42
F rom the EditorThe National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) has been
offering its publications free of charge since 1979, and we have
no intention of changing that. In order to use our re s o u rc e s
m o re cost - e ffe c t i ve l y, we want to pinpoint the audiences who
need our services and not send magazines to people who
don’t want them or to addresses that are no longer curre n t .
For that reason, it is important that you fill out and return th e
re n ewal re q u e st card included on the front of this issue’s spe-
cial jacket. We want to eliminate unnecessary costs, not lose
readers, so I urge you to return your re n ewal as soon as possi-
ble.
If you have not subscribed to the NSFC’s new s l e t te r, P i p e l i n e, now is a
good time to do it. A description of this publication is on the inside of th e
jacket’s front cover, with the number to call for a free subscription. Each issue
is about a single topic and the format makes it easy to copy. Pipeline has been
d i st r i b u ted at many town meetings and mailed as part of local public educa-
tion efforts.
This issue of the Small Flows Quarterly marks our third year of publication.
I hope you find it useful.
2
F R O M T H E E D I T O R
Small Flows Quarterly is sponsored by:
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySteve Hogye | Project OfficerMunicipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia UniversityJohn L. Mori, Ph.D. | ManagerWVU National Environmental Services Center
Peter Casey, P. Eng. | Program Coordinator
Timothy Suhrer | Editor
Cathleen Falvey | Associate Editor
John Fekete | Senior Graphic Designer
Chris Metzgar | Graphic Designer
Colleen Mackne | Promotions Writer/Editor
Natalie Eddy | Staff WriterCaigan M. McKenzie | Staff WriterMarilyn Noah | Staff Writer
Jennifer Hause | Engineering Scientist Andrew Lake | Engineering Scientist
Article SubmissionsSmall Flows Quarterly welcomes letters to the editor, articles, news items, photographs, or other materials for publication. Please address correspondence to:
Editor, Small Flows QuarterlyNational Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu
Juried Article Review BoardJames A. Bell, P.E., Smith & Loveless, Inc., Lenexa, KSSteven Berkowitz, P.E., North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural ResourcesTerry Bounds, P.E., Roseberg, ORCraig Cogger, Ph.D., Washington State University, PuyallupJames Converse, Ph.D., P.E., University of WisconsinBrian Cooper, C.E.T., Simcoe Engineering Group, Ltd., Pickering, OntarioRon Crites, P.E., Brown and Caldwell, Sacramento, CADonald Gray, Ph.D., West Virginia UniversityMark Gross, Ph.D., P.E., University of ArkansasDavid Gustafson, P.E., University of MinnesotaMichael Hines, M.S., P.E., Southeast Environmental Engineering, Knoxville, T NAnish Jantrania, Ph.D., P.E., Virginia Department of HealthCraig Jowett, Ph.D., P. Eng., University of Waterloo, OntarioJim Kreissl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ret.)George Loomis, University of Rhode IslandTed L. Loudon, Ph.D., P.E., Michigan State UniversityRoger E. Machmeier, Ph.D., P.E., University of MinnesotaKaren M. Mancl, Ph.D., The Ohio State UniversityDon P. Manthe, P.E., Entranco, Phoenix, AZStewart Oakley, Ph.D., P.E., California State University, ChicoMichael H. Ogden, P.E., Santa Fe, NMRichard J. Otis, Ph.D., P.E., Madison, WIMike A. Parker, i.e. Engineering Inc., Roseburg, ORFrank Pearson, Ph.D., P.E., Hercules, CASherwood Reed, P.E., Norwich, VTR. B. Reneau Jr., Ph.D., Virginia TechWill Robertson, Ph.D., University of Waterloo, OntarioA. R. Rubin, Ph.D., North Carolina State UniversityWilliam A. Sack, Ph.D., P.E., West Virginia UniversityC. M. Sawyer, Ph.D., P.E., Virginia Department of Health Robert L. Siegrist, Ph.D., P.E., Colorado School of MinesDennis Sievers, Ph.D., University of MissouriSteve Steinbeck, P.G., North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural ResourcesJerry Stonebridge, Stonebridge Construction, Inc., Langley, WAWilliam L. Stuth Sr., Stuth Company Inc., Maple Valley, WAGeorge Tchobanoglous, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, DavisJerry Tyler, Ph.D., University of WisconsinTed Walker, R.E.H.S., Sonoma County Health Department, Sonoma, CAA. T. Wallace, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, University of IdahoRobert C. Ward, Ph.D., P.E., Colorado State University
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse, established by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1977 andlocated at West Virginia University, gathers and distributes information aboutsmall community wastewater systems. Small Flows Quarterly is funded through agrant from the EPA.
ReprintsFor permission to reprint information appearing in Small Flows Quarterly,please send a letter of request to the editor.
International Standard Serial Number1528-6827
The contents of this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constituteendorsement or recommendation for use.
Printed on recycled paper
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
Helping America’s Small Communities Meet Their Wastewater Needs
Tim Suhrer,Small FlowsQuarterly Edi-tor
®
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC), a grant-supported national program funded by the U.S.E n v i ronmental Protection Agency (EPA), is looking for an engineering scientist to fill a vacancy with NSFC’stechnical support services. The NSFC is located at West Vi rginia University in Morgantown, West Vi rg i n i a .
The person who holds this position interacts with federal, state, and local officials; engineering pro f e s s i o n-als; small wastewater system personnel; and other individuals, providing assistance about appropriate solutionsfor small community problems with wastewater systems.
The person in this position is responsible for providing technical assistance to individuals, small commu-nities, and those serving small communities concerning wastewater- related issues and maintaining and sup-p o rting the various NSFC databases. The candidate must demonstrate knowledge of small community and indi-vidual (onsite) wastewater treatment processes, collection, and dispersal technologies, system management,and the corresponding federal and state regulations applicable to small communities with populations fewerthan 10,000 residents. This person will also serve as a technical advisor to the NSFC’s publications staff thatp roduce the Small Flows Quart e r l y and P i p e l i n e, and re p resent the NSFC at state, regional, and national confer-e n c e s .
The successful candidate will have a master’s degree in civil or environmental engineering, or another re-lated field suitable for small community sanitation and three years of directly related and relevant experiencewith issues and environmental challenges faced by small communities in the U.S. Equivalent experience may besubstituted for part of the educational re q u i re m e n t .
A re g i s t e red professional engineer or individual with considerable experience with wastewater tre a t m e n tsystems is pre f e rre d .
S a l a ry is competitive and commensurate with qualifications and experience. Send letter of application, cur-riculum vitae, and three letters of re f e rence, including phone numbers to:
S e a rch Committee, WVU, NRCCE/NSFCP.O. Box 6064M o rgantown, West V i rginia 26506-6064Letters of application and information can also be e-mailed ton s f c j o b s @ m a i l . n e s c . w v u . e d u .The position description is available in alternative formats (e.g., large print, Braille, audiotape, or disk) by
contacting the search committee.Applications will be reviewed commencing March 31, 2002.West Vi rginia University is an Equal Opportunity and Aff i rmative Action Employer; minorities and women
a re encouraged to apply.
NSFC SeeksTechnical SupportP e r s o n
Atlantic States AttackCoastal DegradationMarilyn Noah
T he At l a nt ic Ocean is an awesome body of water, yet it issusceptible to contamination by improperly treated waste-water. Along the eastern coast of the U.S., undesirable soilp ro p e r t ies ra ng i ng from granite ledges to ultra - p o ro u s
sand, together with limited lot sizes and high water tables, com-b i ne to create he a da c hes for ho me o w ners and regulators alike.An overview of several eastern coastal states that are taking stepsto re duce cont a m i na t ion from fa i l i ng onsite wastewater systemsreveals the variety of solutions available.
J U R I E D A R T I C L E
4 News & Notes
5 Calendar of Events
7 Web Watch
9 Small Flows Forum
Donald Schwartz
26 Question/Answer
Septic Tank Additives
34 New Products
39 Products List
46 Closing Thoughts
I N T H I S I S S U E . . .
1 4
1 8
Proposed National Onsite Standards: A Broad Assessment of TheirRelative Benefits to Industry
James F. Kreissl and Paul Chase, M.A.,L.E.H.P
In most states, onsite wastewatert re a t me nt system ma nu fa c t u rers ands u p p l iers are re s t r icted by re g u l a t o r y
s y s t e ms that are do m i nated by pre s c r i p t i v ec o de s. Local code adm i n i s t rators usua l l yhave no inc e ntive to try new systems thatare not already approved by the state. In thisa r t ic l e, the authors exa m i ne the impact oft he curre nt state regulatory enviro n me nt ont he onsite wastewater industry as well asv a r ious ideas being proposed for its re fo r m .Potential benefits of these reforms to the on-site industry are assessed.
2 8
Ho me o w ners often com-plain to health departmentinspectors that they do not
w a nt one of those ugly mo u nd sin their yard. But until thre eyears ago, ho me o w ners wholived in areas with seasonally orre g io nally high water tables hadno other alterna t i v e. TheNo Mo u nd® system has pro v ide dho me o w ners with a viable alter-native to the elevated sandmound.
1 22 2
2 4
Onsite Septic Systems:Educating the HomeownerCaigan M. McKenzie
New Pump Technology May Improve Small Package Plant TreatmentNatalie Eddy
Electrical Training and Licensing of Onsite Systems Installers in OregonDale Bryson, Ph.D., Terry Bounds, Sarah Farish, Jeeta Saxena, Ed.D., and Michael Aiton
Caigan M. McKenzie
Florida Approves Installation of Performance-Based NoMound Systems
4
The terrorist attacks on September 11 have
wreaked havoc on people’s lives and a nation’s psy-
che, but there are also hard-line budgetary issues
that will impact business in the U.S., including
water and wastewater treatment.
The U.S. Congress and President Bush are
committed to putting billions of dollars into the
announced “war on terrorism,” as well as assist-
ing the airline industry and contributing to relief
efforts in the communities struck by the attacks.
That has left leaders in the water and waste-
water treatment industries uncertain about
whether there will be funds put into the effort to
rebuild and repair the aging water and sewer infra-
structure in cities across the nation. Prior to the
tragedies, there had been a major push to get the
government to help rebuild systems, viewed by many
as a nationwide problem.
The House and Senate passed separate bills that
would commit approximately $2.2 billion to water
and wastewater projects in the next fiscal year. But as
that bill gets fine-tuned, there is uncertainty about it.
Kent Kirk, exe c u t i ve dire c tor of the Association of
M e t ropolitan Sewe ra ge Agencies, said the gove r n m e n t
has serious issues befo re it, but “th e re’s always go i n g
to be a need for clean wa ter and efficient and effe c t i ve
wa ter and wa stewa ter services,” so he feels the gove r n-
ment will continue to put money into that are n a .
He said as the appropriation bill is finalized, “I’m
not picking up that it will be jeopardized in any way”
by recent events.
The versions of the bill in the House and Senate
have slightly dif ferent funding amounts, but they pro-
vide approximately $1.3 million in a state revolving
loan fund for water and sewer projects, approximately
$800–$850 million for drinking water projects, and
approximately $200,000 to $300,000 for special proj-
ects not yet identified.
Michael B. Cook, director of the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency’s Office of Wastewater Man-
agement, said the bills give authorization to appropri-
ate money, but “it’s not at all unusual that a lot less
money is appropriated than was authorized.”
He said he felt the spending for the next fiscal
year will probably not be eliminated, but for future
years it is “very much up in the air. It’s very hard for
anyone to predict what will happen.”
Dawn Kristof, president of the Water and Waste-
water Equipment Manufacturers Association, said she
is “very leery at this point” about funding because the
government has re-shifted priorities in the wake of
tragic world events. She is concerned funds will be di-
rected away from water and sewer projects.
Kristof said just holding on to the current levels of
funding in the state revolving loan funds for water
and sewer “will be an achievement,” and that it is
naïve to think extra money is forthcoming. “We’re
keeping our fingers crossed that we can maintain cur-
rent levels.”
Vanessa Leiby, executive director of the Associa-
tion of State Drinking Water Administrators, said
world events will at least “hurt the time frame” groups
might have been anticipating for federal funds. “My
sense would be that this has thrown a monkey
wrench into everything. It doesn’t look as positive as
it once did.”
Cook said the federal contributions to such proj-
ects are a small percentage, with states, municipalities
and the private sector always having the largest bur-
den. Kirk agreed a partnership of federal, state, and
local governments and the private sector is needed to
address the infrastructure issue.
That partnership breakdown is also the subject of
ongoing debate in the industry.
From Industry Outlook—9/26/2001
C A T E G O R YN E W S & N O T E S
Infrastructure Funds Unce rtainas Billions Go to Defe nse
Groundwater Pollution andHydrology CourseF e b r uary 11–15San Fra ncisco, Califo r n iaP r i nceton Gro u ndw a t e r, Inc.(813) 964-0800 Fax: 813-964-0900i n fo @ P r i n c e t o n -G ro u n d wa t e r. c o m
Nebraska Well Drillers Asso-ciation 71st Annual Conven-tion & Nebraska Onsite WasteWater Association (NOWWA)2nd Annual ConventionNO W WA and Ne b ra s ka We l lDrillers As s o c ia t io nF e b r uary 13–14L i ncoln, Ne b ra s ka(402) 476-0162—Doug Pa s s(402) 592-0096—Terry Jo rda n
Developing Community As-sets with Manufactured Hous-ing: Barriers and Opportuni-t i e sNe ig ho r hood Reinvestme ntTra i n i ng Institute CoursesF e b r uary 18–22At l a nta, Georg ia(800) 438-5547n r t i @ nw. o rg
Disinfection 2002: Healthand Safety Achieved ThroughD i s i n f e c t i o nWater Enviro n me nt Fede ra t io nF e b r uary 18–19St. Pe t e r s b u rg, Florida(703) 535-5261—Kathi Springe rks p r i n g e r @ we f . o rg
Conference on Stormwaterand Urban Water SystemsM o d e l i n gC o m p u t a t io nal Hy dra u l ics Int .F e b r uary 21–22To ro nto, Ont a r io(519) 767-0197—Lyn Ja me sFax: (519) 767-2770i n fo @ c h i . o n . c aw w w. c h i . o n . c a
USEPA SWMM, and PCSWMM2002, Stormwater ModelingW o r k s h o p sC o m p u t a t io nal Hy dra u l ics Int .F e b r uary 18–20To ro nto, Ont a r io(519) 767-0197—Lyn Ja me sFax: (519) 767-2770i n fo @ c h i . o n . c aw w w. c h i . o n . c a
FEBRUARY
5
N E W S & N O T E S
*11th Northwest Onsite Waste-water Short Course and Equip-ment Exhibition University of Wa s h i ngton April 3–4S e a t t l e, Wa s h i ngton (866) 791-1275 w w w. e n g r. wa s h i n g t o n . e d u / e p p /W w t
Rate Design and Cost RecoveryD e l a w a re Enviro n me ntal Tra i n i ngC e nt e rApril 3D e l a w a re Te c h n ical and Commu n i-ty College, Georgetown, Delaware(302) 855-5900
Head of the Watersheds Decen-tralized Wastewater TreatmentC o n f e r e n c eNa t u ral Resources Research Ins t i-tute University of Minnesota D u l u t hApril 9–11Duluth, Minne s o t a(218) 720-4272 (800) 234-0054w w w. n r r i . u m n . e d u
NSF International Symposiumon HPC Bacteria in DrinkingWater: Public Health Implica-t i o n sNSF Int e r na t io nal April 22–24G e neva, Switzerland (734) 827-6818—Keri Bro u g hton w w w. n s f . o rg / c o n f e re n c e / h p c
Odors and Toxic Air Emissions2 0 0 2Water Enviro n me nt Fede ra t io nApril 28–May 1A l b u q u e rq u e, Mex ic o(703) 535-52—Kathi Springe rks p r i n g e r @ we f . o rg
AMSA’s 2002 Winter Confer-ence: Managing and Protecting
APRIL*International Conference onLow-Cost, Small-Scale Waste-water Treatment TechnologiesC E N TA Cent ro De Las Nu e v a sTe c ho l o g ias Del Ag uaMa rch 20–22S e v i l l e, Spain+34 954 460251p r i e s c o . c e n t a @ re t e m a i l . e s
*4th Annual Regulators Con-ference Na t io nal Small Flows Clearing-ho u s eMa rch 20–23New Port, Rho de Is l a nd(800) 624-8301—Sandy Millerw w w. n s fc. w v u . e d u
2002 WEF/AWWA Joint Management ConferenceW E F / AW WAMa rch 24–27C h a r l o t t e, North Caro l i na(703) 535-5261ks p r i n g e r @ we f . o rg
*1st Northeast Onsite Wastewater Treatment ShortCourse and Equipment E x p o s i t i o nNew Eng l a nd Interstate Wa t e rPo l l u t ion Cont rol Commissio n(NEIWPCC), re g io nal state ons i t ep ro g ra ms, and a diverse gro u pof other state age nc ies and in-du s t r ie sMa rch 25–26Newport, Rho de Is l a nd(978) 323-7929—Tom Gro v e st g rove s @ n e i w p c c. o rgw w w. n e i w p c c. o rg
46th Annual Great PlainsWaste Management Confer-ence & 2nd Alternative Waterand Wastewater Technologiesfor Small Communities Con-f e r e n c eNe b ra s ka Dept. of Enviro n me nt a lQ uality's Ne b ra s ka Enviro n me nt a lPa r t nerships pro g ram, Ne b ra s kaWater Enviro n me nt As s o c ia t io n ,a nd re g io nal chapters of theS o l id Waste As s o c ia t ion of No r t hA me r ic aMa rch 27-28O maha, Ne b ra s ka(402) 471-3193—Ja c k ie Stumpf f(402) 471-6974—Steve Stevens o nj a c k i e. s t u m pf f @ n d e q . s t a t e. n e. u ss t eve. s t eve n s o n @ n d e q . s t a t e. n e. u sw w w. d e q . s t a t e. n e. u s
Conference on Stormwater andUrban Water Systems ModelingComputational Hydraulics Int.F e b r uary 21–22To ro nto, Ont a r io(519) 767-0197—Lyn Ja me sFax: (519) 767-2770i n fo @ c h i . o n . c aw w w. c h i . o n . c a
Watershed 2002 ConferenceWater Environment FederationF e b r uary 24–27Fort Laude rda l e, Florida(703) 535-–Kathi Springe rks p r i n g e r @ we f . o rg
*22nd Pumper & Cleaner Envi-ronmental Expo International COLE Publishing, Inc. F e b r uary 27–Ma rch 2Na s h v i l l e, Te n nessee (800) 257-7222 w w w. p u m p e rs h ow.com
16th Annual Residuals andBiosolids Management Confer-e n c eWater Enviro n me nt Fede ra t io nMa rch 3–6Austin, Texa s(703) 535-5261ks p r i n g e r @ we f . o rg
2002 Southwest Onsite Waste-water Conference A r i z o na County Directors of E n v i ro n me ntal Health Services As s o c ia t ion Ma rch 6–7 R i v e r s ide Resort in Laughlin, Ne v a da (928) 226-2713—Dan Smith d s m i t h @ c o . c o c o n i n o . a z . u s
Capital Improvements Planningfor Small SystemsD e l a w a re Enviro n me ntal Tra i n i ngC e nt e rMa rch 13G e o rgetown, Delaware(302) 855-5900
Rate Design and Cost RecoveryS mall Public Water System Te c h n i-cal As s i s t a nce Center (SPWSTAC )Ma rch 20Penn State, New Ke ns i ng t o n ,Pe n ns y l v a n ia(717) 948-6338
MARCH
If your organization is sponsoring an event that you would like us to promote in this calendar, please send information to the Small Flows Quarterly, Attn.Tim Suhrer, National Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064. Or you may contact Suhrer at (800)624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, ext. 5587, or via e-mail at [email protected].
* Denotes that NSFC staff will be attend i ng .
Calendar of Events
The Environmental TrainingInstitute for Small Communities—“Public Health and EnvironmentalQuality: Small Communities in the21st Century”The National Environmental Tr a i n i n gCenter for Small CommunitiesAugust 5–9M o rgantown, West Vi rg i n i a(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 ext. 5538—Mary AliceD u n nw w w. n e t c . w v u . e d u
Plan Ahead
6
N E W S & N O T E S
Underground storage tanks (UST),
which are part of a large number of fa-
cilities throughout the U.S., can pres-
ent a very real challenge to environ-
mental managers. Even small leaks can
lead to massive, not to mention highly
expensive, groundwater and soil
cleanup operations. That’s why it’s so
important to keep in mind recom-
mended performance and environ-
mental safety standards when operat-
ing a UST. The U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Un-
derground Storage Tanks has pub-
lished several checklists relating to
those standards in its manual, Operat -
ing and Maintaining Underground Stor -
age Tank Systems: Practical Help and
Checklists.
EPA’s description of the manual
reads, “This 50-page manual contains
brief summaries of the federal UST re-
quirements for operation and mainte-
nance (O&M), as well as practical help
that goes beyond the requirements.
Checklists prompt the user to look
closely at what kinds of equipment are
in use and how to keep that equip-
ment working properly over the life-
time of the UST system. The manual
provides recordkeeping forms that also
help the UST owner and operator keep
equipment operating properly. Owners
and operators of UST systems will find
this manual contains checklists and in-
formation that will help them properly
operate and maintain their USTs. State
and EPA UST inspectors can use the
manual and its checklists to help edu-
cate UST owners and operators and
encourage their compliance with the
UST requirements.”
An example of the sort of checklists
included in the manual is the following
list of items to observe during frequent
walk-through inspections. The manual
advises users to think of these walk-
through inspections not as thorough
examinations, but rather “like the dash-
board indicators we respond to in our
automobiles that provide us with status
warnings like ‘low battery.’“
✓ Release detection system. Is your
released detection equipment work-
ing properly? For example, did you
run a quick “self test” of the ATG to
verify it’s working properly? Or did
you check your manual dip stick to
make sure it’s not warped or worn?
✓ Spill buckets. Are spill buckets
clean, empty, and in good shape?
✓ Overfill alarm (if you have one). Is
your overfill alarm working and eas -
ily seen or heard?
✓ Impressed current cathodic protec-
tion system (if you have one). Is
your cathodic protection system
turned on? Are you checking your
rectifier at least every 60 days?
✓ Fill and monitoring ports. Are cov-
ers and caps tightly sealed and
locked?
✓ Spill and overfill response supplies.
Do you have the appropriate sup-
plies for cleaning up a spill or over-
fill?
✓ Dispenser hoses, nozzles and
breakaways. Are they in good con-
dition and working properly?
✓ Dispenser and dispenser sumps.
Are there any signs of leaking? Are
the sumps clean and empty?
✓ Piping sumps. Are there any signs
of leaking? Are the sumps clean
and empty?
The full manual is online at
www.epa.gov/swerust1/pubs/omman -
ual.htm .
Copyright 2001, Environmental Pro -
tection E-News, Stevens New Media.
For subscription information e-mail
Wendy Miranda at wmiranda@st even-
spublishing.com .
Checklists: Operating and MaintainingUnderground Storage Tanks
The New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission (NEIWPCC) is pleased to an-
nounce the First Nor theast Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition.
The conference, scheduled for March 25–26, at the
Hyatt Regency Newport in Newport, Rhode Island,
is sponsored by a diverse group of agencies and in-
dustries located in New England.
The theme for the conference is “Managing
Wastewater Needs Beyond the Sewer.” The confer-
ence will feature the latest in onsite/decentralized
research and technology, and wastewater manage-
ment solutions for the protection of our water re-
sources. This “first-of-its-kind” course in the north-
east brings national experts to the region to present
the latest information and research in the onsite
New Onsite Conferenceindustry to local of ficials who normally do not have
the opportunity to attend such programs. An exhibit
area featuring the latest in onsite technology will
also be an integral part of the conference.
The cost of the program is $195 for regulatory
personnel and $295 for all others (if you register by
March 1). Exhibitor fees are $390. The optional field
trips are an additional $65. All registrations include
breaks, lunches, and conference proceedings. Con-
ference proceedings will be mailed following the
conference and distributed on CD-ROM.
For more information and to download a copy
of the program registration, please visit the NEIW-
PCC Web site at www.neiwpcc.org. For additional
information, contact NEIWPCC at (978) 323-7929
or via email at [email protected] g.
7
W E B W A T C H
Wastewater on the
Web
www.nesc.wvu.edu
The National Small Flows Clearing-
house (NSFC) maintains six databases
that provide information about all as-
pects of sewage treatment. Two of
these databases—the Bibliographic and
Manufacturers and Consultants Data-
bases—can now be searched online at
www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_dat a-
bases.htm.
The Bibliographic Database stores
thousands of articles dealing with on-
site and small community wastewater
collection, treatment, disposal, and re-
lated topics. The articles are collected
from more than 90 journals and maga-
zines, as well as conference proceed-
ings, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) documents, and re-
search papers.
Customers can search for a particu-
lar technology and receive the latest
literature on the subject. For example,
a homeowner with questions about a
clogged drainfield can obtain articles
about successful techniques as well as
methods that have failed.
The Manufacturers and Consultants
Database houses a list of industry con-
tacts for wastewater products and con-
sulting services. This database serves
both as a reference for engineers, pri-
vate citizens, and small community of-
ficials and a referral database for
wastewater products and trade items.
Currently, the database contains
more than 1,200 entries. Customers
can search for a specific type of manu-
facturer or consultant, and searches
Editor’s Note: In the Fall 2001 issue of the Small Flows Quarterly, we mistak-enly reported that Water Strategist Community (www.waterchat.com) is theonline version of Water Strategist, a printed publication. They are in fact sep-arate entities, with different editorial content. Water Strategist Community isa free, wastewater news site. The Web site of Water Strategist (www.water-strategist.com) is linked to that of Water Strategist Community.
can be conducted based upon one or
more product or service categories.
For instance, a homeowner interested
in purchasing a composting toilet can
obtain a list of product manufacturers.
Other NSFC databases include in-
formation about:
• approximately 1,000 facilities using
conventional, innovative, and alter-
native wastewater treatment tech-
nologies;
• regulations for onsite wastewater
systems in 48 states;
• contacts and referrals (a list of or-
ganizations involved in onsite and
small community wastewater infra-
structure at the national, state, and
local levels); and
• health departments and other local
or regional agencies that serve as
the local permitting and inspection
authority for onsite systems in all
states.
Presently, these databases are not
online. However, you may call the
NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-
4191 to request a search. An NSFC
technical assistant will discuss the re-
sults with you to generate a list of de-
sired contacts or other information as
appropriate.
8
E PA Gives Examples of Approve dTMDLs for Various Pollutant Types
EPA has updated its Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Program Web site to provide examples of
agency-approved TMDLs for 10 broad pollutant
types, including sediment, pathogens, nutrients,
metals, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, pesti-
cides, mercury, and organics.
A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive
and still meet water quality standards. Pollutant
sources are only allowed to emit a certain amount
of TMDLs, according to water quality standards set
by states, territories, and tribes.
The examples are posted at the Office of
Water's Web site at www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/ex-
amples .
RCAP Assistance Available for Wa s t e-water Pro j e c t s
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC)
now offers a fact sheet titled Rural Community As -
sistance Program (RCAP) Help for Small Community
Wastewater Projects.
This fact sheet describes RCAP, a national net-
work of nonprofit organizations, and how they pro-
vide onsite technical assistance to communities to
help them attain or maintain adequate wastewater
treatment services. The fact sheet discusses how,
through a partnership agreement with the EPA,
RCAP provides the appropriate financing, manage-
ment, operation and maintenance, etc. through the
Small Community Wastewater Project. The project
addresses community-specific wastewater compli-
ance problems, particularly compliance with the
Clean Water Act requirements.
This fact sheet discusses funding for small com-
munity wastewater projects and provides a contact
for more information. Developed by the EPA Office
of Water, this two-page fact sheet may be helpful to
state regulatory agency personnel, planners, man-
agers, state and public health officials,
contractors/developers, engineers, and the general
public. The cost is 60 cents plus shipping.
To order, call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or
(304) 293-4191, and request Item #WWFSFN32.
You also may e-mail
Dear Editor,Let me see if I get the facts straight on your Charlotte Coun-ty, Florida, story (Summer SFQ 2001, Volume 2, Number 3):
• Ninety-five percent of soils in the county are shallow indeep sands, with a seasonal water table at less than afoot. The area receives 62 inches of rain a year, withover half coming in just four months, with occasionalstorms of 10 inches or more?
• “Advanced “ onsite systems are permitted on lots of10,000 square feet? Elevated sand mounds are permit-ted on larger lots, if more than 100 feet from surfacewater?
• If a home is on a well, the lot has to be 20,000 squarefeet!?
What we have in Charlotte Count y, I’m afra id, is a case ofmass wishful thinking! I know of no patented, or construct-e d, “a d v a nced” system that “re duces” pho s p horus and ni-trogen discharge, no less, that costs less than $8,700, whichis the cost of the sewer hook on.
If an elevated sand mo u nd system is to have a chance towork in this environment and is engineered to prevent phos-p horus and nitro gen pollution, it will have to be specia l l yc o ns t r uc t e d, with two feet of no n - s a ndy soil placed on topof the existing natural sand and capped with an imperviousma t e r ial (clay, etc.). This would almost certainly cost mo rethan $8,700.
If Charlotte County is int e rested in a future with a he a l t hya nd pollutio n - f ree enviro n me nt, the $8,700 sewer hook onis a bargain.
Here in South Central Indiana (Monroe County), a three-bed-room gravity system costs about $4,500. A pump system,re q u i red in approx i mately half of the permits, costs aro u nd$6,000. A Wisconsin-type mound costs $8,000–$10,000.
We have to fight contractors and homeowners every day overt he cost of the systems. It’s cra z y. The onsite wastewaterdisposal regulations and contractors must do a better job ofconvincing the public that the regulations and requirementsa re not just bure a uc ra t ic red tape, but necessary to pro v idethe homeowner with good, aesthetically pleasing wastewaterdisposal and to protect the environment from pathogens andpollution.
The homeowner should want the best system, not the cheap-est, to protect and enhance their enviro n me nt, if for noother reason.
Sincerely,Warren P. HenegarSoil and Site Evaluator
N E W S & N O T E S
9
Construction of a wastewater collection and
treatment system in a rural community usually re-
sults in a large financial impact on local resi-
dents. Monthly or quarterly user fees bring an
unanticipated added expense to household
budgets.
Funding sources—typically state or federal
programs for rural communities—often base fi-
nancial packages (i.e., low-interest loans and/or
grants) on several factors, the largest of which
may be the perceived ability of the “typical” resi-
dent in the service area to pay an “acceptable”
user fee. These “acceptable” fees are often linked
to the income level of residents, under the as-
sumption that the higher the income, the higher
the user fee that can be supported (and the
lower the amount of grant funding).
In Pennsylvania, as in other states, a statistic
commonly used to estimate “typical” income lev-
els is the median household income (MHI). To
calculate a median, individual household in-
comes are ranked from lowest to highest, with
the income of the household at the mid-
point being the median (i.e., one-half
the households have incomes above the
median, and one-half below).
A median has a distinct advantage
over an average in calculations related
to income, since even a few high-in-
come households in a small, rural com-
munity can skew the average to a high-
er level than is truly indicative of the
typical household. For example, the im-
pact of a household with an income of
$1,000,000 will be significantly greater
than that of the same household at
$100,000 on the average income for a
small, rural community. However, the
impact on the MHI will be the same—
just one more high-income household.
MHI data is available from the U.S.
Bureau of Census throughout Pennsylva-
nia. However, the data is only collected
every 10 years, and the areas for which
data is available often do not directly
match the areas being considered for a waste-
water system. As a result, Rural Housing Improve-
ment, Inc. (RHI), of the Northeast Rural Commu-
nity Assistance Program (RCAP) is often called
upon by funders in Pennsylvania, as an impartial
third party, to conduct income surveys to assist
in the funding process.
While calculation of an MHI in a community
serves a valid purpose, it is only one measure of
the impact of a wastewater project on the f i-
nances of local residents. What follows is a de-
tailed review of the results of three income sur-
veys conducted in rural Pennsylvania communi-
ties in 1999 and 2000, with some lessons
learned for all entities involved in planning and
funding wastewater systems.
M e t h o d o l o g yEach income survey was initiated by
consultation between North e a st RCAP st a ff and
local officials, after prior approval by funding
a ge n cy officials. The study area was defi n e d ,
Lessons from Income Surveys: Financial Impacts of a Wastewater Projecton Rural, Low-Income Residents
F O R U M
CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Donald Schwartz
10
half of the residents in the survey area lived in
two manufactured housing communities [also
known as mobile home parks—ed.] along a busy,
two-lane highway. The remainder of the house-
holds were split among older homes adjacent to
the highway, and in the village of Friedensburg,
as well as some newer homes at one end of the
service territority.
The final survey conducted in 2000 was in
West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County.
The survey encompassed the village of Plain-
field, an old community with new development
occurring at its periphery. The Plainfield area is a
bedroom community for the nearby capital of
Harrisburg, as well as the City of Carlisle.
Survey ResultsThe results of the three surveys are summa-
rized in Table 1. The MHI was lowest in Wayne
Township ($27,024), increased slightly in Black
Creek Township ($28,754), and was highest in
West Pennsboro Township ($32,300). The rank-
ing of these results is not surprising. More than
half the residents of Wayne Township live in
manufactured housing communities, and the sur-
vey area in Black Creek Township includes a
high proportion of retired residents. The resi-
dents of West Pennsboro Township benefit from
greater economic opportunities in the Harris-
burg-Carlisle area.
The response rate to the survey was similar
in Black Creek Township and Wayne Township
(69.9 percent and 67.6 percent, respectively),
and much lower than in West Pennsboro Town-
ship (91.4 percent). The high level of response in
and local offi c i a l s developed a numbered list of
residents (including renters), as well as a map of
the area to assist with door-to-door efforts.
Northeast RCAP staff urged local of ficials to
advertise the survey in local media and by
posting information at post offices, community
meeting halls, and other public locations.
The income surveys began with a mailing to
each residential address. The packet mailed to
each household included (1) a cover letter de-
scribing the project and the income survey
process, (2) a simple survey form with a single
question asking for household income, and (3) a
stamped envelope with a return address to
Northeast RCAP. The survey form contained a
listing of all items defined by the Census Bureau
as income, to assist the residents in completing
the form. After allowing two to three weeks for
forms to be returned, Northeast RCAP staff fol-
lowed up with door-to-door surveying. An at-
tempt was made to contact all residents who had
not responded to the mail survey.
Communities Surveye dThe first income survey, conducted in 1999,
occurred in Black Creek Township, Luzerne
County. The majority of residents were in the vil-
lage of Weston, with a small percentage in the
village of Nuremberg. Both Weston and Nurem-
berg include primarily older homes, with a few
newer residences on the outskirts. There is a
large retired population, as in much of rural
Pennsylvania.
The first survey conducted in 2000 was in
Wayne Township, Schuylkill County. More than
$0 to 9999 4 2.9% 16 6.0% 16 11.7%10,000 to 19,999 26 18.7% 65 24.5% 31 22.6%20,000 to 29,999 29 20.9% 67 25.3% 25 18.2%30,000 to 39,999 28 20.1% 45 17.0% 21 15.3%40,000 to 49,999 20 14.4% 30 11.3% 20 14.6%50,000 to 59,999 10 7.2% 19 7.2% 11 8.0%60,000 to 69,999 10 7.2% 11 4.2% 6 4.4%70,000 to 79,999 6 4.3% 5 1.9% 4 2.9%80,000+ 6 4.3% 7 2.6% 3 2.2%
TOTAL 139 100.0% 265 100.0% 137 100.0%
MHI $32,300 $27,024 $28,754
1990 CensusInflation Adjusted Estimate $43,762 $45,634 $32,931
Table 1
I N C O M E WEST PENNSBORO WAY N E B L ACK CREEK R A N G E TOW N S H I P TOW N S H I P TOW N S H I P
Income Survey Data
11
West Pennsboro Township can be attributed to
(1) an extremely high rate of contamination of in-
dividual wells, resulting in a desire for wastewater
collection and treatment; and (2) excellent adver-
tisement and community outreach by West
Pennsboro Township officials. There was active
opposition to the proposed wastewater projects
in both Black Creek Township and Wayne Town-
ship.
Lessons from Income SurveysLesson #1: Be Careful About Comparing Applesto Oranges
Census data is available every 10 years. With
each passing year after the acquisition of new
data, the published information becomes more
and more outdated. One way to attempt to cor-
rect this problem is to add an inflation factor to
the census data. One funder in Pennsylvania used
average inflation factors of 0.27 and 0.31 in 1999
and 2000, respectively. This means that township-
wide estimates of income in 1999 and 2000
were calculated by adding 27 percent and 31
percent to 1990 census data. The results are
shown in Table 1 on page 10. These estimates ex-
ceeded the results obtained from income surveys
by about $4,000 (Black Creek Township) to
$18,000 (Wayne Township). Why?
A typical township in rural Pennsylvania may
contain one or more small, older villages, with
homes 50 to 100 years old, surrounded by coun-
tryside dotted with newer homes. The villages are
populated primarily with elderly residents on
fixed incomes and those younger individuals who
cannot afford more expensive housing. As a re-
sult, a townshipwide estimate of income—which
includes the owners of the more expensive prop-
erties—will almost always be higher than in the
areas of concentrated population. This effect can
be seen most clearly in Wayne Township, where
more than half the residents of the survey area
lived in manufactured housing communities—a
stunning difference of more than $18,000 be-
tween survey data and census-adjusted data.
So, Lesson #1 is quite clear: When using in-
come data as a factor in funding calculations for
a wastewater project, be sure that the data ap-
plies to the population in the study area. Compar-
ing apples to oranges could have a significant fi-
nancial impact on the residents in low-income
communities.
Lesson #2: A Median Is Just a MedianAs stated earlier, the MHI is a very useful sta-
tistic and certainly gives a better overall estimate
than an average of the ability of residents to pay
a wastewater user charge. But a median is just a
median. The MHI is merely the midpoint of
ranked household incomes and tells you nothing
about the distribution of the individual house-
hold incomes. This is particularly important for
the low-income households, which could be
clustered anywhere between “$0” and the me-
dian.
For example, in Table 1, the MHI for Black
Creek Township exceeds that of Wayne Town-
ship by more than $1,700. But 34.3 percent of
the residents in Black Creek Township reported
incomes of less than $20,000, versus 30.5 per-
cent in Wayne Township, the “lower” income
community. Black Creek Township also had al-
most double the percentage of lowest-income
residents, those with incomes of less than
$10,000 per year. If “acceptable” wastewater
user charges are at least in part based upon the
MHI, the impact on the larger, low-income pop-
ulation in Black Creek Township could easily be
missed (see also Lesson #3 below).
Lesson #3: Real People Pay the Bills The process of designing, building, and fund-
ing a wastewater project can become such an
abstract exercise that while the impact on the
average customer is considered, the impact on
low-income residents can be overlooked. Real
people pay the bills. Examine the Black Creek
Township income survey results. More than
one-third of the households reported gross an-
nual incomes of less than $20,000. The current
“acceptable” annual user rate for new systems
in rural Pennsylvania, as established by govern-
ment funders, is approximately $450 to $600.
The financial impact of such user rates on
households trying to survive on a gross income
of less than $20,000 cannot be overstated.
It may thus be appropriate to delve more
deeply into income statistics—either published
or derived from income surveys—when using
this information in calculating funding for waste-
water projects. Perhaps it is time to use the
wealth of data that will be available from the
2000 Census, as well as from income surveys,
to tailor funding packages to more specifically
meet the needs of rural communities. This is the
final lesson to be learned from the experience
of the Northeast RCAP in Pennsylvania.
Donald Schwartz is the Pennsylvania pro-
gram manager for RHI, the Northeast Rural
Community Assistance Program.
Donald Schwartz is Penn-
sylvania program manager for
Rural Housing Improvement,
Inc., the Northeast Rural Com-
munity Assistance Program.
For more information about
this article, contact Schwartz
at (570) 321-7375 or by e-mail
at [email protected] .
Atlantic Sta tes A t t a c kCoastal Degradation
12
The Atlantic Ocean crashes onto Maine’s
craggy shoulders and tickles sandy toes in Flori-
da. It is an awesome body of water, yet it is sus -
ceptible to contamination by improperly treated
wastewater. Undesirable soil properties ranging
from granite ledges to ultra-porous sand, togeth-
er with limited lot sizes and high water tables,
combine to create headaches for homeowners
and regulators alike.
An overview of several eastern coastal states
that are taking steps to reduce contamination
from failing onsite wastewater systems reveals
the variety of solutions available.
Challenging Maine ShorelineMaine is a ve ry rural st a te and relies heav i l y
on onsite wa ste treatment systems. Un fo rt u n a te l y,
much of the Maine coastal area is rocky and
ledgy, and while creating lovely vistas for home
sites, this geography provides little appropriate
area for leach fields. Newer technologies that re-
quire less piping and smaller leachfields are good
choices for homeowners seeking effective re-
placements for their older systems.
James Jacobsen with the Maine Department
of Human Services explained that, “Maine histor-
ically permitted overboard discharge (OBD), a
practice where effluent from a residential pre-
treatment system is discharged into the ocean or
river rather than into the soil. This method of dis-
persal was the norm and often the only option.”
The change came eight years ago when the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
decided to no longer license onsite systems that
use OBD as a final dispersal method.
Atlantic State s A t t a c kCoastal De gradation
NSFC STAFF WRITER
Marilyn Noah
Photo courtesy of Beverly Bailey-Smith.
State University, has been working with home-
owners in several coastal counties, replacing
their old, nonfunctioning systems with peat
biofilters, a system manufactured by the Ireland-
based company, Bord na Mona. “We have had
very good luck using this technology. And the
advantage of needing 25 to 50 percent less
space is a winner with the clients,” he said.
While some homeowners initially balk at the
idea of a sand mound on their property, they
are pleased with the effectiveness of the peat fil-
ter system once it is installed. “After the land-
scaping is completed, the overall looks are seen
as an asset by many homeowners,” Lindbo said.
Lindbo is also quite satisfied with the work of
the peat systems. “We get results of below 10
milligrams per liter biological oxygen demand,
10 milligrams per liter total suspended solids
and fecal counts below 10,000 colonies per 100
milliliters—a significant improvement over the
standard septic system.”
These systems have been installed through-
out North Carolina’s eastern coastal counties.
From Manteo to Wilmington, these peat filter
systems are reducing the nonpoint pollution of
surface and subsurface waters.
South Carolina’s Low Country Protects theMarsh
S u rging development is creating real dilemmas
for county officials in South Carolina as th ey
a t tempt to keep residents happy and the marsh
h e a l th y. After the closure of 31,000 acres of
s h e l l fish beds due to high levels of pollution in
1995, wa stewa ter has become an important issue
to the residents of Beaufo rt, South Carolina.
13
“Many homeowners were not keeping up
with the maintenance required on their systems,
allowing poorly treated effluent to enter the
neighboring water,” Jacobsen said. “The adjacent
clam beds were being polluted and were closed
as a result, adversely af fecting the shellfish indus-
try, a significant economic contributor in the
state.” Over the last several years, the Maine De-
partment of Human Services has been helping
residents to replace the offending sys-
tems with advanced treatment systems
that produce a much cleaner product.
To help the homeowners, state funds
were designated to assist with these
changeovers. The Casco Bay Estuary Pro-
ject began a campaign two years ago to
help homeowners obtain these finances,
which cover up to 90 percent of the re-
moval and replacement costs.
“The State of Maine has determined
that many of the older OBD systems are
not effective in the treatment of house-
hold wastewater,” said Katherine Groves,
Casco Bay Estuary project director. “Be-
cause of this, clam beds near OBDs are
closed to harvesting. We made it our
mission to remove these sources of pol-
lution and open up sustainable clam har-
vesting sites. We contracted Normandeau As-
sociates to carry out the project, and so far
we have opened up over 300 acres of clam
flats for commercial harvest by assisting the
towns, the state, onsite engineers, and homeown-
ers to move through the process of replacing
OBDs.”
One system that is used is the biological recir-
culating trickling filter manufactured by Septitech,
a Maine-based company. The system purifies
wastewater to a high standard and requires less
than half the normal disposal area. Jacobsen
noted that Septitech has a proprietary trench de-
sign that reduces the footprint by 75 percent.
These trickling filters have become one of the
systems of choice in this replacement program.
North Carolina Looks at Peat Biofilters for Effective Pretreatment
In 1989, the North Carolina Division of Envi-
ronmental Management estimated that at least
40 percent of the streams that flow into the Albe-
marle-Pamlico estuary had been degraded by
nonpoint-source pollutants. That percentage rep-
resents 3,600 miles of streams.
Beach sand feels great on bare feet but
makes for difficult wastewater treatment. And
high water tables, combined with the fast drain-
ing sand, are a real headache for the site-permit-
ting agents and homeowners alike.
Dr. David Lindbo, associate professor of Non-
Agricultural Soils Science with the North CarolinaCONTINUED ON PAGE 38
In Maine, one of the advanced treatment systems used to replace fa i l i n gseptic systems is a biological re c i rculating trickling filter manufa c t u red byMaine-based Septitech, shown here being loaded with the micro - b e a dmedia it uses to filter wa s t ewa t e r. Photo courtesy of Beverly Bayley -Smith.
14
“Out of sight, out of mind” is, unfortunately,
a common theme among many homeowners
with septic systems. Systems are tucked away
underground, not to be thought about, until the
system malfunctions or breaks down. This mind-
set is a major reason septic systems fail.
Some Reasons Homeowners Don’t MaintainSeptic Systems
Lack of information is a common reason
homeowners don’t maintain their systems.
“Because of prescriptive codes (state and
local governmental rules and regulations), peo-
ple involved in the onsite sewage industry have
always focused on design and installation and
hoped systems performed as they’re designed
to,” said Ken Olson, part-time farmer and full-
time University of Minnesota onsite sewage
treatment extension educator. “Everyone just for-
got that once design and installation is done, the
homeowner is in charge, but no one told the
homeowner what to do.”
Misinformation is another reason homeown-
ers don’t maintain their systems. For example,
many homeowners mistakenly believe that put-
ting yeast or biological additives in their septic
system is all they need to keep it functioning
properly and avoid the need to have the solids
pumped out of the septic tank. The state of
Washington led in debunking this myth by pro-
claiming that most additives do not affect system
operation positively and can contaminate
groundwater aquifers. The Washington State De-
partment of Health also placed restrictions on
advertising claims by additive manufacturers.
(See Small Flows newsletter, Volume 13, Num-
ber 4, Fall, 1999.)
Other homeowners have eagerly bought into
various manufacturers’ false claims that some
onsite systems are maintenance free. What hap-
pened in Hamilton County, Ohio, in the early
1990s illustrates the problem. When aeration
systems were installed there beginning in the
1950s, no one foresaw the overwhelming
Onsite Septic Systems:Educating the Homeowner
environmental and health price the community
would later pay because it believed manufactur-
ers who touted their systems as maintenance free
and capable of producing effluent the quality of
drinking water. It took updating household
sewage regulations, instituting a comprehensive
program to permit and annually inspect both
new and existing systems, and a whole lot of
public relations and public education to get the
community’s sewage problems under control.
(See Small Flows newsletter, Volume 13, Number
2, Spring, 1999.)
Still other homeowners know that septic sys-
tems need to be maintained, but not how often.
Caigan M. McKenzieNSFC STAFF WRITER
Homeowners can look to local government officials and university exten-sion agents for advice and information about maintaining their septicsystems. Photo courtesy of Susan Maczko.
E d u c a tors can even explain how failed syste m s
can deva st a te wildlife and their habitats and th e
a d verse effects this can have on a community.
Homeowner EducationHomeowner education for onsite wastewater
systems can be found through a variety of
sources, such as local health departments, univer-
sity extension offices, and professional waste-
water organizations.
Education is administered in a variety of for-
mats including hands-on training, distance learn-
ing, videos, brochures, and manuals.
Health Departments and Other Governmental
Agencies
Nearly all local health departments offer pub-
lications that detail how to care for septic sys-
tems. Some health departments also offer home-
owner education courses.
Dave Gustafson, onsite sewage treatment ex-
tension specialist at the University of Minnesota
in St. Paul, Minnesota, describes three areas of
homeowner education that he teaches to local
government officials and university extension
agents. These individuals then teach homeown-
ers.
“The biggest need we fulfill is teaching peo-
ple how to take care of systems. First, we look at
it from the homeowner’s point of view, explain-
ing the purpose of an onsite system, how it
works, and how to care for it. Next, we look at
the decision-making process, explaining alterna-
tive treatments. Finally, we look at regulatory de-
cisions and how public policy is formed and its
relationship to selecting a system.”
Education is particularly helpful when it
comes to convincing homeowners to change
their behavior. “It is critical that homeowner edu-
cation begin early and well in advance of
planned onsite program changes, advances and
expansions,” said Jean Roth Caudill, former direc-
tor of water and waste in Clermont Count y,
Ohio, (currently program specialist in the quality
assurance division of the Ohio Department of
Health).
“The Clermont County Health District found
that effective education, followed by regulatory
enforcement, can lead to homeowner accept-
ance of their role as a wastewater treatment sys-
tem operator,” Caudill said. “As resources be-
come available, education may promote home-
owner acceptance of the purchase of an individ-
ual service contract or payment of a centralized
management fee.”
Telephone listings for local health depart-
ments are usually found in the government sec-
tion or blue pages of local phone directories.
State departments of health sometimes offer
15
So they put it off, hoping to make it through yet
another year without the added expense of in-
specting the system and pumping the tank. Main-
taining the septic system just doesn’t have priori-
ty over the kids’ braces or car repairs.
Then some individuals simply cannot afford
to install a proper system or maintain the system
they have. This is the situation for many individu-
als in Tyler, Texas.
“We have so many people who are on low or
fixed incomes and those who are indigent. They
often can’t afford a basic system. Many individu-
als have to choose between buying food, paying
utility bills, or installing a proper onsite waste-
water system,” said Leroy Biggers, regional man-
ager of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC).
Informing the HomeownerWhile uninformed homeowners might look
with wide-eyed astonishment upon a nonmain-
tained septic system that failed, informed home-
owners know that a nonmaintained system is
certain to fail eventually.
So what is the best way to inform the home-
owner? One method that has consistently
worked is education.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), the goal for environmental
education is to increase public awareness and
knowledge about environmental issues and to
provide the public with the skills needed to make
informed decisions and take responsible actions.
Environmental education enhances critical-
thinking, problem-solving, and effective decision-
making skills. It also teaches individuals to weigh
various sides of an environmental issue to make
informed and responsible decisions.
Environmental education does not advocate a
particular viewpoint or course of action.
What’s in It for Me?Informal education is most successful when
the educator can tie the information being
taught to the student’s need for that information.
For example, educators can explain how a
failed septic system reduces property value.
Homeowner testimonials can describe foul odors
that permeate homes with failed septic systems.
Statistical information can illustrate how a few
hundred dollars spent maintaining a system can
save a few thousand dollars needed to repair or
replace it.
Educators can explain how failed septic sys-
tems can be a source of dysentery, hepatitis,
jaundice, chemical or nutrient poisoning, diar-
rhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, and even fa-
tigue and that these diseases can affect an entire
community.
16
satellite programs about various wastewater
issues. These programs are broadcast live
through satellite to various downlink sites. Check
with your state department of health for informa-
tion about scheduled programs.
Other governmental offices, such as the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC), have also become valuable resources
for homeowner education. “After we discovered
that increased communication was needed, we
organized and began hosting a series of work-
shops and inviting a wide variety of different
groups, including representatives from agencies,
industries, volunteer groups, and the general pub-
lic to participate. These programs have been a re-
sounding success,” said Leroy Biggers, regional
manager of the TNRCC in Tyler.
TNRCC offers workshops approximately every
60 days. A special area of emphasis in the work-
shops focuses on making organizations and indi-
viduals aware of resources that may be available
to finance onsite wastewater systems.
Universities and Colleges
Many universities offer onsite wastewater
training courses for homeowners through their
campus U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Extension Service of fice.
For the phone number of the extension offi c e
in your area, check the government pages of yo u r
local phone dire c to ry, call the National Small
F l ows Clearinghouse (NSFC) at (800) 624-8301,
or call the USDA directly at (202) 720-3377.
Universities may also offer training through
classes or workshops at their training centers. For
example, the Environmental Training Center at
Del Tech in Georgetown, Delaware, established
in 1994, offers a nine-hour basic onsite course
each semester. The course costs $85 and is
taught by State Department of Natural Re-
sources environmental scientists. Course content
includes design, placement, operation, mainte-
nance, and troubleshooting.
For only $15, homeowners can attend a
three-hour workshop at the University of Rhode
Island in Kingston, Rhode Island. The Onsite
Wastewater Training Center offers a variety of
homeowner education courses throughout the
year but also accommodates on-demand course
requests from local groups, such as a watershed
or homeowner association.
Information covered in these work-
shops includes basic operation, mainte-
nance, and onsite system management,
understanding septic system inspec-
tions, and tours of sites with alternative
systems, as well as a hands-on work-
shop. Research and environmental soil
scientists teach these courses.
The Alabama Onsite Wastewater
Training Center in Livingston, Alabama,
offers a course that looks at the instal-
lation, operation, and maintenance of
alternative onsite sewage treatment sys-
tems. The course is offered three to
four times a year and is designed pri-
marily for installers, but the general
public can benefit from attending.
Homeowners can attend free of
charge.
University staff, such as civil engi-
neers and microbiologists and industry
professionals who have an environmental
engineering and/or health department
background, teach this course.
Homeowners who also serve as public of fi-
cials can attend courses at the Tidewater Onsite
Wastewater Research and Education Center in
Plymouth, North Carolina, free of charge.
The University of Minnesota has three objec-
tives for its homeowner education courses: ex-
plaining basic system operation, system mainte-
nance, and ways the homeowner can save
money. Some courses are offered on-demand
through requests from various community
groups, such as homeowner associations.
Many of the courses are free; others pass
only the nominal cost of materials on to the par-
ticipants. Public officials and university staff
teach the courses.
The National Environmental Training Center
for Small Communities (NETCSC) offers a direc-
tory (Item #TRBLGN18) that lists onsite waste-
water training programs and centers across the
country. The cost of this directory is $4.35.
Distance training programs are broadcast live through satellite to various downlink sites.Photo courtesy of Susan Maczko.
17
Professional Organizations
Numerous national and statewide professional
organizations offer either homeowner education
courses or know where these courses can be
found.
One of the goals of the National Onsite
Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA) is
to educate the public about the value of recy-
cling wastewater and the need for properly de-
signed and maintained onsite treatment systems.
NOWRA includes information on their Web site
about the do’s and don’ts of caring for septic sys-
tems. There is also an expansive list of academic
links, many of which provide homeowner educa-
tion courses.
The New York Onsite Wastewater Associa-
tion, established in 1998, offers classes both in its
Morrisville, New York, training center and at the
client’s work site.
Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training
Center in College Station, Texas, offers overview
courses on various treatment and land applica-
tion technologies and operation and mainte-
nance information. Course costs range between
$135 to $265 per course.
Web SitesThe Internet contains a we a l th of homeow n e r
education information. For example, click onto
w w w. b a e . n c s u . e d u / p r o g r a m s / e x te n s i o n / p u b l i -
c a t / w q w m / s e p t i c . h t m l , and you can find the fo l-
l owing publications: S e p tic Systems and Their
M a i ntenance, Manage m e nt of Single Family and
Small Community Wa s t e water Tr e a t m e nt and Dis -
posal Systems, Inve s ti gate Before You Inve s t, a n d
About Septic Systems: What You Need to Know.
V i rginia Po l y technic Inst i t u te and St a te Un i ve r s i-
ty also offers basic septic system info r m a t i o n for th e
h o m e ow n e r. Their Web site is f b ox . v t . e d u : 1 0 0 2 1 /
c a l s / c s e s / r e n e a u / p r o j e ct s / s ys . h t m l .
The Un i ve r s i ty of Arizona Coopera t i ve Exte n-
sion offers the fo l l owing short publications on its
Web site: I n s p e c ting Your Household Septic Sys -
tem, Maintaining Your Septic Tank, Managing Yo u r
Household Septic System, Opera tion and Maint e -
nance Tips for Your Septic System,and Un d e r -
s tanding Your Household Septic System. These
publications can be found at
a g . a r i z o n a . e d u / p u b s / q u a r te r l y. h t m l .
N a tional Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC)
The NSFC is an excellent source of homeow n-
er education. Funded by the EPA, NSFC houses in-
formation about wa stewa ter collection, tre a t m e n t ,
and disposal.
NSFC offers an information packet (Ite m
#WWPKPE28) for only $2 that includes home-
owner septic tank information bro c h u res, new s l e t-
ters, and fact sheets. This information is package d
in a handy, onsite system re c o rd - keeping fo l d e r
that the homeowner can use to track syste m
m a i n tenance, sketch the layout and position of
the system, and re c o rd permit and local health de-
p a rtment information.
H o m e owners can also purchase a $10 video
titled Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeown -
e r s ( I tem #WWVTPE16). This 11-minute videotape
discusses septic system operation and mainte-
nance and covers 10 basic rules homeow n e r s
should fo l l ow in caring for their system.
A n o ther videotape for homeowners, The Care
and Feeding of Your Septic Ta n k ( I te m
# W W VTPE40), explains the basic components of
a conventional septic system and its opera t i o n
and maintenance. Steps to prolong the life and ef-
fe c t i veness of a septic system are also included.
This video costs $10.
S e p tic Systems Revealed: Guide to Opera ti o n ,
Care, and Maint e n a n c e ( I tem# WWVTPE43) iden-
t i fies the major reasons for system fa i l u re and
d e m o n st ra tes the proper methods for pumping
septic tanks. This video costs $15.
Additional videotapes and publications about
homeowner education, some available in both
English and Spanish, are listed in the free NSFC
catalog (Item #WWCAT).
For more information about re s o u rces NSFC
o ffers, call (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191.
C o n t a c t s
For mo re info r ma t ion about ho me o w ner educ a t io n ,contact the following:
• TNRCC Tyler Office contact: Leroy Big gers at (903)5 3 5 - 5 1 0 0 .
• Enviro n me ntal Tra i n i ng Center at Del Tech cont a c t :Jerry Willia ms, pro g ram ma na ge r, at (302) 856-5776.
• University of Rho de Is l a nd Onsite Wastewater Tra i n-i ng Center contacts: George Loomis, tra i n i ng cen-ter dire c t o r, at (401) 874-4558 or David Dow, pro-g ram ma na ge r, at (401) 874-5950. The Web site ad-dress is w w w. u r i . e d u / c e / w q / ow t r.
• Alabama Onsite Tra i n i ng Center contact: Allen Ta r t t ,d i re c t o r, at (205) 652-3803.
• University of Minnesota contact: Ken Olson, ex t e n-s ion educ a t o r, onsite sewage tre a t me nt, at (507)2 8 0 - 2 8 6 9 .
• NETCSC contact: Mary Alice Dunn at (800) 624-8301or (304) 293-4191.
• NO W R A’s Web site is w w w. n ow ra . o rg or call (800)9 6 6 - 2 9 4 2 .
18
Small flow waste-
water treatment
package plants
(plants treating fewer
than one million gal -
lons per day) have a
history of poor set-
tling in the final clari-
fier, but a new
wastewater treat-
ment package plant
pump, called the
Geyser Pump, may
be the long-awaited
answer for operators.
“Being an opera-
tor for a wastewater
treatment package
plant can be a night-
mare,” said Warren
Peace, who has in-
stalled Geyser
Pumps in seven
plants in West Vir-
ginia, Virginia, Ken-
tucky, Tennessee,
and Maryland. Ac-
cording to Peace, all
of the system operators
have experienced im-
provements. “These
small package plants
are 10 times more dif ficult to operate than full-
size systems because of the difficulty in
maintaining a solids
inventory.
“The discovery
of this pump was
very liberating. I
wanted to get the
word out to these
plant operators that
there is a solution.
Finally, a pump that
can handle a 2-inch
solid, has no mov-
ing parts, and has
the capability to ac-
curately deliver
very low rates of
flow, typically less
than 2 gallons per
minute.”
Peace, an envi-
ronmental engineer
who owns Ad-
vanced Engineering
Services of Bote-
tourt County, Vir-
ginia, said the de-
vice gives waste-
water treatment
plant operators with
plants processing
fewer than 40,000
gallons per day (gpd)
the same measure of control as operators of
plants processing 10 million gpd.
New Pump TechnologyMay Improve Small Pa ckage Plant
T r e a t m e n tNatalie Eddy
NSFC STAFF WRITER
Editor’s Note: A major part of the National Small Flows Clearinghouse’s mission is to report on new tech-nologies as we become aware of them. It is in that spirit that we present this article. Mention of a prod-uct or service in a Small Flows Quarterly article is not an endorsement by the NSFC. All manufacturers andconsultants who have not registered themselves in the NSFC’s database are invited to do so by calling ourtechnical services department.
The Geyser Pump is available in a range of sizes and variousconstruction materials, which can be tailor-made to the ap-plication and the customer's preference. These applicationsinclude flow equalization, sludge mixing, sludge transfer, andchemical dosing. Photo courtesy of Warren Peace.
19
of the end of the tube.
“The greatest advantages of airlift pumps are
their lack of moving parts and their ability to
move large or heavy solids,” said Peace. “One of
the greatest disadvantages to using an airlif t
pump is its limited useful range of flow. If airflow
to a typical airlift pump is reduced by a relatively
small amount, it will cease to operate.
“The Geyser Pump significantly improves the
characteristic advantages of the airlift pump,
while allowing it to operate over a much larger
range of flow rates.”
Peace explained further that the bubble is
produced in a chamber outside of the pump
riser. Air is supplied to an airtight dome that has
the pump riser extending through the center. In-
side the dome is a second, smaller, inverted air
dome with the pump riser also extending
through its center.
“Imagine the old diving bell that looked like a
bucket on the divers’ heads,” said Peace. “We’ve
taken a dome or diving bell and placed a pump
riser through it with an additional cylinder that
puts air inside until the air pressure rises.”
An entrance is provided to the riser pipe, ca-
pable of allowing a bubble greater than the di-
ameter of the pipe to enter. As air is applied to
the larger dome, the pressure inside increases
until it is greater than the pressure of the column
of water in the pump riser.
“When this condition is met, a bubble is re-
leased from the air dome into the pump riser.
Then, just as in a typical airlift pump, the bubble
rises and carries the column of liquid in the riser
out the end of the pipe,” Peace added.
Masao Kondo, who holds a doctorate in me-
chanical engineering and owns NCA2 of Dunn,
North Carolina, developed the pump. Peace con-
tacted Kondo after learning about the pump
from a friend who had attended a presentation
about it at a conference in North Carolina.
The two worked out an agreement to distrib-
ute the pump, and Kondo received a patent for
the device in December 2000.
The Theory“The difficulty in controlling solids in the clari-
fier is due primarily to the method of sludge re-
turn,” said Peace. “If the population of biological
solids (mixed liquor suspended solids—MLSS)
gets very high, greater than 3,500 milligrams per
liter, or if the plant experiences an upset, solids
will exit the clarifier.”
“In many small systems, the rate of flow re-
duces residence time in the final clarifier to less
than one hour.”
He explained that in a typical airlift pump, air
rises and pushes the effluent along when the
air’s buoyancy is greater than the weight of the
liquid. However, the trouble arises because there
is no way to control the amount of air delivered.
“Airlift pumps are nice, but they are either on
or off,” said Peace. “If you try to slow them
down, they just stop. With the Geyser Pump, the
air bubble is made in a separate chamber. You
can control the formation of that bubble by how
fast you put air into the line.
“If you want to pump 2 gallons per minute
and have a gallon of fluid in the riser of a 2-inch
line, you would want the pump to pulse twice a
minute. You would have to fill the chamber at a
rate that produces a bubble twice a minute and
then you would have 2 gallons per minute. It’s
that simple.”
Peace said with the Geyser Pump, return
rates can be reduced to 100 percent of influent
flow or lower, if necessary.
The old airlift method is very reliable, accord-
ing to Peace, provided the operator maintains an
adequate supply of air to the system. Conversely,
if the air supply is not adequate, the pump will
stop operating.
Pump It UpThe idea that the Geyser Pump is based on is
not a new concept. In fact, the idea of using air
to move liquid originated in the 1780s, according
to Peace.
For years, an airlift pump consisted of a verti-
cal tube with 60 percent of its length submerged,
and an air supply line entering the vertical tube
greater than four pipe diameters from its end. If
the air flow is suf ficient, the buoyant force of the
bubble will grow greater than the weight of the
column of liquid above it pushing the liquid out
Air Air
Geyser Pump
Water Line Water Line
Large AirBubble
Riser
Smaller AirBubble
Outer AirChamber
Inner AirChamber
Typical Airlift Pump
20
“This sounds very simple, but it is revolution-
ary in two ways. First, it requires the use of signif-
icantly less air to operate relatively large airlift
pumps. Second, it allows an airlift pump to pro-
vide a very predictable and controllable rate of
flow.”
Getting PumpedInstalling the Geyser Pump is relatively simple
and inexpensive. The installed cost of the device
can be less than $500, depending upon the job
specifications. “All you have to do is just unscrew
the old one and put the new one in,” Peace
said.
The pump is available in a range of sizes and
various construction materials, which can be tai-
lor-made to the application and the customer’s
preference.
Peace said the pump also might be used in
flow equalization, sludge mixing, sludge transfer,
chemical dosing, and many other applications
outside the wastewater treatment field.
“This is the only thing out there that will work
on these small flow situations. I know the frustra-
tion of these operators. They are sometimes
blamed for their inability to control something
that up to now could not be controlled,” said
Peace.
First ApplicationPeace said the first application occurred near
his hometown, Eagle Rock, Virginia, on a 20,000
gpd package plant. The plant had received a
new permit that required a stringent nitrogen
limit.
“They were trying to increase the sludge
age,” Peace said. “As they tried to raise the
concentration, they had dif ficulty in maintaining
a solids inventory. I have seen that problem with
every package plant I have operated.
“A few months before, I had come across ma-
terial on this new pump at a conference a friend
had attended in North Carolina. The part that in-
trigued me was the air pump that was fully con-
trollable and could be set to whatever rate you
needed to feed the plant and return the sludge.”
Peace said that af ter they installed the Geyser
Pump at the Eagle Rock plant, the response was
immediate. “It was like throwing a switch. The ef-
fluent was considerably lower in solids. A few
months later, the ammonia level was less than 1
mg/L for total suspended solids, and biochemical
oxygen demand was in the single digits,” said
Peace. “Today, the plant is still perking along,
doing better than ever. In the meantime, we
have installed pumps in six other package
plants.”
Hello OperatorPaul Peery, utility supervisor for Botetourt
County Public Works Department package plant,
believes the Geyser Pump will make a long-last-
ing impact in the package plant industry. “I think
the pump has made a big improvement in the
package plant treatment process,” said Peery,
who oversees the Eagle Rock facility and has
been an operator for 12 years.
“Our plant was the first wastewater treatment
plant where the Geyser Pump was used. Basical-
ly it was installed on a trial-and-error basis to see
how it was going to handle. I wasn’t sold on it in
the beginning. I was concerned that it would
stop up, but it does an excellent job. I don’t
think you can stop them up.”
21
Ammonia levels have gone down at Eagle
Rock, a 10-year-old, 20,000 gpd package plant,
since the pump’s installation six months ago. The
plant’s levels went from 7 milligrams per liter to
less than 0.2 after installing the pump, allowing
the plant to more than meet their set limit.
“What we ran into is pretty much what every
package plant runs into. There was no accurate
way of controlling the sludge rate without stop-
ping up the system,” said Peery.
“The thing about the Geyser Pump is it gives
you the ability to better control the return sludge
rate versus package plants with the air lift return
design. You can set it to pulse at a wide variety
of second or minute intervals. The control of air
pressure sets the length of time it takes for the
sludge to fill the vault of the pump, increasing
the retention time in the clarifier. The longer re-
tention time in the clarifier helps reduce the am-
monia levels.”
Pe e ry said the pump can be inte rc h a n ged into
the design of diffe rent systems “easily and affo rd-
a b l y.” He added that he would recommend th e
pump to other package plant opera to r s .
Arville Anderson, who operates a wastewater
treatment package plant in Middlesborough,
Kentucky, agrees that the pump is a success. “It
appears to be working really well for us,” said
Anderson.
“We’re a small package plant with a flow of
5,000 gpd. We had been having problems regu-
lating the return sludge flow. Since we installed
the new pump, we are able to reduce the flow
without stopping the line. We couldn’t regulate
our return flow before. We just had a constant
flow. If we would try to shut down the lines, they
would clog. It has given us a more consistent re-
turn and better looking ef fluent.”
Anderson said the pump has been in place fo r
th ree months at the 15-year-old fa c i l i ty, located in
S o u th e a stern Ke n t u c k y.
Anderson could not recall the exact price of th e
pump installation but said it was not ve ry expensive .
“We ’ ve not only saved money, but it has allowed us
to meet our effluent limits a lot easier for our permit.
“I think it’s really made a big impact on opera t i o n s
of the plant,” said Anderson, who has wo r ked at th e
residential wa stewa ter fa c i l i ty for the past 10 years.
“I recommend it for any small treatment plant.”
For more information, contact Peace at (540) 473-
2867 or e-mail him at G eys e r p u m p s @ a o l . c o m .
The 20,000 gallon-per-day Eagle Rock package plant in BotetourtCounty, Virginia, operated by the Botetourt County Public WorksDepartment, was the first wastewater plant to use the Geyser Pump.Photo courtesy of Warren Peace.
22
E d i t o r ’s Note: A major part of the Na-t io nal Small Flows Clearing house’s mis-s ion is to report on new techno l o g ies aswe become aware of them. It is in thatspirit that we pre s e nt this artic l e. Me n-t ion of a pro duct or service in a S m a l lFlows Quarterly a r t icle is not an endo r s e-me nt by the NSFC. All ma nu fa c t u rers andc o ns u l t a nts who have not re g i s t e re dt he mselves in the NSFC’s database areinvited to do so by calling our technic a ls e r v ices de p a r t me nt .
H o m e owners often complain to
h e a l th department inspectors that th ey
do no want one of those ugly mounds
in their ya rd. But until th ree years ago ,
h o m e owners who lived in areas with
seasonally or regionally high wa ter ta-
bles had no other alte r n a t i ve. The
NoMound® system has prov i d e d
h o m e owners with a viable alte r n a t i ve
to the eleva ted sand mound.
On December 23, 1998, the Flori-
da Department of Health (DOH) ap-
p roved installation of the pate n te d ,
p e rformance-based NoMound syste m
in fi ve Florida locations. A homeow n e r
in Sa n fo rd, Florida, north of Orlando,
was the fi r st to re c e i ve the syste m ,
which has been operational since th e
h o m e owner moved into the single-fa m-
ily residence in March 1999. The re-
maining th ree installations currently in
o p e ration include La keland in Octo b e r
1999, Panama City in Au g u st 2000,
and Deland (we st of Day tona Beach)
in February 2001.
“Florida is a prime location for th e
NoMound system,” said Alan Hassett,
P.E. and inve n tor of the NoMound sys-
tem. “Its pate n ted technology enables
c o n ventional onsite systems to be
used in locations with seasonally high
or regionally high wa ter tables with o u t
building a sand mound.” More than 20
p e rcent of the more than 50,000 on-
s i te systems permitted annually in Flori-
“These continuous gro u n d wa te r
l evel monitoring re c o rds show that our
s ystem maintains the re q u i red 24-inch
ve rtical separation between the dra i n-
field and the lowe red gro u n d wa te r
l evel while the natural gro u n d wa ter lev-
els outside the system va ry due to sea-
sonal fluctuations and ra i n fall eve n t s , ”
said Hassett. To achieve this, th e
NoMound system uses a low - p re s s u re
air system that activa tes the air pump
when the wa ter level within th e
NoMound rises to a set point. Pump-
ing air continues until the wa ter leve l
recedes to the set pump-off leve l .
“We can further ve r i fy the syste m ’ s
o p e ration th rough physical checks of
the air-bleed va l ve. Well screens are
placed at the design operations leve l .
Air will not fl ow th rough the air va l ve
unless the gro u n d wa ter level is below
the well screens. We can phys i c a l l y
check the air bleed va l ve to confi r m
the monitoring data for the syste m , ”
said Hassett.
Pe r formance Influences DesignC o st and re l i a b i l i ty have pro m p te d
a redesign of the monitoring dev i c e .
For future systems, the company will
use a high-level float switch similar to
those used in all pump-dosed syste m s .
A fe a t u re will be added to re c o rd and
n o t i fy the central station about situa-
tions in which the wa ter rises above
the re g u l a to ry level.
Hassett said that the company has
learned how to further increase th e
s ystem’s marke t a b i l i ty by rev i ewing its
p e rformance at the initial fi ve inst a l l a-
tions. Field experiences brought about
p re fabrication of the ge o m e m b ra n e
and a change from using an electro n i c
m o n i toring device to using a tra d i t i o n a l
m o n i toring device.
T h ree of the systems we re re t ro fi t-
ted to increase airfl ow to the pre s s u re
da are in locations that fit this descrip-
tion.
The system can be used at both
residential and commercial sites, but
the current Florida permits are for re s i-
dential use only.
S ystem Description The NoMound system st a rts with a
c o n ventional septic tank, dra i n fi e l d ,
and effluent pump designed to local
re g u l a to ry specifications. An imperme-
able ge o m e m b rane surrounds the to p
and sides of the dra i n field. Air is pre-
ve n ted from fl owing out by inst a l l i n g
the sidewalls deep enough into th e
soil to cre a te a wa ter seal in the vo i d
spaces in the soil below the dra i n fi e l d .
In most cases, the NoMound system is
not appro p r i a te for sites that have shal-
l ow bedrock formations or tight soils.
A small, 17-watt air compre s s o r
supplies the air used to maintain th e
s e p a ration distance between the wa te r
l evel beneath the dra i n field and th e
s u r rounding gro u n d wa ter level. The air
supply also delivers enough ox y gen to
s u p p o rt an environment in which bio-
logical organisms naturally found in
the soil can treat the wa stewa te r. In
the fi r st fi ve systems a monitoring de-
vice has been installed to measure th e
wa ter level inside the system and turn
the air pump on and off based upon
the wa ter level. An alarm sounds to
a l e rt the owner of potential problems.
S ystem Pe r fo r m a n c e“Each of our systems are function-
ing properly to meet the re g u l a to ry
s e p a ration re q u i rements,” said Hassett.
An independent, th i rd - p a rty company
s u b st a n t i a tes this claim. Ay res Associ-
a tes in Tampa, Florida, has collecte d
p e rformance data over the past two
years and has re p o rted it to the Florida
st a te DOH and Seminole County DOH.
Florida Approves Installationof Performance-Based NoMound Systems
Caigan M. McKenzieNSFC STAFF WRITER
ye a r, and the maintenance contra c to r
inspects the system a minimum of
twice a ye a r.
Additional components that need
to be inspected are the air supply,
wa ter table sensor, vinyl liner, and th e
weights on top of the dra i n field th a t
hold the system in place. “My bigge st
concern was that I didn’t know how
the air supply would keep the wa te r
table lowe red. I didn’t understand th e
liner would hold the air in place while
the air supply fo rced down the gro u n d-
wa te r. But after observing the inst a l l a-
tion of the liner, air supply and th e
wa ter table sensors, any concerns I
had about how the system wo r ke d
we re allev i a ted,” said Jim McRae, envi-
ronmental superv i s o r, Volusia County
D O H .
As re g u l a tors, DOH personnel are
not permitted to endorse one pro d u c t
over anoth e r. “Health depart m e n t
i n s p e c tors commonly hear
f rom homeowners th a t
th ey do not want one of
those ugly mounds in
their ya rd. We have n ’ t
re c e i ved any com-
ments from th e
h o m e owner about
the NoMound sys-
tem, which in th i s
business is go o d .
We normally only
hear from people
when th ey have
p roblems,” said
M c R a e .
23
relief va l ve when pump-dosing. The re-
maining two systems used a design
that separa ted the air supply and pre s-
s u re relief system from the pre s s u re -
dosing system. This design will be used
in future syste m s .
Various methods we re used to
weigh down the ge o m e m b rane. Some
of these include the weight of the soil
or concre te. Fu t u re designs will use
soil anchors, pre c a st concre te sections,
and corro s i o n - p ro te c ted steel assem-
blies.
S ystem CostThe conventional components of
the system (septic tank, dra i n field, and
e ffluent pumping system) cost th e
same as those used for above gro u n d
sand mounds. An additional $1,000 to
$2,000 can be added to the total cost
of the system based on the size of th e
d ra i n field and other options th a t
might be necessary for a part i c u-
lar site. Cost also varies re-
g i o n a l l y. For example, in th e
n o rth e a st, the cost of sand
is expensive, making th e
NoMound a cheaper op-
t i o n .
S ystem InspectionThe inspection
p rocess for th e
NoMound system is sim-
ilar to the inspection
p rocess for a conve n t i o n-
al system. The local DOH
inspects the systems once a
Limited Ava i l a b i l i t yHassett cites both business and
technological reasons for limiting pro d-
uct ava i l a b i l i ty. Org a n i z a t i o n a l l y, th e
c o m p a ny is not large enough to handle
high volume, and te c h n o l o g i c a l l y, th e
c o m p a ny is enhancing parts of the sys-
tem to make it more economical while
maintaining or increasing its level of
p e rformance. For example, “In the Sa n-
fo rd location, the sides and top of th e
ge o m e m b rane we re seamed to ge th e r
in the field. It took a guy with 10 ye a r s ’
experience more than th ree days to
c o m p l e te it,” said Hassett. “T h i s
m e thod proved too expensive to be
c o m m e rcially viable. Now we use a
seamless, one-piece, shop-fa b r i c a te d
m e m b rane. The septic system inst a l l a-
tion crew can install this in about th re e
hours.”
In July 2000, the Florida DOH ap-
p roved 20 more installations. Most of
these sites have been selected, and th e
s ystems are in various design, permit-
ting, and construction st a ge s .
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and
A n c h o ra ge, Alaska, have also approve d
i n stallation of these systems and are in-
cluded in the current business plan.
V i rginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin,
and Minnesota are part of Hassett’ s
2002 business plan. “But the syste m
will not be widely available in the U.S.
and Canada for seve ral years,” he said.
NoMound is planning to add deni-
t r i fication and sto r m wa ter applications
to its system.
For more information about th e
NoMound system, call Hassett at (888)
466-6686 or visit the Web site at
w w w. n o m o u n d . c o m .
Septic Tank
Control Box
Well Point
Flow Splitter
Effluent Lines
Gravel Absorbtion Bed or Trenches
Impervious Liner (PVC)
Water Level Inside Impermeable Liner
Groundwater Level
Control Box
Air Pump
Well Point
24
Electrical T rainingand Licensing ofOnsite Sy stems I n s t a l l e r sin Oregon
One nice thing about a conve n-
tional septic tank system is that it
can’t electro c u te you while yo u ’ re in-
stalling it. That isn’t true of all sys-
tems, howeve r, which is why
Umpqua Community College (UC C )
in Ro s e b u rg, Ore gon, has helped to
d evelop a training and cert i fi c a t i o n
p ro g ram to pre p a re onsite system in-
stallers to safely install electrical com-
ponents of onsite systems without a
j o u r n eyman electrician pre s e n t .
Electrical wiring is an import a n t
aspect of onsite wa stewa ter syste m
i n stallation, particularly for alte r n a t i ve
s ystems that re q u i re effluent pumps.
In most st a tes, the St a te Electrical
B o a rd, the Fire Marshall’s office, and/
or the Building Code Division re g u-
l a te specific re q u i rements for in-
stalling electrical wiring in re s i d e n t i a l
and commercial situations. Most
st a tes re q u i re that a licensed or jour-
n eyman electrician install and main-
tain an onsite system’s electrical
components. This re q u i rement ofte n
causes delays in completing inst a l l a-
tions or improper installation and
m a i n tenance by unqualified persons.
In some st a tes, this re q u i rement is ig-
n o red. In the long term, system oper-
ation re l i a b i l i ty and homeowner safe-
ty are compromised.
In an effo rt to prevent impro p e r
electrical installations and the associ-
a ted safe ty hazards, the Ore gon On-
s i te Wa stewa ter Association of Dou-
glas County and UCC in Ro s e b u rg ,
O re gon, proposed to train and cert i-
fy onsite system installers to inst a l l
the electrical components of onsite
s ystems after being cert i fied as a lim-
i ted pump installation specialty con-
t ra c to r. Early in 1998, with funding
f rom the National Onsite Demonst ra-
tion Pro g ram’s (NODP) Phase III pro j-
ect, UCC began to develop a tra i n i n g
p ro g ram for onsite system contra c to r s
( i n stallers, designers, and opera to r s )
to install and become licensed in th e
ge n e ral residential wiring of well, irri-
gation, sump, and effluent pumps.
A Collabora t i ve Effo r tEarly in the process, UCC fo r m e d
a committee that included re p re s e n t a-
t i ves from the St a te Department of
E n v i ronmental Pro tection, which li-
censes contra c tors to install onsite
wa stewa ter systems; Ore gon St a te
Un i ve r s i ty Extension; and the Douglas
C o u n ty Environmental Services.
To ge th e r, the committee contact-
ed an Ore gon legislator and ex-
plained the need for expanding th e
c u r rent law authorizing a specialty
pump contra c tor to engage in limite d
electrical work specifically re l a ted to
residential pump and effluent pump-
ing equipment. By working with th e s e
o rganizations, the legislato r’s st a ff
p re s e n ted a bill at the legislative ses-
sion outlining a training and cert i fi c a-
tion pro g ram. With the support of th e
St a te Electrical Trade Association, th e
O re gon legislature approved the bill
and included it in the Ore gon st a t u te .
Sherril Wells, former dean of care e r
and technical training at UCC, said,
“ [ I t’s essential] to find a legislato r
who is willing to listen and believes in
what yo u ’ re trying to accomplish.”
A fter successful passage of th i s
bill, the Limited Pump Inst a l l a t i o n
S p e c i a l ty Contra c tor Committe e
d ra fted an outline for a training pro-
g ram that included N a tional Electri c a l
C o d e re q u i rements, safe ty pro c e-
d u res, installation, and tro u b l e s h o o t-
ing of typical wa stewa ter electrical
s ystems and pumps. This outline wa s
p re s e n ted to the Ore gon Building
Codes Division and the Electrical and
E l eva tor Board for approval. Afte r
minor modifications, UCC began to
d evelop the training pro g ram with
NODP III funding.
P ro g ram Development UCC designed the training and
c e rt i fication workshop to give part i c i-
pants the necessary training to pur-
sue licensing, so that a system in-
staller can complete the electrical
work and install a safe system. A jour-
n eyman electrician and an electrical
engineer took the lead in writing and
d eveloping the curriculum. UCC also
c o n t ra c ted with the Orenco Syste m s ,
Inc. Marketing Department to deve l-
op text, take photo g raphs, design,
and produce the training course man-
uals. These manuals explain the com-
ponents of the training benches, pro-
vide their wiring diagrams, and de-
scribe the hands-on instruction th e
t raining benches provide. The manu-
als emphasize the practical inst a l l a-
tion of a wa stewa ter system th ro u g h
use of a specially designed wo r k-
bench that simulates the appro p r i a te
pumps, wiring, and tanks.
In pre p a ration for the tra i n i n g ,
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS
Dale Bryson, Ph.D., Terry Bounds,Sarah Farish, Jeeta Saxena, Ed.D.,and Michael Aiton
25
UCC also built a new technical cen-
ter next to the training site on th e
c o l l e ge campus in Ro s e b u rg and en-
hanced it with additional equipment,
including nine bench top models. A
room in this new fa c i l i ty is used fo r
the training and cert i fication wo r k-
shops. Sessions are limited to 18 st u-
dents at a time to allow hands-on
t raining for two students at each
wo r k b e n c h .
The curriculum includes N a ti o n a l
E l e c trical Code re q u i rements, safe ty
p ro c e d u res, and installation and tro u-
bleshooting of typical wa stewa te r
electrical system and pumps. The
p ro g ram also invo l ves participating in
a 30-hour classroom and lab tra i n i n g
p ro g ram, demonst rating compete n cy
by wiring and troubleshooting on te st
benches, passing written te sts, and
continuing education eve ry th re e
years. An important component of
the training is the cert i fication exam,
which consists of a practical exam in
which the participant responds to
t rainer questions about wiring and
t roubleshooting on te st benches and
a written te st. The St a te Electrical
B o a rd closely rev i ewed the te st be-
fo re approval.
Upon approval of the curriculum
and the re l evant te st, UCC began
p reparing for their fi r st training ses-
sion. UCC st a ff compiled a list of
a rea contra c tors, installers, designers,
and pumpers; divided the list into
t wo areas based on location in th e
st a te; and mailed those individuals a
s u rvey and letter detailing the course
and other re q u i rements. More th a n
50 percent returned their survey, and
UCC re p re s e n t a t i ves fo l l owed up
w i th letters and phone calls to th o s e
i n te re sted. With a full classroom of
18 participants and th ree inst r u c to r s ,
it was time to begin the training and
c e rt i fication pro c e s s .
Training and CertificationThe fi r st workshop took place in
F e b r u a ry 2001, and consisted of 30
hours of training. Three sessions we re
g i ven each week over the th re e - we e k
period for a total of nine sessions;
each session lasted from th ree to fo u r
hours. Topics cove red in the curricu-
lum included:
• Ore gon electrical st a t u tes appro-
p r i a te for licensing
• Basic math pertinent to wiring
and pumping demands
• Fundamental electricity
• Electrical codes using NEC and
N F PA
• La b o ra to ry session prov i d i n g
hands-on training with pumps,
equipment, and tools. (Vo l to h m-
m e ters and miscellaneous hand
tools we re prov i d e d . )
• Field troubleshooting to prov i d e
hands-on diagnostic training and
p roblem solving with typical sys-
te m s
• Sa fe ty
On completion of the tra i n i n g ,
UCC re q u i red the 18 participants to
d e m o n st ra te compete n cy by wiring
and troubleshooting on te st benches
and passing a written te st. UCC th e n
s u b m i t ted a completed license appli-
cation to the St a te of Ore gon Build-
ing Codes Division fo r
each student who met
the competencies. The
division will issue th e
l i m i ted specialty licens-
es directly to the st u-
d e n t s .
Fu t u re tra i n i n g
workshops on UC C ’ s
campus are being
planned. Howeve r, Dale
B ryson, Ph.D., UC C ’ s
dean of career and
technical training, said
that UCC’s goal is to in-
c rease the course ava i l-
a b i l i ty th rough the use
of CD-ROM and th e
World Wide We b .
“We hope to get th e
m a terial to various site s
in the st a te. To do th i s ,
we are in the process of
putting the training mate-
rial on a CD-ROM,” said
B ryson. “We also hope to put
it [the training materials] on a
Web page and have a distance edu-
cation course. With the distance edu-
cation course, th re e - fo u rths of th e
course would be taken on the We b
and the re st would be complete d
w i th two days of work on the tra i n i n g
te st bench,” he said.
E va l u a t i o nTo measure the fi r st tra i n i n g
course’s success, each part i c i p a n t
c o m p l e ted a student evaluation fo r m
that ra ted the course on inst r u c to r
p re p a ration and organization, inst r u c-
to r / student inte raction, course wo r k-
l o a d / d i ffi c u l ty, grading pro c e d u re s ,
readings and text, and ge n e ral as-
pects. Ove rall, feedback was positive .
“We got really useful comments
a fter the fi r st training,” said We l l s .
“We continue to improve it [the tra i n-
ing] and hope to learn someth i n g
each time we hold the training. Feed-
back and evaluation allow us the op-
p o rt u n i ty to improve the pro g ra m
based on re a l - world application of
the skills learned in the pro g ram.”
Wells also said that this tra i n i n g
and cert i fication, the curricula, publi-
cations, and st a n d a rdized te sting fo r
c e rt i fication can be applied re g i o n a l-
ly and st a tewide for other inte re ste d
st a tes although “portions of the cur-
ricula may need to be revised fo r
s p e c i fic st a tes and regions to incor-
p o ra te local regulations.”
This is the 240-volt training benchfor onsite pumping & electricalwiring training used at Umpqua Com-munity College in Rosebud, Oregon.
P roject Spin-of fsUCC re p re s e n t a t i ves now serve
on a committee with Ore gon’s De-
p a rtment of Environmental Quality to
plan to develop other training and
c e rt i fication courses. A pre l i m i n a ry
t raining course for installers will be
rev i ewed in January 2002.
For more information about th e
UCC pro g ram, call Bryson at (541)
4 4 0 - 4 6 0 0 .
26
in the septic tank.
There are two distinct categories of additives
used in a septic system: 1) chemical, includes inor-
ganic and organic compounds and 2) biological, in-
cludes yeast, bacteria, and enzymes. There are ap-
proximately 1,200 additive products on the market
today, many of which contain enzymes that can be
purchased through septic tank pumpers, discount
stores, and chemical companies.
Is there research on septic system additives?Over the past 40 years, there have been several
studies conducted on septic tank additives; howev-
er, there is still some debate on their effectiveness.
Part of the problem stems from the number of ad-
ditives that are marketed and the lack of an estab-
lished standard testing method for all additives.
Complicating this situation is the debate be-
tween additives manufacturers and independent re-
searchers regarding which effects are deemed ben-
eficial and which are deemed detrimental. Current-
ly, there is contention as to whether or not increas-
ing the friabilit y, or breakup, of the scum layer or
enhancing the anaerobic decomposition process is
beneficial in septic systems.
Notable studies conducted include university re-
search by William Sack, Ph.D., John T. Winneberg-
er, Ph.D., and Rein Laak, Ph.D., as well as manufac-
turer research by L&F and INTERBIO. Several other
research studies on additives were also conducted
and are discussed in the following sections. Recent-
ly, the National Association of Waste Transporters
(NAWT) conducted an
independent field study
on 12 septic tanks using
additives. The data col-
lected from this study
are currently being ana-
lyzed, and the results
should be available
soon.
What are the beneficialor detrimental effectsof additives from vari-ous research studiesconducted?
The beneficial ef fects
of biological additives on
the septic system are still
being debated, but two
How does my septic system work?Household wastewater flows into
the septic tank, where it is collected
to separate the solids—both floatable
and settleable—from the liquid por-
tion, called the “ef fluent.” During a re-
tention time of 24–48 hours, set-
tleable (heavier) solids collect in the
bottom of the tank to form a
sludge layer. Floatable
solids, such as
greases, oils, and
fats, collect at the
surface to form a
scum layer. The
partially clarified
effluent empties
into the soil ab-
sorption system.
The purpose of
the soil absorption sys-
tem is to fur ther treat and provide final disposal
of the septic tank effluent. As the wastewater
flows through a soil absorption system, it is treat-
ed by natural processes (physical, chemical, and
biological) in the soil. This is how a septic system
works in treating wastewater through natural
processes with minimal human intervention.
As with most processes found in nature, man
has attempted to mitigate the natural treatment
process found in a septic system to enhance the
efficiency and capability of the system or correct
a malfunction. This has resulted in the manufac-
ture and marketing of septic tank additives to
solve every possible problem a septic system
may encounter.
What are the different types of septic tank additives?
Recent interest in wastewater treatment and
disposal has led to the use of additives, stimula-
tors, or enhancers for a septic system. It has
been suggested that additives can be used in a
septic system to accelerate digestion of biosolids,
break up scum, improve settling through coagula-
tion, or rejuvenate a clogged soil absorption sys-
tem. However, it should be understood that, in
most cases, the purpose of using an additive is to
digest or “liquefy/gasify” the solids in a septic
tank, rejuvenate stressed bacterial populations in
the septic tank, or increase settleability of solids
Q U E S T I O N & A N S W E R
Septic Tank AdditivesEditor’s Note: The following questions are based on calls received over the National Small Flows Clearing-house’s technical assistance hotline. The information was compiled by the technical assistance staff. If youhave a question, call (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191.
Scum Layer
Effluent
SepticTank
Typical Home Septic System
27
benefits may ultimately be identified. Based on
available literature, enzymatic products might
have the ability to reduce the amount of oil and
grease in the septic tank. Second, under septic
tank bacterial “die-off” conditions, slight reduc-
tions in the amount of effluent solids have been
achieved by using additives.
A research study by Mark Gross, Ph.D. has
shown that septic tank “die off” conditions occur
when the bacteria in a septic tank are destroyed
due to the presence of toxic substances. Die-off
conditions were observed when adding a con-
centration of 1.85 gallons of liquid bleach, 5.0
gallons of liquid Lysol cleaner, or 11.3 grams of
Drano drain cleaner to a standard 1,000-gallon
septic tank. Other factors that can cause die-off
include the use of anti-bacterial agents, and, in
certain cases, medications taken by the home-
owner.
However, research conducted by Winneberg-
er, et al., suggests that some biological additives
may increase the biological activity to the point
where excess solids can be carried into the soil
absorption system. This occurs when anaerobic
decomposition of solids causes the formation of
methane gas. As they rise, bubbles push solids
up from the settled portion of the septic tank. Ul-
timately, this may lead to solids “carryover” to
the soil absorption system where clogging can
ensue.
Contrary to the ability of enzymatic products
to reduce scum, the ef fects of degradation in the
scum layer are believed to be detrimental to a
soil absorption system. The scum layer “holds”
fats, grease, and floatables, preventing their es-
cape to the soil absorption system. Enzymatic
products can “break up” this scum layer and in-
crease its mobility, allowing it to enter the soil
absorption system.
Some chemical additives that have been used
in septic systems include hydrogen peroxide, sul-
furic acid, formaldehyde, baking soda, and alum.
J. Harkin proposed that hydrogen peroxide could
be used to restore the infiltrative capac-
ity of a failed or clogged soil absorp-
tion system. However, it was also re-
ported from another study that hydro-
gen peroxide could agitate soils con-
taining fines (clayey and loamy soil),
destroying the soil structure, thereby
decreasing the soil’s permeabilit y.
A number of products sold over-the-
counter for soil absorption systems and
clogged drain pipes contain sulfuric
acid, which is highly corrosive in con-
centrated form. This could af fect the
microbial population in the septic tank
and soil absorption system, and con-
tribute to structural weakness when ap-
plied directly to a concrete tank. The
use of sulfuric acid might result in se-
vere burns if it comes into contact with
human skin.
It should be noted that the federal govern-
ment does not control the use and disposal of
hazardous substances in small quantities pur-
chased from supermarkets. Additives used to
control odor by controlling excessive anaerobic
growth may contain formaldehyde, paraform-
aldehyde, quarternary ammonium, and zinc sul-
fate as active ingredients. Although these chemi-
cals are biodegradable with dilution, they are
biocidal at full strength.
Organic chemicals used in additives include
organic solvents or surfactants that have been re-
formulated to make the product safe for the en-
vironment. Even at these approved safe levels,
napthalenes, alkanes, and benzenes sometimes
used as ingredients in portable toilet cleaners
and deodorizers are significant pollutants, and
should not be added to a septic system.
Do I need to use an additive in my septic sys-tem to keep it working?
A homeowner does not need to add a stimu-
lator or an enhancer to a septic tank that is de-
signed, operated, and maintained properly—natu-
rally occurring bacteria are already present with-
in human fecal matter. Contrary to popular be-
lief, yeast, dead chickens, possums, or raw ham-
burger do not need to be added to the septic
tank.
Chemical additives, such as caustic hydrox-
ides and sulfuric acid, should never be added to
a septic system. Adding these products will de-
stroy the bacterial population in the septic tank,
change the permeability characteristics of the
soil absorption system, and may cause ground-
water contamination. Often, manufacturers of bi-
ological additives market their use to restore the
bacterial balance in a septic tank on a monthly
basis as part of a routine maintenance program.
This is not necessary because these bacteria al-
ready reside in human feces.
There are special instances when the use of a
biological additive may be warranted, such as
when homeowners take antibiotics or other pre-
scription medications. However, it should be
noted that research is still needed in this area.
Claims made on the effectiveness of additives
to either eliminate pumping of a septic tank or
restore permeability of the soil absorption sys-
tem are unsubstantiated. No product will allow a
homeowner to escape a regular septic tank
pumping and maintenance schedule.
The debate on the issue of using an additive
can be resolved only through a cooperative re-
search effort from independent/unbiased re-
searchers (such as universities and research cen-
ters) and additive manufacturers to determine
their true effectiveness and reveal their limita-
tions.
If you have additonal questions about septic
tank additives, call NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or
(304) 293-4191.
Drainfield
Sludge
Proposed National Onsite Standards: A Broad Assessment of Their Relative Benefits to Industry
28
Re c e n t l y, th e re has been much dis-
cussion re g a rding a proposed national
st a n d a rd of system performance and
its potential benefits to the manufa c-
t u rers and purveyors of onsite wa ste-
wa ter treatment systems. The primary
s o u rces of this position have been
t wo papers by Valerie Nelson, Ph.D.
(Nelson, 2000 and 2001), other na-
tional confe rence papers (Otis, 1999;
S wanson, 2001; and Corry and
Kaminski, 2000), and a number of Na-
tional Onsite Wa stewa ter Re cyc l i n g
Association (NOW RA ) - d e r i ved re p o rt s
by Michael Corry.
Nelson correctly points out in her
papers that the onsite industry is
highly dependent on regulators and
that manufacturers/suppliers prefer a
standard based upon treatment sys-
tem effluent to one that includes the
treatment role played by soil. She
also is correct in emphasizing the
need to include management in the
performance of the treatment system
and the need for industry to partner
with re g u l a tors and others in demon-
st rating treatment capability.
M a n u fa c t u rer/suppliers also can
be heartened by the U.S. Enviro n m e n-
tal Pro tection Age n cy’s recent re l e a s e
Vo l u nta ry National Guidelines for Man -
a ge m e nt of Onsite/Decentra l i z e d
Wa s t e water Tr e a t m e nt Fa c i l i ti e s ( E PA ,
2000), which encoura ges an ove ra l l
u p g rade in the level of manage m e n t
for these systems. Management fos-
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS
James F. Kreissl and Paul Chase, M.A., L.E.H.P.
ters improved performance by all sys-
tems, especially those that are more
complex than the conventional septic
tank/soil absorption system.
Treatment system purveyors also
must be encouraged by the EPA’s En-
vironmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program, which allows them to
verify per formance claims in a nation-
al third-party setting, and the slowly-
growing number of onsite-practitioner
training centers, which af ford them
an opportunity to provide hands-on
training to designers, installers, and
operators of their products.
PROBLEM STATEMENTAlthough the above signs are posi-
tive, equipment manufacturer/suppli-
ers are still restricted by a regulatory
system dominated by prescriptive
codes in most states. Most of these
codes imply that the most important
site conditions are based upon perco-
lation and other hydraulics-based soil
tests to determine soil absorption sys-
tem sizing and prescribed setbacks
from site features. These results dic-
tate whether a conventional septic
tank/soil absorption system can be in-
stalled that will protect the public
health. Under the typical regulatory
regime, there is no further require-
ment imposed on the system manag-
er/homeowner, unless the system fails
and is reported as a public nuisance
to the local regulators.
ABSTRACT: In most states, onsite
wastewater treatment system manufac-
turers and suppliers are restricted by reg-
ulatory systems that are dominated by
prescriptive codes. When a site does not
meet prescriptive code requirements,
states often do not allow many alterna-
tive onsite system designs, even if their
performance has been proven elsewhere
on similar sites. Local code administra-
tors usually have no incentive to try new
systems that are not already approved by
the state. In this article, the authors ex-
amine the impact of the current state
regulatory environment on the onsite
wastewater industry as well as various
ideas being proposed for its reform. Po-
tential benefits of these reforms to the
onsite industry are assessed.
Editor’s Note: Similar to John Herring’s article, “A Private Market Approach to Onsite Wastewater TreatmentSystems Maintenance,” which appeared in the the Fall 2001 Small Flows Quarterly (NSFC Item #SFQUNL08),this peer-reviewed article proposes ideas about onsite wastewater treatment management in small communi-ties. Although they differ from the scientific and technical research articles usually presented in this section,we hope that readers find these juried articles interesting and informative. If you would like to comment onthe ideas presented in this or any Small Flows Quarterly article, please write to the editor at the address or e-mail listed on page 2.
29
Also, given the budget limitations
of the re g u l a to ry st a ff, th ey may be re-
luctant and, indeed, unable to assume
the additional re s p o n s i b i l i ty of assur-
ing proper management of these high-
e r - p e rforming and usually more man-
a ge m e n t - i n te n s i ve new technologies.
Finally, some regulators of pre-
scriptive codes have openly ex-
pressed their fear that they would be
unable to regulate a performance-
based code due to property-access is-
sues and the lack of capable staff and
resources (May, 2000). In a perform-
ance-based system, regulatory agen-
cies would require more capable and
better-trained staff than is required for
prescriptive code regulation.
CONCEPTUAL SOLUTIONOver the past few years there has
been increasing consensus on the
value of performance-based codes to
open up the field to new concepts.
EPA’s new publication, Onsite Waste -
water Treatment Systems Manual
(EPA, 2001), has intentionally been
written based upon that concept to
stimulate such advances.
The definition of perfo r m a n c e -
based codes used herein is one where
p ro p r i e t a ry and nonpro p r i e t a ry syste m s
or combinations th e reof are designed
and installed to meet specific site and
wa tershed goals. These systems are
m a n a ged and monito red to ensure th a t
th ey perform in accordance with th e
design assumptions. The emphasis is
on centralized management of onsite
wa stewa ter systems, which is elemental
to successful advancement of the fi e l d .
The primary barriers to this tra n s i t i o n
h ave been outlined in the EPA publica-
tion Response to Congress on Use of
D e c e ntralized Wa s t e water Tr e a t m e nt
S y s t e m s (EPA, 1997).
Among the key barriers identified
are the need for enabling legislation
If an onsite system fails, the reg-
ulator usually must verify the failure
and attempt through whatever
means available to have the owner
repair the problem, since local offi-
cials rarely, if ever, evoke civil penal-
ties and/or prosecution and eviction.
When a site evalua-
tion does not meet
prescriptive code
requirements,
many states do not
allow many of the
marketed alternative
onsite treatment
systems that have been proven in
other locations to
overcome specific site
limitations. And, some
states only allow a spe-
cific few alternative
systems that have
been incorporated in
their codes.
The reasons fo r
these barriers to alte r-
n a t i ve onsite te c h n o l o-
gies are many, but th e
essence is that re g u l a-
tors are limited by th e
p re s c r i p t i ve codes
under which th e i r
st a tes opera te. Most
p re s c r i p t i ve st a te codes
do not allow many al-
te r n a t i ve systems nor
rewa rd the local code
a d m i n i st ra tors for try-
ing new systems th a t
a re not already ap-
p roved by the st a te.
A n o ther re a s o n
some st a tes disallow
m a ny alte r n a t i ve sys-
tems is because th e re
is no re q u i rement for providing th e
n e c e s s a ry management to assure th e i r
s u stained performance. Re g u l a tors are
c h a rged with a re s p o n s i b i l i ty to pro-
tect public health, and the data sup-
p o rting many of the newer systems are
o ften unconvincing, especially in light
of the fact that managing the system
remains the responsibility of the
homeowner.
The onsite
wastewater indus-
try is forced to
market its prod-
ucts to an enor-
mous number of
regulators, who
not only are not
the system buy-
ers, but also may
be reluctant to in-
corporate these
products into
their programs.
(Most local/state
regulators are pro-
hibited from “rec-
ommending” spe-
cific products be-
cause of potential
conflict of inter-
est. What regula-
tors commonly do
is review the
product and then
incorporate it ei-
ther into the code
or some sort of
official regulatory
list of acceptable products.)
Re g u l a tors may be reluctant to
a l l ow alte r n a t i ve systems, given the lack
of an accountable management entity
to properly opera te these systems and
to provide monitoring data to ensure
th ey are performing as anticipate d .
...the essence is that
regulators are limited
in the first place by
the prescriptive codes
under which their
states operate. Most
of these codes neither
allow many alterna-
tive systems nor re-
ward the local code
administrators for try-
ing new systems not
already approved by
the state.
30
to encourage accountable manage-
ment entities and the need to restruc-
ture the regulatory establishment to
accommodate such a radical change.
The continued emphasis on home-
owner management and the lack of
empowerment of management enti-
ties to enforce performance require-
ments with legal actions are the tar-
gets in attempting to attack and mini-
mize those existing barriers. Perfor-
mance standards make the role of
system management paramount to
success, shift the regulatory role to-
ward one of compliance oversight,
and encourage better and more ac-
countable ways to accomplish public
health and environmental protec-
tion/remediation goals.
H oweve r, it may be ve ry diffi c u l t
for long-time pre s c r i p t i ve-code, public
h e a l th pro tection re g u l a tors to con-
c e i ve of a system in which th ey also
m u st be concerned with wa tershed
issues and share control with priva te
and quasi-public sectors that assume
re s p o n s i b i l i ty for onsite system per-
formance, monitoring, enfo rc e m e n t ,
residuals management, re c o rd - ke e p i n g
and fi n a n c i a l / a d m i n i st ra t i ve functions.
In light of changing attitudes and
restrictions, the onsite wastewater in-
dustry has recognized the need to or-
ganize its diverse factions and reach
out to the rest of the public health
and environmental field by forming
the National Onsite Wastewater Re-
cycling Association (NOWRA).
NOWRA brought the regulators, aca-
demics, installers, designers, and
other practitioners into a national dia-
logue to attempt to find solutions to
the many problems common to the
entire industry. This organization has
had much success in defining some
of the problems through meaningful
dialogue among the parties, but as
yet has not succeeded in solving
some of the core problems.
Out of this dialogue has come
NOWRA’s Model Framework for Un -
sewered Wastewater Infrastructure
(www.nowra.com/), which outlines
the need for the “perpetual manage-
ment” of all systems and for perform-
ance standards that meet local re-
quirements. The framework also out-
lines the need for onsite system moni-
toring to assure compliance, and for
the training, licensing, and certifica-
tion of all onsite system practitioners.
will the site evaluation procedures
need to change? Can ef fluent quality
be scientifically predicted by specific
amounts of vertical and horizontal
separation? Will those trade-offs be
the same under all sets of conditions?
Can such a code account for all the
variations that can be encountered in
the field? And is there enabling legis-
lation to support the shift from the
present paradigm of prescriptive and
restrictive codes to one that has a
broader number of choices, but re-
quires responsible management and
monitoring?
The process of developing the
model code and dealing with these
issues will be quite lengthy and cost-
ly, and it runs the risk of substituting a
more varied set of prescriptive code
options for the present restrictive
ones if it ever does get completed.
There is no doubt that the
NOWRA model code process has
some benefits for the onsite treat-
ment equipment industry in defining
research and performance testing re-
quirements and in opening some
markets. But does it lessen the need
to procure third-party performance
data for products? When several de-
sign packages are encoded to meet a
certain performance standard, will a
manufacturer-developed better way
be shut out from consideration by the
regulators using such a code?
The answer to these questions will
be determined by how the product
model code is used by the regulators.
If it is developed as a series of
design and management ex-
amples to meet a variety of
onsite waste-
water per-
formance
require-
ments, a
concept
consis-
tent
with the
NOWRA
framework,
it will be useful to
all members of the industr y.
If it becomes a series of codified reg-
ulatory requirements, it may serve to
stifle advances in the field, a concept
that is not consistent with the
NOWRA model framework.
ONE APPROAC H : A NAT I O N A LMODEL CODEP re s e n t l y, NOW RA’s Technical Pra c-
tices Committee has spawned a new
subcommittee to develop a model on-
s i te performance code. This subcom-
m i t tee has sugge sted that a national
model code is needed as a st a n d a rd-
ized base document to be used by
st a te and local re g u l a tors for incorpo-
ration into codes and by product man-
u fa c t u rers to fa c i l i t a te innovation and
technological deployment (Corry and
Kaminski, 2000). NOW RA is posi-
tioned to initiate the development of
such a sugge sted national code, be-
cause the organization encompasses
the full ra n ge of indust ry part i c i p a n t s
and offers an ideal setting for initial
d ra fting of such a code if consiste n t
w i th the NOW RA model fra m ework de-
scribed prev i o u s l y.
The subcommittee proposed a
performance matrix that relates ef flu-
ent quality to water quality, or per-
formance standards and “quality as-
surance standards.” The quality assur-
ance standards are essentially a set of
management requirements to sustain-
ably attain the ef fluent quality with
the technologies chosen in a particu-
lar design. A series of output (effluent
quality) standards would recognize
that the health and environmental
risks of specific treatment designs
vary with site conditions and pro-
posed uses of the treated wastewater.
The theory is that this matrix concept
will anticipate all combinations of
conditions and prevent an overly re-
strictive, simplified code that is likely
be rejected by regulators. At present,
there are a myriad of procedural and
financial support issues to be decided
by the subcommittee to move the
code forward.
One key question is whether a
model code developed on the basis
of incomplete and conflicting existing
data would be universally accepted
by regulatory agencies. How would
these regulators choose which design
packages and which set of site condi-
tions and management capabilities to
accept? To what degree will site - by - s i te
p ro fessional engineering be impacted?
Present site evaluation procedures
will likely not be acceptable for use
with the code packages. So how then
31
The wholesale adoption of such a
code, or packages written in code-like
language, requires significant changes
in any regulatory program that has
heretofore been based upon prescrip-
tive codes. Such changes must be pre-
ceded by significant political actions,
which may take months or years to
accomplish. In the interim, regulators
cannot implement such a code unless
management of more advanced tech-
nologies can be assured. Any adop-
tion of this code that does not make
all the other required changes in the
regulatory program will be an exam-
ple of attacking the symptoms and
not the disease.
ANOTHER APPROACH: REGULA-TORY REFORM
One of the first goals of meaning-
ful reduction of this barrier to onsite
wastewater treatment system accept-
ance is to have decentralized waste-
water solutions considered as full and
equal alternatives to centralized con-
ventional sewerage and treatment. To
gain an equal footing with communi-
ty-wide or centralized technologies,
onsite systems must be regulated in
the same way as the so-called “con-
ventional” systems. The latter are clas-
sified by the environmental regulatory
agencies as point sources of dis-
charge, while all subsurface onsite sys-
tems are labeled with stormwater as
nonpoint sources.
Point sources are permitted in a
specific watershed by the permitting
officials of a state or tribe based on
the water-quality-modeled ability of
the receiving stream (watershed) to
accept the additional pollutant load-
ings from that source and maintain its
designated water quality status. Offi-
cials from the state’s environmental
agency generally perform oversight or
permitting and oversee the point
source discharges within state bor-
ders. These officials operate as an
oversight agency to the local govern-
ments who are the management
agencies for these treatment facilities.
The primary role of the state
agency is to assign permit require-
ments and, on a predetermined basis
(typically based on size of the popu-
lation served), to check if the local
agency is performing in accordance
with the permit they received. The
local management agency is responsi-
ble for the operation, maintenance,
and monitoring of the permitted facili-
ties and has the authority to fine or
otherwise enforce compliance from
its contributory sources (i.e., the resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial
sources that discharge to the munici-
pal sewer).
The state also is responsible for
the overall water quality of the water-
shed and periodically monitors this di-
rectly, in addition to monitoring re-
ports submitted by the local manage-
ment agency. In most states, onsite
systems are regulated by the state
health agencies, which, in turn, dele-
gate that responsibility to local health
d e p a rtments, while the other non-
point sources are combined with
point sources under the enviro n m e n-
tal age n cy’s jurisdiction.
Some st a tes do have these re-
sponsibilities under one
a ge n cy, but most separa te
these responsibilities in a simi-
lar fashion to divisions that op-
e ra te independently.
The analogy to point
source regulation for managed
onsite systems is that either the
same state environmental agency,
a new agency which combines the
state health department and the envi-
ronmental agency, or some other
combination of state and local agen-
cies responsible for all land-based
water pollution sources (possibly in-
cluding local health departments)
would manage the entire array of
stormwater and wastewater sources
within a specific basin or watershed
in the same manner that point source
discharges are now handled. These
state/regional/tribal agencies would
allot discharge permits to local waste-
water management agencies based
on water quality goals and watershed
management models, just as point-
source National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits
are now issued. The result that
should entice states and tribes would
not only be a comprehensive water-
shed plan that permits the maximum
protection for every dollar spent, but
one that has unified jurisdiction over
all the major pollutant sources.
By having the ability to use all
types of wastewater control technolo-
gies, the local management entity
can evaluate and implement optimum
regional solutions that mix onsite,
cluster, and centralized technologies
in a setting that includes the other
sources of pollutants in the most cost-
effective manner. Since all types of
systems are managed by the same au-
thority, the management agency can
implement standardization of materi-
als and methods; consolidate system
operation, maintenance, and monitor-
ing; and centralize administrative,
billing, and outreach programs. The
watershed thus becomes the manage-
ment entity’s client and its condition
their responsibility.
In this scenario, the manage m e n t
a ge n cy would be responsible for any
wa tershed degradation in the same
way the manager of a point-source fa-
c i l i ty is responsible under the pre s e n t
NPDES rules. The role of st a te re g u l a-
tors is to rev i ew the monitoring and re-
p o rting documents submitted by th e
local management age n cy and to peri-
odically monitor the wa tershed quality
as an independent check on the man-
a gement age n cy’s monitoring results.
The difficulties in implementing
m a n a gement pro g rams are fairly we l l
k n own, but the magnitude of th e
a b ove idealized scenario would make
this approach a major change in how
st a tes normally re g u l a te wa stewa te r
s ystems. Pre s e n t l y, the National Capac-
i ty Development Project is sponsoring
a study of such st a tewide re g ulatory
consolidations and revisions by the En-
v i ronmental Re s e a rch Inst i t u te of th e
St a tes (ERIS). Howeve r, any such shift
in st a te policies is also considered only
a re l a t i vely long-term possibility.
32
In terms of value to manufa c t u re r /
suppliers of onsite wa stewa ter tre a t-
ment systems, the fl e x i b i l i ty that wo u l d
be afforded through such manage-
ment would be beneficial compared
to the present state regulatory sys-
tem. The existing set of models that
can accurately determine the specific
contributions of pollutants by the vari-
ous sources to the watershed is far
from adequate; however, these tools
improve each day. Even without this
accuracy, the relative contributions
(i.e., large versus small sources) can
be estimated, thus allowing regulators
to comprehensively address water-
shed problems.
HOMEOWNER INSURANCE: THEBEST APPROACH?
A potentially powerful tool for
change in the onsite wastewater in-
dustry—and one that can promote
support for more precipitous regula-
tory reform from such forces as lend-
ing institutions, land developers, and
mortgage companies—is the home-
owners insurance program. This con-
cept has been germinated in Wash-
ington State through an evaluation of
accountability.
Under the present system of on-
site system regulation, a prescriptive
code is applied based upon the site
evaluation. If the site meets the code
requirements, the system is designed,
installed, and permitted, and it is con-
sidered a success if the regulator
never hears of it again. If the system
does not pass the prescriptive re-
quirements, the “book” has been fol-
lowed and the individual or develop-
er who seeks to build on that site is
out of luck.
Using the pre s c r i p t i ve codes and
noting only hyd raulic fa i l u res of ap-
p roved systems has yielded fa i l u re ra te s
of from 1 percent to 10 percent (EPA ,
2001). No criterion for fa i l u re of onsite
s ystems resulting in pollution of wa te r-
shed re s o u rces has yet to be unive r s a l-
ly applied, despite considerable anec-
dotal and some scientific evidence of
g ro u n d wa ter and nearby surface wa te r
contamination from onsite systems th a t
met applicable codes at the time of
their installation. The hyd raulic fa i l u re
ra tes and environmental contamination
ra tes would result in ove rall perfo r m-
ance fa i l u re ra tes high enough to gain
the attention of policy makers at all lev-
els of gove r nm e n t .
the monitoring data generated by the
industry for future regulatory code
modifications.
A pro g ram of this nature re q u i re s
an intricate series of incentives to
each member-group invo l ved in th e
s i te evaluation, design, inst a l l a t i o n ,
and operation of onsite systems. The
p ro g ram also incorpora tes cert i fi c a-
tion and training of all of these vital
p l ayers in the process, including th e
re g u l a tors. Under such a pro g ram, a
national set of performance te st i n g
st a n d a rds would have more utility
than in the present re g u l a to ry para-
digm, but th ey would still be only as
good as the data upon which th ey are
based. Howeve r, a more useful data-
base of fi e l d - ge n e ra ted perfo r m a n c e
st a n d a rds would eventually superc e d e
or enhance the pre t reatment st a n-
d a rd, which has inherent we a k n e s s e s
since it only est i m a tes soil tra n s fo r m a-
tions and re m oval of pollutants.
What would such a new onsite in-
d u st ry image mean to manufa c t u re r /
suppliers? It would mean that th ey
could work th rough a more complete
set of st a te onsite wa stewa ter tra i n i n g
c e n ters, which would be re q u i red to
implement training re q u i rements fo r
c e rt i fication. These training cente r s
should fa c i l i t a te trainees (all of the on-
s i te st a keholders) in becoming more
c o m fo rtable with their equipment.
T h ey could also implement a more
meaningful form of a national pre t re a t-
ment code th rough those training cen-
ters and their partner universities by
utilizing trainees who can provide low -
c o st sampling and analysis support
during the te st performance period.
This te sting could be performed as
p a rt of the training pro g rams.
Technology te sting pro c e d u res at
the training centers could be rev i ewe d
and approved by a national entity,
such as NOW RA, NSF Inte r n a t i o n a l ,
the National Small Flows Clearing-
house (NSFC), the National Enviro n-
mental Training Center for Small Com-
munities (NETCSC), or other re c o g-
nized organizations to ensure a mean-
ingful te st outcome th rough application
of proper quality assura n c e / q u a l i ty
c o n t rol pro c e d u res. Such a shift from a
national to regional te sting would st i l l
h ave national significance th rough te st
outcome dissemination (te c h n o l o g y
t ra n s fer) by one or more info r m a t i o n
t ra n s fer entities. Also, the trainees (de-
signers, installers, re g u l a tors, and man-
a ge r / o p e ra tors) will rec e i ve “hands-on”
Yet, despite these circumstances,
often no one person or system is held
accountable. The regulator follows
the code based upon possibly incor-
rect or incomplete data generated by
the site evaluator (who often doubles
as a regulator). The system designer
and installer generally will not suffer a
loss of future business even though
they may not have done everything
according to the rules. Worse, be-
cause of the nature of prescriptive
codes, the failure may have occurred
despite the fact that all of them per-
formed quite well in their roles. How-
ever, it is the homeowner/system
owner who will likely incur the finan-
cial loss and a possible health hazard
due to the failure. Under present
practice, it is unlikely that any person
in the process other than the home-
owner will be held accountable.
Is it any wonder that most citizens
who experience onsite wa stewa te r
s ystem fa i l u res, for whatever re a s o n ,
want to be on a sewer and will pay a
p remium for a house which is so
s e rved? For a home that has been
s ewe red the homeow n e r’s re s p o n s i b i l-
i ty ge n e rally is negligible, and his/her
only concern is to pay the month l y
c h a rge for that convenience. The
m a n a gement age n cy ge n e rally care s
for all system problems, unless th ey
occur on the custo m e r’s pro p e rty.
A more accountable industry-wide
approach for onsite wastewater sys-
tems is being considered at this time
by NOWRA. This effort involves an
attempt to upgrade the entire onsite
industry through an insurance pro-
gram that gives every practitioner in
the onsite wastewater industry a stake
in the success of each onsite system
by guaranteeing the owner that the
system will perform as designed. The
accountability in such a program
transfers to the industry (i.e., the site
evaluator, the designer, the equip-
ment manufacturer, the installer and
the operator of the system).
NOWRA, in effect, negotiates the
agreement with the insurer and moni-
tors success and subsequent modifi-
cations to coverage rates for practi-
tioners based upon their perform-
ance. The regulator’s role in the
process shifts, owing to the industry’s
assumption of responsibility, toward
oversight. Therefore, regulators assure
that service providers (e.g., site evalu-
ators, designers, installers, and opera-
tors) assume responsibility and track
33
experience and a heightened level of
confidence in the field application of
these technologies. Furthermore,
some units, which are sensitive to cli-
matic conditions or wastewater alka-
linity, for example, are best tested at
more than one location. In such
cases, a mini-test procedure to deter-
mine the impact of a specific set of
regional conditions on a technology
might be performed to both enhance
local approvals and to add to the na-
tionwide database.
Even if such secondary tests were
not absolutely necessary, the value of
the regional testing process to the
manufacturer is greater than having
expensive national test results ignored
because of concerns over such condi-
tion variations. The widespread tech-
nology transfer of these regional tests
through various mechanisms, such as
ASAE, NSFC, and NOWRA publica-
tions, etc., in paper and electronic
formats will create a large, readily
useable database for practitioners
throughout the country, thus relieving
manufacturers of this burdensome re-
sponsibility. This dynamic database of
testing and field monitoring results in
a system where it is to everyone’s
benefit to ensure success of every in-
stallation would make performance-
based regulation a reality in almost all
political boundaries, and insurance
rates would be minimized through re-
duced failures.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSA critical review of Nelson’s (2000
and 2001) remarks indicates that her
premise that the industry will benefit
from a national “pretreatment” stan-
dard will have its greatest validity
when the regulatory process for on-
site wastewater systems changes from
one of applying strict prescriptive
standards to one of overseeing local
or regional onsite system manage-
ment by applying some form of per-
formance-based standards. These per-
formance-based standards may be en-
abled through legislation, regulatory
reform, or by the onsite industry as-
suming responsibility for system per-
formance. In order to facilitate a tran-
sition to more performance-based
standards, the onsite wastewater in-
dustry would be well-advised to sup-
port industry-wide shifts through in-
ternally conceived changes. An exam-
ple would be the insurance program
described above, which requires the
entire industry to have a vital stake in
the performance of each and every
onsite system.
Reliance on outside forces, such
as state legislators or regulatory re-
form can be a long and cumbersome
process and will have less likelihood
of success due to the fragmentation
of these units (e.g., almost 50 state
codes). Also, internally driven
changes are self-regulating, simplif y-
ing the role of regulators from that of
overworked ”hands-on” practitioners
to that of oversight agents and
guardians of public health and water-
sheds in their political jurisdiction.
This is quite analogous to regulators
of point sources (i.e., the environmen-
tal agencies) and begs the question
as to why the onsite wastewater sys-
tems are regulated dif ferently at this
time under the present regulatory sys-
tem.
In summary, any discussion of the
value of a national pretreatment stan-
dard must include the regulatory con-
text of the discussion. In the present
prescriptive and often unaccountable
regulatory system, such a standard
has minimal value to a manufactur-
er/supplier of onsite wastewater treat-
ment equipment. It would have more
value in a per formance-standard-
based regulatory system, but even in
this context its value would be limit-
ed. Such a standard always will be in-
complete by definition because it will
fail to account for all local site condi-
tions and may stifle the adoption of
new ideas.
The value of a comprehensive
training and certification-based onsite
wastewater industry shift, which relies
upon multiple state and regional test-
ing and training centers, would offer
manufacturers greater advantages
than any central testing approach.
Therefore, it would be in the manu-
facturer/suppliers’ best interest to
support efforts, such as the NOWRA
insurance concept that, by its very na-
ture, would drive these kinds of
changes from within the industry. This
would be a far more effective strategy
than waiting for external (political)
forces to realize and finally adopt
changes in the regulatory system that
would support expanding markets for
their products.
REFERENCESCorry, M., and R. Kaminski. 2000. National onsite
model performance code: is it the right time?”.Presentation to NSFC Onsite Regulators Confer-ence.
May, R. 2000. Reservations about management ofdecentralized systems and “alternative” sys-tems. Morgantown, WV: Small Flows Quarterly.vol. 1. no. 2. 8–9.
Nelson, V. I. 2000. Market growth strategies: lessonsfrom the literature. Presentation to NOWRA Con-ference. Grand Rapids, MI.
———. 2001. A market analysis of the need for stan-dards in the decentralized wastewater industry. Pro -ceedings of the 9th National Onsite WastewaterTreatment Conference. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.516–523.
Nelson, V. I., S. P. Dix, and F. C. Shephard. 1999. Ad-vanced onsite wastewater treatment and manage-ment scoping study: assessment of short-term op-portunities and long-run potential. EPRI, NRECA,and WERF Report.
NOWRA. 1999. Model framework for unseweredwastewater infrastructure. Laurel, Maryland.www.nowra.com/
Otis, R. J. 1999. Establishing risk-based performancestandards. Paper to NEHA meeting, Nashville, TN.
Otis, R. J. 2001. Personal Communication.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Re -
sponse to Congress on use of decentralized waste -water treatment systems.Washington, D.C.EPA/832/R-97/001b.
———. 2000. Guidelines for management of onsite/de-centralized wastewater systems. Federal Register.October 6, 2000. www.epa.gov/owm/smallc/guidelines.htm
———. 2001. Onsite wastewater treatment systems man-ual. Offices of Wetlands, Oceans and WatershedsResearch and Development. Cinncinati, Ohio:EPA/625/R-00/008.
Yeager, T. E. 2001. Personal Communication.
James F. Kreisslled the EPA decentral-
ized wastewater sys-
tems research programs
for nearly 3 decades.
He is now an independ-
ent environmental con-
sultant, member of the Steering
Committee of the National Decen-
tralized Water Resources Capacity
Development Project, and an affili-
ate of the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse.
Paul K. Chase, M.A.,L.E.H.P.,is president of Chase
Environmental Services,
Inc., a consulting firm
that specializes in onsite
and small community
wastewater systems. Before becoming
a consultant, he spent 18 years with
the DuPage County Health Depart-
ment in Illinois, where he managed
the onsite wastewater and other envi-
ronmental health programs. Chase
also is a National Small Flows Clear-
inghouse affiliate.
34
Funding Wa t e rC o n s e r vation andReuse with theClean Water StateR evolving Fund
Developed by the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Water,
this fact sheet discuss-
es the Clean Water
Act (CWA) of 1987,
which authorized the
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWS-
RF) to finance point
source, nonpoint
source, and estuary
projects. The pro-
grams work like banks, using federal and state
contributions to capitalize or set up the pro-
grams. These assets, in turn, are used to make
low- or no-interest loans. Repaid funds are recy-
cled to pay for other water quality projects. This
fact sheet describes how the CWSRF works, how
to fund a project, and the sources of loan repay-
ments. Examples of successful projects are sum-
marized. This two-page fact sheet may be useful
to engineers, local and public health officials, op-
erators, planners, finance officers, and the gener-
al public.
The cost is 40 cents plus shipping. Request
Item #FMFSFN35.
Fat-Free Sewers: How toPrevent Fats, Oils, andGreases from DamagingYour Home and theEnvironment
Fats, oils, and greases aren’t
just bad for your arteries—they’re
bad for sewers too. Sewer over-
flows and backups can cause
health hazards, damage home in-
teriors, and threaten the environ-
ment. An increasingly common
cause of overflows is sewer pipes
blocked by grease. Grease gets
into the sewer from household
drains, as well as from poorly
maintained grease traps in restau-
rants and other businesses. This two-page Water
Environment Federation brochure explains
where grease comes from, the results of grease
clogging, and what we can do to prevent grease
problems. The information here may be particu-
larly useful to those involved in community edu-
cation, as well as engineers, managers, contrac-
tors/developers, finance of ficers, operators, plan-
ners, local and public health officials, and the
general public.
The cost is 30 cents plus shipping. Request
Item #WWBRPE62.
BaselineInformation onSmall CommunityWastewater Needsand FinancialAssistance
In 1997, the EPA
Office of Wastewater,
Municipal Support
Division, formed the
Small Underserved
Communities Team.
One goal of the team
was to develop base-
line information about
small community
wastewater treatment
needs and to deter-
mine the level of finan-
cial assistance provided to date. The team’s data
analysis showed that, although considerable ef-
fort has been made to address
the wastewater needs of small
communities, significant needs re-
main. This fact sheet summarizes
the findings and lists resources for
further information. State and lo-
cal officials and financial officers
may be particularly interested in
this information.
The cost is 40 cents plus ship-
ping. Request Item #WWFSFN36.
A Guide to Safety inConfined Spaces
Developed by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety
& Health (NIOSH), this booklet
N e w
Are AvailableNSFC Products
35
control infrastructure projects through the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, local
governments’ infrastructure needs are estimated
to be approximately $200 billion. One funding
approach is to consider using public-private par t-
nerships that have private sector resources to fi-
nance wastewater treatment needs. This EPA
Office of Water book has three major objectives:
first, to provide an overview of the privatization
of publicly owned wastewater treatment works
(POTW) that were financed through EPA’s
Construction Grants Program, research and
demonstration programs, and special
Congressional appropriations. Second, the manu-
al discusses factors a local government should
consider when evaluating privatization, and final-
ly, it describes the information local governments
must gather for EPA’s review and approval of pro-
posed disposition types of arrangements. Local
officials, members of the community, planners,
managers, and finance officers will find this infor-
mation of particular interest.
Although the book is free, shipping charges
still apply. Request Item #WWBKPP07.
EnvironmentalPlanning forCommunities:A Guide to theEnvironmentalVisioningProcessUtilizing aGeographicInformationSystem (GIS)
As an essential
step in community-
based environmen-
tal protection, com-
munity leaders, citi-
zens, and planners
develop an envi-
ronmental vision of their preferred “green” com-
munity. One important tool to help develop such
a vision is the geographic information system
(GIS) technology—computer software that can be
used to produce maps, support scientific analy-
sis, and depict environmental data in relation to
the geography and the capacity to model the
landscape as it may evolve over time. This guide
explains how communities can use a GIS. It pro-
vides introductory material for newcomers to the
GIS technology and advanced material for the
more technically oriented GIS users. Developed
by the EPA Office of Research and Development,
this 55-page book may be useful to engineers, re-
searchers, state regulatory agencies, local and
public health officials, planners, managers, con-
tractors/developers, and the general public.
Although the book is free, shipping charges
still apply. Request Item #GNBKMG13.
serves as a general guide for those working in
confined space, such as digesters, sewers, septic
tanks, etc. Hazards involved with confined
spaces and precautions to take to reduce possi-
ble injury or death are detailed. The booklet pro-
vides a checklist to use when it is necessary to
enter a confined space. This aids in evaluating
the situation and enables workers to be better
prepared. This 20-page booklet can be helpful to
operators, state regulatory agency personnel, en-
gineers, and state officials.
Although the booklet is free, shipping charges
still apply. Request Item #GNBLOM40.
ConstructedWetlands Treatmentof MunicipalWastewaters
This manual discusses
using constructed wet-
lands in municipal waste-
water treatment.
Developed by the EPA
Office of Research and
Development, the manu-
al details the design and
maintenance of con-
structed wetlands.
Numerous figures and ta-
bles accompany the text.
This manual also discuss-
es the appropriate use of
constructed wetlands.
For some applications, wetlands are an excellent
option because they are low in cost and mainte-
nance requirements, offer good performance,
and provide a natural appearance, if not more
beneficial ecological benefits. However, because
wetlands require large land areas, they are not
appropriate for some applications. Constructed
wetlands are especially well suited for wastewater
treatment in small communities where inexpen-
sive land is available. This 164-page manual may
be especially useful to engineers who service
small communities, state regulators, planning
professionals, environ-
mental groups, and edu-
cators.
Although the manual
is free, shipping charges
still apply. Request Item
#WWBKDM98.
Guidance on thePrivatization ofFederally FundedWastewaterTreatment Works
Although more than
$20 billion in federal and
state investments provid-
ed funding to communi-
ties for water pollution
36
Enforcement Alert:Clean Water ActProhibits Sewage‘Bypasses’
The Clean Water Act,
Section 402, prohibits
wastewater dischargers
from bypassing untreated
or partially treated sewage
prior to treatment at a
publicly owned treatment
works facility. Only under
certain exceptions do
EPA’s “bypass regulations”
allow a facility to bypass
some, or all, of the flow
from its treatment
process. This fact sheet
summarizes these excep-
tions to the rule and uses a federal district court
ruling as an example (United States vs. City of
Toledo, Ohio). Developed by the EPA Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, this
two-page fact sheet should be of particular inter-
est to state regulatory agencies, local and state
officials, public health of ficials, and operators.
Although the fact sheet is free, shipping
charges still apply. Request Item #WWFSOM39.
Rural Community Assistance Program(RCAP) Help for Small CommunityWastewater Projects
This fact sheet describes RCAP, a national
network of nonprofit organizations, and how
they provide onsite technical assistance to com-
munities to help them attain or maintain ade-
quate wastewater treatment services. The fact
sheet discusses how, through a partnership a-
greement with the EPA, RCAP provides the ap-
propriate financing, management, operation and
maintenance, etc. through the Small Community
Wastewater Project. The project addresses com-
munity-specific wastewater compliance prob-
lems, particularly compliance with the Clean
Water Act requirements. This fact sheet discusses
funding for small community wastewater proj-
ects and provides a contact for more informa-
tion. Developed by the EPA Office of Water, this
two-page fact sheet may be helpful to state regu-
latory agency personnel, planners, managers,
state and public health of ficials, contractors/de-
velopers, engineers, and the general public.
The cost is 60 cents plus shipping. Request
Item #WWFSFN32.
Alternative Septic SystemsThis package by the University of Minnesota
Extension Service briefly explains how alternative
septic systems can be used on difficult sites and
how locations influence the types of septic sys-
tems that can be installed. Factors such as the
cost, size of system, maintenance, sewage flow,
change in vegetation, site characteristics, and
environmental stewardship are weighed. The
package includes a video and three fact sheets:
• Choosing an Alternative Septic System for a
Homesite with Thin Soil Over Bedrock,
• Choosing an Alternative Septic System for a
Homesite with a High Water Table,and
• Choosing an Alternative Septic System for a
Homesite with a Steep Slope.
The nine-minute video illustrates alternative
types of systems, such as constructed wetlands,
sand filters, drip irrigation, aerobic treatment u-
nits, and composting toilets. Both the video and
fact sheets profile three case studies of home-
owners who installed alternative treatment sys-
tems. This package was developed with home-
owners in mind, but could also be useful to pub-
lic health officials, planners, and contractors/de-
velopers.
The cost is $13 plus shipping. Request Item
#WWPKPE55.
FundingDecentralizedWastewaterSystems Usingthe CleanWater StateRevolving Fund
The Clean
Water State
Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) is a low-
interest or no inter-
est funding source
for installing, re-
pairing, and up-
grading “decentral-
ized” wastewater
systems in small-
town, rural, and
suburban areas. This fact sheet provides the
background of the CWSRF and discusses some
of the benefits and problems associated with de-
centralized systems. It describes how the CWS-
RF operates and lists eligible projects, as well as
who may qualify and how to get a project fund-
ed. Success stories from Ohio, Maine,
Pennsylvania, and Minnesota describe how
these states have used the CWSRF. Other fund-
ing sources for decentralized systems are sum-
marized, including EPA 319 Grants, USDA Rural
Utilities Service, Housing and Urban
Development Community Development Block
Grant, and non-federal assistance. Developed by
the EPA Office of Water, this four-page fact
sheet may be helpful to state regulatory agency
personnel, planners, managers, state and public
health officials, contractors/developers, finance
officers, and the general public.
The fact sheet is free, although shipping
charges still apply. Request Item #WWFSFN07.
FreeDrinking WaterMagazine Available
37
T he Na t io nal Drinking Water Clearing house (NDWC) offers the newly released 2002 Outreach ResourceG u i d e to help you. This updated directory lists mo re than 80 fede ral age nc ies and na t io nal org a n i z a t io nswith water-related int e re s t s.
Each entry in the guide inc l udes the org a n i z a t ion’s addre s s, contact info r ma t ion, Web site addre s s, watera c t i v i t ie s, and any public a t io ns they pro duc e. For exa m p l e, the guide lists the U.S. Departme nt of Ag r ic u l-t u re’s Rural Ut i l i t ies Service (RUS). From their entry you’ll see, amo ng other thing s, that RUS pro v ides fi-na nc ial help to rural areas in the form of gra nts and loans. They also fund the Rural Water Circuit Ride rP ro g ram. As with ma ny fede ral pro g ra ms, each state has an RUS of f ic e, so the re s o u rce guide lists all thestate of f ices with their contact info r ma t io n .
T he same holds true for membership and public service org a n i z a t io ns listed in the guide — l i ke the Na-t io nal Rural Water As s o c ia t ion (NRWA). The NRWA’s he a d q uarters in Duncan, Oklaho ma, is listed, plus the i rm i s s ion and activitie s. If you didn’t alre a dy kno w, the NRWA pro v ides fina nc ial and technical support tou t i l i t ies and helps commu n i t ies pro mote sound water re s o u rce ma na ge me nt. They also pro duce Rural Wa t e r,a quarterly ma g a z i ne. Following the primary NRWA entry is a listing of all their state of f ices and Web sites.
Call the NDWC today at (800) 624-8301 to order your copy of the 66-page 2002 Outreach Resource Guide( P ro duct #WWBKGN36) or e-mail n d wc _ o rd e rs @ m a i l . n e s c. w v u . e d u. You’ll want to keep this guide at yourdesk for the next time you want to reach org a n i z a t io ns such as the Na t io nal Gro u nd Water As s o c ia t ion, theS mall To w ns Enviro n me nt Pro g ram, Clean Water Ac t ion, or the Na t io nal Institutes of He a l t h .
T he NDWC was established in 1991 and is funded by the U.S. Departme nt of Ag r ic u l t u re Rural Ut i l i t ie sS e r v ic e. Any o ne int e rested in pro v id i ng clean dr i n k i ng water for small commu n i t ies can benefit from theNDWC’s free servic e s, which inc l ude On Ta p ma g a z i ne, mo re than 200 educ a t io nal pro duc t s, a toll-free tech-n ical assistance ho t l i ne, and three computer da t a b a s e s.
NDWC Publishes 2002 Outreach Resource Guide
•Looking for funding for local drinking water infrastructure?
•Can’t find the phone number for your regional EPA of fice?
FreeDrinking WaterMagazine Available
The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC) publishes a free maga-zine, On Tap. This magazine combines the NDWC's two popular newsletters, OnTap and Water Sense, to give readers the up-to-date, water-related news theyneed in one place. The Fall issue was delivered to subscribers in October, andthe Winter issue will be available soon.
The NDWC, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural UtilitiesService, collects, reviews, and distributes information about rural and smallcommunity drinking water systems across the country and the environmen-tal issues that impact them.
"We are committed to keeping community leaders, water industry pro-fessionals, and others who are involved with clean water issues in-formed," said Sanjay Saxena, NDWC program coordinator.
On Tap routinely includes topics about assistance programs fordrinking water systems (those serving fewer than 10,000 people),regulations, products, technologies, and health, finance, and man-agement issues relevant to America's small communities.
For a free subscription to On Tap, contact the NDWC at (800) 624-8301,(304) 293-4191, e-mail [email protected] or write to P.O. Box 6064,West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064. Visit the NDWC Web site atwww.ndwc.wvu.edu.
38
Due to its proximity to Hilton Head resort
area, this region of the state has seen property
values soar, and permitting officials are strug-
gling to keep up with builders’ demands.
Development ranges from older mobile
homes on family-owned acreage to gated com-
munities where houses approach the million-dol-
lar range. The
newer subdivi-
sions, the
high-density
time-shares,
and hotels,
produce high-
ly-treated ef-
fluent, with
some that dis-
charge to the
irrigation sys-
tems of golf
courses.
“In gener-
al, soils are
not the best
on lots that
are left,” said
Blaine Lyons,
supervisor for
the Low
Country
Health District
General Sani-
tation Pro-
grams, “and
we are very
sensitive of
the proximity to
the marshlands.”
Some subdivi-
sions have used aerobic treatment units with
drip irrigation for final dispersal, and quite a few
elevated sand filters have been used in 50 to 60
new homes during the past 10 years, with strict
perimeters including set back distances and soil
requirements. The remaining wastewater treat-
ment is mainly central collection and treatment
or septic tanks. In an attempt to limit new con-
struction, the county has decided to restrict new
sewer hookups.
Engineers with the National Environmental
Services Center (NESC) are currently working
with county of ficials on a project to develop a
comprehensive onsite disposal system manage-
ment program. This project is somewhat dif fer-
ent from some of NESC’s other National Onsite
Demonstration Program (NODP) projects be-
cause of the social and cultural considerations in
this region.
“Technology is the easy part,” explained
Clement Solomon, NODP project coordinator.
“Working with the various community groups,
bringing the different interest groups together to
commit to a practical policy for everyone is the
challenge. We are simply working as facilitators,
bringing all the stakeholders together and giving
them the information they need to make the
best decisions for the future of their community
when it comes to wastewater problems.”
Participants must be convinced of the validity
of a program, or it will probably be doomed to
fail, but Solomon noted that it has been his ex-
perience that people who live along the coastal
regions have a vested interest in water quality.
“Residents have either chosen to live there or
have inherited their property after having been
born and raised there. The biggest split within
this group is income levels,” he said.
Lyons agrees. He explained that while the
recommendation to install a system costing sev-
eral thousand dollars is nothing to some of the
homeowners, it is beyond the reach of many.
“It’s difficult to find good solutions when the
separation is so great between the million-dollar
homes and the low- or fixed-income families,” he
said.
One facet of Solomon’s efforts is to educate
homeowners about whatever system they cur-
rently have and to encourage them to properly
maintain that system. “We find many levels of
understanding of wastewater treatment systems,”
Solomon said. “Unfortunately, it ranges from
total ignorance or disregard to the misinformed
lady who proudly reported her monthly mainte-
nance routine of pouring a gallon of bleach into
her septic tank. We hope to promote the simple
preventive fixes.”
As a service provider, the NODP staff is look-
ing at every coastal state to determine ways they
might help. As Solomon commented, “It is im-
portant now to focus on what we can do rather
than what we didn’t do in the past. Adequate
maintenance programs, as well as proper installa-
tion of some of the new systems, are good an-
swers for the coastal question.”
For further information about the sites men-
tioned in this article, contact the following
sources:
Maine
Katherine Groves, Casco Bay Estuary Project,
phone (207) 780-4820
James Jacobsen, phone (207) 287-5695
Septitech, phone (207) 657-5252
North Carolina
Dr. Lindbo, phone (252) 793-4428 Ext. 166
South Carolina
Blaine Lyons, phone (843) 525-7633
National Environmental Services Center
Clement Solomon, phone (800) 624-8301
Atlantic States Attack CoastalDegradation
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 13
Recreational clam digging and commercial clam harvest-ing are activities threatened by pollution from surfacerunoff. Photo courtesy of Beverly Bailey-Smith.
45
Now you can subscribe to the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) News Listserv,which notifies people (via e-mail) about NSFC products and other wastewater-relatedannouncements. New information is transmitted to subscribers via e-mail on a regularbasis. (Please note that this listserv is for notification only, andcannot be used for posting messages.)
To subscribe to the NSFC News Listserv, either: • send an e-mail to [email protected] (no
additional text is required) or • log onto
O rdering Info r m a t i o nPhone:
(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 Business hours are 8 a.m. to5 p.m. Eastern Time
E-mail:
Fax:
(304) 293-3161
Mail:
National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
Please indicate the product itemnumber, title, cost, quantity, andtotal for each item ordered. Makesure you include your name, af filia-tion, address, and phone numberwith each order.
Free items are limited to one ofeach per order.
Shipping and handling charges re-flect the actual costs of shippingand handling all orders. All ordersfrom outside the U.S. (excludingCanada) must be prepaid.
All payments must be in U.S. dollars using VISA, MasterCard, Dis-cover, check, or money order.
To place your order using VISA,MasterCard, or Discover, includeyour credit card number, expirationdate, and signature on the orderform.
Make checks payable toWVU Research Corporation
Please allow two to four weeks for delivery.
Name ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Affiliation __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City __________________________________________________________ State ________ Zip Code__________________
Phone ( _____ ) ____________________________________ Fax ( _____ ) ______________________________________
E-mail Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Please check form of payment:
Check/Money Order MasterCard VISA Discover
Card Number________________________________________________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature (Required for credit card orders.)
Subtotal
Shipping
Total Cost
Pro d ucts Order FormItem Number Title Cost Qty. Total
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CUT OR COPYFORM FOR ORDERING
Have the Latest Wastewater Information at Your Fingertips!
www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_listserv.htm
46
Editor’s Note: The following is taken from an
EPA fact sheet of the same title.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) CWSRF program provides grant funding to
states to allow them to assist publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW) to make infrastructure
improvements needed to protect public health
and ensure compliance with the Clean Water
Act. States may use CWSRF monies to provide
low or zero percent interest rate loans to munici-
palities for wastewater infrastructure, including fa-
cility and sewer construction and rehabilitation,
stormwater management, and combined sewer
and sanitary overflow correction.
What can wastewater utilities do to ensuresecurity?
Water utilities can take straightforward, com-
mon sense actions to increase security and re-
duce threats from terrorism. Areas in which to
focus attention, as recommended by the Associa-
tion of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the As-
sociation of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators, the Water Environment
Federation, and other leading professional organi-
zations, include:
• g u a rding against unplanned physical intrusion,
• making security a priority for employees,
• coordinating actions for effective
emergency response, and
• investing in security and infrastructure
improvements.
What security measures can the CWSRF fund?States may provide CWSRF assistance to
POTWs to allow them to complete vulverability
assessments and contingency and emergency re-
sponse plans. Many types of infrastructure im-
provements a wastewater system could need to
make to ensure security are also eligible for
CWSRF funding and may have already been in-
cluded within the scope of infrastructure projects
funded through the program to date.
What security measures cannot be fundedthrough the CWSRF?
It should be noted that maintaining a human
presence can be the most important security
measure a POTW can take to ensure that its fa-
cilities are protected. The CWSRF program can-
not fund operations and maintenance activities
for POTWs, and therefore, cannot provide financ-
ing for an increased human security presence.
Likewise, the CWSRF program cannot provide as-
sistance to help a system purchase the chemicals
needed to increase disinfection.
How will states fund POTW projects?If a municipality is interested in obtaining f i-
nancing to implement security measures, the
first step is to contact the state CWSRF represen-
tative, who can be found on the EPA’s Office of
Wastewater Management Web site at
www.epa.gov/owm/finan.htm .
Typically, any project that will receive CWSRF
funding must go through public review as part of
development of an annual Intended Use Plan
that lays out how the state will implement its
CWSRF program over the subsequent year.
States do, however, have the ability to include
procedures in their programs that can allow
them to fund emergency projects. Each state
should consider the proposals they receive from
municipalities in order to determine whether the
proposed improvement qualifies as an emer-
ge n cy project that should be addressed immediate l y.
Where can I find more information?The EPA is coordinating with the water indus-
try to provide information and technical assis-
tance to states and utilities to help during this
time. EPA is working collaboratively with the As-
sociation of Metropolitan Water Agencies and
other groups to develop an Information Sharing
and Analysis Center to bolster coordinated notifi-
cation and response to threats and vulnerabili-
ties. For additional information, you can also visit
the following Web sites:
EPA Counter-terrorism: www.epa.gov/
ebtpages/ecounter terrorism.html
EPA Alert on Chemical Accident Prevention
and Site Security: www.epa.gov/ceppo/
pubs/secale.pdf
U.S. Centers for Disease Control &
Prevention: www.bt.cdc.gov
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies: www.amsa-cleanwater.or g
Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators: www.
asiwpca.or g
National League of Cities: www.nlc.org/
n l c _ o rg / s i te / n ew s r o o m / te r r o r i s m _ r e s p o n s e
National Governors Association, Emergency
Management and Terrorism: www.nga.org/
center/topics/l,1188,D_854,00.html
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (Mail
Code 4204M) Washington, D.C. 20460;
Fax: (202) 501-2403; Web site: www.epa.
gov/owm/finan.html
C L O S I N G T H O U G H T S
Use of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)to Implement Security Measures at
Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Works
47
Status of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in U.S. Now Available on CDStatus of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in U.S. Now Available on CD
In 1998, the Na t io nal Small Flows Clearing house (NSFC) cont i nued and ex p a nded a project to collect onsite wastewater system info r ma t io nf rom local health de p a r t me nts all across the count r y. The results of this massive data collection effort are cont a i ned in a new CD titled, ASummary of the Status of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in the United States During 1998, Item #SFCDHD02. T he cost for each CD is$10.00 plus shipping.
Data from local age nc ies are summarized by state and then compiled into a na t io na lsummary. State reports are grouped into 10 separate regional reports. The CD
i nc l udes info r ma t ion about onsite system permits, types of sys-tems allowed, failing systems and repair permits, li -
c e ns i ng / c e r t i f ic a t ion pro g ra ms, new sys-tem ins t a l l a t io n / c o ns t r uc t io ncosts, and inspection and mainte-
nance programs. The CD alsoincludes a statistical
comparison ofdata from 1993
and 1998.
To order the 1998 data on CD or the 1993 report, callthe NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, orsend e-mail to [email protected] give the title and item number of the productyou wish to order. A shipping and handling charge ap-plies to all orders.
The complete 1993 survey is also still available inbook form for free from the NSFC while supplies last.
Request Item #WWBKGN89.
Posters TeachWastewater Treatment Options
for Communities
Posters Teach Wastewater Treatment Options
for Communities
National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia University Research Corporation
P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
(800) 624-8301/(304) 293-4191www.nsfc.wvu.edu
®
Wa s t ewater Collection and Treatment Systems for Small Commu n i t i e s
Onsite Wa s t ewater Treatment for Small Communities and Rural Areas
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) has developedtwo posters that illustrate the many wastewater treatment tech-nologies appropriate for small communities. The posters will beof interest to community leaders, local officials, engineers, regu-lators, students, homeowners, and anyone interested in learningabout wastewater treatment in small communities.
The newest poster, Wa s t ewater Collection and Tr e a t m e n tSystems for Small Communities , Item #WWPSPE65, describestechnologies applicable to subdivisions, schools, churches,restaurants, parks, shopping centers and other small-flow situa-tions. The poster describes 25 technologies including pretreat-ment options, constructed wetlands, rotating biologicalcontactors, trickling filters, drip irrigation, and alternative collec-tion systems.
The poster Onsite Wastewater Treatment for Small Communitiesand Rural Areas , Item #WWPSPE02, focuses on onsite waste-water treatment technologies, such as septic systems, sandfilters, drip irrigation systems, and mound systems, appropriatefor individual homes, businesses, and institutions. The posterincludes a section about common onsite technologies andanother section on systems that can be installed in difficult siteconditions.
To order the posters, contact the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 or via e-mail [email protected].
Please give the title and item number of theposter(s) you wish to order. The cost for eachposter is $1.25 plus shipping and handling.
