Biosolids land application programs will continue only if they are well managed and are accepted by the public. To reach entry-level biosolids personnel, the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA), together with the Northwest Biosolids Management Association (NBMA), provided support for pilot training workshops in Oregon in 199798. The workshops covered biosolids quality, transportation, application, site management, monitoring, record keeping and reporting. Speakers were recruited from the state regulatory agency, the larger municipal treatment facilities, private consulting firms, and the land-grant university. Completion certificates were awarded to participants who successfully completed a take-home multiple-choice test. The training workshop approach, utilizing locally available resources, is an effective way to improve the quality of biosolids land application programs.
Training in biosolids management is not a new concept in the Pacific Northwest. Organizations such as the Northwest Biosolids Management Association (NBMA), the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies (ACWA), and the Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Association (PNPCA) all conduct continuing education activities.
The present project grew out of a desire to formalize biosolids training to make it a more rigorous and predictable process. An Oregon ACWA subcommittee, formed in 1996, studied the certification concept and concluded that formalized training, or certification, would:
During further discussions of the certification concept with a wider audience, several barriers to mandatory certification in Oregon were encountered:
In view of the benefits associated with formalized training but the baggage associated with mandatory certification, the Oregon ACWA decided to pursue voluntary comprehensive training programs. The first targeted group was entry-level biosolids personnel.
To reach entry-level biosolids personnel, ACWA decided to offer training over a 2-day period in conjunction with an established wastewater short school. This afforded several benefits. First, operators could receive CEUs and/or college credits for training at the short school. Second, the date and location was well publicized without a special effort just for the biosolids training. Third, the training was located in the Portland metropolitan area, where substantial expertise in biosolids management (potential trainers) is concentrated. Fourth, the short school is designed to be affordable for the smallest wastewater facilities (cost is approximately $40 per day including lunch).
Pilot biosolids training program designed and presented by the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies. Each session is 50 minutes.
| Topic | Session title | Activity description | Speaker description |
| Introduction | Biosolids Jeopardy | Icebreaker; allows presenters the opportunity to assess current participant knowledge on a variety of biosolids management topics. | Fun-loving person with game-show mentality |
| Introduction | Biosolids management: The big picture | Previews all of the topics covered in the workshop and shows how they fit together. Includes state-specific regulations. | State regulator familiar with facility and site approval process |
| Biosolids quality (2 sessions) | Meeting EPA Part 503 requirements | Technology options to meet EPA requirements for pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction. Calculating volatile solids reduction. Case studies demonstrating how small treatment plants are meeting EPA requirements. | Consultant: wastewater treatment/biosolids processing |
| Biosolids quality | Record keeping and sampling | Sampling and reporting methods for trace elements and pathogens. | Biosolids manager |
| Exercise | Case study: biosolids program management | Group activity. A case study for a small treatment facility is presented. Students evaluate the situation and suggest alternatives to improve management. | University or private consultant |
| Public information | Working with the public and the media | How to inform the public about biosolids and respond to complaints. Working with the media to get your story told. | Biosolids manager or communications specialist |
| Transportation | Assuring safe transportation and handling of biosolids | Transportation planning and execution, including contracts with trucking firms, alternative transport vehicles, rules of the road, route planning, spill response plans, transportation provider meetings | Transportation coordinator, large municipal facility |
| Site management | Site planning and calibration | Evaluating potential sites. Measuring buffer areas. Using maps. Required site management practices. Methods of calibrating application equipment. | Biosolids manager, university or private consultant |
| Site management | Agronomic rates, soil sampling, site monitoring, site logs | Calculating agronomic rates. Recommended protocols for soil sampling and interpreting soil testing data. Site records needed to document agronomic use of biosolids. | University or private consultant |
| Site management | Farmer viewpoint | Why farmers want biosolids. Crop and land management practices that complement biosolids utilization. | Farmer with experience in utilizing biosolids |
| Quality assurance | Self-assessment procedures | How facilities can perform self-assessments to verify that their management system meets or exceeds regulatory requirements | Consultant familiar with quality assurance |
ACWA conducted two training workshops at the Clackamas Short School (Portland Metro area)
in 1997 and 1998. The 2-day training covered the basics of biosolids quality,
transportation, application, site management, monitoring, record keeping and reporting.
The curriculum was designed by a planning committee, and then speakers were contacted to
cover a portion of the curriculum. Over the 2 days, 8 to 10 speakers presented a total of
12 hours of classroom instruction (see matrix table on previous page). Speakers were
recruited from the state regulatory agency, the larger municipal treatment facilities,
private consulting firms, and the land-grant university. At the end of the 2-day session,
a take-home multiple-choice test was given to those who wanted to obtain a certificate of
completion for the training course. Tests were computer-scored at Oregon State University,
and certificates of completion sent to those with a score of 70 percent or higher. A test
summary sheet with the student's responses and the correct answers for each question also
was sent to participants.
To assist participants in completing the take-home test, speakers were asked to provide need-to-knows, handout materials for self-study, and test questions for their portion of the training. Most speakers provided handout materials and test questions. A three-ring binder with 150 to 250 pages of handout materials was provided to participants. Need-to-knows and a short summary of recommended practices for each session were more difficult to get from the speakers. Only one or two speakers each year provided the requested one-page list of need-to-knows and recommended management practices.
Oral and written evaluations of the short school training indicated that the
participants were very positive about the training effort. They appreciated the
"one-stop shopping" afforded by having a collection of experts present at one
location. Many of the participants in the second year of training attended based on
recommendations from others at their agency who attended the previous year.
During the first year of short school training (1997) there was considerable overlap in
the subject area covered by speakers. For example, Table 3 of EPA Part 503 appeared in 3
of the 12 presentations. This was not necessarily all bad. Participants indicated that the
concepts were sufficiently complex that some repetition was helpful in clarifying points
they missed the first time. Overlap between sessions was reduced in 1998 by sending
speakers a detailed short school outline well in advance of the training.
Twenty-five participants completing the take-home test in 1998 completed a multiple-choice evaluation included with the test. More than 90 percent of participants said they would recommend the workshop to others at their place of business. About 60 percent of participants indicated that the notebook containing speaker handouts was the most valuable part of the training. Most participants indicated that the workshop approach was the best educational choice for them, rated much higher than distance learning alternatives. Participants indicated a preference for a 2-day workshop, rather than a 1-day event. They strongly supported the time-consuming Biosolids Jeopardy session. Participants wanted more time to practice calculations during the workshop.
The training workshop approach, utilizing locally available resources, is an effective way to improve the quality of biosolids land application programs. The keys to the success of the 2-day training workshops included: