Onsite Waste water
Disposal Alternatives-
Federal, State and Local Involvement
A Case History in 208 Water Quality Management Planning
o
O
O
-------
-------
EPA-440/3-77-020
March 1978
j ONSITE WASTEWATER
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES-
FEDERAL, STATE AND
LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
\
111
CD
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* Environmental Research Information Center* Technology Transfer
* Office of Water Planning and Standards • Water Planning Division (WH 554)
401 "M" St. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publication contains information prepared for the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Informa-
tion Center, Office of Research and Development; and Water Plan-
ning Division, Office of Water Planning and Standards.
The information in this publication was prepared by Wiggins-
Rimer & Associates, Durham, North Carolina. The case history was
authored by Mr. Alan E. Rimer, P.E., with assistance of Mr. Roger N.
Schecter, AIP. Also providing assistance were Mr. John B. Forster,
Administrator for the Southern Kennebec Commission and Mr.
Thomas U. Gordon, Executive Director for the Cobbossee
Watershed District.
NOTICE
This publication has been reviewed by the Environmental Research Information Center
and the Water Planning Division, Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and is approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the con-
tents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does any mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
u
-------
ONSITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES-
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Southern Kennebec Valley Regional
Planning Commission (SKVRPC) of Maine
has completed a series of studies identify-
ing the best management practices for the
disposal of wastewater in rural areas that
cannot reasonably be served by centralized
facilities'. These best management practices
include technological, financial, and mana-
gerial alternatives adapted to the Southern
Kennebec Valley Region.
More than 50 percent of the region's
population is served by private subsurface
disposal facilities, and it was initially pre-
sumed that they were responsible for much
of the lake eutrophication in the SKVRPC
area. Studies for this project indicated,
however, that subsurface systems created
only a public health problem and were not
a major cause of eutrophication. To arrive
at the most cost-effective means of dealing
v/ith rural wastewaters from areas surround-
ing the various lakeshores, individual onsite
and cluster systems were considered. An
evaluation of 50 existing problem areas by
SKVRPC indicated that cluster systems were
the most cost-effective solution for many of
the problems.
The 1977 amendments to the clean water
act enables Federal and thus State funding for
cluster systems. This situation should add a
new dimension to conventional solutions for
wastewater disposal in the more rural areas
of Maine. With funding available, there is a
need for an effective management agency to
operate and maintain each of these cluster
facilities. The SKVRPC has suggested several
management alternatives for the ownership
and management of cluster units that would,
with proper financing, permit a degree of
stability in the operation and maintenance
of these systems.
Beginning in FY 1979, the State of
Maine will allocate funds to insure that at
least some cluster projects will obtain
funding. This very positive step should
ease the situation faced by many people who
cannot now connect to a sewer but have a
subsurface disposal problem.
Onsite disposal programs and cluster sys-
tems are not a panacea, but they should be
considered for any rural area that relies
heavily on subsurface disposal systems for
wastewater. The plan presented here pro-
vides at the very least a rational process for
examining alternatives to conventional waste-
water collection and treatment.
The SKVRPC was organized in 1967 and
serves the region as a multipurpose planning
agency. The Commission's responsibilities
include comprehensive regional planning,
A-95 clearinghouse reviews, and similar re-
gional coordination and management func-
tions.
The 1282 square kilometer (495-square-
mile) planning area includes 20 communities
clustered in the vicinity of Augusta, the
State capital (Figure 1). The population of
the planning area was estimated to be ap-
proximately 60,000 in 1975 and is pro-
jected to increase to about 75,000 by
1990. Nearly 40 percent of the region's
population lives in the Augusta area. The
surrounding area is generally characterized
by forests, croplands, and other nonurban
land area. Major employment is provided
by the State government and the textile
and paper industries.
-------
r1
iv^V-
^
~ 2
, \ ^-^ *) / V'
V ^v^j1^
t • * ii
\ j u
X 71 Portland
•: ,-• "
/ Jwinthrop(7
/V : /^
6 Miles
Figure 1. Southern Kennebec VaMey Region.
-------
Water resources in the Southern Kennebec
Valley Region consist of approximately 28
lakes and ponds, most of which are located
west of the Kennebec River in the Cobbos-
see Stream watershed and the 30-Mile River
watershed. Other watersheds in the region
include the Androscoggin River and the
Sheepscot River.
In the spring of 1975, SKVRPC was
designated by the Governor of Maine to
undertake an areawide water quality plan-
ning effort in the region. A subsequent
examination of the information gathered
during development of the 201 facilities
planning studies indicated that a major
reduction in point source pollution would
be made by the implementation of those
plans. With the reduction of point source
impacts on the waters of the area, previous
studies indicated that nonpoint source pol-
lution from some of the rural areas would
probably make the most significant impact
on the lakes and ponds in the region. These
evaluations indicated that phosphorus was
the determinant of accelerated eutrophica-
tion in four of the region's lakes. These prob-
lems were identified in areas where numer-
ous second homes were located along the
lakeshores.
IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSURFACE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROBLEMS
Of the Southern Kennebec Valley Region's
20 communities, 10 are now or soon will be
served by publicly owned wastewater treat-
ment facilities. These communities include
Augusta, Farmingdale, Gardiner, Hallowell,
Manchester, Monmouth, Pittston, Readfield,
Richmond, and Winthrop. Figure 2 shows the
projected 1995 sewered areas in the region
that will be served by one of the three planned
facilities. Secondary wastewater facilities will
be provided at Augusta, South Gardiner, and
Richmond. The Augusta and Richmond facil-
ities presently provide primary treatment, but
the Gardiner area is sewered and discharges
directly to the Kennebec River with no treat-
ment.
Most of the areas surrounding the lakes of
the region will not be served by sewer systems.
These areas are expected to rely on private
wastewater disposal processes because it
would be very costly to install collection sys-
tems along the lakeshores, and secondary
water quality impacts would be likely as a
result of increased development.
Previous studies identified lake eutrophica-
tion as a significant water quality problem in
the region. Though municipal and industrial
point sources once discharged into the Cob-
bossee watershed lakes and were thought
responsible for the problems, such does not
appear to be the case. All point sources have
now been diverted to the Augusta Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which discharges to the
Kennebec River. In spite of these diversions,
many of the lakes continue to .exhibit water
quality problems. Nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion thus appear to be responsible for the
poor water quality in several of the region's
lakes.
Based on previous analyses, phosphorus
was suspected as the element responsible for
the poor water quality signified by eutro-
phication. In addition, problems such as grey
water from septic tanks, high bacti samples,
and other such measures of poor water qual-
ity were evident in the region.
The Cobbossee Watershed District, under
contract to SKVRPC, examined in detail the
sources and impacts of nonpoint sources on
lake water quality, including a survey of the
pollution potential from subsurface disposal
systems along the lake shorelines in the region.
Through a water quality monitoring program
on all lakes in the region (July 1975 to Octo-
ber 1976) and an analysis of land use patterns
and trends, nonpoint sources arid their
potential impacts were identified. In addition,
a series of more detailed lakeshed studies were
conducted during this period to examine the
water quality-of the tributaries to the lakes.
The results of these two studies were used to
relate land use patterns in the lakesheds to
observed water quality.
Figure 3 shows the annual phosphorus load-
ings to the Southern Kennebec Valley lakes
and indicates how little subsurface disposal
systems appeared to contribute to lake eutro-
phication. Agricultural activity was found to
be the primary source of phosphorus. The
-------
^-
6 Miles
LEGEND
Malfunctioning subsurface
disposal areas
Existing or proposed
treatment facilities
Projected sewer service
Figure 2. Possible sewered areas and potential disposal problem areas.
-------
Agriculture
(manured fields)
53%
Development
20%
Forest
Precipitation
5%
Subsurface
disposal
3%
Internal release
of P from sediments
in Anabessacook Lake
12%
1000
2000
3000
I i
4000 5000
6000 7000
Kilograms/year
Figure 3. Summary of annual phosphorus loading to Southern Kennebec Valley lakes
(data are for 21 of the region's 28 lakes), 1976-1977.
Cobbossee Watershed District has received a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Lakes Restoration Grant to deal with the non-
point pollution associated with the agricultural
practices in the drainage areas of the three
most eutrophic lakes. For example, the proj-
ect will provide financial assistance to farmers
to build manure storage facilities, establish
mandatory best management practices for
control of agricultural runoff (a step that is
now being implemented), and evaluate cer-
tain land use control mechanisms. Together
these measures should contribute to a reduc-
tion in the phosphorus discharges.
Though it has been demonstrated that
phosphorus discharges from subsurface dis-
posal systems do not contribute significantly
to eutrophication, as previously postulated,
they do create other water quality problems
in the region. The extent to which they con-
tribute pollutants to the lakes depends on a
number of factors, including:
» the suitability of the soils for accepting
wastewater,
» the adequacy of system design, and
« the frequency of system maintenance.
Underground disposal in the region is gen-
erally limited by shallow depth of soil to
bedrock, a high water table, and overall lar-1'-
of infiltration capability. The. groundwat'"
and nearby lakes can thus become contan,
inated. Along the developed shoreline zones
of lakes in the Cobbossee Watershed, more
than 50 percent of the shoreline soils were
classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
as having severe or very severe limitations for
subsurface disposal systems. To proceed with
pollution control, these should either be
sewered, or "cluster" alternatives considered.
The inadequacy of system design and main-
tenance was indicated by a survey of onsite
wastewater disposal systems conducted by the
Cobbossee Watershed District^ A survey of
almost every subsurface disposal system near
the lakes serving both permanent and seasonal
residences was made. The survey revealed
that 50 percent of the systems are located
within 30 meters (100 feet) of the shoreline,
33 percent are improperly maintained (not
checked or serviced within the last 4 years),
and about 5 percent of the systems are
actually malfunctioning. Figure 2 shows
the problem areas identified in these surveys
-------
on the basis of malfunctioning subsurface
disposal systems. Most of the identified
areas are not able to obtain sewerage service
from one of the regional plants.
Although the water quality impacts created
by subsurface disposal systems were not asso-
ciated with nutrients, as originally suspected,
analyses indicated that bacteriological and
viral contamination through the malfunc-
tioning of these systems was a problem, since
water quality violations impaired uses. Since
the identified problem areas are in locations
that are unlikely to be served by public sew-
eraged systems, other best management
practices had to be examined.
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST MANAGE-
MENT PRACTICES FOR SUBSURFACE
DISPOSAL
Because of the relatively small number and
scattered nature of the population in the
Southern Kennebec Valley Region, it would
not always be economically feasible to extend
sewer lines to serve areas with subsurface
wastewater disposal problems. The SKVRPC
and member communities also felt that new
sewer lines along lakeshores could, in some
situations, cause a secondary growth impact
that would bring additional problems.
Figure 2 shows some 50 areas with poten-
tial subsurface disposal problems that cannot
be economically served by sewers. The Cob-
bossee Watershed District, under contract
to SKVRPC, selected six of those potential
sewage disposal problem areas for intensive
study—not because they represented the most
severe problems in the region, but because
collectively they represented the various
types of subsurface disposal problems found
in the nonsewered areas of the Southern
Kennebec Valley.
Each of the six areas was studied carefully
to evaluate the physical and economic feasibil-
ity of various treatment alternatives. Based
on the analyses of those six cases, the problem
areas were characterized and divided according
to the type of solution indicated:
• Cluster solution
• Individual onsite disposal
• Nondischarge
• Other methods such as conservation,
transport, etc.
Though sewers were considered to be the
most practical alternative for the more densely
developed areas around the lakes, some areas
could not be served by such systems. Further-
more, new shoreline zoning regulations that
prohibit development within certain pre-
scribed distances of a lake could not affect
problems that already exist. In general,
SKVRPC determined that the most feasible
best management practice for many of the
problems in the region would be a cluster or
small-scale community system. In the broad-
est sense, a cluster system consists of several
dwellings that share common treatment facil-
ities such as a septic tank and leaching field.
Costs for cluster systems restrict their use
to areas that are more densely developed. The
key element of these systems—flexibility—may
ultimately permit their future connection to a
proposed sewer.
The individual or onsite disposal solution
applies to areas with potential problems where
existing development is not dense enough to
render a cluster system feasible. Many areas
in the region fell into this category.
In the few cases where a cluster or individ-
ual onsite solutions are not suitable (primarily
because of soils limitations), a noridischarge
system could be utilized. In lieu of no devel-
opment, SKVRPC identified the following
alternative disposal techniques:
• Water use reduction
• Pumping of waste to an area where soils
are more suitable
• Installation of waterless toilets
• Holding tanks to be pumped at regular
intervals
• Installation of a modified subsurface
system
The SKVRPC examined each of the areas
that might have potential subsurface disposal
problems (see Figure 2) and determined which
of the best management practice categories
-------
would be applicable. A priority rating of
high, medium, or low was established on
the basis of need for each of the categories.
The assigned ratings were subjective and were
formulated to establish a starting point for
any action the region might want to take.
Figure 4 shows the results of these priority
ratings. Cluster developments were indicated
most frequently as a possible remedial tech-
nique. These rankings and supporting findings
were incorporated in a set of conclusions and
recommendations that SKVRPC proposed to
its member communities for implementation.
These conclusions and recommendations
were evaluated by other Maine 208 planning
agencies, the Maine Department of Environ-
mental Protection (MDEP) (Divisions of Licen-
sing and Enforcement, Municipal Services,
and Water Quality Evaluation and Planning),
the Maine Department of Human Services
(Division of Health Engineering), and U.S.
EPA Region I. The comments of these agen-
cies and the various SKVRPC technical com-
mittees were formulated into the following
conclusions:
® Subsurface wastewater disposal for in-
dividual homes is an environmental prob-
lem in the Southern Kennebec Valley.
The water quality problem relates to
health issues rather than to lake eutro-
phication.
The existing mandatory shoreline zoning
legislation coupled with the Maine State
plumbing code will effectively forestall
problems with subsurface disposal sys-
tems installed after 1977.
As comprehensive as the Maine State
plumbing code is, it was deficient in
some aspects. Water conservation, main-
tenance, and conversion of seasonal resi-
dences to full time use need to be
addressed.
Cluster systems, whether publicly or
privately owned, constitute an environ-
mentally sound and cost-effective solu-
tion for many of the problem areas iden-
tified in the region.
Modification of the construction grant
process by Maine Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection and U.S. EPA to
better address the issue of the small-scale
systems would greatly assist in solving
most of the non-urban wastewater dis-
posal problems in the region.
Development of the institutional and
financial mechanisms for small-scale sys-
tems is in many cases more difficult than
development of the engineering solutions.
Individuals whose homes are not con-
nected to a public sewer or who cannot
feasibly join a cluster system receive no
Cluster systems
Onsite individual
High priority
Medium priority
Nonclischarge
,Low priority
10 . 20 30
Number of systems with indicated BMP
Figure 4. Priority ratings for best management practices in wastewater disposal problem areas.
-------
direct benefit from the multibilh'on
dollar system of grants-in-aid for waste-
water treatment currently being admin-
istered in the United States.
Based on these conclusions, the SKVRPC
developed the following recommendations to
alleviate problems caused by malfunctioning
subsurface disposal systems:
• The first priority for alleviating problems
in the region should be to improve the
operation of individual, onsite, sub-
surface disposal systems. When this
solution is not feasible, the cluster sys-
tem is recommended for consideration.
• The MDEP should adopt the concept of
a cluster system priority list. Eligibility
for this list should be based on (a) an
average daily flow design of 57M3
(15,000 gpd) or less, and (b) a total
project cost of $200,000 or less. The
MDEP should utilize no less than 5 per-
cent of its annual U.S. EPA allotments
to fund such projects.
• Cluster systems should be managed by a
local government or special district, if
one exists in the community. If a new
special district has to be formed, it
should encompass an area large enough
to obtain the financial resources for
proper operation and maintenance.
* Any financial assistance program,
whether State or municipally backed,
should be tied to a mandatory inspection
program of system construction.
• The State plumbing code should be re-
vised to include the following provisions
and/or requirements:
(a) Regulation of all toilet installations
after a prescribed date to be of the
low-volume type-13.2 liters
(3-1/2 gallons) or less per flush.
(b) Revision of the 1135 liters (300-
gpd) sewage volume estimate for
single-family dwellings.
(c) Provision for a reduction in water-
use estimates for homeowners who
install water-saving devices such as
faucet aerators and showerhead
flow reducers.
(d) Modification of leaching field siz-
ing requirements to correspond -
with the revised water consump-
tion estimates.
(e) Establishment of a model ordi-
nance that municipalities could
adopt to provide for mandatory
inspection and maintenance of
private septic systems.
(f) Establishment of an educational
program consisting of the distribu-
tion of literature by plumbing in-
spectors to homeowners regarding
proper operation and maintenance
of their waste disposal system.
(g) Establishment of a review proced-
ure for existing waste disposal sys-
tems that serve seasonally occupied
dwellings and that may be con-
verted to year-round use.
(h) Prohibit the installation of
leaching fields during winter
months when frozen ground
usually hampers proper construc-
tion.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of subsurface disposal sys-
tem operation and management alternatives
involves the interaction of local, State and
Federal agencies. Each of these agency groups
can put its weight behind the institutional
arrangements necessary to implement the rec-
ommended best management practices. The
perspectives of these various groups vary.
Federal Involvement
Because the cluster system concept suggest-
ed for alleviating subsurface disposal problems
will entail Federal aid (and thus controls) of
some type, an examination of the Federal
position is in order. The 1977 amendments
to the clean water act (PL 95-217) outlines
procedures for funding privately owned
wastewater treatment systems serving one
or more principal residences provided:
8'
-------
• Treatment systems were constructed and
residences were inhabited prior to Dec. 27,
1977. Also occupancy must be for at
least 51 percent of the year.
• The project is applied for by a public
body that is eligible to receive a grant.
• The public body guarantees to EPA
(through the state) that the treatment ,
system will be properly operated and
maintained.
• Total cost and environmental impact
of providing waste treatment services
will be less than the cost of providing
a sewage collection system and central
treatment.
Such cluster systems would be eligible
for funding of planning and capital costs, as
well as for the sludge hauling and septage
treatment facilities necessary to dispose of
the sludge. These amendments are significant
because they establish an alternative to
sewers, particularly in environmentally sen-
sitive areas such as the lakeshores in Maine.
State! Involvement
The State of Maine's approach toward im-
plementing some of the SKVRPC recommen-
dations may be viewed from several perspec-
tives—legislative requirements, funding require-
ments, and management systems.
Legislative Requirements
.- Both the SKVRPC and the Greater Port-
land Council of Governments (another funded
areawide agency) felt that one major step the
State should take to ensure the proper func-
tioning of subsurface disposal systems would
be to further modify the State plumbing code,
Part.II of the Maine State Plumbing Code,
adopted in 1974 and subsequently revised,
offers an innovative and scientifically sound
approach to subsurface sewage disposal. By
basing approvals on an individual site analysis
by a qualified soils analyst, the present code
has done away .with many of the traditional
site restrictions. However, after 3 years of ex-
perience with the new code, the need for
modification of certain sections is evident.
Possible code revisions that would enhance
effective regulation of waste disposal include
water conservation, system maintenance, and
home conversion from part time to full time
occupancy.
Water conservation, from both an economic
and environmental standpoint, is desirable. A
reduction in water consumption would also
reduce the amount of wastewater for disposal.
Growth and development trends within the
Southern Kennebec Valley Region point to
future stress on both private and public pota-
ble water supplies.
System maintenance (i.e., periodic septic
tank pumping) has long been recognized as
essential in preventing premature failure of
individual subsurface disposal systems. The
Maine State Plumbing Code!does not cover
maintenance. A possible solution to this
problem might be the initiation of a com-
pulsory maintenance schedule for subsurface
systems. A locally or regionally administered
program could be instituted to require that
homeowners periodically have their dis-
posal system inspected and pumped out if
necessary. ;
Code revisions that address the problem of
converting summer homes to year-round res-
idences are also desirable. The numerous
lakes in the Southern Kennebec Region pro-
vide excellent recreational potential. As a
result, large numbers of summer homes exist
in the region. Conversion of these homes
usually consists of a winterizing process that
usually gives little thought to the modification
of the subsurface disposal systems to handle
increased year-round loadings.
In the 1977 legislative session, Maine passed
an act to control the conversion of seasonal
dwellings to year-round use in shoreland areas.
This law specifically addressed the modifica-
tion of the subsurface disposal systems as
recommended by SKVRPC and other area-
wide planning agencies.
Funding Requirements
Funding of cluster facility projects in the
State may become increasingly important.
Presently the funds come from the U.S. EPA,
the MDEP, and the local governments. The
-------
MDEP-EPA program involves a 90-percent
grant, (75 percent EPA and 15 percent MDEP)
to municipalities for eligible items.
The MDEP has considered the proposals put
forth by the Southern Kennebec Valley Re-
gional Planning Commission and concluded
that the concept of a second priority list for
the smaller cluster systems is sound. The De-
partment has agreed to institute the following
procedures in FY 1979:
1. The establishment of a cluster system
priority list based on water quality
criteria for these projects.
2. Funding of such projects will be at a
level of at least 4 percent and probably
not more than 5 percent of the available
federal and state 201 grant allocations.
(The 1977 amendments to the clean
water act authorizes up to 4 percent
for such systems).
3. Aid to systems with a capacity of less
than 57 to 189MP (15,000 to 50,000
gpd).
Maine's implementation of the cluster sys-
tem priority list is one of the first in the coun-
try. This step should permit individual groups
to utilize the cluster system concept for solv-
ing their waste management problems.
Local Involvement
The SKVRPC has also endorsed the con-
cept proposed by the Greater Portland Coun-
cil of Governments which calls for municipally
backed loans for individuals requiring correc-
tive or replacement action for malfunctioning
subsurface disposal systems. This approach
would be similar to a betterment tax
assessment for installation of a sewer or water
line, which some communities are now con-
sidering adopting as a policy.
Local governments in the SKVRPC Area
are examining two options for the operation
and maintenance of existing, individual, onsite
disposal systems — public information pro-
grams and plumbing code enforcement. The
local governments are also examining insti-
tutional arrangements to establish who
should manage the systems and what the
management functions should involve. These
local institutional factors will ultimately be
critical to the success of the program to limit
water quality problems from subsurface dis-
posal systems.
Public Information Programs
The SKVRPC has initiated plans to assist
towns with a public information program
aimed at providing the individual homeowner
with some basic information regarding his sub-
surface disposal system. Many property own-
ers have virtually no idea of what a subsurface
disposal system really is or how it functions.
The concepts involved are very basic, and if
clearly explained, they are generally easy to
comprehend. Educating homeowners to
understand the functioning of their dis-
posal system is a major step toward ensuring
proper maintenance.
For an educational program to be effective,
it must reach as many homeowners and be as
personalized as possible. SKVRPC has recom-
mended to its member communities that in-
formation be distributed by the local plumb-
ing inspector. This agent is presently respon-
sible for all subsurface sewage disposal permit
approvals within a jurisdictional area and has
contact with homeowners and developers
installing new systems. He is also in contact
with those whose systems are failing. When
distributing information, the inspector would
be responsible for explaining the value of
proper maintenance and could answer tech-
nical questions posed by homeowners. The
weakness of this system is that the inspector
may not effectively reach all members of
the community.
Enforcement of Plumbing Code
A more direct step in avoiding system fail-
ures is the enforcement of plumbing codes.
Enforcement of the Maine State Plumbing
Code has been delegated to municipalities,
who jnust appoint a local plumbing inspector
from a list of individuals certified by the De-
partment of Human Services, Division of
Health Engineering. The plumbing inspector
is responsible for reviewing soil tests and sew-
age system plans, issuing plumbing permits,
collecting permit fees, inspecting systems as
10
-------
they are installed, conducting investigations :
of illegal or malfunctioning sewage systems,
and taking appropriate enforcement action if
warranted. The plumbing inspector must
also perform these same functions for all
internal plumbing installed in individual
homes within the municipality.
Local commitment to the present plumbing
code enforcement is lacking, since only Au-
gusta and Winthrop employ full-time enforce-
ment officers. SKVRPC has recommended
that an effective system of enforcement for
the State plumbing code and other environ-
mental regulations would be a formalized,
regional code enforcement program using
trained, full-time, salaried personnel. Such a ,
program could provide improved services to :
the communities involved and better ensure
that the legislative goals and State regulations ,
are being met. A professionally-staffed re-
gional code enforcement office should benefit
each community since it would provide a
professional staff whose responsibility was to
subsurface disposal problems. A regional code
enforcement program could be implemented
through local cooperative agreements, with :
duties and expenses shared jointly by the
municipalities.
Cluster Management Systems
A number of approaches are possible to
managing cluster wastewater disposal systems,',
including the utilization of nonprofit corpora-;
tions, property-owner associations, or associa-
ted public agencies (such as municipal depart-
ments or special-purpose districts). Any of
these various approaches may be applied to
specific situations, but if Federal and State
construction grants are involved, only a public
entity is eligible for Federal funds.
To better ensure proper maintenance and
operation of the cluster system, the manage-
ment responsibilities must be given to an
entity with technical expertise and enforce-
ment resources. SKyRPC has identified
several processes that could provide the
necessary management:
• Use existing sanitary districts where
available.
• Permit the Cobbossee Watershed District
to serve as the management agency for
cluster systems within its jurisdiction.
• Permit communities without sanitary
districts or municipally;owned sewers to
assume the management of its cluster
systems.
• Create new special districts under the
Maine, Sanitary District .Enabling Act to
manage cluster or smalli-scale systems.
• Contract with existing wastewater
agencies. ;
• Hire outside bonded consultants to
ensure proper operations and main-
tenance.
Combinations of these alternatives are cur-
rently being examined for three cluster sys-
tems that desire to begin operation as soon as
possible. Any action taken to determine their
management is expected to establish a prece-
dent for future action.
11
*U.S. OOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICEil978— 757-140/6667
-------
-------
-------
------- |