[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5916-5921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2692]
[[Page 5915]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Final Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of the
Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water
Systems; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 5916]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6230-8]
Final guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of the
Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water
Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
finalizing the ``Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification
of the Operators of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public
Water Systems.'' The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996
require that these final guidelines be published in the Federal
Register by February 6, 1999. These guidelines provide States with the
minimum standards for the development, implementation and enforcement
of operator certification programs for community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems. Beginning two years after
publication, EPA must withhold 20% of a State's Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund capitalization grant funds unless the State has adopted
and is implementing an operator certification program that meets the
requirements of these guidelines or submits its existing program that
is substantially equivalent to these guidelines. The final guidelines
are published in Appendix A of this document.
DATES: Effective Date: February 5, 1999. Compliance Date: Beginning
February 5, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Public comments and the comment response document on the
draft guidelines are available for review at Water Docket (docket #W-
98-07), Environmental Protection Agency, Room EB57, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington DC 20460. For access to the Docket materials, call 202-260-
3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for an appointment
and reference Docket #W-98-07.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll
free (800) 426-4791, can be contacted for general information about and
copies of this document. For technical inquiries, contact Jenny Jacobs,
Implementation and Assistance Division, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4606), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC,
20460. The telephone number is (202) 260-2939 and the e-mail address is
jacobs.jenny@epamail.epa.gov. For Regional contacts, see Supplementary
Information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regional Contacts
I. Katie Leo, US EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CMU),
Boston, MA 02114, (617) 918-1623
II. Gerard McKenna, US EPA Region II, Drinking Water Section, Water
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3838
III. Barbara Smith, US EPA Region III, Drinking Water Branch (3WP22),
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2020, (215) 814-5786
IV. Janine Morris, US EPA Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, (404) 562-9480
V. Charles Pycha, US EPA Region V, Water Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3507, (312) 886-0259
VI. Tye Biasco, US EPA Region VI, Drinking Water Section (6WQ-SD), 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, (214) 665-2140
VII. Robert Dunlevy, US EPA Region VII, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides
Division, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7798
VIII. Anthony Q. DeLoach, US EPA Region VIII, Municipal Systems Unit,
Drinking Water/Wastewater (8P-W-MS), 999 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, CO 80202-2466, (303) 312-6070
IX. Kevin Ryan, US EPA Region IX, Drinking Water Office (WTR-6), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-2052
X. Bill Chamberlain, US EPA Region X, Office of Water, Drinking Water
Unit (OW-136), 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8515
Background
1. Statutory Requirements
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-
182) direct the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), in cooperation with the States, to publish
guidelines in the Federal Register specifying minimum standards for
certification and recertification of operators of community and
nontransient noncommunity public water systems. The final guidelines
are required to be published by February 6, 1999. States then have two
years after publication to adopt and be implementing an operator
certification program that meets the requirements of these guidelines.
After that date, unless a State has adopted and is implementing an
approved program, the Administrator must withhold 20 percent of the
funds a State is otherwise entitled to receive in its Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) capitalization grants under section 1452
of SDWA.
All of the requirements contained in these guidelines are to avoid
DWSRF capitalization grant withholding. There are no other sanctions
for States with operator certification programs that do not meet the
requirements of these guidelines.
2. Guideline Development Process
These guidelines are the result of a thorough stakeholder
consultation process under which EPA utilized the combined knowledge
and expertise of two work groups that it appointed on operator
certification. One work group, the State-EPA Work Group, was appointed
to fulfill EPA's responsibility under section 1419(a) to publish
guidelines on operator certification ``in cooperation with States.''
This work group was composed of seven State and ten EPA
representatives. The other work group, the Operator Certification Work
Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), also
referred to as the Partnership, was formed to provide EPA with views in
addition to those of States. This group was composed of 23 members
representing public water systems, environmental and public interest
advocacy groups, State drinking water program representatives, EPA,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Public Health Service, Indian
Health Service, and other interest groups.
Procedurally, the two groups worked closely together. The
Partnership identified potential categories for which minimum standards
would be developed. The State-EPA Work Group then developed draft issue
papers for these categories. The Partnership and the State-EPA Work
Group exchanged reviews of the proposed language on what both groups
referred to as ``baseline standards,'' and worked toward achieving
consensus on these standards. The baseline standards were then
forwarded by the Partnership to the NDWAC. In October 1997, the NDWAC
formally transmitted its recommended baseline standards to the EPA. The
EPA incorporated the recommendations of the NDWAC into the ``Draft
Guidelines for the Certification and Recertification of the Operators
of Community and Nontransient Noncommunity Public Water Systems.'' The
draft guidelines were published for public comment in the Federal
Register on March 27, 1998.
[[Page 5917]]
The comment period extended for 90 days during which over 90 parties
submitted public comments. During the 90-day public comment period, EPA
held public stakeholder meetings in San Francisco, CA, Dallas, TX, and
Washington, DC, to brief interested parties on the draft guidelines and
to accept public comments. The complete response to comments document
is available for review at Water Docket (docket #W-98-07),
Environmental Protection Agency, Room EB57, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington DC 20460. For access to the Docket materials, call 202-260-
3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for an appointment
and reference Docket #W-98-07.
In August 1998, both workgroups met to consider the public comments
and to make recommendations for finalizing the guidelines based on the
public comments. The resulting recommendations were forwarded to the
NDWAC for consideration. In November 1998, the NDWAC formally
transmitted its recommendations to EPA. The EPA made changes based on
the public comments and on the recommendations of its work groups and
the NDWAC. These guidelines set the minimum baseline standards for an
operator certification program to meet the provisions of the 1996
Amendments to the SDWA. These guidelines were developed to enable
states to have flexibility in the implementation and enforcement of
program details necessary to administer a successful operator
certification program while ensuring the protection of public health.
Response to Comments on Key Certification Issues
1. Public Health Objectives
EPA received a large number of comments in support of the public
health objectives as stated in the draft guidelines.
EPA intends to use the public health objectives in its review and
evaluation of State operator certification programs and in its
determination as to whether the State programs meet the requirements of
the guidelines.
2. Operator Testing/Exams
EPA received a number of comments on the type of operator
certification exam (e.g., written, oral, performance-based) that should
be required by the guidelines. Some commenters felt that written exams
should be required to ensure that an operator could read and write.
Some commenters felt that other types of exams (e.g., oral,
performance-based) may be more appropriate, and therefore, the type of
exam should be left up to the State.
EPA believes that the type of test that best measures the
knowledge, skills, ability, and judgement of an operator for a
particular classification level should be left up to the State that is
responsible for the design and administration of the test.
EPA received several comments on the requirement that exams be
State-validated. Some commenters asked for clarification.
In the final guidelines, EPA eliminated the word ``State'' from the
above phrase. For clarification, EPA included a definition of
``validated exam'' in the final guidelines.
3. Operator Training
Some comments were received supporting the inclusion of specific
training requirements in the guidelines while some commenters supported
the draft guidelines which allow States to decide what type and amount
of training are appropriate for each level of classification.
EPA believes that the type of operator training necessary for each
classification level in each State is best determined by the State. The
final guidelines do not include specific training requirements;
however, EPA will evaluate State training programs as part of its
initial and annual review and approval of State operator certification
programs.
4. Classification of Operators
A number of comments were received requesting clarification as to
which water system personnel must be certified under the guidelines.
The final guidelines require that ``all operating personnel making
process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or
quantity that affect public health be certified.'' EPA believes that
this guideline requirement provides a framework within which States can
decide which system personnel must be certified.
5. Grandparenting of Operators
Grandparenting of operators was one of the most heavily commented
upon issues. The majority of commenters supported grandparenting in
some fashion while several commenters opposed the inclusion of
grandparenting in the guidelines. Also, some commenters requested
clarification as to whether grandparented operators at renewal had to
meet the initial certification requirements or the renewal
requirements.
EPA believes that grandparenting may be necessary to allow the many
competent operators who have been successfully operating water systems
but who can not meet the initial certification requirements to continue
to work. Accordingly, grandparenting has been included as an option for
States. For States that choose to allow grandparenting, the guidelines
specify the following restrictions:
Grandparenting is permitted only to existing operator(s)
in responsible charge of existing systems which, because of State law
changes to meet these guidelines, must for the first time have a
certified operator.
The system owner must apply for grandparenting for the
operator(s) in responsible charge within two years of the effective
date of the State's regulation.
The certification for the grandparented operator must be
site specific and non-transferable to other operators.
After an operator is grandparented, he or she must, within
some time period specified by the State, meet all requirements to
obtain certification renewal, including the payment of any necessary
fees, acquiring necessary training to meet the renewal requirements,
and demonstrating the skills, knowledge, ability and judgement for that
classification.
If the classification of the plant or distribution system
changes to a higher level, then the grandparented certification will no
longer be valid.
If a grandparented operator chooses to work for a
different water system, he or she must meet the initial certification
requirements for that system.
Also, EPA added language that requires States to pay special
attention to identify specific certification renewal requirements for
grandparented operators to ensure they have the knowledge, skills,
ability and judgement to operate the system for which they were
grandparented.
A couple of commenters asked that the guidelines be changed to make
it the operator's responsibility to apply for grandparenting and not
the system's responsibility.
In States which choose to allow a grandparenting provision,
application for grandparenting is the responsibility of the system
owner because grandparenting is site-specific and non-transferable.
Only existing systems which must for the first time have a certified
operator because of State law changes to meet these guidelines can
apply for grandparenting for existing operators in responsible charge.
6. Renewal Period
EPA received a large number of comments supporting the
establishment
[[Page 5918]]
of a specific renewal period in the guidelines. Comments were mixed,
however, as to the maximum length of time that should be required for
renewal.
EPA, in reviewing existing State programs, found that most States
already require a certification renewal cycle of three years or less.
EPA believes that three years is the maximum amount of time that the
guidelines should permit an operator to go before having to take more
training as part of the renewal requirements in order to remain current
in the field.
7. Categories of Systems
EPA received numerous comments on categorizing/classifying systems.
Many of the commenters made recommendations as to the specific criteria
that they felt should be used to classify systems. Several commenters
suggested that EPA develop a national classification system for water
systems while a similar number of commenters suggested EPA allow States
to develop their own classification system.
Because all of the States currently have a method for categorizing
the water systems within the State, EPA believes that establishing a
nationally uniform classification system would be very disruptive with
little benefit. The guidelines give the States the responsibility to
define the categories of systems. The language in the final guidelines
was revised to clarify that the criteria in the guidelines are examples
for States to use in classifying systems [i.e., (a) complexity, size,
source water for treatment systems, and, (b) complexity, size, for
distribution systems].
8. Antibacksliding
EPA received mixed comments on the antibacksliding provision.
Several commenters supported antibacksliding while several commenters
opposed the provision. For example, one commenter questioned EPA's
authority to prevent a State from lessening its existing standards to
meet the minimum EPA standards. This commenter felt that EPA has no
authority to require a State to do anything else except meet the
minimum standard. Also, a couple of commenters felt that the
antibacksliding provision enables States to keep their programs intact
without undue pressure to lessen standards based on the minimum
standards set forth in the guidelines which may not be as stringent.
EPA believes that Congress did not intend for States to weaken
their existing operator certification programs if those programs go
beyond the minimum federal standards. An antibacksliding provision is,
therefore, essential to help these States maintain the kind of operator
certification programs that they believe best ensure public health
protection. EPA does recognize that there may be situations where it is
desirable to lessen a specific standard while making overall
improvements to a program and has included a provision to allow States
to do this if they can justify the change and get approval from EPA.
Finally, EPA believes this provision is authorized by Section 1419(a)
of the SDWA which states that EPA must take existing programs into
account in developing these guidelines.
9. Exemptions and Certified Operator Availability
EPA received a number of comments both for and against exemptions
from the requirement of a certified operator for small water systems.
On a related issue, EPA received many comments on the requirement that
a designated certified operator be available for each operating shift.
A number of commenters expressed the concern that this requirement
would be cost prohibitive for small systems and that small systems
should be exempt from the requirement to have a certified operator.
Some commenters requested clarification as to the meaning of
``available''.
EPA believes that one of the most important benefits of these
guidelines will be better training for operators of small systems and
consequently, better public health protection for the consumers served
by these systems. Historically, compliance problems are much more
widespread in smaller systems and it is these systems that may benefit
most by training. Congress also recognized this when it established the
operator certification provisions. As discussed in the legislative
history of these provisions (S. Rep. 104-169, 104th Cong., 1st Sess at
61), Congress was aware that most States already had operator
certification programs and that many exempted small systems. Congress
was particularly concerned that the lack of operator training and
certification for small systems could create compliance problems. In
addition, monitoring and sampling done by a trained operator are more
likely to produce accurate results and be correctly interpreted. These
concerns were central to the enactment of the operator certification
provisions. At the same time, Congress also established a provision for
reimbursing small system operators for training and certification
costs. Considering this, the guidelines do not allow exemptions. EPA
does recognize, however, that some small systems provide little or no
treatment and that some nontransient noncommunity systems (e.g.,
schools) may not have distribution systems and that operators of these
systems do not need the same type and amount of training that operators
of larger systems may need. The guidelines, therefore, provide States
with discretion to tailor training requirements consistent with the
level of complexity of systems.
The guidelines do not require these systems to have a certified
operator on-site full time. States can implement a program that would
allow for a circuit rider to be the certified operator for a number of
small systems. This flexibility is provided for in the definition of
``available'' that is included in the guidelines. EPA believes that
this language will reduce the financial burden on small systems, and
allow for the sharing of certified operators in areas with a scarcity
of qualified personnel. States have been provided with flexibility in
defining ``available'' since its meaning may differ due to the
geographic and demographic differences among States.
Some commenters felt that clarification is needed concerning
whether or not people who program or maintain telemetry/SCADA systems
are required to be certified.
EPA believes that people who program or maintain telemetry/SCADA
systems are not operators of water systems and are not required to be
certified. However, if anyone who programs or maintains these types of
systems is also making process control/system integrity decisions, that
person would be required to be certified.
10. Flexible vs. Prescriptive Guidelines
Many of the comments that EPA received supported flexibility for
States in implementing the guidelines while many of the comments asked
that the guideline requirements be prescribed in greater detail.
EPA believes that these guidelines reflect its efforts to balance
the intent for State flexibility with the need for national program
accountability.
Submittal Schedule and Withholding Process
EPA is developing a revised submittal schedule and withholding
process for State programs and will solicit public comments on the
revised approach in the Federal Register within the next few months.
Source Water Protection
A fully trained operator, as the on-site professional, should
understand the benefits of multiple barriers to prevent
[[Page 5919]]
contamination of the sources of public drinking water supplies and
should be able to provide important insights into the risks to public
water supplies from different, potential sources of contamination. EPA
encourages States to include an understanding of drinking water source
protection in the training for operators.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), EPA
must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
collect the information from the States required under these
guidelines. EPA plans to prepare and obtain approval of an Information
Collection Request (ICR) for this information. Advance notice of the
ICR will be published in the Federal Register for public comment before
it is submitted to OMB. EPA may not conduct, or sponsor, and a person
is not required to submit to a collection of information unless the
Agency has OMB approval for collection of the information.
Dated: January 29, 1999.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
Appendix A: Final Guidelines for the Certification and
Recertification of the Operators of Community and Nontransient
Noncommunity Public Water Systems
I. Introduction
II. Operator Certification Guidelines
A. Public Health Objectives
B. Antibacksliding
C. Baseline Standards
1. Authorization
2. Classification of Systems, Facilities, and Operators
3. Operator Qualifications
4. Enforcement
5. Certification Renewal
6. Resources Needed to Implement the Program
7. Recertification
8. Stakeholder Involvement
9. Program Review
III. Program Submittal Process
A. Submittal Schedule and Withholding Process
1. New Programs.
2. Equivalent Programs
B. Submittal Contents
1. Initial Submittal
2. Subsequent Years
IV. Definitions
V. Acronyms
I. Introduction
These guidelines were developed to meet Section 1419(a) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-182). This
section directs the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to develop guidelines specifying minimum standards for certification
and recertification of operators of community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems and to publish final guidelines by
February 6, 1999. States have two years after publication to adopt and
be implementing an operator certification program that meets the
requirements of these guidelines. After that date, unless a State has
adopted and is implementing an approved program, the Administrator must
withhold 20 percent of the funds a State is otherwise entitled to
receive in its Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)
capitalization grants under section 1452 of SDWA.
II. Operator Certification Guidelines
A. Public Health Objectives
The public health objectives of the guidelines are to ensure that:
Customers of any public water system be provided with an
adequate supply of safe, potable drinking water.
Consumers are confident that their water is safe to drink.
Public water system operators are trained and certified
and that they have knowledge and understanding of the public health
reasons for drinking water standards.
Ongoing training is necessary to the public health objectives of
this program.
B. Antibacksliding
Because these guidelines represent only minimum standards, it is
expected that States whose current operator certification program
requirements go beyond or exceed these minimum standards not lower
their operator certification program requirements. EPA will not approve
the operator certification program of any State that reduces its
standards below the level that existed 12 months prior to the effective
date of these guidelines unless the reduction can be justified by the
State and is approved by EPA.
C. Baseline Standards
Each State operator certification program must include as a minimum
the essential elements of the nine baseline standards described below.
Essential elements to avoid DWSRF withholding are introduced by words
such as ``the States must.'' For each essential element, the State must
describe how its operator certification program complies with the
requirement. Additionally, several of the baseline standards include
highly recommended elements that are intended to complement, improve,
and expand the parameters of essential elements of an operator
certification program. These highly recommended elements are introduced
by words such as ``the States should.''
1. Authorization
As evidenced by an Attorney General's certification, or
certification from delegated counsel, the State must have the legal
authority to implement the program requiring the certification of
operators of all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems
and to require that the systems comply with the appropriate
requirements of the program.
2. Classification of Systems, Facilities, and Operators
A State's program must meet the following requirements:
It must classify all community and nontransient
noncommunity water systems based on indicators of potential health
risk, which for example may include: (a) complexity, size, source water
for treatment facilities, and (b) complexity, size for distribution
systems. It must develop specific operator certification and renewal
requirements for each level of classification.
It must require owners of all community and nontransient
noncommunity water systems to place the direct supervision of their
water system, including each treatment facility and/or distribution
system, under the responsible charge of an operator(s) holding a valid
certification equal to or greater than the classification of the
treatment facility and/or distribution system.
It must require, at a minimum, that the operator(s) in
responsible charge or equivalent must hold a valid certification equal
to or greater than the classification of their water system, including
each treatment facility and distribution system, as determined by the
State.
It must require that all operating personnel making
process control/system integrity decisions about water quality or
quantity that affect public health be certified.
It must require that a designated certified operator be
available for each operating shift.
3. Operator Qualifications
States must require the following for an operator to become
certified:
Take and pass an exam that demonstrates that the operator
has the necessary skills, knowledge, ability and judgement as
appropriate for the classification. All exam questions must be
validated.
[[Page 5920]]
Have a high school diploma or a general equivalency
diploma (GED). States may allow experience and/or relevant training to
be substituted for a high school diploma or GED. Education, training,
or experience that is used to meet this requirement for any class of
certification may not be used to meet the experience requirement.
Have the defined minimum amount of on-the-job experience
for each appropriate level of certification. The amount of experience
required increases with each classification level. Post high school
education may be substituted for experience. Credit may be given for
experience in a related field (e.g., wastewater). Experience that is
used to meet the experience requirement for any class of certification
may not be used to meet the education requirement.
Grandparenting
EPA recognizes that there are many competent small system operators
that may not meet the initial requirements to become certified. EPA
believes that States may need a transition period to allow these
operators to continue to operate the system through ``grandparenting''.
It is recommended that grandparenting determinations be based on
factors such as system compliance history, operator experience and
knowledge, system complexity, and lack of treatment.
If States choose to include a grandparenting provision in their
programs, they must include the following requirements:
Grandparenting is permitted only to existing operator(s)
in responsible charge of existing systems which, because of State law
changes to meet these guidelines, must for the first time have a
certified operator.
The system owner must apply for grandparenting for the
operator(s) in responsible charge within two years of the effective
date of the State's regulation.
The certification for the grandparented operator must be
site specific and non-transferable to other operators.
After an operator is grandparented, he or she must, within
some time period specified by the State, meet all requirements to
obtain certification renewal, including the payment of any necessary
fees, acquiring necessary training to meet the renewal requirements,
and demonstrating the skills, knowledge, ability and judgement for that
classification.
If the classification of the plant or distribution system
changes to a higher level, then the grandparented certification will no
longer be valid.
If a grandparented operator chooses to work for a
different water system, he or she must meet the initial certification
requirements for that system.
4. Enforcement
The State agency with primary enforcement responsibility for the
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program must have regulations
that meet the requirements of these guidelines and require community
water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems to comply
with State operator certification requirements. In nonprimacy States,
the Governor must determine which State Agency will have this
responsibility. States must have appropriate enforcement capabilities,
for example: administrative orders, bilateral compliance agreements,
criminal or civil administrative penalties, and/or stipulated
penalties.
States must have the ability to revoke operator certifications.
States must also have the ability to suspend operator
certifications or take other appropriate enforcement action for
operator misconduct. Examples of operator misconduct may include:
fraud, falsification of application, falsification of operating
records, gross negligence in operation, incompetence, and/or failure to
use reasonable care or judgement in the performance of duties.
5. Certification Renewal
A State's program must meet the following requirements:
The State must establish training requirements for renewal
based on the level of certification held by the operator.
States must require all operators including grandparented
operators to acquire necessary amounts and types of State approved
training. States may determine other requirements as deemed necessary.
States must have a fixed cycle of renewal not to exceed
three years.
The State must require an individual to recertify if the
individual fails to renew or qualify for renewal within two years of
the date that the certificate expired.
States must pay special attention to identify specific
renewal requirements for grandparented operators to ensure that they
possess the knowledge, skills, ability and judgement to properly
operate the system. This must be done by one or more of the following
approaches or by an alternative approach approved by EPA.
States may specify renewal requirements for grandparented
operators on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors
such as a system's compliance history and operator experience and
knowledge. For systems that have a history of being out of compliance,
any certification renewal decision should consider whether non-
compliance is the result of actions or inactions by the system's owner
or the system's operator.
States may require specific training requirements for
certification renewal at the first renewal cycle for grandparented
operators. This training should include all of the information covered
by the initial certification exam for the system classification level
for which the operator was grandparented even though an initial
certification exam may not be required for certification renewal.
States may require operators with grandparented
certificates to meet all of the initial certification requirements for
the classification level for which the operator was grandparented, and
thereby obtain certification within a reasonable time period specified
by the State.
6. Resources Needed To Implement the Program
States must provide sufficient resources to adequately fund and
sustain the operator certification program (components include, but are
not limited to: staff, data management, testing, enforcement,
administration, and training approval). EPA recommends that States
establish a dedicated fund that is self-sufficient.
7. Recertification
The States must have a process for recertification of individuals
whose certification has expired for a period exceeding two years. This
process must include: review of the individual's experience and
training, and reexamination. An individual is not certified with an
expired certificate. The State may develop more stringent requirements
for recertification for individuals whose certificates have expired,
been revoked, or been suspended.
8. Stakeholder Involvement
Stakeholder involvement is important to the public health
objectives of the program. It helps to ensure the relevancy and
validity of the program, and the confidence of all interested parties.
States must include ongoing stakeholder involvement in the revision
and operations of State operator certification programs. Public comment
on rule revisions is not adequate stakeholder involvement. A
stakeholder
[[Page 5921]]
board or advisory committee is strongly recommended.
Examples of stakeholders may include: operators, environmental/
public health groups, the general public, consumer groups, technical
assistance providers, utility managers, trainers, etc.
9. Program Review
States must perform reviews of their operator certification
programs. EPA recommends that States perform periodic internal reviews
and occasional external/peer reviews. Examples of items to review
include: regulations, exam items for relevancy and validity,
compliance, enforcement, budget and staffing, training relevancy,
training needs through examination performance, and data management
system.
III. Program Submittal Process
A. Submittal Schedule and Withholding Process
1. New Programs
[Reserved]
2. Equivalent Programs
[Reserved]
B. Submittal Contents
The submittal of operator certification programs to EPA by States
must include the following:
1. Initial Submittal
The submittal of operator certification programs to EPA by States
must include the following:
The State Attorney General's certification, or
certification from delegated counsel, that the State has the legal
authority to implement the program requiring the certification of
operators of all community and nontransient noncommunity water systems
and to require that the systems comply with the appropriate
requirements of the program;
A full description and explanation of how the State's
operator certification program complies with or is substantially
equivalent to the requirements of these guidelines; and
A copy of the State operator certification regulations.
2. Subsequent Years
All annual program submittals subsequent to the initial
submittal must include documentation and evaluation of ongoing program
implementation; and
A new State Attorney General's certification, or
certification from delegated counsel, if changes were made to the
regulations or statutes and a copy of the revised regulations or
statutes.
IV. Definitions
Administrator--Means the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Available--Based on system size, complexity, and source water
quality, a certified operator must be on site or able to be contacted
as needed to initiate the appropriate action in a timely manner.
Community Water System (CWS)--A public water system providing water
to at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or
regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
Distribution System--Any combination of pipes, tanks, pumps, etc.
which delivers water from the source(s) and/or treatment facility(ies)
to the consumer.
Distribution System Complexity--Examples include: pressure zones,
booster stations, storage tanks, fire protection, chlorination, non-
residential consumers, cross connection potential, and/or demand
variations.
Distribution System Size--Examples include: population served,
number of service connections, size of pipes, total distance of pipe,
and quantity of water distributed.
Grandparenting--The exemption for the existing operator(s) in
responsible charge, as of the effective date of the State's regulation,
from meeting the initial education and/or examination requirements for
the class of certification the system has been assigned.
Nontransient Noncommunity (NTNC) Water Systems--Is a public water
system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves
at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year. Common types
of NTNC water systems are those serving schools, day care centers,
factories, restaurants, and hospitals.
Operating Shift--That period of time during which operator
decisions that affect public health are necessary for proper operation
of the system.
Primacy--Primary responsibility for administration and enforcement
of the primary drinking water regulations and related requirements
applicable to public water systems within a State.
Responsible Charge--The Operator(s) in Responsible Charge is
defined as the person(s) designated by the owner to be the certified
operator(s) who makes decisions regarding the daily operational
activities of a public water system, water treatment facility and/or
distribution system, that will directly impact the quality and/or
quantity of drinking water.
Source Water--Examples include: type (surface water, groundwater,
groundwater under the influence of surface water, purchased water),
quality (variability), and/or protection (e.g., wellhead protection).
Treatment Facility--Any place(s) where a community water system or
nontransient non-community water system alters the physical or chemical
characteristics of the drinking water. Chlorination may be considered
as a function of a distribution system.
Treatment Facility Complexity--Examples include: difficulty in
controlling water quality, potential effect to the consumer and/or
safety of the operator.
Treatment Facility Size (capacity)--Examples include: population
served, number of service connections, and/or plant flow.
Validated Exam--An exam that is independently reviewed by subject
matter experts to ensure that the exam is based on a job analysis and
related to the classification of the system or facility.
V. Acronyms
CWS--Community Water System
DWSRF--Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA--United States Environmental Protection Agency
GED--General Equivalency Diploma
NDWAC--National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NTNCWS or NTNC--Nontransient Noncommunity Water System
PWSS--Program Public Water System Supervision Program
SDWA--Safe Drinking Water Act
[FR Doc. 99-2692 Filed 2-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P