tive operator training is an important element In the treatment plant’s ability
to meet its effluent permit. Experience also teaches that improved plant
performance and permit compliance are the ultimate gauges of training success.
Head counts of operators trained, upgraded, or certified, Important as these
factors are, represent only intermediate, process measures. Besides traditional
classroom and textbook instruction, training programs must deliver personal
on—the—job assistance to the operator at the treatment plant where appropriate
and must be oriented to improve plant performance and compliance. Programs
that can demonstrate that training produces cost—effective solutions to plant
noncompliance can expect to draw support from State and local governments as
Federal training funds phase out.
5. Other Factors Affecting Compliance
Though the operator remains an essential component, It is important
toreniember that other factors- also-eon rIbute s-ignificantly to poor plant per—
forinance and noncompliance by small treatment plants. Problems with facility
design, selection of treatment technologies, infiltration and inflow, inade-
quate financial management by the local government, and lack of effective
enforcement to spur corrective action at problem plants present equally serious
and complex obstacles to compliance. This report focuses on operator training
but also Interrelates other Federal, State, and local efforts needed to frame
integrated approaches that improve performance and compliance at municipal
wastewater treatment plants.
C. Congressional Add—on Funds
The appropriation of additional Congressional add—on funds by P.L.
98—45 July 12, 1983, brought to $9.353 million the total amount of operator
training money added by Congress to EPA appropriations for fiscal years 1982,
1983, and 1984.
—2—
-------
1. Grants to States
As directed by Congress, the bulk of the 1982 and 1983 add—on train-
ing funds are at work in the States assisting compliance—oriented training
programs for operators of treatment plants with capacities of less than S
million gallons a day (mgd). These plants serve fewer than 50,000 people.
Most of the plants have capacities of less than 1 mgd and serve fewer than
10,000 people. Training and technical assistance is provided onsite and over—
the—shoulder by experienced trainers selected by State training centers, other
responsible State agencies, or a national training association. Trainers use
newly developed EPA computer—diagnostic programs to identify a plant’s design,
operational, or financial management problems that are causing poor plant per-
formance and noncompliance and to target needed training and technical assist-
ance activities.
2. National Survey and Evaluation
To help evaluate State and local training capability and to identify
essential elements of a model State operator training program, the EPA Office
of Water also funded studies by national associations knowledgeable and exper-
ienced in water pollution control and operator training and by selected States.
The national associations include the National Environmental Training Associa-
tion (NETA), the National Demonstration Water Project (NDWP), the American
Clean Water Association (ACWA), and the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA).
3. Preliminary Report
The material in this report is based on preliminary findings of
these organizations and of State agencies. Most State onsite assistance pro-
grams have been effectively underway less than a year and the national organi-
zations’ evaluations are incomplete. Therefore, this report should be consi-
dered as a preliminary national report on operator training. The EPA will
submit a final report and proposed action plan in early fiscal year 1985.
—3—
-------
II. HISTORY AND STATUS OF FEDERAL OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAMS
A. Federal Program Siin’m ry and Legislative Base
The Federal goal through the years has been to protect the taxpayer
investment by developing a national base of skilled water pollution control
personnel and technical information materials to assure that plants built with
Federal funds are operated and maintained to comply with their effluent dis-
charge permits. The Federal operator training effort has progressed through
various stages. From 1967 to 1971, it concentrated on direct training of
operators. From 1971 to 1977, it shifted to greater reliance on the States by
training trainers and building State training centers. Last, from 1977 through
1981, It developed extensive curricula and training materials for State use.
By 1981, as States moved toward self—sufficient programs, EPA began to phase
out its role for operator training.
In carrying Out its legislative mandates for operator training, EPA’s
strategy has aimed at building State training capability and working toward a
comprehensive, self—sufficient State—local training base. With a commitment
to municipal compliance and to development of self—sufficiency, States and
local govertiments should be in a position to provide needed training by con-
tinuing to build on the substantial training base the Federal Government,
States, educational institutions, and professional organizations have created
dyer the past 17 years. During this time, the agency estimates that the Fed-
eral Government has invested a total of approximately $75 million in operator
training—related activities. A wealth of water pollution control curricula
and training materials developed under Federal grant programs are being used
throughout the country by States, numerous universities, community colleges,
technical and vocational schools, and training and water pollution control
associations.
1. 1966 Clean Water Restoration Act
The earliest Federal planning to focus on operator training began
in 1967 as a result of the 1966 Clean Water Restoration Act (P.L. 89—753) and
the 1965 Federal Water Quality Act (P.L. 89—234). The 1966 Act called for a
study and report to Congress by July 1, 1967, on manpower and training needs
to implement the expanding Federal water pollution control programs. The 1965
Act created the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) within
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. FWPCA established the Office
of Manpower and Training in 1967 which used existing Federal authorities and
funding, primarily the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 (P.L.
87—415) (MDTA), to develop and administer training programs for entry—level
operators. Training consisted of classroom instruction and on—the—job training
and became known as coupled OJT. Most classroom training took place at voca-
tional and technical schools and community colleges. Before this, most entry—
level and upgrade operator training consisted of in—house on—the—job training
for operators at large plants and was conducted by existing plant operating
staff. Other training consisted of short—course activities sponsored by
operator associations, professional organizations, and State agencies.
—4—
-------
EPA, which came into existence in December 1970, further developed
MDTA operator training programs f or entry—level and upgrade training of lower—
level operators. The Agency administered the programs under interagency agree-
ments with the Department of Labor; the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare; and the Department of Defense. Training was subcontracted to State
and local governments, special wastewater treatment districts, vocational
schools, community colleges, and universities. The training continued to corn—
bine classroom instruction with on—the—job assistance. The MDTA programs
included:
o Coupled on—the—job training. Entry—level and upgrade operator
training for unemployed and underemployed persons in wastewater treatment
plants through combined classroom and on—the—job training.
o Public Service Careers. Entry-level and upgrade training for
disadvantaged persons newly or previously employed in wastewater treatment
plants under a program tailored to channel funds from Federal to State and
local agencies.
o Institutional Training. Entry—level operator training at tech-
nical or vocational schools and community colleges. The typical program inclu-
ded 440 hours of classroom instruction and 440 hours of hands—on training at a
treatment plant.
o Transition Training. Entry—level operator training for military
personnel leaving the service. Provided basic classroom and on—the—job train-
ing and help in finding employment in water pollution control facilities.
o WIN (Work Incentive) Program. Remedial education and skill
training for adult welfare recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Chil-
dren. Objective was to place trainees in public or quasi—public agencies.
2. 1970 Water Quality Improvement Act
To provide a more comprehensive approach to operator training,
the 1970 Water Quality Improvement Act (P.L. 91—224) established EPA ’s basic
operator training program and for the first time authorized EPA financial
support for operator training. Section 5(g)(1) of the Act authorized EPA to
develop a pilot program “in cooperation with State and interstate agencies,
municipalities, educational institutions, and other organizations and individ-
uals of manpower development and training and retraining of persons in, or
entering into, the field of operation and maintenance of treatment works and
related activities.” Training under the pilot program included advanced in-
structor training, advanced treatment training, and grants for special State
priorities. State projects included management training for first—line super-
visors, advanced treatment training, preventive maintenance, improved general
skills for higher level operators and technicians, information and orientation
seminars for local officials and policy decisionmakers, and correspondence
study programs for plant personnel in rural and hard—to—reach areas.
—5—
-------
Under other sections of this legislation EPA continued its previously
authorized direct technical training in water pollution control at EPA facili-
ties for key State, local, and Federal officials and private sector personnel
responsible for water pollution control and training. It also funded academic
and professional education for undergraduate and graduate—level programs in
water pollution control and provided technology—transfer training to practicing
professionals, public decisionmakers, conservation groups and the like. These
and other training programs are snininarized in Attachment A.
3. 1972 Amendments to Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Federal support grew with the landmark 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments (P.L. 92—500). The Act authorized continued financial
support for pilot programs in manpower development and training for operation
and maintenance personnel. Section 5(g)(1) of the 1970 Act became section
104(g)(1) in the 1972 Act and programs developed under this section became
known as 10 4 (g)(1) operator training programs. An additional financial thrust
in Federal training support came with the Actts section 109(b). This section
authorized each State to use $250,000 of its annual Federal construction grant
allotment to build a State operator training facility with 100 percent Federal
grant funding. Attachment B lists State training centers built under section
109(b).
4. 1977 Amendments to Federal Water Pollution Control Act
The 1977 amendments (P.L. 95—217) to the 1972 Act increased Feder-
al support grants for 109(b) State training centers to $500,000 and allowed
States to use Federal grant money for other training costs besides construc-
tion. Grant money could now pay for mobile training units, classroom rentals,
special instructors, and materials. There have been no training—related chan-
ges in the Federal legislation since 1977.
5. National Municipal Policy
EPA’s National Municipal Policy sets a clear direction for achiev-
ing improved municipal facilities compliance. Operator training has an integral
role in its implementation since training can improve plant performance and,
through effective operations and maintenance, minimize the need for capital in-
vestments. The policy requires that all publicly owned treatment works meet
statutory compliance requirements whether or not they receive Federal funds.
EPA’s goal is to obtain compliance by these facilities as soon as possible,
and not later than July 1, 1988, except in extraordinary circumstances. Already
constructed publicly owned treatment works that are not in compliance must
develop a plan and schedule for achieving compliance. Municipalities that
require construction must also develop a plan that documents treatment needs,
costs, and financing approach, and a schedule for achieving compliance as soon
as possible.
—6—
-------
3. Federal Program Accomplishments
Over the past 17 years, EPA and predecessor agencies have invested
approximately $75 million in operator training—related programs, including
specific training programs and other State grants support. Over 20,000 opera-
tors and State trainers have been trained. A wealth of water pollution control
curricula and training materials have been developed and are being used by
States, numerous universities, community colleges, technical and vocational
schools, and training and water pollution control associations. Funding levels
for operator training from 1969 through Fl 1983 are shown in Attachment G.
Of the total Federal funds, $15.6 million went to programs funded under
the 1962 Manpower Development and Training Act (P.L. 87—415) which funded entry
level and upgrade training. Approximately $27 million went to programs funded
under section 5 of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (P.L. 91—224)
and section 10 4 (g)(l) of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
(P.L. 92—500) which authorize operator training pilot programs; and $10 million
went to fund State training centers under section 109(b) of the 1972 Act and
1977 Amendments (P.L. 9 —217). Significant amounts of construction grant funds
have been used to provide facility startup assistance to communities and opera-
tors and to develop operations and maintenance manuals. In addition, the 1981
Amendments (P.L. 97—117) provide expanded statutory authority for communities
to include operator training under first—year startup assistance if necessary.
States also have continued to fund significant operator training activities
under Clean Water Act section 106 State program grants and section 205(g)
construction management assistance grants.
The Instructional Resources Center (IRC) at Ohio State University in
Columbus, Ohio, under an EPA grant, operates a national information clearing-
house and serves as a repository for training and instructional materials
developed by EPA, States, and the private sector. IRC houses the Instructional
Resources Information System (IRIS), a national computer information and re-
trieval system that lists thousands of available instructional resources. IRC
also publishes a quarterly newsletter; sponsors conferences, workshops, and
seminars; and operates a lending library of audiovisual materials. The Center
handles over 4,000 requests each month primarily from plant operators and
supervisors. Over the past quarter, IRC reviewed 364 training materials and
accepted 253 into IRIS. The Center malls Out 20,000 newsletters each month and
receives approximately 200 requests for information daily. Over 1,500 slides
and 20 videocassettes are duplicated for loan each month. The Center expects
to be self supporting by the summer of 1984.
More information on the history and development of the Federal program
is contained in a report Issued by EPA’s Office of Water in 1983 entitled
“Operator Training Programs.”
—7—
-------
C. Elements of National Training Base
1. State Training Facilities
Twenty—six States and territories and one Interstate agency now
operate dedicated training centers, 24 of which were funded under section
109(b) of the Clean Water Act. Eight other States and Puerto Rico are con-
sidering developing such centers. Attachment B lists existing State training
facilities. Attachment C lists States that are considering building such facil-
ities and States that have developed training centers without Federal 109(b)
funds.
2. National Associations
Several national associations that received startup or conticiu4ng
financial and institutional support from EPA continue to provide a compreh n—
sive coordination and assistance capability to State and local governments
These associations include the Joint Training Coordination Committee (JTCC),
the National Environmental Training Association (NETA), the National Demon-
stration Water Project (NDWP), the American Clean Water Association (ACWA),
and the Association of Boards of Certification for Operations Personnel in
Water and Wastewater Utilities (ABC). The As8ociation of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) provides an important coordi-
nation function across all State water pollution control programs.
3. Operator Associations
An estimated 24 State operator associations sponsor some of the
strongest and most effective operator training activities. Some work closely
with State agencies to conduct and coordinate training courses and Statewide
conferences. Many of the these associations were established with strong sup-
port from the Water Pollution Control Federation. The Federation is promoting
a national operator association that will coordinate information and encourage
operator training. In July the Federation will publish the first issue of a
monthly magazine on plant operations that will be written for and directed to
plant operators.
4. Private Sector
Every State and many local governments rely heavily on private
sector training and technical assistance. In several cities private contrac-
tors are responsible for overall facility operations and maintenance and opera-
tor training. Contractor involvement in operator training Is expected to
expand in conjunction with new statutory requirements that grantees certify
that their facilities are in compliance with effluent requirements by the end
of the first year of plant operation.
—8—
-------
III. STATUS OF STATE PROGRAMS
A. Allocation of Section 104(g)(l) Congressional Add—on Funds
In FY 1982, Congress added $4.1 million to EPA’s budget to assist
State operator training program activities and to pay salaries of EPA staff
responsible for administering operator training programs. The congressional
Conference Committee on Appropriations language directed that the funds be
used to improve municipal wastewater treatment facilities compliance, especial-
ly in small facilities, through onsite training and technical assistance. Of
the add—on funds, $3,292,000 was awarded to 35 States. Implementing Congress-
ional directions, funds were allocated to States based on the following
criteria:
o The majority of the funds should be awarded to States with State
training centers established under section 109(b) of the Clean Water Act or
other State authority;
o Funds should be targeted to small Federally funded facilities
(generally under 5 ingd effluent discharge), experiencing compliance problems;
o A diagnostic evaluation should be performed for each facility
selected by the State to determine whether compliance problems were operator—
training—related and, if so, to determine the types of site—specific technical
assistance needed;
o Orisite, over—the—shoulder technical assistance should be provided
by experienced operations and maintenance personnel, preferably State employ-
ees;
o Followup site inspections should be conducted to evaluate the
effect of training and technical assistance and to assure continuing perform—
ance Jjnprovement; and
o The State should evaluate and document the training and technical
assistance efforts, including before and after facility performance and eff—
luent data.
In addition, $575,000 was awarded to a consortium of the ational
Demonstration Water Project (NDWP), the National Environmental Training Assoc-
iation (NETA) and the American Clean Water Association (ACWA) for technical
assistance to 6 States; and $67,200 was awarded to the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to summarize
and evaluate State operator training programs.
In FY 1983, the Congress again added funds to EPA’s budget request,
this time adding $2,625,200. Conference committee language directed EPA to
continue the policy direction established in 1982. The language also required
the Agency to conduct a national study through a national environmental train-
ing organization to determine the effectiveness of the onsite training and
technical assistance approach, to define the critical common elements of
effective State operator training programs and the costs of implementing such
programs, and to evaluate the status of each State with respect to achieving
programmatic and financial self—sufficiency for operator training.
—9—
-------
The majority of the F? 1983 funds were awarded to 48 States and 1 terri-
tory, 35 of which had also received FY 1982 funds. By the end of FY 1983,
only 2 States, the other territories, and the District of Columbia were not
participating in this effort. A $200,000, 2—year grant was also awarded to
NETA in 1983 to conduct the national. program evaluation. The preliminary in-
formation from the NETA project is contained in the following sections on
overall State programs status; development of model State programs; and poten-
tial Federal, State, and local action—plan activities.
The national FT 1983 funding guidance essentially continued the funding
criteria issued for use of FT 1982 funds. However, the Agency also urged
States to use a portion of the funds to provide financial management technical
assistance to communities in addition to operator technical assistance and to
develop Statewide financial management policy guidance. This additional empha-
sis was based on the Agency’s recognition that performance and compliance
problems are also caused by inadequate local financial management and inade-
quate user charges for operations and maintenance. Improved financial manage-
ment and updated local user charge systems are also critical to improved com-
pliance. Limited funds were also awarded to selected States to summarize
the essential program elements and costs associated with implementing effec-
tive, self—sufficient operator training programs. Crantees awarded FY 1982 and
FT 1983 section 104(g)(l) funds are listed in Attachment E.
The F ? 1984 appropriation again provided $2,625,000 to EPA to maintain
this effort. The Conference Committee also directed submission of this report.
Using F? 1984 funds, a $500,000 grant has been awarded to NDWP to continue
their successful training and technical assistance efforts to 40 projects in 5
States. Expanding on their first—year efforts, which were devoted entirely to
onsite technical assistance, the funds will also assist Statewide operator
training program development, financial management technical assistance, and
progress toward self—sufficiency. Allocation of FY 1984 funds to States is
expected to be completed by mid—March.
A major objective and accomplishment in award of F ? 1982 and F? 1983
funds was to obtain maximum State participation in this program. Award of F ?
1984 funds will be more selective. The F? 1984 funds will be targeted to
States that have demonstrated a commitment to this effort as reflected in
funds expenditure and compliance improvement. States that have not made
significant progress and that have adequate funds remaining are not expected
to receive F? 1984 funds. Further, we intend to encourage strongly State
hiring of qualified technical assistance personnel in State training centers
or other responsible State program offices to institutionalize this capability
under a self—sufficient program. The continued use of contract assistance
approaches will be discouraged.
—10—
-------
B. Status of Grant—Funded Projects
Attachment D provides current State—by—State status of funding,
project duration, diagnostic inspection and technical assistance commitments
and accomplishments to date.
In general, States awarded F? 1982 funds are now well underway in
providing technical assistance and showing initial results. No projects have
been completed. Most States experienced startup delays averaging 9 months for
staffing, inter-nal State coordination and approvals, and grant—funded procure-
ment of minicomputers and diagnostic modeling programs. F? 1983—funded work
programs are just beginning to be implemented.
Based on negotiated F? 1982 and F? 1983 grant work plans, States
have committed to conduct nearly 1,200 facility problem diagnostic inspections,
to provide onsite technical assistance and training at nearly 775 small facili-
ties, and to develop 10 Statewide financial management guidance and assistance
programs.
Most current State technical assistance projects will not be comple-
ted until the end of FT 1985. Nevertheless, data are becoming available from
these projects based on their quarterly reports as well as from the six—State
NDWP technical assistance project funded in F? 1982.
The preliminary information from State grantees indicates that the
technical assistance program efforts are bearing fruit. In addition to inipro—
ving performance and compliance at 67 facilities, the States are also improving
local decisionmaker involvement in plant operations and maintenance and finan-
cial management; improving process—control methods; Introducing preventive
maintenance programs; reducing costs of sludge handling; improving laboratory
and recordkeeping practices; improving infiltration/inflow management; ensur-
ing repair of equipment; and identifying additional operator certification and
continuing education needs.
The data received from NDWP confirm these kinds of accomplishments.
The funds awarded to the consortium headed by NDWP supported a 1—year technical
assistance demonstration project in six southern States, including West Vir-
ginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky. NDWP
worked closely with these States to diagnose compliance problems in over 100
small facilities and to provide intensive onsite operator technical assistance
and training at 35 selected facilities. This demonstration project achieved
significantly improved facility performance at 15 plants and achieved full
compliance at 12 facilities. The effort also identified a number of issues
and pitfalls for States to avoid. Evaluation of the NDWP effort has indicated
the importance of problem diagnostic modeling and inspections to assure that
problems relate to training rather than to design or financial management;
good effluent monitoring data and reports upon which to base an evaluation of
compliance improvement; effective local utilities and financial management and
community recognition of compliance problems; onsite followup to ensure contin-
uing attention to identified problems; and State coordination and support,
including compliance actions, to reinforce operator training, operations and
maintenance, user charge, and effluent monitoring/reporting requirements.
—11—
-------
The preliminary re8ults of the ASIWPCA project are described primarily in
the following section on status of State programs. ASIWPCA has queried all
States on organizational structure, budgets and staffing, training program
objectives, procedures, and requirements, and future training directions and
needs. The ASWIPCA report also contains preliminary conclusions and recotnmen—
dations on Federal, State, and local roles and responsibilities that have been
incorporated in the action plan section of this report. Attachment F summarizes
the status of training activities in the States that have provided data.
C. Characteristics of State Operator Training Programs
1. General Background
The following information is based primarily on data provided by
States to ASIWPCA and NETA in conjunction with program evaluation studies they
are conducting for EPA under section 104(g)(L) grants. To date, ASIWPCA has
received responses from 30 States; NETA has received data from 35 States. EPA
has also obtained some addditioual data as part of State 104(g)(1) grantee
reporting requirements. Although incomplete, the data in this report appear
to represent a good cross section of State programs and trends. Attachment F
stimi u rizes the status of State training activities.
2. State Organization
Operator training programs are conducted primarily through State
environmental agencies and State 109(b) or other established training centers.
Only Nevada does not have a formal training organization. Operator training
in that State is provided by the State of California under contract.
Within the State agencies, training may be a separate organization-
al function. More often, operator training functions have been integrated in-
to the compliance or construction grants program management organization.
Even where the State 109(b) training center is identified as the lead State
entity, training also occurs within other elements of the water pollution
control program.
State water pollution control personnel often exercise multiple
responsibilities, including operator training, delegated construction grants
management, operations and maintenance, and compliance and enforcement. Train-
ing personnel may be involved, appropriately, for integrated program management,
in conducting facility plan and specification reviews; providing facility
startup services; and conducting operations and maintenance reviews, compliance
evaluations, and compliance inspections. Staff directly responsible for these
activities also may provide onsite technical assistance and informal training
to operators while working with new facilities concerning performance certif-
ications or while conducting compliance evaluations.
—12—
-------
Section 109(b) or other training centers generally are associated
with State junior colleges or vocational education institutions under the
State education departments. Their responsibilities may include Statewide
training coordination. These centers are usually training resource centers
and provide primarily entry—level/certification and upgrade training. State
departments of health also have significant direct or coordination responsibil-
ities in a number of States relating to operator certification training.
3. Training Program Administration
As State training programs have matured, program objectives and
resource allocations have expanded to include continuing education and tech-
nical assistance as well as operator certification. In most States, program
priorities and resources are distributed as follows: certification 20 percent,
continuing education 20 to 40 percent, and technical assistance up to 50 per-
cent. The levels of technical assistance are being influenced by section
104(g)(1) funding guidance, but increased technical assistance emphasis coin-
cides with the direction States want to take.
Nearly all States (44) have mandatory operator certification re-
quirements. Operator certification requirements are generally similar among
States, providing four classes of certification based on the size and complex-
ity of facilities. However, nationwide, approximately 40 percent of operators
are not currently certified for their levels of operations responsibility.
Of the approximately 55,000 certified operators in the States that reported,
up to 60 percent receive continuing education annually. These continuing
education courses are usually of 1 to 2 days duration; States offer 30 to 60
courses annually. States are increasingly expanding certification requirements
to include continuing education and knowledge of industrial wastewater treat-
ment processes. Some are considering requiring testing of both wastewater
treatment theory and practice.
States also report redirection of their training programs coward
achieving improved compliance. Shifts from prior emphasis on training for
certification or upgrade as primary objectives are becoming apparent. These
results—oriented approaches by States to program management are fully consis-
tent with EPA and congressional objectives. Together with data showing itii—
proved integration of training programs within the overall State organization,
these trends bode well for the future of operator training in the States.
—13—
-------
4. Funding and Staffing
Total annual State training budgets range from $40,000 to $800,000,
but are generally in the range of $100,000 to $400,000. The majority of funds
in State budgets are composed of State appropriations and Federal Clean Water
Act sections 106, 205(g) and 104(g)(1) grants. Most State budgets have some
local—funding component, generally from tuition and fees, ranging from 9 per-
cent to 86 percent of budgets. Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio
obtain more than 50 percent of State funds from local sources. Only a few
States have no direct State appropriations. These States rely entirely on
course tuition or Federal funds. Only 13 States report more than 50 percent
of budget from Federal funds. The percentage of State funding to total annual
training investment ranges up to 100 percent with an average of slightly over
50 percent. Federal funding is obtained primarily from State agency alloca-
tions of section 106 State program grants or State targeting of available
section 205(g) construction management grants. Section 104(g)(1) add—on funds
have represented a significant additional funding source since early FY 1983
in some States. However, sections 106 and 205(g) funds are predominant and
are viewed by States as a more reliable, continuing source of operator training
assistance.
The agency believes the available funding information underesti-
mates total State contributions to operator training programs. The operator—
training—related activities by State construction grants management, operations
and maintenance, and compliance and enforcement personnel are generally not
included in these budget figures. Based on overall data, the agency believes
that the support provided by these programs may represent a significant addi-
tional contribution to the total State training program.
State self—sufficiency, as currently defined, is the ability to
main an effective operator training program using only local tuition and
fees and State appropriated funds as necessary. A total of 11 States reported
to NETA that they were self—sufficient. These States are New York, Minnesota,
Illinois, Iowa, Georgia, Idaho, Texas, Arkansas, Ohio, Alaska, and Indiana.
OFthe States reporting self—sufficiency, 9 reported that they were capable
of maintaining needed operator training program activities through State and
local funding and tuition/fee systems; i.e., Federal assistance is not essen-
tial. A total of 25 States reported that they could not maintain current
programs in the absence of Federal funds. From reviewing these and other State
program descriptions, it is clear that only a few States approach a comprehen-
sive, integrated, “model” training program. However, a number of States also
appear to be moving toward improved overall programs, to increasing State
funding, and to developing cost—based local tuition and fee systems for true
self—sufficiency.
—14—
-------
With respect to operator training program staffing, many States rely
heavily on part—time trainers, both salaried and volunteer. This is parcicu—
larly true in large States such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, and
Minnesota with a total of over 300 part—time trainers. States average about 3
full—time trainers, with a range of zero to 11. In most States, these trainers
have a significant number of years of experience. Qualifications of staff
include professional engineering, training/vocational education, and facility
operations, obtained both academically and on—the—job. The part—time trainers
are generally responsible f or short—course continuing education and onsite
technical assistance. The full—time trainers are primarily responsible for
training—center administration, materials development, certification testing,
and entry—level training through the State departments of education or health.
5. Planning and Evaluation
The majority of State programs provide for program planning and
evaluation. Although plans may not be comprehensive or updated annually, they
provide a basis for identifying needs and evaluating accomplishments. Program
evaluation is generally oriented to evaluation of the effectiveness of training
through participant feedback. Evaluation criteria are expanding, however, to
include plant performance improvements ba8ed on compliance information, includ-
ing review of discharge monitoring reports and compliance inspections.
—15—
-------
IV. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS
The analysis and tentative conclusions that follow are based on prelimin-
ary data received to date from 45 States and national organizations. The
following information siimin rizes all information available on the essential
components of effective State operator training and compliance programs;
current Federal and State efforts to ensure effective programs; and potential
programs and activities needed to assure operator training, operations and
maintenance, and compliance and enforcement.
Following submission of this report, the agency will continue to obtain
and evaluate data from additional States, to work with EPA program officials
and State and local interest group representatives to define future actions,
and to prepare a followup report to Congress containing recommendations for
implementing compliance—oriented self—sufficient State and local programs.
The agency expects to submit a followup report to Congress by early fiscal
year 1985.
A. Federal, State, and Local Roles and Responsibilities
Stated as goals and objectives, the following outlines complementary
Federal, State, and local roles and responsibilities for achieving improved
municipal facilities compliance. The definition of roles and responsibilities
is provided as a basis for developing a model State operator training program
and for defining Federal, State, local, and private—sector action plans to
achieve improved overall municipal facilities compliance. Because improved
operator training programs are only one element in achieving the overall objec-
tive, these roles and responsibilities relate to other needs at each level of
government.
1. Federal
a. Goal
To achieve improved water quality through implementation of
effective, self—sufficient Statewide programs that provide for coordinated
operator training, operations and maintenance management, and enforcement.
b. Objectives
o To provide Federal oversight to implementation of the Na-
tional Municipal Policy and State—local efforts to ensure coordinated, com-
pliance—oriented programs.
o To promote development of State self—sufficiency to maintain
effective operator training programs through State—local fee systems and State
appropriated funds approaches (and financial assistance under sections 205(g)
and 106 of the Clean Water Act), and to ensure local user—charge systems that
support effective, self—sufficient facilities construction, operations and
maintenance, and operator training.
—16—
-------
o To support use of section 109(b) or State funds to construct
State training centers that provide an institutional focus in the State, com-
prehensive operator training, and onsite technical assistance.
o To support use by States of sections 205(g) and 106 funds to
assist their transition to full State self—sufficiency.
o To promote communication among States, municipalities, pro-
fessional associations, interest groups, and the private sector to create
public awareness of the importance of operator training, to share ideas, and
develop coordinated approaches for improved municipal facilities compliance.
o To promote professional status, certification, trairi.ing, and
improved operator salary structures.
2. State
a. Goal
To ensure municipal facilities compliance through comprehen-
sive, coordinated, and self—sufficient operator training programs; operations
and maintenance programs; technical and financial management assistance pro-
grams; and enforcement programs.
b. Objectivqs
o To develop strategies to bring noncomplying facilities in-
to compliance using training in conjunction with other State activities and
local communities to achieve National Municipal Policy requirements.
o To provide Statewide policies, guidance, and standards for
local governments on operations and maintenance, user charges, and operator
training and certification.
o To monitor municipal facilities compliance and to respond
to evidence of noncompliance in accordance with the National Municipal Policy
with appropriate technical assistance, training, and compliance actions.
o To identify and implement appropriate self—financing mech-
anisms, including user—fee systems and appropriated State funds, in order to
maintain adequate local utility management, and effective Statewide opera-
tions and maintenance oversight, operator training, and technical assistance
programs.
o To establish and implement a State operator training
program that includes a State training center funded unth. r b CLLuU iu D) or
other a? roac&L, anu triat provides certification, upgrade, and coupled on—the—
job training, and onsite techical assistance.
—17—
-------
o To increase local awareness of statutory requirements
through construction grants, permitting, and operator training activities, and
the cost—effectivenes8 of operator training and improved operations and main-
tenance, and to ensure maintenance of local user—charge systems that recover
current costs of operations, maintenance, routine equipment replacement,
operator training, and facility expansion needs.
o To provide technical and program management assistance and
information to local officials, facility operators, and the private sector to
ensure use of appropriate, cost—effective technologies and improved operating
facilities compliance.
o To achieve improved operator salary structures, professional
status, and certification and upgrade programs.
3. Local
a. Goal
To construct, operate, and maintain municipal wastewater
treatment facilities that comply with design and effluent requirements.
b. Objectives
o To prepare necessary compliance and correction plans to
ensure that the municipality can achieve and maintain compliance.
o To ensure that proposed wastewater treatment facilities
are within the community’s financial management capability, can meet effluent
requirements, and are operated effectively.
o To ensure that user charge systems are established and
maintained that continue to recover the costs of operation, maintenance,
routine equipment replacement, operator training, and expansi iieëds. —
o To ensure that facilities are staffed by operators who are
trained to operate and maintain the facilities in compliance with requirements
and that salary structures and the working environment attract and retain
qualified and certified operators.
o To administer and enforce pretreatment requirements.
B. Model State Program
As requested by Congress, funds were provided to NETA and directly to
selected States to define the critical, con on elements of effective State
operator—training programs and the costs of implementing effective programs.
NETA selected 11 States whose programs, in their view, contained individually
or collectively the elements of effective, self—sufficient operator—training
programs. Regional offices also provided limited funds to other selected
States to augment the NETA work. Although the data has not been fully evalua-
ted, particularly with respect to staffing and funding needs, the basic compo-
nents of an effective State program are becoming apparent.
—18—
-------
Although the fundamental elements of any State program, as described
below, are becoming clear, we are not proposing at this time that they consti—
tute the “model” toward which States should direct their developmental efforts.
A model State program description addressing critical elements, qualitative
factors, and costs, requires further efforts and coordination with other EPA
program offices and with State managers responsible for operator training,
operations and maintenance, and compliance. Through these cooperative efforts,
we expect to reach agreements on staffing needs and other costs necessary to
develop and maintain operator—training programs that are financially and pro—
griminatically self—sufficient.
The following program elements now exist in most State programs to some
extent. They are also elements identified by States as needed additions to
current programs.
1. Statement of Coals and Objectives
o A comprehensive statement of Statewide goals and objectives
emphasizing primarily protection of water quality and public health, facilities
compliance with performance and effluent requirements, and protection of public
investments.
2. Planning and Evaluation Program
o An annual plan that sets program priorities and budget levels,
establishes coordination mechanisms within the State and among Federal and
local governments, and that provides a basis for evaluating training efEective—
ness based primarily on compliance improvement.
o A formal evaluation program to measure quantitative and quali-
tative program accomplishments. Evaluation must be broad—based and relate
training effectiveness to operations and maintenance, technical assistance,
and compliance and enforcement accomplishments.
o Feedback of evaluation results to State training and other
program offices, local government officials, and operators to redirect pro-
grams, priorities, and resources as needed.
3. Overall State Organization
o State support to operator training objectives and needs and
commitment of needed resources pending development of full State—local self—
sufficiency.
o OrganizatIonal integration of the training function (or formal
coordination mechanisms) to ensure coordinated Statewide training, technical
assistance, operations and maintenance, and compliance and enforcement pro-
grams.
o Cooperative management of the National Municipal Policy requir-
ing local compliance with or without Federal funds.
—19--
-------
o Cooperative management of technical assistance and compliance
efforts to assure that operator training and technical and financial management
assistance are provided as needed to noncomplying—facility operators and local
government officials.
o Establishment of a State training center under the provisions
of section 109(b) of the Clean Water Act or other mechanism to provide a
Statewide focal point and an institutional structure for training.
4. Training Program Organization
o A balanced mix of entry—level training, continuing education,
and technical assistance to assist operators at all skill levels.
o Adequate operator training resources including laboratory facil-
ities, library services, pilot—scale treatment facilities, audiovisual equip-
ment, and training materials.
o Mandatory operator certification with requirements for certif i—
cation at the operator’s level of responsibility in the facility. Certifica-
tion testing should include both theory and hands—on testing. Interstate
reciprocity of certification is desirable.
o Onsite training and technical assistance provided by people with
treatment plant operations experience who can also train others.
o Annual inservice training for all operators to develop and
maintain needed skills and to provide information on new technologies and
operations and maintenance practices.
o Use of training materials that have been determined to be most
effective and that are directed to the individual operator’s ‘need to know”.
5. Funding and Staffing
o Local course tuition, training and inspection fees, and operator
certification charges to recover costs of training and technical assistance.
o State (and Federal) funds to maintain essential program require-
ments in the absence of self—sufficiency. Federal funds composed primarily
of available sections 106 and 205(g) grants with a decreasing reliance on
these resources.
o Adequate numbers of full—time and part—time State personnel to
manage programs and provide training. Personnel must include professional
wastewater treatment specialists, training specialists, and experienced opera-
tors for onsite assistance.
o Adequate State travel budgets to ensure onsite technical assist-
ance, particularly for small, isolated facilities.
—20—
-------
C. Action Plan
As with the section on model State programs, the elements of a co-
ordinated Federal, State, and local action plan for programmatic and financial
self—sufficiency are incomplete and require significant further discussion
with representatives of each level of government. Actions identify additional
policies, programs and activities suggested by national organizations, includ-
ing ASIWPCA, NETA, and NDWP, and EPA program managers.
Following submission of this initial report, EPA will convene a
working group of Federal, State, local, and other appropriate officials re-
sponsible for operator—training—related programs to define realistic short—
term and long—term policies, programs, and activities, consistent with agreed—
upon Federal, State, and local roles and responsibilities for ensuring improved
municipal compliance. Although this is not yet an action plan, there are
broad areas of agreement.
1. Current EPA Actions
EPA has a number of activities underway that support operator
training and that will help improve municipal treatment facilities compliance.
In addition to working closely with various national organizations, the agency
is conscientiously managing the congressional add—on section 104(g)(1) funds
to meet congressional directives and compliance improvement objectives.
Computer diagnostic modeling programs are being enhanced to im-
prove front—end identification of design and operations and maintenance prob-
lems and to target operator training and technical assistance. A complementary
financial—organization management diagnostic model is also being developed to
he.Lcpmmunities identify issues in these areas that affect plant performance.
A national training conference has been scheduled at Atlanta,
Georgia, to bring together State and EPA training officials, especially those
esponsible for administering grant—funded programs; and to exchange informa-
tion on training needs, technical assistance approaches, training delivery
issues, and accomplishments to date.
More broadly, the agency is issuing local financial management
guidance materials and information to help ensure improved facility performance
through first—year grantee performance certifications. Revised construction
grants program management, delegation management, secondary treatment regula-
tions, and a financial management capability policy also have been issued or
are about to be issued.
Of major importance is the newly issued National Municipal Compli-
ance Policy which sets a clear national direction for all levels of government
and which will promote new incentives for improved compliance.
—21—
-------
2. Long—term EPA Action8
Other Federal actions may include activities to:
o Support the need for operator training and improved finan-
cial management in policies, guidance, and regulations.
o Identify creative fiscal approaches to help States achieve
financial and programmatic self—sufficiency in operator training and promote
local self—sufficiency.
o Disseminate information on identified critical, common ele-
ments of effective State training programs and associated implementation costs.
o Encourage the implementation of effective “model” operator
training programs at State and local levels.
o Provide technical assistance to States and grantees for
improved operations and maintenance.
o Promote integrated State programs for improved coordination
of operator training, operations and maintenance, technical assistance, and
compliance and enforcement.
o Promote establishment of section 109(b) State training
centers in additional States and recommend broadened statutory limitations
on uses of these funds.
o Encourage additional State use of available sections 205(g)
and 106 grant funds to develop andj,ni 4afly implement needed operator training
programs pending full State self—sufficiency.
o Condition Federal grant funds to encourage State—local self—
sufficiency and to inst tio ali è State onsite technical assistance programs
and staffing.
o Oversee Implementation of the National !4unicipal Policy and
expand oversight of State operations and maintenance and training programs.
o Develop and disseminate technical Information on effective
and ineffective wastewater treatment technologies and facility operations and
management practices to encourage simpler, cost—effective treatment systems,
particularly for small communities.
o Support increased emphasis on treatment plant esthetics and
health and safety to promote an Improved workplace environment for operators.
o Promote increased private sector involvement in training
through the Water Pollution Control Federation, other professional associa-
tions, and the EPA Management Advisory Group.
—22—
-------
3. State Actions
Although States believe operator training, operations and main-
tenance, and permit compliance are primarily local responsibilities, State
efforts, especially related to operator training and local technical assistance
appear to be increasing. Many States also appear to have recognized that State
operator training programs must become self—sufficient. Further, States are
moving to improve coordination of related activities and to establish integra-
ted approaches to municipal compliance problems.
Additional possible State efforts that have been identified to
encourage these trends include actions to:
o Examine and implement creative State—local funding mechanisms
for self—sufficiency and earmark appropriated funds for operator training.
o Establish State action plans and organizational approaches to
coordinate and integrate management of all municipal wastewater treatment
facility—related activities and to achieve identified critical elements of
effective training programs.
o Implement the National Municipal Policy securing municipal
correction and compliance plans from communities.
o Use all program authorities more creatively to provide incen-
tives for improved compliance using the various compliance and training—tech-
nical assistance programs to quickly and effectively bring communities into
compliance.
o Establish mandatory certification programs that require opera-
tor certification based on the size and complexity of the facility and that
test both theoretical and operations knowledge.
o Maintain sound entry—level and continuing—education programs
oriented to plant performance.
o Train and hire State training personnel to provide onsite
technical assistance and training, especially for operators of small facili-
ties.
o Establish State training centers using section 109(b) funds
or other appropriate mechanisms to provide an institutional structure and
focal point in the State.
o Provide communities with financial management guidance and
assistance prior to facility construction and guidance on effective, optimal
user—charge systems.
o Encourage innovative local financing arrangements, particular-
ly for those communities that will not receive Federal construction grants.
—23—
-------
o Use diagnostic approaches to identify design problems prior
to construction, to identify existing facility design, operations and main-
tenance, and operator training problems, and to target assistance, training,
and compliance activities.
o Maintain treatment facility laboratory oversight, including
quality assurance as required by regulations.
o Develop and innovatively disseminate training materials that
meet operator needs most closely.
o Evaluate discharge monitoring reports more frequently and
follow up on persistent effluent noncompliance and failure to report to iden-
tify facilities needing training, assistance, or other compliance actions.
o Use Federal sections 205(g) and 106 funds to develop needed
programs and to maintain essential capabilities, pending full implementation
of State—local self—funding programs.
o Promote operator peer assistance and private sector training
and technical assistance.
4. Local Actions
The local community has the primary responsibility to achieve
and maintain compliance through effective operations and maintenance, financial
management, and operator training.
Data tend to show that the majority of noncompliance is now in
small facilities. These small communities tend to have more training needs,
more financial problems, and more operations and maintenance problems. They
also generally have received less technical assistance and a low priority for
enforcement.
Local officials need to:
o Improve cost—accounting and financial management systems to
identify costs associated with effectively maintaining facilities.
o Report timely and accurately on permit compliance and maintain
or obtain effective effluent monitoring and analytical laboratory capability.
o Establish preventive maintenance and energy budgets to prolong
the life of the facility and to reduce costs.
o Update user—charge systems to recover the costs of operations
and maintenance, to provide regular operator training, and to meet equipment
replacement and construction needs.
—24—
-------
o Ensure that operators are properly trained for the facility
they operate, including the appropriate level of certification and continuing
education.
o Improve operator salaries to attract and retain qualified
personnel.
o Solve compliance problems primarily through peer—assistance
or private—sector assistance. Request State assistance when other assistance
cannot be obtained.
o Prepare correction and compliance plans to maintain facilities
in compliance with the National Municipal Policy.
5. Private Sector
The private sector has always had a significant role in municipal
facilities construction, operations and maintenance, and, to a lesser extent,
operator training. This role is increasing and should continue to represent
a major element in the overall effort. Smaller communities have not been a
significant user of private sector training and technical assistance services
principally because of costs and geography. Nevertheless, the need is apparent
and, through innovative approaches, there are additional opportunities and
markets for private—sector training. In addition to other new approaches, the
private sector could:
o Develop multicommunicy contractual arrangenients and establish
“circuit—rider” approaches.
o Use teleconferencing, “hot—lines”, and microcomputer software
programs for process control, effluent control, and financial management
assistance.
o Develop videotape operator training materials for home viewing,
o Market self—teaching programs for continuing education.
THE END
—25—
-------
V. ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary of EPA Training Programs
B. State Training Centers
C. States Considering Establishing Training
Centers and Non—109(b) State Centers
D. Status of 1982—1983 Operator Training Grants
E. Section 104(g)(1) Grantees
F. Status of State Training Activities
C. Federal Funding Levels for Operator Training
-------
Attachment A
S O ARY OP EPA TRAININC PROCRAXS
Program Legislative Authority EPA Contribution
Professional Training Section 5(g)(3)(A) of 1970 Water Financial support to educational insti—
Grants Quality Im 1 irovament Act tutions for graduate—level programs in
water pollution control.
Research Fellovahip Sec. 5(g)(3)(B) of 1970 Water Awards to graduate students for special
Quality Improvament Act research training in water pollution
control.
Direct Technical Sec. 5(g)(3)(C) of 1970 Water Direct training, conducted in EPA facilities
Training Quality Inprovament Act by EPA stafe,for professionals and others
in technical matters relating to causes.
prevention, and control of water pollution.
Technology Transfer Sec. 5(g)(3)(C) of 1970 Water Direct training to practicing professionals,
Quality Improvament Act public decisionmakers, conservation groups,
and general public.
MDTA:
Coupled OJT ) EPA was agent for Dept. of Labor Program administration for entry—level
) (DOt) and Health, Education, and operator training.
Institutional) Welfare (HEW) under Manpower
Training ) Develog ent and Training Act (MDTA)
Public Service Agent for VOL under MDTA Program administration for entry—level
Careers operator training.
Transition Agent for HEW and Dept. of Program administration for entry—level
Defense operator training.
Pilot Program Sec. 5(g)(1) of 1970 Water Financial and training support for
Quality Improvnnent Act operator training and related activities.
Undergraduate Sec. 16 of 1970 Water Financial support to undergraduate
Training Grants Quality Improvement Act institutions to conduct programs in water
pollution control, facilities design, and
O6M.
Undergraduate Sec. 18 of 1970 Water Quality Awards to undergraduate students for study
Scholarships Quality Improvement Act leading to careers in operation and
maintenance of wastewater treatment
facilities.
“ilut Program Sec. 10A(g)(l) of 1972 Water Continued financial and training support
Continuation Pollution Control Act for operator trainin2 and re1at d
activities.
State Training Sec. 109(b) of 1972 Water 1001 Federal grants up to $250,000 to
Centers Pollution Control Act States to build State/Interstate training
center to train 0&M personnel.
State Training Sec. 109(b) of 1977 Water 100% Federal grants up to $500,000 to
Centers Pollution Control Act Amdts States to build State/Interstate training
center to train 0&M personnel.
-------
WASTEWATER TREAT 1Er4T PLANT OPERATOR
STATE TRAINING CENTERS
Region I
New England Regional
South Portland, Maine
NERWI
Southern Maine Tech-
nical College
2 Fort Road
Portland, Maine 04106
New England Regional
Wastewater Institute
Kirk Laflin
(207)
799-7303
New Hampshire, Franklin
Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
P.O. Box 95
Concord, N.H. 03301
Franklin Regional
Treatment Center
Robert Livingston
(Concord)
(Franklin)
(603)
271—3503
934-6463
Massachusetts, Boston
! Dept of Envir. Quality
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02109
U. of Lowell
U. of Amherst
U. of Bridgewater
U. of Marlborough
Marc Perry
(617)
292-5698
Region II
New Jersey, New Brunswick
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Dept. of Environmental
Science, Cook College
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, N. J.
New Jersey State
Training Center
Vince Gregorio
(201)
932-9185
Maryland — La Plata
Maryland State Training
Center, Charles County
Community College
Box 910 - Mitchell Road
La Plata, MD 20646
Maryland State
Training Center
Locati on
N a me
Contact
Phone
Region III
Jake Bair (301)
934-2251
ext. 340
—I
-4
m
— I
-u
CD
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
STATE TRAINING CENTERS
Locati on
Virginia. Richmond
J. Sargent Reynolds
Community College
1651 Parham Road
Richmond, Virginia 23230
W. Virginia — Charleston
Dept. of Education
1900 Washington St. E.
Charleston, W, VA 25305
Washington, D.C.
5000 Overlook Ave., S.W.
Dept. of Envir. Science
Bureau of Wastewater
Treatment
Washington, D.C. 20032
Operator Training
Center
Operator Training
Center (Under
Const riict ion)
Dept. of Environmental
Services
Phone
(804)
264—3315
(304)
348-3075
(202)
727-5757
Tennes see, Mu rfrees horo
Rte 11 box 388
Blanton Drive
Murfreesboro, TN. 37130
Mu rfreeshoro
State Training
Center
Region IV
Jack Hughes
(615)
890-7008
Georgia, Carrollton
Georgia Water and
Wastewater Institute
p. 0. Box 1476
Carrollton, GA 30117
Florida, Gainesville
The U. of Florida
TREE0 Center
Q0 S.W. 63rd Blvd
Gainesville, Fl 32608
Georgia Water and
Wastewater Institute
P. (1. Box 1476
Carrol iton, GA 30117
TREED Center
Jim Bennett
Dr. Barbara Mitchell
(404)
834-1468
(904)
392-2464
South Carolina, Sumter
Sumter Area Technical
College
506 tI. Guignard Drive
Sumter, S. Carolina 29150
South Carolina
Water Quality
1 n S t i t ut e
Tony Bledsoe
(803)
778-1961
N a rue
Contact
Jack Vanderland
Adam Sponaugle
Charles R. Martin
-------
Location
Illinois, Edwardsvi lie
Environmental Resources
Training Center
Southern Illinois tJ.
P. 0. Box 75
Edwardsville. Ill. 62026
Envi ronmental
Resources Training
Tom Wooters
(217)
692-2030
Region VI
Arkansas. Camden
Southern Arkansas
University Tech. Branch
P.O. Box 3048
East Camden, AK 71701
Southern Arkansas
Environmental Academy
Richard VanPelt
(501)
574-4550
New Mexico, LasCruices
Dona Ana County
Occupational Education
Branch, New Mexico
State University
P.O. Box 3 DA
LasCruces, NM 88003
Water IPtilit ies
Technology Program
Eugene E. Nelms
(505)
646-2730
Oklahoma, Midwest City
Rose State College
6420 Southeast 15th St.
Midwest City, OK 73110
Water Utilities
Training Center
Dr. Wm R. Roach
(405)
133-7364
Region VII
Iowa, Cedar Rapids
Wastewate r Treatment
Plant Operator
Training Center
Kirkwood Community
College
P.O. Box 2068
Cedar Rapids,
Waste Wastewater
Technology Center
Envir. Occupations
Education Dept.
Doug Feil
(319)
393-5677
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
STATE TRAINING CENTERS
Name Contact
Region V
Phone
IA 52406
-------
UASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
STATE TRAINING CENTERS
Locati on
Kansas, lopeka
State Technical Training
Kansas State Dept. of
Health & Environment
Topeka, KS 66620
Fort Scott Community
College
Sauna Community
Dodge City Community
College
Mobile Facility
Missouri, Neosho
Missouri Water and
Wastewater Operator
Training Facility
Crowder Community College
Neosho, MO 64R 1)
Missouri Operator
Training Center
Richard Thexton
Don Wall
(417)
451-3583
451-1250
Region V III
Colorado, Denver
Community College of
Denver-Red Rock
1600 Downing Street
Denver, CO 80218
Co lo r. d Wa St ewa t e r
Operator Training
Center
Tom Feeley
(303)
988-6160
ext. 334
Utah, Provo
Utah Technical College
1395 N. 150 East
P.O. Box 1609
Provo, Utah 84603
LJjstewater Operator
Training Facility
Debra Horton
(801)
226-5000
Wyoming, Casper
Casper College
125 College Drive
Casper, Wyoming 82601
Casper College
State tlastewater
Training Center
N a me
Contact Phone
Karl Mueldener (913)
862-9360
Gale Zimmerman
Bill Mixer
(307)
268-2542
268-2670
-l
C)
rn
—I
-D
(D
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR
STATE TPDiINING CENTERS
Location ____ Cnnt ct Phone
R ginn TX
California, San Marcos (‘.SWRCB Water Charles V. Weir (619)
California State CSWRCB Quality Institute 744—4150
Water Quality Institute
810W. Vallecitos Street
Suite A
San Marcos, CA 92069
Government of Guam (uam Community Stan Malkin (617)
P.O. Box 23609 College 734-4311
Agana, Guam
Commonwealth of the Office of Planning Charles 0. Jordan SAIPAN
Marianas. SAIPAN and Statistics 9333
Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands
SAIPAN, CM 96950
Region X
Washington, Auburn Waste Training Fred Delvecchio (206)
Washington State Water/ Program 833-9111
Wastewater Training ext. 369
Center
Green River Comm. Coil.
12401 SE 320th Street
Auburn, WA. 98002
Idaho, Boise Wastewater Training Veronica Fitz (208)
Boise State University Center 3853735
School of Vocational
Education 888-1740
2221 N.W. 8th Street
Meridian, Id. 83642
CD
(31
-------
ATTACHMENT C
STATES CONSIDERING ESTABLISHING
SECTION 109(b) TRAINING CENTERS
The following States and 1 territory are considering using up to $500,000 of
their construction grants allotment to construct a State training center under
Clean Water Act section 109(b) authority:
1 . Connecticut
2. Vermont
3. Puerto Rico
4. Louisiana
5. Nebraska
6. Montana
7. Arizona
8. California
9. Hawaii
10. Alaska
STATES THAT HAVE DEVELOPED TRAINING CENTERS
WITHOUT SECTION 109(b) FUNDS
1. California
2. Illinois
3. Tennessee
—32—
-------
STATUS OF 82/83 OPERATOR TRAINING GRANTS
ATTACHMENT D
# OF FEDERAL-
# OF
H OF
H OF
#OF FL-
II OF
H OF
STATE
SCHEDULE
82/83
Dollars
LV FUNDED
PLANTS UNDER
5 MGD
MECHANICAL
PLAIITS
DIAGNOSTIC
EVALUA-
lIONS
ONSITE
TECHNICAL
ASST
NANCIAL
tIGMT
PROGRAMS
PLANTS
BROUGHT IN
COMPLIANCE
PLANTS
SHOWING
IMPRVMT
10/1/82
10/1/82
10/1/82
10/1/82
10/1/82
10/1/82
10/1 /83
to 9/30/85
to 9/30/85
to 9/30/84
to 9/30/85
to 9/30/84
to 9/30/85
to 9/30/85
to 9/15/85
to 9/29/84
9/30/85
6
4
8
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Rhode Island
NEIWPC
Maine
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Pennsyl vania
Maryland
Delaware
Virginia
West Virginia
Florida
i3eor gIa
9/1 5/82
9/30/82
10/1/83 to
50,000
126,001)
50,000
90,1)00
50,000
275,000
50,000
125,000
120,000
104,000
110,000
137,000
33,000
131,000
32,000
140,91/
141 ,260
82
6
59
20
100
46
250
25
1
10
22
12
36
131
259
82
65
96
59
20
100
46
250
25
193
40
21)
42
36
129
1 /9
24
42
20
14
21
11
20
32
10
20
20
15
25
20
*8
24
20
10/1/82
10/1/82
10/1/83
10/1/82
10/1/83
24
16
8
11
21
5
10
10
10
15
6
15
10
*8
10
10
to 9/30/84
to 9/30/85
to 9/30/85
to 9/30/84
to 9/30/84
*2
1
1
1
*5
10/1/82 to 9/30/85
10/1/82 to 9/30/85
-------
Status of 82/83 Operator Training Grants (continued) Page 2
1 1 # OF FEDERAL- # OF — # OF # OF # OF El- # OF # OF
STATE I SCHEDULE I 82/83 LY FUNDED MECHANICAL DIAGNOSTIC ONSITE NANCIAL PLANTS PLANTS I
I I [ XT LLARS PLANTS UNDER PLANTS E )ALUA- TECHNICAL BF UGHT IN SHOWIN(
___________________________________ __________ S MCD __________ TIONS ASST P JGRAMS C tIPLIANCE IMPRVM ]
Tenness 10/1/82 to 9/30/AS 101,260 201 152 21 I 9
*2 *2 *2
North ( ‘arolinal 10/1/83 to /30/R5 60,000 232 204 25 10
South Carolina 10/1/83 to 9/30/85 75,000 1 196 103 20 10
I *11 *11 *3 *6
MisRissippi 10/1/83 to 9/30/AS 38,763 304 58 4 4
I *6 *6 *4
Alabama 1/1/84 to 9/30/85 54,800 211 107 10 6
gefltuC y* I 4 4 2 1
Illinois 10/1/82 to 9/30/84 180,001) 377 377 14 14 1
Indiania 10/1/83 to 3/30/85 63,184 232 232 10 10
Michigan 10/1/83 to 9/30/84 40,000 263 263 10 10
Minnesota 10/1/83 to 9/30/84 65,966 330 330 8 8
Ohio 10/1/83 to 3/31/85 40,000 302 302 8 8
wisconsin 10/1/83 to 9/30/84 78,850 423 422 12 12
Arkansas 10/1/82 to 12/31/84 180,000 280 120 17 12
louisiana 4/1/83 to 9/10/85 102,000 221 137 25 17 *2
PJew Mexico 10/1/82 to 9/30/84 100,000 127 117 20 10
-------
Status. of 82/83 Operator Tra in lug ti mts (tonI iu ued) Page 3
F — I— . OF FEDERAL— # OF 4 OF 4 OF 4 OF Fl— 4 OF 4 01
STATE SCHF’1 IE.F I 82/83 LY FUNDED IMECUANICAL DIACNOSTIC ONSITE NANCIAL PLANTS PLAt fl’
I ror EARS PLANTS tINDER I PLANTS EVALUA- TECHNICAL ‘ MT BI JUGHT IN SHOWEt
_____________I ______________________ ________ 5 MCD ___________ TIONS ASST PI JGRPMS CCIIPLIANCE IMPR i ?
Ok lahaiui 11/1/82 to lfl/3I/85 270,00(1 456 I 252 33 22
Texas 9/1/83 to 6/30/AS 140,000 782 I 666 15 10
I I
Tc ,a 9/1/82 to 9/30/85 I 236.0(10 702 I 323 85 50
Kansas 7/20/82 to 9/10/AS I 222,000 707 474 65 45
Missouri 8/1/82 to 9/30/AS 237,000 688 371 40 25
Nebraska 9/10/82 to 9/30/85 1 58,000 348 174 20 14
Co lorado 10/i/A? to 9/30/84 143,000 156 123 14 9 1.
Montana 10/1/82 to 9/30/85 78,000 124 39 8 4 1
North flakota 1/1/83 to 12/30/AS 60,000 235 3 100 95
Armuth flakota 10/1/82 to 9/30/86 88,000 88 42 27 18 1
tltah 10/1/82 to 12/311/84 143,000 80 24 24 13
Wycrnlng 10/1/82 to 9/30/86 130,000 66 10 19 13
Arizona 10/1/82 to 9/30/84 35,000 50 25 5 5
California 10/1/82 to 9/30/84 163,000 365 360 20 10
Hawaii 1/4/83 to 1/30/85 25,000 16 16 5 5 1
Alaska 10 114/ffl to 9/30/84 I 40,000 22 20 17 7
Idaho 10/1/82 to 9/31)184 I 178,000 145 35 49 17
Oreqon 10/1/82 to 9/30/84 I 132,0011 188 153 48 9 1
WashIngton 10/1/82 to 9/30/84 I 155,0(10 322 302 60 30
-------
Section 104(g)(1) Operator Training Crantees
Region I
Grantee Uperations Unit Contact Phone
New England Regional New England Regional Kirk Latlin (2U7)
South Portland, Maine Wdstewdter Institute 799—7303
N ER WI
Southern Maine Tech-
nical College
2 Fort Road
Portland, Maine 04lO(
New Hampshire, Concord Irankliri Regional Robert Livingston (603)
Water Supply & Pollution Treatment Center (Concord) 271—3503
Control Comnission (Franklin) 934—6463
P.O. Box Q5
Concord, N.H. 03101
Massachusetts, Boston DF OE— DWPS William Gaiighan (617)
Commonwealth of 292-5658
Massachusetts
Dept of Envir. Ouality
Division of Water
Pollution Control
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02109
Connecticut, Hartford State of Conn. Roy Fredricksen (203)
Dept. of Environmental Dept. of Envir. 56627l9
P rotect ion Protection
Water Compliance Unit
State Office Bldg.
Hartford, CT 06106
Maine, Augusta Division of Kenneth Shirkey (201)
Dept. of Env. Protection Operation and 868-3355
O&M Division Maintenance
Ray Office Bldg.
Hospital Street
Augusta, Me. 04330
-------
Section 104(g)(1) Operator Training Grancees (continued) Page 2
Grantee Operations Unit Contact Phone
Rhode Island, Providence Narragansatt Jack Keane (401)
Narragansatt Bay Water WQMD 277-6795
Quality Mgmt. District
Commission
57 Eddy Street
Providence, R.I. 02903
Vermont, Montpelier DWREE William C. Brierly (802)
Department of Water 828-3345
Resources and Environ-
mental Engineering
State Office Bldg.
Montpelier, VT. 05602
Region 11
New York, Albany NYDEC Daniel Campbell (518)
New York Dept. of 457-5968
Envir. Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
New Jersey, Trenton N.J.D.E.P. Anthony Ricigliano (609)
New Jersey Dept. of 292-0950
Environmental Protection
Div. of Water Resources Richard Cranmer
P.O. CN-029
Trenton, N.J. 08625
Puerto Rico, Santurce Puerto Rico EQB Cari—Axel Soderberq (809)
Puerto Rrico Env. Oual. Rd. 725—0717
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, P.R. 00910
-------
Section 104(g)(l) Operator Training Grantees (continued) Page 3
Grantee Operations Unit Contact Phone
Region III
Maryland — La Plata Charles County Jake Bair (301)
Maryland State Training Community College 934-2251
Center, Charles County ext. 340
Community College
Box 910 - Mitchell Road
La Plata, MD 20646
West Virginia, Charleston Cedar Lakes Adam Sponaugle (304)
West Va. Dept. of Education Training Center 348-3075
Capitol Complex Bldg.
Charleston, W. Va. 25305
Virginia, Richmond Operator Training Jack Vanderland (804)
P.O. Box 11143 Center 264-3315
Richmond, VA 23230
i ’ State Water Control
?‘ Board 23230
Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Pa. D.E.R Charles Kuder (717)
Penn. Dept. of Envir. 787-3481
Resou rces
Bureau of Water Quality
Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Delaware, Dover Delaware DNR&EQ Roy R. Parikh (302)
Delaware Dept. of 736-5732
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401—89 Kings Hwy
Dover, Delaware 19903
m
Reqion IV -
Tennessee, Nashville Miirfreeshoro Jack Hughes (6lb)
Tennessee Dept. of State Training 890-1008
Public Health Center
150 Ninth Avenue, North Rte 11, Box 38A
Nashville, TN 72O Murfreeshoro, TN. 371 t)
-------
Section 104(g)(I:) Operator Training Crantees (continued) Page 4
Grantee
Georgia, Atlanta
Georgia Dept. of
Natural Resources
270 Washington Street
Atlanta, GA 30331
Florida, Gainesville
The U. of Florida
TREEO Center
3900 S.W. 63rd Blvd
Gainesville, Fl 32608
Operations Unit
Georgia Llater and
Ia stet,ater Institute
P. 0. Box 1476
Carrol iton, GA 3011]
TREEO Center
Dr. Barbara Mitchell (904)
375-6398
North Carolina, Raleigh
N.C. Dept. of Natural
Resources Community
Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
South Carolina, Sumter
Sumter Area Technical
College
Water Duality institute
506 N. Guignard Drive
Sumter, S. Carolina 29150
Alabama, Montgomery
Dept. of Env. Mgrit.
State Capitol
Montgomery, Alahama • 11fl
N. Cam. DNR&CD
Sijrriter Area
Technical College
Mu fl 1 c i pa 1 tJ a ste
Cr ntro1 Section
John A. Campbell
Dr. Williani Engle
William Monasco
(919)
733-4038
(803)
778-1961
(205)
277-3630
!l1in ois, cpringfie ld 111in isFPA
Illinois FPA
2200 Ch rrhill Rn ri
Springfield, 111 62706
Contact Phone
Jim Bennett (404)
834-1468
Region \ /
Euigena Speh. ld
(217)
956-1654
-o
CD
-------
Section 104(g)(l) Operator Training Grantees (continued) Page 5
Grantee Operations Unit Contact Phone
Indiana, Indianapolis Indiana State Steve Kim (317)
Indiana State Board Board of Health 633-0708
of Health
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana
Michigan, Lansing Michigan DNR Howard Selover (517)
Dept. of Natural Resources 373-0397
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Mi 48909
Minnesota, Roseville Minnesota PCA Bill Sexauer (612)
Minnesota Pollution 296-7218
Control Agency
1935 West County Road
Roseville, Mn. 55113
i . Ohio Columbus Ohio EPA Matt Tiinm (614)
Ohio EPA 466-8945
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Oh 43216
Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin DNR Tom Kroehn (608)
Wisconsin Dept. of 267-7656
Natii ral Resou rces
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wi. 53707
Region VI
Arkansas, Camden Arkansas Environmental Richard VanPelt (501)
Southern Arkansas Acac$eniy 574-4550
University Tech
100 Carr Road
P.O. Box 3048
East Camden, AK 11101
-------
Section 104(g)(1) Operator Training Crantees (continued) Page 6
Grantee
Operations Unit
Contact
Phone
New Mexico, LasCruces
Dona Ana County
Occiipati onal Education
Branch, New Mexico
State University
P.O. Box 3 DA
LasCruces, NM 88003
Water Utilities
Technology Program
Eugene E. Nelms
(505)
646-2730
Oklahoma, Midwest City
Rose State College
6420 Southeast 15th St.
Midwest City, OK 73110
Water lit ilities
Training Center
Dr. Wm R. Roach
(405)
733-7364
Louisiana, Baton Rouge
Louisiana Department of
Envi ronmental Oual I ty
P.O. Box 44006
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Texas, Austin
Tx Dept. of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Tx 78711
Louisiana DEQ
Wastewater and
Water Use Section
Peter Romanowsky
George Green
(504)
342-6363
(512)
475-5633
Region VII
Iowa, Cedar Rapids
Wastewate r Treatment
Plant Operator
Training Center
Kirkwood Community
Col lege
P.O. Box 2068
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
Waste & Wastewater
Technology Center
Envi r. Occupations
Education Dept.
Doug Fell
(319)
393-5677
-------
Section 104(g)(I) Operator I’rd1ntn Grantu s (continued) Page 7
Grantee
Kansas, Topeka
State Technical Training
Kansas State Dept. of
Health A Environment
Topeka, KS 66620
Missouri, Neosho
Missouri Water and
Wa St ewa te r Operator
Training Facility
Crowder Community Co1lege
Neosho, MO 64850
Nebraska, Lincoln
Nebraska Dept. of
Env. Control
. P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NB 68509
Operations Unit
Fort Scott Community
College
Sauna (‘ommunity
I)o lge City Community
College
Mobile Facility
Crowiler Community
College
(417)
451-3583
451 -1250
(402)
471-2186
Region Viii
Colorado, Denver
Community College of
Denver
1600 Downing Street
Denver, CO 80218
North Dakota, Bismarck
North Dakota State
Dept. of Health
Div. of Water Supply
and Pollution Control
1200 Missouri Ave.
Bisniarck, ND 58501
Montana, Havre
Northern Montana Coll.
Science Department
Havre, Montana 59501
Cop ii iinity College
of Denver - Red Rock
North Dakota State
Dept. of Health
Northern Montana
Col leqe
Tom Feeley
Ralph Riedinger
Martha Ann Dow
(303)
988-6160
ext. 334
(701)
224-2354
(406)
265-7821
ext. 3285
Fri
CD
Phone
(9 13)
862-9360
Contact
Karl Mueldener
Richard Thexton
Don Wall
Kenneth Ilassler
Nebraska U.E.C.
-------
Section 104(g)(l) Operator Training Crantees (continued) Page 8
Grantee
South Dakota, Pierre
South Dakota Department
of Water and Natural
Resource Man a gement
Joe Foss Bldg.
Pierre, S.D. 57501
South Dakota
D.W. and N.R.M.
Utah, Provo
Utah Technical College
1395 N. 150 East
P.O. Box 1609
Provo, Utah 84603
utah Wastewater
Operator Training
F a ci 1 1 ty
Debra Horton
(801)
226-5000
Wyoming, Casper
Casper College
125 College Drive
Casper, Wyoming 82601
Casper College
State Wastewater
Training Center
Gale Zimmerman
Bill Mixer
(307)
268-2542
268-2670
Region IX
Arizona, Phoenix
Arizona Department of
Health Services
Bureau of Water Quality
Cont rol
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Arizona I)HS
Dr. Ronald Miller
(602)
255-1252
Cal i forni a, Sacramento
California State CSWRCB
P.O. Box 100
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95801
CSWRCB Water
Quality Institute
811) tIest Vallecitos
Suite A
San Ma rcos , Ca. 92069
Charles V. Weir
(619)
144-4150
Hawaii, Honolulu
Hawaii State Dept. of
Health
Env. Protection and
Health Services Div.
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
Hawai i State
fl pt. of Health
Robert Rhein
(808)
548-6455
Operations Unit
Contact Phone
Bill Aisenberry (605)
773-3296
-------
Section 104(g)(1) Operator Training Grantees (continued) Page 9
Region X
Washington, Olympia
Washington Dept. of
Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 9R O4
Washington U of E
Ireen River Comm.
College
Auburn, Wa. 98602
Myron Saikewicz
(206)
459-6088
Idaho, Boise
Boise State University
School of Vocational
Education
1910 University Drive
Boise, Idaho 83725
Wastewater Training
Center
2221 N.W. 8th Street
Meridian, Id. 83642
Veronica Fitz
(208)
888-1140
Idaho, Boise
Idaho Dept. of Health
and Welfare
450 W. State Street
Boise, Idaho 83720
Division of Environnent
Carla Levinski
(208)
334-2251
Oregon,Al bany
Linn Benton Comm. Coll.
Science/Technology Div.
6500 Southwest Pacific Blvd.
Albany, Oregon 93721
Lion Benton CC.
Thomas Gonzalez
(503)
928-2361
Alaska, Juneau
Dept. of Environmental
Conservati on
Pouch 11011
luneau, Alaska 9 Rli
FC&O Operator
Training A certification
Judy Urquart
(907)
465-2673
Grantee
Operations Unit
Contact Phone
-------
STATUS OF STATE TRAINING ACTIVITIES
Dept. of Environmental
Protection Local
Assistance and Program
Coordination Section
Dept. of Environmental
Protection (Separate
Divisions) & 10 9 (h)
Dept. of Water Resources
D iv. of Environmental
Engineering
Dept. of Environmental
Protection (Separate
Divisions) & 109(b)
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Dept. of Covmininity
A f fa I rs
Dept. of Health and
Dept. of Education 10 9(h)
Dept. of Environmental
Regulations A 18 (10
Center 109(b)
Bureau of Environmental
Protection, Division of
Water
Dept. of Environmental
Protection, Field
Services Division
SIRIt IRAIF IINLi A ilIVIlItS
(EXPRESSED AS i i
SUURCtS OF HtVLNIJE
(FY 1984)
EXPRESSID AS %
LOCAL STATE FEDERAL
STATE ORGANIZATION
HI iRER
penintii t.tHll
A I IU I ML— FICA-
U
ur -
GRADE
lION
I tilt— 1 iCJFlS I
NICAL 1 1)RAHTS
‘ “Jut s
ASSIST
Mi’ ,HT
TOTAL 1984
BUDGET
($10001
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
L. Pennsylvania
Ljfl
West Virginia
Florida
Kentucky
Mississippi
111148 18 IiI(MIIER
OF OIL. CFRTI-
[ I 1AFORS F IEI I
1120 5311
320 300
255 25%
1645
5600 28110
7450
490
586 11
450 11
111)0 1 , /4
160
300
/0
145
4(10
369
5110
1000
N/A
0
0
0
86
N/A
Il/A
71
100
86
14
N/A
S
IS
75
21
B
Il/A
29
0
14
0
N/A
A1TACUMENI F (Page 1)
STAFFING
rurc r
TitlE TINE
(1 2
1 3
1 I I
I 2
I S 60
I ) 100
0 8
15
10
ID
25
21
35
in
65
15
/5
100
68
SI)
5
.
10
S
115
210
76
125
BOO
19
61
NA
162
I of 3
-------
STATUS Of STATE TRAINING ACTIVITIFS (Continued)
Attachment F (Page 2)
Div. of Environmental
Mgmt, Operations Branch
Dept. of Envlronuienral
Protection Clemson
University 109 (b)
State Training Center
Dept. of Environmental
Protection A SIIJ State
Center
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Techni-
cal Review Agency
Dept. of Natural
Resources, Division f
Environmental Standards
Office of Operation A
Maintenance
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
109(b) State Training
109(b) Training Center
Dept. of Health A
Environmental and flrpt.
of Education 109(h)
MRii i KU1VIT IFS
(EXPRESSED AS %) _____
iir Tt II- N T NPDES
GRADE NICAI. GRANTS
ASS IS1 IIGMT
2’)
STATE
ORGANIZATION
NI HR F U
CER F I -
F IFD
NI lIRER
TRAINED
ANNUAL-
LY
CtKU I-
FICA-
TI ON
SUURCFS OF REVENuE
(FY 1984)
EXPRESSED AS %
LOCAL STATE FEDERAL
TOTAL 1984
BuDGET
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Iflinois
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Arkansas
New Mexico
Iowa
Kansas
NI (IIBER
OF OP-
F R AT OR S
290(1
313(1
3400
1000
5 1)00
1201)
470))
2 ( 100
201)11
2416
14.1(1
2401)
1011(1
100
45(11)
7 IN)
101)0
666
201)
901)
1600
300
4 )40
I 50))
4110
some
50
else-
where
I0
19 - 5?
20 5? 23
10 30 10
SO voc 50
ed
30 31) 40
— 55 40
10 1)
15
5
5
N/A
15
1 5
19
45
37
8
I ?
STAFFING
mwr A 1
TIME TIME
II 34
I 25
8 5 1
1? 81
3 20
2 3
5 1
4 IN
284
162
NA
711
400
490
200
135
172
111(1
0
50
10
0
44
42
12
25
35
11
35
19
Sn
71
?nI I
rt
53
()
(D
1:1
rt
‘- ‘1
53
0Q
(D
S.-
-------
STATUS OF STATE TRAINING ACTIVITIES (rnuitinund) Attachment F (Page 3)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — I — STATE TRAINING ACTIVIT IES SOURCES OF REVEFJTJU
NIRIDER NIrPtl)FR NUI IBER ______ (EXPRESSED 4S %) (FY 1984)
STATE ORGANIZATIOFI (if (1P- riRil- (RAINED CERI 1— UP- TUii- (iiiIC WFUfl EXPRESSED AS % TOTAL 1984 S IAFEING
FRATOR5 (-lUll ANNUAL- F I IA— GRADE Nl AL GRANTS LOCAL STATE FEDERAL (( (lOGE! TiitL PARE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — - LI lION ASSIST MGFIT — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TIME TIME
Missouri Dept. of Environmental l UCID 12011 1110(1 18 24 25 4 0 Is 85 43 17 25
Protection Compliance.
Review Section and
Regional Office Program
Crowder Conimunity Loll
Montana Water Quality Bureau I 50( 1 110( 1 2(10 10 10 20 50 10 25 75 NA 3 1
Certification Separate
North Dakota Division of Water Supply 1 5 ( 1 325 IRS 40 40 20 - - - - - 42 - 4?
and Pollution Cnntrol
Wyoming State 109(h) Training - All 80 10 10 - — 9 35 tO t 3
Center
Arizona Bureau of Water Quality 300(1 / 50 30 29 54 17 83.5 1 It
Control Technical
Services Section
Hawaii Dept. of Health Environ— 4111) 311 30 60 — 10 - 83 6
mental Protection anti
Health Services DivisInn
Construction Grants Div.
Alaska Dept. of Environmental SIlO 300 2Q 1 30 50 1(1 10 — - 32 68 155 2 4 ( 1
Conservation
idaho Water Quality Bureau 350 31(1 400 15 50 Ic 15 5 6.5 25.3 68.2 i SO 3 3
Planning & Standards &
State university 10 (h)
Waslii ngton Dept. of Envi ronnien l a 1 70 1111 14(11) 1751 20 20 I I) 10 20 13 13 74 346 7 1 (1
Protection. Office of
Operations & Entorrement I
& Construction Mymt also 1 of 3
Wash. Envi ronunentil
Training Center
rt
rt
03
( 5
rt
•TJ
-s
it
“3
e Q
C D
(A )
-------
ATTACHMENT G
Funding Levels For Operator Training
1969 — 1983
EPA onU ng
60— MOTA ond,, q
50-
U)
40
0
0
I L
0
p30- —
0
-I
___ _
___ -1
10-
_ I I__ __
C -)
m
0 _________________ __________________
— I
F Y b9 — FY70 I V 71 I V 72 FY7J FY74 FY75 I v 16 F i :7 FY 78 FY79 — FY60 FY61 • FY82 — FY83 —
G)
------- |