Coaches Classroom: How to Take a Water/Wastewater Operator Certification Exam?

Did you know that to become certified as a water/wastewater professional in Colorado or to take an exam to obtain a higher certification, you will work with a company called Professional Service Industry (PSI)?

As mentioned in previous Aqua Talk articles (4/2/25 article, 10/30/24 article), to become a certified water professional, you will first determine which certification you need and then work within the Colorado Certified Water Professionals (CCWP) portal to submit an examination application. Once CCWP approves the exam application, applicants have 100 days to sit for and pass the exam. If an applicant doesn’t pass the exam, they may schedule a re-test at any time, however, the operator must wait 30 days to retake the exam.

Notes on working within PSI’s website

After you receive your application approval from the folks at CCWP, you will receive an email from PSI letting you know that you can now create a login and schedule your exam. You can follow the link and instructions provided in the email. Once you have logged in, select “New Booking” if you need to schedule your exam or “Reschedule” if you need to move the date you originally planned to sit for the exam. 

This will take you to a list of tests you are eligible to schedule based on your exam application through CCWP. 

What if I have issues with my PSI account? 

PSI customer service is best accessed through their “Contact Us” email form. To access this, click on the “Contact Us” icon in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. Be sure to provide the correct email address and phone number for them to reach you and a clear explanation of the issue you are encountering.  You can also visit their Quick Start Guide website, which offers specific information on how to navigate their platform. 

Additional tips and good information: 

• Where/how do I take an exam: You can either go to a testing center (Find a Testing Center) or use PSI’s remote proctoring option (PSI Online Proctoring Compatibility Check) to take your certification exam. Be sure to know the rules and expectations before you choose which option is best for you. More information can be found on CCWP’s website or in PSI’s Candidate Handbook for Colorado. 
• Plan accordingly! Winter weather can greatly impact travel to test centers, and PSI may not issue refunds due to inclement weather. Consider contacting PSI to verify your test center is open before you travel. 
• The CCWP exam application fee is $50; the PSI examination fee is $104 per exam attempt. All payment for the exams is managed through the PSI portal. 
• Formula sheets - Please note there are two formula sheets, one for water and one for wastewater. It's the test-taker’s responsibility to be sure that the proctor gives them the correct formula sheet.
• Test takers cannot leave the testing site with notes or scratch paper.
• CCWP is happy to help all operators as they become certified and advance in their profession. However, the CCWP staff does not have access to PSI's system nor can we help with remotely proctored tech support.

What resources are available to help me study for my exam? 

PSI does a great job at proctoring exams for Colorado’s certified water professionals, but they don’t provide the testing materials. CCWP contracts with Water Professionals International (WPI) to write and standardize exams. So, to study, we recommend visiting WPI’s  Examination Study Resources website. Here you can  access important information that will help you plan your studying process: 

• Need-to-Know Criteria
• Formula/Conversion Tables
• Exam References
• Study Guides
• Sample Exam Questions

Once you know what information you need to study and how the questions will be asked, you can form a study plan that is right for you! Below are some examples of helpful resources. This is by no means an exhaustive list. We recommend that you mix a variety of study materials! 

1. Textbooks 
• Sacramento State Drinking Water Manuals
• New Mexico Water System Operator Certification Study Manual
• American Water Works Association - Operator Cert and Training Textbooks 
• USA Bluebook Water/Wastewater Training Books (textbooks, flash cards, and math-specific offerings)  
2. Courses 
• Technical Assistance providers in Colorado that offer in-person and online exam preparation: 
• Colorado Rural Water Association 
• Indigo Water Group 
• Rural Communities Assistance Corporation 
• Other prep courses 
• American Water College Exam Prep courses 
• AWWA Remote eLearning Options
3. Other resources 
• Water Sifu - online training resources with videos and podcast-style training
• AWWA OpCert Exam Prep App  - flashcard style sample test questions that immediately display the correct answers and explanations, including formulas/equations 
• Water Wise Pro - Company offering online training via Zoom,  study guides, and helpful podcasts for operators  
• Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet - Water Certification Test Prep Materials 
• Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy - Exam Study Guides with practice tests and answer keys 

Please don't ever hesitate to reach out to our coaches! 

➽ Kyra Gregory, Drinking Water Training Specialist 

PFAS Rule and CCR Revisions: Update on Stakeholder Engagement on Rulemaking

In Spring 2024, EPA finalized the Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Rule and Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule Revisions. The PFAs Rule will protect public health by requiring ongoing monitoring of “forever chemicals” beginning in 2027 and setting health-based limits starting in 2029. The CCR Rule Revisions modernize the content and delivery methods for all community systems and increases the frequency and accessibility of water quality reports for consumers served by larger systems beginning in 2027. 

In August 2024, the division launched a stakeholder engagement process in support of a rulemaking hearing before the Water Quality Control Commission to adopt these federal rules into the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Regulation 11). Between August 2024 and January 2025, we held a total of seven stakeholder meetings and two workgroup meetings in support of the stakeholder process. We appreciate the significant contributions from water providers, environmental organizations, and members of the public. This collaboration is essential for developing effective and sustainable regulations that address the specific needs of our state.

Through the stakeholder process, we have:

• Developed Draft Regulatory Language: The feedback received from stakeholders has directly informed the development of draft language for the upcoming PFAS Rule and CCR Rule Revisions. 
• Created PFAS Rule Resources: To aid water providers in navigating the complex requirements, we have developed a PFAS Rule page with guidance and a frequently asked questions document, an initial monitoring compliance check worksheet to help understand the timing requirements for monitoring, and are in the process of developing tools to allow submission of UCMR 5 PFAS data for use in meeting initial monitoring requirements.
• Updated CCR Content: While most content changes under the CCR Rule Revisions are not required until 2027, there are a few changes to CCRs distributed in 2025 required under the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. The division has updated CCR draft templates for 2025 to capture the language and content required to be included in CCRs.

Looking ahead, the next major milestone is the rulemaking process before the commission. This is a crucial stage where the commission will review the draft regulations, consider public input, and ultimately make a decision on whether to adopt these rules into Regulation 11.

Important Note: There has been some recent developments at the federal level. EPA has been granted abeyances by the DC Circuit Court concerning lawsuits regarding the federal PFAS Rule. These abeyances were granted to allow the new administration time to review the rule and the plaintiff’s petition to the Court. On May 14, 2025, EPA announced that it was considering delaying compliance with the PFAS standards but no specific mention was made about the testing requirements. We are actively monitoring this situation and will provide updates as they become available. None of this impacts the CCR rule. 

We recognize that navigating these regulations can be complex. Therefore, we are committed to keeping you informed throughout the process. We will provide updates on the rulemaking process and opportunities for public comment.

How to Stay Informed:

• Visit the Division's Engagement Website and sign up for notifications
• Attend Commission Meetings: Commission meetings are open to the public, and your participation is encouraged. For more information about upcoming meetings and hearings please visit the commission's website.

We believe that everyone plays a vital role in shaping water policy. By staying engaged, we can collectively work towards ensuring clean and safe drinking water for all Coloradans.

➽ Bryan Pilson Technical, Regulatory Implementation, and Coordination Unit Manager

CDPHE, EPA, & Wigwam Partnership for PFAS Treatment

Resources: 

For more information please visit 

• CDPHE PFAS Proarjects Website
• WQCD Grant Website

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is excited to highlight Wigwam Mutual Water Company’s PFAS pilot project as an excellent example of the Division’s culture of health initiatives. Wigwam is a small public water system, located in El Paso, County just south of Colorado Springs, that serves approximately 1,300 people. Their source water is drawn from the Fountain Creek alluvial aquifer and through pro-active testing the public water system detected elevated levels of certain PFAS in its drinking water. The test results came back above the established EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt) for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). To address this emerging contaminant issue, CDPHE provided the community with point-of-use treatment to reduce PFAS levels to below the MCL while working towards the implementation of a more permanent treatment solution. This effort was promoted to ensure the community was provided with safe drinking water during the next planning and design phases of the project. 

Last year, CDPHE awarded Wigwam a $300,000 grant to pilot PFAS treatment technologies through the Emerging Contaminants in Small for Disadvantaged Communities (EC/SDC) grant program. This project has been a collaborative approach with direct assistance from the CDPHE, PFAS team and Engineering staff, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). Wigwam is planning to conduct pilot testing with Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC), Anion Exchange (AIX), and a new emerging technology, namely Electrocoagulation (EC). This innovative pilot project will compare the different treatment technologies and assist Wigwam in determining if the new EC technology is feasible and able to effectively treat PFAS in its drinking water. This collaborative approach will help ensure that this community has the best information to help them find a viable treatment solution to address this water quality challenge. After the study, EPA and CDPHE will utilize the treatment piloting results to provide an assessment of the treatment options for communities in order to effectively remove PFAS and other contaminants with reasonable and sustainable costs. 

CDPHE is excited to promote the partnership between EPA ORD and Wigwam to assist in this effort.

➽ Sierra Mitchell, PFAS Program Coordinator

PM Message: Addressing High Nitrate Levels in Groundwater

Last month I attended the annual member meeting of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) in Washington, D.C. This group consists of all my counterparts in other U.S. states and territories. It is a great opportunity for me to learn about how other states are working to address similar challenges to what we may be facing in Colorado. This year three states, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska, shared information about what they are doing to address high nitrate levels in groundwater. Significant portions of these states experience this problem that impacts both community and non-community groundwater systems, plus private wells. Nitrate is known as an acute health risk contaminant for infants. However, more research is being done about chronic impacts as well.

Though our nitrate concerns in Colorado tend to be more localized, we have had a number of water systems exceed the nitrate Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 mg/L over time as well. In the 2010s almost 50 communities had a nitrate MCL violation and 65 non-community water systems also had nitrate MCL violations. Fortunately, those numbers are considerably lower so far in the 2020s. A nitrate MCL violation represents a serious challenge for those systems as immediate Tier 1 public notice must be provided advising customers to stop drinking the water. Addressing this issue can be time consuming and expensive. If treatment is needed then ion exchange or reverse osmosis is typically used, which requires a higher level operator for the system and creates a concentrated waste that must be handled and disposed of as well on top of all the added cost for the treatment infrastructure.

Given these concerns, I thought I would share a brief summary of this issue in these states and some of the steps they are taking to address this challenge

Wisconsin is “America’s Dairyland” and #2 state in the country in growing potatoes, which is a nitrate intensive crop. Ten percent of its 800,000 private wells exceed the nitrate MCL which would cost over $400,000 million to replace those wells. Wisconsin public water systems receive 30 to 40 new nitrate MCL violations every year, dwarfing our problem in Colorado. While there is a sense that this problem cannot be fully “solved” in the near future, Wisconsin is taking numerous steps with many partners and projects help with it. Most of these efforts come from their source water protection protection program and include:

• Teacher workshops through universities educating kids about groundwater with specific lesson plans and hands on models
• Nitrogen budget and leaching calculator
• Decision tools that can evaluate application rates
• Developed a well water quality map view with largely private well data
• Evaluating nitrate depth guide drilling to often deeper unimpacted locations
• Numerous projects with with farmers and universities
• Replacing wells

In Minnesota corn and bean crops are main nitrate sources and the southeastern portion of the state with its karst geology is most vulnerable to contamination. Minnesota has fewer violations than its neighbor but last year, 60% of those water systems had to install treatment. Minnesota enacted a new groundwater protection rule that limits fall fertilization applications and is working on a mitigation process in vulnerable areas. The state also developed a number of programs designed to help private well owners and developed simple communication materials. These efforts involve: 

• Well inventory including private wells
• Substantial Outreach/communications including realtors
• Free nitrate testing
• Free treatment available, with 140 reverse osmosis systems installed
• Health-based guidance including:
• New studies showing nitrate association with numerous conditions
• Historical information regarding blue baby syndrome cases in the 1940s

Nebraska recently commissioned a study of nitrate in groundwater showing large areas of the state with nitrate levels above 10 mg/L. They have about 170 public water systems currently  treating for nitrate. Nebraska developed a predictive model to predict how far away a system might be from having a source that exceeds the nitrate MCL and categorized the systems with certain actions:

• 0-3 years out = get started on funding applications
• 3-6 years = provide assistance
• >6 years = Emphasize source water protection

Nebraska offered free testing to private well owners and a rebate program for reverse osmosis treatment systems. They also developed an outreach toolbox with an emphasis on risk assessment.

In Wisconsin and Minnesota EPA got involved to pressure the states to take action to address this acute health risk, and also partnered with the states in the efforts to address it. As you can see, tackling this challenge requires a great deal of effort. I am thankful that we can draw on the experiences in these states to help us when we face similar issues in Colorado. Thank you for your efforts in keeping our drinking water safe.

➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager