DRAFT
Handbook for Management of Onsite
and Clustered (Decentralized)
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Public Education
ancl Participation
Management
Handbook
-------
-------
Handbook for Management
of Onsite and Clustered
(Decentralized)Wastewater Treatment Systems
EPA 832-D-03-001
February 2003
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Additional copies can be obtained from:
U.S. EPA Publications Clearinghouse
PO Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: 800-490-9198
Fax: 513-489-8695
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that contains a minimum of 50% post-consumer fiber content processed
chlorine-free.
-------
-------
Foreword
This Management Handbook for onsite and cluster (decentralized) wastewater treatment systems is
designed to assist state and local officials, service providers, and other interested parties with improving
existing and new decentralized system performance in a sustainable, long-term manner. Individual and
small cluster systems currently serve approximately 25 percent of the U.S. population, treating and
releasing about 4 billion gallons of wastewater per day. Managing these systems to ensure long-term
protection of public health and water resources, however, is a relatively new concept because the systems
were originally installed with the idea that they would receive little, if any, management.
Many new rural and suburban residents are not aware of the need for proper operation and maintenance of
their onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). Sensitive environmental conditions, poor soils, high
water tables, increasing system densities, and the expanded use of mechanical components (e.g., electric
pumps and switches) require improved regulation and management. Regulation, as prescribed by state
and local codes, is typically performed by a regulatory authority such as a county health department or
water quality agency. The more robust set of management activities—planning, system performance
requirements, site evaluation, design, construction, operation/maintenance, residuals management,
training and certification, public education and involvement, inspection and monitoring, compliance
enforcement, record keeping and reporting, and financial assistance—can be undertaken by an enhanced
regulatory authority, independent service provider, other public agency, or a public and/or private
responsible management entity with the necessary powers and charged with responsibility for ensuring
that these functions are properly carried out. In most cases, managing decentralized systems will be
handled by a cooperative management program. Cooperative management programs can be developed by
the regulatory authority or other entity (e.g., water resource agency, planning department) by organizing
local resources into a web of service providers, agencies, and private entities that can ensure protection of
public health and the environment. Under this approach, management activities are defined and
distributed among involved partners through a formal or informal cooperative program designed to meet
the needs of local communities.
«s.:p- *v- .>p*vx---- ,j- -?. •-- >- ,u-- s . • > ,-.i->?>-< -:'~ ~»5 ''v -
•ifpifii%HeigisJp^
4*t?tepr- ti:**fe>S4r- ^ii-ffitl!- tlilt^e-? :j^lf'^ tj-.\S>,tk*te b:.,!!;;^\V-\\i-
' ~" ' ' ' '
The structure and operational processes local management programs will depend on the unique
circumstances, capabilities, resources, and commitment of each community. Many communities will
develop management programs through the involvement of several organizations, such as traditional
regulatory authorities, planning departments, approved service providers, environmental agencies, design
professionals, and so on. Some might opt for a more comprehensive program that vests most management
responsibilities in a sanitation board, service district, or other responsible management entity that might
own, maintain, or operate a number of decentralized or even centralized wastewater systems. The nature
of local management programs will vary greatly across the Nation. All management programs, however,
must be sustainable and responsible for ensuring the protection of human health and water resources from
disease-causing bacteria, nitrates in groundwater, high nutrient levels, and other potentially harmful
pollutants.
-------
The approach discussed in this Management Handbook is based on a few simple but essential concepts:
• The creation and maintenance of descriptive and historical inventories of all systems
» Management, operation, and maintenance to ensure protection of public health and. the
environment
• Increased management for systems with mechanical components, systems installed at high
densities, and systems located in sensitive (high-risk) environmental settings
This Management Handbook offers guidance on how to plan and implement a successful management
program. Chapter 1 gives background information on the Management Handbook and describes the
current status of wastewater treatment system management. Chapter 2 explains the five model
management programs, and chapter 3 describes the essential eleihents of a management program. Chapter
4 provides guidance on planning and implementing a management program, from identifying key
problem areas and assessing management needs through planning for implementation. The program
elements for managing decentralized treatment systems are listed below. The activities associated with
each program element should be based on local resources and capabilities, but must always address public
health needs and environmental protection requirements. Under the approach discussed in this handbook,
local communities are encouraged to find the appropriate mix of'activities required within each program
element to meet then- health and environmental goals. Tools to aid this process can be found in this
handbook and obtained through the organizations listed in the Resources section.
:* i&UrJif; I: \ 111 '..
of a Decentraliz:ed Wastewater
>rmance i
i eve
ition
: _ , .,.,*!
)n anj|||gartidpjt^
'"on cumulative emd'oth'er"impactson Human rf
' EJj JKJjtLHHiJflBP^™"31'-'"l""lll'l?v;'1-1-'•'""" '•'• i» :".';"¥i't::".""!",:;';"{.!'!!],-.
|uirements''to ensure appropriate system" i
it li'iijiril | ||i ii'iiiilliilillll ii|iiiiliiN!!!|pi!!ii!ii:Tt:|i I,i,; >;iiiili!,iii|ii iiilIflilji'l";'itiiiTilJiiff,ki)l' !i ' iili<'i'i,'ji:'i' i"'i' i 'n f' 'i"l iJi'i ill <' '
5S:f||lSSS|KB.s:i"|si|^^
|anagemerrt' Program'"
j^'if-i* :'«& •i^M^mdtM^ %7&A^;$ffir'^
y^fewr^Nii^Pi^fliBisjgy,^
ffit''Ti:"!*; t'-VTV1"^"^)^!1"';!''!'"'|V^|"ttr'ii:'iiiir'1'JF'''
develop appropriate respdhses.
ill.!*'! 1 J I i*» p ,• Hillm i • '•'•" "•'» • 'j '• I'i *"', •*'' ii I' I"I"'i' " "
: consider site conditions, cumulative loadings, ar
lf; j i.. :.:,•: i
! Construction practices that ensure compliance with design,
I'^fSPf"?!'"1 ; i'' *"" '""I :" ' '" '-'-,: • ;' -•-•'• •;• .. . ••-'-*
~ iratfon and maintenance functions that focus on perform!
ifeiiiiitiibvita
;.management programs that protect health and w<
!|j,^iy«t|!^^ «j|,s|^
lions and monitoring to 'assess and document perforf
i action's, anc!"'"enforcement tVisnsure'cwrn^ltance^i
peeping, inventory^ and reporting to support plarinij
fpfinclai ^^f^nce~and ftTh^Tng'to support instailatioh, re|
pitfi''an3"wa1eT"resoulrces71"1*'"
iigiT ana fecnlnology'seleclion I
(m'lizlng'aHa'desfgnT1"" """""
performance requirements.
Ing, and performance criteria.
nee and minimize risk.
;.resources'."". '" "' '. •";•'•
Ice providers.
Xarice and initiate remediation.
ifll adclress'lBiling/faiied systems.
|/management, and oversight.
overall mariagemssht.
-------
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction • 8
1.1 Purpose of the management handbook
1.2 What is management?
1.3 Why is management needed?
1.4 What are the benefits of a management program?
1.5 Handbook audience and use
1.6 Background on decentralized wastewater systems
1.7 Current status of decentralized wastewater management
1.8 Overview of management program structure and function
8
9
9
10
11
12
19
20
Chapter 2: Developing elements of the management program 25
2.1 Program elements and the management continuum 25
2.2 Overview of management program elements 28
2.3 Issues to consider in assigning program element responsibilities 29
2.4 Description of management program elements 30
2.5 Model programs for system management 66
Chapter 3: Management program models 69
3.1 Introduction to the management models
3.2 Description of the management models
3.3 Homeowner awareness model
3.4 Maintenance contract model
3.5 Operating permit model
3.6 RME operation and maintenance model
3.7 RME Ownership model
3.8 Applying the management models
3.9 Environmental sensitivity and public health risk
3.10 Complexity of treatment systems
69
70
72
72
73
74
74
75
77
77
Chapter 4: Management program development & implementation 81
4.1 Developing and implementing a management program 81
4.2 Where do I start? 85
4.3 Identifying and evaluating monitoring and assessment information 89
4.4 Overview of risk factors related to system management, 91
4.5 Using risk assessments to target management activities 95
4.6 Identifying goals for the management program 101
4.7 Developing a management action plan 103
4.8 Implementing and adapting the management program 106
4.9 Regular review and revision of an ongoing management program 111
4.10 Using the management models as a basis for management 112
Chapter 5: Financial, Technical, and Other Resources 115
Appendix A: References for all Chapters
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Appendix C: Relationship to other USEPA Water Programs
Appendix D: Model Program Tables
Appendix E: Sample ordinances
-------
Tables
Chapter 1: Introduction .' 8
Table 1-1 Types of decentralized wastewater treatment systems
Table 1-2 Common definitions for OWTS failures |
Table 1-3 Typical pollutants of concern from onsite systems
Table 1-4 Management program elements and involved entities
12
15
18
23
Chapter 2: Developing elements of the management program 25
Table 2-1 Functional categories of management and program elements 26
Table 2-2 Summary of management program elements and approaches 27
Table 2-3 Public education and participation activities 32
Table 2-4 Public education approaches 33
Table 2-5 Planning activities 34
Table 2-6 Performance requirements approaches ; 38
Table 2-7 Site evaluation approaches 40
Table 2-8 Site evaluation and assessment activities for SW'IS applications 42
Table 2-9 Design program approaches 43
Table 2-10 Construction/installation approaches i 46
Table 2-11 Operation and maintenance approaches ] 48
Table 2-12 Residuals management approaches i 50
Table 2-13 Certification and licensing approaches 52
Table 2-14 Inspection and monitoring approaches 55
Table 2-15 Approaches to ensuring compliance and their implications 57
Table 2-16 Corrective action approaches 58
Table 2-17 Record keeping, inventory, and reporting approaches 60
Table 2-18 Financial assistance and funding approaches 62
Table 2-19 Advantages and disadvantages of various funding sources 64
Table 2-20 Overview of management model objectives and basic features 67
Chapter 3: Management program models 69
Table 3-1 Summary of the management models for decentralized systems 79
Chapter 4: Management program development & implementation 81
Table 4-1 General approach for developing & implementing a program 84
Table 4-2 Resource listing, value ranking, and wastewater management 96
Table 4-3 Proposed performance standards in various control zones 97
Table 4-4 Control zone designations vs. treatment standards 97
Table 4-5 Environmental sensitivity assessment key for preceding figure 100
Table 4-6 Organizational, functional, and structural dimensions 102
Table 4-7 Institutional considerations in selecting a management entity 109
Chapters: Financial, Technical, and Other Resources i 115
-------
Figures
Chapter 1: Introduction
Figure 1-1 Onsite treatment system distribution in the United States 13
Figure 1-2 Percentage of the U.S. residents served by centralized treatment 14
Figure 1 -3 A sample of studies comparing system functionality with system age 1 6
Figure 1 -4 Centralized wastewater treatment vs. the decentralized approach 1 6
Figure 1-5 The decentralized wastewater management continuum 22
Figure 1-6 Management intensity vs. environmental sensitivity & resource value 22
Chapter 2: Developing elements of the management program ...... . ....................... 25
Figure 2-1 Example of design boundaries for onsite wastewater treatment systems 44
Chapter 3: Management program models .................................................. , ....... 69
Chapter 4: Management program development & implementation 81
Figure 4-1 Typical timetable for a wastewater treatment project
Figure 4-2 Key attributes of the management concept
Figure 4-3 Schematic of the management planning process
Figure 4-4 Environmental sensitivity risk factors
Figure 4-5 Public health risk factors
Figure 4-6 Wastewater characteristics risk factors
Figure 4-7 Treatment complexity risk factors
Figure 4-8 Probability of environmental impact decision tree
Figure 4-9 Using risk inputs to select a management program model
82
83
86
92
92
93
94
99
114
Chapter 5: Financial, Technical, and Other Resources 115
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the management handbook
This Management Handbook, which supports the U.S. Envkoniriental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Voluntary Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Cluster (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment
Systems, has been developed to improve the performance of decentralized wastewater systems through
better management. Decentralized wastewater treatment systems include individual onsite systems
(commonly called septic systems, private sewage systems, or individual sewage systems) and cluster
systems serving one or more homes or businesses not connected to centralized sewer service. Proper
management is necessary for all of these systems to consistently meet site-specific performance
requirements, i.e., to protect public health and water resources. USEPA has proposed a set of voluntary
national guidelines to improve the quality of management programs for decentralized systems, establish
minimum levels of activity, and institutionalize the concept of management.
USEPA continues to support the most cost-effective approach to wastewater treatment, which meets
environmental and public health goals, whether it be centralized or decentralized. This handbook will help
communities understand and implement management programs that can effectively meet their own water
quality and public health goals, provide a greater range of options for cost-effectively meeting wastewater
needs, and protect consumer investments in homes and businesses.
The Guidelines contain a set of management approaches that rely on
coordinating the responsibilities and actions of the regulatory
authority, the management entity, service providers, and system
owners. These approaches - presented as five model management
programs - are structured to address an increasing need for more
comprehensive management as the sensitivity of the environment, the
number and density of system installations, and the degree of system
complexity increases. The five-model management program suggested
in the Guidelines (which are presented in the Appendix of this
handbook) describe essential program elements, which range from
planning and recordkeeping to operation/maintenance needs. The
management program's responsibilities increase progressively from
Model Program 1 through Model Program 5, reflecting not only the
increased level of management activities needed to achieve more
stringent water quality and public health goals, but also the increased capability needed to properly
manage larger numbers of more complex technologies in more wlnerable watersheds.
Although adoption of the Guidelines or any management approach is voluntary, USEPA encourages
states and local communities to consider the Guidelines as a basis for their decentralized wastewater
management programs. A small investment in improved management of onsite and cluster systems might
prevent the need for subsequent—and much larger—investments in centralized wastewater facilities or in
continued repair/replacement of decentralized systems that fail because of lack of management attention.
The Guidelines can be applied to both existing and new systems serving residential and commercial
facilities.
Although adoption of the
guidelines or any
management approach is
voluntary, USEPA
encourages states and local
communities to consider the
guidelines as a basis for
: their decentralized
wastewater management
, programs because of the
continuing public health and
'; Water resource threats
s posed by poorly performing,
• unmanaged onsite systems.
-------
1.2 What is management?
Management of decentralized systems is implementation of a comprehensive, life-cycle series of elements
and activities that address public education and participation, planning, performance requirements, site
evaluation, design, construction, operation and maintenance, residuals management, training and
certification/licensing, inspections/monitoring, corrective actions and enforcement,
recordkeeping/inventorying/reporting, and financial assistance and funding. Therefore, a management
program involves, in varying degrees, regulatory and elected officials, developers and builders, soil and
site evaluators, engineers and designers, contractors and installers, manufacturers, pumpers and haulers,
inspectors, management entities, and property owners. Establishing distinct roles and responsibilities of
the partners involved is very important to ensuring proper system management.
The voluntary management guidelines apply to both existing communities and to areas of new
development that use onsite and cluster systems of any size for residential and commercial wastewater
treatment and dispersal. Centralized collection and treatment facilities are not addressed here. Industrial
wastewater treatment systems are also not addressed, since many industrial wastes are prohibited by
federal and state regulation from using onsite treatment and dispersal, because of the potential to interfere
with wastewater treatment, and/or pollute ground water resources.
The management guidelines are not intended to be used to determine appropriate or inappropriate uses of
land. The information in the Guidelines is intended to be used to help select appropriate management
strategies and technologies that minimize risks to human health and water resources in areas where
connections to centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems are not considered appropriate.
The determination of appropriate siting requirements, system density restrictions or required technologies
is a state, tribal or local decision.
1.3 Why is management needed?
The performance of onsite and cluster wastewater treatment systems is a national issue of great concern to
USEPA. Onsite and cluster wastewater treatment systems serve approximately 25 percent of U.S.
households and approximately 33 percent of new development. Onsite and cluster systems can provide a
high level of public health and natural resource protection if they are properly planned, sited, designed,
constructed, operated and maintained. Unfortunately, many of the systems currently in use do not provide
the level of treatment necessary to adequately protect public health and/or surface and ground water
quality. Many were initially sited and installed, as temporary solutions as a result of the perception that
centralized treatment and collection would soon replace them. Comprehensive, life cycle management did
not play a role in the approval and/or in the ongoing operation of many systems. More than half the
existing onsite systems are over 30 years old, and surveys indicate at least 10 percent of these systems
backup onto the ground surface or into the home each year. Other data has shown that at least 25 percent
of systems are malfunctioning to some degree.(2) In a majority of cases, the homeowner is not aware of a
system failure until it backs up in the home or breaks out on the ground surface. In many areas of the
country, the local authority lacks records of many of the systems within the service area.
In the National Water Quality Inventory, 1996 Report to Congress, state agencies designated the top ten
potential contaminant sources, which threaten their ground water resources. The second most frequently
cited contamination source is septic systems. The report states that "improperly constructed and poorly
maintained septic systems are believed to cause substantial and widespread nutrient and microbial
contamination to ground water." Other contaminant sources identified by states included underground
storage tanks, landfills, large industrial facilities and numerous other activities. States have also identified
over 500 communities in the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey as having failed septic systems that have
caused public health problems. In 1996, septic systems were reported by states as a leading source of
-------
pollution for more than one-third (36 percent) of the impaired miles of ocean shoreline surveyed. Other
leading sources included urban runoff/storm sewers, municipal sewer discharges, and industrial point
sources. In U.S. classified shellfish growing areas, closures and harvest restrictions have occurred
primarily because of "the concentration of fecal coliform bacteria associated with human sewage and with
organic wastes from livestock and wildlife." The 1995 National Shellfish Register indicated that the most
common pollution source cited for shellfish restrictions was urban runoff (principal or contributing factor
in 40% of all harvest-limited growing areas), followed by unidentified upstream sources (39%), wildlife
(38%) and septic tanks (32%). Onsite wastewater systems also may be contributing to an overabundance
of nutrients in ponds, lakes and coastal estuaries, leading to overgrowth of algae and other nuisance
aquatic plants. For example, the 45,000 septic systems in Sarasota County, Florida, contribute four times
more nitrogen to the Bay than the City of Sarasota's advanced wastewater treatment plant.
Onsite and cluster wastewater systems also contribute to contamination of drinking water sources.
USEPA estimates that 168,000 viral and 34,000 bacterial illnesses each year occur as a result of
consumption of drinking water from systems which rely on improperly treated ground water. The
contaminants of primary concern in USEPA's study of ground water-based drinking water systems are
waterborne pathogens from fecal contamination. Malfunctioning septic systems are identified as a
potential source of this contamination; other sources could include leaking or overflowing sanitary sewer
lines, as well as stormwater runoff. A recent example of contamination involved nearly 800 visitors to a
fair in Washington County, New York, who became ill after consuming water from a well source which
was likely contaminated by a septic system at an adjacent dormitory. Other examples in which septic
systems were attributed to be the pollution source include 82 cases of shigellosis resulting from a
contaminated well in Island Park, Idaho in 1995,46 cases of hepatitis A from a privately-owned water
supply in Racine, Missouri, and 49 cases of hepatitis A in Lancaster, Pennsylvania in 1980. USEPA is
also concerned with the presence of nitrates in groundwater, particularly in rural areas where residents
must rely on individual wells and onsite systems to serve relatively small lots.
While it is difficult to measure and document specific cause-ancl-effect relationships between onsite
wastewater treatment systems and the quality of our water resources, it is widely accepted that improperly
managed systems (resulting from inadequate siting, design, construction, installation, operation and/or
maintenance) are contributors to major water quality problems. As documentation becomes available
concerning the source of impairments, USEPA will be better able to determine the extent of the
relationship. It is already evident that improved operation and performance of onsite and cluster systems
through better management practices will be essential if the nation's water quality and public health goals
are to be attained.
1.4 What are the benefits of a management program?
Benefits of a management program are accrued by both the communities developing effective
management programs and the individual property owners and include:
Protection of public health and local water resources: Although unqualified, septic system failures in the
form of yard backups have been recognized as a public health hazard and an insult to natural resources for
many years. Improved management practices will minimize the; occurrence of failures by ensuring (with
proper planning, siting, design, installation, operation and maintenance, and monitoring) pollutants are
adequately treated and dispersed into the environment, thereby reducing risks to both public health and
local water resources.
Protection of property values: There are many documented instances over the last few decades of the
increased value of property in areas formerly served by failing onsite systems after the area has been
sewered. Management programs offer an opportunity to obtain the same level of service and aesthetics as
10
-------
sewered communities at a fraction of the cost, thus providing property appreciation and cost savings.
Ground water conservation: A well-managed onsite system will contribute to groundwater recharge.
Many areas of the United States which have undergone rapid development and sewering are experiencing
rapidly declining water tables and/or water shortages because ground water is no longer being recharged
by onsite systems.
Preservation of tax base: A well-managed onsite system will prevent small communities from having to
finance the high cost of centralized sewers. Many small communities have exhausted their tax base at the
expense of other public safety and education programs to pay for those sewers. Many communities then
entice growth in an effort to pay for these systems, thus destroying the community structure, which
originally attracted residents.
Life-cycle cost savings: There is a clear indication that, in many cases, management may pay for itself in
terms of lower failure rates and alleviating the need for premature system replacement; however, this will
depend on the types of systems that are employed and the management program chosen. Documentation
of that savings is only now being initiated.
1 .5 Handbook audience and use
handbook is intended to provide a basic understanding of important elements of management
programs for decentralized wastewater systems and to provide options, examples, and case studies that
can help local communities address their management needs. The primary audiences for this handbook
are state, tribal and local regulators that are responsible for regulating decentralized systems. Secondary
audiences include service providers (designers, installers, pumpers, haulers and inspectors), elected
officials, and others interested in improving the management of small wastewater systems.
USEPA recognizes that management programs will vary widely across the Nation. Some communities
will elect to adopt a cooperative management program that organizes and coordinates the activities of the
regulatory authority, water resource agency, planning department, service providers, and other interested
parties (e.g., volunteer monitoring groups, homeowner associations, sanitation districts, etc.). Other
jurisdictions might have the resources to develop a responsible management entity (RME) with the
technical, managerial, and financial capacity to ensure long-term, cost-effective management, operation,
and maintenance of all systems within the designated service area. The exact configuration of local
management programs will be based on the resources available, the nature of public health and water
resource threats posed by onsite systems, and the creativity and commitment of the regulatory authority
and other interested parties.
In developing a management program, it is important to identify those interested parties vital to the
success of any decentralized management program. These include not only members of the community
served, local elected officials, regulators, and local service providers, but also local lenders, land
developers, real estate professionals, planners, and others who are affected by the nature and vitality of
the community and its environment. For example:
• Residents are concerned about the public health of the community, the cost of the alternative
solutions, and how the program chosen will affect the quality of their daily lives and their
property values.
• Regulators are also primarily concerned about public health and the quality of the water resources
that are affected by the community.
* Local officials are most concerned about the economic well being of the community and the
11
-------
impact of any wastewater problems, as well as community support for the program.
« Service providers that perform operation and maintenance on existing systems are concerned
about the impact of the management program on their livelihood.
» Land developers want to know what areas are available for development and what wastewater
treatment infrastructure requirements will be placed on those areas.
• Lending institutions and real estate professionals need to know how the management program
will assure proper treatment and the impact of a management program on property values.
« Planners are concerned about land use issues, such as where development can occur and any
specific performance requirements necessary for wastewater treatment in different areas.
Stakeholders and other interested parties can use the chapters thdt follow to develop a better
understanding of the range of management program structures apd operational processes. Local
community leaders are encouraged to refer to the Resources section for further details on specific
program elements and to be creative, cooperative, and patient in developing a management program
suited to their particular circumstances.
Table 1-1. Types of decentralized wastewater treatment systems
Type of system Description
Individual onsite systems
Systems that serve an individual residence and can range from
conventional septic tank/drainfield systems to systems composed of
complex mechanical treatment trains.
Cluster systems
Wastewater collection and treatment systems that serve two or
more dwellings or buildings, but less than an entire community, on a
suitable site near the served structures.
Commercial, residential,
institutional, and recreational
facilities
Systems designed to treat larger and sometimes more complex
wastewater sources from commercial buildings (e.g., restaurants),
apartments, or institutional or recreational facilities.
1.6 Background on decentralized wastewater systems
Historically, the design and siting of onsite wastewater treatment systems has been an inconsistent
process. Conventional septic tank and gravity-fed leach field systems were installed based on economic
factors, the availability of adequate land area, and simple health-based measures aimed primarily at
preventing direct public contact with untreated or inadequately treated wastewater. Outside of the
establishment of vertical and horizontal setbacks, little attention has been devoted to mitigating the
impacts of these systems on local ground and surface water resources. Only recently has there been an
understanding of these issues and potential problems associated with failing to manage onsite systems in a
comprehensive, holistic manner.
The common misperception that has served as a major barrier to advancement of the decentralized
approach—that onsite systems are inferior, old-fashioned, less technologically advanced, and not as safe
as centralized wastewater treatment systems—has caused many small communities to construct very
expensive centralized sewage collection and treatment systems (USEPA, 1997). The greater distances
12
-------
between residences, the high cost of deep excavation and regularly spaced manholes, and the high cost of
operating and maintaining lift stations and urban treatment facilities have made these systems a burden on
many of those communities. These costs may be unaffordable for many, if not most, small communities
and.rural areas. Even when it is affordable, centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems might
not be the most environmentally sound option for all situations.
Figure 1-1. Onsite treatment system distribution in the United States
Percentage of slate
residents using onsite
wasfewafep systems
10-25% D
26-40% H
SCWE*; ULS. C@rou? bureau, 1W
Conventional centralized sewers transport wastewater and often infiltrating ground water away from its
natural location, thus lowering ground water tables. The frequent loss of the ability to finance other
community needs because of the high capital sewage treatment costs has had irreversible negative impacts
on the economic vitality of some smaller communities that have opted for these systems. In addition,
centralized treatment systems have a greater capacity to contribute to unpredicted, unplanned growth and
development that can cause increased pollution from storm water runoff. Finally, the consolidation of
many small wastewater streams into one large one at one treatment facility increases the possibility of
catastrophic damage to sensitive receiving environments when treatment or collection system failures
occur.
As development patterns change and increased development occurs in rural areas and on the urban fringe,
many communities are evaluating whether they should invest in centralized sewers and sewage treatment
plants or continue to rely on onsite systems. Investment by small communities in conventional collection
and treatment systems increases taxes and costs to consumers and may induce unwanted growth and
negative impacts on water quality and society. During the 20th century the percentage of people served by
13
-------
centralized sewage treatment increased steadily, ultimately reaching about 75 percent by 1990 (see figure
below). This was due in part to urban public works investments that were financed to a large degree by
federal funds. The lure of 50 percent or more in matching funds was difficult for local authorities to resist,
especially because the prevailing beliefs were that (1) the entire country would eventually be sewered and
(2) sewers stimulate growth of the local .economy.
Figure 1-2. Percentage of U.S. residents served by centralized treatment
80-i
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
T
O O
oo ON
ON ON
1 1 r
o o o
OO 00 00
o
ON
oo
1 1
o o o
^^ T^ ^^
Os ON ON
O
fO
ON
O
Tf
ON
O
V)
ON
f-
ON
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
During the 1980s it became clear that the federal grant program might
be impeding the development of cost-effective wastewater systems for
smaller communities, which were at the bottom of the population-
based priority system for grant monies. Also, many local governments
found that for every dollar they spent on sewer extensions, less than a
dollar came back in the form of increased revenues. In some cases the
unplanned growth and development inducements resulting from efforts
to increase the tax base to pay for the centralized sewer resulted in
uncontrolled growth and additional environmental damage (NCCF,
1997). The Construction Grants Program that provided most of these
funds was eventually terminated in 1990. The present distribution of
onsite systems in each state is illustrated in Figure 1-1. Recent
statistics indicate that the unsewered percentage of the population will
rise in the near term, given that more than 32 percent of all new housing being built today is served by
onsite wastewater systems (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). The Management Guidelines and this handbook
are therefore timely, especially in light of the relative cost to homeowners of central sewers and treatment
facilities for smaller communities. For example, Kreissl and Otis (1999) found that centralized treatment
for smaller communities costs two to four times more per customer served than treatment in urban areas
for the same technologies.
Although onsite wastewater
disposal is a valid alternative
to public sewers, particularly
in rural areas; without proper
design, construction,
maintenance and
management these systems
can cause ground water or
surface water contamination.
Fred Bowers
NJ Regulator
14
-------
The points discussed previously beg the question of why small communities and rural developments
abandon existing onsite wastewater systems and invest in expensive central collection and treatment
systems. In many cases it is because partially treated effluent from some of the old onsite systems began
to back up or surface, resulting in aesthetic problems and public health risks. In other cases, attractive
financing packages or a lack of familiarity among consultants regarding newer, better-performing
decentralized treatment options resulted in the selection of centralized service.
Table 1-2. Common definitions for OWTS failures
Type of failure
Evidence of failure
Hydraulic
Untreated or partially treated sewage pooling on ground surfaces; sewage
backup in plumbing fixtures; sewage breakouts on slopes
Chemical pollutant
contamination of ground
water
High nitrate levels in drinking water wells; taste or odor problems in well
water caused by untreated, poorly treated, or partially treated wastewater;
presence of toxic substances (e.g., solvents, cleaners) in well water
Microbial contamination of
ground and surface water
Shellfish bed bacterial contamination; recreational beach closures due to
high bacterial levels; contamination of down-gradient drinking water wells
with fecal bacteria or viruses
Nutrient contamination of
surface water
Algal blooms, high aquatic plant productivity, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations in nearby freshwater and marine water bodies
The belief that onsite systems are prone to failure has also motivated smaller communities to opt for
centralized sewage collection and treatment. The actual failure rate for onsite systems varies widely
across the Nation. The percentage of hydraulic backups to the surface is claimed to vary from less than 1
percent to 10 percent annually in various state studies (see Figure 1-3). Herring (2001) suggested even
higher failure rates in a recent review of management program case studies. Some studies have concluded
that onsite systems were contaminating otherwise potable ground water or nearby surface waters with
nitrate, nutrients, and/or bacteria. For example, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation
estimated in 1993 that OWTSs were the primary cause of impairment for 180 water bodies and the
secondary cause for impairment in several hundred others (Herring, 2001).
15
-------
Figure 1-3. A sample of studies comparing system functionality with system age
Systems still functioning (%) •
30
20
10
•_X-Adapted from Clayton, 1975 (WSAS installed during 19S52-1968)
__0—From Hoxie and Frick, 1984 (WSAS installed during 1974-1983)
-&—Reproduced from Plews and DeWalle, 1984 (Larger WSAS Installed during 1950-1984)
""_•—Adapted from England and Dix, 1999 (Chamber WSAS installed during 1990-1998)
T~
5
—r—
10
i
15
20
25
30
The development of modern onsite treatment technologies and comprehensive management programs,
however, is starting to reverse these trends. The onsite wastewater treatment industry, state regulators,
technical support organizations (e.g., National Small Flows Clearinghouse), and professional associations
(e.g., National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association) have made tremendous progress over the past
10 years in addressing the economic, technical, and managerial challenges associated with decentralized
wastewater treatment. The task for implementing the treatment technologies and management programs
resulting from this work is now in the hands of local communities.
Figure 1-4. Centralized wastewater treatment vs. the decentralized approach.
<
Centralized wastewater treatment
Decentralized approach
16
-------
The high rate of failure in some communities is linked to poor system management and improper
application of onsite wastewater treatment technology rather than an overall inability of onsite systems to
adequately treat and disperse wastewater. Indeed, the onsite treatment industry has developed a variety of
treatment units and system components capable of meeting even the most stringent performance
requirements on sites with significant design limitations. However, the availability of advanced treatment
technology cannot guarantee performance in the absence of effective management programs that address
the full range of onsite wastewater treatment considerations. Management is the key to meeting
performance requirements and protecting human health and water resources from pollutants of concern. A
list of typical pollutants is provided in Table 1-3.
17
-------
Table 1-3. Typical pollutants of concern from onsite systems
Pollutant
Reason for concern
Suspended
Solids (TSS)
Biodegradable
organics (BOD,
COD, TOG)
Pathogenic
organisms (virus,
bacteria,
parasites)
Nitrogen (N)
In surface waters, TSS can result in the development of sludge deposits that
smother benthic macroinvertebrates and fish eggs and can contribute to benthic
enrichment, toxicity, and sediment oxygen demand. Excessive turbidity can
block sunlight, harming aquatic life (e.g.,; by blocking sunlight needed by plants)
and contribute to decreased dissolved oxygen in the water column. In drinking
water, turbidity is aesthetically displeasing and interferes with disinfection.
Biological stabilization of organics in the water column can deplete dissolved
oxygen in surface waters, creating anoxic conditions harmful to aquatic life.
Oxygen-reducing conditions create taste and odor problems in drinking water
and allow metals to leach from soil and rock in ground and surface waters.
Parasites, bacteria, and viruses can cause communicable diseases through
direct/indirect body contact or ingestion of contaminated water or shellfish. A
particular threat when partially treated sewage pools on ground surfaces or
migrates to recreational waters. Transport distances of some pathogens in
ground or surface waters can be significant.
Nitrogen is an aquatic plant nutrient that can contribute to eutrophication and
dissolved oxygen loss in surface waters, especially in lakes, estuaries, and
coastal embayments. Algae and aquatic weeds can contribute trihalomethane
(THM) precursors to the water column that might generate carcinogenic THMs in
chlorinated drinking water. Excessive nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water can
cause methemoglobinemia in infants and pregnancy complications. Livestock
also can suffer health impacts from drinking water high in nitrogen. Ammonia in
surface waters can be toxic to fish.
Phosphorus (P)
Toxic
Organic
Compounds
Phosphorus is an aquatic plant nutrient that can contribute to eutrophication of
inland and coastal surface waters and reduction of dissolved oxygen.
Toxic organic compounds present in household chemicals and cleaning agents
can interfere with certain biological processes in conventional and alternative
OWTSs and can be persistent and bioaccumulative in the aquatic environment.
They can cause damage to ecosystems and human health directly or through
ingestion of contaminated aquatic organisms (e.g., fish, shellfish).
Heavy
metals
Heavy metals (e.g., lead, mercury) in drinking water can cause human health
problems. In the aquatic ecosystem, they also can be toxic to aquatic life and
accumulate in fish that might be consumed by humans, resulting in metal toxicity
health threats. '
Dissolved Chloride and sulfide can cause taste and odor problems in drinking water.
Inorganic Boron, sodium, chlorides, sulfate, and cpther solutes might limit reuse options
Compounds (e.g., irrigation).
Source: Adapted in part from Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991.
18
-------
1.7 Current status of decentralized wastewater management
In 1997 USEPA issued the Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems. This report was a milestone: USEPA acknowledged for the first time that sewering the entire
country was not feasible and that decentralized wastewater systems were a viable alternative to
centralized facilities. The report also described the inherent benefits of properly managed decentralized
wastewater systems:
• More cost-effective than central sewer alternatives, except in densely populated urban centers.
» Longer service lives for managed onsite systems vs. unmanaged systems.
» Faster response to problems; smaller problem impacts.
" Increased opportunity for better watershed management.
• Better ground water protection and management capabilities.
• Increased property values.
The process of developing a cooperative or stand-alone management program is beneficial because it
involves participatory action - community visioning, long-term planning and stakeholder information
exchanges - and complements other wastewater planning needs. Management programs also promote
professionalism among service providers, offer the opportunity for performance-based rather than
prescriptive regulation, provide a vehicle for funding needed services, and make enforcement approaches
more flexible. Despite the inherent advantages of properly managed decentralized systems, however, five
maj or barriers continue to inhibit full utilization of alternative wastewater management systems:
• Lack of knowledge of the benefits and potential uses of decentralized systems on the part of
regulatory and technical practitioners and local governments and citizens.
• Legislative and regulatory constraints that inhibit optimum use of decentralized systems.
• Lack of management programs that can optimize performance of decentralized technologies.
• Liability and engineering fees that discourage consideration of these alternatives.
• Financial barriers that inhibit the application of decentralized systems.
Overcoming these barriers will require significant effort on the part of federal, tribal, state, and local
regulatory authorities and the management programs needed to support them. USEPA has identified the
following actions as essential in addressing the barriers listed above:
• Improved education of technical practitioners, including engineers, service providers (those
responsible for site evaluation, installation, and operation/maintenance), regulators, local citizens,
and political leaders who need to understand how these systems work, how they should be
managed, and how they affect public health and water quality. Efforts by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), USEPA, the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity
Development Project (NCDP), National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC), National
Environmental Services Center (NESC), National Environmental Health Association (NEHA),
National Association of Counties (NACO), National Association of Waste Transporters (NAWT),
and other national organizations are underway to improve education of engineers, service
providers, regulators, and others who assist small communities.
• Improved state and regional regulatory programs based on system performance rather than use of
restrictive codes, which rely on assumptions that certain site characteristics will protect public
health and water resources. USEPA, the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association
(NOWRA), and some states are seeking to develop management models to expand the range of
technical options to address existing onsite wastewater problems.
19
-------
Development of effective management programs to ensure that performance requirements are
met. The USEPA management guidelines and this handbook are part of a major effort by
USEPA, NSFC, NESC, and Hie NCDP to gather and share information on successful
management approaches that enable small communities to protect public health and
environmental quality in an affordable, cost-effective msinner.
Establishment of financing programs that assist local communities in creating and implementing
effective management programs. USEPA, USD A, and olher organizations have developed
programs to assist small communities, but more creative financing approaches are needed. For
example, New York State has announced a "one stop skipping" program for all assistance
programs for use by communities seeldng financial assistance.
Benefits of Improved decentralized wastewater
USEPA has documented the benefits of a well-managed
Benefits accrued by communities developing onsite
Protection of public health and local water resour^sj>yl||j5|f^ ^
treated and dispersed into the environment; , '•' :•' ?;? '^/:}l^^^''-,^'%£l^f^'&^l'^^''\
Protection of a homeowner's investment in, property!aricTp^,a^iiiy;ip;6ffl)S3r^W^fe(iutt^*: ••_»' !'{''?{}
Protection of a community's image; , ' ; >r-'< I'fj^-'l^l^ii'^l^^^f^fiW ;i**:h:~-f^
Elimination of the need to use a communityVfax:&aise-t® f ^
infrastructure; ' .-»,'?••' '^^^l^^."^:^'':''^^^i^J'^A'^^yf^
- • • • - 'atjng th'e rteS;forpremature ^^e.ffiireplac3emeritr!'|;;!;?
' :*,:-;-,/;•* f^f^f^^,^-f/p'i'/''g'-^!/^';}!-f^'^t (f*:;!JAy?;'
r >*!> «^ix*«. ;t^.iTi^*.3hK/*^-lr" t^A^W1*» i W>«4[«^s.iA»^ irM^M'wv/4t ij*i4!ysm-^ri^ 1K"»/* # ' ''/ '1
Cost savings over the life of a system, alleviating
and
' ' *' 3" •' • ^IS^&^CV'^ili^^v-V1-?^1' ."^v i'^.t^ >/?* , - - y'i - '"^ i'r'"'"*'/''** '/
Elimination of the potential for major impacts due'to's|s||n|^jfla^ynctipris |na reducli^n/jn tne.f | .,jj
vulnerability to system upsets. •";-.• ,' " Vv^-S--^-^"t|''^ll/ili' "•'*\'"'''^.|*-^l.4iH'
4 C1 ' i" '^P^7 • '1*vf'*"* * Ar'^ '***»f'o»JS* g. *!-| ' I.-T '' ' Tf'/'?'%• f rf, ./ ? ^^ ,' • ..•^K''' ,'
1.8 Overview of management program structure and function
In most state, tribal, and local onsite wastewater control systems, a regulatory authority or agency is
designated by statute or code to handle permitting, installation inspection, complaint response,
enforcement, and other functions. Regulatory authority is typically delegated by the state agency to local
health departments, but in some jurisdictions these duties may be executed by water resource agencies,
planning and zoning programs, or other governmental organizations. The regulatory role usually involves
permitting a system based on site conditions, executing a brief inspection, and expecting it to perform
without any further intervention until a complaint is filed. The homeowner is responsible for all operation
and maintenance required. This system of "benign neglect" has worked fairly well for the past century,
i.e., it has addressed hydraulic failure with some regard for environmental consequences. However, any
improvement in protecting public health and the environment can only be accomplished by developing
management programs that address the key elements of system management, operation, and maintenance.
Management services may be provided by an enhanced regulato:ry authority, a group of public or private
entities organized under a cooperative management program, or a responsible management entity. The
management program can be supported by cooperating partners, service fees, special property
assessments or other assessments, or funding from other sources. Depending on state, tribal, and/or local
codes, revised enabling legislation or special agreements might be required for a responsible management
20
-------
entity to assume responsibility for certain program elements, such as permitting, permit holding,
supplemental training/certification/licensing, monitoring, and system ownership.
The regulatory authority and the management program or entity must ensure that all onsite and cluster
wastewater systems in the management jurisdiction meet tins performance requirements established for
protection of public health and ground and surface water resources. Performance requirements can be
numeric (e.g., effluent nitrate concentrations must be below 15 mg/L) or narrative (e.g., no visible sewage
on the ground surface or objectionable odors), or they can be based on compliance with prescriptive codes
that are presumed to meet public health and water resource protection goals.
: "The be'nefitsjof good manlageme'nfdf''
• ypunwastewater systejrf '
' '
;preftas,,! ',<
. maintenance anp'ripJacerrfeot
longer'systerrfffe^', ' ' '
v
.; , * ^Increased, liability a,rKfx3verall:
- . safislfactjQrf'1' , ', : . ;, ;,.'-;
" " T' *> ' ' l' , '" *" 'l* '"*„•
' SmaJfCarnmitriit^ Wastewater Solutions:
:; -'x i , A Gtf|cfefo MaKtng Tre'atmerii
'Management and' Financing Decisions
An example of how a performance-based program might
function would be a jurisdiction where a local/regional
cooperative management program works with the
regulatory authority and state water and natural resource
programs to assess surface and ground waters, identify
areas where water quality criteria (i.e., under the federal
Clean Water Act) are not being met, and designate critical
areas where decentralized systems pose elevated risks
(e.g., sites with poor soils, high water tables, high densities
of existing systems, near sensitive surface waters, or in
floodplains). The management program would then work
, with the regulatory authority and the community to
develop onsite system performance requirements tailored to mitigate potential decentralized wastewater
treatment system impacts on the receiving waters. The regulatory authority might choose to retain its
power to issue system construction and operating permits, but delegate responsibilities for system design,
inspection, and operation and maintenance to a management entity that could collect fees, enter into
contracts, or receive funding for their services through other means. In all cases, the management entity
must of itself or in concert with its partners have the required powers listed below to effectively
accomplish its goals. For example, a stand-alone responsible management entity might be charged with:
• Authority to own, purchase, lease and rent both real and personal property;
• Right of access to the systems it governs by covenant, ordinance, or other suitable instrument;
• Eligibility for loans and grants for construction of facilities;
" Ability to enter into contracts and to undertake debt obligations, either by borrowing or issuing
stocks or bonds;
• Authority to set and collect charges for system usage and/or oversight, set the value of such
benefit, and assess or collect the cost from each property owner that is benefited;
• Power to make rules and regulations regarding use of on-site/small-scale systems; and
• Power to require the abatement of malfunctioning systems.
Management programs that require system owners to assume full responsibility for operation and
maintenance have proven to be largely ineffective (Herring, 2001). Therefore, the management models
presented in the USEPA voluntary guidelines recommend system inventories and maintenance reminders
to system owners as the foundation upon which management programs should be built. At the other end
of the management continuum, the guidelines suggest a program wherein a sanitation district or other
entity owns, operates, and maintains onsite and cluster systems and charges users a monthly fee in a
manner similar to conventional sewage collection and treatment operations. The middle ranges of the
management continuum recommend required maintenance contracts for higher risk systems and
revocable, renewable operating permits where appropriate. Again, the key consideration in developing,
implementing, and sustaining a management program is protecting public health and water resources.
21
-------
Figure 1-5. The decentralized wastewater management continuum.
Simple
systems
with
minimal
oversight
Mix of
systems
with
moderate
oversight
Mpre :
coniplex i
systems
with ;
g relate r
oversight
Corr plex
or cluster
systems
with
clcse
oversight
Very
complex
or cluster
systems
with
close
oversight
Local communities can tailor their management approach in accordance with their resources,
management capabilities, and the necessary level of protection for health and sensitive water resources as
expressed by statutes, codes, and community input. The decentralized management continuum can
accommodate a wide range of program activities as long as each of the program elements are addressed
during the planning and periodically throughout the implementation phase. A matrix that can be used to
match program elements (see Chapter 2 for description) to entities partnering in the management program
is presented as Table 1-4. This table is valuable for assessing the status of management at the start of
management program planning, checking the management options chosen for consideration, and
reviewing the program periodically to determine the need for changes.
Figure 1-6. Management intensity as a function of environmental sensitivity and resource
value.
22
-------
w
o
5
,>
4-1 *
O
re
*j
E
CD
O)
re
c
re
E
r
o
Q.
Q.
3
(A
O
,!••
(0
.2
^M1
0)
•o
0)
"w
D)
O)
(0
•c
c
1
o
E
0)
o
E.
s
D)
g
Q.
Table 1-4. Management
?:••;,!?;>
^'^
!§%"--!
J^^IO'f ' /
W-S~/s
'^5^*TJ
^,8'i-
TJ'i'ffi''1
i£M'W H
|iH
's;£ & i m
^&" ^IE
:j-2S:\o
•CO O Ms
•?;<><•' ?').'.
j^gP
§****' -^i*\ *
;p-Jr
-ffii'-j
w^,
"§•-•« 5§
ft%B
§' " ~"f;'
V #
-^ J"
HSr-aJJ'
*y-, J=J''^
U# fBK5'i'/-V
%!'-¥
^fe^f>
fc > - ^v! , i
|*-''f ''' , :
^ '^ ^' ^ ? ' ^ i
J CD ,C J ^ ^
'O,&")'^
''^JCD'j-:
OS .C;* ^ ^<
's< 'Cj^ f
'^glgjlj)
§Vc?5ii
O ;C5 spj)
x -^ ^", ; ^ ^
^pi'l
."g !g|*' '
-S'S'SfI
Se'X *'i
ill
K^'"" A s"
^/^.'Prf
$&t
ffilft-'^'
v;,n»^
,f-:- ^i-;,;
«vK*^ j
1l;^i'4
g'.'to'^
b?,;Jp^
*'<'»- ?v
vi'll'i* '
'-•s'-~ >™ J
. "i ^ £- i^
•(C fi ;.
jrf-^
-*9>'V
*^ 'f %'
h;$
', ";r« ^ **
¥'-'l\
"^
?' '$%
'^K
, /;^r ^
' \ * - ™v'
j^>
:/4? ?
i,'s '''
* ^T"xr
}^T.
;l*'-!i
•i,|,-''
1 1 »', ,j»
fi-r- •''
;|t*f
*,-^t
;;.}-J
s i"
••"?*;:•"'
; ("•*?•'
f s.r^f
:/(!:
'|! : s<
^v » u ^
V*><''
' , * -3 *
W f 1"
C,- i
|4v s f;
§ ;''- '
. t s) •, u
?K?" ^ *
,'jilti
'it'"-.
\*- c^
t; t(
f;.-iiS
',S" ^'
•i^>s
',-'-'. I'..
":• v!
'V-'?(
Hi|
* ^$ f-
f:; 5
?1l f
* /;,:
-' ^1:
4 J- ^
if-,; '*-•
? 1; i-
•- ? :5
) -£* ^
11
f|
E-jo
System owner/operator
education and training
Public outreach, education,
involvement programs
ill
''??
-ijt
n
yl
fl
Jf
p;
?t'
? *
n
•^
|y
'•«
i:
'•%
^,-1
^?
r'is
if
^ .
^"j
f'1
•&*
•*•'}
I
*k
*';
"3
'.&
:4|
~ ,?
" t
&i("
r- '
^
1
Stakeholder and partner
agency involvement process
Watershed and groundwater
assessments
Sensitive and critical area
designations
",r/
'S
*L
Jf-^k'
T-
•s*r
^
^
t'\
^C
5-
?'*''
S
^-;
>^s>
<>
il<
.,"3
'"(**
i''t
•^
4?^
: '
-J
^^
r.
*x
$'*
fy
&*• '
^
"~
kfj
; ,«
's™
'9
^1
^
.- ,^
i*:
r,Js
-••i
V'j
^
$»
^s:
A1"
£:
'•«f;
i'
•»•§
'-*?
^
i'*^
J'!,
>ir
"*&
cr
«
4)
f
«S
Public health and water
resource protection goals
General requirements for all
systems
^
Requirements for systems in
sensitive/critical areas
fS?S
vt".|j
|,>t'^;
'£";«"
•^ j ''*
i!^0
'fc-
&lk
li^f.v
?4f|
^'(r ^"
"' \5"
x/> -|>
•V',' > »v
ji\"C ^- ^
^3
'A 1~ A
t*H;4
^••ji*
.' ^ iv • x '',
^K.'3\
^ "| 'JC;
S&4
^\^
s^ ki^c*
^ VJ~
"^'*w'-
*'*Z ''
5 * A V
U S>
^" J*1!
i'V-'*^'1-
v^, £ ^ -^
v^;\-v'i
^ -TK ^•"! '
|i;:f:
?-"•", J;'
-X i!
Mi'ivj
?s
'?.**?
"v t-'^
IS
t't ^J
-&-' ^ ^
^4'^
^gjg"
^il"-.
^V- i '
**_ t(
|*i7-
4U= '
I
Type of staff and service
providers covered
Certification/licensing
requirements
Training for staff and service
providers
"':
-,-
\ "*
~ ;
£
^ i
4
\
^s-
v
\>^j-
""* >
' Y*S
>* +
A»
^
"•\
c^
*}
>**
f i.
^
- 5
,• 'f.
&>i
-~*'<
-,'-
tl
fy '
?*~
:^-
=»'
J»'
\
|
'*
*P
/J
[v:
i'-J
*S!
'"*
fS
¥•
£<
i™
j"
1
ff
1
1
d
Wastewater characterization
procedures
Site investigation and
suitability analyses
!*.
'<;?
S?;>
J*^
"• *
e^
>£<|
-i ;
ts£
1
^
I*1'
3f
JS"*
"^
!|
-is
j§!>
\F>
>"J
jV
fl
H
i
'"Is
v*5x
r?
I'i
-j£-<3?
«.
^-v
8
«#i
"ij;
&
i .
«y
~S
"^
i'if!
!i?:
»•;
~- '•
V?
3
r
&
i
Prescriptive or performance-
based criteria
Design review and approval
process
CO
CM
-------
:..
(,;;
(:'
nit i
;i
'!•!
F
1
If
i]'-'
Jil1
;
f
Hi
'-s
'£
j
Permitting requirements and
process
Construction and/or installation
oversight
~
"
;,
;
1
ll!
JT
li
H
ii".
i.
inn
Pi
,"
ll
.,
i,
t.
59
1
J
I
;"<
C
Owner/operator requirements
c
1
i
8
ii
il
nesiauais mciuuyeiimiii
Residuals removal/disposal
requirements
a
I
cr
c
'•E
1
•a
c
(0
cr
c
IS
1
S
;
:;'
0
_c
1
1
c
(0
c
'i
\
I
Routine and emergency
inspections
Targeted surface and ground
water monitoring
- l
_
•
-
f *,
= •• j
K
L-
tr
^_
:E»
I"!
»*,
_ _-
;j „
i--/
»
X
f
r
;;Cprrective Actions and j
''•Enforcement-.-.:-..:::: ..: ? ;':-'""^«::"r
Compliance schedules and
enforcement proqram
Repair, upgrade, or
replacement oversight
m!
/!(;
a?fi
fkf^
jw
q^^^f
^wW'1^
5^'J
?*s
s
4il
u
^^
Ss
S!
J***
f'
'J. ^wl ^
1^5
a, ivl
**--;- 1'
i
'^ "' f £,
1
H't
II
/•f Q
fV' {
,;!,
1 Cvioiinn anrl nau/ ci/ofgiYlg _
inventory
Tracking system for permits,
inspections, maintenance
Financial, administrative, and
proqram manaqement
tP>;f
^
V^f*
1?:1
*&&
* - •> ?"!
til
1&*'^
J£?jjQL.-
|fer
IS
H
rt
ffj
^T?
l€*'
ij«.?«,
iff •»
sty * '/> •
ff-,,}4
>< ^, ^
SiJ
B
If
;i-
?23 ' s
c(0 j
T$$
Fundinq source development
Administration/management
fundinq
Instailation and O&M
assistance
-------
Chapter 2 Developing and implementing
elements of the management
program
2.1 Program elements and the management continuum
Onsite wastewater management programs can strengthen public health and water resource
protection by ensuring that treatment systems meet performance requirements established by the
community. The program elements (components) of a comprehensive management program will
be fairly universal across the Nation, regardless of the environmental conditions, economic
' situation, or available resources of the community. How each element of a site-specific
management program is developed, supported, and implemented, however, will vary
significantly.
A community should develop management programs in response to its needs, resources, and
goals. Communities should evaluate their environmental and public health goals, the condition
and performance of the systems to be managed, the value and vulnerability of their water
resources, and their support capabilities during the management program development process.
The regulatory authority (e.g., local health department), service providers, water resource
agencies, planning offices, and citizens of the community will all be important sources of support
for developing and implementing selected activities under each program element.
The management program development group should
recognize that for each program element there is a range of
possible approaches and that the appropriate activities for
each element should be based on the needs and capabilities of
the community. For example, rural jurisdictions with little new
residential or commercial construction will likely have a less
developed planning function than a jurisdiction outside a major
city facing large-scale development pressure. Some jurisdictions might have a rigorous program
for certifying and licensing design professionals, while others might allow only health department
staff and certified/licensed designers to design systems. The wide array of different management
programs becomes obvious when one considers the list of program elements and the range of
activities under each.
Table 2-1 lists the various major categories of management program functions along with the
program elements of each. Table 2-2 provides further detail on each program element. The key
point in developing a management program is to address real, perceived, and developing
problems with actual, on-the-ground resources and programmatic capabilities. Prioritizing,
targeting, and addressing human health and water resource threats will likely drive development
of program element activities.
25
-------
In most state, tribal, and local onsite wastewater control systems, a regulatory authority or agency
is designated by statute or code to handle permitting, installation inspection, complaint response,
enforcement, and other functions. Regulatory authority is typically delegated by the state agency
to local health departments, but in some jurisdictions these duties may be executed by water
resource agencies, planning and zoning programs, or other governmental organizations. The
regulatory role usually involves permitting a system based oh site conditions, executing a brief
final inspection, and expecting it to perform without any further intervention until a complaint is
filed. The homeowner is responsible for all operation and maintenance required. This system of
"benign neglect" has worked fairly well for the past century, i.e., it has addressed hydraulic
failure with some regard for environmental consequences. However, any improvement in
protecting public health and the environment can only be accomplished by developing
management programs that address a more comprehensive set of key management program
elements.
I
The elements comprising a comprehensive management program have been under development
for several decades, and include sets of activities focused within the following functional
categories: l)program planning and administration, 2) treatment system installation and operation
oversight, and 3) compliance assistance and assurance see Table 2-1).
Table 2-1. Functional categories of management and program elements.
Category
Management program elements
Program administration
System installation and operation
oversight
Compliance
assistance/assurance
Public education and participation
Planning
Establishment of performance requirements
Record keeping, inventories, and reporting
Financial assistance and funding
Site evaluation
System design ,
Construction or installation
Operation and maintenance
Residuals management;
Training and certification/licensing of service providers
Inspections and monitoring
Corrective actions and enforcement
Clearly, management programs will vary widely across the Nation. Many communities will elect
to adopt a cooperative management program that organizes and coordinates the activities of the
regulatory authority, water resource agency, planning department, service providers, and other
interested parties (e.g., volunteer monitoring groups, homeowner associations, sanitation districts,
etc.). Some jurisdictions might have the resources to develop a responsible management entity
(RME) with the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to ensure long-term, cost-effective
management, operation, and maintenance of all systems within the designated service area. The
exact configuration of local management programs will be based on the resources available, the
nature of public health and water resource threats posed by ohsite systems, and the creativity and
commitment of the regulatory authority and other interested parties.
26
-------
Table 2-2. Summary of management program elements and possible approaches
Program element Purpose
Basic activities
Advanced activities
Public education
and participation
To maximize public
involvement in the need
for and implementation
of the management
program.
Provide public
meetings, forums,
updates, and education
programs.
Provide public advisory groups,
review groups, and other
involvement opportunities in
addition to basic program.
Planning
Consider regional and
site conditions and
impacts, long-term
watershed, and public
health protection.
Establish minimum lot
sizes, surface/ground
water setbacks and/or
identify critical areas
requiring more
protection.
Monitor and model regional
pollutant loads of different
development scenarios; tailor
development patterns and
requirements to receiver site
environmental conditions and
technological capabilities.
Performance
requirements
Link treatment
standards and relative
risk to health and water
resource goals.
Prescribe acceptable
site characteristics
and/or system types
allowed.
Require system performance to
meet standards that consider
water resource values,
vulnerabilities, and risks.
Site evaluation
Assess site and
relationship to other
features.
Characterize landscape
position, soils, ground
& surface water
location, size, and
other site conditions.
Assess site and cumulative
watershed impacts, ground
water mounding potential, long-
term specific pollutant trends,
and cluster system potential.
Design
Ensure system is
appropriate for site,
watershed, and
wastewater
flow/strength.
Prescribe a limited
number of acceptable
designs for specific site
conditions.
Implement requirements for
developing alternative designs
that meet performance
requirements for each site,
position in watershed, and
wastewater flow/strength.
Construction
Ensure installation as
designed; record as-
built drawings.
Inspect installation prior
to covering with soil
and enter as-builts into
record.
Provide supplemental training,
certification & licensing
programs; provide more
comprehensive inspection of
installations; verify & enter as-
builts into record.
Operation and
maintenance
Ensure systems perform
as designed.
Initiate homeowner
education/ reminder
programs that promote
regular O&M
(pumping).
Require renewable, revocable
operating permits with reporting
requirements; verifiable
responsibility for proper O&M
activities.
27
-------
Residuals
management
Minimize health or
environmental risks
from residuals
handling/dispersal.
Require compliance
with federal and sitate
residuals disposal
codes.
Conduct analysis and oversight
of residuals program; Web-
based reporting and inspection
of pumping and ultimate
disposal facility activities.
Training and
certification/licensing
Promote excellence in
site evaluation, design,
installation, and other
service provider areas.
Recommend useiof
only state
licensed/certified
service providers.
Provide supplemental training
and certification/licensing
programs in addition to state
programs; offer continuing
education opportunities, and
monitor performance through
inspections.
Inspections and
monitoring
Document proper
service provider
performance,
functioning of systems,
and environmental
impacts.
Inspection prior to
covering; inspections
prior to property title
transfer; complaint
response.
Require regional surface and
ground water monitoring; Web-
based system and operational
monitoring; required periodic
operational & installation
inspections.
Corrective actions
and enforcement
Ensure timely return to
compliance with
applicable codes and
performance
requirements.
Complaint reporting
under nuisance haws,
inspection and prompt
response procedures;
penalties.
Denial and/or revocation of
operating permit until
compliance measures satisfied;
set violation response protocol
& legal response actions,
including correction and liens
against property by RME.
Record keeping,
inventory, and
reporting
Provide inventory
development and
maintenance for
administrative, O&M,
planning and reporting
to oversight agencies.
Provide inventor/
information on all
systems; performance
reports to health
agency as required.
Provide CIS-enabled,
comprehensive inventories,
including Web-based monitoring
and O&M data for use in
administration, O&M,
compliance achievement and
reporting activities.
Financial assistance
and funding
Provide financial and
legal support for
management program.
Implement basic
powers, revenue-
generation and legal
backup for a
sustainable program.
Initiate monthly/quarterly service
fees; cost-share or other
repair/replacement program; full
financial and legal support for
management program;
equitable revenue base and
assistance programs;
implementation of regular
reviews and modifications.
2.2 Overview of management program elements
Onsite/decentralized systems can be managed by a variety of public or private entities, including
health departments, neighborhood associations, special districts, private service providers, and
28
-------
This
'
existing centralized wastewater collection and treatment programs (e.g., sanitation
chapter outlmes the primary program elements of onsite wasSwater tL^m
across he management continuum, from the smallest to the largest. As noted previously the mix
of regulatory authorities, management entities, and other organizations ovetBcESSrimB
program elements described in this chapter will vary considerably from plaoeT§S.^Sy
ZrlST "^ T, management is ensurinS mat these program elements ^addressed at tiie
rZecte^ rh /yster op? rate properiy and pubiic heaith and ™™Mai Iesomc,"
are protected. Sod-based onsite or cluster systems that serve 20 or more people or treat wastes
from certain ^commercial facilities are subject to state or tribal regulatio/under the Epl Class V
Underground Injection Control Program (EPA, 2001). . cnrA^iassv
Effective management programs issue clear directives, provide technical and other requested
assistance to stakeholders, and fairly apply community and regulatory authority oversight
re±I ntn68 g deCentrff d SyStems ™nagement Program with other watershed or
regional planning programs can help clarify program goals, define performance requirements
solidify community support, ensure that the management program elements are appropriate and
address the entire array of environmental challenges. Technical, financial, and other incentives
can help ease cost and other burdens for service providers and system owners. Finally an
effective inspection and enforcement program ensures that systems requiring repair, expansion or
replacement are addressed promptly to minimize public health and ecological risks
Issues to consider in assigning program element responsibilities
2.3
rS>vMe T^ g TT6/ ^ EPA V°1Untary gUideHneS for '^site/decentralized systems is to
provide guidance that will assist communities in providing an adequate level of management to
assure long-term protection of public health and water resources in a cost-effective m»ha°
also protects property va ues. How this is accomplished will be a product of the creativ^
commitment and capabilities of each local community and regulatory authority. In general the
™ZrtelPr0gram f°r °J!lte/decentalized wastewater systems should be evaluated on how it
Sen? ?/ 1SST T^ b? 6aCh °f the Pr°gram elements" The extent to wmch each program
element is addressed and how it is implemented is dependent on the management program
objectives, the various physical settings, the mix of technologies, jurisdictional boundaries
environmental conditions, and the desired role of the regulatory authority and management' entity.
regulat°ry authority wil1 Play a key role in the creation of the management
er/ ^ refP°nsibmes of regulatory authorities vary from state to state but in
deVdoping and implementing most activities associated with various
elements of the management program (see Table 2-1 and the box below). Staffing, funding or
other limitations will likely prompt regulatory authorities to invite the interest and involvement of
public and/or private partners in management program development. These stakeholders ! which
might include planning departments, water resource agencies, private firms, service providers
college environmental science programs ! can help the regulatory authority address activities '
associated with some program elements through a cooperative, coordinated approach.
The distribution of tasks between the regulatory authority, management entity and service
dew A^h IS Tdfmg °n bCal Ci!cumstances' C°nditions' and the level of management
desired. At higher levels of management (e.g., Management Programs 4 and 5) a RME is
typically developed to be responsible for most or all activities associated with various elements of
29
-------
the management program. This facilitates the regulatory authority to focus on permit
enforcement, broad oversight, policy development, and cumulative impact analyses.
In this chapter, tables illustrate the distribution of responsible parties for each program element
between stakeholders, (e.g., regulatory authority (RA), responsible management enti^(EMEX
service provider (SP) and homeowner (O). These distributions ^^^^^^
are merely illustrative and are based on certain assumptions by the authors of the USEPA
Voiraty iagement Guidelines (2003). They may not reflect local political climates, public
percSSeTor legal codes of users seeking to create the most appropriate management program
for their circumstances.
Responsibilities of an onsite
Power to propose legislation
Routine inspection and maintenance ut aii^yo^uigt/^y,-^^ --^^ filH. /:,.<•,;;«.,
Management and regulation of septage handling a|f|djsj3osaKf, ff. (.$*:*; :, */
Local water quality monitoring .'.,",' ^^^'^^/;^f"^^ ; ^
Administrative functions (e.g., bookkeeping, publicMu^atio^bijtin^X^,;.^/;// //.;. ,.ty
Grant writing, fund raising, staff management ,?H^97?J{/f/:://M/^' ' .6'y^i^-.
e&;;acu e,debt,; issue .bpprnakg^upcnases.
wrani wnuiiy, luiiu idivjina, «W*M ,.™..~.0~-— . ",77, ,* ,•* ,,-,4, »- ••?.-•>
Authority to set rates, collect fees, 'eW taxesi;acq4fedeM^sue T,
Authority to obtain easements for access to property, enforce regulations, —5- nfr-.
Conduct education, training, certification, and licensing prjgran^s for staff and contractors
Record keeping and database maintenance - 'j£'/ T"/V; ., , •"• ' '' "7 ' •
(Source: NSFC, 1996)
The management models described in the 2003 Voluntary Guidelines for Management of Onsite
and Cluster (Decentralized) Wastevsater Treatment Systems provides suggested approaches fin
assign tog responsibilities among the many parties interested in improvmg system management.
The models, which feature management tools such as program inventories, opera ing percnits
maintenance contracts, and use of third party management entities provide a flexible framework
for managing systems in relation to environmental and public health nsks posed by decentralized
systems ReJulatory authorities and other stakeholders can use the models to build their
managemen^rogrTms by adapting various features of the models to fit their unique needs,
resources, and capabilities.
.
2.4 Description of management program elerr ents
This section of the handbook discusses the various compcjnents of an onsite/decentralized
wastewater management program. These components, or-program elements ! public involvement,
planning, design, installation, operation, maintenance, etc. ! comprise discrete focal pom s for
developing a management program. Each program element is presented and reviewed below to
provide general information on the range of options available when creating new management
Sogmms or enhancing existing ones. The following sections outline some typical approaches for
Lplementing each program element, and provide examples of how activities have been
addressed in certain situations across the nation. Each program element is accompanied by
i
30
-------
suggested approaches for basic, intermediate, or advanced management programs. Selection of
the approaches used for any locality should be based on the consensus of the regulatory authority,
the management entity, and the community wherever possible. Users of this handbook are
encouraged to use the model programs and the range of options presented for each program
element in developing their onsite management programs.
2.4.1 Public involvement and education
The success and indeed the existence of any onsite management entity are intertwined with its
ability to involve and educate the system owners and the public at large. Unless the public
understands the need for a management program there is little chance for its success. Historically,
most management entities have come into existence not because of their inherent value in
protecting public health and the environment, but because of external forces that threatened to
have far greater consequences. Usually, those external forces have been the state regulatory
agencies seeking to abate some water quality or public health problem. Indeed, Allee, et al.
(2001) point out that effective management is usually the result of the recognition of a local crisis
that requires it. The response to the crisis brings together the local officials, the state or regional
regulators, and the community to attempt to solve the identified problems that have resulted at
least in part because of failing OWTSs. The resulting cooperative efforts on the part of those
stakeholders become a relationship-building process that then becomes the basis for subsequent
management programs. Even if the process proves to be imperfect, that relationship provides a .
climate for adjustment and ultimate success of a management program. Olson, et al. (2002)
discusses the pitfalls in the early stages of management program formation, pointing out that
failure to include inputs from the entire community can be fatal to the process. The management
program formation process is discussed in Chapter 4.
In addition to public involvement in the development and implementation of the management
program, there needs to be an accompanying effective public outreach and education function.
Failure to effectively initiate and perform these tasks risks the spread of misinformation and loss
of confidence in the management entity. Mancl (2001) reports that a common characteristic of
long-term successful management entities is the hiring of inspectors who have an outgoing,
empathetic character and who take the time to chat and explain issues with homeowners. The
University of Rhode Island Extension has developed some materials designed to get homeowners
involved in creating and participating as volunteers in ongoing management programs (Dow and
Loomis,1998).
No matter which level of management chosen, the public needs to be kept informed and involved.
31
-------
With lower management levels (Management Model 1 and sometimes Management Model 2)
there are fewer resources and staff to perform outreach activities, but the importance of keeping
the community involved is still very important. Higher-level programs with RMEs can more
readily perform these functions because of greater resources, and staffing.
Even though the role of the homeowner in lower-level management programs may be less than in
higher-level programs, their expectations are the same. Therefore, public involvement and
education is universally necessary for continued success of the management program. One part of
that involvement is to make accessible to all homeowners their onsite system inventory records
upon request. Another very important public involvement role is to have a stakeholder review
committee that regularly (e.g., on an annual basis) reviews the management program activities
and recommends improvements. The makeup of such a review body should be similar to the
program initiation steering committee in order to represent the spectrum or diversity of the
stakeholders in the district. Some concepts of the variability in this program element are
illustrated in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3. Public education and participation activities
Program element Basic approach Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Public education
and participation
activities
Involved in
program
development and
rule revisions
with management
entity.
Involved in program
development and annual
program reviews of the
management entity.
Involved in program
development, annual
program reviews, and
public education and
outreach efforts with
management entity.
Public education is difficult to separate from the public participation or public involvement
program element already discussed. In the context of this handbook, education is defined more as
an outreach or communications program from the management program to the homeowners.
Since the lower-level management programs have a strong dependency on the role of the system
owners in providing maintenance, there is a solid basis for this program element, as viewed by the
near century of experience with unmanaged onsite systems that homeowners almost universally
ignored, with the consequence being a significant and continuous rate of failure.
Caudill (1998) provides an example of an effective public education program developed by
Clermont County, Ohio health department staff with assistance from a state regulatory authority.
Public education and outreach by the Clermont County oulreach program included advisory
groups, homeowner education meetings, news media releases and interview programs, meetings
with real estate agents, presentations at farm bureau meetings, displays at public events, and
targeted publications. Olson and Gustafson (2001) have outlined a comprehensive public
education system for homeowners in management programs that provide minimal services. In all
management entities, homeowners must be educated about the needs or signs to watch for that
require professional servicing, activities that they can undertake to make their systems work
better and longer, and property activities to be avoided that would have the opposite impact.
32
-------
Table 2-4. Public education approaches
Program element Basic approach Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Education/training
for homeowners
Acquire and
circulate
multimedia
materials on basic
system operation
and maintenance
needs; send
reminders to
owners when O/M
should be
scheduled.
Develop locally specific
educational materials
with information on local
impacts and currently
approved service
providers.
Provide information for
system owners on
system O/M, health and
environmental impacts,
causes of failure, and
management program
procedures at
workshops, fairs,
schools, etc.
Educate homeowners about
management program advisory
boards, variance and complaint
review panels, etc.
Work with homeowners in
system design phase and in
regular reviews to optimize
management program
performance and acceptability.
Conduct outreach programs at
civic, school, and other events to
answer questions and obtain
feedback from homeowners.
2.4.2 Planning
There are two types of planning related to decentralized wastewater management entities. The
first type is the planning that is integral to the development of the management entity discussed in
Chapter 4. The second type is participation in the comprehensive land use planning of the
potential growth scenarios for the area.
At lower management levels the regulatory authority provides some minimal input upon request
to the comprehensive land use planning process. In the past, this has resulted in comprehensive
plans that reflect soil maps and minimum lot size regulations, often resulting in undesirable land-
intensive development patterns that are either relatively insensitive to or overly restrictive of
development in the context of the watershed. In the former case, a plan may emerge that
considers only soil types and minimum lot sizes, with no concern for sensitivity of the water
resources. In the second case, growth may be restricted in sensitive areas based only on the
limitations of conventional onsite systems. More sophisticated risk assessments and risk
management plans have been successfully employed by certain locations such as New Shoreham,
RI, where the MANAGE risk assessment model was applied to determine relative risks and the
degree of onsite treatment required to minimize those risks (Loomis, et al., 1999). In similar
efforts, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has identified "nitrogen sensitive
zones" that limit the amount of nitrogen that can be discharged from onsite pretreatment systems
in the designated zones, thus encouraging alternative onsite/cluster approaches in a performance-
based requirement (Mass. Environmental Code, 1996). Hoover, et al. (1998) and Otis (1999) has
also proposed methods risk assessment for areas served by onsite and/or cluster systems that use
soil infiltration (see Chapter 4). Table 2-4 describes a range of land use planning activities in
which the management program may be involved.
33
-------
Table 2-5. Planning activities
Program element Basic approach Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Planning
Coordinate
wastewater
program with
regional planning
office by sharing
rules and soils
data.
Identify critical areas and
sites requiring higher
levels of treatment based
on soils and
hydrogeological
information or requiring
restricted development.
Assess vulnerabilities of
receiving waters and
identify treatment
standards for each zone
based on health/water
resource risks. [Establish
overlay treatment zones
based on environmental
sensitivity and health
impact potential for
evaluation of proposed
developments.
Comprehensive land use planning, if available in the area, can provide valuable information and
support for onsite system management and regulatory programs and should serve as the basis for
managing existing systems and permitting future installations. At a minimum, planning should
include the identification of the planning region, development of program goals, and coordination
of multiple agencies involved in health, resource protection,] and economic development
activities. Comprehensive planning provides one of the best vehicles available for ensuring that
onsite management issues are seamlessly integrated into future growth and development
scenarios. Comprehensive planning and zoning are closely related and are usually integrated.
Comprehensive planning sets overall guidance and policies, while zoning provides the detailed
regulatory framework for implementation. Comprehensive planning that addresses environmental
protection can be administered through zoning regulations that
» Specify performance requirements for onsite or clustered systems, preferably related to
each surface and ground water resource in the area.l
• Limit development on sensitive natural resource lands and critical areas.
» Encourage development within urban growth areas serviced by cluster or sewer systems,
if adequate capacity exists. |
» Require consideration of factors such as system densities, hydraulic and pollutant output,
proximity to water bodies, soil and hydrogeological conditions, and water quality for all
new development or system repairs.
Even relatively simple planning approaches can consider existing and potential public health and
water quality problems and combine them with the physical characteristics of the problem area
and input from regulators and the public in developing management strategies. If an RME exists
or is developed, it should be intimately involved in land use planning and zoning program
decisions. Traditional approaches to land use planning have relied upon soil maps and minimum
lot size ordinances, resulting from prescriptive onsite wastewater treatment codes. Lot size
restrictions and prescribed conditions for treatment sites have unintentionally served to misguide
development ha many cases. Performance requirements are based on actual site limitations and
locations in the watershed to assure that systems are designed to meet site conditions rather than
requiring site conditions to meet the treatment capabilities of a limited number of onsite system
types. Thus, planning decisions can be made on a rational watershed basis, rather than on
arbitrary site-alone requirements.
34
-------
Maryland partnership develops septic system impact study
The Department of Environmental Resources and Health Department in Maryland's Prince
George County worked together to develop geographic information system (GIS) tools to quantify
and mitigate nonpoint source nutrient loadings to the lower Patuxent River, which empties into the,
Chesapeake Bay. The agencies developed a database of information on existing onsite systems,
including system age, type, and location, with additional data layers for depth to ground water and
soils. The resulting GIS framework allows users to quantify nitrogen loadings and visualize likely
-impacts under a range of management scenarios. Information from GIS outputs is provided to
decision makers for use in planning development and devising county management strategies.
(Source: County Environmental Quarterly, 1997)
A regular review of the planning and zoning activities and development proposals by the
management program will help the planners to anticipate growth and development trends and the
roles of onsite, cluster, and central sewer systems in minimizing impacts on the watershed and on
public health. For example, proposed development and land use plans may require the application
of new technologies for wastewater management. Recognition of this fact in internal planning
allows the management program to investigate the performance of technological alternatives that
appear to be able to appropriately treat and disperse wastewater under locally specific
circumstances, thus permitting informed review of proposals from equipment purveyors in the
future. Another specific example of value added to planning would be development of an
evaluation protocol for new development proposals that can be used to determine if the
development is best served by clustered or individual systems, or some combination of the two, in
the context of performance requirements that must be met. Such a protocol could be shared with
developers to assist them in planning new developments, knowing that they will be judged
accordingly.
More advanced planning approaches ! through an enhanced effort led by the regulatory authority,
regional planning department, or RME ! might involved other, more complex issues. There is a
general movement on the part of the states and federal agencies to manage water resources based
on watersheds. At present most states utilize watershed models to determine pollutant loadings
allowable from sewage treatment plant discharges in then- NPDES permits. For the last few years
all the states have been evaluating their watersheds and stream segments to determine the
pollutants that exceed required levels in order to develop plans to bring them into compliance
with their designated uses. Approximately 40 percent of the Nation's waterways fall into this
category, with the primary pollutants causing noncompliance being sediments, nutrients,
pathogens, metals, lack of dissolved oxygen, and altered habitat. Although this analysis is part of
a proposed and controversial regulatory process called TMDLs, the watershed assessment process
has been found to be valuable to the states and tribes in that it allows them to identify the primary
sources of pollutants and to create strategies for improving those affected streams. This approach
will surely impact the role of onsite wastewater technologies in regional watersheds.
Besides watershed/TMDL efforts, drinking water source protection studies are leading to
consideration of onsite wastewater system restrictions in order to protect groundwater resources.
In Washington County, Utah, a mass balance approach based on the assumed loading of nitrates
from conventional septic tank systems to shallow, unconfined ground water is being applied.
Based on this analysis, the county is considering imposing minimum lot sizes for future
35
-------
development relying on this technology. The more rational performance-based approach is the
use of appropriately managed nitrogen-reduction onsite and/or cluster technology. Certain
counties in Colorado and Minnesota are similarly approaching ground water protection in this
manner. Although both will accomplish the protective needs of those areas, the performance
approach invites more creative and less land-intensive (and revenue-generating) development.
The role of a comprehensive onsite management program fte., an RME) in watershed or ground
water protection planning creates ah additional means of effecting change in the overall water
pollution abatement strategy since onsite wastewater systenis can be a significant source of
certain pollutants. This is particularly true where a metropolitan sewerage agency takes
management responsibility for regional onsite and cluster systems. By having this increased
flexibility to control all or most of the sources of certain pollutants, the management entity can
find and implement the most cost-effective pollutant management plan for the region (Kreissl and
Otis, 1999).
Planning is further enhanced when the entire spectrum of wastewater (onsite, cluster, and central
sewer systems) and storm water pollution abatement measures are managed by a single RME
working closely with the planning agency. As the watershed approach becomes more
predominant in water resources management, the value of broad wastewater management
approaches will become more evident. Existing municipal siewer authorities should be reviewing
the potential for incorporating small and onsite systems in their immediate proximity to take
advantage of the efficiencies and effectiveness of such a comprehensive approach (Kreissl and
Otis, 1999).
2.4.3 Performance requirements
Performance requirements are established by regulatory authorities to ensure compliance with the
public health needs of the community and water quality in the watershed. Performance
requirements are based on broad goals (e.g., eliminating health threats from contact with
inadequately treated effluent or direct/indirect ingestion of Contaminants), standards for water
quality and restoration or protection, and can be both quantitative (e.g., total mass load or
concentration of pollutants per unit of time) and qualitative! (e.g., no odors or color in discharges).
Water-quality performance requirements normally state thei specific location at which water
quality criteria are to be met. The means of meeting the retirements becomes the responsibility
of the designer.
I
Performance requirements for OWTSs can be grouped into two general categories: numeric
requirements and narrative criteria. Numeric requirements set measurable concentration or mass
loading limits for specific pollutants (e.g., nitrates, nutrients, or pathogen concentrations).
Narrative requirements describe acceptable qualitative aspects of the wastewater (e.g., no color or
odor). A numeric performance requirement might be that all septic systems in environmentally
sensitive areas must discharge no more than 5 pounds of nitrogen per year or that concentrations
of total nitrogen in the pretreatment system effluent can be no greater than 10 mg/L. Some of the
parameters for which performance requirements are commonly set for OWTSs include:
I,,
Fecal coliform bacteria (as an indicator of pathogens).
Biochemical oxygen demand (as an indicator of biodegradable organic content).
Nitrogen (major estuarine and marine water nutrient).
Phosphorus (major fresh and marine water nutrient).
Nuisance parameters (e.g., floating matter, fats, oils, grease).
36
-------
Performance requirements may explicitly state treatment effluent standards, and should be based
on risk assessments that consider the potential hazards of each pollutant in ,the wastewater by
Estimating its transport and fate, potential exposure opportunities, and projected effects on
humans and environmental resources. Water quality standards already have been established by a
variety of governmental agencies for a wide range of surface water uses. These include standards
for waters used for recreation, aquatic life support^ shellfish propagation, aquatic habitat, and
drinking water.
Local needs or goals must be considered when performance requirements are established (see
Table 2-5). Watershed or ground water site-specific conditions may warrant lower pollutant
discharge concentrations or mass pollutant limits than those required by existing water quality
standards. Existing water quality standards, however, provide a good starting point for selecting
appropriate decentralized system performance requirements. By estimating cumulative mass
contributions of a pollutant from all sources discharging to the receiving water, the relative
contributions from and the location of each source, and calculating the assimilative capacity of
the receiving waters, a determination of the maximum mass of pollutants that can be contributed
by wastewater sources can be made. From this total allotment, any point sources already
permitted will be subtracted. The rest is allotted to decentralized wastewater systems, and forms
the basis for the performance standard. Other significant contributing nonpoint sources of
pollutants in rural watersheds include yards and landscaped areas, agricultural crop lands, forests,
and animal feeding operations.
Performance requirements related to dnsite system discharges are evaluated at a specified
performance or design boundary, which can be a physical boundary or a property boundary.
Physical boundaries are wastewater migration transport points where conditions abruptly change.
A physical boundary can be at the intersection of treatment unit processes or between soil
conditions, (e.g., the inflltrative surface, the unsaturated soil (vadose zone), the saturated soil
(ground water) zone), or at another designated physical location, such as a property line, drinking
water well or nearby surface water body.
The establishment of performance requirements for onsite treatment systems should be based on
established water quality standards for the receiving waters and the assimilative capacity of the
environment between the point of wastewater release (soil) and the performance boundary
designated by the management agency. If the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment
is overwhelmed because of increases in pollutant loadings, pretreatment system performance
should be improved. High-density developments located near sensitive receiving waters may be
subject to more stringent requirements than those serving lower-density housing farther away
from sensitive water resources. Nitrogen, for example, exhibits only minor removal in
conventional soil infiltration systems, and would therefore require special pretreatment in onsite
systems located nearby nitrogen-sensitive surface waters or in the receiving aquifer that is the
source of local drinking water supplies for which a nitrate limit is codified.
Many other pollutants are almost completely removed in a properly designed septic tank and soil
absorption system (including vadose or unsaturated soil treatment). These pollutants include
biodegradable organics, total suspended solids, certain toxic organics, heavy metals, and
parasites. If these pollutants were the main concern of the regulatory agencies, there would be
little value in considering special pretreatment needs. Other pollutants, such as viruses, bacteria,
and phosphorus, can fall somewhere in between these two examples, which suggests the need for
a comprehensive evaluation of the onsite wastewater contributions in a watershed or wellhead
protection zone for which performance requirements may be needed.
37
-------
Table 2-6. Performance requirements approaches
Program
element
Basic approach
Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Performance
requirements
Prevent direct and
indirect contact with
raw or partially
treated wastewater
through prescribed
hydraulic loading
restrictions,
setbacks and
separation
distances.
Specify alternative
technologies for! certain
sites or conditions that
do not meet prescribed
separations or cither
physical requirements.
r
Establish inspection and
maintenance reporting
requirements to ensure
proper system
functioning or to renew
revocable operating
permit.
Characterize watershed
water resources against
quality designations.
Evaluate cumulative
impacts/allotments for all
sources and or key
pollutants. Establish
numeric and/or narrative
performance requirements
for onsite/decentralized
systems.
Develop protocols for
measuring (monitoring/
inspections) compliance
against performance
requirements.
Establishing performance requirements at a watershed icale
Establishing performance requirements involves a series of
to site scale considerations. The following steps describe tt
^performance requirements for onsite systems:
steps that move from landscape-level
3 general process of establishing
Identify receiving waters (ground water, surface wa
Define existing and planned uses for receiving watfrs (e.g., drinking water, recreation,
habitat).
Identify water quality criteria associated with desigrjjated uses (check with state water
agency).
Determine types of OWTS pollutants (e.g., nutrient
quality criteria.
» Identify confirmed problem areas and areas likely t<
• Determine whether OWTS pollutants pose risks to j
for OWTS effluent.
bacteria) that might exceed water
be at risk in the future.
Iceiving waters; if so, then:
o
o
Estimate existing and projected onsite was'pwater contributions to pollutant loads
Determine if OWTS pollutant loads will cause or contribute to water quality
violations. JF
Establish maximum output level (mass or qbncentration) for specified OWTS
effluent pollutants. T_
Define performance boundaries for measuipment of OWTS effluent and pollutant
concentrations.
38
-------
Performance requirements for onsite wastewater systems are a subject of much discussion.
Depending on the level of management, this issue could be either unimportant or extremely
important. With most state regulations prescriptive restrictions, there is an assumption that if the
:site meets stated prescriptive requirements, the system will be protective of public health. The
only protections provided for ground water and nearby surface water quality are minimum
horizontal and vertical separations. Evaluations of waterborne disease outbreaks have not shown
these separations to be consistently effective due to hydrogeological conditions that were not
.evaluated as part of the prescribed site evaluation process (Kreissl, 1983). Similarly, surface and
subsurface water quality studies do not correlate well to these arbitrary horizontal separation
distances.
The last resort of most states with severe soils restrictions has been to permit direct discharge of
onsite systems. Because of the enormity of the problem of regulating and permitting large
numbers of very small systems under the NPDES program, these states employ what is known as
a general permit. In essence, the state provides a set of standards for a variety of pollutants and
the required frequency of monitoring for compliance with these standards. This is a true
performance standard in that a set of effluent limitations is provided without direction on how
they shall be met. The penalties for not meeting them are clearly specified in the permit. For
'example, the new draft Ohio General Permit for household systems specifies concentration limits
for TSS, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, ammonia-nitrogen, dissolved
oxygen, and total residual chlorine, along with the frequency and type of sampling necessary to
monitor compliance (Ohio EPA, 2001). The samples analyzed for those constituents are also to be
evaluated with regard to turbidity, odor, and color.
I
At a minimum, the management program should meet a performance goal of eliminating surface
'seepage and backups that directly threaten public health. This performance requirement generally
calls for a minimum of Model Programs 1 or 2. When ground water and surface water quality
problems are evident and they need to be abated, it will generally require a management program
resembling Management Programs 3 or higher. In either case, the operation and maintenance
needs of the technologies employed must be analyzed and a plan should be developed to ensure
that those are met.
One of the primary benefits of a comprehensive management program implemented by an RME
is the ability to meet performance requirements, (i.e., system technologies are chosen, managed,
and monitored that meet public health and ecosystem (watershed) goals based on established risk
management standards, -at specific locations in the watershed). In simple terms, the system can be
designed, operated and managed to meet whatever public health or ecosystem requirements
imposed by the regulatory authorities. Since performance requirements are not yet in place in
most states and regions, a comprehensive management program can also operate under the more
. common prescriptive regulatory framework presently in use. Prescriptive standards are less
exacting for the RME since they are based on assumptions of safety (which may be either
overestimated or underestimated) based on certain site condition measurements and reduce the
demand for technically skilled staffing.
2.4.4 Site evaluation
Evaluating a proposed site in terms of its environmental conditions (climate, ground water, and
surface water aspects), physical features (geology, slopes, soils, property lines, wells, and
structures), and wastewater characteristics (anticipated flows, pollutant content, and generation
patterns) provides the information needed to size, select, and locate the appropriate wastewater
treatment system. Onsite regulatory authorities issue permits—legal authorizations to install a
39
-------
particular system at a specific site—based on the information collected and analyses performed
during the site evaluation and the designer's interpretation o'f that information. Prescriptive site
evaluation, design, and construction requirements are based on experience with conventional
septic tank/soil absorption systems and empirical relationships that have evolved over the years.
Site evaluation approaches can vary from total dependence on percolation tests to total
dependence on soil and subsurface analyses via deep pits, aiid a number of permutations that may
incorporate aspects of these and other site measurements.
Effective site evaluations are crucial to meeting the treatment objectives of the system and the
public health and water quality goals of any management entity. There are many excellent site
evaluation references in the literature (e.g., WEF, 2001; Tylbr and Converse, 1994; Tyler, 2001;
NSFC, 2000). Nearly all of these, however, are geared to determining hydraulic acceptance for
systems that rely on treatment in the soil. Existing state codperties such as texture, bulk density,
consistence, structure, etc., and soil pits to characterize soil horizons, mottling, and a variety of
other properties. Usually, prescriptive codes are designed to;determine the hydraulic capacity of
the soil and empirically "assure" proper treatment by specifying horizontal and vertical
separations. Generally, all management programs allow conventional onsite systems to be sited in
areas with appropriate soil conditions and specified setback/separation distances and unsaturated
40
-------
soil depths. Higher-level management entities should specify which site evaluation tests and
procedures are to be followed for each area of identified vulnerability and class of technology
allowed or possible. Table 2-9 provides a guide for the general progression of a site evaluation
processes. Site evaluation for alternative technologies should be based on demonstrated past
performance at similar sites or performance requirements that specify the type of pollutant to be
controlled and how and where it will be measured (i.e., the performance boundary).
Site evaluation (in the absence of performance requirements) should include:
• Vertical distance to seasonal high water table, bedrock, or other restrictive layer.
• Soil characteristics versus related infiltration area size requirements for each approved'
treatment and distribution technology.
• Site slope, cover, terrain position, and hydrogeology.
• Horizontal distances and direction of surface water bodies or groundwater wells and their
present and designated quality requirements.
• Horizontal distances to other physical features, particularly those in likely plume path.
• Site location and geometric orientation possibilities.
Because of the difficulty in properly characterizing wastewater flow and pollutant loads,
evaluating critical site conditions, a significant level of education, training, and experience is
required of personnel conducting these tasks.
Many states and local management programs require that onsite system service providers be
specifically trained, licensed and/or certified. Angoli (2001) reported that 68 percent of the onsite
regulatory agencies that responded to a NSFC survey stated that they required site evaluators to
ibe licensed/certified. In many cases, local regulatory staff performs site evaluations, which is a
'questionable concept since it represents a conflict of interest. Some states require registered soil
scientists to conduct the necessary assessment of soil conditions and site suitability. All onsite
management programs should require licensing or certification of both private sector and staff
site evaluators. All onsite programs should benefit from this requirement, but no quantification of
these benefits has been published at this time.
Site evaluations and performance requirements in Texas
The state of Texas in 1997 eliminated percolation test requirements for onsite systems and
instituted new performance requirements for alternative systems (e.g., drip systems, intermittent
sand filters, leaching chambers). Site evaluations in Texas are now based on soil and site
analyses, and service providers must be certified. Officials in the Lone Star State took these
actions after onsite system installations nearly tripled between 1990 and 1997.
(Source: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 1997).
41
-------
Table 2-8. Site evaluation and assessment activities for SWIS applications
! Preliminary activities
Preliminary review
Scheduling
Field activities
I.1. . > . ' ,«',!' ";',•,. ,
t . . • . • ;.i :, ' ,••.,...
Identification of unsuitable areas
Subsurface investigations
Identification of recommended
SWIS site
information from resjlrcit'.. . ,.,.!. ./..', •-*'':'.. ;. ; v/;. .:;.;;';":;"'^-A^:^^
» Site survey map
• Soil survey, U.S. Geographical Society topographic map
• Aerial photos, wetland maps
• Source water protection areas
• Natural resource inventories
• Applicable regulations/setbacks
M Hydraulic loading rates
• Criteria for alternative OWTS
• Size of house/facility
• Loading rates, discharge types
• Planned locati bn of water well
• Planned construction schedule
• Date and time for meeting
»i- - ' ' "'«;»
Information from field study
If - - ^
• Water supply sieparation distances
• Regulatory buffer zones/setbacks
» Limiting physiographic features
• Ground water depth from pit/auger
• Soil profile from backhoe pit
• Presence of high water table
• Percolation tesfts
• Integration of all collected data
• Identification oj preferred areas
• Assessment ojj gravity-based flow
• Final selection of SWIS site
(Source: Adapted from ASTM, 1993).
Logically, a management entity could build upon good conventional SWIS site evaluation for
other soil-based, systems by adding other tests that would be dictated by the type of wastewater,
the treatment system characteristics, specific soil properties.' ground water movement and
hydrogeology, and the performance requirements to be met at a specific location. For example,
nitrogen removal could be significant if soil/aquifer materials were high in organic content.
Similarly, phosphorus removal is usually excellent in the soil immediately surrounding the SWIS,
but an estimate of long-term removal capacity might be needed if that is the pollutant of concern.
For advanced pretreatment systems, the soil may only be a ineans of effluent dispersal into the
surrounding environment, necessitating a similar site evaluation to that presently performed for
conventional systems.
2.4.5 Design
The design program element provides a means of ensuring that new or replacement onsite
systems have the capability of meeting performance requirements to protect public health and
42
-------
water quality through the establishment of credible protocols for design evaluation. With low-
level management programs prescriptive codes restrict the choices to either the conventional
system or a few approved alternative systems, and system components are specified with little
allowance for variation. Use of prescriptive codes limits the potential for matching site conditions
with a treatment system capable of meeting whatever performance requirements are needed to
meet health or water quality goals.
Most lower intensity management programs rely on the state code for design, thus there is usually
no need to develop any special design protocol. However, in sensitive environments where
performance codes are employed, there is a requirement to develop a design protocol, but it may
or may not be prescriptive in its allowable designs (see Table 2-10). Under a performance-based
approach, performance requirements, site conditions, and wastewater characterization
information drive the selection of treatment technologies at each site.
For known technologies with extensive testing and field data, the management agency can
institute performance requirements prescriptively by designating system type, size, construction
practices, materials to be used, acceptable site conditions, and siting requirements. For example,
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has proposed an onsite rule that establishes
definitions, permit requirements, restrictions, and performance criteria for a wide range of
conventional and alternative treatment systems (Swanson, 2000).
Table 2-9. Design program approaches
Program element Basic approach
Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Design
Design only
conventional septic
tank/gravity fed soil
discharging systems on
sites meeting code-
described prescriptive
criteria.
Require state
certified/licensed
designers.
Allow limited number of
alternative designs on
certain specific non-
compliant sites.
Require state certified
designers.
Provide potential for
engineered alternative
designs for large
systems.
Institute protocols for use of
risk-based designs based on
site evaluation results and
specific wastewater sources.
Provide supplemental
training and
licensing/certification for
designers based on specific
needs of local water
resources.
True performance codes merely note that specific water quality goals must be met at specific
locations, and leave how those goals are attained to the designer. Some permitting programs
broadly characterize required performance requirements for onsite installations in sensitive areas
by designating overlay zones. These zones are based on soil type, topography, hydrology, or other
.characteristics and can specify maximum system densities, system design, performance
requirements, and operation/maintenance requirements. Establishing onsite system overlay zones
requires making some broad assumptions and generalizations, however, and should be
supplemented with comprehensive site-specific evaluations.
Some states have recently developed performance-type codes consisting of a series of accepted or
approved design packages for a variety of site conditions. These packages and performance
Assumptions represent a significant advance over the more restrictive prescriptive codes, but they
43
-------
are not true performance-based codes. They do, however, sijtnplify the regulatory role by allowing
implementation of a broader array of technologies without cfemanding the level of staff expertise
that a tine performance code would.
Design protocols should address the potential implications of water conservation fixtures, impacts
of different pretreatment levels on hydraulic and treatment performance of soil-based systems,
and the operation and maintenance requirements of different treatment and soil dispersal
technologies. They should include a required pre-design or pre-construction meeting between the
permitting agency, the management entity (if it does not haVe permitting powers), the designer
and the owner of the property. All of these parties have a stiike in the design and questions for
which they need answers before the installation proceeds. The protocol should be as complete as
possible, but should feature a rational, defensible evaluatiori procedure for proposed designs and
materials specifications that were not anticipated at the time that the review protocol was
developed hi order to encourage innovation and advancement. Also, the protocol should be
dynamic and should be regularly reviewed and updated as new information and experience is
gained.
Figure 2-1 Example of design boundaries for onsite wastewater treatment systems
Compliance
EJoundary
Source: EPA, 2002
44
-------
A cooperative approach for approving innovative/alternative designs in New England
The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NE|WPCC)is a forum for
consultation and cooperative action among six New England state environmental agencies.
NEIWPCC has adopted an interstate process for reviewing proposed wastewater treatment
technologies. A technical review committee composed of representatives from New England state
onsite wastewater programs and other experts evaluates innovative or alternative technologies or
system components that replace part of a conventional system, modify conventional operation or
performance, or provide a higher level of treatment than conventional onsite systems.
Three sets of evaluation criteria have been developed to assess proposed replacement,
modification, or advanced treatment units. Review teams from NEIWPCC assess the information
provided and make determinations thai are referred to the full committee. The criteria are tailored
for each category, but in general Include:
» Treatment system or treatment unit size, function, and applicability or placement in the
treatment train;
" Structural integrity, composition, durability, strength, and corresponding independent test
results.
« Cost and life expectancy, including comparisons to conventional systems/units.
* Availability of parts, service, and technical assistance and costs thereof.
• Test data on prior installations or uses, test conditions, failure analysis, and tester
identity.
(Source: NEIWPCC, 2000).
2.4.6 Construction
Poor installation can be devastating to the performance of both conventional and advanced
systems that rely on soil dispersion and treatment Installation can start after issuance of a
construction permit, which occurs after the design and site evaluation reports have been reviewed
and approved. Installation should conform to existing protocols to ensure proper system
performance.
There are numerous sources of information on proper installation in a variety of soil types,
including the problems associated with certain climatological conditions, soil moisture
conditions, precautions on the use of certain types of construction equipment, construction
procedures required to avoid structural damage, and appropriate overall construction practices
(Tyler, et al., 1985). The impacts of improper installation of soil-based systems generally occur
within the first year of operation in the form of wastewater backups. Some improper practices,
however, may not exhibit this relatively quick and obvious form of failure. These problems are
often related to poor treatment performance, and may take years to manifest themselves in the
form of degraded ground water or nearby surface water.
45
-------
Table 2-10. Construction/installation approaches
Program element
Basic approach
Intermediate
approach
Advanced approach
Construction/installation
Construction permit
granted based on site
evaluation, system
design and installation
by licensed/certified
site evaluators,
designers ,and
installers.
Inspect system prior
to backfilling to
confirm that
installation or
complies with design.
Use mote proactive
inspectipn program
during tljie
construction phase
Maintai^ and
dissemihate list of
locally approved
installers based on
performance.
Create protocols for
installation
procedures and
contingencies with
proactive inspection.
Provide extensive
construction
oversight for all
critical steps.
Develop
supplemental training
and licensing
programs for
installers that deal
with local conditions
and requirements.
Construction/installation should conform to the approved plan and use appropriate methods,
materials, and equipment Typical program element provisions are presented in Table 2-11.
Mechanisms to verify compliance with performance requirements should be established to ensure
that practices meet expectations. The typical regulatory mechanisms presently employed to
ensure proper installation include precovering inspections of systems near the end of the
construction/installation phase and submission of as-built drawings. A more thorough inspection
would include:
Pre-construction meeting with owner and contractor (described in the preceding section).
Field verification and staking of each component (to prevent damage from equipment).
Inspections at random tunes during construction.
Verification and database entry of as-built drawings.
A permit to operate the system as designed and built.
Inspections should be conducted at several stages during the| system installation process to ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements. During the construction process, inspections before and
after backfilling can help verify compliance with approved (construction procedures. If there are
insufficient management program resources to conduct thesp inspections, an approved,
independent design professional could be required to overse|e installation and certify that it has
been conducted and recorded properly. The construction process for soil-based systems must be
flexible to accommodate weather events, since construction [during wet weather may compact
soils at the infiltrative surface or otherwise alter soil structure. Arbitrary changes in trench depth
or location and other improper construction techniques can have serious consequences on
performance (University of Wisconsin, 1978). Similar problems occur from the travel of heavy
equipment over infiltrative surfaces and down-gradient areak or by silt and clay residues on
46
-------
unwashed trench aggregate (Tyler, et al., 1985). If uniform distribution and dosing are
incorporated in the design, improper installation can negate the added performance benefits that
the designer would have claimed in the approval process.
Installation of soil-based conventional systems has received inadequate attention under the
present system of prescriptive codes. Commonly, the local health department will provide a field
inspection prior to backfilling the soil absorption system after which an occupancy permit is
issued. Compaction of certain soils or damage to the infiltrative surface during excavation and
installation tasks is not obvious during this type of spot inspection and can go unnoticed until
system hydraulic failure occurs. In many places (26 percent of the agencies responding to the
NSFC survey), training and certification/licensing of installers is not required. Some
licensing/certification programs exempt veteran installers through grandfather clauses in the
regulation. All management programs should ensure that installers are licensed/certified, but they
should also monitor system performance records to further screen recommended practitioners
within their jurisdictions. All installer/contractors should receive some type of training on an
ongoing basis to prevent or minimize problems associated with inappropriate installation, but
enforcement of this requirement is more difficult with lower-level management programs. Even
the lowest level management entity should review the qualifications of installers and require
submission of final as-built drawings. This recorded documentation should include the names of
the site evaluators, designers, and installers and the dates of each event for each onsite system.
2.4.7 Operation and maintenance
The homeowner is the lynchpin of most O/M efforts, particularly in the lower level management
programs. There are very useful guides available to conventional system owners in most states
through their extension services and through national organizations such as the NSFC. In all
management programs the homeowner must be cognizant of the damage that can be caused to
soil-based systems by driving heavy vehicles over the ground surface or by paving those areas
which results in cutting off the free-flow of oxygen to those systems. The homeowner must also
be aware of the effects of adding strong acids or alkalis, toxic compounds, oils, and greases on the
performance of these systems and on the receiving waters. The system owners and service
providers should also know the effects of water conservation, illegal stormwater connections,
garbage grinders, and water softeners.
Operation and maintenance needs of different onsite technologies vary considerably. The
conventional septic tank and SWIS usually require only a tank pump-out once every few years
with an accompanying inspection of structural appurtenances. Mechanical systems such as
activated sludge-based units require servicing three to four times per year to assure that aeration
tank solids concentrations do not increase to the point that they are "belched" out with the
effluent and cause infiltrative surface clogging or receiving water quality problems, depending on
the unit's discharge designation. Other mechanical/electrical systems also require more frequent
(usually annual) inspection to assure proper operation of electro-mechanical components. Newer,
modem or internet-based packages can monitor and control many of these mechanical
components, thus reducing the frequency of inspection and keeping labor costs affordable for
larger and more sophisticated management programs.
Complaints generally provide the only formal notification to the oversight agency that problems
exist with unmanaged onsite wastewater systems. Inspection programs that monitor system
performance, as employed in Management Programs 3 ! 5, can help reduce the risk of premature
system failure, thus decreasing long-term costs and the risk of ground water or surface water
contamination (Washington DEQ/PSWQA, 1996). Also, better managed O/M programs can
47
-------
eliminate unnecessary expenses such as purchasing unprovein and sometimes dangerous
compounds under the guise of improving septic tank and soil absorption system performance.
Well-conceived O/M programs are facilitated by better design (e.g., risers that are easily
accessible from the surface), real-time accessibility to systeb records by field personnel, and
automated monitoring that can warn or even adjust operational sequences to avoid imminent
problems in pretreatment systems. Many states do not allow! alternative onsite treatment
technologies because they cannot require the increased O/M required to keep them performing as
designed. Examples of how this program element can be implemented are shown in Table 2-12.
Table 2-11. Operation and maintenance approaches
Program element Basic approach
Intermediate
approach
Advanced approach
Operation and
maintenance
O/M educational
materials circulated
to system owners;
complaint response
protocols
published; O/M
reminders sent to
system owners;
and use of only
certified/licensed
O/M providers.
Maintenance contracts
and reporting required
for mechanical
systems;
operating permjts
renewable upotii
reported completion of
required O/M tasks and
inspections;
disseminate list of
acceptable j
licensed/certifieid O/M
providers based on
complaint
investigations.
Trained, certified service
providers handle O/M tasks for all
systems in accordance with
established protocols;
supplemental training and
certification programs provided or
supported by RME through
training centers or other means;
O/M provider performance
reviews frequently-updated and
approval list dissemination.
Most, if not all, management programs are likely to use priyate service providers to implement
this management element. Therefore, there is a universal need for trained and certified/licensed
O/M service providers. Fewer than 40 percent of the responding jurisdictions to the NSFC survey
required training and licensing/certification of O/M service [providers. Therefore, until these
requirements become more common, the low- to mid-level management programs in areas where
they do not exist will have to rely on performance records based on complaints. They should also
work with their state oversight agencies to rectify this need! There are established training centers
and existing training/certification programs available from the NAWT, NSF International, and the
National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities that may be able to assist in
solving this problem.
Management Program 3 and higher-level management programs feature renewable/revocable
operating permits. Permits are reissued at specified interval^ (e.g., 1 !5 years) after documentation
is submitted that all required operation, maintenance, and monitoring tasks have been completed.
Lower level management entities should require verification that licensed/certified service
providers are retained by system owners. Service providers should be encouraged to report to the
management program if contracts are allowed to lapse.
48
-------
Requiring pump-outs to ensure proper maintenance
Periodic pumping of septic tanks is now required by law in some jurisdictions and is becoming
established practice for many public and private management entities. In 1991 Fairfax County,
Virginia amended its onsite systems management code to require pumping at least every 5 years.
This action, based upon provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, was accompanied
by public outreach notices and news articles. System owners must provide the county health
department with a written notification within 10 days of the pump-out. A receipt from the pump-out
contractor, who must be licensed to handle septic tank residuals, must accompany the
notification.
(Source; Fairfax County Health Department, 1995).
Wisconsin's Private Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Rule (Wisconsin Administrative Code,
2001) requires management plans for all onsite treatment systems. The plans must include
information and procedures for maintaining the systems in accordance with the standards of the
code as designed and approved. Any new or existing system that is not maintained in accordance
with the approved management plan is considered a human health hazard and subject to
enforcement actions. Individual management plans for conventional residential septic
tank/subsurface infiltration systems are not required. The maintenance requirements specified in
the code include the following: 1) all septic tanks are to be pumped when the combined sludge
and scum volume equals one-third of the tank volume; 2) existing systems have the added
requirement of visual inspections every 3 years for wastewater ponding on the ground surface; 3)
only persons certified by the department may perform the inspections or maintenance; and 4) the
system owner or designated agent of the owner must report to the department each inspection or
maintenance action specified in the management plan at its completion. A data management
system is used to allow certified inspectors/operators direct telephone access to the system
records for reporting and facilitating compliance tracking by the department. This, in effect,
creates a statewide program similar to Levels 2 and 3 for Wisconsin.
2.4.8 Residuals management
Private O/M service providers periodically pump residual material under an oversight program
established by the regulatory authority. Management entities (i.e., private or public RMEs) often
contract with private service providers to handle this task for a number of systems in the managed
area. Transport and disposal/reuse of residuals are governed by federal, state, and local codes.
Many governmental units have addressed the challenge of residuals management by designating
approved sites for disposal. Detailed guidance for identifying, selecting, developing, and
operating reuse or disposal sites for residuals can be found in Process Design Manual: Land
Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage (EPA, 1995), which is posted on the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/ORDAVebPubs/sludge.pdf. Additional information on septage (residuals
pumped from septic tanks) can be found in Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal (EPA,
,1994) and Domestic Septage Regulatory Guidance (EPA, 1993), which are posted at
http://www.epa.gov/oia/tips/scws.htm. The Water Environment Federation is also an excellent
source of information on residuals (http://www.wef.org).
In general, regulations strive to minimize exposure of humans, animals, groundwater, and
ecological resources to potentially toxic or hazardous chemicals and pathogenic organisms found
49
-------
in these residuals. The primary objective of a residuals management program is to establish
procedures and rules for handling and dispersing accumulated materials removed from treatment
processes in an affordable manner that protects public health and ecological resources. Residuals
management programs include tracking or manifest systems: that identify sources, pumpers,
transport equipment, final destination, and treatment/reuse techniques employed at that site, as
well as procedures for controlling human exposure to residu als, including vector control, wet
weather runoff, and controlled access to disposal sites. Examples of this program element are
depicted in Table 2-13.
Table 2-12. Residuals management approaches
Program
element
Basic approach
Intermediate
approach
Advanced approach
Residuals
management
Assure that residuals
are Being reused or
managed in
compliance with
applicable rules;
educate and remind
owners of the need to
inspect and/or pump
treatment tanks at
regular intervals; and
require only state-
certified/licensed O/M
residuals handlers and
approved sites.
Require homebwners
and licensed/certified
service providers to
report when rejsiduals
are removed s nd
tanks inspected in
order to renewj
operating perrrtit;
maintain and
disseminate list of
acceptable O/M
service providers
based on investigated
complaints.
Create and administer
tracking, inspection and
monitoring plan for all
aspects of residuals
removal, hauling and
reuse/disposal; provide
any necessary
supplemental training and
registration/licensing
programs for local O/M
providers or arrange it with
training centers and
universities; and employ
only approved providers.
At present, almost all onsite system residuals are in the forni of septage. Most septage is dispersed
onto the land, but a significant percentage is received and processed in sewage treatment plants.
In addition to regulations, practical limitations such as land availability, site conditions, buffer
zone requirements, treatment plant loading versus capacity, hauling distances, fuel costs, and
labor costs play a major role in evaluating septage or other rpsiduals reuse/disposal options. The
above options generally account for nearly 90 percent of the: septage generated. However, there
are some special septage treatment facilities. Initial steps in the residuals reuse/disposal decision-
making process include characterizing the quality of the septage and determining potential
adverse impacts associated with various reuse/disposal scenarios. Protocols for crafting an
environmental management system (EMS) are useful in developing and implementing a residuals
management program. Even though residuals management is almost always performed by private
O/M service providers, the management entity must assure the regulatory authority (i.e., at some
level of government) of compliance with all regulations.
Typically the amount of septage produced per person served! in the management entity is 50 to 70
gallons per year (EPA,1994b; WEF,1997). Therefore, if thei[e were 1,000 people in a
management zone a rough estimate would be 50,000 to 70,OJOO gallons per year to be pumped,
transported, and treated for dispersal back into the environment. Certain alternative onsite
systems like ATUs should produce significantly greater qualities of residuals if properly
serviced, but the characteristics of the additional residuals are less onerous. An important task for
50
-------
the management entity is to identify approved sites with sufficient capacity to properly treat,
reuse, or dispose of the residuals that the O/M service providers remove and transport. Concerns
about odors and pathogens associated with septage increase the need for public education on the
management options chosen and how they will be monitored and compliance enforced.
Working with stakeholders early in the management program planning stage to develop the
optimal residuals management program is recommended. Capacity needs should be extrapolated
from the types of technologies to be employed and the estimated numbers of each type, rather
than from present septage generation rates, which will likely yield a lower estimate of capacity
needed.
2.4.9 Training and certification/licensing
States and tribes are responsible for developing programs that elevate the quality of service
provided by the onsite industry, just as they do for central sewer systems by conducting
certification/licensing programs for treatment plant operators or for the drinking water treatment
plant operators. State regulatory authorities often set minimum criteria for certifying and/or
licensing various service providers (e.g., septic tank pumpers/haulers, site evaluators, system
designers, installers, inspectors). In the absence of a rigorous state, tribal, or territorial program,
local management entities should consider developing one. The level of development of such a
program will vary according to the comprehensiveness and capabilities of the management
program partners. Even at the most minimum level, a form of such a program can be
implemented by requiring trained and state or tribal licensed/certified service providers to
perform these tasks.
Angoli (2001) reported that most onsite regulatory agencies surveyed do have some form of
licensing/certification for installers (74 percent), soil/site evaluators (50168 percent), inspectors
(67 percent), and designers (64 percent). Operations and maintenance training/certification is
significantly lower (19137 percent). Even if the management entity is located in a state that does
not have or has a less-rigorous certification/licensing program, the entity can still alert other
owners of verified complaints against service providers.
Even in states that do have licensing/certification programs, the management program can pass on
such information to the state department responsible for the program. Higher-level management
programs with comprehensive inspection programs can either warn or decertify service providers
who consistently evoke complaints from homeowners. Since the O/M tasks, particularly the
pumping task, are the most frequent and personal contacts with homeowners, a swift response on
the part of the management entity to such complaints is vital in retaining public confidence. Some
examples of management program approaches to certification/licensing are provided in Table 2-
14.
There are several entities working to address the need for better trained and qualified service
providers, including the waste transport industry, states, training centers, and national
organizations. Washington State is attempting to institute a homeowner insurance program
(NSFC, 2001) wherein the entire onsite industry is attempting to rid itself of inadequately
performing service providers by identifying reasons for system failure and the responsible parties.
This concept is being considered for wider application by the National Onsite Wastewater
.Recycling Association. NAWT also offers a form of conventional onsite system warranty that
.could have a positive effect in eliminating poor performers.
51
-------
Table 2-13. Certification and licensing approaches
Program element
Basic approach
Intermediate
approach
Advanced approach
Certification/licensing
of service providers
Require homeowners
to use only state or
tribal
registered/licensed
service providers.
Support ignore
comprehensive
state/tribal
requirements for
certificate or license.
Create and
disseminate lists of
acceptable service
providersf contingent
on their accuracy of
reporting and service
complain^
investigations.
Develop inspections
and performance
reviews for approval
of service providers
in district.
Implement
supplemental
programs specific to
district for service
providers seeking to
perform services
based on local
protocols.
For those states that do not have training centers there are programs offered by NSF International,
the National Environmental Training Center for Small Comjnunities at West Virginia University,
and NAWT that certify service providers. Always check with state and tribal authorities to
determine whether they recognize or accept these training ai^d accreditation programs. Onsite
wastewater system training centers exist or are being developed in several states, and are
cooperating with the Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT)
and the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Envelopment Project (NCDP) in
creating new and improved training programs that can be provided at the centers.
The State of Maine requires that site evaluators be permittee and that designers of systems
treating more than 2,000 gallons per day or systems with nottdomestic wastewater characteristics
be registered professional engineers. Prerequisites for applying for a permit and taking the
certification examination are either a degree in engineering, soils, geology, or similar field, plus
one year of experience, or a high school diploma or equivalent and four years of experience
(Maine Department of Human Services, 1996). After the state implemented the program in 1974,
OWTS failure rates dropped significantly (Kreissl, 1982). At present, requirements for site
evaluators, system designers, installers, inspectors, and maintenance service providers presently
vary widely among the states. For example, some states issue permits or grant exemptions that
allow homeowners to design and install onsite treatment systems at their primary residence.
;
These code provisions, which are linked to farmstead or homestead exemptions, should be
eliminated or revised to require some demonstration of competency on the part of the prospective
homeowner designer/installer. For example, Alaska allows homeowners to design and install
systems at then- residence if they complete an approved training course and comply with state
design, construction, and siting requirements. Approval is granted after the homeowner submits
an infiltration field size estimate based on a professional analysis (i.e., by an engineer or
laboratory) of soils at the proposed site (Alaska Administrative Code, 1999).
52
-------
NSF Onsite Wastewater Inspector Accreditation Program
NSF International has developed an accreditation program to verify the proficiency of persons
performing inspections on existing OWTSs. The accreditation program includes written and fielc
tests and provides credit for continuing education. Inspectors who pass the tests and receive
accreditation are listed on the NSF International Web site and in the NSF Listing Book, which Is
circulated among industry, government, and other groups.
The accreditation process includes four components. A written examination, conducted at
designated locations around the country, covers a broad range of topics relating to system
Inspections, including equipment, evaluation procedures, trouble-shooting, and the NSF
International Certification Policies. The field examination includes an evaluation of an existing
OWTS, An ethics statement, required as part of the accreditation, includes a pledge by the
applicant to maintain a high level of honesty and integrity in the performance of evaluation
activities. Finally, the continuing education component requires requalification every 5 years
through retesting or earning requalification credits through training or other activities.
To pass the written examination, applicants must answer correctly at least 75 of the 100 multiph
choice questions and score at least 70 percent on the field evaluation. A 30-day wait is required
for retesting if the applicant fails either the written or field examinations.
(Source: NSF International, 2000).
Professional standards programs include either licensing or certification, both of which are
;usually based on required course work or training; an assessment of knowledge, skills, and
professional judgment; past experience; and demonstrated competency. Some certification and
licensing programs require at least some college-level course work. For example, Kentucky
requires a 4-year college degree with 24 hours of science course work, completion of a week-long
soils characterization class, and another week of in-service training for all site evaluators and
permit writers (Kentucky Revised Statutes, 1992). Regular training sessions are also important in
; keeping site evaluators, permit writers, designers, and other service personnel effective. The
; Minnesota Cooperative Extension Service administers 2-day workshops on basic and advanced
inspection and maintenance practices, which are now required for certification in 35 counties and
most cities in the state (Shephard, 1996).
Comprehensive training programs have been developed in other states, including North Carolina,
West Virginia, and Rhode Island. Most licensing programs require continuing education through
recommended or required workshops at specified intervals. For example, the Minnesota program
requires 3 additional days of training every 3 years.
Certification programs for inspectors, installers, and septage haulers provide assurance that
systems are installed and maintained properly. States are beginning to require training,
certification, and/or licensing for all service providers to ensure that activities conducted by
providers comply with program requirements. Violation of program requirements or poor
: performance can lead to revocation of certification and prohibitions on installing or servicing
onsite systems. This approach, which links professional performance with economic incentives, is
highly effective in maintaining compliance with onsite program requirements. Programs that
simply register service providers or fail to take disciplinary action against poor performers cannot
provide such assurances.
53
-------
Installer and designer permitting in New Hampshire
Onsite system designers and installers in New Hampshire K,
since 1979. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Subsurface Systems
Bureau issues the permits, which must be renewed annual!^/Permits are issued after success
completion of written examinations. The designer's test con? jsfs of three written sections and a
field test for soil analysis and interpretation. The installer's t| ]st consists of a written examination
only. • *
ive required state-issued permits
The tests are broadly comprehensive and assess candidate^
1|
knowledge of system design,
regulatory setbacks, methods of construction, types of efflu^pt disposal systems, and new
technology. Designers must take three tests that take about 5-hours to complete. The passing
grade is 80 percent. The field test measures competency infoil science through an analysis of a
backhoe pit, determination of hydric soils, and recognition o|wetland:conditions. Installers must
pass a 2-hour written exam that measures understanding ollppography, regulatory setbacks,
seasonal high water table determination, and acceptable ml|iods of system construction.
(Source: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Serflpes, 1991)^
More information on training programs for onsite wastewatep: professionals, including a calendar
of planned training events and links to training providers nationwide, can be found on web sites
maintained by the NESC and EPA-OWM (see Appendix).
_ .
NAWT onsite inspector training and certification progra
f _
The National Association of Waste Transporters (NAWT) haf"developed and implemented a
training and certification program for inspectors of OWTSs. The program consists of two days of
classroom training followed by a certification examination. NSWT-certified inspectors are required
to participate in continuing education offerings to maintain th lir certification. The goal for this
program is to develop a capacity to evaluate the functionality
components. The inspection process consists of document^
components of conventional septic tank and soil absorption'
operability, and document deficiencies where they exist. The
any warranty for the system or guarantee for its service life.1
(Source: NAWT)
of wastewater treatment system
p the existence of critical
^sterns, inspect them for their
Inspection process does not include
3.4.10 Inspections and monitoring,
Onsite wastewater system performance should be periodically monitored and inspected by system
owners, private service providers, and/or management program staff to ensure proper
performance. Inspections are a basic form of monitoring the performance of individual systems.
The impact of a group or cluster of systems (e.g., for a subdivision or portion of a town) can be
ascertained via aquifer or watershed monitoring and assessment of trends.
54
-------
Inspections can take several forms. Typically, there is a qualitative evaluation based on
appearance, odor, or noise attributes, followed by some means of below ground system inspection
through passage or observation ports that extend to the surface. Based on the outcome of the
inspection, a problem may be identified that calls for scheduling repairs or servicing, (e.g.,
pumping). The management entity should develop a compliance schedule that clearly outlines the
sequence of events and their time limits to correct (and certify the correction) identified problems.
Many higher-level programs will, after a specified period, perform the required tasks to attain
compliance and bill the homeowner. If the owner fails to pay within some designated time period,
a lien is placed against the property. Example inspection/monitoring program elements are shown
in Table 2-15.
Table 2-14. Inspection and monitoring approaches
Program element Basic approach
Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Inspection/
monitoring
Educate and request
homeowners on how
to conduct basic
inspections, (e.g.,
monitor sludge/ scum
buildup in septic
tank).
Require inspections
by licensed/certified
persons at time of
property transfer,
change in use, and
complaint
investigation.
Specify regular inspection
of all systems as part of
operating permits;
develop inspection
reporting program via
O/M provider/homeowner
inputs; and permit only
licensed/certified
inspectors to perform
them.
Conduct aquifer or watershed
monitoring in addition to
pretreatment system
inspections.
Regularly evaluate monitoring
data and permit requirements
to determine if any program
adjustments are needed.
Develop supplemental
training programs specific to
local needs for approved
inspectors.
NSFC offers a compilation of regulations regarding inspections from the states that have them
; and some other public education products that describe what the homeowner can expect from an
inspection of their system. Some states have developed handbooks for inspection that deal with
most aspects of a possible inspection protocol. Basic onsite system operation and performance
inspections should be documented on standardized forms that include checks for:
Evidence of vehicles being driven over the septic tank or reserve field.
Installation of pavement, driveways, or structures over the septic tank or reserve field.
Wet areas or poor drainage in or around the infiltration field.
Slow flushing or gurgling of water in plumbing fixtures.
Leaking toilets or addition of significant wastewater-generating fixtures such as water
softeners.
Additions to the house or building since the system was installed.
Surface drainage patterns in the area of the tank and infiltration field.
Broken or open tank access covers or doors.
Sludge/scum buildup in septic tank; clogging of tank outlet screens.
Effluent quality to confirm compliance with design assumptions.
Physical condition of all treatment components.
55
-------
Inspections of onsite systems are normally performed by a trained homeowner, an independent
licensed/certified inspector, or staff member of the management entity. Lower level management
program inspections are generally limited to a pre-cover inspection during construction and prior
to property sale or change in use. Comprehensive management programs feature inspections that
can be conducted randomly or at preset times during system construction or operation. Onsite
system inspections can be one of the most effective tools of management to monitor the
performance of service providers and to assure that required O/M is properly performed.
Some management entities and states require mandatory inspections or disclosure of system
operating condition upon property transfer (e.g., Minnesota, Wisconsin, Massachusetts), and/or
periodic monitoring by licensed inspectors. Renewable operating permits might require system
owners to have a contract with a certified inspection/mainteijiance contractor or otherwise
demonstrate that periodic inspection and required operation and maintenance procedures have
been performed for permit renewal (Wisconsin Department pf Commerce, 2001). Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and some counties (e.g., Cayuga and other counties in New York;
Washtenaw County in Michigan) require that sellers of property disclose or verify system
performance (e.g., disclosure statement, inspection by the local oversight entity or other approved
inspector) prior to property transfer. j
I
Financial incentives usually aid compliance and can vary from small fines for poor system
maintenance to preventing the sale of a house if the OWTS ijs not functioning properly. Inspection
fees might be one way to cover or defray these program costs. Lending institutions nationwide
have influenced the adoption of a more aggressive approach toward requiring system inspections
before home or property loans are approved. In some areas, inspections at the time of property
transfer are common despite the absence of regulatory requirements. This practice is incorporated
into the loan and asset protection policies of local banks and; other lending institutions.
If regional aquifer or watershed monitoring/assessment deteibts some degradation of receiving
waters, an RME, in concert with the regulatory authority, may need to readjust certain system
design requirements to assure compliance with their permit. Monitoring of downstream ground
water has been attempted in research studies, but this type of monitoring is both expensive and
difficult (Pask, 2000) because of uncertainties in predicting (Affluent plume migration pathways in
nonuniform geology. Sandison, et al. (1992), Burnell (1992); Nelson and Ward (1980) and
Eliasson, et al. (2001) discusses monitoring program issues tjiat may be useful in developing
monitoring programs for decentralized management program use. Gunnison County, CO, requires
periodic monitoring of septic tank effluent and shallow uncoinfined aquifers downgradient of the
discharge to determine impacts on the latter's nitrogen, BOD, and phosphorus concentrations. An
axiom for cost-effectiveness is to maximize use of existing wells and existing monitoring
activities by various other agencies. Usual characteristics mclnitored include nitrates, fecal
coliforms, and phosphorus, but local conditions will dictate Ihe exact type and frequency of
measurements required.
2,4.11 Corrective actions and enforcement
\
Various types of legal instruments are available (see Table 2'fl6) to ensure compliance with onsite
system regulations. Regulatory programs can be enacted as ordinances, system management
agreements, local or state codes, or simply as guidelines. State code requirements can often be
modified or strengthened by local health boards or other unils of government in concert with state
authorities to better address local conditions through the passage of local ordinances.
56
-------
Table 2-15. Approaches to ensuring compliance and their implications
Collection method Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Liens on property
Recording
violations on
property deed
Presale inspections
Termination of
public services
Fines
Local governing entity (with
taxing powers) may add the
costs of performing a service
or past unpaid bills as a tax
on the property.
Copies of violations can,
through administrative or
legislature requirement, be
attached to the property title
(via registrar of deed).
Inspections of onsite
wastewater systems are
conducted prior to transfer of
property, or when property
use changes significantly.
A customer's water, electric,
or gas service may be
terminated (as applicable).
Monetary penalties for each
day of violation, or as a
surcharge on unpaid bills.
Has serious
enforcement
ramifications and is
enforceable.
Relatively simple
procedure.
Effectively limits the
transfer of property
ownership.
Notice of violation
may be given to
potential buyer at
the time of system
inspection; seller
may be liable for
repairs.
Effective
procedure,
especially if
management entity
is responsible for
water supply.
Fines can be levied
through judicial
system as a result
of enforcement of
violations.
Local government
may be reluctant to
apply this approach
unless the amount
owed is substantial.
Can be applied to
enforce sanitary code
violations; may be
ineffective in
collecting unpaid bills.
Can be difficult to
implement due to
additional resources
needed. Inspection
fees can help cover
cost.
Termination of public
services is potential
health risk and
requires political will;
does not apply if
property owner has
well.
Effectiveness will
depend on
willingness of the
authority vested to
issue the fine.
(Source: Ciotoli and Wiswall, 1982.)
Local ordinances that promote performance-based approaches can reference technical manuals
for more detailed criteria on system design and operation. Approaches for enforcing requirements
and enabling corrective actions by a management program include
Responding promptly to complaints.
Providing meaningful performance inspections.
Reviewing required documentation and reporting.
Issuing notices of violation (NOVs).
Implementing consent orders and court orders.
Holding formal and informal hearings.
Issuing civil and criminal actions or injunctions.
Condemning systems and/or property.
57
-------
" Correcting system failures.,
" Restricting real estate transactions i
" Issuance of fines and penalties
Even the most basic management program should have the lability to adopt rules and assure
compliance with them by levying fines, fees, assessments, cijt by engaging service providers to
respond to failed/failing systems. Enforcement programs need not be based solely on fines to be
effective. Information stressing public health protection and the monetary benefits of clean water
can provide additional incentives to homeowners for program compliance. Active and effective
outreach programs that focus on awareness, education, and liraining can reduce noncompliance.
There are, however, some requirements that must be enforceable to ensure program effectiveness.
They include both construction and operating permits, licensing and certification requirements to
demonstrate the necessary skills to perform services, the right to require or carry out repairs or
replacement, and, if necessary, levy monetary penalties. Examples of the variety of approaches to
enable corrective actions are provided in Table 2-17.
Table 2-16. Corrective action approaches
Program element Basic approach Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Corrective actions/
Enforcement
Issue NOV and
negotiate
compliance
schedules for
documented
problems;
administer
enforcement
program with
fines and/or
penalties for
failure to comply
with requirements
in a timely
manner.
Develop revocable
operating permit program
to assure corrective
actions through required
inspections and enforce
it.
I
Create electronic
reporting system to track
corrective measures with
real-time input frorji staff
and service providers.
Develop clear and
concise protocols with
citizen input and review to
provide step-by-step
definition of enforcement
action sequence.
Enable corrective actions
to be implemented by
RME or third-party
service providers with
payment ensured by
power to impose property
liens or other enforceable
instruments.
All of the tools in Table 2-17 can be time-consuming and generate negative publicity. Any
attempt to force compliance on a reticent homeowner will nqt produce a positive outcome if not
supported by the public. Involvement of stakeholders in development of this program element is
vital to the viability of the management program. This publics involvement, with input from the
oversight agencies, can ensure that the corrective actions/enforcement provisions are appropriate
for the management area and effectively protect human health and water resources. It is important
that program expectations by the serviced population are clesb-, consistent, and specific. It is also
important to involve the public in corrective actions/enforcerhent activities, possibly through an
appeals board or some form of program performance review committee, to minimize any
misinformation or other negative feedback from this sensitive activity. Most states establish
regulatory programs and leave enforcement up to the local agencies, subject to periodic oversight
reviews.
58
-------
To have validity, all enforcement approaches seeking to implement corrective actions must have
the necessary force of law. Therefore, the legal basis and enabling language for the existence of
the district or other enforcing agency must have that power. In most states that power is vested in
the local governments through certain "home rule" provisions, but there are numerous variations
when dealing with onsite wastewater systems. In some states the power to enforce these rales is
granted by the states, but real power to impose user fees and fines may still be limited to the local
government. Therefore, the necessary legal power must be ensured before the management entity
can be formed. The two key roles in effective management entity enforcement are the citizen's
willingness to be part of the entity and the local or state government's cooperation in the
enforcement of rules to assure compliance.
The RME cannot exist without these policing powers, which may be granted by state and/or local
government or by state enabling legislation that facilitates its formation. However, Otis, et al.
(2001) stress that the focus of a successful program must be to maintain compliance, rather than
to be punitive, in order to gain public support. In most cases, the RME will be able to enforce its
agreements with customers through standard contract law, in the case of a Model Program 4
approach, or through termination of wastewater treatment services under Model Program 5,
which features RME ownership of the treatment system.
2.4.12 Record keeping, inventory, and reporting
Record keeping and reporting programs are among the most important activities of all
management programs. Record keeping includes every aspect of management and at a minimum
should include information on ownership, type, and location of the system on the property (often
referred to as a lot plan), as-built drawings, site evaluation results and when and by whom it was
performed; permit approver and date; name of the designer; date of installation, name of the
installer and the inspector of the installation; dates and details of each inspection, any
maintenance contracts, pumping and/or repair; monitoring data; and all other information such as
dates of complaints and enforcement responses to them that pertain to each system. It includes all
information originally gathered during the inventory of existing systems in creating the
management entity and should be kept in a readily accessible database or filing system. Examples
,of these program element contents are given in Table 2-18.
As the management program increases in sophistication these databases can be used for automatic
tracking of maintenance contracts, dates of upcoming inspections or operating permit expiration,
and other time-dependent activities. In Texas alternative systems with required O/M tasks are
recorded on the property deed in order to make subsequent owners aware of these requirements.
With an RME, such tracking systems can virtually drive a large portion of the day-to-day
activities, and they should allow real-time entry of field information and protected access to data
by field personnel. Hantzsche, et al. (1991) described objectives for the data management system
at Sea Ranch, CA, that could be used as guidance for any RME. Heigis, et al., (2001) and Mayer
(2001) have also described advanced onsite management record-keeping tools for creating and
maintaining databases for possible application by an RME.
59
-------
Table 2-17. Record keeping, inventory, and reporting approaches
Program element Basic approach Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Record keeping,
inventory, and
reporting
Maintain system
inventory, site
evaluation,
construction
permit and
inspection files.
Administer
maintenance
reminder and
public education
programs.
Develop reporting!
approaches to collect
O/M information from all
service providers and
inspections in addition
to system inventory.
Institute electronic
reporting and database
system for operating
permit program actions.
Provide system inventory and
tracking system as in
intermediate approach with
watershed characterization
information and data to assist
planning staff.
Develop interactive, real-time
information tracking
programs to maximize field
productivity, track watershed
and ground water trends,
facilitate reporting to
oversight agencies, and to
maximize public
education/involvement.
The basic foundation for all record keeping systems in all management entities is the initial
inventory of onsite wastewater systems within the boundaries of the program (Burnell 1992;
Clemans, et al., 1992). Clermont County, Ohio, developed an. OWTS owner database by cross-
referencing water line and sewer service customers. Contacli information from the database was
used for a mass mailing of information on system operation'and maintenance and the county's
new inspection program to 70 percent of the target audience (Caudill, 1998). Where operating
permits are employed or even where they are not, a system 6f information sharing with the
homeowner is an excellent approach. Homeowners can be valuable in identifying inaccurate
entries to assure that the records are accurate.
Cuyahoga County Board of Health, Ohio, computer datzj[base management
To improve their sewage program filing system, Cuyahoga lounty Board of Health developed a
Microsoft Access-based format to access and track drawings evaluation results, permits, and
other correspondence pertaining to the sewage system sery<|jg for; a specific address. This
database enables the Board of Health to respond to homeojiiiers and service provider's
questions and send out septic tank pumping reminders as r|Jeded
(Source: Novickis, 2001).
Where point-of-sale inspections are dictated, such information must be regularly recorded and
added to the inventory to ensure an up-to-date inventory of sjystems. These inspection reports are
part of the deed recording system, but unless the inspection Is funded by the management entity
or legally required, it may not be made public for inventory entry. Problems have occurred in the
past where the management program did not automatically rbceive a copy of the inspection
report, thus precluding it from being entered into the database. Some Management Program 2
systems have used property transfer and change-in-use inspections to identify lapses in
maintenance contracts, but most request maintenance contractors to report those lapses.
60
-------
Washtenaw County, Michigan, time-of-sale program
Washtenaw County has a time of sale program with the following features:
» Inspectors must be approved (licensed through training/exam) by the RME.
* RME staff must verify needs identified within 5 days of submission.
• Corrective actions identified by the inspection must be submitted to RME in 30 days.
• Repairs must be completed or contract entered into (with 150 percent of estimate in
escrow) before sale.
(Source: Johnson, et al., 2001).
All program reviews and regulatory oversight procedures are dependent upon the records
maintained as part of the management program. Therefore, all record-keeping programs must
accommodate these functions. As the size and level of the management program increase,
electronic, interactive record keeping becomes not only attractive, but also necessary. In all
management programs at all levels, the information on any specific system must be accessible to
the system owner upon request. The types of information that should be maintained in the
program records (databases) include:
• System owner and contact numbers.
» System location and components from as-built drawings on lot plans (installer and dates).
• Site evaluation information and provider.
! • System designer, inspector & permitting official (capacity, design basis, and caveats).
• O/M activities (dates, performing individuals, and reports).
• Complaints (dates, responding personnel, and reports).
• System rehabilitations (dates, as-builts, contractors, and approving official).
• Monitoring data (dates, reports, and sampling, and analytical performers).
A number of private and public software packages are available for application to the
management program needs. Interested parties are directed to the EPA-OWM and the NSFC Web
sites for an up-to-date listing.
2.4.13 Financial assistance and funding
In the context of an operational onsite wastewater management entity, this program element is a
catch-all for a variety of financial and legal support requirements, as well as community
assistance programs to assist homeowners in financing required repairs to achieve compliance.
Lower-level management programs require homeowners to take much greater responsibility for
compliance than more comprehensive programs. The need to develop financing opportunities for
system upgrades and repairs, however, can be significant for all levels, except for Management
Program 5. Public-private partnerships are considered to be one of the most often cited forms of
such assistance. In some cases the management entity makes arrangements with local lending
institutions to offer special terms ! such as lower interest or longer payback periods ! to then-
service population who are unable to pay the cost for required repairs or upgrading in order to
Come into compliance in a timely manner. In effect, the entity is a co-signer of such loans and
guarantees them against default. In areas where there are major commercial wastewater sources,
the potential of using private financing through a partnership arrangement should be investigated
61
-------
since these contributors may have the most to gain from participating in a successful
decentralized management program. Typical program element contents are shown in Table 2-19.
Table 2-18. Financial assistance arid funding approaches
i
, I _
Program element Basic approach Intermediate approach Advanced approach
Financial
assistance and
funding
Program
revenues must
suffice to provide
necessary legal
and
administrative
support to
conduct all
aspects of the
management
program.
Seek grants or
other funding to
help owners
upgrade or
replace systems.
Program revenues must
suffice to provide
necessary legal and
administrative support to
conduct all aspects of the
management program.
Work with state, tribal, or
local governments and
local lending institutions
to develop low interest
loan programs.
Seek grants or other
funding to help ovi/ners
upgrade or replace
systems. \
Program revenues must
suffice to provide necessary
legal and administrative
support to conduct all
aspects of the management
program.
Create cost-share program
to help low income owners
pay for system repairs or
replacement as part of the
user fee structure.
Implement management
fees that cover inspections,
repair, replacement, O/M
costs, and a sinking fund to
cover future infrastructure
needs.
Seek grants or other funding
to help owners upgrade or
replace systems.
A public or privately owned/operated decentralized RME is eligible to receive EPA Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans ^ but not all states have implemented the rules needed to
implement these loans. Numerous other federal and state loian and grant programs exist, and one
of the primary roles of the RME is to actively seek out such funding sources for their constituents.
A possible approach for a RME is to create an equitable program of user fees that provides a
financial assistance program for eligible homeowners to regain compliance with applicable
performance requirements. Although there are excellent guides available for developing rate
structures by management entities in small communities (University of Tennessee, 1991; Ciotoli
and Wiswall,1982; Shephard,1996; RCAP,1995), creating a management program financed by
user fees is particularly difficult without strong public involvement.
The RME can work with local lending institutions to provide low interest loans to owners
needing to upgrade their systems or work with local businesses within the onsite management
district to develop a public/private partnership to assist those individuals. Such opportunities are
maximized with use of citizen advisory boards and citizen membership in the management
entity's board of directors. Mancl (2001) reports that five Icing-term successful management
entities have charged homeowners between $100 and $365 per year. Pickney and Pickney (2001)
report that the Tennessee Public Utilities Commission established fees for their privately owned.
and operated Model 5 RME at $35.1 I/month, which covers costs associated with managing and
62
-------
financing future infrastructure repairs, primarily for cluster systems. These systems are built
according to the specifications provided by the firm and are then deeded over to the firm upon
completion of construction. The revenue streams created to sustain the RME are generally from
property assessments, user fees, taxes, fees for specific services, fines, and developer-paid fees
such as connection fees and impact fees. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these
revenue sources are presented in Table 2-18
Development company sponsors management district in Colorado
The Crystal Lakes Development Company has been building a residential community 40 miles
northwest of Fort Collins, Colorado, since 1969. In 1972, the company sponsored the creation of
the Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association to provide drinking water and sewage treatment
services. Membership in the association is required of all lot owners, who must also obtain a
permit for onsite systems from the Larimer County Health Department. The association enforces
county health covenants, aids property owners in the development of onsite water and
wastewater treatment systems, monitors surface and ground waters, and has developed
guidelines for inspection of onsite water and wastewater systems. System inspections are
conducted at the time of property transfer. The association conducts preliminary site evaluations
for proposed onsite systems, including inspection of a 7-foot deep backhoe pit excavated by
association staff with equipment owned by the association. The county health department has
also authorized the association to design proposed systems. The association currently manages
systems for more than 100 permanent dwellings and 600 seasonal residences. Management
services are provided for all onsite systems in the development including 300 holding tanks,
seven community vault toilets, recreational vehicle dump stations, and a cluster system that
serves 25 homes on small lots and the development's lodge, restaurant, and office buildings. The
association is financed by annual property owner dues of $90 !$180 and a $25 property transfer
fee, which covers inspections.
(Source: Mancl, 1999). ' -
PENNVEST: Financing onsite wastewater systems in the Keystone State
The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) provides low-cost financing
for systems on individual lots or within entire communities. Teaming with the Pennsylvania
Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Environmental Protection, PENNVEST created a
low-interest onsite system loan program for low- to moderate-Income (i.e., 150 percent of the
statewide median household income) homeowners. The $65 application fee is refundable if the
project is approved. The program can save system owners $3,000 to $6,000 in interest payments
on a 15-year loan of $10,000. As of 1999, PENNVEST has approved 230 loans totaling $3.5
million. Funds for the program come from state revenue bonds, special statewide referenda, the
state general fund, and the State Revolving Fund. • '
(Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1998.)
63
-------
rious funding sources
CD
M-
and disadvantages o
CO
Q}
CO
"c
ra
>
T3
C>
S
j£
3
,ra
H
1
J?
c
Disadva
Advantages
Description
o
S
3
O
CO
0)
C
3
LL
0
S> roio
3.E.>.C
0 ral'JS
£§£•§
1,1-a
c 2: w ^
5" co co .a
e jo o !t=
ro ™ _ TD
rn »?? •— Q)
||||
jj >, o E
* "5
Loans must be repaid with interest
certain provisions (e.g., power to le
agency of ability to repay the debt.
available at higher interest rates ar
without adequate collateral.
CO
State and federal agencies can
often issue low-interest loans with
long repayment period. Loans can
be used for short-term financing
while waiting for grants or bonds.
lent with interest; can be
3d from federal, state, and
jrcial lending institution
s.
0 e £ 8
Illl
CO
c
co
~*
4-T "c
c c 0 ;
! if if i
«— rn O) "{A CO
§•"§1330
>> ro .2 il
. ,jj
0
co ~a
= 0
j-, CO
II
0 2
Community debt limitations might r
approve of using these bonds. Usu
generate revenues.
Interest rates are usually lower
than those of other bonds. Offers
considerable flexibility to local
governments.
backed by the full faith and
)f the issuing entity. Secured
taxing powers of the issuing
Commonly used by local
III!
c
.0
1o
.TO
0
"co
^ CO
0 -o
C
o 5
CO
&
0
.c
"c
0
1
0
TO
"co
u
n
0
i £
Do not have full faith and credit of 1
Can be used to circumvent local
ments.
repaid by the revenue of the
Si |
0 0
01 CQ
CO
T3
t—
o
0
c
0
0
o;
CO
T3
C
O
.1
"co
2
o
"jo
0
I
0
rates are typically higher than thos
debt limitation.
'o
c
propriate i
i relatively
Q. OJ
CO -O
.££
0) D)
J2 'g
.C n)
f!
co ^
92 o
Can be costly to individual landowr
areas with nonuniform lot sizes, inl
Removes financial burden from
local government. Useful when
M—
O CO
payable only from collection
assessments. Property tax«
co .eg
II
-w
0
co
CO
0
CO
CO
CO
I co
O T-J
0 c
Q. O
CO .0
TO
In
direct benefits can be readily
identified.
be used to pay for these.
-5
§
CO
•o
c
s
±z
1
T3
C
O
.Q
t
O
c
3
CO
s
Many communities compete for lim
•o
States can get the large issue bon
at a lower interest rate. The state
can issue the bond in anticipation
m "O
use taxing power to secure ;
ond issue that can be divide
communities.
co -Q O)
Js OT§
ft JS co
$
c
1
c
CO
.Q
T3
O
CQ
OT communiiy need.
-------
1
.22
ro
c
t
;g
f
c
C -
Requires complicated agreements £
Costs and risks of loan spread out
over several lenders. When
allowed by state law, COPs can be
issued when bonds would exceed
debt limitations.
1 £•£ CD
1 'c -o •&
\ i 3 C
hi
1 CO CO .U
1 *w lu
1 -Q Q- ^
1 .£ -0 <0
0 § 0
g|||
1 O .E co to
CL
-&
li
SCO
Q.
1 , ro
A written promise to pa
include grant and bond
notes.
%
CO
0
•Sii
8 8
E o
'w ro
CO 0)
0 £
•Q ro
£V
D) 0
P E w
Jl O CO
^ CO =
CD • S
{H CO ^
Initial lump sum payment of assessi
burden on individual property ownei
restrict the allowable burden on indi
Useful where benefits from capital
improvements are identifiable. Can
be used to reduce local share debt
requirements for financing. Can be
used to establish a fund for future
capital investments.
8 =
n" ro
t co
Q. CO
Direct fees or taxes on
Sometimes referred to
improvement fee.
"c
0
E
1
CO
>1
"C
i.
2
0-
E
_o (0
3 CD
80?
e/5
8.i
tion. Graduated 1
industries or bus
ffl rn
Flat fees discourage water conservi
discourage high-volume water usini
locating in an area.
Generates steady flow of revenue.
Graduated fees encourage water
conservation.
0
1
i
0
-^
D>
3
i
e>
II
81
U- CO
0
t0
0
CO
CO
Revenue flow not always continuou
Generates funds to pay for O&M.
Fees not imposed on people not
connected to the system.
0^
1!
iB "o.
•n 0
Fee charged for a spei
such as pumping the s
0
3>
f\\
\t)
0
CO
CO
0
(U •
c to
li
0 -5
i1!
ble. Could encou
legal activities to
cheme.
m = to
Generation of funds not always relii
to change location or participate in
Could generate opposition to O&M
Generates revenue while
discouraging pollution.
c
'to
CO
/!•) C
S. m
Charges assessed for
pollutants into the syst
CD
CD
0
_>
"E
Q-
8
—
to
1
be restricted by
c
Might discourage development. Ca
laws.
Connection funded by beneficiary.
All connection costs might be paid.
0
c
o
••§
0
c
fr~
o
o
Charges assessed for
existing system.
co
0
C
O
•T—.
t3
0
c
o
O
%
1
0
.n
<§
•£
0
c
Might reduce potential for developr
state/local laws.
Paid for only by those who profit.
Funds can be used to offset costs.
£2
CD
Q.
0
Fees charged to devel
0
**~
"rt
to
Q.
in
CO
cf
C35
c\T
oo
C35
f~
sf
LLJ
O
fr.
O
-------
Management Model
Objectives
Basic features
Management Model 4
Responsible
management entity
operation and
maintenance
Responsible public or
private entity assumes
p/M and
inspection/monitoring
responsibilities for all
systems in management
area.
Performance governs
acceptability.
Operating permits ensure
compliance.
All systems are inspected
regularly.
Monthly/yearly fees support
program.
Owner responsible for all
costs.
Create and maintain inventory.
Management Model 5
Responsible
management entity
ownership
Public or private RME
owns and operates all
systems in management
area.
Similar to centralized
sewer system service
approach.
Performance governs
acceptability.
All systems are inspected
regularly.
Monthly/yearly fees support
program.
Users relieved of all O&M
responsibilities.
RME funds installation &
repairs.
Create and maintain inventory.
68
-------
Chapter 3 Management program models
3.1 Introduction to the management models
USEPA has developed five models to characterize what programs might look like at various intervals
along the management continuum. The management models, which are part of the Voluntary Guidelines
for Management ofOnsite and Cluster (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems (USEPA, 2003),
are presented as a series of progressive steps in the management continuum. The management models are
crafted so that the management requirements for wastewater systems become more rigorous as system
technologies become more complex and/or the sensitivity of the environment increases. This concept is a
key to management program development.
This chapter discusses management program objectives, presents brief descriptions of the types of
systems targeted under each model, and outlines the major benefits and limitations of each of the five
models. The reader should note that these five conceptual models are presented for illustration purposes
only. The array of management program activities for any community must be based on its goals,
regulatory requirements, and resources and the overall environmental setting in which the regulatory
authority and management entities (or service providers) operate. Thus, the management program
developed by a local community might not exactly reflect one of these five models but might borrow
elements from two or more to better respond to unique community concerns (e.g., lake eutrophication,
ground water contamination) or address other issues that local citizens describe as important.
jrOfligHconiip'onibnt bf-iheioiisitej \-? I;-., ?*
iSvstemV'X^IdfJori >sftwarafi/ ';''" (.'" * r, il:-
The models share the common goal of ensuring that human
health and the environment are protected. Effective
implementation of any management program requires ongoing
coordination among appropriate regulatory authorities, the
community, and other partners in the management program. This
coordination is necessary to help ensure that state and local
OWTS programs are managed to protect public health and the
environment and to meet state, tribal, or local water quality
standards, such as applicable pathogen and nutrient criteria.
Each management model includes a set of management
objectives and related program elements and activities targeted
toward the satisfactory achievement of the objectives. The
management models are benchmarks for a state, tribal, or local unit of government to (1) identify
management needs, (2) evaluate whether the current management program is adequate, and (3) develop
an appropriate management program or necessary program enhancements to achieve public health and
environmental goals. USEPA recognizes that states, tribes, and local governments need a flexible
framework to best tailor their programs to the specific needs of their communities. These management
models are not intended to supersede existing federal, state, tribal, or local laws and regulations, but rather
to facilitate compliance with them.
The management models summarized in Table 3-2 and described in the following sections span the
•' -ellmiriate^ott 'delay-tlie b^eeP for-- %; "f
'li!';',l,!.- l-r-AL:.:?!-•.&•":• ^.1,"Lvr'l--.'-H»is -fi
69
-------
management continuum, from simple inventory and maintenance awareness programs for system owners
to programs with comprehensive management entities that own and operate a number of systems. As
noted previously, local programs will vary depending on the unique regulatory, ecological, and economic
conditions of each community.
3.2 Description of the management models
i
The Management Guidelines consist of a series of five management models. As the models progress from
The Homeowner Awareness Model to The Responsible Management Entity (RME) Ownership Model,
they reflect the need for improved management practices and increased oversight as determined by the
complexity of treatment systems employed and the potential risks to public health and water resources.
For example, The Homeowner Awareness Model recommends management practices for areas where the
risks to public health and water resources are low and the suitable treatment technologies are passive and
robust. The RME Ownership Model, on the other hand, defines an appropriate level of practice and
oversight for communities where there are significant risks to public health or water resources. Table 3-1
presents a brief description of each management model; detailed information on how each program
element discussed in Chapter 3 might be addressed under each taodel can be found in Appendix D. Table
3-1 presents the management program objectives, provides a brjef description of the types of systems
applicable, and lists major benefits and limitations for each of tie five management models.
The Guidelines contain certain key concepts that are the foundation of changes needed to improve the
performance of decentralized wastewater treatment systems. These concepts are imbedded in the
activities of each management model and have the potential for making the difference in the field. These
concepts include:
• an increase in the level of management as the level of risk and technical complexity increase,
* inventorying existing systems and their level of performance as a minimum,
• operating permits for large systems and clusters of onsite systems,
• discharge permits for systems which discharge to surfabe waters,
• increased requirements for certification and licensing of practitioners, and
• elimination of illicit discharges to storm drains or sewer"
The management models provide benchmarks for a state, tribal], or local unit of government to 1) select
appropriate management objectives to meets its wastewater treatment needs; 2) evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of its current program hi achieving the desired objectives; 3) design a management program
and activities needed to meet unique local objectives; and 4) develop a plan for implementing the
management program.
In deciding whether or not to use on-site systems, it is important to consider the risks they may pose to the
environment and public health. There may be cases where on-site systems are not appropriate due to the
environmental sensitivity or public health concerns of an area. In the cases where on-site systems are
appropriate, it is critical that they are managed to prevent envirbnmental and public health impacts. All of
the management models share the common goal of ensuring thikt public health and water resources are
protected. Effective implementation of management programs Requires coordination among state, tribal,
and local water quality, public health and planning and zoning agencies, and community officials.
USEPA continues to encourage this coordination on a watershed basis. Zoning ordinances and land use
planning are also mechanisms used by state, tribal and local governments to address water resources
issues. Coordination is necessary also to help ensure that state, tribal, and local decentralized wastewater
programs are managed on a watershed basis to achieve protection consistent with applicable state and
70
-------
tribal water quality standards, including pathogen and nutrient criteria. These goals are best achieved
where performance-based management of onsite and cluster systems has been implemented to protect the
quality of the receiving watershed and/or aquifer.
The legal authority for regulating onsite and cluster systems generally rests with state, tribal and local
governments. USEPA recognizes that these units of government need a flexible framework and guidance
to best tailor their management programs to the specific needs of the community and the needs of the
watershed. While each management model stands alone, the models are intended only to be guides in
developing an appropriate management program. Activities shown in program elements from one
management model may be incorporated into another model to enhance the effectiveness of local
programs in achieving the desired objectives under the prevailing circumstances. However, substituting
activities from higher levels into lower level management programs should be carefully considered
because of the interdependence of many activities on overall program capabilities. It is also possible to
implement more than one management model, as appropriate, within a jurisdiction for the circumstances
encountered (housing density, site and soil characteristics, and treatment technology complexity). Further,
it is important to note that these management models are not intended to supersede existing federal, state,
tribal and local laws and regulations, but rather to complement their role in protecting public health and '
water quality.
Governmental roles and authority in implementation of management programs based on the Guidelines
will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Application of the NPDES program under the Clean Water
Act is required if there is a discharge of pollutants from a point source to a water of the U.S. This
requirement also covers systems that discharge to ditches, pipes, or other conveyances that ultimately
discharge to waters of the U.S. Similarly, application of the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program under the Safe Drinking Water Act is required if a large capacity system is subject to UIC
controls. The provisions of the program elements in each model may inform the State, Tribe, or USEPA
in establishing NPDES permit requirements, if the NPDES program is applicable.
In many cases, states will establish the authority for creation of management entities, provide funding,
and provide technical assistance and training to local governments. The local governments would then
have primary responsibility for implementation of the management program. If a decentralized system is
required to have an NPDES permit and an authorized state or tribe is administering a decentralized
management program under this strategy, the requirements of the program should be incorporated into the
applicable NPDES permit which is the primary regulatory instrument. If a state or tribe administering the
program is not an authorized NPDES authority, the requirements of the program should be submitted to
the NPDES permit issuing authority as a 401 water quality certification requirement. If the program is
being administered by a local authority, or a tribe without 401 certification ability, the requirements of the
program should be recommended to the NPDES permitting issuing authority for inclusion in the facilities
permit. However, there are some cases where the states themselves have the primary role and authority to
implement the regulatory program at the local level. In most cases where a tribe chooses to implement the
program, there is no Federal restriction to prevent local tribal authorities from implementing the program,
if the tribal code allows.
State, tribal, and local governments must recognize that there likely will be increased costs experienced
by both the regulatory authority and the property owner in improving management practices and
programs. The cost impacts may increase as the level of management increases, however, there are
tradeoffs that exist. Costs incurred by the regulatory authority and/or management entity may be offset by
increased permit fees and more efficient data management tools while the costs to the property owner
may be offset by reduced repair and replacement costs, cost avoidance of environmental restoration, and
increased property values and quality of life.
71
-------
hybrid or combination programs may be appropriate where site conditions vary within the community
and/or institutional capacity is not uniform within the jurisdiction. It is also recommended that appropriate
levels of management for decentralized systems be established in jurisdictions, which have both
centralized and decentralized wastewater treatment. In some cases, it may be feasible for the entity, which
manages the centralized wastewater treatment facility to also ma,nage the decentralized systems.
I
Targeting of specific types of systems for improved management may also be appropriate when resources
are limited and a phased approach that focuses on priority systems is preferred. A widely used approach
has been to initially target higher density or environmentally sensitive areas when there are limited
resources for monitoring efforts. Examples of environmentally sjensitive areas include those used for
drinking water sources, areas adjacent to heavily used lakes and beaches, and areas that impact coral reefs
or shellfish beds. Any approach taken should include input from all the stakeholders in a local jurisdiction
or watershed.
l
The implementation of higher levels of management will often occur in progressive stages, as more
performance data and experience with systems develops, public [awareness and support increase, and the
capacity of state, tribal, and local institutions to deal with management challenges builds over time.
Implementation of the elements and activities recommended by The Homeowner Awareness Model as the
threshold level of management will not only raise the quality of management practices for most existing
programs, but also initiate activities (such as an inventory of systems) that allow the community to
identify and address circumstances that may require upgrading to higher levels of management.
j
While the Homeowner Awareness Model may adequately address conventional systems within low-risk
segments of a service area, there may be other areas of higher risk, which require higher levels of
management. For these areas, a higher level management model, more appropriate for areas with higher
sensitivities, may be incorporated into the overall management program to customize system management
to the needs of the community or service area. It is important that the management program be structured
to adequately manage an appropriate set of onsite and cluster systems for the full range of environmental
conditions. For example, The Operating Permit Model might be selected for the more sensitive areas such
as those along lake fronts or estuaries shown to have poor watei' quality, while a lower level management
model may still be appropriate where the receiving environment is not as sensitive and conventional
systems are acceptable. ' !
It must be stressed that each management entity—whether assembled from partner agencies and service
providers or created especially to handle the full range of program elements—will have unique
requirements that will likely require some hybridization of one 'or more of the management models
discussed previously. Ciotoli and Wiswall (1982) found that voluntary levels of management, such as a
homeowners' association, were inadequate for cluster systems because they could not legally enforce '•
rules to maintain or restore compliance with their discharge peijmit. Herring (2001) concluded that
homeowners were unlikely to conduct routine maintenance taslps unless gross failure occurred, and then it
was too late. Providing higher levels of management attention ([inspections, monitoring, maintenance) to
even simple treatment systems can extend the life of the systerrs, improve performance, contribute to;
maintenance, and increase in property values.
The best way of looking at the array of management program models is to consider first the local
problems and needs. If unproved public health protection is the! primary concern because of a high rate of
existing system backups to the ground surface or into buildings} and the vulnerability of the watershed is
moderate to minimal, a basic program (e.g., Management Model 1) might suffice where onsite systems
can be upgraded. In more ecologically vulnerable areas where jbroblems have been demonstrated from
existing unmanaged onsite systems and their upgrading is technically feasible, Management Model 3
76
-------
Management^odel^Maintenancecontracts/ , 1 :,
';r,facors/- , > . /, / > - :, • -'' >> - ' ^ / - ....::
3.5 Operating permit model
environment.
Se Spe*?™Id ?e renewable for another term if the owner demonstrates that the system is m
maintenance is performed in a timely manner and the condition of the system be inspected perwdicaiiy.
^S^^tens, the treatment process will require more frequent inspections and adjustments, so
process monitoring may be required.
An advantage to implementing the program elements and activities
tte design of treatment systems is based on performance requirements that are less dependent on site
S^S^SonditionB. Therefore, systems can be used safely in more sensitive environments if
SrSS^^ets those requirements reliably and consistently. The operating permit provides a
mechaSs^for continuous oversight of system performance and negotiating toety corrective actions or
S±g p^aLs tf compliance with the permit is not maintained. To comply with these P^nnance
starS the property owner should be encouraged to hire a licensed maintenance provider or operator.
73
-------
Figure 4-4. Environmental sensitivity risk factors
Moderate to high environmental sensitivity: Sole source
aquifers; wellhead and source watf r protection zones-
critical habitats; outstanding value resource waters others
Moderate environmental sensitivity Wellhead and source
water protection zones; shellfish waters; bathing or
water contact recreation y
Low environmental sensitivity: Sites suitable or marginally
suitable for conventional onsite wastewater systems
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002
u- SyStem deDSity'Which incre£ses wastewater loadings in concentrated
Figure 4-5. Public health risk factors
High density housing; pri\ ate wells; excessively
permeable or slowly permeable soils; close
proximity to bathing or shellfish waters
Low density housing;
deep, permeable soils
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002
92
-------
3.8 Applying the management models
Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix D provide descriptions of specific activities to be undertaken for the
various program elements of a management model. The party that has primary responsibility for the
activities is also identified. The program elements and activities listed for each management model are
considered to be the minimum elements and activities necessary to achieve the stated management
objectives for each model.
As previously indicated, the management model selected by a particular community or service area
should be based on environmental sensitivity, public health risks, the complexities of the wastewater
treatment technologies that might or should be implemented, and size and/or density of development.
Selection of the management model is made after the decision to use decentralized wastewater treatment
is made The tables generally describe recommended activities for each of the management elements
associated with the management models. How each of these elements and activities will be implemented
will depend on decisions by the local community and regulatory authority, based on generally accepted
onsite wastewater science and practice, locally appropriate statutes, ordinances, institutional structures,
technical capabilities, public preferences and other factors. Thus, the general framework for a local
management program should be derived from the tables but it must be tailored to suit local circumstances
and preferences.
USEPA recognizes the varied nature of management needed across the country and within states and
localities, the need for flexibility in adopting recommendations of the Guidelines and the lack of resources
for implementation. While states, tribes and local communities are encouraged to implement management
models; an individual program may properly include elements of several management models. These
75
-------
Figure 4-4. Environmental sensitivity risk factors
Moderate to high environmental sensitivity: Sole source
aquifers; wellhead and source water protection zones;
critical habitats; outstanding value resource waters, others
Moderate environmental sensitivity; Wellhead and source
water protection zones; shellfish waters; bathing or
water contact recreation
Low environmental sensitivity: Sites; suitable or marginally
suitable for conventional onsite wastewater systems
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002
Public health risk factors include system density, which increases wastewater loadings in concentrated
residential areas; soil permeability, which affects treatment processes and effluent plume migration; and
water resource uses (see figure below).
Figure 4-5. Public health risk factors
i
High density housing; prij/ate wells; excessively
permeable or slowly permeable soils; close
proximity to bathing or shellfish waters
Low density housing;
deep, permeable soils
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002
92
-------
entity might help to mitigate degradation and satisfy the oversight agencies. Where system density is high
and/or inadequate lot sizes are common and have resulted in environmental and public health problems,
Management Models 3-5 may be able to address these problems. .
The implementation of management programs over time will often occur in progressive stages as more
monitoring information becomes available, public awareness and support increase, and the ability of state,
local, and tribal institutions to deal with management challenges improves. Implementation of
Management Program 1, which is considered a minimal level of management, provides a basis for raising
awareness of maintenance needs, identifying and characterizing existing onsite systems and potential
problem areas, and building support for higher levels of management if they are needed.
3.9 Environmental sensitivity and public health risk
The locally developed management program should be based upon the potential risk of onsite wastewater
treatment system discharges impacting the public health or the quality of local water resources. The level
of oversight incorporated into the management program should increase as the potential for negative
impacts to public health or for environmental degradation increases. Examples of parameters to consider
in assessing public health and environmental sensitivity include soil permeability, depth to a restrictive
horizon and groundwater, aquifer type, receiving water use, proximity to surface waters, topography,
geology, location of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act, and density of development.
Another useful parameter to consider is the "susceptibility determinations" that states and tribes will make
as part of their source water assessments. These assessments determine which potential sources of
pollution, including decentralized wastewater systems, pose the greatest threats to drinking water.
Other issues to consider that may have a direct impact on public health include the need to protect
shellfish harvesting and direct contact recreational waters. An area with moderately permeable soils and a
groundwater table that is sufficiently isolated from the effects of onsite discharges may be designated as
an area of low public health risk and environmental sensitivity, while an area with excessively permeable
soils with a shallow water table used for a drinking water source would be designated as an area of high
concern. For those watersheds where a determination has been made that the onsite wastewater treatment
system is contributing to a violation of water quality standards, the elements and activities of the
Operating Permit Model, the RME Operation and Maintenance Model, or the RME Ownership Model
should be selected to address restoration of the watershed. More detailed information on these factors is
provided the Management Handbook.
3.10 Complexity of treatment systems
The complexity of the treatment system also influences the management program selected. As the
complexity of a treatment system increases to meet management objectives or system performance
standards, the need for a higher level of operation and maintenance and monitoring increases to ensure
that the system does not malfunction to create an unacceptable risk to public health or water resources. A
less complex treatment system, such as a conventional onsite septic system, depends upon passive, natural
processes for the movement, treatment, and dispersal of wastewater. The prescriptive elements of The
Homeowner Awareness Model, where properly applied, may be sufficient for conventional onsite
technologies to consistently function as effective wastewater treatment systems. A more complex
treatment system, such as a surface discharging aerobic treatment system with filtration and disinfection,
will require routine monitoring and attention from a professional technician to maintain its performance,
and therefore requires a higher level of oversight. EPA's updated Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
Design Manual01\ provides guidance on performance and management requirements for a broad range of
77
-------
Table 4-5. Environmental sensitivity assessment key for preceding figure.
Wastewater management zone
Includes the entire service area of the district.
B
Receiving environment
Receiving water to which the wastewater is discharged.
Fate of ground water discharge
The treated discharge to ground water may enter the regional flow or become base flow to surface
water. Ground water flow direction can be roughly estimated from ground surface topography if other
sources of information are not available. In some instances both regional flow and base flow routes
should be assessed to determine the controlling point of use.
Planning area density (population equivalents per acre)
The risk of higher contaminate concentrations in the? ground water from ground water-discharging
treatment facilities will increase with increasing nurrjbers of people served. Where building lots are
served by individual infiltration systems, the population served divided by the total area composed by
contiguous existing and planned lots would determfhe population equivalents per acre (p.e./acre).
For a large cluster system, the p.e./acre would be determined by the population iserved divided by
the area of the infiltration surface of fhe cluster system.
Well construction !
Wells developed in an unconfmed aquifer with direcil hydraulic connections to the wastewater
discharge have a higher probability of impact from the wastewater discharge than wells developed in
a confined aquifer. Wells that are considered within] the zone of influence from the wastewater
discharge should be identified and their construction determined from well logs.
Travel time to base flow discharge, Tbf
Treated wastewater discharges in ground water caip affect surface waters through base flow. The
potential impacts of base flows are inversely proportional to the travel time in the ground water, Tbf,
because of the dispersion and dilution (except in kslrst areas) that will occur. Where aquifer
characteristics necessary to estimate travel times are unknown, distance can be substituted as a
measure. If travel time, Tbf, is greater than time to al ground water point of use, Ta, the ground water
should be assumed to be the receiving environment.
Stream flow j
Stream flow will provide dilution of the wastewater discharges. The mixing and dilution provided are
directly proportional to the stream flow. Stream flov/ could be based on the 7-day, 10-year low-flow
condition (7Qio) as a worst case. "High" and "low" stream flow values would be defined by the ratio of
the 7Qio to the daily wastewater discharge. For exsmple, ratios greater than 100:1 might be
"high," whereas those less than 100:1 might be "low." Stream flow based on the watershed area
might also be used (cfs/acre). ,
H
Travel time to aquifer or surface water point of use, Ta or Ts
The potential impacts of wastewater discharges orf points of use (wells, coastal embayments,
recreational areas, etc.) are inversely proportional to the travel time. Except for karst areas, distance
could be used as a substitute for travel time if aquifer or stream characteristics necessary to estimate
travel times are unknown.
Relative probability of impact
The relative probability of impact is a qualitative estimate of expected impact from a wastewater
discharge on a point of use. The risk posed by the [impact will vary with the intended use of the water
resource and the nature of contaminants of concern.
Source: Otis, 1999.
100
-------
sail*
O W a. 0. .£
IK
£^1
:£§
Q- >
O)
-------
Table 4-5. Environmental sensitivity assessment key for preceding figure.
B
Wastewater management zone
Includes the entire service area of the district.
Receiving environment
Receiving water to which the wastewater is discharged.
Fate of ground water discharge
The treated discharge to ground water may enter the regional flow or become base flow to surface
water. Ground water flow direction can be roughly estimated from ground surface topography if other
sources of information are not available. In some instances both regional flow and base flow routes
should be assessed to determine the, controlling point of use.
Planning area density (population equivalents pipr acre)
The risk of higher contaminate concentrations in the ground water from ground water-discharging
treatment facilities will increase with increasing numbers of people served. Where building lots are
served by individual infiltration systems, the populaton served divided by the total area composed by
contiguous existing and planned lots would determine population equivalents per acre (p.e./acre).
For a large cluster system, the p.e./acre would be determined by the population served divided by
the area of the infiltration surface of the cluster system.
Well construction ;
Wells developed in an unconfined aquifer with direc^ hydraulic connections to the wastewater
discharge have a higher probability of impact from trie wastewater discharge than wells developed in
a confined aquifer. Wells that are considered within [the zone of influence from the wastewater
discharge should be identified and their construction determined from well logs.
Travel time to base flow discharge, Tbf ;
Treated wastewater discharges in ground water car) affect surface waters through base flow. The
potential impacts of base flows are inversely proportional to the travel time in the ground water, Tbf,
because of the dispersion and dilution (except in ka|rst areas) that will occur. Where aquifer
characteristics necessary to estimate travel times afe unknown, distance can be substituted as a
measure. If travel time, Tbf, is greater than time to a! ground water point of use, Ta, the ground water
should be assumed to be the receiving environment.
Stream flow '
Stream flow will provide dilution of the wastewater discharges. The mixing and dilution provided are
directly proportional to the stream flow. Stream flow,) could be based on the 7-day, 10-year low-flow
condition (7Qio) as a worst case. "High" and "low" stream flow values would be defined by the ratio of
the 7Qio to the daily wastewater discharge. For example, ratios greater than 100:1 might be
.. . ,. j «rt J * _l_i I «!_.,,» ft A .*.«.,-..«. C|MI • > LvnnA^I s\n +t^^\ tA/ntarch^/^ '
"high," whereas those less than 100:1 might be "lov
might also be used (cfs/acre).
' Stream flow based on the watershed area
H
Travel time to aquifer or surface water point of ilise, Ta or Ts
The potential impacts of wastewater discharges on points of use (wells, coastal embayments,
recreational areas, etc.) are inversely proportional 1o the travel time. Except for karst areas, distance
could be used as a substitute for travel time if aquifer or stream characteristics necessary to estimate
travel times are unknown.
Relative probability of impact
The relative probability of impact is a qualitative es: imate of expected impact from a wastewater
discharge on a point of use. The risk posed by the Impact will vary with the intended use of the water
resource and the nature of contaminants of concern.
Source: Otis, 1999.
100
-------
Chapter 4 Sustainable management program
development and implementation
4.1 Developing and implementing a management program
The purpose of this chapter is to assist local communities with creating and sustaining a management
programfor decentralized wastewater treatment systems, as an alternative or m addition to central sewers.
The five program models outlined in this handbook describe a series of management levels, ranging from
a scenario in which homeowners are reminded to maintain their septic tanks to one that resembles a
typical sewer district where all necessary services are provided in return for a monthly or quarterly user
fee paid by the homeowner. Higher levels of management are characterized by more comprehensive
development of various program elements; (e.g., enhanced planning to identify system performance
requirements, periodic inspections or monitoring).
Management programs can range from an informal network of private service providers public agency
staffs and otter partners operating under a coordinated framework to a highly structured entity founded
specifically to own, operate, and maintain a defined set of treatment systems. The key objective m
devdoping the program is to ensure that it reflects the community's best effort to deal with potential
public health and water resource threats given the human, programmatic, and other assets availab e.
Forging local resources into a viable management program is by definition a case-specific process, highly
dependent upon the commitment, creativity, and cooperation of participants.
There are a number of critical ingredients for developing an effective and sustainable decentralized
wastewater management program (Ciotoli and Wiswall, 1982; Mancl, 2001):
Public acceptance and local political support
Funding availability and/or reasonable costs
Visibility and accountability of local leaders
Capability and attitude of technical/field staff
Availability of creative, professional advisors
Clear and concise legal authority, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms
A successful management program development sequence follows these basic steps:
Identify and engage stakeholders and interested parties
Organize those involved through formal or informal processes
Develop and implement a public education and outreach program
Assess decentralized wastewater facilities and impacts
Determine current trends regarding facilities and impacts
Project future scenarios as indicated by the trends analysis
Create a community vision incorporating preferred outcomes
Conduct a reality check to determine availability of technical, financial, etc. resources
Explore options under existing and/or revised regulatory structure(s)
Select the preferred option(s), identify success indicators, and develop a work plan
Implement the work plan; adapt as suggested by monitoring of success indicators
81
-------
Realistically incorporating these key ingredients into a functional and sustainable management program is
a difficult and slow process, Olson et aL (2002) Estimate to take 2.5 to 7 years (see Figure 4-1). But it is
io6 ciiort.
Figure 4-1. Typical timetable for a wastewater treatment project
Phase I:
Understanding the
Situation
(6-l2months) Phased:
Exploring the Options
(18-36 months)
• Treatment Options
• Funding Options/Mechanisms
• Administration
• Management
MONTHS
Phase 111:
'i' '•$'!" S "W>':? 'ii I; *''':''•!:.-?:' i4Wi!S'" A? )!V'l:;t £; -- ] -:ii*?Si|* *a«iSilS5s|*«
Typical Timetable for a
Wastewater Treatment Project
Phases IV:
Implementing Decisions
(I-24 months) Phase V:
Managing the System
(Ongoing)
• Monitoring
• Operating
* Maintenance
MONTHS
• Total Time: 2'/2 to 7 years
Source: Olson ct d 2002
Onsite system management services are provided through an identifiable program-a mix of institutions
and procedures developed through aprocess that consists of a series of phases, (i.e., initiation, planning,
and implementahon). Smaller communities with unpaid or pak-time officials may develop management
programs by coordinating existing resources and perhaps developing new capabilities or owner
requirements as necessary. As noted by Allee, et al., (1999), the process of enhancing system
management entails building relationships among local policj or governing entities, informed regulatory
staff, property owners service providers, and citizens. Management programs that are more formalized
and structured will follow a similar developmental process, but will likely include additional
considerations such as program funding and staffing. All programs should:
Have sufficient local support and legal authority
Be flexible in adapting to changing demands
Ensure reasonable homeowner costs
Have the ability to achieve public health and enviroi
lental objectives
This chapter draws upon information presented in previous chlpters pertaining to the five Management
Models (see Chapter 3), the key program elements or components (see Chapter 2), and the necessary
cooperative relationships and/or regulatory powers that must be considered in the development of all
management programs. The approach discussed in this chaptei focuses on how development of new or
enhanced decentralized wastewater system management programs can be undertaken by creating
partnerships assessing health and environmental risks, and building consensus among stakeholders on
program goals, preferred actions, and implementation.
82
-------
Traditionally, local residents have been unwilling to commit funds and resources to addressdecentralized
wastewater problems unless they are convinced that 1) a problem actually exists; 2) there are
Zrortfcte consequences of not solving the problem; and 3) the relative costs can be accommodated.
refeetoS
development is paramount. Successful management programs are created by building capabilities,
cooperation, and coordination among system users, service providers, and public agencies.
The implementation of any successful effort to manage decentralized ys^™**^^>A_1
program development process than on the treatment technologies available (Olson, et al 2002). Table 41
^StaZl generalized approach for tailoring a management program to a community's specific needs.
This approach which is similar to conventional watershed assessment/planning/management protocols
used acrTthe Nation, can be (and has been) adapted in any number of ways to meet the wastewater
management needs of local communities.
Figure 4-2. Key attributes of the management concept
83
-------
Table 4-1. General approach for developing and implementing a management program
Generalized steps Examples of typical activities or processes ~~~~ "
Convene interested
parties and initiate
education and
outreach activities.
Identify, prioritize, and
target key problem
areas.
Develop clear goals
and explore options
to address identified
problems.
Select management
actions; develop and
implement a workable
plan to achieve goals
and objectives.
Identify key stakeholders (community and regulators) and other potential
partners (e.g., planning departments, development companies, service
providers, existing management ent ties).
Develop a steering committee of kej
stakeholders to be responsible for
Identify and assess
evaSL m " t0
evaluate
riSKS-
, _. . ' *"* ....... -- — ' "—J **«-" •*•*•*! i VMWWIO iw uc I WOpUl lOlUIC I
denning the problems, assessing available information, involving the
community, determining the feasibility of establishing a management program
and identifying its goals.
Develop and implement education aipd outreach initiatives to publicize current
issues and activities of the steering committee.
Inventory or otherwise collect informiation on existing systems and imoacts i P
eXP'0re deve'°Pment trends and relative uses and values oTfmpactecl '
receiving waters (i.e., drinking water source, recreational waters, shellfish
habitat, aesthetic attributes).
Analyze trends regarding new decentralized facilities and projected impacts
Consider applicable water quality standards, monitoring and assessment
information, and relative vulnerability of water resources based on
hydrogeologic, modeling, or other ex'stlng or new information
Based on trends analysis, estimate li
cely future impacts of onsite systems.
Conduct a community profiling and visioning process to identify the positive
features about the community that shbuld be preserved under any plan
chosen. Ensure that the community is aware of the problems identified and the
potential social and financial costs of fraditional engineering solutions (central
sewers) and the capabilities and costs of appropriately managed alternatives
Synthesize vulnerability, monitoring/L.
identify and prioritize problem sites or
determine the availability of technical,
'assessment, and other information to
areas. Conduct a reality check to
financial, and other resources.
Investigate and identify resources needed to support remedial action or further
study; establish performance requirements based on health and water
resource assessment information.
Evaluate powers necessary and approaches for incorporating them into a
viable management program; review rhanagement program elements to
ensure that all necessary functions are addressed.
Identify selected management actions
(program elements) for implementation
« • — Yr"vC7IMI1' viwi i ivsi no i \\j\ nil
and methods for incorporation. Solicit support and resources for
implementation among stakeholders, regulators, the public and
internal/external funding organizations!
Develop easi y understood indicators tihat can be monitored by the community
to determine trends. Activate or implement management practices/actions
targeting highest priority sites or areas for immediate action. Monitor proqress
via selected indicators: evaluate prnnr^g and adapt as necessary
84
-------
4.2 Where do I start?
Any individual or entity can initiate the
management program development process.
After the effort begins to move forward, a local
government agency (e.g., county planning
agency, health department) or private entity
(e.g., citizen group, community assistance
organization, service provider group) may take
the lead in coordinating and leading the process.
It is not unusual for a development company,
lake association, sanitation district, or other
organization to convene stakeholders to develop
an onsite wastewater management program. The
primary duty of this lead agency is to create a
steering committee to spearhead the planning
process. The steering committee should reflect
community demographics in terms of
geographic subareas, economic classes, political
viewSj etc., and should be made up of people
willing to sustain their participation for the
duration of the process. Other attributes that
need to be sought out in creating this committee
are technical understanding, community
outreach experience, fiscal/financial experience,
legal background, and community organization
experience, in addition to political leadership.
The regulatory authority (e.g., local health
department) is almost always a key stakeholder
in the process. The ability to supplement
committee membership as specific expertise is
requested should also be built into the program.
Olson, et al. (2002) characterize successful
committees as those that:
• Understand the problems clearly before
seeking solutions
• Take responsibility for and ownership of the
problems
• Have members with strong leadership
qualities
• Have a clearly defined vision, mission, and
goal . ,.
• Take the time to identify and examine all
options before making decisions
• Gather information from as many sources as
possible in their examinations
• Keep all affected parties informed and
involved during the process
• Identify and use appropriate decision-
making criteria
Initiate an Onsite
Management Program
Start a stakeholder
group and build public *
support
Develop a preliminary
community profile
Interpret data
to assess risks •»
Set goals for the
management
program
Develop a Management
program
Determine
management
Develop an operating
* framework or
«• Educate the public
Establish
performance
requirements
Develop an action plan
Select
management
actions and plan
for implementation
Conduct regular reviews and
revise the ongoing management
program as needed
85
-------
4.2.1 Starting a stakeholder group and building public support
Figure 4-3: Schematic of the management planning arocess
Community
Profile
A Green Community
./jg^lBf^yffiWW-: fl'j-j" •;,!,:,•_ ..,->
flRisk Management
"• Environmental
D J,u,bllc, Economic
Participation Profile
| L
Trends
• Environmental
• Socio-Economic
• Demographic
T
Planned Full
Build-Out
Probable
Scenarios
Community
Participation
-
Case
Studies
— •
i „ —
\
Alternate
Futures
• Keep Simple
• Graphics
• Flexible
Comit
Partici
an
Feed
"~ Econ
lunity
pation
d
lack
(In
i V^gHfojutoti,,
i
i
i
Ki Projects/
Planned Activities
cremental Success)
ijjmmt!,m*f^
itfiHS^.i^CfpfL ( - , .
Celebrate
Completion ^
of
Visloning
- economic -
Community Involvement
— i»om
Portions reprints wtth ^mteslon of Ihe Oregon Vistas Projeol
. Green community «ow chart (source: ^WWW.6p^ov/region03/g,
snklt).
4.2.2 Responsibilities of the committee
86
-------
"It is helpful that homeowners
are kept aware and involved in
any decision making process
that affects their future, and
more importantly, potentially
costs them money. Individual
homeowners need to feel that
their input is being considered
when community officials are
involved in determining the
future wastewater needs for
their neighborhood."
Novickis, 2001
A popular and useful exercise during the early stages of the process
is to develop a community vision that incorporates quality of lite,
natural resource, and socioeconomic considerations into a statement
supported by local people. Vision statements typically express
qualitative goals for a community in somewhat general and perhaps
superlative terms, but their real value lies in the process that created
them The very act of forging a common consensus for what the
future should be is a powerful tool for groups to explore their
values consider competing interests, and build workable
relationships that will make future tasks less contentious. In
addition, suspending the program development process periodically
to reflect upon the previously established vision provides a valuable
opportunity to pause and consider common goals when conflict
begins to build during group deliberations.
433 Public education and participation
their dealings with other citizens.
In the initial phase, the committee should:
Ensure that the community understands the problems being addressed
Relay community concerns back to the committee
Keep the potential management entity informed of committee
Develop a preliminary profile of the community
Interpret data to assess health and environmental risk
Set the overall goals of the decentralized management program
87
-------
Gaining support for management in Idaho
jit1 . ,;iJf ' •• "' :,rv:,::::ir'' :';;:•: '-:''! ..... :•;;,:, .,,.•...< ;
•sssffii^s^
(Source: Prins and Lustig, 1988).
88
-------
The process itself has many benefits in building trust and enforcing
SS)S^^^
or comprehensive management programs.
4.3
Identifying and evaluating monitoring and assessment information
management implementation areas.
nventories and assessments: an important first step
information to identify problems and needs.
human, financial and technological resources.
community.
Source: NESC, 2002
use pf verifiable existing data should be maximized.
89
-------
™t f P m C0ndu
-------
An except exampte of how an inventory was developed 1 for *
Mane, (200!) reviewed five .ong-
five either already had a computerized database
, CO,
Inventorying systems through electronic databases
contact information, GIS location, installation date, JG""°'°9f s^ller management entity (if applicable),
elements include site characterizatic>n;'nfo™'°n' °^y provjder, and operational status. The following
date of last service (pumping, mspection, epar), s J^P™^' inventory and management options,
public/private database systems provide useful examples of existing mve. y
are presented for information purposes only:
SepTrack, deveioped by the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program in Massachusetts
(http://www.buzzardsbay.org/septrlpthtm)
SepticPlanner, developed by Pamlfco County, North Carolina (http://www.landplot.com/septic2.html)
SIMS (Septic information Management System), developed by Stone Environmental, Inc. in Vermont
(http://www.stone-env.com)
CASST (Computer Aided Septic System Tracking), developed by AopliTech, Inc. (http://www.casst.com)
Carmody Waste Recording Services, developed by Carmody Data Systems Inc.,
(http://www.carmodydata.com) '
Purdue University Onsite Wastewater Disposal Permit Database
rur • • ,-eCn.purdue.edu/~epados/onsiteOniine/database.htm)
Overview of risk factors related to system management
sensitivity risk factors.
91
-------
Figure 4-4. Environmental sensitivity risk factors
Sfere^lh^ -Sole source
critical habitats; outstanding value resource waters, others
J2
V)
ec
D)
.£ •
03
Moderate environmental sensitivitv
water protection zones; shellfish
water contact recreation
: Wellhead and source
waters; bathing or
Low environmental sensitivity: Sites
suitable for conventional onsite
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002
suitable or marginally
waistewater systems
Figure 4-5. Public health risk factors
Hume migration; and
nl?£ £slty h?us'P9; Pnv!ate w* excessively
permeable or slowly permteable soils; close
prox.rn.ty to bathing or shellfish waters
Low density housing;
deep, permeable so.ls
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002
-------
Nitrogen contributions from onsite systems
The San Lorenzo River basin in California is served primarily by OWTSs, Since 1985, the Santa Cruz
County Environmental Health Service has been working with local stakeholders to develop a program for
inspecting all onsite systems, assessing pollutant loads from those systems, and correcting identified
problems. Studies conducted through this initiative included calculations of nutrient inputs to the river from
onsite systems. According to the analyses performed by the county and its contractors, 55-60 percent of
the nitrate load in the San Lorenzo River during the summer months came from onsite system effluent.
Assumptions incorporated into the calculations included an average septic tank effluent total nitrogen
concentration of 50 mg/L, per capita wastewater generation of 70 gallons per day, and an average house
occupancy of 2.8 persons. Nitrogen removal was estimated at 15 percent for SWISs in sandy soils, and
25 percent for SWISs in other soils.
(Source: Ricker, 1994).
Wastewater characteristics also influence risk potential. For example, large volume discharges and
commercial wastewaters can pose greater risk than lower volume domestic wastewater discharges due to
greater effluent loadings to the soil or treatment system and higher concentrations of fats, oils, greases,
sanitary waste, and other wastewater pollutants. The figure below summarizes risk potential relative to
wastewater characteristics.
Figure 4-6. Wastewater characteristics risk factors
J2
Large volume discharges
Commercial wastewater
Household wastes
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002
Treatment system complexity risk indicators seek to differentiate between conventional, gravity-based
soil infiltration systems - which require little maintenance beyond pumping every 3-5 years - and
systems which incorporate electrical and mechanical components such as float switches, pumps, valves,
pressure regulators, etc. The figure below illustrates risk factors related to treatment system complexity.
93
vulnerability category relative to each water resource are included by category of pretreatment
requirement (see Table 4-2).
95
-------
Figure 4-7. Treatment complexity risk factors
Otis (1999) has proposed a generally adaptable "probability of environmental impact" approach to
determine onsite system impacts. This method was developjed for use when resource characterization data
are insufficient and GIS mapping data are unavailable for ajmore rigorous assessment. The approach is
presented in the form of a decision tree that considers mass; loadings to the receiving environment (ground
water or surface water), population density, and the fate ami transport of potential pollutants to a point of
use (see case study box). The decision tree estimates the relative probability of water resource impacts
from wastewater discharges generated by sources in the watershed. Depending on the state-defined
designated use of the water resource, discharge standards for the treatment systems can be established.
The community/management program can use these discharge standards to assemble appropriate
treatment trains to meet those standards.
I II II II i| i'i i MIM, MI; ii •• i,n"'i', • I iiij ''Mi II 'j .i',,1 ,| .„;','• j'i!"i ,, i,,,',,1 , ill.!,;, i i , i, !„' ", .r. M,I •,, v
stablishing performance requirements by assessing
[The "probability of impact" method estimates the probabilitTOaf'tiiira^
^ystem will reach an existing or future point of use in an ide MffeffwaiEer^^—••"By 'cohsidering'the'1'"'''1'"
relative probability of impact based on existing water qualify *|tandard|]ie.g.,''drinking-water, shellfish
^vater, recreational water), acceptable treatment performarj |ejs|in|aj^^^ ' ,^'., ,',,"*
! lollutants and their concentrations or mass limits to be stipi jIate$1nJiKe '^efS^m^^r^^f^en^''^1*
;|ry with the relative probability of impact estimated, the pc rentlaTusToflFie y~r--"—--•"•----*=-.• j"^-*Kf
'Id transport characteristics of thes pollutant (see Figure 11 [nB Table |-6).
. _^S^\i^^^^l'i^^^^M''ii^&4^&
_ vs an example, if the community/watershed assessment irlpicates that a ground water supply well that
.'provides water for drinking without treatment might be advifose'ly "affectecl"'by"ari"orishe'system discharge"
'land soils are assumed to be of acceptable texture and structure, with ari^ unsaturated-so|;depth- of? feet,
'nitrate-nitrogen and fecal coliform are two wastewater pollufanis'final'steyld*'be"addre"ssed"by the
performance requirements for the treatment system (i.e., c«j>nstru'cted corripdnenlsplus soil).''With' a
'relative probability of impact estimated to be "high," the regulatory agency considers> it reasonable to
require the treatment system to achieve drinking water stalgards for rjffrate and fecal cblifprm'Ijefore."'""""-'[
discharge to the saturated zone^ The drinking water standaHs"for"nftra|e-and''fecal"coliformIh/'dfinkingy'^1^''^
'water are 10 mg/L for nitrate and zero torfecal coliform. Cc|N|3er!n^ soil, it can "
be conservatively expected that essentially allof the nitrog1|n¥iscBar|ed' b^^^
"be converted to nitrate in the unsaturated zone of the soil ||cepl-for;.a"lew^^/^'Fejra^o^'organic-,''-"_"-^
nitrogen. Because nitrate is very soluble and conditions foffiqlogical"3enltfification in the soil has riot
been determined, the performance standard for the onsite jpretreatment system is set at 10 mg/L of total
nitrogen prior to soil discharge. In the case of fecal coliforrrl, the natural soil is very effective in removing
fecal indicators where greater than 2 feet of unsaturated natural soil is present. Therefore, no fecal
coliform standard is placed on the pretreatment (i.e., constructed) sysfem discharge because the
Mandard will be met after soil treatment and before final discharge to the saturated zone.
jf the probability of impact were estimated to be "inoderatej^r,."low," only the nitrogen treatment standard
;would change. If the probability of impact is "moderate" beii^useJrayeWme|6jhe''p6int of use is long,
dispersion and dilution of the nitrate in the ground water m|*y"Be exp'ecied to"reduce the concentration in
the discharge substantially. Therefore, the treatment stand]|rd. for total nitrogen can be safely raised,
perhaps to 20 to 30 mg/L of nitrogen. If the probability of impact is 'lew," — *-—*—-*• -<---J-"< •*--
nitrogen is necessary. If the probability of impact is "high",
agricultural irrigation well, no specific pollutants in resident!
pact is 'low," no treatment standard for
|pt'trie'ppitit of ground water use'atrisR is an""
ITwasfewater are of concern."Tfierefore, the
! pretreatment performance required need to be no more thajn that provided by a septic tank.
I Adapted from Otis, 2000.
98
-------
Such an approach is greatly enhanced by the availability of GIS mapping capabilities (see Colorado case
study above). Baseline characterizations for larger groupings of homes (developments) should be done via
GIS technology if possible because of its inherent ability for developing maps and other visual products
that can help the community interpret data, assess risks, and make decisions to maximize the effectiveness
of operating programs (USEPA, 2000). The potential benefits of GIS systems include the ability to
project and analyze a variety of development, remediation, and other scenarios and to provide a real-time,
dynamic and useable operating database for all of the management program's implementation and
operation activities. These impact characterizations can also be approximated manually in the absence of
GIS databases, and will likely be done that way for some time until GIS database coverage becomes more
common. Many small communities contemplating managed decentralized systems will neither have this
capability nor need it to move forward.
4.5 Using risk assessments to target management activities
A number of detailed risk assessment approaches for decentralized wastewater systems have been
developed, and two are presented in this section to provide information on the basic processes that risk
assessments follow. Hoover, et al, (1998) have proposed a vulnerability assessment method that deals
with soil-based systems and emphasizes public input. This approach considers risk assessment methods
and management control strategies for both ground waters and surface waters. It uses three components of
risk assessment and management:
• Valuation of receiving ground and surface waters as a public water supply or resource
• Vulnerability assessment of the water supply or resource
• Identification of control measures for minimizing risk
The first part of this approach involves a listing of the potentially impacted ground water and surface
water resources in the watershed. Through community meetings and regulatory agency inputs a consensus
is developed on the relative perceived value of each identified resource and the potential and perceived
consequences of contamination. For example, a coastal community and its technical advisory team might
determine that shellfish waters that are open to public harvesting are less important than public drinking
water supply areas, but more important than recreational waters that might be used for body contact
sports.
The second part of this risk assessment process is development of a vulnerability assessment matrix. One
key measure of vulnerability of specific subarea is the ease with which pollutants can move vertically
from the point of release (infiltrative surface) to the ground water. The vulnerability assessment matrix
identifies areas of low, moderate, high, or extreme vulnerability depending on soil and groundwater
aquifer conditions. For example, vulnerability might be high for coarse or sandy soils with less than 2 feet
of vertical separation between the ground surface and the unconfined water table. Vulnerability might be
low for silty soils with a vertical separation of greater than 10 feet. Each resource specified in the first part
of the risk assessment process can be associated with each vulnerability category. A more detailed
discussion of ground water vulnerability assessment is provided in National Research Council (1993).
The third part of this risk assessment process is the development of a management matrix that specifies a
pre-treatment performance standard based on the water quality requirements for the use of receiving
water. A matrix is developed for each identifiable subarea that reflects the quality of pretreated effluent
that must be released to soil systems' infiltrative surfaces in that zone. All the subareas defined by
vulnerability category relative to each water resource are included by category of pretreatment
requirement (see Table 4-2).
95
-------
Almost all of the decentralized management programs that have been identified are for small
developments, and most are for onsite systems only. Since clusters of significant size are often
considered community-wide systems, their management is oftei^ categorized under conventional central
sewers and is difficult to identify when performing searches to identify decentralized systems. Thus, the
best documentation of existing information is still under development by the NESC. This preliminary
information indicates that management programs that have beeii tentatively identified have small budgets
and are modest in terms of coverage by the discussed program elements. Almost all total budgets were
less than $1 million; the mode was only $5,000. The majority of the actual management programs are
supported at least in part by user fees. Other key support mechanisms are operational fees and property
taxes either as exclusive or as part of the overall funding package. User fees are primarily construction
permit, operating permit, and inspection fees paid by system owners, but contractor (service provider)
licensing fees are also significant.
The few studies of management programs provide a widely varying picture of management program
costs versus services provided. Possibly the best single report is by Mancl (2001). The report, which
attempted to compare five long-term management programs, failed to show any pattern of costs and
services. Combining the report with some other case studies, however, does offer some insights. For
example, throwing out some obvious outliers, a responsible management entity (Management Programs
4 and 5), which often include cluster systems, appears to cost homeowners somewhere between $180
and $450 per year. This cost may not include certain one-time cjosts to join or costs for special services.
In contrast, minimal management programs (similar to Management Program 1) appear to cost less than
$100 per year. Intermediate management programs vary widely between these extremes depending
heavily on what is included in the fees charged, other sources of funding, and the technologies
employed.
Lake Panorama, Iowa: developing a flexible management i
This management program began in 1980 through County ordif;
approval and started with creating and implementing specific dl
of the state code because of economic and water quality conce
County, thus making the establishment of the management pro
designed and constructed according to these more stringent
and descriptions of these systems were entered into the databal
inspected, upgraded, and entered into the database/inventory. |
every 3 years for full-time and every-six for seasonal residents,
respectively) conducted by the County sanitarian was instituted^
oversight of the program by appointing the program's board of c[
input is obvious and welcomed in all aspects of the program op^
The program could be characterized as a Model Program 3 witq
Inspections are required at specific intervals and enforcement pi
clear and locally encoded. Prescriptive site evaluation procedun
stringent than state code requirements. Hydraulic failures have
funding is to implement the program is raised through property 1
authority. Participation is essentially mandatory for all homeowt)
per home with an onsite system for inspections and inventory u|
costs must be added to determine the total cost for each home.]
and they are assessed an additional $600/year or more. *l
IHIIliiSlil&i;^^
[hce'"oSangesan3'l'administratTv(S rules'*1'"'/"'
^*»>\ei.if-&WJ*-.^ito.**H>Mtm
-------
Increasing
Vulnerability
5
fm
0
N
"Q
^
*-•
O
O
IS
2
*J
J
"S3
(A
*J
(A
C
O
•c
0)
8
a
o
2:
d.
3
0>
i
re
EJ
II
og
° 2
8 ~
£o
«
z?
>
11
° 2
^5
****
n
Z j
£|
z —
Q. j*
c5|
^^ C
^^^
?|
_>
Do)
Q £
Standard
o o
0 0
o o
o"o"
o o
O 0
o"o"
'r~ ^~
< <
ii
0 0
oo oo
10 If)
8§
0 O
CO CM
w
9
5 S>
— Q) "O
>% ^ £
S i Jj
&^
H-
o o o o o
O O C) O O o J=
0_ 0_ 0 0 0 o "* ^~
o" o" cr o" O" CM T~ V
T— T— T—
i i oJoo io o So
ir:' CM in CM in N.
< < <<<< < o
°.° inOin^^^
!^!^ ^CMCM^^T-
g o oooo , ^
oco oooo^^
T— T—
= 0
g ~
^i3 o
-!-• C O (j)
05 ^ '•§ "° ^ ~ &
13 O'B'OCO31'0 =! S
2E B2E|^ £ S,
X w TScO1-^ ^ c:
^2 2 ® "o.0- c -2 2
^ "*^ •*-loc'3o3S 5 -—
g 1i5 ^ ' ' Q. o § 0
rvi co ^* ^^ *^ CO LQ (o i^.
10 CO CO '"" •" "~~ CO CO CO
1_I
"i
5
"*n
i
"O
•i
S
c
5
2
>
0) C
. JS o
= not available
linimum percen
otal coliform co
< S 1-
z « *
1
v-
15
jrce: Hoover et
c?
(A
re
"O
c
S
(A
0
E
"re
2
(A
(A
_O
^*^
re
0)
"w
0)
0)
o
N
2
c
o
o
J
o
S
i=
^
0!
nagemer
S°
b
£
0)
c
o
N
2
-
o
0)
U
i
IT
s
s
A
S!
03
rf
.
O
'm
a
«
ti
TO
•a
03
*0-l
to
8.
c
CO
2
•i
(U
CL
Q
§
LM
a>
C *5"
fit
Q
CO
H
CM
rn
1-
OT
a:
O
CO
•~
T_
CO
CO
A
(/
1-
CM
rn
H
CM
a
:o
cm
O
CO
—
T_
CO
b
^4"
co
^
co
rn
1-
cr
h-
co
a:
CO
75
>
0
T
O
"
o:
easing
0
O)
-------
Otis (1999) has proposed a generally adaptable "probability of environmental impact" approach to
determine onsite system impacts. This method was developed for use when resource characterization data
are insufficient and CIS mapping data are unavailable for a moife rigorous assessment. The approach is
presented in the form of a decision tree that considers mass loadings to the receiving environment (ground
water or surface water), population density, and the fate and transport of potential pollutants to a point of
use (see case study box). The decision tree estimates the relative probability of water resource impacts
from wastewater discharges generated by sources in the watershed. Depending on the state-defined
designated use of the water resource, discharge standards for thp treatment systems can be established.
The community/management program can use these discharge (Standards to assemble appropriate
treatment trains to meet those standards.
Estabiisliing ''pefermance requl'lremenfe'by1 assessing tie mot
[he "probability of impact" method estimates the probability thiftreated wafer discharged from an onsite
Sem will reacK an exiotirig or future point of use in an identified water resource. By considering the
relative probability of impact based on existing water quality sis hdards (e.g., drinking water, shellfish
1 reereltTofial water), acceptable treatment performance standards can be established. The
-~- andtfieir'conceriirattoni or mass nfnifeTo be stipulated in the performance requirements will
lUianiS and Ulcll UUIIoolluauuiio ui inaoo inline w "•>-• «...[*«.v..,™ T i i
y with the relative probability of impact estimated, the potential use of the water resource, and the fate
•transport characteristics of the pollutant (see Figure 1 and jj able 4-6).
IW^^WWttji'kipNsr^^'f^'W
'UlfU VIC4I1WWWIV Wl 1WI &*vfcwl iwvl'^w vt »" >w j* ~*,,-*~~~~. •- y— -^f in, ;
"S*fl* JBiBHiilW: i I1' I Ullflif I In "'ll'fi i'i PL "I 'i> ill »i|!!II|. ' !!I i !" ' ' si. I" 'Wi ' If, 11 "•. I': li?"> Kit' !!* »1i! '»(j •JBJSMW !
|l; itmiS I IJiSJii!! ,r is* an. i:|J. Sill ISBNS' ^-'I'iiS^iBSi'''; Si!' '•;•.'" i i J * iti:; < >i:' I'I i;Kl "»S r^'ipsa*ww (SBHwasisspf figBlffS; ffJsrktSf"'
,y a-n eloampfe if the community/watershed assessment indicges that a ground water supply well that
provides water for drinking without treatment might be adversely affected By an onsite system discharge
|flg"sbUs"are assumed to be of acceptable texture and structuri, with an unsaturated soil depth of 3 feet,
nitrate-nitrogen and fecal coliform are two wastewater pollutanfe that should; be addressed by the
performance requirements for the treatment system (i.e., const Meted components plus soil). With a..
[relative probability of impact estimated to be "high," the regulafcry agency considers it reasonable to
Muire the treatment system to achieve drinking water standaiijs for nitrate and fecal conform before
discharge to the saturated zone. The drinking water standards for nitrate and fecal coliform in drinking
----|er are 10 mg/L for nitrate and zero for fecal coliform. Considering ihe fate of nitrogen in the soil, it can
conservatively expected that essentially all of the nitrogen c ischarged by the pretreatrnent system will
be converted to nitrate in the unsaturated zone of the soil except for a few mg/L of refractory organic
nitrogen Because nitrate is very soluble and conditions for biological denitrification in the soil has not
been determined, the performance standard for the onsite prefeatment system is set at 10 mg/L of total
nitrogen prior to soil discharge, in the case of fecal coliform, thl .natural soil is very effective in removing
fecal Indicators where greater than 2 feet of unsaturated natur|I soil is present. Therefore, no fecal
coliform standard is placed on the pretreatrnent (i.e., constructed),system discharge because the
standard will be met after soil treatment and before final discharge to the saturated zone.
l/llie probability of impact wer^>'estimated to be "moderate" orhow/onl/the nitrogen treatment standard
would change. If the probability of impact is "moderate" because travel time to the point of use is long,
dispersion and dilution of the nitrate in the ground water may ti er expected to reduce the concentration in
the discharge substantially. Therefore, the treatment ^^^^ ««• «**oi nitmnon ran h« safp.lv raised.
perhaps to 20 to 30 mg/L of nitrogen. If the probability of impa
" ~ ._.. I I 1111 f * __.!.' II t*_L^)>l_,.i'
for tptaFnitrbgen can be safely raised,
DemapS IO ZU IO
-------
Figure 4-8. Probability of environmental impact decision tree (see key, next page).
H- -±x. o o
H— -l-a: M ts a:
f- -r-io*
CO
99
-------
Table 4-5. Environmental sensitivity assessment key for preceding figure.
A
B
Wastewater management zone
Includes the entire service area of the district.
Receiving environment
Receiving water to which the wastewater is discharge!
Fate of ground water discharge
i
The treated discharge to ground water may enter the regional flow or become base flow to surface
water. Ground water flow direction can be roughly estimated from ground surface topography if other
sources of information are not available. In some instslnces both regional flow and base flow routes
should be assessed to determine the controlling point of use.
Planning area density (population equivalents per acre)
The risk of higher contaminate concentrations in the ground water from ground water-discharging
treatment facilities will increase with increasing numbers of people served. Where building lots are
served by individual infiltration systems, the population served divided by the total area composed by
contiguous existing and planned lots would determinejpopulation equivalents per acre (p.e./acre).
For a large cluster system, the p.e./acre would be determined by the population served divided by
the area of the infiltration surface of the cluster systerrl.
Well construction
Wells developed in an unconfined aquifer with direct hydraulic connections to the wastewater
discharge have a higher probability of impact from the
wastewater discharge than wells developed in
a confined aquifer. Wells that are considered within the zone of influence from the wastewater
discharge should be identified and their construction determined from well logs.
Travel time to base flow discharge, Tbf
Treated wastewater discharges in ground water can affect surface waters through base flow. The
potential impacts of base flows are inversely proportional to the travel time in the ground water, Tbf,
because of the dispersion and dilution (except in karsl areas) that will occur. Where aquifer
characteristics necessary to estimate travel times are unknown, distance can be substituted as a
measure. If travel time, Tbf, is greater than time to a ground water point of use, Ta, the ground water
should be assumed to be the receiving environment.
Stream flow
Stream flow will provide dilution of the wastewater discharges. The mixing and dilution provided are
directly proportional to the stream flow. Stream flow cc»uld be based on the 7-day, 10-year low-flow
condition (?Qio) as a worst case. "High" and "low" stream flow values would be defined by the ratio of
the ?Qio to the daily wastewater discharge. For exampjle, ratios greater than 100:1 might be
"high," whereas those less than 100:1 might be "low." Stream flow based on the watershed area
might also be used (cfs/acre).
H
Travel time to aquifer or surface water point of uso, Ta or Ts
The potential impacts of wastewater discharges on pcjints of use (wells, coastal embayments,
recreational areas, etc.) are inversely proportional to the travel time. Except for karst areas, distance
could be used as a substitute for travel time if aquifer «br stream characteristics necessary to estimate
travel times are unknown. :
Relative probability of impact !
The relative probability of impact is a qualitative estimate of expected impact from a wastewater
discharge on a point of use. The risk posed by the impact will vary with the intended use of the water
resource and the nature of contaminants of concern. I
Source: Otis, 1999.
100
-------
4.6 Identifying goals for the management program
The inventory, assessment, and risk analysis activities described in the preceding sections provide
information that can be used to develop goals for the management program. This information will likely
identify areas where new development is occurring - and will occur in the future, groups of older systems
believed to be failing, high-density system clusters, and critical areas near important ground water
recharge zones or valued surface waters where greater management oversight might be needed.
Management programs generally support the twin goals of protecting human health and environmental
resources. Developing management objectives and approaches for each group of systems - which may be
organized as having high/moderate/low risk potential - will constitute much of the work in devising the
overall management program. Many management programs have been developed to address direct threats
to health or water resources, a trend that is likely to continue as state and local governments address water
quality problems under the Clean Water Act TMDL program, the Source Water Protection provisions of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and other state, tribal, and local rules. It is likely that water quality
requirements will continue to drive calls for greater management of new and existing decentralized
wastewater systems.
The questions that must be addressed during the goal-setting phase are the same as those addressed earlier
in the community-visioning phase. Those questions are:
• Where are we now?
• Where are going?
• Where do we want to be?
• How will we get there?
The particular management mix selected for an area should be based primarily on the potential for onsite
system discharges to affect public health or the quality of surface and/or ground waters. The level of
oversight incorporated into the management program should increase as the potential for negative impacts
on public health or for environmental degradation increases. Examples of parameters to consider in
assessing public health and environmental sensitivity include soil permeability, depth to groundwater,
aquifer type, receiving ground and surface water use, proximity to sensitive surface waters, topography,
geology, and density of development. Another useful parameter to consider is the "susceptibility
determinations" that states, tribes, and local water utilities make as part of their source water assessments.
These assessments determine which potential sources of pollution, including onsite wastewater systems,
pose the greatest threats to potable water systems.
Other issues to consider that might directly impact public health and the local economy include the need
to protect shellfish harvesting and direct contact recreational waters. An area far from any surface water
with moderately permeable soils and a deep ground water table might be designated as an area of low
public health risk and environmental sensitivity, whereas an area close to a sensitive surface water with
excessively permeable soils and a shallow, unconfined ground water aquifer used directly (untreated) for
drinking water might be designated as an area of high sensitivity. For those watersheds where a
determination has been made that onsite wastewater systems are substantially contributing to a violation
of the ground and/or surface water quality standards, higher-level management will likely be needed.
Also, systems that discharge to surface waters are subject to mandatory permitting and other requirements
under state and federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Programs. Finally, decentralized
systems that cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards (i.e., designated use attainment,
water quality criteria) may be targeted for increased management through the Total Maximum Daily Load
program of the Clean Water Act. More information on the pollutants of concern and their fate in soils and
treatment systems is provided in the Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (USEPA, 2001).
101
-------
Table 4-6. Organizational, functional, and structural dimensions of management.
Issue
Questions to be addressed
Time frame
Service area
i
At what point will the planned management pr'ogram structure be sustainable?
If sequentially implemented, when will each sequence be completed?
When will the management program be fully cjperational?
j
What areas will be served by the management
Are these areas compatible with a local public jurisdiction
necessary powers to make the program responsible
Do specific sub areas require different management
designs, staffing, regulatory controls)?
Purpose
Structure
program?
that would have the
and sustainable?
approaches (e.g., system
What public health and water resource problems will be addressed and satisfied by
the management program?
What measurements must be made (monitoring) to verify success?
Can existing entities be modified or partnered
to provide management services or will
a new entity be needed?
Should the management program be limited to decentralized wastewater treatment,
or should other (e.g., water/stormwater) infrastructure be included?
How will the program elements of the management program be staffed and
administered?
Will formal agreements, ordinances, or other legal mechanisms (e.g., articles of
incorporation, public charter) are required to create structural elements of the
management program?
Authority/liability Which systems will be under the jurisdiction ol| the management program?
Will the onsite treatment systems be privately or publicly owned?
How will future wastewater systems be planned, designed, installed, operated,
maintained, inspected, and repaired or replaced?
What is the relationship between the management program and the regulatory
authority?
What formal agreements, ordinances, or other
property owners) are required to implement esch element of the program?
How will the program be funded?
legal mechanisms (e.g., with system or
(Adapted from Ciotoli and Wiswall, 1982).
The answers to the questions in Table 4-4 must be integrated into
appropriate for the community. The relationship is between thosi;
depicted in Figure Y
4.6.1 Performance requirements
the best type of management program
answers and the 5 program models is
The establishment of performance requirements can be viewed as one of the most important determinants
of the type of management program required. Performance requirements—derived from health and water
resource assessments and risk evaluations conducted during the earlier planning phases—may define
102
-------
minimum requirements for addressing site evaluation, system design, construction and O/M complexity,
and monitoring requirements. All of these, in turn, will impact the other program elements.
Under a performance-based approach that is driven by the quality of the receiving waters, site conditions
and wastewater characterization information define the selection (design) of treatment technologies at
each site. For known technologies with extensive testing and field data, the management agency can
satisfy performance requirements prescriptively by designating pretreatment system components, design
flow (i.e., system size), construction practices, materials to be used, acceptable site conditions, and design
requirements. For example, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has proposed a rule that
establishes definitions, permit requirements, restrictions, and performance criteria for a range of
conventional and alternative treatment systems (Swanson, 2000).
Some states have already incorporated stricter site suitability and performance requirements into their
OWTS permit programs. Generally, the stricter requirements were established in response to concerns
over nitrate contamination of ground water supplies or nutrient inputs to surface waters. For example, in
Massachusetts, the Department of Environmental Protection has designated "nitrogen-sensitive areas" in
which new nitrogen discharges must be limited (see box below). Designation of these areas is based on
ecological sensitivity and relative risk of threats to drinking water wells.
Performance requirements ami system design in Massachusetts
Massachusetts' onsite regulations identify certain wellhead protection areas, public water supply recharc
zones, and coastal embayments as nitrogen-sensitive areas and require OWTSs in those areas to meet
nitrogen-loading limitations. For example, recircuiating sand filters or equivalent technologies must limit
total nitrogen concentrations in effluent to no more than 25 mg/L and remove a minimum of 40 percent cjf
the influent nitrogen load. All systems in nitrogen-sensitive areas must discharge no more than 440
gallons of design flow per acre per day unless system effluent meets a nitrate standard of 10 mg/L or
other nitrogen removal technologies or attenuation strategies are used.
Source: Massachusetts Environmental Code, Title V
4.7 Developing a management action plan
The development of an action plan—including information on costs and how it will be supported and
implemented—will be based on the nature of the management program chosen by the community.
Programs created through cooperative arrangements with partner organizations to enhance existing
management approaches will depend on the synergy, commitment, and resources applied by stakeholders
through the steering committee process.
The action plan should define the extent of each program element and identify how it will be
implemented. Such a plan should bring into focus some ideas of the possible political conflicts, narrow
the options of potential sources of the necessary powers of the management program, and allow some
focusing on the possible technology and programmatic options before proceeding with implementation.
Key issues to be discussed in the plan with appropriate stakeholder involvement and public outreach and
feedback include the following:
103
-------
Investigate legal, jurisdictional, and regulatory restrictio is
Assess public health and natural resource protection ramifications
Identify potential program partners and inventory available resources
Plan to build public support through targeted outreach activities
Establish performance requirements for treatment systems
Identify appropriate onsite technologies for particular site conditions
Establish operation/maintenance requirements for specific system types
Develop cost estimates for actions under consideration I
Compare costs of various management and technology options
Develop proposed income source(s) for each approach I
A comprehensive wastewater management plan will summajize the optimal mixture
•management options for different areas of a community basidoni If "
I' .:, . .• .' i s;,,,, -i !:.-(,;. !"( 'jjUi'M t.'m.j f.j,;!!«;, Fji^i-iB, ; €;jfT'?pT ra-
Current and future growth, population density, and land |||| patterns""
Natural characteristics (soil suitability for on-site system|Fetc'0 "
Fftfinnmir rharnrtorictirc ' i!f!|!);'"*l!S Dl"ffl|rtJ|JM)t*'C,W:1|?lSPiJ».f I'.'t I, "W?" \:,\ :S':i-:il"'l if,Kl I """Hi
coonomic cnaraciensiics «c;,i;j&i.ii^ am
Environmental conditions
Current infrastructure ,' .' , "''"'.'. "] ''',"''" fj^^y^g^^t^ .^ij^wiianti'^J^JM -»;«*•
tSource: Lombardo, 2001),
••••'-•• 'ili^^J'^i^iMi^
In addition, the action plan should include achievable milestones such as:
Enabling legislation, ordinances, and regulations required (if applicable)
Community referenda or other actions needed for approval
Preparation and implementation of operating agreements' protocols, and easements
Execution of all agreements with oversight agencies [
Reorganization of existing agencies and staffing of management entity
In considering which approaches might be most successful, Deess and Hudson (1980) suggest that all the
alternative management structures that provide the necessary services and have the necessary powers
should be arrayed and ranked according to the following criteria:
Overall cost-effectiveness
Relative distribution of costs and benefits
Dependability, reliability and related risks in performanc;
Public acceptability (i.e., in terms of cost, intrusiveness,
-------
necessary. If state statutes exist that permit the establishment of a special purpose district that either has
the necessary powers or can attain them through partnering with a governmental entity, a workable
structure can be created. The best approach in areas electing to operate less comprehensive programs
might be a cooperative partnership among the present regulatory authority, planning offices, water quality
agencies, service providers, and other stakeholders. Shephard (1996) recommends use of the simplest
possible partnering arrangements to facilitate the process. This is where the state oversight agencies can
be most useful in advising the community of the limitations of existing state statutes.
4.7.2 Develop an operating framework or institutional structure
Many management programs have developed in response to specific public health or water pollution
problems, but many of these problems can be anticipated before they come to the attention of regulators.
Keuka Lake, NY, is an example of a decentralized management program that was created to avoid
problems that would have seriously impaired tourism if the present trends continued (Shephard, 1996). In
either (reactive or proactive) case the community must decide what wastewater services must be provided
to meet its goals. It must then develop the institutional structure with which to carry out these essential
services. The institutional structure (an arrangement of public and/or private organizations) will constitute
the mechanism for setting and enforcing regulations, performing decentralized system oversight activities
such as inspections and record keeping, monitoring program performance, reporting to regulatory
oversight agencies, and performing all the other activities identified in prior chapters of this Handbook
Management of cluster systems in Missouri
|, In Missouri, both the Department of Health and the Department of Natural Resources regulate
I wastewater treatment systems. The Department of Health regulates all single-family residence
: wastewater systems and other sources of domestic sewage with a flow less than 3,000 gallons per day,
which discharge to the soil or holding tanks. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates
systems with a flow of more than 3,000 gallons per day, systems treating industrial facilities, and all
systems that discharge to surface waters except single-family systems discharging to lagoons.
Clustered systems must be permitted by the DNR, which requires the designation of a "continuing
^authority" defined by state rules before an operating permit is issued. The continuing authority is a
I permanent organization responsible for the operation, maintenance, and upgrading of the facility.
[Missouri regulations regarding continuing authorities can be found at 10 CSR 20-6.010, Construction and
^Operating Permits, Continuing Authority (see http://www.sos.state.mo.us/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c20-
;6a.pdf). ' "."•'• ."."•"" ;; ..,-...-..-;
-There is a hierarchy of acceptable continuing authorities, which are listed in preferential order in the
regulation. If a system is built within the jurisdiction of a higher-order authority, a permit will not be issued
: to an organization lower in the preferred order unless the higher authority submits a letter that it does not
want to own and operate the system. Homeowner's associations are on the bottom of the preferential list.
In recent years the legislature created the option of forming a nonprofit sewer company (see Missouri
I Revised Statutes, Chapter 398.825, at http://www.moga.state.mo.us/STATUTES/C393.HTM)).
"Source: Smith, 2002 T
Development of onsite management functions within existing sanitation districts provides support for
planning, installation, operation, maintenance, inspection, enforcement, and financing. Traditional onsite
management entities (e.g., health departments) can partner with sanitation or other special districts to
105
-------
build programs with all the necessary powers. For example, a health department could retain its authority
to approve system designs, issue permits, and oversee construction while the sanitation district could
assist with regional planning and conduct inspections, maintenance (e.g., tank pumping and residuals
reuse/disposal), and remediation. In some areas, special districts or private or public utilities have been
created to manage the full range of onsite system management activities, from regional planning and
system permitting to inspection and enforcement (Shephard, 1996; see Missouri case study).
For many jurisdictions, however, the concept of centralized management of decentralized systems is new
and few resources are currently available to develop such a progiram. For those areas, a management
partnership may provide the best program development and implementation option. In cases where
significant problems are causing serious health or water quality threats or where new development
provides an opportunity to initiate improved management, creation of a single management entity is likely
to be justified.
The authority to perform all management functions might not be granted by existing state legislation to a
single entity. Involving stakeholders who represent public health, environmental, economic development,
political entities and the public in this process can ensure that the lines and scope of authority for an
onsite systems management program are well understood and supported locally. The different
governmental entities involved in the overall management program, especially for lower level programs,
should have the combined authority to perform all necessary functions and should coordinate then-
activities through a relatively seamless approach. Thus, the mansgement entity should have the following
abilities (adapted from Venhuizen, 2001):
" Provide policy and management continuity
• Charge fees for services (e.g., book-keeping, inspections
etc)
• Compel users of the management services to comply with requirements (e.g., fines and
incentives)
" Ensure sustainable financial and legal support and responsibility
• Hire and retain qualified employees
• Enter into contracts and undertake debt obligation
" Own, purchase, or lease real and personal property
• Have access to the systems managed
The management program is likely to be a mix of approaches under the various program elements and a
mix of approaches in terms of grouping and targeting systems for attention. Consolidating as many
management functions and activities as possible under a single program or entity is the most effective and
efficient approach. In many basic management models (e.g., Proigram models 1 through 3) local health
departments may become the management entity or may serve tcl coordinate the service provider and
agency framework that comprises the management program. A Bevel 1 program may merely provide a
means for better record keeping and public education, but it, like all effective management programs,
must start with the development and maintenance of an inventory of existing systems on a central
database.
4.8 Implementing and adapting the management program
pro
Developing a sound, comprehensive wastewater management program involves consideration of
applicable wastewater collection, treatment and dispersal techno! ogies, and effective institutional
arrangements. The mix of institutions, procedures, and arrangements involved in the management
program development process will vary depending on local circumstances, environmental conditions,
resources, and so on. Because of this diversity, the outcomes of management development efforts are
likely to be different in different locations across the country.
106
-------
In some towns or rural areas a decision might be made to develop an enhanced management strategy only
for those systems presenting a clear and significant risk to valued water resources. For example, a coastal
community might designate various management or treatment zones that have different performance
requirements and management mandates, including regular inspections for near-shore properties that have
a high potential for economic impacts on the community, (e.g., loss of recreation or tourism, commercial
shellfish harvesting), while inland systems that pose less risk have less intensive management. Similarly,
a rapidly urbanizing area might decide to require comprehensive, perpetual management of all systems
serving new adjacent residential areas to prevent future demands that would result in far more expensive
expansion of the existing wastewater infrastructure.
Successful creation of a management program involves devising a management partnership or entity
capable of implementing selected actions and meeting established goals (see Table 4-6). Executing the
action plan can be a challenge. Some tasks will proceed well, while others might require some adaptation.
The adaptive management process—continuous improvement of strategies as new information, resources,
or situational advantages become available—is both art and science, and involves a few key
considerations in order to be useful:
• A set of baseline indicators of public health and environmental quality that can be easily
monitored to verify the impact of the management program.
• Awareness of community perceptions and concerns through advisory boards and other feedback
mechanisms that monitor the community.
» A process for collecting, analyzing, and acting on new information in reviewing the program and
for reporting to state oversight agencies.
• Careful documentation and justification for actions, through widespread use of publicly-
disseminated technical, administrative, and enforcement procedures and protocols
Adaptations are not necessary if potential pitfalls are identified and addressed early in the management
program development process. NSFC (2001) cited the primary onsite management pitfalls to be: 1)
inadequate funding, 2) sub optimal management program design, 3) lack of adequate inspection,
monitoring and program evaluation capabilities, and 4) lack of public involvement and education. Mancl
(2001) reported that the successful long-term management entities she evaluated all exhibited creative
day-to-day problem solving, empathetic staff, dependable financing, and good record keeping.
In the implementation phase, ithe committee should
» Monitor tasks to ensure that activities proceed according to schedule
• Track the effectiveness of cooperative arrangements and the management framework
« Adapt to new information and changing conditions as necessary
Preparing and implementing operating agreements, protocols, and easements should be a natural outcome
of thorough public and oversight agency involvement in developing the action plan. The citizens and
regulators have by this time seen all the alternatives and have agreed to the content of these necessary
operating items. The difficulty in obtaining these approvals in official form should be directly related to
the planning effort, (i.e., good planning should yield quick agreements).
If the plan creates a new management entity, the task of hiring capable and affable staff might be only the
first step in a prolonged period of transferring responsibilities from existing agencies. If it was merely a
107
-------
consolidation or partnership of entities that have been involved iii such programs, the lag time might be
minimal. If, for example, a local regulatory agency (such as a health department) is enhanced to perform a
wider array of duties (e.g., record keeping and public education), the staffing and organizational changes
might be accomplished with a minimum of delay. Again, the thoroughness of the planning process has a
major impact. If inventory development, protocol and enforcement program development, and enabling
steps have been comprehensive, the problems with management program implementation and startup
should be minimized. In cases where the implementation plan involves a significant amount of
construction for immediate rehabilitation of problem systems or replacement of onsite systems in a
densely populated area with cluster systems, the transitional stage could be extended because of innate
time delays in contracting such projects. If the management program is implemented by a responsible
management entity that performs many tasks through contracts td service providers, those contracts
should be advertised and let at the earliest possible time, since these procedures have their own built-in
timelines.
ode island S
iiinlmiiiiii 'lllr ilvn IILI
'. ! ,
',i !
iptic System Maintenance Policy Forum
or years, Rhoand^
Despite many attempts, "howevir^few'progra inbTiIded three"
arguments: 1) the state shouid stay put of its citizens' backyards||) upgrading septic systems is cost
prohibitive, and 3) no agreed-upon maintenance or inspection stffid^rds'exist,
To address these concerns comprehensively, the Rhode Island
Management (DEM) convened the Septic System Maintenance Fj plicy Forum. The policy forum is a
Onteable group that comprises approximately 100 representatives'frbm federal, statei and local
'eht, as well as private associations and citizens. It has met seventeen times since its
"iv-._— i r ...... _._ • '. ** rtl, *«j IB jspaiitF t ,-\t i Afiit s in i' i- i if
n jn 1995f and routinely attracts 30 or more attendees per meeting. The policy forum operates on
(!)§|j[^;^gfj approach. Meeting coordinators characterizeps^ues tancf suggest options,
igendenng debate and discussion until an agreement is reache
Funding programs supported in part by the State Revolving' Fundinavebeen §ye!p|>ed_pyiJp;w
Interest loans for system repairs and grants for community-wide S
[assistance is provided by DEM as requested. As of 2002, 83 per
ly extensively on decentralized wastewater systems are deyelo"
' ' '
also proykfetf ThpjA'fo r jhemnew^gujde^ entitled ...... Septjc'System 'Che
..... '' '''
m ...... : :
specf/bn, ..... D'EM'Sevelopedthe handbook, which 'descri'bes' two t 'geS'of ihspectipn: ...... '!) a" maintenance
'
pection to^determlpe the need^r^pumping and minbr repairs
''' '' ......
nt 'of "the "communities' in the state t:hat
)fng ..... m^agOTent grograms".'Tfi¥Tp7um
'"
^k-Up:'The"Rhode: lsTanfHandKoK: for
' ...... ' "
ind
Jring property transfer. The guide includes detailed instructions, .„.__,
[diagnosing in-home plumbing problems, and flowtesting and dy§|racirig!
Ubimmf' ,. , .".,..
aufceiRigrdan,, 2002
a.functionarinspecion \
'''cpm^^
.................. " ..... ""*" .................. "
iillfill |ii<
* '3 • ' '
iilhK'ISIlIt ...... • '<
»', t:i; ..... ill :i, '•'• •,-.'• '^ 7 7, .!* '
Possibly the most difficult issue to face during the planning phasts is where to find financing for selected
management approaches or actions. Community resource providers and consultants who specialize in
small community projects for assistance generally have knowledge of various possible sources of
financing and how to effectively apply for them. National resource providers like the Rural Community
Assistance Project, the National Rural Water Council, and state extension services are generally equipped
to provide this type of assistance, but many regional resources expt throughout the country that provide
similar services. See Chapter 5 for a listing of financial, technica
decentralized wastewater programs.
108
, and other resources to support
-------
O
d)
E
a>
o
n
re
re
D)
a>
(A
(0
.o
^5
SS
0)
2
'w
re
I
(A
re
si = °
S 4^ m
.
0 C O
O) 3 CO CO 5=
i
3 S
TO 0
O 10
C 0
a3 3
0 C
O) 3
i
0 .0
03 0
CO CO o
>,o> o
- 5-
1 o 8
8 Ro
_ E ^_, JS ;r_ 0
S0 _C O ^ O
> 03 3 Q. C
O O '?= "Tii Q- O
_i 03 E E co o
flllll
IIlIs
co
=
03 E
S c c c
111 ?.
O
O CO C CO -
O)
o
O
.5 E T3 E
>: —
o I °- S 1 ~
CO CO CO O 0
*- 'c 'o ^ P
s: •£ c o o
.03 t CO K -
.Q
E
0
o
Illlllll
>
C0
O c
J
o-
.0.coo030
1
.£2
.2
O
O
co
-------
Almost all of the decentralized management programs that have
been identified are for small
developments, and most are for onsite systems only. Since clusters of significant size are often
considered community-wide systems, their management is often categorized under conventional central
sewers and is difficult to identify when performing searches to identify decentralized systems. Thus, the
best documentation of existing information is still under development by the NESC. This preliminary
information indicates that management programs that have been tentatively identified have small budgets
and are modest in terms of coverage by the discussed program ejlements. Almost all total budgets were
less than SI million; the mode was only $5,000. The majority of the actual management programs are
supported at least in part by user fees. Other key support mechanisms are operational fees and property
taxes either as exclusive or as part of the overall funding package. User fees are primarily construction
permit, operating permit, and inspection fees paid by system ow!ners, but contractor (service provider)
licensing fees are also significant.
i
The few studies of management programs provide a widely varying picture of management program
costs versus services provided. Possibly the best single report is! by Mancl (2001). The report, which
attempted to compare five long-term management programs, failed to show any pattern of costs and
services. Combining the report with some other case studies, however, does offer some insights. For
example, throwing out some obvious outliers, a responsible management entity (Management Programs
4 and 5), which often include cluster systems, appears to cost homeowners somewhere between $180
and $450 per year. This cost may not include certain one-time costs to join or costs for special services.
In contrast, minimal management programs (similar to Management Program 1) appear to cost less than
$100 per year. Intermediate management programs vary widely between these extremes depending
heavily on what is included in the fees charged, other sources o
employed.
funding, and the technologies
i«*i':'f.
Lake Panorama, Iowa: developing a flexible management model
,; !''-,
This management program began in 1980 through County ordir||nce Changes and administrative rules
approval and started with creating and implementing specific de||ign requirements that exceeded those
of the state code because of economic and water quality conce! Ksr-tjBe'BounHarie^aTeloi&lfywithiri the
County, thus making the establishment of the management proi
ram. All new systems were sited,
designed and constructed according to these more stringent rec|uirements at the start. As-builfcirawings
and descriptions of these systems were entered into the datab^ ^7^xi|ting^ystems:'were'theri located,
Inspected, upgraded, and entered into the database/inventory, j pegular jnspectiph program (originally,
every 3 years for full-time and every-six for seasonal residents'," But npw~reclu.Qed to 1and 2 years,
respectively) conducted by the County sanitarian was institute^ ^e' ^Qyn|y health agency provides
oversight of the program by appointing the program's board of < Ireqtprs, but homeowner association
input is obvious and welcomed in all aspects of the program operation. ~
The program could be characterized as a Model Program 3 wit||Quf|h0 specific use oifOperating"'permits.
Inspections are required at specific intervals and enforcement of any deficiencies found through them is
clear and locally encoded. Prescriptive site evaluation procedures; ahc- design^requirernents are more
stringent than state code requirements. Hydraulic failures haveipeeri reducgd tp ab"qut \ percent. The
funding is to implement the program is raised through property lakes By the 'County, as the legal taxing
authority. Participation is essentially mandatory for all homeow^ere* Prese^, the cost is about $30/year
per home with an onsite system for inspections and inventory u jdatingv'dgeiration'and maintenance
costs must be added to determine the total cost for each home.j
and they are assessed an additional $600/year or more.
Mancl and Patterson, 2001
Some dwellings are on cluster systems,
6*.
110
-------
Regarding the fundamental financial, managerial, and technical analyses that are required for
consideration in becoming a decentralized wastewater "responsible management entity" (e.g., electricity
providers, water/sewer providers, or public sector entities), some excellent guidance on basic business
decisions exists (Drake, 2001; Yeager, 2001; and English and Yeager, 2001). Since these management
programs are often considered to be business-oriented, business plans must be approved that show
financial viability in perpetuity for these entities. Drinking water suppliers have also become aware of
the need for this viability in recent years after experiencing some of the legal, financial, and public health
consequences of failing to do so.
The community may also seek information on the concept of centralized management of decentralized
systems through information centers like the NESC, which is developing a series of non-technical tools
designed to assist the community at each of the steps in this process. Handbook readers should visit
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_index.htm on the Web for further information on the availability of
these products. Publicly financed support for centralized wastewater treatment services has been
available for decades from federal, state, and local sources. Since 1990, support for public funding of
onsite treatment systems has been growing. (See Appendix A for a summary of the most prominent
sources of grant, loan, and loan guarantee funding.)
4.9 Regular review and revision of an ongoing management program
Management entities or cooperative program steering committee members should regularly review
inspection and monitoring data, state or tribal water quality monitoring data, customer complaints, fee
structures, and data to track progress of the management program hi achieving goals and objectives.
Although an annual review is most likely, the management program should have the capability to make
interim adjustments in response to unanticipated problems that arise during the course of normal
operations.
Evaluating the effectiveness of onsite management program components (e.g., planning, fiscal,
regulatory, service provider certification) can provide valuable information for adapting program
provisions and execution approaches. A regular and structured evaluation of any program can provide
critical information for program managers, the public, and decision makers. Periodic program
evaluations should be performed to analyze program methods and procedures, identify problems,
evaluate the potential for improvement through new technologies or program enhancements, and adjust
program goals. The program evaluation process should include:
A tracking system for measuring success and evaluating/adapting program components
Processes for comparing program achievements to goals and objectives
Approaches for adapting goals and objectives if internal or external conditions change
Processes for initiating administrative or legal actions to improve program functioning
An annual report on the status, trends, and achievements of the management program
Venues for ongoing information exchange among program stakeholders
A variety of techniques and processes exist to perform program evaluations to assess administrative and
management elements. The method chosen for each program will depend on local circumstances, the
type and number of stakeholders involved, and the level of support generated by management agencies
to conduct a careful, unbiased, detailed review of the program's success in protecting health and water
resources. Regardless of the method selected, the program evaluation should be performed at regular
intervals by experienced staff with involvement by program stakeholders.
111
-------
Ifl^-flgjICTIft^ft^
iUi^SJ.ji .liJ'la "..HH.^H^i^U, ... = .>;>
i Review the program elements checklist and feedback coll
| determine progress toward goals and objectives, current slati
" and cooperative" arrangements ..... with ....... otner'enfifies.' .......................................
' '
112? sssEiFS!M'i"if 3? Iff Sittijl-
jrp?Ihe~varioull'brislWmahagemeri'' ' " '
|f116 iderifffy" which program elements '":"
| _ _ , _ . JfeitS'^fS^III
^cled frorri~sfaff and slakelioiders to'"' ''^ *''-.;.
|, trends, administrjative processes used,
. ; .•, . : . i, , .. ! ,r :.*:,•: •• «* ..i^
! Identify program elements in need of improvement, defin
i required to address deficient program areas, identify sources
i ~ . t , • - • d|
! recommended improvement actions.
1 ',,'.'. '" .'•„ •:.- - '••!•. - '••'
i ' ..... :. ' ....... •' ... :;. ".'., '"i ... ', ... I-:',:. „
! Communicate suggested improvements to program man
evaluation, are considered in program structure and function.
'fV^'SfMri'i^skM^s3^
lidions or amount.and type of resources :
>f support or assistance,"arid irriplernent "'
'l;l • "• ^\^«ifmfa»^»t»^-^<^^<^^^*^^\^y'i^*^i-i .ijf'«^w^j?fi1t^-.Mi91'->i!S»Wi^i!
-------
contracts between the system owners and service providers. The relationship to the regulatory authority
is still the same, but the management program has better control of the management of more complex
onsite systems to review in its oversight activities.
Management Model 3 systems (i.e., with operating permits) may consist of enhanced partnerships
among public/private entities and the local regulatory authority. However, the management structure and
its capabilities must be more sophisticated because it oversees inspections and operating permits for
onsite systems within its boundaries. Also, the public education and involvement aspects should be
enhanced, since more enforcement is likely when operating permits, inspections, system performance
monitoring, and more sophisticated record keeping are involved.
With clearly defined "responsible management entities" (i.e., under Management Models 4 and 5), there
may be major changes in interagency relationships. Enabling legislation for creation of third party onsite
wastewater management entities will vary, and cause some variation in the role of the traditional
regulatory authority (e.g., local health department). The management of cluster systems will bring more
oversight from the state environmental agency as well the state health department. In most cases, at least
some of the inherent regulatory program responsibilities, (e.g., permitting, training and
certification/licensing of service providers), may either be delegated to or shared with the responsible
management entity (RME). An RME must be quite sophisticated in its technical capability and records
management. It will normally, as negotiated with the oversight agencies, bear some responsibility for
developing and administering service-provider protocols, conducting monitoring and inspection
programs, and arranging supplemental training for service providers.
Performance must be ensured more proactively through oversight of design and installation, performance
of inspections, and monitoring of operating systems and the receiving environment, and in oversight of
the residuals management program. The RME must also be responsible for meeting any permits issued
to it by the oversight agencies. It has all the necessary capability (legal, financial, and administrative) to
devise internal plans to incorporate and operate cluster wastewater systems and play an active role in
regional land use planning. Both types of RMEs can enter into contracts with licensed/certified service
providers to implement any part of its overall service needs, which is a typical approach to lower costs.
The RME must, however, also have the technical resources to oversee the performance of its contractors
since it is ultimately responsible to the oversight agencies in accordance with its permits.
It is important for the committee to note that implementing higher overall levels of management can be
accompanied by significantly increased public opposition, especially if the community and important
stakeholders (e.g., system owners) are not sufficiently involved in developing the set of enforcement
actions and fee structures. Herring (2001) noted that in the absence of clearly perceived benefits, such as
resolving severe water quality problems associated with a valued resource, little public support can be
expected for increased management. Development of a RME appears to be an attractive alternative only
under the following conditions (Herring, 2001):
• There is a serious threat to property values, and a management district is projected to be able to
reduce the impact at a lower cost than central sewers.
• There is a widespread perception of a threat to public health or the environment and a perception
that central sewers would be more expensive.
• The area is undergoing significant new development, and the formation of a management entity
; is part of an overall development package.
113
-------
Figure 4-9. Using risk inputs to select a managemen
program model.
Recommended
Management Program
RME ownership
M|..._..»«___««_«»MW—. —
RME O&M
perating permits
Maintenance contracts
Inventory & maintenance
awareness
Risk Factors
Source: Otis, 2002.
The robustness of the decentralized wastewater system technology has a major influence on the type of
management program selected. Proper application of the normally prescriptive elements of the
regulatory code under Management Model 1 should be sufficient to minimize the hydraulic backup
problems resulting from unmanaged application of that code in areas where environmental concerns are
minimal and improved public health protection from direct human contact is the goal of the program. A
more complex treatment system, such as a surface discharging aerobic system with filtration and
disinfection, will require frequent monitoring and attention from a professional technician to maintain its
performance, and therefore requires a higher level of management.
Integrating public and private entities in watershed management
In 1991 the Keuka Lake Association established a watershed project to address nutrient, pathogen," and
other pollutant loadings into the upstate New York lake, which provides drinking water.for more than- „
20,000 people and borders 8 municipalities and two counties.]The,project sought to assess*watershed
conditions, educate the public on the need for action, and fosl sr iriter-jurisdictional cooperation to
address problems. The Keuka Watershed Improvement Coop ^native was" conceived by the project team
as an oversight committee composed of elected officials fromjtfjelmurjJcipalities an8 counties/ The group
developed an 8-page inter-municipal agreement under the st^ le Home rul^ provisions, which alfow,
municipalities to collectively do anything they can do individue l(v,'tp formalize the cooperative^ and > -
recommend new laws and policies for onsite systems and otHsr pollutant sources. ' ,'<'
1 !• y s ' W/ s •> . V * / / a , -j
Voters in each municipality approved the agreement by lands jae rnargjns after, ah extensive public " ,
outreach program. The cooperative developed regulations goylrntffg oniife systerrrpermittingj design" <
standards, inspection, and enforcement. The regulations carrir the force of law in each' town or yjllsage',,
court and stipulate that failures be cited and upgrades require^. Inspections' are required every 5 years''
for systems within 200 feet of the lake and alternative or aerobic systems must be inspected annually.
The cooperative coordinates its activities with state and countjsThealth agencies- arid maintains a <3!SX/
database to track environmental variables and the performance pf new technotegies,The~program is ,
financed by onsite system permit fees, some grant funds, and* appropriations from each" city's budget.','
(Source: Shephard, 1996).
>K ^
114
-------
Chapter 5 Where can I find more
information to support our
management program?
5.1 Potential Funding Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a low- or no-interest loan program that has
traditionally financed centralized sewage treatment plants across the Nation. Program guidance
issued in 1997 by EPA emphasized that the fund could be used as a source of support for the
installation, repair, or upgrading of onsite systems in small towns, rural, and suburban areas.
CWSRF programs are administered by the states and the territory of Puerto Rico and operate like
banks. Federal and state contributions are used to capitalize the fund programs, which make loans
for water quality projects. Funds are then repaid to the CWSRF over terms as long as 20 years.
Repaid funds are recycled to fund other water quality projects. Projects that may be eligible for
CWSRF funding include new system installations, replacement or modification of existing
systems, and costs associated with establishing a management entity to oversee onsite systems in
a region, including capital outlays (e.g., trucks, storage buildings). Approved management entities
include city and county governments, special districts, public or private utilities, and private for-
profit or nonprofit corporations. For more information, visit www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
or call 202-564-0752.
Environmental Finance Program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency developed the Environmental Finance Program to
assist communities in their search for creative approaches to funding their environmental projects.
The Environmental Finance Program provides financial technical assistance to the regulated
community and advice and recommendations on environmental finance issues, trends, and
options. The university-based Environmental Finance Centers help communities lower costs,
increase investment, and build capacity by creating partnerships with state and local governments
and the private sector to fund environmental needs. For more information, visit
www.epa.gov/efinpage/ or call 202-564-4994.
Non point Source Pollution Program
The Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319 (nonpoint source pollution) funds can support a wide
range of polluted runoff abatement, including onsite wastewater projects. Authorized under
section 319 of the federal CWA and financed by federal, state, and local contributions, these
projects provide cost-share funding for individual and community systems and support broader
watershed assessment, planning, and management activities. Projects funded in the past have
115
-------
included direct cost-share for onsite system repairs and upgrades, assessment of watershed-scale
onsite system contributions to polluted runoff, regional renjiediation strategy development, and a
wide range of other programs dealing with onsite wastewater issues. For example, a project
conducted by the Gateway District Health Department in east-central Kentucky enlisted
environmental science students from Morehead State University to collect and analyze stream
samples for fecal coliform "hot spots." Information collected by the students was used to target
areas with failing systems for cost-share assistance or other remediation approaches (EPA, 1997).
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Manager* ent developed a user-friendly system
inspection handbook with CWA section 319 funds to improve system monitoring practices and
then developed cost-share and loan programs to help system owners pay for needed repairs (EPA,
1997). For more information, visit www.epa.gov/owow/npls/319hfunds.html or call
202-566-1163.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
i
Rural Development programs provide loans and grants to low/moderate income individuals. State
Rural Development offices administer the programs. For state office locations, see
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/recdjtnap.html. A brief summary of USDA Rural Development
programs is provided below.
Rural Housing Service
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) Single-Family Housing Program
(http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/Individual/ind_splash.htin) provides homeownership
opportunities to low- and moderate-income rural Americans through several loan, grant, and loan
guarantee programs. The program also makes funding available to individuals to finance vital
improvements necessary to make their homes decent, safe, and sanitary. The Direct Loan
Program (section 502) provides individuals or families direct financial assistance in the form of a
home loan at an affordable interest rate. Most loans are to families with income below 80 percent
of the median income level in the communities where they live. Applicants may obtain 100
percent financing to build, repair, renovate or relocate a home, or to purchase and prepare sites,
including providing water and sewage facilities. Families must be without adequate housing, but
be able to afford the mortgage payments, including taxes and insurance. These payments are
typically within 22 to 26 percent of an applicant's income. In addition, applicants must be unable
to obtain credit elsewhere, yet have reasonable credit histories. Elderly and disabled persons
applying for the program may have incomes up to 80 percsnt of area median income (AMI).
Home Repair Loan and Grant Program
For very low-income families who own homes in need of repair, the Home Repair Loan and
Grant Program offers loans and grants for renovation. Money may be provided, for example, to
repair a leaking roof, to replace a wood stove with central heating, or to replace an outhouse and
pump with running water, a bathroom, and a waste dispos il system. Homeowners 62 years and
older are eligible for home improvement grants. Other low-income families and individuals
receive loans at a 1 percent interest rate directly from RHS. Loans of up to $20,000 and grants of
up to $7,500 are available. Loans are for up to 20 years at
Rural Utilities Service
1 percent interest.
The Rural Utilities Service (www.usda.gov/rus/water/programs.htm) provides assistance for
public or nonprofit entities, including wastewater management districts. Water and waste disposal
116
-------
loans provide assistance to develop water and waste disposal systems in rural areas and towns
with a population not in excess of 10,000. The funds are available to public entities such as
municipalities, counties, special-purpose districts, Native American tribes, and corporations not
operated for profit. The program also guarantees water and waste disposal loans made by banks
and other eligible lenders. Water and Waste Disposal Grants can be accessed to reduce water and
waste disposal costs to a reasonable level for rural users. Grants can be made for up to 75 percent
of eligible project costs in some cases.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/b&i_gar.htm)
provides assistance for businesses that provide services for system operation and management.
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans can be made to help create jobs and stimulate rural
economies by providing financial backing for rural businesses. This program provides guarantees
for up to 90 percent of a loan made by a commercial lender. Loan proceeds may be used for
working capital, machinery and equipment, buildings and real estate, and certain types of debt
refinancing. Assistance under the Guaranteed Loan Program is available to virtually any legally
organized entity, including a cooperative, corporation, partnership, trust or other profit or
nonprofit entity, Native American tribe or federally recognized tribal group, municipality, county,
or other political subdivision of a state.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Block Grants
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) operates the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which provides annual grants to 48 states and
Puerto Rico. The states and Puerto Rico use the funds to award grants for community
development to smaller cities and counties. CDBG grants can be used for numerous activities,
including rehabilitation of residential and nonresidential structures, construction of public
facilities, and improvements to water and sewer facilities, including onsite systems. EPA is
working with HUD to improve access to CDBG funds for treatment system owners by raising
program awareness, reducing paperwork burdens, and increasing promotional activities in eligible
areas. More information can be found at www.hud.gov/cpd/cdbg.html or by calling 202-708-
Appalachian Regional Commission
The Appalachian Regional Commission's (ARC) mission is to be an advocate for and partner
with the people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining economic development
and improved quality of life. The ARC will help communities in Appalachia fund the
development of onsite management programs. For more information, visit www.arc.gov or call
202-884-7799.
The National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project
The National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project (NDWRCDP) funds
new projects, enhancement or expansion of existing work, and cooperative ventures with other
organizations in the onsite/decentralized wastewater treatment field. For more information, visit
www.ndwrcdp.org/funding.cfrn or call 510-651-4210.
117
-------
Tribal Sources
U.S. EPA Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Program
Section 518(c) of the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act established the program and
authorized EPA to administer grants in cooperation with the Indian Health Service (IHS). This
partnership maximizes the technical resources available thijough both agencies to address tribal
sanitation needs. The ISA Program uses IHS's Sanitation DJeficiency System (SDS) to identify
high priority wastewater projects for funding. For more information, visit
www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/cwisa.htm or call 202-564-0621.
Indian Health Service-Sanitation Facilities Construction Program
\
The IHS's Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction aclministers a nationwide Sanitation
Facilities Construction (SFC) Program that is responsible fjar the delivery of environmental
engineering services and sanitation facilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The SFC
Program allocates available resources to the twelve IHS area offices. For more information, visit
www.dsfc.ihs.gov or call 301-443-1046. |
1
State-Specific Sources (check with your state to learn more about their financial assistance
programs)
Kentucky PRIDE Program
PRIDE is a local, state, and federal cooperative effort desired to address the challenge of
cleaning up the Kentucky's rivers and streams of sewage and garbage, ending illegal trash dumps,
and promoting environmental awareness and education while renewing pride in southern and
eastern Kentucky. Visit www.kypride.org for more information.
Pennsylvania PENNVEST Community Septic Management Program
The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) provides low cost financing
for wastewater systems across the Commonwealth. These systems typically serve an entire
community with many users who are unable to tie into the central system. For more information,
visitwww.phfa.org/programs/singlefamily/pennvest or call (717) 780-3837.
Texas Supplemental Environmental Project
A Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) is a project 1hat prevents pollution, reduces the
amount of pollution reaching the environment, enhances the quality of the environment, or
contributes to public awareness of environmental matters. For more information, visit
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/legal/sep/index.html or call 512/239-3400.
Washington Centennial Clean Water Fund
The Centennial Clean Water Fund provides low-interest leans and grants for wastewater
treatment facilities and fund related activities to reduce no:ipoint sources of water pollution. The
fund provides low-interest loans and grants for projects that protect and improve water quality in
Washington State. For more information, visit
„ , 4_?___
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/index.html or call
360-407-6566.
Other funding sources
118
-------
Other sources of funding include state finance programs, capital reserve or savings funds, bonds,
certificates of participation, notes, and property assessments. Nearly 20 states offer some form of
financial assistance for installation of onsite treatment systems, either through direct grants, loans,
or special project cost-share funding. Capital reserve or savings funds are often used to pay for
expenses that might not be eligible for grants or loans, such as excess capacity for future growth.
Capital reserve funds can also be used to assist low and moderate-income households with
property assessment or connection fees. Bonds usually finance long-term capital projects such as
the construction of onsite wastewater systems. Bonds are issued by states, municipalities, towns,
townships, counties, and special districts. The two most common types of bonds are general
obligation bonds, which are backed by the faith and credit of the issuing government, and revenue
bonds, which are supported by the revenues raised from the beneficiaries of a service or facility.
General obligation bonds are rarely issued for wastewater treatment facilities because
communities are often limited in the amount of debt that they may incur. These bonds are
generally issued only for construction of schools, libraries, municipal buildings, and police/fire
stations.
Revenue bonds are usually not subject to debt limits and are secured by repayment through user
fees. Issuing revenue bonds for onsite projects allows a community to preserve the general
obligation borrowing capacity for projects that do not generate significant revenues. This
mechanism works well for ongoing management programs, but does not work for new
management programs. A third and less commonly used bond is the special assessment bond,
which is payable only from the collection of special property assessments. Some states administer
state bond banks, which act as intermediaries between municipalities and the national bond
market to help small towns that otherwise would have to pay high interest rates to attract
investors or would be unable to issue bonds. State bond banks, backed by the fiscal security of the
state, can issue one large, low-interest bond that funds projects in a number of small communities.
Certificates of Participation (COPs) are issued by communities to lenders to spread out costs and
risks of loans to specific projects. If authorized under state law, COPs can be issued when bonds
would exceed debt limitations. Notes, which are written promises to repay a debt at an established
interest rate, are similar to COPs and other loan programs. Notes are used mostly as a short-term
mechanism to finance construction costs while grant or loan applications are processed. Grant
anticipation notes are secured by a community's expectation that it will receive a grant. Bond
anticipation notes are secured by the community's ability to sell bonds.
Finally, property assessments may be used to recover capital costs for wastewater facilities that
benefit property owners within a defined area. For example, property owners in a specific
neighborhood could be assessed for the cost of installing sewers or a cluster treatment system.
Depending on the amount of the assessment, property owners might pay it all at once or pay in
installments at a set interest rate. Similar assessments are often charged to developers of new
residential or commercial facilities if developers are not required to install wastewater treatment
systems approved by the local regulatory authority. Funding for ongoing management of onsite
systems in newly developed areas should be considered when these assessments are calculated.
119
-------
5.2 Technical resources
Technical Information on Onsite Wastewater Systems
Barnstable County, Massachusetts Department of Health a,
System Information Center
This web site contains information on alternative onsite technologies.
www.barnstablecountyhealth.org/AlternativeWebpage/indexl.htm
nd the Environment Alternative Septic
City of Austin, Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Fact Sheets
The set of fact sheets covers many onsite topics from conventional systems to alternative
systems. The fact sheets can be downloaded from www.ci.austin.tx.us/wri/fact.htm.
.ter treatment and has numerous case
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
This document describes constructed wetlands for wastewe
studies. This document can be downloaded from
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/construc/content.html.
Delcnvare Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control fact sheets
These fact sheets describe different wastewater disposal systems. They can downloaded from
www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/P2/Septic.htm.
Tlie Easy Septic Guide _
This guide describes everything a homeowner needs to know about their septic system, it nas
chapters on checking your septic system, understanding yciur septic system, how to maintain a
health system, and the septic shopping guide. The guide can be downloaded
www.cessnock.nsw.gov.au/scripts/CESSremdm.pl?Do=page&Page=PNum326.
Everything You Wanted to Know About Your Septic System: But Didn 't Know Whom to Ask
The Volusia County, Florida Department of Health developed this interactive CD-ROM to
educate homeowners on septic systems. To order a copy of the CD, call 904-736-5579.
Homeowner's Guide to On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zom
The Sea Ranch Association, an onsite management entity,| developed this guide for new
homeowners. The guide explains a septic system and explains a typical inspection. This guide
can be downloaded from www.tsra.org/Zone.htm.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Publications
This web page contains links to many publications concerning septic systems and alternative
technologies. For more information, visit www.state.ma.us/depftrp/wwm/t5pubs.htm.
National Environnemental Services Center
National Environmental Services Center provides technical assistance and information about
drinking water, wastewater, environmental training, and solid waste management to communities
serving fewer than 10,000 individuals. Visit www.nesc.vKoi.edu/ for more information.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse
Funded by grants from EPA, NSFC helps small communities and individuals solve their
wastewater problems. Its services include a web site, online discussion groups, a toll-free
120
-------
assistance line (800-624-8301), and informative publications. Visit
www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_index.htm for more information.
Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheets
This series of fact sheets cover topics from Septic System Maintenance, to Septic Tank -
Mound System, to Onsite Wastewater Management: Cost and Financing. They can be
downloaded from //ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/.
Onsite Wastewater Training Centers
Alabama, Alabama Onsite Wastewater Training Center
aowtc.uwa.edu/
Arizona, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals and Northern Arizona University
www4.nau.edu/itep/twwtc.html
Arizona, Onsite Wastewater Demonstration Project
www.cet.nau.edu/Projects/WDP/
California, California Wastewater Training and Research Center
www.csuchico.edu/cwtrc/Pages/home.htm
Florida, Florida Department of Health Onsite Sewage Training Courses
www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/ostds/training/maintrai.htm
Kentucky, Kentucky Onsite Wastewater Training Center
www.kentuckyonsite.org/
New England, NEIWPCC Environmental Training Center
www.neiwpcc.org/
New York, SUNY Morrisville Environmental Training Center
www.nyruralwater.org/aquafacts/winter2000/9.shtml
North Carolina, National Training Center for Land-Based Technology and Watershed
; Protection
www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/CIL/WREI/news/jf99trainingcenter.html
North Carolina, NC State University Soils and On-Site Wastewater Training Academy
www.soil.ncsu.edu/swetc/onsite2/onsite.htm
Minnesota, The Onsite Sewage Treatment Program
septic.coafes.umn.edu//Events/index.html
Missouri, Missouri Small Wastewater Flows Education and Research Center
aes.missouri.edu/bradford/news/mso-ftc.stm
Montana Environmental Training Center
msun.edu/grants/metc/
Rhode Island, URI On-Site Wastewater Training Center
http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/owtc/html/owtc.html
Utah, Utah On-Site Wastewater Treatment Training Center
http://www.engineering.usu.edu/uwrl/training/
Wisconsin, Small Scale Waste Management Project
http://www.wisc.edu/sswmp/
Onsite Waste-water Treatment Systems Manual
This comprehensive reference manual is designed to provide state and local governments with
guidance on the planning, design and oversight of onsite systems. This manual is useful for onsite
wastewater professionals, developers, land planners, and academics. This manual can be
downloaded from www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/Pubs/625R00008/625R00008.htrn.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality On-Site Fact Sheets
121
-------
These fact sheets include information on septic system installation and maintenance. The fact
sheets can be downloaded from www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/onsite.htm.
Protecting Water Quality: Understanding Your Septic System and Water Quality
This fact sheet explains the relationship between septic systems and water quality and
recommendations for septic system maintenance.
This document can be downloaded from
http://www.aces.edU/deparlmen1/extcqriim/publications/anEfaiu:-790/WQl.2.5.pdf
The Septic Education Kit ' .
The Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service is distributing The
Septic Education Kit, a toolbox that contains everything needed to organize an education program
on the care and maintenance of septic systems. This kit cai| be ordered from
www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr/septickit/moreinfonTiation.htiil.
Septic Systems: What You Don't Know Can Hurt You!
This brochure describes the potential problems caused by septic system if they are not
maintained. It also offers maintenance recommendations. This brochure can be ordered from the
Madera County, California Environmental Health Department 559-675-7823.
Septic Yellow Pages \ ^
This web site provides useful information concerning septip systems for homeowners. Visit
www.septicyellowpages.com/homeowner.html for more information.
Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assessment
This report verifies that subsurface flow constructed wetland can be a viable and cost-effect
wastewater treatment option. I
This document can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/sub.pdf.
| . ,
U.S. EPA Municipal Technologies Branch Fact Sheets \
These fact sheet cover difference treatment technologies. These fact sheets can be downloaded
from www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/mtbfact.htm.
University of Minnesota Fact Sheets
This set of fact sheets covers topics from homeowner education to alternative technologies and
can be downloaded from www.extension.umn.edu/topics.llitml?topic=2&subtopic=l 10.
about inspectors, to how to hire a
can be downloaded from
University of Rhode Island Fact Sheets
This set of fact sheets covers topics from what you should know
contractor, to how to order and boy a distribution box and
www.uri.edu/ce/wq/has/html/has_septicfacts.html.
US EPA's Decentralized Onsite Management for Treatment of Domestic Wastes
This program provides operation and maintenance information for on-site wastewater treatment
systems and can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/glnpc/seahome/decent.html.
Washington Sea Grant Septic Manuals I
Five homeowner manuals are available from this web sitej including Pressure Distribution,
Gravity, Mound, Sand Filter, Proprietary Device. Visit j
www.wsg.washington.edu/outreach/mas/water_quality/septicsense/relatedinfo.html for more
information.
122
-------
5.3 Management program development resources
The following is a list of websites and publications available related to wastewater systems and
initiating and planning a decentralized wastewater management program.
Information on the initiating and planning a management program
Building Our Future: A Guide to Community Visioning
.This manual provides community residents with a process for planning for their mutual
future. This manual can be downloaded from www.drs.wisc.edu/vision/abtguide/index.htm.
Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management Options for Rural Areas
This 17-page document helps guide communities through exploring their wastewater treatment
options. This document can be downloaded from http://www.easternnc-ced org/pdf-
files/NCSU.WMOR.pdf. F
City of Vancouver Citizen Handbook on Building Community
The Citizens Handbook is meant to encourage more active citizens - people motivated by an
interest in public issues, and a desire to make a difference. This document can be downloaded
from www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens~handbook/Welcome.html.
Community Visioning: Planning for the Future in Oregon's Local Communities
This report describes how new approaches to anticipate and plan for change are needed -
approaches that actively engage citizens in thinking about the future at the local level This report
can be downloaded from www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings97/ames.html.
Decentralized Wastewater Management
This brochure is for homeowners in the City of Austin, Texas. It explains their management
program. The brochure can be ordered by calling 512-322-0101.
Funding Decentralized Wastewater Systems Using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
This fact sheet explains the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the types of activities that can
be funded. This fact sheet can be downloaded from
http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/factsheets.htm#Decentralized.
A Guide to Public Management of Private Septic Systems
This guide can be used by communities to examine their wastewater treatment options and design
a unique program that meets their needs. This document can be downloaded from
www.cardi.cornell.edu/clgp/septics_index.cfm.
The Neighborhood Charrette Handbook: Visioning and Visualizing Your Neighborhood's Future
The charrette workshop is designed to stimulate ideas and involve the public in the
community planning/design process. This handbook can be downloaded from
www.louisville.edu/org/sun/pliinning/char.html.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Management Fact Sheets
These fact sheets cover topics from sewage planning, to sewage disposal systems. The fact sheets
can be downloaded from www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqp_wm^ubs-c htm
123
-------
A Quick Guide to Small Community Wastewater Treatment Decisions
When deciding on the right treatment system, the community must have clear goals and specific
criteria to use in making the decision. This document guides communities through choosing an
effective and reasonably priced wastewater treatment system The guide can be purchased from
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7735.html.
Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
This document describes the benefits and barriers to implempnting an onsite wastewater
management program. This document can be downloaded firom
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/decent/response/.
Rural Empowerment Zone and Economic Community Program
The road to economic opportunity and community development starts with broad participation by
all segments of the commxmity. This web site provides information on how to involve the
community and develop a strategic plan. Visit www.ezec.gcv/index.html for more information.
village in New Mexico where the
A Simpler, Cheaper Alternative to Sewer Systems
The guide describes a wastewater project hi Willard, a smal
sole supply of drinking water is threatened by contamination from wastewater.
Copies of this guide can be downloaded for free from wwwlsewerless-wastewater-
solutions.org/guide.htm.
Waste^vater Management Fact Sheets
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection developed these fact sheets to assist
wastewater managers and includes Process For Resolving Complaints About Malfunctioning
Onlot Systems, Sales Contract Requirements Under Act 537, Understanding The Importance Of
Soils In Siting An Onlot System. Some of the fact sheets explain Pennsylvania regulations. The
fact sheets can be downloaded from
www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqp_wm/Pubs-c.htm.
U.S Environmental Protection Agency Community-Based Environmental Protection
Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) integrates environmental management with
human needs, considers long-term ecosystem health, and highlights the positive correlations
between economic prosperity and environmental well-bein^.
Visit www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/ for more information, i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater
Treatment Systems . . . .
EPA developed this web site to provide tools for communities investigating and implementing
decentralized management programs. The Web site contains fact sheets, program summaries,
case studies, links to design and other manuals, and a list of state health department contacts.
Visit www.epa.gov/owm/onsite for more information.
124
-------
Appendix A: References
Appendix A: References
Chapter 1
Bowers, Fred. 2001. New Jersey Embraces EPA Guidelines for Management of Onsite Septic
Systems. NJDischarger. Winter 2001:8-9.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 1999. Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems: A Preliminary Risk Assessment. Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, Denver, CO.
Cone, Maria. 2000. Study Finds Widespread Runoff Peril on the Coast. Los Angeles Times-
November 29; Page B-1. '
Crites, R., and G. Tchobanoglous. 1998. Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management
Systems. WCB/McGraw-Hill Publishing, San Francisco, CA.
Heigis, W., Douglas, B., Healy, D., Collins, M. 2000. Data Management Systems for On-Site
Systems Management. In Proceedings of Onsite; The Future of Water Quality 2000 Conference,
National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Virginia Beach, Virginia, November 1 -4
2000, pp.41. '
Herring, J. A Private Market Approach to Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Maintenance
Small Flows Quarterly (4, fall 2001). National Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia
University, Morgantown WV.
Kreissl, J.F., and R.J. Otis. 1999. Appropriate Small Community Wastewater Technology and
Management. In New Markets for Your Municipal Wastewater Services: Looking Beyond the
Boundaries. Proceedings of WEF Workshop, New Orleans, LA.
North Carolina Coastal Federation. 1997. Sewer "Lines." Howe Creek, North Carolina, case
study summary. Newport, NC.
Maine Department of Human Services. 1996. Groundwater Assessment. <
http://www.state.me.us/dep^Iwq/docmonitoring/pg29_36.pdf >. Accessed April 16, 2002.
Mahler, R.L., Mink, L.L., and. Van Steeter, M.M. 2000. Groundwater in Idaho. Series No 900
University of Idaho, College of Agriculture, Moscow, ID.
Olson K., Chard B.I., Hickman, D., Malchow, D. 2002. Small Community Wastewater Solutions:
4 Guide to Making Treatment, Management and Financing Decisions.
Tchobanoglous, G., andF.L. Burton. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment Disposal
Reuse. 3M Ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1997. American Housing Survey for the United
States—1995. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
-------
Appendix A: References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Response to Congress On Use of
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. USEPA publication EPA/832/R-97/001b. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
Manual USEPA publication EPA/R-00/008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Offices of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Wayne County, 1997. Report on the On-site Sewage Disposal Systems Project within the
Tonqitish Creek Basin and Middle 3 Subwatershed Area - Rouge River. Department of Public
Health, Environmental Health Division, MI.
Chapter 2
Alaska Admin. Code, 1999. Title 18, Chapter 72, Article 1. luneau, AK.
Aller L T. Bennett, J.H. Lehr, and RJ. Petty, 1987. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for
Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrographic Settings. EPA Publication
EPA/600/2-85/018, Office of Research and Development, Ada, OK.
Angoli, T., 2001. Summary of the Status of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in the United
States During 1998. In Proc. of 9th National Symposium on Individual and Small community
Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
Arizona DEQ, 2001. Arizona On-Site Wastewater Treatment Facility Report of Inspection and
Notice of Transfer of ownership. Arizona DEQ Form A316, Phoenix, AZ.
Bass, J., 2000. Private Communication. Not Allowable Ref I have cut it from text as redund't
Burnell B.N., 1992. Development of Management Tools for Community On-Site Sewage
systems. In Proc. of 7th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Caudill, J.R., 1998. Homeowner Education about Onsite Sewage Systems. In Proc. of NOWRA
Conference, Northbrook, IL.
Ciotoli, P.A., and K.C. Wiswall, 1982. Management of Small Community Wastewater Systems.
EPA Publication EPA/600/8-82/009, Office of Research arid Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Clemans G W., J.C. Wilson, A. Gomez, 1992. Vashon Islsjnd Study: Planning Community
Facilities to Correct Severe Public Health Hazards. In Procl of 7th Northwest On-Site Wastewater
Treatment Short Course, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Cliver, D.O., 2000. Research Needs in Decentralized Wastpwater treatment and Management:
Fate and Transport of Pathogens. In National Research Needs Conference Proceedings: Risk-
Based Decision Making for Onsite Wastewater Treatment, National Decentralized Water
resources Capacity development Project, St. Louis, MO.
-------
Appendix A: References
Coulter, J.B., and T.W. Bendixen, 1958. Effectiveness of the Distribution Box. Report to The
Federal housing Administration from US Public Health Service, R.A. Taft Center, Cincinnati,
OH.
County Environmental Quarterly. 1997. Using GIS to Assess Septic System Impacts to
Chesapeake Bay. National Association of Counties, Washington, DC.
Deese, P.L., and J.F. Hudson, 1980. Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small
Communities. EPA Publication 600/8-80/030, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH.
Dow, D.B., and G.W. Loomis, 1998. The University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension On-
Site Wastewater Training Center: It's Role in Research, Training, Outreach, and Regulatory
Support. In Proc. of 8th National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
Eliasson, J.M., D.A. Lenning, and S.C. Wecker, 2001. Critical Point Monitoring- A New
Framework for Monitoring On-Site Wastewater Systems. In Proc. of 9th National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
Englehardt, J.D., 1983. O&M Requirements for Small Flow Technology. In Proceedings of 5th
Workshop on Home-Sewage Disposal in Colorado: Operation and Maintenance of On-Site
Wastewater Treatment Systems, Colorado State University Information Series No. 49, Fort
Collins, CO.
EPA, 1980a. Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. EPA
Publication EPA/625/1-80/012, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1983. Microbial Health Considerations of Soil Disposal of Dmestic Wastewaters-
Proceedings. EPA Publication EPA/600/9-83/017, Office of research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1987. It's Your Choice: A Guidebook for Local Officials on Small Community Wastewater
Options. EPA Publication EPA/430/9-87-006, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1993. Domestic Septage Regulatory Guidance. EPA Publication EPA/B-92/005, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
EPA, 1994. Environmental Planning for Small Communities: A Guide for Local Decision-
Makers. EPA Publication EPA/625/R-94/009, Office of Research and Development and Office of
Regional Operations and State/Local Relations, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1995. Process Design Manual: Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage.
EPA Publication EPA/625/R-95/ 001, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1994b. Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal. EPA Publication EPA/625/R-94/002,
Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA, 1997. Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource Book for Protecting
Ecosystems and Communities. EPA Publication EPA/230/B-96/003, Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
-------
Appendix A: References
EPA, 2000. Environmental Planning for Communities: A G ride to the Environmental Visioning
Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS). EPA Publication EPA/A@%/R-
987003, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, C)H.
EPA, 2001. Underground Injection Control Program for Claiss V Wells: Fact Sheet. EPA
Publication EPA?816/F-01?009, Office of Water, Washington DC
EPA, 2001. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA Publication EPA/625/R-
00/008,Offices of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds & Research and Development, Cincinnati,
OH
Fairfax County Health Department, 1995. Information Notice to All Septic Tank owners. Notice
issued by D.A. Hill, Div. of Env. Health, Fairfax, VA. j
Hantzche, N.N., J.E. Smiell, and R.A. Moore, 1991. Data Management System for On-Site
Wastewater Inspection Program at Sea Ranch, California. Ill Proc. of 6th National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage systems, ASAE, iSt Joseph, MI.
Harker, D.F., and E.U. Natter, 1995. Where We Live: A Citizen's Guide to Conducting a
Community Environmental Inventory. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Heigis, W., B. Douglas, and D. Luttrell, 2001. Application f Risk-Based Management to a
Community Wastewater. In Proc. of 10th Annual Conferencb, NOWRA, Laurel MD.
Hoover, M.T., A. Arenovski, D. Daly, and D. Lindbo, 19981A Risk-Based Approach to On-Site
system Siting, Design, and Management. In Proc. 8th National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St. Joseph, Mil
Johnson, B., R. Fleece, and S. Tackitt, 2001. Evaluation and Management of Onsite Sewage
Disposal Systems: New Challenges, New Initiatives, New Partnerships. In Proc. of 9th National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
I
Kreissl, J.F., 1983. Current Practices- Subsurface Disposal, jln EPA Proceedings EPA/600/9-
83/017, Office of research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Kreissl, J.F., and RJ. Otis, 1999. Appropriate Small Community Wastewater Technology and
Management In Proceedings of WETEC Workshop #124, New Markets for Your Municipal
Wastewater Services: Looking Beyond the Boundaries, Water Environment Federation,
Alexandria, VA.
Kreissl, J.F., 1982. Evolution of State Codes and Their Implications. In Proc. of 4th Northwest
On-Site Wastewater Disposal Short Course, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Loomis, G., L. Joubert, B. Dillman, D. Dow, J. Lucht, and A. J. Gold, 1999. A Watershed Risk-
Based Approach to Onsite Wastewater Management- A Block Island, Rhode Island, Case Study.
In Proc. Of 10th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
-------
Appendix A: References
Maine DHS, 1996. Rules for Site Evaluators of Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Systems,
Augusta, ME.
Mancl, K.^and S. Patterson, 2001. Twenty Years of Success in Septic System Management. In
Proc. of 9' National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE
St Joseph, MI.
Mancl, K, 2001. Onsite Wastewater Management: A Model for Success. In Proc. 9th National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
Massachusetts DEP, 2000. Financial Assistance Opportunities for Septic System Management.
Boston, MA.
Massachusetts Environmental Code, 2001. Title 5, 310 CMR 15.00: Regulations Pursuant to
Mass. General Law C.12A, Section 13. Boston, MA.
Mayer, R., 2001. Remote Monitoring and Control Systems. In Proc. of 10th Annual conference
NOWRA, Laurel, MD.
NSF International, 2000. Onsite Wastewater Inspector Accreditation Program - Applicant's
Guide. NSF International, Ann Arbor, MI.
NSFC, 1995. Idaho Regulations program Responsive to Change. In Small flows, 9, #3, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
NSFC, 2000. Site Evaluations. In Pipeline, 11, #2, West Virguinia University, Morgantown, WV
NSFC, 2001. Do You Have Insurance on Your Septic system? In Small Flows Quarterly, 2, #2,
21, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
NSFC, 2000 (Table 3-10)
NSFC, 1998. Inspections Equal Preventive Care for Onsite Systems. In Pipeline, 9, #2, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Nelson, J.D., and R.C. Ward, 1980. Ground Water Monitoring Strategies to Support Community
Management of On-Site Home Sewage Disposal Systems. Colorado State University Experiment
Station Technical Bulletin 140, Ft. Collins, CO.
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. 2000. Technical Guidelines for
New England Regulatory Cooperation to Promote Innovative/Alternative On-Site Wastewater
Technologies. Prepared by New England Interstate Regulatory Cooperation Project's Technical
Review Committee. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Lowell, MA.
New Hampshire DES, 1991. Permitting of Installers and Designers of Subsurface Sewage
Disposal Systems. Environmental Fact Sheet SSB-4. Concord, NH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Fact Sheet for the Draft Statewide General
NPDES Permit Covering Discharges of Sanitary Wastewater from Select Household Sewage
Treatment Systems, Columbus, OH.
-------
Appendix A: References
Olson, K.M., and D.M. Gustafson, 2001. Homeowner Education: A Key to Successful On-Site
Sewage Treatment. In Proc. of 9th National Symposium on Individual and Small Community
Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI. |
Otis, R.J., 1999. Establishing Risk-Based Performance Standards. Presented at Annual NEHA
Meeting, Nashville, TN. I
Otis, R.J., 2000. Performance Management. Small Flows Quarterly, 1, #1,12.
Otis, R.J., BJ. McCarthy, and J. Crosby, 2001. Performances Code Framework for Management
of Onsite wastewater Treatment in Northeast Minnesota. In Proc. of 9th National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, jSt Joseph, MI.
I
Pask, D., 2000. Monitoring effluent Plumes. In Small Flows: Quarterly, 1, #3, NSFC/West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Pickney, R., and C. Pickney, 2001. How a Privately-Owned Utility Company Can Provide Cost-
Effective Waste Water Service to the Public. In Proc. of NQWRA Pre-Conference Workshop
entitled, "A New Paradigm for Onsite Systems- Integrating [Planning and Management into Local
and Regional Planning", NOWRA, Laurel, MD.
Prince, R.N., M.E. Davis, and K.B. Seitzinger, 1979. Desigi and Installation Supervision by an
Onsite'Management District. In Proc. of 6th National Conference on Individual Onsite
Wastewater Systems, Nation Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, MI.
Rich, B. 2001. La Pine National Decentralized Wastwater Demonstration Project. In Proceedings
of the 10"' Annual Conference and Exhibit. National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association,
Virginia Beach, VA.
Rural Community Assistance Program, 1995. Small System Guide to Financial Management.
RCAP, Leesburg, VA. |
Sandison, D., M. Adolfson, L. West, J. Hoyle, and L. Adolifson, 1992. Impacts on Marine Water
Quality: Key Peninsula On-Site Sewage System Study. In Proc. of 7th Northwest On-Site
Wastewater Treatment Short Course, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
I
Schautz, J.W., and C.M. Conway, 1995. The Self-Help Handbook. The Rensselaerville Institute,
Rensselaerville, NY.
Shephard, F.C., 1996. Managing Wastewater: Prospects in Massachusetts for a Decentralized
Approach. Ad Hoc Task Force for Decentralized Wastewater Management, Waquoit, MA.
Swanson, E., 2001. Performance-Based Regulation for Oni ite Systems. Presented at State
Regulators Conference, NSFC, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Tyler, E.J., W.C. Boyle, J.C. Converse, R.L. Siegrist, D.L. Hargett, and M.R. Schoenemann,
1985. Design andMangement of Subsurface Soil Absorption Systems. EPA Publication
EPA/600/2-85/070, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Tyler, E.J., and J.C. Converse, 1994. Soil Acceptance of Cnsite wastewater As Affected by Soil
Morphology and Wastewater Quality. In Proc. Of 7th National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St. Joseph, ML
-------
Appendix A: References
Tyler, E.J., 2001. Hydraulic Wastewater Loading Rates to Soil. In Proc. of 9th National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
University of Tennessee, 1991. Managing Your Utility's Money: The Trainer's Manual EPA
Publication EPA/430/9-91/014, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
University of Wisconsin, 1978. Management of Small Waste Flows. EPA Publication
EPA/600/2-78/173, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Washington State DOH and Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1996. Guidance Handbook for
On-bite Sewage System Monitoring Programs in Washington State. Olympia, WA.
Water Environment Federation, 2001. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment. WEF Manual
of Practice #FD-16, Alexandria, VA.
Water Environment Federation, 1997. Septage Handling. WEF Manual of Practice #24
Alexandria, VA. '
Chapter 3
Allee, D.J., L.S. Raymond, I.E. Skaley, and D.E. Wilcox. 2001. A Guide to the Public
Management of Private Septic Systems. Cornell Local Government Program Report, Ithaca, NY.
Ciotoli, P.A., and K.C. Wiswall. 1982. Management ofOn-Site and Small Community
Wastewater Systems. USEPA Publication USEPA/600/8-82/009, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Herring, J. 2001. A Private Market Approach to Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
Maintenance. Small Flows Quarterly (4. Fall 2001). National Small Flows Clearinghouse West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Linahan, D. 2000. Sewage Management Programs for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems In Proceedings of Onsite; The Future of Water Quality 2000 Conference, National
Qnsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Virginia Beach, Virginia, November 1-4,2000.
Mancl, K. 2001. Onsite Wastewater Management: A Model for Success. In Proceedings of 9th
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. ASAE, St. Joseph,
V;S< Et)vj^imental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
Manual. USEPA Publication USEPA/625/R-00/008. Office Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
and Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U:S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Guidelines for Management of
Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems. USEPA Publication USEPA/832?gJlj U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
-------
Appendix A: References
Chapter 4
Allee, DJ, LS Raymond, JE Skaley, and DE Wilcox, 1999. A Guide to Public Management of
Private Septic Systems. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Caudill, J.R., 1998. Homeowner Education about Onsite Systems. In Proceedings of NOWRA
Conference, Northbrook, IL.
Ciotoli, P.A., and K>C> Wiswall, 1982. USEPA Publication EPA/600/8-82/009. Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Clark M K W S Heigis, B.F. Douglas, and J.B. Hoover, 2001. Decentralized Wastewater
Management Needs Assessment: A Small Community's Approach, Warren, Vermont In
Proceedings of 9th National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems,
ASAE, St Joseph, MI. j
Deese PL and J F. Hudson, 1980. Planning Wastewater ^anagement Facilities for Small
Communities. USEPA Publication EPA/600/8-80/030, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH. !
Drake, S., 2001. Decentralized Wastewater Management. Faper presented to NOWRA 10*
Annual Meeting, Virginia Beach, VA.
i
Enelish CD and T E Yeager, 2001. Considerations about the Formation of Responsible
Management Entities (RME) as a Method to Insure the Viability of Decentralized Wastewater
Management (DWM). Paper presented to ASAE 9th National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems, Ft Worth, TX.
Greuel, D.L., 2001. Internet Based Maintenance Reporting
for Onsite Treatment Systems. Paper
presented to NOWRA 10th Annual Meeting, Virginia Beach, VA.
Herring J 2001 A Private Market Approach to Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
Maintenance. Small Flows Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 4; Fall 2001. National Small Flows
Clearinghouse, Morgantown WV. \
Holdway R 2001. Orange County, North Carolina, Wastewater Treatment Management
Program.'paper presented at NOWRA 10th Annual Meeting Virginia Beach, VA.
Hoover M.T., A. Arenovski, D. Daly, and D. Lindbo, 199|s. A Risk-Based Approach to Onsite
System Siting, Design, and Management. In Proceedings of 8th National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
Lombardo P 2001. County-Wide Decentralized Wastewater Management Planning in a Growing
Water Supply Watershed. In Proceedings of 10th Annual Conference and Exhibit, National Onsite
Wastewater Recycling Association, Virginia Beach, VA.
-------
Appendix A: References
Mancl, K., 2001. Onsite Wastewater Management: A Model for Success. In Proceedings of 9th
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph,
MI.
Massachusetts Environmental Code: Title 5, 310 CMR 15.00, promulgated pursuant to
Massachusetts General Law c. 12A, Section 13, Boston, MA.
National Environmental Services Center (NESC). 2002. A Community Assessment Tool. National
Onsite Demonstration Project, NESC, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
National Research Council, 1993. Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment. National Academy
Press, Washington, DC.
Nelson, V., S.P. Dix, F.C. Shephard., 2000. Advanced On-Site Wastewater Treatment and
Management Market Study: Volume I: Assessment of Short-Term Opportunities and Long-Run
Potential. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Novickis, R. 2001. The Cuyahoga County Board of Health's Diverse Approach to Wastewater
Management. In Proceedings of 10th Annual Conference and Exhibit, National Onsite Wastewater
Recycling Association, Virginia Beach, VA.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Fact Sheet for the Draft Statewide General
NPDES Permit Covering Discharges of Sanitary Wastewater from Select Household Sewage
Treatment Systems, Columbus, OH.
Olson, K., B.I. Chard, D. Malchow, and D. Hickman, 2002. Small Community Wastewater
Solutions: A Guide to Making Treatment, Management, Financing Decisions. University of
Minnesota Extension
Service, Publication BU-07734, St Paul, MN.
Otis, R.J., 1999. Establishing Risk-Based Performance Standards. Paper presented to NEHA
Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN,
Otis, R.J., 2000. Performance Management. In Small Flows Quarterly, 1, #1, National Small
Flows Clearinghouse, WVU, Morgantown, WV.
Prins, C.J., and K.W. Lustig, 1988. Innovative Septic System Management. Journal WPCF, 60,
#5, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Ricker,J., N. Hantzsche, B. Hecht, and H. Kolb, 1994. Area-wide Wastewater Management for
the San Lorenzo River Watershed, California. In Proceedings of 7th National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE, St Joseph, MI.
Riordan, James. 2002. Email to the Decentralized Wastewater Systems listserver on August 16,
2002. James Riordan, Coordinator, Nonpoint Source Management Program, Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management, Surface Water Protection Division. Providence, RI.
Rose, R.P., 1999. Onsite Wastewater Management in New Mexico: A Case Study ofPena Blanca
Water and Sanitation District. Published electronically by the NSFC, WVU, Morgantown, WV.
-------
Appendix A: References
Shephard, F.C., 1996. Managing Wastewater: Prospects in Massachusetts for a Decentralized
Approach. Publication of the Ad Hoc Taskforce for Decentralized Wastewater Management,
Woods Hole, MA. i
Smith, Cynthia. 2002. Email to the Decentralized Wastewatcr Systems listserver on August 26,
2002 by Cynthia Smith, Environmental Assistance Office, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources. Jefferson City, MO. !
Stark, S.L., J.R. Nuckols, and J. Rada, 1999. Using GIS to Investigate Septic System Sites and
Nitrate Pollution Potential, Journal ofEnvir. Health, April, i
Swanson, R, 2001. Performance- Based Regulation for On&ite Systems. Paper presented to State
Onsite regulators Conference, Washington, DC.
USEPA, 1997. Community-Based Environmental Protectio^: A Resource Book for Protecting
Ecosystems and Communities. USEPA Publication EPA/23p/B-96/003, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC
USEPA, 2000. Environmental Planning for Communities: A
Guide to the Environmental
Visioning Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System. EPA Publication EPA/625/R-
98/003, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA, 2001. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA Publication EPA/625/R-
00/008, Offices of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and Rjesearch and Development, Cincinnati,
OH.
Venhuizen, D., 2001. Winfleld Township Wastewater Facility Plan. Copyrighted by D.
Venhuizen, Uhland, TX. '
Yeager, T.E., 2001. Developing a Business Plan for a Responsible Management Entity. Paper
presented to NOWRA 10th Annual Meeting, Virginia Beachi, VA.
Chapter 5
See Chapter 5 for listing.
-------
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Aerobic Treatment Unit (ATU): A mechanical wastewater treatment unit that provides secondary
wastewater treatment for single home, cluster of homes, or commercial establishments by mixing air
(oxygen) and aerobic and facultative microbes with the wastewater. ATUs typically use either a
suspended growth process (such as activated sludge _ extended aeration and batch reactors), fixed film
process (similar to a trickling filter), or a combination of the two treatment processes.
Alternative Onsite Treatment System: A wastewater treatment system that includes different components
than typically used in a conventional septic tank and subsurface wastewater infiltration system (SWIS).
An alternative system is used to achieve acceptable treatment and dispersal of wastewater where
conventional systems either may not be capable of protecting public health and water quality, or are
inappropriate for properties with shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock or soils with low
permeability. Examples of components that may be used in alternative systems include sand filters,
aerobic treatment units, disinfection devices, and alternative subsurface infiltration designs such as
mounds, gravelless trenches, and pressure and drip distribution.
Centralized Wastewater System; A managed system consisting of collection sewers and a single
treatment plant used to collect and treat wastewater from an entire service area. Traditionally, such a
system has been called a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
Cesspool: A drywell that receives untreated sanitary waste containing human excreta, which sometimes
has an open bottom and/or perforated sides (40 CFR 144.3). Cesspools with the capacity to serve 20 or
more persons per day were banned in federal regulations promulgated on December 7, 1999. The
construction of new cesspools was immediately banned and existing large-capacity cesspools must be
replaced with sewer connections or onsite wastewater treatment systems by 2005.
Cluster System: A wastewater collection and treatment system under some form of common ownership
which collects wastewater from two or more dwellings or buildings and conveys it to a treatment and
dispersal system located on a suitable site near the dwellings or buildings.
Construction Permit: A permit issued by the designated local regulatory authority that allows the
installation of a wastewater treatment system in accordance with approved plans and applicable codes.
Conventional Onsite Treatment System: A wastewater treatment system consisting of a septic tank and a
typical trench or bed subsurface wastewater infiltration system.
Decentralized System: Managed onsite and/or cluster system(s) used to collect, treat, and disperse or
reclaim wastewater from a small community or service area.
Dispersal System: A system which receives pretreated wastewater and releases it into the air, surface or
ground water, or onto or under the land surface. A subsurface wastewater infiltration system is an
example of a dispersal system.
Engineered Design: An onsite or cluster wastewater system that is designed and certified by a
licensed/certified designer to meet specific performance requirements for a particular wastewater on a
particular site.
-------
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Environmental Sensitivity: The relative susceptibility to adverse impacts of a water resource or other
receiving environment from dispersal of wastewater and/or its constituents. The impacts may be low,
acute (i.e. immediate and significantly disruptive), or chronic (i.e. long-term, with gradual but serious
disruptions). ;
Large Capacity Septic System: An onsite method of partially treating and disposing of sanitary
wastewater having the capacity to serve 20 or more persons-per-day subject to EPA's Underground
Injection Control regulations.
Management Model: A program consisting of thirteen elements! that is designed to protect and sustain
public health and water quality through the use of appropriate policies and administrative procedures that
define and integrate the roles and responsibilities of the regulatoiry authority, system owner, service
providers and management entity, when present, to ensure that onsite and cluster wastewater treatment
systems are appropriately managed throughout their life cycle. The program elements include public
education and participation, planning, performance requirements!, training and certification/licensing, site
evaluation, design, construction, operation and maintenance, residuals management, compliance
inspections/monitoring, corrective actions and enforcement, reccird keeping, inventory, and reporting, and
financial assistance and funding. Management services should be provided by properly trained and
certified personnel and tracked via a comprehensive management information system.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: A national program under Section
402 of the Clean Water Act for regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources to waters of the
United States. Discharges are illegal, unless authorized by an 1ST.PDES permit.
i
Onsite Service Provider: A person who provides onsite system services. They include but are not
limited to designers, engineers, soil scientists, site evaluators, installers, contractors, operators, managers,
maintenance service providers, pumpers, and others who provide services to system owners or other
service providers.
!
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS): A system relyibig on natural processes and/or
mechanical components to collect, treat, and disperse or reclaim wastewater from a single dwelling or
building. ;
Operating Permit: A renewable and revocable permit to operate' and maintain an onsite or cluster
treatment system in compliance with specific operational or performance requirements stipulated by the
regulatory authority. j
i
Performance-Based Management Program: A program desigrjed to preserve and protect public health
and water quality by seeking to ensure sustained achievement of'specific, measurable performance
requirements based on site and risk assessments. ,
Performance Requirement: Any requirement established by the regulatory authority to assure future
compliance with the public health and water quality goals of the j community, the state or tribe, and the
federal government. Performance requirements can be expressed as numeric limits (e.g., pollutant
concentrations, mass loads, wet weather flow, structural strength) or narrative descriptions of desired
conditions or requirements (e.g., no visible scum, sludge, sheen,|odors, cracks, or leaks).
|
Permitting Authority: The state, tribal, or local unit of governnient with the statutory or delegated
authority to issue permits to build and operate onsite wastewater systems.
-------
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Prescription-Based Management Program: A program designed to preserve and protect public health
and water quality through specification of pre-engineered system designs for specific sets of site
conditions, which if sited, designed, and constructed properly, are deemed to meet public health and water
quality standards.
Prescriptive Requirements: Specifications for design, installation and other procedures and practices for
onsite or cluster wastewater systems on sites that meet stipulated criteria. Proposed deviations from the
stipulated criteria, specifications, procedures, and/or practices require formal approval from the regulatory
authority.
Regulatory Authority (RA): The unit of government that establishes and enforces codes related to the
permitting, design, placement, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and performance of
onsite and cluster wastewater systems.
Residuals: The solids generated and/or retained during the treatment of wastewater. They include trash,
rags, grit, sediment, sludge, biosolids, septage, scum, grease, as well as those portions of treatment
systems that have served their useful life and require disposal such as the sand or peat from a filter.
Because of their different characteristics, management requirements can differ as stipulated by the
appropriate Federal Regulations.
Responsible Management Entity (RME): A legal entity responsible for providing various management
services with the requisite managerial, financial, and technical capacity to ensure the long-term, cost-
effective management of decentralized onsite and/or cluster wastewater treatment facilities in accordance
with applicable regulations and performance requirements.
Septage: The liquid and solid materials pumped from a septic tank during cleaning operations.
Septic Tank: A buried, watertight tank designed and constructed to receive and partially treat raw
wastewater. The tank separates and retains settleable and floatable solids suspended in the wastewater and
discharges the settled wastewater for further treatment and dispersal to the environment.
Source Water Assessment: A study and report required by the Source Water Assessment Program
(SWAP) of the Safe Drinking Water Act addressing the capability of a given public water system to
protect water quality that includes delineation of the source water area, identification of potential sources
of contamination in the delineated area, determination of susceptibility to those sources, and public notice
of the completed assessment.
Underground Injection Well: A constructed system designed to place waste fluids above, into, or below
aquifers classified as underground sources of drinking water. As regulated under the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Parts 144 & 146), injection
wells are grouped into five classes. Class 5 includes shallow systems such as cesspools and subsurface
wastewater infiltration systems. Subsurface wastewater infiltration systems with the capacity to serve 20
or more people per day, or similar systems receiving non-sanitary wastes, are subject to federal
regulation. Class V motor vehicle waste injection wells and large-capacity cesspools are specifically
prohibited under the UIC regulations.
-------
-------
Appendix C: Relationship to Other USEPA Water Programs
Appendix C: Relationship to other USEPA water programs
The USEPA Voluntary Guidelines for Management ofOnsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater
Treatment Systems will help support the activities and approaches being applied in several other USEPA
programs and contribute toward achieving mutual water quality objectives and public health protection
goals. Related programs include watershed management, water quality management, biosolids and
residuals management, nonpoint source control, source water assessment and protection, underground
injection control, water permitting and coastal zone management. The relationship of the Guidelines to
these companion programs is summarized in the following discussion.
Watershed Management.
The Guidelines can be integrated into a comprehensive watershed approach at the state, tribal, or local
government level. There are clear benefits to managing onsite/centralized systems at basin, watershed or
subwatershed levels. Ideally, the use of a watershed approach will facilitate the identification of both
existing and anticipated sources of pollutants of concern, e.g., nutrient and pathogens, and allow the
appropriate jurisdictions to take coordinated actions to protect or restore an identified resource. In such an
approach, short and long-term wastewater management plans and actions for both centralized and
decentralized systems can be integrated into a comprehensive plan that may include analyses and actions
that address the impacts of otheir contributing sources of pollutants such as animal waste, wildlife or
agriculture. The use of a watershed approach also encourages the coordination of management entities
and actions across jurisdictions. Inter-jurisdictional planning and coordination can result in more efficient
resource utilization, including data sharing, and also help to avoid inconsistent management policies or
requirements that can cause unanticipated consequences such as accelerated growth in adjacent
communities due to less burdensome requirements or lower costs.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
In 1972, Congress established the NPDES program under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the CWA,
discharge of a pollutant from a point source to waters of the United States is prohibited unless that
discharge is authorized by a NPDES (CWA Section 402) or wetlands (CWA Section 404) permit. The
NPDES program includes discharges to groundwater with a direct hydrologic connection to surface water.
NPDES permits are issued by a State or Tribe authorized to implement the NPDES program, or by
USEPA if there is no authorized State or Tribe. The NPDES permit establishes necessary technology-
based and water quality-based terms, limitations and conditions on the discharge to protect public health
and the environment. EPA's NPDES regulations (40 CFR 122.28) provide for issuance of a "general
permit" to authorize discharges from similarly situated facilities such as onsite and cluster systems.
Several States issue general permits, including Arkansas, Kentucky and North Carolina. An example of
the key aspects of a general permit is in the Management Handbook.
Biosolids and Residuals Management
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA required the development of comprehensive requirements for the use
and disposal of sewage sludge (biosolids). As defined in the resulting "Use and Disposal of Sewage
Sludge" rule at 40 CFR Part 503, sewage sludge includes the residuals produced by the treatment of
domestic sewage (other than grit and screenings) and includes septage from onsite and cluster wastewater
treatment systems. The Part 503 rule (along with non-hazardous solid waste disposal requirements under
40 CFR Part 257 and 258 which apply when domestic septage is mixed with other waste sources by
pumpers) establish minimum Federal requirements for the proper management of septage from onsite and
cluster wastewater treatment systems. USEPA has developed supplemental guidance on the management
-------
Appendix C: Relationship to Other USEPA Water Programs
of septage in Domestic Septage Regulatory Guidance: A Guide to the USEPA 503 Rule(iy) and Guide to
Septage Treatment and Disposal. The use and disposal of sewage sludge is usually regulated as part of
the NPDES program.
Storm Water Management
Historically, polluted storm water runoff was often transported by municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4s) or discharged from industrial or construction activities and ultimately discharged into
local rivers and streams without treatment. Common pollutants include oil and grease from roadways,
pesticides from lawns, sediment from construction sites, and carelessly discarded trash, such as cigarette
butts, paper wrappers, and plastic bottles. When deposited into nearby waterways through MS4
discharges, these pollutants can impair the waterways, thereby discouraging recreational use of the
resource, contaminating drinking water supplies, and interfering 'Ivith the habitat for fish, other aquatic
organisms, and wildlife.
In 1990, USEPA promulgated rules establishing Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) storm water program. The Phase I program requires communities with MS4s serving
populations of 100,000 or greater or sites with industrial or constriction activity to implement a storm
water management program as a means to control polluted dischsirges. The Storm Water Phase II Rule,
promulgated on December 8,1999, extends coverage of the NPDES storm water program to certain
"small" MS4s and small construction sites. Operators of regulated small MS4s are required to design then-
programs to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent practicable"; protect water
quality; and satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of ^he Clean Water Act.
The Phase II program for MS4s is designed to accommodate a general permit approach using a Notice of
Intent (NOI) as the permit application. The operator of a regulated small MS4 must include in the permit
application, or NOI, its chosen best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for each of six
minimum control measures. To help permittees identify the most appropriate BMPs for their programs,
USEPA will issue a "menu," of BMPs to serve as guidance.
One measure in a Phase II storm water program is the detection a: id elimination of illicit discharges.
USEPA has determined that many onsite and cluster systems (typically those that discharge to surface
waters) illicitly discharge effluent to storm ditches which drain to] storm sewers. In these cases, there must
be a permit approach to protect the MS4 from pollutants associated with the onsite and cluster system.
The Guidelines can be used to assist NPDES permit applicants in [determining appropriate BMPs.
Water Quality Management (including Total Maximum Daily Loads)
Nationally, States have reported in their Clean Water Act Section 303(d) reports that designated uses are
not being met for approximately 5,400 water bodies due to pathogens and that approximately 4,700 water
bodies are impaired by nutrients(12). Onsite wastewater treatment siystems are often significant
contributors of pathogens and nutrients. Under EPA's current requirements a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) determination is required when the total loading of pollutants to a water body results in a
violation of water quality standards. The Agency promotes the control and management of both point and
non-point source discharges on a watershed basis. If onsite and cluster systems are determined to be a
significant source of the pollutants, increased management is needed.
The most common approach to resolving problems with onsite wastewater treatment systems has been to
replace onsite wastewater treatment systems with a centralized wajstewater treatment and collection
system. However, a decentralized approach, with a high level of Management, is capable of meeting water
quality objectives while offering communities a wider range of options. In these situations, these
-------
Appendix C: Relationship to Other USEPA Water Programs
Guidelines can be a valuable tool to use as the basis of TMDL/watershed implementation plans which
promote improved management to address identified problems. An appropriate level of management, as
described in this document could reduce pollutant loads to achieve water quality standards. USEPA also
recognizes, as discussed more fully below, there are situations where a system is subject to the NPDES
program. In such cases, permit requirements should be consistent with any applicable TMDL and water
quality standards.
Water Quality Standards
State and tribal water quality standards do not consistently address pathogen and nutrient loadings. This
lack of consistency has been due to a scarcity of information on how to measure, monitor and evaluate the
impacts of pathogens and nutrients on water quality. New methods and information are being developed
to assist tribes, states and local governments in assessing and developing appropriate management
strategies to control these pollutants. USEPA is currently developing recommendations for improved
methods to measure and document human health risks due to exposure to the most common pathogens
and differing concentrations of these pathogens. A thorough discussion is available in the draft
Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986.(lS} USEPA is also
developing a series of Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manuals [what is reference?] for various
water body types, e.g., rivers and streams. The intent of these documents is to provide States/tribes with
methods to assess waterbody nutrient impairment, select criteria, design monitoring programs; and
implement management practices. These factors should be considered during the siting, design, and
operation of onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems.
Source Water Assessment and Protection
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require States and tribes to implement Source
Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) programs which assess areas serving as sources of drinking
water, identify potential threats, and implement protection efforts. The SWAP requires States to conduct
source water assessments for all their public water systems. Assessments consist of delineating protection
areas for the source waters of public drinking water supplies, identifying potential sources of
contaminants within these areas, determining the susceptibility of the water supplies to contamination
from these potential sources, and making the results of the assessments available to the public.
Assessments for many water systems, such as those in rural areas, are likely to inventory onsite and
cluster systems located in delineated source water protection areas and identify some of these as priority
pollution threats. Communities are encouraged to consider this emerging information from the
assessments as a factor in deciding what level of management of onsite and cluster systems is necessary.
Several programs specifically address the protection of ground water, since it serves as the source of
drinking water for 95 percent of the nation's population in rural areas, and for half of the total U.S.
population. USEPA also recommends the onsite and cluster management Guidelines as a tool in the
protection of drinking water sources.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
Certain onsite systems are regulated under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. The UIC
program was established by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect current and future
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from contamination caused by subsurface disposal of
wastes. USEPA groups underground injection into five classes (Classes I-V), from deep to shallow. Class
V wells include typically shallow, percolating systems, such as dry wells, leach fields, and similar types
of drainage wells that overlie USDWs.
-------
Appendix C: Relationship to Other USEPA Water Programs
Under the existing federal regulations, Class V injection wells are authorized by rule provided they meet
certain reporting requirements (e.g. submit inventory information) and do not endanger underground
sources of drinking water. USEPA recognizes that State, Tribal alnd local governments commonly
regulate onsite systems of varying sizes. Regardless, the UIC prcigram is responsible for ensuring that
these entities meet UIC program requirements when regulating large-capacity septic systems (those that
accept solely sanitary waste and have the capacity to serve 20 or more people). Onsite wastewater
treatment systems may also be regulated under the UIC program by an authorized State, Tribe, or USEPA
if they accept industrial, chemical, or other non-sanitary wastes, also called "industrial drainage wells" or
"agricultural drainage wells." ;
In 1999, the UIC program undertook two efforts relevant to Iarg4-capacity septic systems. First, the
program promulgated regulations prohibiting the construction of |new large capacity cesspools, and
ordered all existing large capacity cesspools to be closed by April 5,2005. Second, the program
completed a comprehensive study of shallow injection wells, including septic systems, that are regulated
under the Underground Injection Control Program.(16) USEPA found that, while the prevalence of
contamination cases appears low relative to the prevalence of these systems, there are documented
examples which implicate these large systems as sources of ground water contamination, and that they are
being addressed locally.
i
i
On June 7,2002 (67 FR 39583), USEPA announced a final deteijmination for all sub-classes of Class V
wells (such as large capacity septic systems), not included in the December 7, 1999 final UIC rule. The
agency determined that additional federal requirements are not nbeded, at this time, and existing federal
underground injection control regulations are adequate to prevent Class V wells from endangering
USDWs. This is based on the actions USEPA is taking to improve the performance of onsite and cluster
systems through the development of these Management Guidelines.
Coastal Zone Management Act
i
USEPA and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) jointly administer
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1992. This provision
requires the 29 States with approved Coastal Zone Management Programs to establish and implement
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. These programs must include management measures for
both new and operating onsite sewage dispersal systems (OSDS). The measures are described in EPA's
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters(17). The
measure for new OSDS specifies that they be designed, installed! and operated properly and be situated at
safe distances from sensitive resources including wetlands and flood plains. Protective separation between
the bottom of the infiltration system and ground water tables is to be established, and OSDS are to be
designed to reduce nitrogen loadings in areas where surface waters may be adversely affected. The
measure for operating OSDS requires operation and maintenance to prevent surface water discharge and
reduce loadings to groundwater, as well as inspection at regular lime intervals and repair/replacement of
faulty systems. The OSDS measures described above are consistent with many of the concepts described
in these Guidelines. '
i
Nonpoint Source Program i
Congress established the national nonpoint source (NFS) program in 1987 when it amended the Clean
Water Act with Section 319. States were required to conduct nonpoint source assessments and develop
USEPA approved "Nonpoint Source Management Programs." All States and Territories and, as of
September 2001, over 70 Tribes (representing over 70% of Indian lands) now have EPA-approved
nonpoint source assessments and management programs. Typical categories of nonpoint sources
identified and addressed in the state, territorial and tribal assessments and management plans include:
-------
Appendix C: Relationship to Other USEPA Water Programs
agriculture, urban, onsite disposal systems, forestry and hydromodification. In some states, the primary
responsibility for managing onsite and cluster systems falls within the purview of the NFS program.
Congress provides funding to assist the states, territories and tribes in developing and implementing their
NPS management programs. These funds can be used by states, territories and tribes to address sources
identified within in their management programs submissions. States, territories and tribes can use these
funds to promote, demonstrate and fund activities relating to onsite and cluster management programs
including monitoring, program assessments and development, demonstration projects, research, public
education and outreach and system replacement/rehabilitation. The voluntary Guidelines are intended to
support the achievement of the goals of the state, territorial and tribal programs as they relate to onsite
and cluster program management.
Technology Transfer
USEPA has recently published the Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (Onsite Manual) to
provide new information on alternative treatment technologies and to promote a performance-based
approach to onsite and cluster wastewater system management. This document is an update of EPA's
1980 Design Manual - Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems^' The Onsite Manual serves
as the technical complement to the Management Guidelines and as a reference to identify the
environmental, technological, administrative and public health factors to consider when developing an
improved management program. 1'he Onsite Manual contains information that can be used by program
managers in assessing the environmental impacts of specific onsite and cluster wastewater treatment
technologies on both the watershed and individual site levels and in the selection of appropriate
technologies.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
COMPLIANCE
INSPECTIONS/
Codify prescriptive, pre-engineered desiigns, which are suitable for treatment sites that meet the
appropriate prescriptive site criteria.:
Obtain certification/license to practice. ;
Design treatment system that is compatible with the site and soil characteristics described by the
site evaluator.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design of wastewater
treatment and dispersal systems. i
Hire a certified/licensed designer to prepare system design.
Administer a permitting program for sysitem construction, including Regulatory Authority review of
proposed system siting and design |)lans.
Perform final construction inspection fof compliance assurance and inventory data collection.
Require record drawings of constructed system be submitted to the Regulatory Authority by
Owner.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Construct system in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Prepare record drawings of completed system and submit to Owner.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design and construction
of wastewater treatment and disperwal systems.
Approve proposed field changes and submit to Owner.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design and construction
of wastewater treatment and dispersal systems.
Hire a certified/licensed contractor/installer to construct system.
Submit final record drawings of constructed system to Regulatory Authority
Provide Owner/User with educational rhaterials regarding system use and care.
Send timely reminder to Owner of wheri scheduled preventive maintenance is due.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Inspect and service system as necessary.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Perform recommended routine maintenance or hire certified/licensed pumper/hauler to perform
maintenance. [
Hire certified/licensed pumper/hauler periodically to inspect, service, and remove septage for
proper treatment and disposal.
Follow recommendations provided by Regulatory Authority, Service Providers, and/or Owner to
ensure undesirable or prohibited materials are not discharged to system.
Administer a tracking system for residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal and review to evaluate
compliance with 40 CFR Part 503 Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 257, and
applicable state/tribal/local requirements.
Inventory available residuals handling/treatment capacities and develop contingency plans to
ensure sufficient capacities are always available.
Obtain certification/license to practice.!
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the pumping, hauling,
treatment, and disposal of treatment system residuals.
Conduct final construction inspections jto assure compliance with approved plans and permit
requirements.
Perform compliance inspections at poipt-of-sale, change-in-use of properties, "targeted areas"
and/or systems reported to be in violation.
Conduct compliance inspections of resliduals hauling, treatment, and disposal.
Inform Owner of any non-compliant items observed during routine servicing of system.
Periodically perform a "walk-over" inspection of the system and correct any deficiencies.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
PARTY
^tfaSMM
Pumper/Hauler
Owner
Regulatory
Authority
Negotiate compliance schedule with Owner for correcting documented non-compliance items.
Administer enforcement program including fines and/or penalties for failure to comply with
compliance requirements.
Obtain necessary authority to enter property to correct imminent treats to public health if the
Owner/User fails to comply.
Provide Owner with documents (drawings, specifications, modifications, etc.) that may be required
by Regulatory Authority prior to corrective action.
Perform required repairs/modifications/upgrades as necessary.
Comply with terms and conditions of the negotiated compliance schedule.
Submit required documents for corrective actions to Regulatory Authority.
Hire appropriate certified/licensed Service Providers to perform required corrective actions.
Administer a database inventory (locations, site evaluations, record drawings, permits, performed
maintenance, inspection reports) of all systems.
Maintain residuals treatment and disposal tracking system.
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing that is available to the public.
Prepare and submit records of residuals handling as required.
Maintain approved record drawings of system.
Maintain maintenance records of system.
Provide drawings, specifications and maintenance records to new property owner at time of
property transfer.
Provide the legal and financial support to sustain the management program.
Provide listing of financial assistance programs available to Owner and the qualifying criteria for
each program.
Consider implementing a state or local financing program to assist Owners in upgrading their
systems.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
i
MAGEMENT MODEL 2: MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
Objective: To allow use of more complex mechanical treatment options or small clusters through the requirement that maintenance contracts be
maMalmd between the Owner and maintenance provider to ensure appropriate and timely system component maintenance by qualified technics
over the service life of the system.
tans
'"pROlSAli i"
=NT
HiyillllllJII!!:!::!!";!!1!*^!"!!!!!!!
IRAIN,!NGAND
CERT*iCATION/
• LICENSING
Regulatory
Authority
Service Provider
Owner/User
Regulatory
Authority
Developer
Regulatory
Authority
Owner/User
Licensing Board/
Regulatory
Authority
Service Provider
Owner/User
Educate Owner/User on purpose, use, iand care of treatment system.
'rovide public review and comment periods of any proposed program and/or rule changes.
Be informed of existing rules and review and comment on any proposed program and/or rule
changes.
'articipate in advisory committees established by the Regulatory Authority
Be informed of purpose, use, and care bf treatment system.
Be informed of existing rules and review and comment on any proposed program and/or rule
changes.
Participate in advisory committees established by the Regulatory Authority.
Coordinate program rules and regulaticins with state/tribal/ local planning and zoning and other
water related programs.
Evaluate potential risks of wastewater (jlischarges to limit environmental impacts on receiving
environments during the rule making process.
Limit potential risks of environmental impacts from residuals management program and evaluate
available handling/treatment capacities.
Inform local planning authority of rule changes and recommend their evaluation of potential
impacts on land use.
Hire planners, certified site evaluators and designers to assure all lots of proposed subdivision
plats meet requirements for onsite treatment prior to final plat.
Establish system failure criteria to protect public health, e.g. wastewater backups in building,
wastewater ponding on ground surface, insufficient separation from groundwater, wells, etc.
Establish minimum performance requirements for manufactured component approvals.
Establish minimum maintenance requirements for approved systems.
Regularly maintain system in proper working order.
Develop and administer training, testing, and certification/licensing program for site evaluators,
designers, contractors, operators, find haulers/pumpers.
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing.
Obtain appropriate certification(s)/licerlse(s) and continuing education as required.
Obtain training from the manufacturer or vendor regarding appropriate use, installation
requirements and operation and (maintenance procedures of any proprietary equipment to be
installed.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements
When using third party services, contract only with the appropriate certified/licensed Service
Providers.
IS:-!',":
Regulatory
Authority
Codify prescriptive requirements for site evaluation procedures.
Codify criteria for treatment site characteristics suitable for permitted designs that will prevent
unacceptable impacts on ground surface water resources.
Establish alternative site acceptance criteria for approved systems providing enhanced
pretreatment.
Site Evaluator
Obtain certification/license to practice,
Describe site and soil characteristics, determine suitability of site with respect to code
requirements and estimate site's hydraulic and treatment capacity.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the evaluation of sites for
wastewater treatment and dispers al.
Owner
Hire a certified/licensed site evaluator to perform site evaluation.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
KM*,
RESPONSIBLE
,, PARTY
Regulatory
Authority
Designer
Owner
Regulatory
Authority
IR-
Contractor/
Installer
Designer of
Record
Owner
Regulatory
Authority
Operator
Pumper/ Hauler
Owner
User
ACTIVITY
Codify prescriptive, pre-engineered designs, which are suitable for treatment sites that meet the
appropriate prescriptive site criteria.
Administer an evaluation program for approving manufactured components for use with pre-
engineered designs.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Design treatment system that is compatible with the site and soil characteristics described by the
site evaluator.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design of wastewater
treatment and dispersal systems.
Hire a certified/licensed designer to prepare system design.
Administer a permitting program for system construction, including Regulatory Authority review of
proposed system siting and design plans.
Perform final construction inspection for compliance assurance and inventory data collection.
Require record drawings of constructed system be submitted to the Regulatory Authority by
Owner.
Require Owner to submit a copy of system O&M manual to the Regulatory Authority.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Construct system in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Prepare record drawings of completed system and submit to Owner.
Provide Owner with an O&M manual describing component manufacturer's maintenance and
troubleshooting requirements/recommendations.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design and construction
of wastewater treatment and dispersal systems.
Approve proposed field changes and submit to Owner.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design and construction
of wastewater treatment and dispersal systems.
Hire a certified/licensed contractor/installer to construct system.
Submit final record drawings of constructed system to Regulatory Authority
Submit copy of system O&M manual to Regulatory Authority to record required maintenance.
Provide Owner/User with educational materials regarding system use and care.
Send timely reminder to Owner when scheduled preventive maintenance is due.
Administer a program that requires the Owner to attest periodically that he/she holds a valid
contract with a certified/licensed operator to perform scheduled and any necessary
maintenance according to the maintenance requirements described in submitted O&M manual.
Require Owner to submit a maintenance report signed/sealed by certified/licensed operator
immediately following scheduled maintenance.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Inspect and service system as necessary in accordance with the submitted O&M manual.
Certify to Owner that the required maintenance was performed in timely manner describing any
system deficiencies observed.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Inspect and service system as necessary.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Hire certified/licensed pumper/hauler periodically to inspect, service, and remove septage or other
residuals for proper treatment and disposal.
Maintain contractual agreement with a certified/licensed operator to perform scheduled
maintenance as required.
Inform Regulatory Authority of any change in maintenance contract status.
Follow recommendations provided by Regulatory Authority, Service Providers, and/or Owner to
ensure undesirable or prohibited materials are not discharged to system.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
Regulatory
Authority
Designer
Contractor/
Installer
Owner
Administer a tracking system for residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal and review to evaluate
compliance with 40 CFR Part 503 Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 257, and
applicable state/tribal/local requirements.
nventory available residuals handling/treatment capacities and develop contingency plans to
ensure sufficient capacities are always available.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the pumping, hauling,
treatment, and disposal of treatment! system residuals.
Conduct final construction inspections to assure compliance with approved plans and permit
requirements.
Perform compliance inspections at poin!;-of-sale, change-in-use of properties, targeted areas
and/or systems reported to be in violation.
Conduct compliance inspections of residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal.
Administer program for confirming Owners hold valid maintenance contracts with certified/licensed
operators and for monitoring timely submittals of certified maintenance reports.
Inform Owner of any non-compliant items observed during routine servicing of system.
Periodically perform a "walk-over" inspection of the system and correct any deficiencies.
Attest to the Regulatory Authority that a valid contract exists with a certified/licensed operator to
perform necessary system mainten ance.
Submit a maintenance report signed/sealed by a certified/licensed Service Provider immediately
following scheduled maintenance.
Negotiate compliance schedule with Ovmer for correcting documented non-compliant items.
Administer enforcement program including fines and/or penalties for failure to comply with
compliance requirements. ,,., tu
Obtain necessary authority to enter property to correct imminent treats to public health if the
Owner/User fails to comply.
Provide Owner with documents (drawings, specifications, modifications, etc.) that may be required
by Regulatory Authority prior to corrective action.
Perform required repairs/modifications/upgrades as necessary
Comply with terms and conditions of the negotiated compliance schedule.
Submit required documents for correctii/e actions to Regulatory Authority.
Hire appropriate certified/licensed Service Providers to perform required corrective actions.
Regularity
Authority
Administer a database inventory (locations, site evaluations, record drawings, permits, performed
maintenance, inspection reports) of all systems.
Maintain residuals treatment and disposal tracking system.
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing that is available to the public.
Administer an Owner/Service Provider maintenance contract compliance and certified
maintenance report tracking systerp.
Record maintenance contract requirement on property deed.
Administer a certified maintenance report tracking system.
Operator
Provide certified report of all maintenance and observed system deficiencies to Owner.
Pumper/Hauler
Prepare and submit records of residuals handling as required.
Owner
Maintain approved record drawings and O&M manual of system.
Maintain maintenance records of syste'm.
Provide drawings, specifications, O&M, manual, and maintenance records to new property owner
at time of property transfer. j _
Regulatory
Authority
Provide the legal and financial support.to sustain the management program.
Provide listing of financial assistance programs available to Owner/User and the qualifying criteria
for each program. !
Consider implementing a state or local, financing program to assist Owners in upgrading their
systems. ;
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
MANAGEMENT MODEL 3: OPERATING PERMITS
Objective: To issue renewable/revocable operating permits to system Owner that stipulate specific and measurable performance requirements for
the treatment system and periodic submittals of compliance monitoring reports. The performance requirements are based on risks to public health
and water resources posed by wastewater dispersal in the receiving environment. Operating permits allow the use of cluster or onsite systems on
sites with a greater range of site characteristics.
PROGRAM
^ELEMENT
REjJpqNSIBJJ
PARTY _
ACTIVITY
?'*"'*''»"' 1 Hi
ISUCATION AND
Regulatory
Authority
Educate Owner/User on purpose, use, and care of treatment system.
Provide public review and comment periods of any proposed program and/or rule changes.
Service Provider
Be informed of existing rules and review and comment on any proposed program and/or rule
changes.
Participate in advisory committees established by the Regulatory Authority
Owner/User
Be informed of purpose, use, and care of treatment system.
Be informed of existing rules and review and comment on any proposed program and/or rule
changes.
Participate in advisory committees established by the Regulatory Authority.
PLANNING
Regulatory
Authority
Coordinate program rules and regulations with state/tribal/ local planning and zoning and other
water related programs.
Evaluate potential risks of wastewater discharges to limit environmental impacts on receiving
environments during the rule making process.
Limit potential risks of environmental impacts from residuals management program and evaluate
available handling/treatment capacities.
Inform local planning authority of rule changes and recommend their evaluation of potential
impacts on land use.
Developer
Hire planners, certified site evaluators and designers to assure all lots of proposed subdivision
plats meet requirements for onsite treatment prior to final plat.
Regulatory
Authority
^PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS
Establish system failure criteria to protect public health, e.g. wastewater backups in building,
wastewater ponding on ground surface, insufficient separation from groundwater, wells, etc.
Establish minimum maintenance requirements for approved systems.
Establish performance requirements necessary to protect public health and water resources for
each defined receiving environment in the Regulatory Authority's jurisdiction.
Owner/User
Operate and regularly maintain system in proper working order.
Operate system to comply with performance requirements stipulated in the operating permit.
Licensing Board/
Regulatory
Authority
Develop and administer training, testing, and certification/licensing program for site evaluators,
designers, contractors, operators, haulers/pumpers, and inspectors.
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing.
.TRAINING AND
CERTIFICATION/
LICENSING
Service Provider
Obtain appropriate certification(s)/license(s) and continuing education as required.
Obtain training from the manufacturer or vendor regarding appropriate use, installation
requirements and operation and maintenance procedures of any proprietary equipment to be
installed.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements.
Owner/User
When using third party services, contract only with the appropriate certified/licensed Service
Providers.
Regulatory
Authority
SITE
IVALUATION
Codify prescriptive requirements for site evaluation procedures.
Codify criteria for treatment site characteristics suitable for permitted designs that will prevent
unacceptable impacts on ground and surface water resources.
Establish defining characteristics for each receiving environment in the Regulatory Authority's
jurisdiction.
Site Evaluator
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Describe site and soil characteristics, determine suitability of site with respect to code
requirements and estimate site's hydraulic and treatment capacity
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the evaluation of sites for
wastewater treatment and dispersal.
Owner
Hire a certified/licensed site evaluator to perform site evaluation.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
Codify prescriptive, pre-engineered designs, which are suitable for treatment sites that meet the
appropriate prescriptive site criteria.:
Administer plan review program for engineered designs to meet stipulated performance
requirements.
Require routine operation and emergency contingency plans be submitted that will sustain system
performance and avoid unpermittedj discharges.
Obtain certification/license to practice. I
Certified/licensed designer to design treatment system that is compatible with the site and soil
characteristics described by the sita| evaluator.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design of wastewater
treatment and dispersal systems. :
Hire a certified/licensed designer to prepare system design.
Administer a permitting program for system construction, including Regulatory Authority review of
proposed system siting and design plans.
Require designer of record to certify thaf completed system construction is in substantial
compliance with approved plans and specifications.
Require record drawings of constructed system be submitted to the Regulatory Authority by
Owner.
Require Owner to submit a copy of system O&M manual to the Regulatory Authority.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Construct system in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Prepare record drawings of completed system and submit to Owner.
Provide Owner with an O&M manual dejscribing component manufacturer's maintenance and
troubleshooting requirements/reconnmendations.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tiibal, and local requirements in the design and construction
of wastewater treatment and dispersal systems.
Approve proposed field changes and submit to Owner.
Designer of record to certify that construction of the system is substantially in conformance with
the approved plans and specifications. !
Hire a certified/licensed contractor/installer to construct system.
Submit final record drawings of constructed system to Regulatory Authority
Submit copy of system O&M manual to Regulatory Authority to record required maintenance.
Provide Owner/User with educational materials regarding system use and care.
Administer a program of renewable/revocable operating permits that are issued to Owner
stipulating system performance requirements, compliance monitoring reporting schedule, term
of permit, and renewal option upon documented compliance with permit.
Track and review compliance monitorirg reports for to ensure systems are operating in
accordance with operating permits.) ___
Obtain certification/license to practice. ,
Inspect and service system as necessary in accordance with the submitted O&M manual and/or
operating permit stipulations. I
Certify to Owner that the required maintenance was performed In timely manner describing any
system deficiencies observed.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tjibal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Obtain certification/license to practice, i
Inspect and service system as necessary.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and displersal system.
Hire a certified/licensed pumper/haulerj or operator to maintain system.
Maintain system in proper working ordibr.
Operate and maintain the system in accordance with O&M manual and/or operating permit
stipulations.
Submit compliance monitoring reports to the Regulatory Authority according to the schedule
stipulated in the operating permit.
r
Follow recommendations provided by Regulatory Authority, and/or Service Providers to ensure
nnrtefiirahlR or orohibited materials are not discharged to system.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
"?' PROGRAM
ACTIVITY
Regulatory
Authority
:
Administer a tracking system for residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal and review to evaluate
compliance with 40 CFR Part 503 Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 257, and
applicable state/tribal/local requirements.
Inventory available residuals handling/treatment capacities and develop contingency plans to
ensure sufficient capacities are always available.
Pumper/Hauler
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the pumping, hauling,
treatment, and disposal of treatment system residuals.
Regulatory
Authority
SPECTIONS/
'
Perform inspection programs at point-of-saie, change-in-use of properties, "targeted areas" and/or
systems reported to be in violation.
Conduct compliance inspections of residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal.
Administer a program to monitor timely submittals of acceptable compliance maintenance reports.
Notify Owner of impending scheduled submittals of compliance monitoring reports.
Perform system inspections randomly and/or at time of operating permit renewal.
Operator or
Pumper/Haler
Inform Owner of any non-compliant items observed during routine servicing of system.
Owner
Submit compliance monitoring reports to Regulatory Authority as stipulated in operating permit.
Submit compliance inspection report signed/sealed by a certified/licensed inspector prior to
applying for renewal of operating permit.
Regulatory
Authority
Negotiate compliance schedule with Owner for correcting documented non-compliant items.
Administer enforcement program including fines and/or penalties for failure to comply with
compliance requirements
Obtain necessary authority to enter property to correct imminent threats to public health if the
Owner/User fails to comply.
Require system inspection by certified inspector at time of operating permit renewal.
Designer
Provide Owner with documents (drawings, specifications, modifications, etc.) that may be required
by Regulatory Authority prior to corrective action.
Contractor/
Installer
Perform required repairs/modifications/upgrades as necessary.
Inspector
Obtain certification/license to practice.
inspect treatment system for compliance with operating permit prior to permit renewal.
Owner
Comply with terms and conditions of the negotiated compliance schedule.
Submit required documents for corrective actions to Regulatory Authority.
Hire appropriate certified/licensed Service Providers to perform required corrective actions.
Si-iMi^ b J' -i|" ', ,i /'«
Jl^-'^fir
if^T^WV'"1' •'•' 'I'l-'i*
*'!-:'RECORD "'
$' KE'EPING, J"
I INVENTORY, &
Regulatory
Authority
Administer a database inventory (locations, site evaluations, record drawings, permits, performed
maintenance, and inspection reports) of all systems.
Maintain residuals treatment and disposal tracking system.
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing that is available to the public.
Administer a tracking system for operating permits.
Administer a tracking database for compliance reports.
,,,
Operator or
Inspector
Provide certified report of all maintenance and observed system deficiencies to Owner.
Perform system monitoring as stipulated in Owner's operating permit.
Pumper/Hauler
Prepare and submit records of residuals handling as required.
Owner
Maintain approved record drawings and O&M manual of system.
Maintain maintenance records of system.
Submit compliance monitoring reports to Regulatory Authority.
Provide drawings, specifications, O&M manual, and maintenance records to new property owner
at time of property transfer.
Regulatory
Authority
Provide the legal and financial support to sustain the management program.
Provide listing of financial assistance programs available to Owner/User and the qualifying criteria
for each program.
Consider implementing a state or local financing program to assist Owners in upgrading their
systems.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
MANAGEMENT MODEL 4: RME OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Objective: To ensure that onsite/decentralized systems consistently meet their stipulated performance requirements through Responsible
Management Entities that are responsible for operation and performance of systems within their service areas.
^ACTIVITY
Regulatory
Authority
Owner
RME
Educate Owner/User on purpose, use, and care of treatment system.
Hold public meetings to inform the public of any proposed program and/or rule changes.
Be informed of existing rules and reviev/ and comment on any proposed program and/or rule
changes. :
Participate in advisory committees established by the Regulatory Authority.
Be informed of purpose, use, and care of treatment system.
Be informed of existing rules and reviev/ and comment on any proposed program and/or rule
changes.
Participate in advisory committees established by the Regulatory Authority.
Inform Owner/User of care and use of sjystem.
Inform Owner/User of RME requirements and prohibited uses of system.
Coordinate program rules and regulations with state/tribal/ local planning and zoning and other
water related programs.
Evaluate potential risks of wastewater discharges to limit environmental impacts on receiving
environments during the rule making process.
Limit potential risks of environmental impacts from residuals management program and evaluate
available handling/treatment capacijties.
Inform local planning authority of rule changes and recommend their evaluation of potential
impacts on land use.
Hire planners, certified site evaluators and designers to assure all lots of proposed subdivision
plats meet requirements for onsite ijreatment prior to final plat.
Develop criteria (e.g. site evaluation, design, construction) to be required of systems for
acceptance into O&M program and] inform Owners.
Continuously evaluate existing wastewater treatment needs and forecast future needs.
Establish system failure criteria to protect public health, e.g. wastewater backups in building,
wastewater ponding on ground surface, insufficient separation from groundwater, wells, etc.
Establish minimum maintenance requirements for approved systems.
Establish performance requirements nelcessary to protect public health and water resources for
each defined receiving environment in the Regulatory Authority's jurisdiction.
Regularly maintain system components in proper working order.
Comply with any RME requirements regarding care and use of system.
Operate systems to comply with perfonjnance requirements stipulated in the operating permits.
Licensing Board/
Regulatory
Authority
Develop and administer training, testing, and certification/licensing program for site evaluators,
designers, contractors, operators, hiaulers/pumpers, and inspectors.
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing.
Service Provider
Obtain appropriate certification(s)/liceni3e(s) and continuing education as required.
Obtain training from the manufacturer cir vendor regarding appropriate use, installation
requirements and operation and maintenance procedures of any proprietary equipment to be
installed. '
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the evaluation of sites for
wastewater treatment and dispersS|l.
Owner
When using third party services, contract only with the appropriate certified/licensed Service
Providers.
RME
When using third party services, contract only with the appropriate certified/licensed Service
Providers
RME staff who operate, and/or maintain systems must obtain appropriate certification(s)/license(s)
to practice.
Arrange for supplemental training as needed for Service Providers and/or staff to manage,
operate, and/or maintain systems.
-------
Appendix D: Management Mode)s
r
^
L
f
RESPONSIBLE
*:>AITY:,
Regulatory
Authority
Site Evaluator
Owner
Regulatory
Authority
Designer
Owner
Regulatory
Authority
Contractor/
Installer
Designer of
Record
Owner
•ZffiPte s At , *^L »*'*• %^ jas*JBMS***«ar' f •»**-*« •- ' • : ' v -•• '|
ACTIVITY
Codify prescriptive requirements for site evaluation procedures.
Codify criteria for treatment site characteristics suitable for permitted designs that will prevent
unacceptable impacts on ground and surface water resources.
Establish the defining characteristics of each receiving environment in the Regulatory Authority's
jurisdiction.
Approve and oversee site evaluation procedures required by RME for system acceptance in the
O&M program to ensure system designs are appropriate for the sites and their stipulated
performance requirements.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Describe site and soil characteristics, determine suitability of site with respect to code
requirements and estimate site's hydraulic and treatment capacity.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the evaluation of sites for
wastewater treatment and dispersal.
Hire a certified/licensed site evaluator to perform site evaluation.
Comply with any additional siting requirements established by RME for system acceptance in the
O&M program.
Codify prescriptive, pre-engineered designs, which are suitable for treatment sites that meet the
appropriate prescriptive site criteria.
Administer plan review program for engineered designs to meet stipulated performance
requirements.
Require routine operation and emergency contingency plans that will sustain system performance
and avoid unpermitted discharges be submitted.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Design treatment system that is compatible with the site and soil characteristics described by the
site evaluator.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design of wastewater
treatment and dispersal systems.
Hire a certified/licensed designer to prepare system design.
Comply with any additional design requirements established by the RME for system acceptance in
the O&M program.
Administer a permitting program for system construction, including Regulatory Authority review of
proposed system siting and design plans.
Require designer of record to certify that completed system construction is in substantial
compliance with approved plans and specifications.
Require record drawings of constructed system be submitted to the Regulatory Authority by
Owner.
Require Owner to submit a copy of system O&M manual to the Regulatory Authority and RME.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Construct system in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Prepare record drawings of completed system and submit to Owner.
Provide Owner with an O&M manual describing component manufacturer's maintenance and
troubleshooting requirements/recommendations.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design and construction
of wastewater treatment and dispersal systems.
Approve proposed field changes and submit to Owner.
Certify that construction of the system is substantially in conformance with the approved plans and
specifications.
Comply with any additional construction requirements established by the RME for system
acceptance in the O&M program.
Hire a certified/licensed designer to prepare system design.
Submit final record drawings of constructed system to Regulatory Authority
Submit copy of system O&M manual to Regulatory Authority and RME to record required
maintenance.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
Owner/User
RME
Regulatory
Authority
Pumper/Hauler
RME
Regulatory
Authority
Inspector
RME
Provide Owner/User with educational materials regarding system use and care.
Administer a program of renewable/revocable operating permits that are issued to RME,
stipulating system performance requirements, compliance monitoring reporting schedule, term
of permit, and renewal option upon
Consider replacing individual system o|
classes of systems.
documented compliance with operating permit stipulations.
Track and review compliance monitorirg reports for to ensure systems are operating in
accordance with operating permits.
ierating permits with general permits issued to the RME for
Inspect and service system as necesss ry in accordance with the submitted O&M manual and/or
operating permit stipulations.
Perform system monitoring as stipulated in RME's operating permit.
Certify to RME that the required maintenance and monitoring was performed timely and noting any
system deficiencies.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Inspect and service system as necessary.
Comply with applicable federal, state, t-ibal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Follow recommendations provided by Fpgulatory Authority, Service Providers, and/or Owner to
ensure undesirable or prohibited materials are not discharged to system.
Maintain system components in proper'working order.
Comply with any RME requirements regarding care and use of system.
Operate and maintain systems in accordance with the stipulated operating permit requirements.
Submit compliance monitoring reports to the Regulatory Authority according to the schedule
stipulated In the operating permit.
Hire a certified/licensed pumper/hauler or operator to maintain system.
Administer a tracking system for residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal and review to evaluate
compliance with 40 CFR Part 503 Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 257, and
applicable state/tribal/local requirements.
Inventory available residuals handling/treatment capacities and develop contingency plans to
ensure sufficient capacities are always available.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the pumping, hauling,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater treatment system residuals.
Hire a certified/licensed pumper/hauler to remove, treat, and dispose of residuals.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tifibal, and local requirements In the pumping, hauling,
treatment, and disposal of treatment system residuals.
Inventory available residuals handling/treatment capacities and develop contingency plans when
insufficient capacities are available!
Perform inspection programs at point-of-sale, change-in-use of properties, "targeted areas" and/or
systems reported to be in violation.
Conduct compliance inspections of residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal.
Administer a program to monitoring timely submittals of acceptable compliance maintenance
reports.
Perform system inspections randomly and/or at time of operating permit renewal.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Perform system compliance inspections for RME in accordance with prevailing Regulatory
Authority requirements.
Submit compliance monitoring reports 1p Regulatory Authority as stipulated in operating permit.
Submit compliance inspection report signed/sealed by a certified/licensed inspector prior to
applying for renewal of operating permit.
Conduct regular reviews of management program with Owner/User and Regulatory Authority to
optimize system operation program.
Hire a certified/licensed inspector to inspect system compliance status.
-------
Appendix D: Management ModeJs
^E PROGRAM
t
•pftRRECTWE
|ijACTIONS AND
IpijFORCEMENT
fc
PL
glg-KEEPING,
^INVENTORY, &
||fcKf*S ™-4***t (
\y~- i
5" '
BfpEpANCiAL. ,*"
jraSslSTANCE &
;
-
^
llPll-^-f _
RfSPONSIBkE
PARTY
Regulatory
Authority
Designer
Contractor/
Installer
Inspector
Owner
RME
Regulatory
Authority
Operator or
Inspector
Pumper/Hauler
Owner
RME
Regulatory
Authority
RME
ACTIVITY
Negotiate compliance schedules with RME for correcting documented non-compliance items.
Administer enforcement program including fines and/or penalties for failure to comply with
compliance requirements.
Obtain necessary authority to enter property to correct imminent threats to public health if the
Owner/User fails to comply.
Require system inspection by certified inspector at time of operating permit renewal.
Negotiate compliance schedules with RME, Owner/User, or both for correcting documented non-
compliance items.
Provide Owner/RME with documents (drawings, specifications, modifications, etc.) that may be
required by Regulatory Authority prior to corrective actions.
Perform required repairs/modifications/upgrades as necessary.
Inspect treatment system for compliance with operating permit prior to permit renewal.
Comply with terms and conditions of the negotiated compliance schedule for component
replacement/repairs.
Submit required documents for corrective actions to Regulatory Authority.
Hire appropriate certified/licensed Service Providers to perform required corrective actions.
Comply with terms and conditions of the negotiated compliance schedule for system performance.
Administer a database inventory (locations, site evaluations, record drawings, permits, performed
maintenance, and inspection reports) of all systems.
Maintain residuals treatment and disposal tracking system.
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing that is available to the public.
Administer a tracking system for operating permits.
Administer a tracking database for compliance reports.
Administer periodic financial, management, and technical audits of RME.
Provide certified report of all maintenance and observed system deficiencies to RME.
Provide certified report of all observed system deficiencies to Owner
Perform system monitoring as stipulated in RME's operating permit.
Prepare and submit records of residuals handlinq as required
Maintain approved record drawings and O&M manual of system.
Maintain maintenance records of system.
Provide drawings, specifications, O&M manual, and maintenance records to new property owner
at time of property transfer.
Maintain system monitoring and service records.
Inventory, collect, and provide permit information to Regulatory Authority.
Provide the legal and financial support to sustain the management program.
Provide listing of financial assistance programs available to Owner/User and the qualifying criteria
for each program.
Consider implementing a state or local financing program to assist Owners in upgrading their
systems.
Conduct regular reviews of management program with Owner/User and Regulatory Authority to
optimize operations.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
MANAGEMENT MODEL 5: RMEl OWNERSHIP
Objective- To provide professional management of the planning, siting, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of onsite/decentralized
systems through Responsible Management Entities that own and manage individual ahd cluster systems within its service area.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
PROGRAM I jRESPONSIBUE
ELiMENT ! .PARTY
ACTIVITY
Codify prescriptive requirements for site evaluation procedures
Codify criteria for treatment site characteristics suitable for permitted designs that will prevent
unacceptable impacts on ground surface water resources
characteristios of each receiv'n9 environment in the Regulatory Authority's
Approve and oversee site evaluation procedures used by RME to ensure system designs are
appropriate for the sites and their stipulated performance requirements
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Describe site and soil characteristics, determine suitability of site with respect to code
requirements and estimate site's hydraulic and treatment capacity
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the evaluation of sites for
wastewater treatment and dispersal.
Hire a certified/licensed site evaluatorto perform site evaluation.
Codify prescriptive, pre-engineered designs, which are suitable for treatment sites that meet the
appropriate prescriptive site criteria.
Administer plan review program for engineered designs to meet stipulated performance
requirements.
!°n and emergency contingency plans that will sustain system performance
unpermitted discharges be submitted.
Obtain certification/license to practice
is compatible with the site and soil
Hire a certified/licensed designer to prepare system design.
Administer a permitting program for system construction, including Regulatory Authority review of
proposed system siting and design plans.
Require designer of record to certify that completed system construction is in substantial
compliance with approved plans and specifications.
Require record drawings of constructed system be submitted to the Regulatory Authority by RME.
Obtain certification/license to practice.
Construct system in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
repare record drawings of completed system and submit to RME
'rovide RME with an O&M manual describing component manufacturer's maintenance and
troubleshooting requirements/recommendations.
Comply with applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements in the design and construction
of wastewater treatment and dispersal systems.
Approve proposed field changes and submit to RME.
Certify that construction of the system is substantially in conformance with the approved plans and
specif icstio n s.
-lire a certified/licensed designer to prepare system design.
Submit final record drawings of constructed system to Regulatory Authority
ubmit copy of system O&M manual to Regulatory Authority to record required maintenance
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
Provide User with educational materials regarding system use and care.
Administer a program of renewable/revocable operating permits that are issued to RME which
sSpulate system performance requirements, compliance monitoring repprtmg ^hedule term
of permit and renewal option upon documented compliance with operating permit stipulations.
Track and review compliance monitoring reports for to ensure systems are operating in
permits with genera, permits issued to the RME for
classes of systems.
Inspect and service system as necesstary in accordance with the submitted O&M manual and/or
operating permit stipulations.
Perform system monitoring as stipulated in RME's operating permit.
Certify to RME that the required main enance and monitoring was performed timely and noting any
myel, state, tribal, and local requirements in the operation and
maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Obtain certification/license to practice).
^ I, and local requirements in the operation and
'maintenance of treatment and dispersal system.
Follow recommendations provided bj Regulatory Authority, Service Providers, and/or Owner to
ensure undesirable or prohibited materials are not discharged to system.
Comply with any RME requirements regarding care and use of system.
Operate and maintain systems in accordance with the stipulated operating permit requirements.
Submit compliance monitoring reports to the Regulatory Authority according to the schedule
stipulated in the operating permit
Hire certified/licensed pumper/haulei; or operator to maintain system.
OHO WOI IIIIOW/ liuwi ivwu ^ .-..,.[- — ... ------ 1 i _ __ _ _ __ - _ - . — , — - ;
Administer a tracking system for residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal and review to evaluate
compliance with 40 CFR Part 50J3 Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 257, ana
S^Sment capacities and develop contingency plans when
insufficient capacities are available.
Comply with applicable federal, stall, tribal, and local requirements In the pumping, hauling,
treatment, and disposal of wasteiwater treatment system residuals.
insufficient capacities are availale.
Perform inspection programs at point-of-sale, change-in-use of properties, "targeted areas" and/or
systems reported to be in violation.
Conduct compliance inspections of residuals hauling, treatment, and disposal.
Adminfeter a program to monitoring timely submittals of acceptable compliance maintenance
'
Perforrn'system inspections randomly and/or at time of operating permit renewal.
- " " '
in accordance with prevailing Regulatory
Authority requirements.
Submit compliance monitoring repclrts to Regulatory Authority as stipulated in operating permit.
Submit rampllance inspection report signed/sealed by a certified/licensed inspector prior to
Conrcltg±r;^
operation program.
Hire a certified/licensed inspector to inspect system compliance status.
-------
Appendix D: Management Models
AnS6 comfpliance sched"les with RME for correcting documented non-compiiance items.
Administer enforcement program including fines and/or penalties for failure to comply with
compliance requirements. wii^iy wun
Require system inspection by certified inspector at time of operating permit renewal
Negotiate compliance schedules with RME for correcting documented non-compliance items.
Provide RME with documents (drawings, specifications, modifications, etc.) that may be required
by Regulatory Authority prior to corrective action.
Perform required repairs/modifications/upgrades as necessary.
Inspect treatment system for compliance with operating permit prior to permit renewal.
Comply with terms and conditions of the negotiated compliance schedule
Submit required documents for corrective actions to Regulatory Authority
Hire appropriate certified/licensed Service Providers to perform required corrective actions
Administer a database inventory (locations, site evaluations, record drawings permits and
inspection reports) of all systems within the Regulatory Authority's jurisdiction
Maintain residuals treatment and disposal tracking system
Maintain a current certified/licensed Service Provider listing that is available to the RMEs
Administer a tracking system for operating permits.
Administer a tracking database for compliance reports.
Administer financial, management, and technical audits of RME.
Provide certified report of all maintenance and observed system deficiencies to RME
Provide certified report of all observed system deficiencies to Owner
Perform system monitoring as stipulated in RME's operating permit
Prepare and submit records of residuals handling as required.
Maintain system monitoring and service records.
•nventory, collect, and provide permit information to Regulatory Authority.
=rovide the legal and financial support to sustain the regulatory program
Provide listing of financial assistance programs available to RME and the qualifying criteria for
s«3cn program.
Consider implementing a state or local financing program to assist RME in upgrading systems.
Conduct regular reviews of management program with Regulatory Authority to optimize
op© rations.
-------
-------
Appendix E
Hennepin County, MN
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1 9
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS STANDARDS
FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY
Adopted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
of Hennepin County, Minnesota
on September 28, 1999
IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTES ssl 15.55 and
MINNESOTA RULES CHAPTER 7080 ORDINANCE No. 19
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS STANDARDS
OUn^ Board of Commissioners does hereby adopt this Ordinance establishing county-wide
Sewage Treatment systems (ISTS) pursuant to
SUBDIVISION 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS.
1.1 Purpose. This ordinance is enacted to provide minimum standards for the regulation of individual sewase
c&^^
mamtenance and
' mamtenan,ce and repair f°r the purpose of protecting surface water and groundwater
i1"^ rT md waterbome household and commercial wastes; the protection^ of XT
^ a*?.the elimi:Ilation and Prevention of the development of public nuisances p™S to
^^^^
1 .2 Objectives. The principal objectives of this Ordinance are as follows:
1 .21 The protection of Hennepin County's lakes, rivers and streams, wetlands, and groundwater essential to
the promotion of pubhc health, safety, welfare, socioeconomic growth and development onhTc^Sp^Sy.
anH mS The/egutlation °f Pr°Per ISTS construction, reconstruction, repair and maintenance to prevent the entry
and migration of contaminants, thereby ensuring the non-degradation of surface water and groundwater
repair ISmS eStabliSfhment °f minimum standards for ISTS placement, design, construction, reconstruction
repau- and maintenance to prevent contamination and, if contamination is discovered, the identification and control
of its consequences and the abatement of its source and migration. ""-
-------
Appendix E
SUBDIVISION 2: DEFINITIONS.
2.1 Health Authority. The Hennepin County Community Heallth Department and its designated agent who
shall be a qualified employee or licensee.
2 2 Owner The fee owner(s) and, if applicable, the contract-f Lr-deed purchaser. Ownership interests shall
befdetenruneTby reference to the records of Hennepin County. The Uner of each lot upon served by an IS1S is
responsible for the lawful operation and maintenance of each ISTS. ,
SUBDIVISION 3: STANDARDS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE |
7080!0176! and 7080.0190 being the sections containing the technical standards and catena contained m the
"Individual Sewage Treatment Systems Program". :
SUBDIVISION 4: JURISDICTION.
4 1 Municipalities. Municipalities in Hennepin County that elect to regulate Individual Sewage Treatment
Systems pursuant to Minn. Rules Chapter 7080.0300-0305 shall: i
A Provide verification to the Health Authority of its intention to Assume or retain jurisdiction of Individual
LageTleatoent Systems by submitting a resolution of the City Council or authorized governmental official to
that effect prior to January 1,1999 or within 90 days of County adoption, whichever comes later.
B Provide timely notification to the Health Authority of its intent to assume or abandon its jurisdiction but in no
case provide less than one years' notice of such action or at a time mutually acceptable to both parties.
C In the event of abandonment of jurisdiction, agree to cooperate with the Health Authority in the transfer of
responsibility including timely transfer of all records maintained by| the municipality.
SUBDIVISIONS: ADMINISTRATION BY THE HEALTH AUTHORITY.
5.1 The Health Authority shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
A. To review all applications for ISTS.
B. To issue all required permits.
C. To conduct construction inspections and to perform all neces
Ordinance.
D. To investigate complaints regarding ISTS.
E. To perform compliance inspections and to issue Certificates
sary tests to determine its conformance with this
of Compliance or Notices ofNoncompliance
where appropriate.
F. To issue Stop Work Orders and Notices of Violation pursuant to this Ordinance.
-------
Appendix E
G. To take complaints to the Municipal or County Attorney for violations of this Ordinance.
H. To maintain proper records for ISTS including site evaluation records, design records including calculations
and summaries for all system component sizings and as-builts, complaints on noncompliance, compliance
inspections, site evaluations, applications and exhibits, variance requests, issued permits, Certificates of
Compliance, and enforcement proceedings.
I. To submit annual reports to the MPCA to demonstrate enforcement of this Ordinance per Chapter 7080.0310.
5.2 Neither the issuance of permits, Certificates of Compliance nor Notices of Noncompliance as requested or
issued shall be construed to represent a guarantee or warranty of the system's operation or effectiveness Such
certificates signify that the system in question is or has been designed and installed in compliance or non-
compliance with the provision of these standards and regulations.
SUBDIVISION 6: PERMITTING.
6.1 Required Permits. A permit from the Health Authority is required before any ISTS in Hennepin County's
jurisdiction is installed, replaced, altered, repaired or extended. Installation, replacement, alteration, repair, or
extension of an ISTS shall not begin prior to the receipt of a permit from the Health Authority for each specific
installation, replacement, alteration, repair or extension pursuant to this Ordinance. Such permits are not transferable
as to person or place. Such permits shall expire 12 months after date of issuance. Upon request of an inspector
permits shall be provided by the permitee at the time of inspection.
6.2 Permits Not Required. Permits shall not be required for the following activities:
A. Repair or replacement of pumps, floats or other electrical devices of the pump.
B. Repair or replacement of baffles in the septic tank.
C. Installation or repair of inspection pipes and manhole covers.
D. Repair or replacement of the line from the building to the septic tank.
6.4 Permit Application. All applications for an ISTS permit shall include the following information:
A. Name and address of property owner.
B. Property identification number.
C. Legal description of the property.
D. ISTS Designer Name, address, phone number and State ISTS License number; (or Health Authority
qualified employee name and number).
E. ISTS Installer name, address, phone number and ISTS License Number.
F. Site evaluation report on forms approved by the Health Authority.
G. System design with full information including applicable construction information on forms
approved by the Health Authority.
-------
Appendix E
H. The location of at least one designated additional soil treatment area that can support a standard soil
treatment system on lots created after January 23,1996.
I. Any other information requested pertinent to the procesis.
J. A certified statement from the person who conducted the work.
6 5 Individuals Constructing Their Own ISTS. A license is not required for an individual who is constructing a
system on land that is owned or leased by the individual and functions solely as a dwelling or seasonal dwelling for
that individual. The ISTS shall be designed by a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency licensed Designer I or II.
6 6 Application Review and Determination. If after consideration of the application for a permit, the Health
Authority determines that the work proposed conforms to and compliies with provision of this Ordinance, the Health
Authority shall issue a written permit granting preliminary approval authorizing initiation of the work as proposed.
If the Health Authority determines that the work proposed will not conform to or comply with the provisions of this
Ordinance, the Health Authority shall deny the permit application. Ihe permit application may be revised or
corrected and resubmitted to the Health Authority for reconsideration.
6 7 Variances. Variances to decrease the three feet of vertical sepiiration required beneath the distribution
medium and the saturated soil or bedrock must be approved by the MPCA as per the procedures contained in
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.0305 Subp. 3. Variances to wells and water supply lines require approval from the
Minnesota Department of Health. Any other requests for a variance from this ordinance shall be requested in
writing to the Health Authority on forms approved by the Health Authority.
SUBDIVISION 7: CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS.
i
7.1 Requirements. Compliance inspections shall be conducted byjthe Health Authority anytime an ISTS is
installed replaced, altered, repaired or extended. The installation and construction of the ISTS shall be m
accordance with the permit requirements and application design. If iby ISTS component is covered before being
inspected by the Health Authority, it shall be uncovered if so ordered by the Health Authority. Proposals to alter the
permitted construction shall be reviewed and the proposed change accepted by the Health Authority prior to
construction. Inspections shall be conducted at least once during the construction of the ISTS to assure that the
system has been constructed per the submitted and approved design.1
7.2 Inspector. Compliance inspections for construction, replacement, alteration or repair work on ISTS shall be
conducted by the Health Authority. |
I
7 3 Request for Inspection. It shall be the duty of the permitee to jnotify the Health Authority of the date and time
the inspection is requested at least 24 hours (excluding weekend days and holidays) preceding the requested
inspection If the permitee provides proper notice as described above and the Health Authority does not appear for
an inspection within two hours after the time scheduled, the permitee may complete the installation and submit an
As-built for the system.
7 4 Access to Premises and Records. Upon the request of the Health Authority, the applicant, owner, permitee or
any other person shall allow access at any reasonable time to the affected premises as well as any related records, for
the purposes of regulating and enforcing this Ordinance. If entry is jrefused, the Health Authority shall have the
recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry. No person shall hinder or otherwise interfere with the
Health Authority in the performance of their duties and responsibilities pursuant to the enforcement of this
Ordinance. Refusal to allow reasonable access to the Health Authority shall be deemed a separate and distinct
offense, whether or not any other specific violations are cited.
-------
Appendix E
7.5 ^Stop Work Orders. Whenever any ISTS work is being done contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance, the
Health Authority may order the work stopped by verbal or written notice personally served upon the installer or the
owner of the land. All installation and construction shall cease and desist until subsequent authorization to proceed
is received from the Health Authority.
7.6 As-builts. As-builts shall be submitted to the Health Authority within five (5) working days of completion of
the work on the ISTS on forms provided or approved by the Health Authority. The As-built shall include
photographs of the system prior to covering and a certified statement that the work was installed in accordance with
submitted design and permit conditions and that it was free from defects. If an As-built is not submitted, the Health
Authority may require the uncovering of the system for inspection.
7.7 Inspection Reports. A Certificate of Compliance or Notice of Noncompliance shall be prepared by the Health
Authority following an inspection or review of As-builts submitted in accordance with Section 7.6. A Certificate of
Compliance or Notice of Noncompliance shall include a signed statement by the inspector identifying the type of
ISTS inspected and whether the system is in compliance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.0060. A copy of the
Certificate of Compliance or Notice of Noncompliance shall be provided to the property owner within 30 days of the
compliance inspection and a copy kept on file with the Health Authority.
7.71 Certificates of Compliance issued by the Health Authority for new construction and replacement shall be
valid for five (5) years from the date of the compliance inspection or As-built certification unless the Health
Authority or licensed inspector identifies the system as an Imminent Public Health Threat.
*
7.72 Notices of Violation may be issued with Notices of Noncompliance when the Health Authority determines
that new construction, replacement or repairs are not in compliance with this Ordinance.
SUBDIVISIONS: EXISTING SYSTEMS.
8.1 Requirements. The Health Authority shall require a compliance inspection of an existing system whenever:
A. In designated Shore land Management Areas, an application for any type of building or land use permits
is made. • v
B. If the Health Authority deems a compliance inspection may be necessary, including, but not limited to
the receipt of information of a potential ISTS failure.
C. An additional bedroom on the property is requested. If a request for an additional bedroom is received
between November 1 and April 30, the governing municipality may issue a building permit immediately with the
contingent requirement that a compliance inspection of the existing ISTS shall be completed by the following June
8.2 Inspector. Only the Health Authority or licensed Designer I or Inspector, shall conduct an inspection when a
compliance inspection is required for an existing ISTS.
8.3 Existing Systems in Compliance with the Two-foot Rule. An existing system shall be considered in
compliance with the technical standards of MN Rules 7080 and need not be upgraded if the following conditions
exist: &
, A. The system is not an Imminent Public Health Threat.
B. The system has at least two feet of vertical separation between the bottom of the distribution medium
and seasonally saturated soil as indicated by mottling or other indicators.
-------
Appendix £
C. The system is not in a Shore land Designated Area.
D. The system is not in a wellhead protection area.
E. The system is not serving a food/beverage/lodging facility.
8 4 Inspection Reports. A copy of the Certificate of Compliance cir Notice of Noncompliance resulting from a
compliance inspection shall be provided to the property owner and the Health Authority within 30 days of
inspection.
8 41 Certificates of Compliance issued by a licensed ISTS Inspector; for an existing system shall be valid for three
(3) years from the date of the compliance inspection unless the Health Authority or licensed inspector identifies the
system as an Imminent Public Health Threat.
i
8.42 A Notice of Noncompliance shall be issued in the following circumstances and the conditions noted in
violation of this Ordinance shall be remedied as follows:
i
A An ISTS determined to be failing shall be upgraded, replaced, or repaired in accord with Minnesota
Rules Chapter 7080.0060, within three (3) years, or its use is discontinued. The Health Authority, at its discretion,
may grant an extension of an additional two (2) years.
B. An ISTS posing an imminent threat to public health 01 safety shall be upgraded, replaced or repaired
within 10 months. The Health Authority will give consideration to weather conditions in determining compliance
dates. If an ISTS is determined to be a public health nuisance by the Health Authority, the Health Authority may
order the owner of the ISTS to cease use immediately and not allow use of the ISTS until it is corrected in
accordance with the recommendations of the Health Authority.
SUBDIVISION 9: VIOLATIONS.
9.1 Cause to Issue a Notice of Violation. Noncompliance with this Ordinance by an applicant, permitee, installer
or other person, as determined by the Health Authority, shall constitute a violation.
9.2 Serving a Notice of Violation. The Health Authority shall serve in person or by mail a Notice of Violation
upon any person determined to be not in compliance with this Ordinance.
9.3 Contents of a Notice of Violation. A Notice of Violation shall contain the following:
A. A statement documenting the findings of fact determined through inspections, reinspection or
investigation.
B. A list of specific violation or violations of this Ordinance.
C. The specific requirements for correction or removal of the specified violation(s).
D. A mandatory time schedule for correction, removal £.nd compliance with this Ordinance.
9 4 Notification of MPCA. The Health Authority shall in accordkce with state law notify the MPCA of any
inspection, installation, design, construction, alteration or repair of an ISTS by a licensed person or any
pumping by a licensed pumper done in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance.
-------
Appendix E
SUBDIVISION 10: ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. •
10.1 Siting of an ISTS. Notwithstanding any state or federal requirements, the separation distance from an ISTS to
a Type 3,4, 5 or 6 wetland shall be no less than fifty (50) feet.
10.2 Alternative and Experimental Systems.
10.21 Alternative and experimental systems are allowed only in areas where the Health Authority has determined
that a standard system cannot be installed or is not the most suitable treatment.
10.22 Any required monitoring plan for an alternative ISTS is the responsibility of the ISTS Designer. The
monitoring plan shall provide information as to:
A. The specific modification to a standard system.
B. The type and parameters for monitoring which shall be conducted to assure that the change will
protect public health and the environment, including the monitoring time period and the person responsible for
conducting the monitoring and reporting.
C. A mitigation plan detailing what will be done if the system fails to meet the expectations
established by the monitoring plan requirements.
10.23 The results of the monitoring of an alternative ISTS shall be submitted in accordance with the approved
monitoring plan to the Health Authority.
10.3 Warranted Systems. Warranted systems,.as discussed in Minn. Stat, Chapter 115.55, subd. 8, are prohibited.
10.4 Maintenance Report. The owner of an ISTS or an owner's agent who measures or removes accumulations in
accord with Minn. Rules 7080.0175B shall submit records to the Health Authority of all pumping activities and
recording fees.
SUBDIVISION 11: ENFORCEMENT.
11.1 Any person, firm, corporation or other entity who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance or who
makes any false statement on a Certificate of Compliance, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment or a fine or both, as defined by law. Each day in violation may constitute a separate violation.
11.2 In the event of a violation of this Ordinance, in addition to other remedies, the County or Municipal Attorney
may institute appropriate actions or proceedings to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations.
SUBDIVISION 12: FEES. The Hennepin County Board shall from time to time establish fees for activities
undertaken by the Health Authority pursuant to this Ordinance. Fees shall be due and payable at a time and in a
manner to be determined by the Health Authority.
SUBDIVISION 13: SEVERABILITY. If a provision or application of this Ordinance is held invalid, that invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance.
SUBDIVISION 14: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect January 1,2000.
-------
Appendix E
\
This ordinance was current as of the date stated below. To be certainjthat it has not been amended since published
here, please contact the Hermepin County Community Health Department, 525 Portland Av., Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55415; phone (612)348-3925; fax (612)348-3830; e-mail Community JHedm@co.hennepin.mn.us
-------
Appendix E
Appendix E: Sample ordinances
WASHTENAW COUNTY
Department of Environment & Infrastructure Services
Environmental Health Division
Regulation For the Inspection of Residential Onsite Water and Sewage Disposal Systems
At Time of Property Transfer
ARTICLE I
Purpose
Sec. 1:1 The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners adopts this Regulation that states the
procedures, standards and enforcement that shall be used by the Washtenaw County
Environmental Health Division ("Division"), under the authority of the Washtenaw County
Health Officer, to manage any residential premises containing an Onsite Water and Sewage
Disposal System, ("OWSDS") in order to promote the safety, health and general welfare of the
community as follows:
-------
Appendix E
• Ensure a safe and adequate supply of drinking waller for those homes served by an Onsite
Water Supply System ("OWSS"); and !
• Ensure the adequate disposal of sewage from homes served by an Onsite Sewage
Disposal System ("OSDS"); and
• It is not the intention of this regulation to cause existing systems that are currently
functioning, but do not meet existing construction standards, to be brought into
compliance with such standards. [
Rules Adopted
Sec. 1:2 This Regulation contains minimum standards and supplements the Rules and
Regulations enacted by the Michigan Department of Pub! ic Health and Washtenaw County. In
addition, this Regulation supplements Michigan law as it relates to public health and
environmental quality and shall supercede all local minimum standards previously enacted that
are inconsistent with this Regulation.
Authority j
Sec. 1:3 This Regulation is enacted pursuant to MCLA 333.1101 et sea. as amended,
MCLA 324.1701 et. seq.. and MCLA 46.11, to protect the public health, safety and welfare of
the citizens of Washtenaw County.
Jurisdiction
Sec. 1:4 The Public Health Officer shall have jurisdiction to administer and enforce the
provisions of this Regulation. Nothing in this Regulation however, shall be construed to restrict
or abrogate the authority of any municipality, or incorporated city, village or township in
Washtenaw County to adopt standards that are more restrictive. However, whenever an
inspection relating to health or sanitation is required, no punicipality shall issue a license
without first having obtained written approval from the Health Officer indicating that the
applicant has complied with the minimum requirements [of this Regulation.
Effective Date
Sec. 1:5 This Regulation shall become effective i a Washtenaw County when notice of its
adoption by the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners is published in a newspaper of
general circulation within Washtenaw County, provided, however, that actual inspections shall
not begin before January 3,2000, to insure that a sufficient number of inspectors are certified
and available.
ARTICLE II
Definitions
-------
AppBndlx E
Sec. 2:1 The following rules of language shall apply to the text of this Regulation: The
word "shall" is mandatory. The word "may" is permissive. When not inconsistent with the
context, words in the present tense shall include the future and words designating singular
numbers shall include the plural.
Words and Terms
Sec. 2:2 The following words and terms used in this Regulation, unless otherwise
expressly stated, shall have the following meaning:
Authorized Agent: The term "Authorized Agent" shall mean any individual or corporation
authorized, hi writing, to act as the legal representative in all matters authorized by the seller or
purchaser.
Environmental Health Division: The term "Environmental Health Division" shall mean the
Washtenaw County Environmental Health Division.
Failure: The term "failure" is defined as follows: 1) the backup of sewage into a structure; 2)
discharge of effluent onto the ground surface; 3) the connection of an OSDS to a storm drain; 4)
liquid level in the septic tank above the outlet invert; 5) structural failure of a septic tank; 6)
discharge of sewage into any stream or other body of water; 7) the liquid level in a disposal field
above the outlet holes in the pipe of such field; 8) unsafe water sample; 9) substantial
nonconformance with water well construction requirements; 10) substantial nonconformance
with water well isolation from contamination source requirements.
Health Officer: The term "Health Officer" shall mean the Public Health Officer, the acting
Public Health Officer or her/his duly authorized representative.
Municipality: The term "municipality" shall mean any incorporated city, village, or township
within Washtenaw County.
OSDS: The term "OSDS" shall mean an onsite sewage disposal system.
Owner: The term "Owner" shall mean any person who has legal title to any premises.
OWSS: The term "OWSS" shall mean an onsite water supply system.
OWSDS: The term "OWSDS" shall mean an onsite water and sewage disposal system.
Person : The term "person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, party, corporation,
company, society, association, or other legal entity.
Premises: "Premises" shall mean any tract of land, or portion thereof, or combination of tracts
of land under single or common ownership, operation or control, that contains any type of
structure that is, was or will be inhabited either permanently or transiently, water well or septic
-------
Appendix E
tank, drains, drain field, underground tank or pipes or similar appurtenances containing sewage
or otter contaminants or combination thereof.
Health Code Board Of Appeals/Public Health Advisoi^ Committee: The term "Health Code
Board Of Appeals/Public Health Advisory Committee" (IJCBA/PHAC) shall mean the Health
Committee of the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners.
Substantial Conformance: The term "Substantial Conformance" shall mean there is a minimal
likelihood of degradation of groundwater and surface water, or risk to public health caused by
improper construction or location of an OWSDS, or a malfunctioning OWSDS.
ARTICLE III
Limitations on Sale or Transfer Of Property
Sec. 3:1 There shall be no sale, transfer or conveyance of a parcel containing an OWSDS
until the following conditions are met: The seller files an Devaluation report by a Washtenaw
County certified inspector to the Division; and, the Division determines, based upon such report,
that the OWSDS is acceptable, or any necessary remediation is completed, or assured and
accepted; and the Division authorizes the sale, transfer oil conveyance of the parcel.
Evaluations
Sec. 3:2 Each OWSDS hi Washtenaw County shall be inspected and evaluated prior to the
sale, transfer or conveyance of property upon which an CIWSDS is located if certification has not
been done within twelve months preceding the date of praperty transfer. Transfers exempt from
inspections include:
• Transfer from a spouse. ;
• Change in ownership solely to exclude a spouse.
• Transfer subject to life lease or life estate, (until the life lease or life estate expires).
• Transfer to effect foreclosure or forfeiture of real property.
Transfer by redemption from a tax sale.
Transfer creating or ending joint ownership if at
east one person is an original owner of
the property or his or her spouse.
• Transfer to establish or release a security interest,
• Premises built within the previous twenty-four m. snths prior to date of property transfer.
• Premises that shall be demolished and shall not be occupied after the property transfer.
• New homes that have not been occupied. j
I
The owner of a premises containing an OWSDS shall haye the system evaluated by a Division
certified inspector. Persons certified to perform evaluations of an OWSDS shall meet the
minimum standards in Sec: 3.6 of this Article. After the [evaluation is complete, the Division
shall send a letter to the owner or the owner's designated representative and any prospective
purchaser describing the functional status of the OWSDS and whether it is in conformance with
-------
Appendix E
the Washtenaw County Rules and Regulations governing the Supply of Groundwater and the
Disposal of Sewage and Human Excreta.
Sec. 3:3 Reports of evaluations shall include, but are not limited to:
'. • The address of the site.
• The parcel identification number.
'• The name of the owner or owner's agent.
• The location of the system(s).
• A description of the current operational or functional status of the system(s).
• Identification of any necessary repairs or replacement of all or portions of the system(s).
• The results of a bacteria and nitrate drinking water test, and other water quality
parameters as required by the Division.
• Other relevant or unusual observations related to the system(s).
• Recommendations to extend the life of the system(s) and to prevent the premature failure
of the sewage system(s).
• Educational material(s) about system(s) maintenance that have been approved by the
Division.
• Completed forms approved by the Division.
Sec. 3:4 A certified copy of the inspectors' evaluation report of an OWSDS shall be
provided to the owner and a copy filed with the Division. Such reports shall be freely available
to the public through the Freedom of Information Act, MCLA 15.231 et. seq.
Performance Standards
Sec. 3:5.1 The evaluation shall determine whether the system(s) adversely affects the public
health and environment or violates any other applicable rules or regulations.
Sec. 3:5.2 The evaluation shall determine whether the OSDS structure and its operational status
are in substantial conformance with the standards of this Regulation.
Sec. 3:5.3 OWSS shall be evaluated for:
• their proximity to sources of contamination.
• substantial compliance with State of Michigan construction standards.
• compliance with bacteria and nitrate water quality standards as a minimum with other
water quality standards in areas of known water quality concerns.
Sec. 3:5.4 Water samples shall be collected and analyzed at a laboratory certified by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to determine the presence of coliform bacteria,
nitrates, or other contaminants as determined by the Division.
Registration and Certification
Sec. 3:6 All inspectors performing evaluations under this Regulation must be registered
with the Division and certified before undertaking any evaluations. All qualified inspector
-------
Appendix E
Corrective Action
Sec. 8:1 Upon receiving written notice from the Division of noncompliance with this
Regulation, the owner, buyer or authorized agent shall, within thirty (30) days, submit a
proposed corrective action and contract for services in orderito bring the affected system into
compliance with applicable laws. In addition, the owner, buyer or authorized agent shall place
into an escrow account a deposit of a surety or performance bond or cash in an amount equal to
one and one-half times the estimated cost of the contract guaranteeing performance of such
contract. The Division shall review the proposed corrective action and amend it as required to
conform to federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. All necessary corrective action
shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days following Division approval of the
proposed correction action plan. Once the Division gives filial approval of the completed
corrective action, the system shall be deemed to be in substantial conformance with this
Regulation and any affidavit previously filed with the Registrar of Deeds shall be discharged. If
an OWSDS presents an immediate health hazard, the owner 'or other responsible party shall take
such measures, in cooperation with the Division, that will irr|mediately reduce or eliminate the
impact of such failure until the full remediation plan can be Implemented as described earlier in
this Paragraph. ,
Sec. 8:2 A person who disputes any Division decision concerning the violation of this
Regulation shall have the right to a hearing and appeal using the appeals process in Article XI.
Any appeal shall not stay an owner's, buyer's or authorized agent's obligation to take measures
to reduce or eliminate the impact of a failure until a full remediation plan can be determined and
implemented. :
ARTICLE JX
Enforcement and Compliance
Sec. 9:1 If, after investigation, the Division believes that a person is violating these
Regulations, the Division shall attempt to enter a voluntary agreement with the property owner to
resolve the violation. If a voluntary agreement cannot be reached, the Division may issue a
violation notice to the owner. A statement of facts upon which the notice is based shall
accompany the violation notice.
Sec. 9:2 The Division may, after presenting proper credentials and other documents as
may be required by law, and tipon stating the authority and purpose for the investigation, enter
and inspect any property at reasonable times to ascertain compliance or noncompliance with this
Regulation or Rules promulgated under this Regulation. This may include:
Inspection at reasonable times of any parcel containing an OWSDS and related systems.
Collection of evidence and information for the purpose of determining compliance with this
Regulation or Rules promulgated under the Regulation.
-------
Appendix E
Sec. 9:3 If an owner, transferee or purchaser does not comply with the requirements of this
Regulation, a Health Officer or his/her duly authorized representative may record an affidavit
that details the non-compliance with the Washtenaw County Registrar of Deeds.
ARTICLEX
Specific Enforcement Options
Violation of the Regulation
Sec. 10:1 After learning that this Regulation has been violated, the HCBA/PHAC or the Health
Officer or his/her designated representative may: .
Issue a Cease and Desist Order and/or suspend any permit, certificate or other approval issued
pursuant to this Regulation to the owner or other party violating this Regulation, and afford the
owner or other interested party Notice and Opportunity for Hearing.
Request that Washtenaw County Corporation Counsel file a legal action to enjoin the violation.
In addition, the Health Officer may seek to recover any and all costs related to correcting,
removing or abating the violation.
Issuance of Monetary Civil Penalties
Sec. 10:2 If a local health department representative or Health Officer believes that a person is
violating a provision of this Regulation or an order issued pursuant to this Regulation, the
representative may issue a citation within ninety (90) days after the alleged violation is
discovered. The citation shall state with particularity the nature of the violation, including
reference to the Section of the Regulation alleged to have been violated, the civil penalty
established for such violation, if any, and a right to appeal the citation pursuant to MCLA
333.2461 and Article XI of this Regulation. The citation shall be delivered or sent by registered
mail to the alleged violator.
Any party issued a citation may, within ten (10) days from the date the citation is issued, request
an informal conference at which time the person may indicate why s/he believes that s/he has not
violated this Ordinance.
Any party issued a citation may appeal the citation to the HCBA/PHAC or its designated
committee within thirty (30) days after the citation is issued. The appeal shall be conducted in
accordance with Article XI of this Regulation. A person aggrieved by a final decision of the
Health Officer or the HCBA/PHAC or its designated committee, may petition the Circuit Court
of the County where the premises is located for review. The time period for appeal shall begin to
run the day after the date of such final decision.
Schedule of Monetary Civil Penalties
Sec. 10:3 Monetary civil penalties may be imposed according to the following schedule:
First violation: Up to $200.00
Second violation: $500.00
Third and subsequent violations each: $1000.00
-------
Appendix E
Sec. 10:4 A civil penally levied under this Section may be assessed for each violation or day
that the violation continues. The civil penalty may be for a specified violation of this Ordinance
or promulgated Rule, that the Health Officer has the authority and duty to enforce.
Sec. 10:5 A decision by the Health Officer not to issue a citation shall not be construed as a
waiver of any other rights or remedies authorized by law or Ihis Regulation.
I
Conviction of Misdemeanor j
i
Sec. 10:6 Any person who violates this Regulation is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or a fine of not more than $200.00 or both.
Conviction by jury, court or voluntary plea and acceptance by court under this provision shall not
waive any other claim for fines, costs, injunction or other relief authorized by this Regulation.
Each day that a violation of this Regulation exists shall constitute a separate offense.
Assessment against the Property ! .
Sec. 10:7 If an owner does not have his/her property evaluated as specified by this Regulation,
the Division shall cause an inspection to be performed and may charge all costs and fees for the
evaluation to the owner of the premises.
I
Sec. 10:8 If the owner or party violating this Regulation refuses on demand to pay such
expenses incurred by the Department to abate, correct or remove a violation, unsanitary
condition or nuisance, the sum shall be assessed against the property and shall be collected and
treated in the same manner as taxes assessed under the general tax laws of this State.
Right to Obtain Samples
Sec. 10:9 An inspection under Sec. 9.2 shall include the right to obtain samples where the
Health Officer has reason to believe that there is a likelihood of contamination of surface water,
ground water, water supply or other unsanitary conditions. Upon written notice, an owner or
occupant of premises from which such inspection is sought shall co-operate with the Health
Officer or his/her designated representative.
ARTICLE XI
Hearings and Appeals
Sec. 11:1 If an owner or interested party is adversely affected by any decision under this
Regulation, s/he may request in writing a Hearing before the; HCBA/PHAC or its designated
Committee within thirty (30) days of the date of such decision. The Health Officer shall issue a
Notice of Hearing within fifteen (15) days after receiving the request. A Hearing shall then be
held at the next regular meeting of the HCBA/PHAC (or its designated committee), scheduled
for such purposes; provided, however, that a Hearing shall be conducted no later than sixty (60)
days after the Notice of Hearing is mailed to the owner or interested party. The HCBA/PHAC
(or its designated committee) shall affirm, reverse or modify the contested decision by a majority
vote of the entire Board. The decision by the HCBA/PHAC (or its designated committee) shall
-------
Appendix E
be in writing and state the reasons and grounds for such decision. A copy shall be furnished to
the owner, any interested person, and the Health Officer within thirty (30) days of the decision.
ARTICLE XII
Miscellaneous Provisions
Severability
Sec. 12:1 Each provision of this Regulation must be interpreted in a way that is valid under
Michigan law. If any provision is held invalid, the rest of the Regulation shall remain in full
effect. •
Sec. 12:2 All amendments to this Ordinance shall be approved by the Washtenaw County
HCBA/PHAC and the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners after a public hearing
required by Section 2442 of Act 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, as amended, has been held. All
amendments shall become effective at a tune provided for under Michigan law.
-------
Appendix E
-------
Appendix E
Lake Panorama On-Site Wastewater Management District
Rules and Regulations
Chapter One
1.0 Administrative
1.1(1) Term of Office. The.Administrative Committee members shall be appointed by the Guthrie County Board of
Health to three-year terms. Members may be reappointed to consecutive terms.
1.1(2) Vacancies. Vacancies on the Committee shall be filled by the Board of Health within two months of the
vacancy. Members of the Committee shall either be residents of Guthrie County or property owners within the
Management District.
1.1(3) Officers/At the first meeting of each calendar year the Committee shall select a Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson as officers. The County Sanitarian shall serve as secretary.
1.1 (4) Meetings. The Committee shall meet at least four times per year at a time and place designated by the
Committee. _ • . • '
1.1(5) Budget. The Committee shall submit a budget request to the Board of Health annually. This budget shall be
submitted to the Guthrie County Health Department at least two weeks prior to the Board of Health meeting at
which the health budget is to be proposed.
1.1(6) Rules and Regulations. All rales and regulations or amendments shall be presented to the Board of Health for
approval prior to submission to the Guthrie County Board' of Health.
1.1(7) Quorum. Any three members shall constitute a quorum. .
1.1(8) Voting. All motions of the Committee shall be approved by a simple majority of
those members present.
1.1(9) Removal of member. By simple majority vote the Committee may recommend to the Board of Health the
removal of a Committee member. Such removal may be recommended for improper conduct or lack of attendance at
two consecutive regular meetings.
a. Failure of the Board of Health to act upon receipt of such a recommendation at its next regular meeting shall
result in automatic removal of the member.
b. The Board of Health may vote to delay a final decision on the recommendation until the subsequent meeting of
the Board in order to collect additional information.
c. Removal of a Committee member shall be effective immediately upon motion of the Board of Health.
1.1(10) Notice of Meeting All members shall receive at least one week's advance notice of any regular meeting.
Special meetings or emergency meetings may be called at the discretion of the Chair person with all members
notified, if possible, and with at least 24 hours advance notice.
1.1(11) Policies. The Committee may direct the sanitarian to prepare policies for the day-to-day operation of the
District. Such policies need only be approved by the Committee. The Board of Health, at its own initiative, may
revoke any policy of the Committee.
-------
Appendix E
Chapter Two
Section 1. Jurisdiction.
Chapter 137 of the 1999 Code of Iowa specifies hi Section 137.7 the following power of the County Board of
Health:
May provide such personal and environmental health services as may be deemed necessary for the protection and
improvement of the public health.
Under the authority granted by Chapter 137 the Board of Health and Board of Supervisors adopted Guthrie County
Ordinance No. 2 titled Lake Panorama On-Site Management District Ordinance establishing the Administrative
Committee and empowering the Committee to develop rules and regulations relating to the District.
These regulations shall supersede and replace other regulations of the Committee, which have been in effect to date.
Section 2. General Requirements
I
2.1 Applicability These regulations are applicable to all sewage and wastewater treatment systems located within the
Lake Panorama On-Site Management District except those approved by other appropriate governmental agencies,
i.e. Department of Natural Resources.'
2.2 Definitions The definitions applied to these regulations shall be the ;same as those delineated in the Guthrie
County Board of Health regulations. I
2.3 General regulations |
2,3(1) Conformance with County Health Regulations Regulations of tt e Board of Health that are not addressed in
these regulations shall be enforced by the Sanitarian within the District when appropriate. Any system exceeding the
six-bedroom requirement must be designed by an engineer and approved by the Committee, and the Dept. of Natural
resources where appropriate. ,
i .
2.3(2) Connection to public sewer I
a. No on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system shall be installed, repaired, or rehabilitated where a public
sanitary sewer is available or where a local ordinance requires connection to a public system.
b. When a public sanitary sewer is not available, every building wherein persons reside, congregate, or are
employed shall be provided with an approved on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system.
c. It is prohibited to discharge and wastewater from on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems (except
under an NPDES permit) to any ditch, stream, pond, lake, natural or artificial waterway, county drain tile, surface
water drain tile, land drain tile, or to the surface of the ground.
2.3(3) Permit No on-site system shall be installed or altered until an application for a permit has been requested and
a permit has been issued by the Sanitarian. The installation shall be in accordance with these regulations and those
of the Board of Health where applicable. Either the owner or installer or both may be cited for violation of these
regulations. No permit shall be issued until a complete set of plans for me home is submitted for evaluation of all
aspects bearing on the requirements of these rules.
2.3(4) Flow criteria The flow requirements in designing on-site wastevpter systems shall be based upon the rate of
150 gallons per day per bedroom. Flows for non-resident structures sha^l be designated by the Committee on an ad-
hoc basis.
2.3(5) Fees Permit, percolation test fees, and other fees shall be established by the Board of Health.
-------
Appendix E
2.3(6) Permit validity Permits shall be valid for one year from issue date. From the date the house construction
begins, the on-site system must be installed within one year prior to occupancy whichever is earlier.
2.3(7) Repairs to existing systems At such times as parts if the existing system fails, need repair, or replacement then
such parts shall be repair to the standards delineated in these rules rather than those in effect at the time of the
original installation.
Section 3 Site analysis
1. A site evaluation shall be conducted prior to issuance of a construction permit. Consideration shall be given, but
not limited to, the impact of the following: topography, drainage ways, terraces, floodplain, percent of land slope,
location of property lines, location of easements, buried utilities, existing and proposed tile lines, existing, proposed
and abandoned wells, amount of available area for the installation of the system, evidence of unstable ground,
alteration (cutting, filling, compacting) of existing soil profile, and soil factors determined from a soil analysis,
percolation test and soil survey maps.
2. No construction of any kind, including driveways, basement digging, etc. may be started until a meeting has been
held on-site between the Sanitarian and the owner/contractor for the project. This is to assure that the site is properly
laid out to allow the on-site system to be installed in the properly designed location. Any changes shall be approved
by the Sanitarian.
3. On sites with existing on-site systems any improvements to the lots shall be reviewed by the Sanitarian prior to
the improvements. Consideration shall be given, but not limited to, the impact of the following: landscaping,
building additions, driveways, sidewalks and walkways, decks and patios, tiling, utilities installation, heat pump
wells, lot boundary changes and easements. Such improvements shall only be allowed if the on-site system must be
modified to assure the proper operation of the on-site system.
4. All on-site systems shall be located in accordance with Table I of the Board of Health regulations. Due to the
limited spatial dimensions of properties, the Committee provided some reasonable allowances to these distances
where appropriate.
Section 4. Surface discharges
All discharges from on-site systems which are discharged into any surface water or to the surface of the ground shall
be treated in a manner that will conform with the requirements of NPDES General Permit No. 4 issued by the
Department of Natural Resources, as referenced in 567-Chapter 64. Prior to the installation of any system
discharging to waters of the State a, notice of intent to be covered by NPDES general Permit No.4 shall
be submitted to the Department. S}'stems covered by this permit must meet all applicable requirements listed in the
NPDES permit.
Section 5. Building sewers
5.1 Type Building sewers used to conduct wastewater from a building to the primary treatment unit of an on-site
system shall be constructed of Schedule 40 plastic pipe (or SDR 26) or stronger with solvent-weld or bell-and-gasket
type joints.
5.2 Size Such building sewers shall not be less than 4" in diameter.
5.3 Grade Such building sewers shall be laid to the following minimum grades:
a. 4-inch sewer 12 inches per 100 feet.
b. 6-inch sewerS inches per 100 feet.
5.4 Cleanouts
a. A cleanout shall be provided where the building sewer leaves the house and at least every 100' of run.
-------
Appendix E
b. An accessible cleanout shall be provided at each change in direction or grade if a 90-degree elbow is used.
Section 6. Primary treatment-septic tanks
6.1 General requirements
6.1(1) Tank required Every on-site system, except mechanical/aerobic systems, shall have as a primary treatment
unit a septic tank as described in this rule.
6.1(2) Prohibited waste All wastewater from the facility serviced shall discharge into the septic tank except as
follows: I
a. Softener brine from a water softener is prohibited to enter any portiorl of the septic system. Such brine must be
discharged to a brine pit or other approved discharge site.
b. Discharge from hot tubs and spas is prohibited to enter any portion of the septic system. Such water shall be
discharged to the yard or other such area in a manner that does not create a nuisance condition.
c. Septic tanks shall not be used for the disposal of chemical wastes or gprease in quantities which might be
detrimental to the bacterial action in the tank or for the disposal of drainage from roof drains, foundation drains, or
area drains. Sumps shall not discharge to the tank.
6.1(3) Easements. No septic tank shall be located upon property under ownership different from the ownership of
that property or lot upon which the wastewater originates unless easements to that effect are legally recorded and
approved by the Committee.
6.1(4) Effluent discharge All septic tank effluent shall discharge into a siecondary treatment system in compliance
with these regulations.
6.1(5) Capacity The minimum liquid holding capacity shall be as specified in the following chart (capacity may be
obtained by using one or more tanks)
1,2 or 3 bedroom homes 1250 gallons
4 bedroom homes 1500 gallons '
5 and 6 bedroom homes 2000 gallons i
The presence of a high volume water use fixture such as a whirlpool batik, or other jetted style tub, or similar
appliance requires and additional 500 gallon capacity tank system.
6.1(6) Tank design. Tank design shall be in accordance with the County [regulations except as follows:
\
a. Access must be provided to all parts of the septic tank necessary for aidequate inspection, operation, and
maintenance. J
b. An access opening shall be at least 18" in the smallest dimension if the tank has no other openings. Alternatively,
a single opening at least 24" in diameter may be provided at the center of the tank allowing access to both
compartments, with two smaller openings at least 6" in diameter over both inlet and outlet.
c. If the top of the tank is to be greater than 12" below the finished ground surface, a riser must be installed over
each manhole to bring the top of the manhole lid to within 6" of the fmisihed ground surface.
d. The lid of the tank or the riser, if greater than 12" must be donut-stylf? lid such that there is a smaller lid no less
than 6" nor greater than 12" for an opening. This is to facilitate the inspection program. Lids above grade level are
exempt except that lids may not exceed 3' in diameter and may not be below grade. Existing lids in pits must have
access lid of 6"-12" in these larger lids. At the time of sale such existing! lids shall be modified to remove the pit.
e. All access manholes into the tanks must be a plastic manhole cast into the tank lid with a fitted accompanying lid
to assure water-tightness. If a riser is needed, it must be a compatible until that is sealed to the manhole with
appropriate material and the lid appropriate for the riser. j
f. Without special permission of the Committee no tank shall be deeper that 5' from final grade to top of tank.
6.1(7) Connecting pipes
-------
: Appendix E
a. Minimum diameter The pipes connecting septic tanks installed in series and at least the first 5' on the effluents
side of the last tank shall be a minimum of 4" in diameter Schedule 40 plastic.
b. Tank connections All inlet and outlet connections at the septic tanks shall be made by flexible boot gaskets cast
into the concrete and adaptable to the 4" Schedule 40 plastic by using a metal strap clamp to assure water tightness.
Other gaskets may be approved if appropriate by the Sanitarian.
c. Joints All joints in connecting Schedule 40 plastic pipe shall be approved plastic pipe connections such as solvent
welded or compression-type gaskets. No joints are allowed in the fill space between a tank and undisturbed ground.
d. Unstable ground Schedule 40 plastic pipe shall be used extending across excavations or unstable ground to at
least 2' beyond the point where the original ground has not been disturbed in septic tank installations. If the
excavation spanned is more than 2', it must be filled with sand or compacted fill to provide a firm bed for the pipe.
The first 12" of backfill over the pipe shall be applied in thin layers using material free from stones, boulders, large
frozen chunks of earth, or any similar material that would damage or break the pipe.
6.1(8) Prohibited construction There shall be no construction of any kind covering any portion of the septic tank.
Section 7 Secondary treatment
Soil absorption systems are the best available treatment technology and shall always be used where possible.
7.1 General requirements
7.1(1) Location All subsurface absorption systems shall be located on the property to maximize the vertical
separation distance from the bottom of the absorption trench to the seasonal high groundwater level, bedrock,
hardpan, or other confining layer, but under no circumstances shall this vertical separation be less than 3'.
7.1(2) Soil evaluation A percolation test or professional soil analysis is required before any soil absorption system is
installed. A percolation test shall be performed by Health Department Staffer be a registered, professional engineer
who shall consult the Sanitarian prior to conducting the percolation test or soil analysis. The Committee shall
review all percolations tests and soil analyses submitted and may reject tests deemed not properly performed. The
Committee may at any time develop a requirement for both a soil analysis and a percolation test.
a. The percolation test procedure is outlined in the Board of Health regulations.
b. If a professional soil analysis is performed, soil factors such as soil content, color, texture, and structure shall be
used to determine a percolation rate.
c. An area is deemed suitable for conventional soil absorption if the average percolation test rate is between 1 min.
and 60 min. per inch. Rates for systems such as mounds and drip irrigation can be up to 120 minutes per inch.
d. Prior to construction, an additional test hole 6' deep shall be provided in the center of the proposed absorption
area to determine the location of groundwater, rock formations, or other confining layers. This hole shall be
provided by the contractor by digging with a backhoe.
e. If a seasonal high groundwater level is present within 3' of the trench bottom, then corrective measures to
eliminate this problem must be performed.
f. In situations where specific location or site characteristics would appear to prohibit normal installation of a soil
absorption system, design modifications may be approved by the Committee, which could overcome such limitation.
7.1(3) Site limitations
a. Roof, foundation, and storm drains shall not discharge into or upon subsurface absorption systems. Where
appropriate, eave troughs shall be required.
b. Grading, improvements, driveways, and other structures cannot create drainage pathways onto lateral field areas.
c. There shall be no construction of any kind, including driveways, over the subsurface absorption system. Vehicle
access to the subsurface system is prohibited.
d. Connecting solid lines under driveways shall be constructed of Schedule 40 plastic or equivalent. Measures to
protect from freezing shall be employed when necessary.
e. No subsurface system shall be constructed on any property under ownership different from the ownership of the
property or lot upon which it originates unless easements to that effect are legally recorded and approved by the
Committee.
-------
Appendix E
7.1(4) Split fields. Subsurface rock trench fields installed in areas with percolation test rates of 21-60 minVinch shall
be composed of two equal fields each containing 75% of the total lateral field length specified in Table I. Each field
shall receive the effluent in alternating years. Such alternating of laterals, shall be done by the Sanitarian. All
alternating fields shall be pressure dosed. ;
7.2 Trench requirements i '
7.2(1) Percolation charts The following charts are used to determine appropriate subsurface trench lengths.
a. Table I specifies the lineal feet of subsurface trenches required in accordance with the results of the standard
percolation test under normal conditions. j
b. Table II lists an optional method of determining length of subsurface trenches when space is a problem. This
table for increased rock usage shall be used only when the size of lots limits the use of the standard length trenches.
This table is only applicable to percolation test rates of 20 min/inch or less.
c. Table II must not be used when the soil profile indicates it is not proper nor can it be used when the potential for
a water table problem exists. Under no circumstances can the trench d«ipth exceed 36".
d. Table III must be utilized additionally to determine actual rock depthjfor percolation test rates greater than 20
minJinch.
Table I i
Soil Absorption System Sizing Chart (Lineal feet of absorption trench) j
i
Min. Two- Three- Four- Five- Six- :
Per bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom i
Inch SOOgpd 450gpd 600gpd 750gpd 900gpd i
-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
200
230
275
325
360
390
420
450
475
495
510
265
300
365
420
470
510
550
585
615
645
660
320
400
440
500
565
615
660
700
740
775
800
385
500
530
600
680
740
790
840
890
930
960
460
600
635
720
815
890
950
1010
1070
1115
1150
Table II
Alternative Option for Increased Rock Usage i
Perc rate>20 min./inch j
Depth of gravel below distribution line Reduction in trench lengths as taken from Table I
16" 20% i
20" 33%
24" 40% ;..
-------
Appendix
Table HI
Rock Depth for Various Percolation Rates
Percolation rate (min./inch) Depth of Rock
0-20 12 inches
21-40 16 inches
41-60 20 inches
e. For any percolation test rate a reduction of 20% in total length can be allowed when dosing is employed.
f. Lateral trench reduction for both dosing and increased rock depth shall be calculated as follows:
Percolation rate (min./inch) Total gravel depth % Reduction from Table I
0-20 16" 30%
0-20 20" 40%
0-20 24" 45%
21-60 24" 25%
g. If soil analysis is utilized, the person analyzing the site shall determine a value from the soil analysis to fit Table I.
From Tables II and III section f. above may be utilized where appropriate.
h. Soils with percolation rates of 20 min./inch or more shall have a backhoe bucket with side raker teeth utilized t
install rock trench lateral fields.
7.2(2) Conventional subsurface soil absorption trenches shall not be installed in soils mat have a percolation rate less
than one min./inch or greater than 60 min/inch.
7.2(3) Construction Details
a. Depth Lateral, trenches shall not exceed 36" in depth. Not less than 6" of porous soil shall be provided over the
laterals. A shallow trench with as near the minimum cover as possible is strongly recommended. Minimum
separation between trench bottom and groundwater, rock formation, or other confining layer shall be 36" even if
extra rock is used under the pipe.
b. Length. No gravity absorption trench shall be greater than 100' long. Pressure laterals may be longer if approved
by the Sanitarian.
c. Separation distance. At least 5' of undisturbed soil shall be left between each trench edge on level sites.
Additional separation of 2' is recommended on sloping sites.
d. Grade. Trench bottom should be constructed level from end to end.
e. Compaction Prior to construction, the subsurface absorption system shall be located and fenced with snow fence,
or equivalent, to prevent compaction of the area with no removal of the fence at any time during home construction,
except to install the system. After installation, the fence shall be re-installed until the home is completed. Warning
signs, provided by the Sanitarian, must be posted on the fence.
f. Fill Soil. Soil absorption systems shall not be installed in fill soil. Disturbed soils which have stabilized for at
least five years may be approved upon soil analysis or percolation test results. The Committee may reject any fill
site deemed to not be suitable for an absorption system.
g. Graded sites. Removal of upper layers of soil from an absorption system site is prohibited. Areas graded down
may not be used as soil absorption system sites except as approved by the Committee after suitable soil analysis and
testing.
h. Soil Smearing. Soils with significant clay content shall not be worked when wet. The Sanitarian, upon observing
significant smearing, shall have the
authority to stop work on the absorption system until the soil has dried to allow minimal smearing.
-------
Appendix E
7.2(4) Gravel systems. Only rock trench lateral field systems shall be allowed as the preferred subsurface soil
absorption system. Rockless pipe systems and chamber systems shall noi be used. Also allowed shall be drip
irrigation systems.
a. A minimum of 12" clean, washed river rock shall be used in the trench. This gravel shall be of such size that
100% will pass a 2.5" screen and 100% will be retained on a .75" screen. Limestone or crushed rock is not allowed
as a rock medium.
b. Lateral trenches shall be 24" in width. A trench width of up to 36" is
permissible with Committee approval.
c. The trench bottom should be level.
d. Untreated building paper, synthetic drainage fabric, straw, or other approved material shall be laid so as to
separate the gravel from the soil backfill.
e. Transit readings shall be taken n all lateral lines at the proximal and distal ends to assure proper grade. Additional
readings may be required for any connecting piping from distribution bojtes or manifolds to secure proper fall.
f. Gravity systems. Additional requirements for such systems shall be as
follows:
1. Pipe Distribution, pipe shall be PVC rigid plastic meeting ASTMStamiard 2729, or other suitable material
approved by the Committee. The inside diameter shall not be less than 4" with perforations at least .5" and no more
than .75" in diameter spaced no more than 40" apart. Two rows of perforations shall be provided located 120
degrees apart along the bottom half of the tubing (each 60 degrees up from the bottom center line). The end of the
pipe shall be capped.
2. Distribution. Distribution on sloped sites shall be by either drop boxes or a distribution box method. Serial
distribution may be allowed with permission of the Sanitarian. On flat sites either serial distribution, a manifold
distribution, or a distribution box may be employed.
a. Drop boxes and distribution boxes shall be of plastic composition.
b. Manifold layouts shall be of water-tight piping laid on a level, undisturbed bed. Only 90-degree tees may be
the lateral to the manifold. The effluent line shall used to connect to the manifold in approximately the middle of the
manifold and equidistant between two laterals.
c. Distribution shall be laid out in an approved manner that does not allow water to follow a trench from one
distribution line to another. I
d. Distribution boxes shall not feed any lateral greater than 100' in length!.
e. Laterals in a distribution box or manifold system shall all be equal in length, except that a line may vary from the
common length by 10% hi special circumstances.
f. Distribution boxes shall have a 45-degree or more inlet letdown.
g. Speed levelers must be installed on all lateral outlets. i
3. An observation port shall be installed at the outer end of every lateral line. This shall consist of a Tee at the end
of the lateral pipe with section of the perforated pipe extending down to the bottom of the rock
layer and a piece of solid pipe extending from line level to 2" above grade. All piping shall be glued together with a
cap (not glued) covering the above grade pipe. i
i
4. Such ports shall be maintained by the homeowner to be visible and at least 2" above the surface of the ground.
Caps and ports must be kept in proper repair at all times to allow for the Slanitarian to inspect the
conditions of the laterals. Caps must be of the proper size for the port. |
g. Pressure systems Additional requirements for such systems shall be as follows:
1. The manifold and distribution pipe shall be rigid, plastic pipe (Schedules 40 or equivalent) of 1-2" inside diameter.
The lateral pipe shall be laid in the rock layer as near to level as possible, i
2. All joints shall be pressure fittings solvent welded.
3. The distribution pipe shall be placed in the upper 3" of rock with the holes turned downward.
4. No perforations shall be allowed in the last 3" of the outer end of the laiteral pipe nor in the first 3' of the lateral
pipe. I
5. The length of pressure laterals is not limited to 100' nor do all laterals in a system have to be of equal length.
-------
Appendix E
6. The system shall be pressure-tested for proper operation prior to covering where possible or deemed necessary.
7. Discharge holes in the pipe shall not be smaller than 3/16" nor larger than 3/8" without special permission.
8. Hole spacing shall not be less than 2' nor more than 10'.
9. Pump head shall correspond as closely as possible to that needed to pressurize the highest elevation lateral to 3'
of head minimum.
10. The system is to be designated so that approximately equal volumes of water ate delivered to each lateral on a
per foot basis. This is accomplished by varying the hole size and spacing and if necessary
using valves or pipe restrictions to regulate flow to a particular lateral.
11. An observation port shall be installed at the outer end of every lateral line. Such ports shall be of 4" rigid, solid,
plastic pipe of less than Schedule 40 weight. The pipe shall be within 3' of the end of the with the pipe extending
from the bottom of the trench to at least 2" above
final grade. In the rock layer, the pipe shall have a series of %" holes installed but shall be solid through the dirt
layer.
12. Such ports shall be maintained by the homeowner to be visible and at least 2" above the surface of the ground.
Caps and ports must be kept in proper repair at all times to allow inspection of the lateral condition.
Caps must be of the proper size for the port.
13. The manifold line shall be laid in such an approved fashion as to prevent effluent from seeping from line to line.
14. Any lateral field of 400' or more must be pressure dosed.
7.3 Mound systems. Under suitable site conditions the use of a mound system is allowed. The mound system shall
be installed according to the current Board of Health regulations in effect at the time the mound is approved for
installation. The Committee reserves the right to add additional stipulations if necessary to protect the health and
condition of the Lake and residents.
7.4 Drip irrigation systems. Specifications given in these rules are minimal and may not be sufficient for all
applications. Technical specifications are changing with experience and research. Other design information beyond
the scope of these rules may be necessary to properly design a drip irrigation system.
7.4(1) Pretreatment. These systems must be preceded by a secondary treatment system with National Sanitation
Foundation approval discharging a treated, filtered effluent with BOD and TSS values less than 20 mg/L.
7.4(2) Groundwater separation. Drip irrigation systems shall have a minimum vertical separation distance to high
groundwater level or bedrock of 20".
7.4(3) Maximum slope. Drip irrigation systems shall not be installed on slopes of more than 25%.
7.4(4) Emitter layout
a. Discharge rate Systems shall be designed so that emitters discharge approximately 1 gpm at 12 psi or other rates
suggested by the manufacturer and approved by the Committee.
b. Grid size Drip lines shall be ran in parallel lines at least 2' apart. Emitters shall be placed in the drip lines on 2'
intervals with emitters offset 1' between adjacent lines. Each emitter shall cover 4 square feet of absorption area.
c Field size The field shall be sized according to the application rate given in Table IV. Where appropriate the
manufacturer's representative may provide input into sizing of the system.
d. Depth of lines Drip lines shall all be laid on the contour 6-12" deep with a maximum line length of 100'.
e. Interconnection Drip lines shall all be connected to supply and return headers such that the entire system will
automatically drain back to the pump pit upon completion of the pumping cycle. Vacuum breakers shall be
positioned at the high point of the supply and return headers.
7.4(5) Pump chamber These pump pits shall meet all appropriate specifications of pump pits listed in section 7.7.
Additionally, the following shall apply:
a. Pump pits shall be at least 1000 gallons in capacity. •
b. Pump pits shall have an audible and visible alarm system either in the house or at the pump station.
c. Pumps shall cycle to deliver a dose of 20-50 gallons of water then shut off for at least one-half hour before
restarting to repeat the cycle as long as there is sufficient effluent to activate the pump float.
-------
Appendix E
d. There shall be a high level alarm that activates when the tank is 75% Ml.
e. No check valve is allowed on the pump line.
f. A filter shall be present on the discharge line after the pump but within the pit that will not allow solids that
might plug the emitters to enter the pump line.
g. A service contract shall be maintained by the homeowner with an approved company to do a service check on
this system quarterly. This service report shall be automatically sent to the Committee by the service company
within ten days of completion of the service for that quarter. |
Table IV j . ,
Length of Drip Line Required per Bedroom
Perc rate (min./inch) Length of Drip Line (feet/bedroom) \
1-5
6-15
16-30
31-45
46-60
61-90
91-120
50
75
100
200
250
400
600
7.5(1) Intermittent sand filters. Such sand filters may be allowed by the Committee with special variance if it is
determined it is not possible to install a subsurface soil absorption system.
a. Pretreatment These systems must be preceded by a secondary treatm'ent system with National Sanitation
Foundation approval discharging a treated, filtered effluent with BOD and TSS values less than 20 mg/L.
b. Location. Such sand filters shall be located as far from the shoreline!as practical but in no case shall the sand
filter be deeper than the Lake elevation nor in the water table.
c. Sampling. A sampling port shall be available at the discharge point bf the filter or shall be installed in the
discharge line after the effluent filter in the pump pit. Monitoring and effluent sampling of intermittent sand filters
must meet the requirements of the NPDES General Permit No. 4. Such sampling shall be performed annually or as
directed by the Committee. The annual sample must be collected in the months of June, July, or August.
d. Contaminant levels The maximum carbonaceous BODS, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform count
requirements are as follows:
Effluents Discharging to:
Class "A" waters:
Primary contact waters:
All other water use classifications
Fecal Coliform
200
no limit
BODS
25
25
TSS
25
25
e. Free access filter. It is assumed that such filters will be free access sslnd filters. Such filters shall be dosed by
pumping.
f. Gravel specifications. The bottom of the sand filter shall have a 12" layer of gravel meeting the specifications
of section 7.2(4)a with the collector lines laid in the bottom 6" of rock.
g. Collector lines. One collector line shall be laid for each 3' of bottom ^surface area. Such lines shall be Schedule
35, or equivalent, with perforations as specified hi section 7.2(4)fl. |
h. Sand barrier. A 3" layer of clean, washed pea gravel shall cover the rock prior to the sand layer being added.
Filter fabric shall not be used.
i. Sand. A minimum of 30" course, washed sand shall be placed over tljie pea gravel.. The sand shall meet the
Iowa DOT standard for concrete sand: 100% shall pass a 9.5 mm screen, 90-100% shall pass a 4.75 mm screen, 70-
100% shall pass a 2.36 mm screen, 10-60% shall pass a 600 micron scree;[l, and 1-1.5% shall pass a 75 micron
screen. [ .
j. Distribution. Distribution of effluent over the sand layer shall be accomplished by the use of a 1 Vz" Schedule
40 manifold laid on the sand inside a 4" pipe meeting the standards of section 7.2(4)f.l. This 4" pipe shall be
-------
Appendix E
capped at the end with a V4" holes drilled at the end to allow drainage after the pump shuts off. The pressure
manifold pipe shall have V4" holes drilled on 4' centers. There shall be one distributor line for each 2' of filter width.
k. ; Access. Such filters must be covered to protect against severe weather conditions or to avoid encroachment by
weeds or animals. The cover also serves to reduce odor conditions. Covers may be constructed of treated wooden
planks, or other suitable material. Insulation is recommended. A minimum space of 18" shall be available between
the cover and the sand surface to allow easy maintenance. Such filters shall not be buried by sod or soil. All
portions of the sand surface shall be accessible from the accesses.
1. Size. Such filters shall be 20 square feet per bedroom with a minimum square footage of 60 square feet.
m. Discharge line. The discharge line from the sand filter to the point of discharge shall be perforated pipe
meeting the standards of section 7.2(4)f.l. It shall be laid in the trench surrounded by pea gravel or septic rock
meeting standards of section 7.2(4)a. This is to allow as much treated effluent as possible to enter the soil prior to
discharge.
n. Pump pit The pump pit shall meet the specifications in section 7.7. A filter shall be present on the discharge
line after the pump but within the pump pit that will meet the same requirements as the filter specified for drip
irrigation systems.
o. Service contract. A service contract shall be maintained by the homeowner with an approved company to do a
service check on this system quarterly. The service report shall be automatically sent to the Committee by the
service company within ten days of completion of service for that quarter.
7.5(2) Existing non-aerated intermittent sand filters. There are in existence such sand filters that are preceded by
septic tank treatment with a dosing chamber to dose the sand filter.
a. Such systems shall be allowed to exist until such time as the Committee adopts rules that would replace such
septic tank/sand filter systems with another system.
b. Should such a sand filter fail and need to be replaced the system must be replaced with an aerated system per
section 7.5(1).
c. The homeowner shall maintain all plumbing fixtures in proper working in order to limit the hydraulic load.
d. Low volume toilets and showerheads shall be utilized.
e. Water pressure should be 65 psi or less.
f. Garbage disposal units are prohibited.
g. Should such system's septic tank need to be replaced the system must be replaced with an aerated system as per
section 7.5(1).
h. The septic tank outlet shall have a gas baffle in addition to the standard baffle required.
i. The sand filter construction shall be maintained in at least the same condition as required by the rules in effect
at the time the sand filter was installed.
j. There shall be no construction over the discharge line of the sand filter.
k. Sampling of the effluent shall be done on the same schedule as other sand filters.
1. Septic tanks preceding such sand filters shall be pumped when scum depth exceeds 3" or when sludge depth
exceeds 12".
7.6 Individual mechanical aerobic wastewater treatment systems
7.6(1) Use Mechanical/aerobic systems may be used only when the Sanitarian determines that the site is
macceptable for a full-sized soil absorption system. Because of the higher maintenance requirements of
unacceptable for a full-sized soil ausuipiiuii system, .oc^auoc uj. me m^uu mcuuu/iuuivw j.w^uu.^iuv/.
mechanical/aerobic systems, preference should always be given to septic tank/lateral field systems.
7.6(2) Certification All such systems shall be certified by an ANSI-accredited third-party certified to meet National
Sanitation Foundation Standard 40, Class I, including appendices (May 1996 or as revised).
7:6(3) Installation and operation All such systems shall be installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions and the requirements of the Committee. The aerobic plants shall have a minimum
treatment capacity of 150 gallons per bedroom or 500 gallons, whichever is larger.
7.6(4) Effluent treatment The effluent from such systems shall receive additional treatment through the use of free
access sand filters, drip irrigation, or mounds as specified above.
-------
Appendix E
7.6(5) Maintenance contract A maintenance contract with a manufacturer-certified technician shall be maintained
at all times. .
a. Maintenance agreements and responsibility waivers shall be recorded with the County Recorder and in the
abstract of title for the premises on which such systems are installed. |
b. Mechanical aerobic units shall be inspected for proper operation at least quarterly.
c. The inspection report for each unit shall be forwarded to the Sanitarian within ten days of the completion of that
quarter's inspection. Any additional service calls shall have the inspection report forwarded to the Sanitarian within
ten days.
d. Sampling of the effluent from the unit must be done annually in the months of June, July or August with the
report submitted to the Sanitarian.
e. Test results shall meet the limitations set forth in section 7.5d. Any jsystem, or portion of system, failing to meet
these standards must be promptly repaired, and a retest conducted within 30 days of the repair.
f. Should inspection by the Sanitarian reveal problems, or suspected problems, the maintenance company shall
inspect the system within 5 working days and collect additional samples if deemed necessary by the Sanitarian.
7.7 Pump pits. All pump pits shall comply with these regulations. Pump pits following aeration systems may have
additional requirements. I
7.7(1) Sizing. Pump pits shall be of a 1000-gallon minimum size. The Optimum gallonage to pump per cycle is
150-250 gallons with the balance available as freeboard in case of pump failure or electrical outage.
7.7(2) Material. Pump pits may be constructed of the same materials as Japproved for septic tanks. However, plastic
or fiberglass tanks cannot have more than 2' of cover over the tank. !
7.7(3) Required use. Pump pits are required when elevation dictates to reach the lateral files and also on any lateral
field system that is 400' or more in size. Dosing is required on all split-iield systems.
7.7(4) Access. A manhole of no less than 22" shall be provided into the pump pit. This manhole shall extend above
grade at least 4" and shall not be obstructed by heavy objects, rock cover, or ant other obstruction that limits access
into the pump pit. All pump pits shall be vented which may be accomplished by loose fitting lids.
7.7(5) Alarm. All pump pits shall have an audible and visible alarm either mounted at the pump station on an
outside mounting or within the home. Such alarm shall be installed so that it is activated when the pump pit exceeds
a 350-gallon volume of effluent. i
I
7.7(6) Wiring. All wiring shall be done so that it is water and airtight. £lo plugs or other open connections shall be
used. Preference is given to watertight electrical boxes mounted outside' the pump pit.
I
I
7.7(7) Repair. Any systems being repaired or replaced that involve pump stations being installed or changed shall
have the pump pit volume of at least 1 000 gallons used. |
7.8 Pumps. All pumps shall meet specifications for sewage pumps and afiall be sized such that the pump will deliver
the effluent to the treatment system in a manner that allows proper distribution of the effluent into the treatment
system. All pumps shall be plumbed with a quick disconnect for easy removal.
7.9 Alternative methods of wastewater disposal. Other methods of private sewage disposal not described in these
rules shall only be allowed after special approval of the Committee. There must be a preponderance of evidence to
show that any such system is capable of properly treating the effluent generated by the residence.
-------
Appendix £
Chapters
Section 8 Operation, maintenance, and repair
8.1(1) Purposes
a. The purpose of this chapter of rules is to extend and maintain the useful life of all existing on-site wastewater
treatment systems within the District without causing undue cost or hardship to the owner.
b. The District shall make every attempt to utilize subsurface disposal of wastewater. Surface disposal is
considered temporary and as a last resort.
8.2 Definitions
a. Part-time residence: Structure having substantially continuous occupancy less than six months per year.
b. Permanent residence: Structure having substantially continuous occupancy more than six months per year.
8.3 Inspection of existing systems
8.3(1) General requirements
a. Inspections shall be made when weather permits.
b. Such inspection will be unannounced unless the inspector directs the assistance of the resident.
c. Wastewater treatment systems at permanent residences shall be inspected at least once each year, except that
tank conditions shall be checked at least once each three years.
d. Wastewater treatment systems at part-time residences shall be inspected at least once each two years, except
that the tank conditions shall be checked at least once every six years.
e. Tanks with access ports below ground level shall be opened by the owner or owner's agent prior to the
inspection if greater than 1' to the top of the access port or if obstacles to opening are present.
f. Any tank opened that has the access greater than 12" below grade shall have a riser added to bring the access to
6" or less below grade. Any lid diameter greater than 16" shall have the lid changed to a donut-style lid to provide a
smaller access opening to facilitate inspection.
g. The District shall maintain a permanent file of inspections and historical data for each structure served by an on-
site disposal system.
h. Mechanical/aerobic systems shall be inspected by the certified technician as specified in section 7.6(5).
However, the Sanitarian shall do an inspection as per c and d above.
8.4 Inspection items
8.4(1) Tank inspection. The tank inspection shall include:
a. sludge and scum levels
b. determination of the conditions of the baffles, where feasible.
c. Determination of the integrity of the tank, walls, lid, and other structural components, where feasible.
8.4(2) Mechanical parts The following shall be checked:
a. pump and pump chamber
b. dosing siphon
c. aerator
d. timer and alarms, when possible
e. wiring
f. sampling of effluent shall be done according to appropriate portions section 7.
8.4(3) Disposal area. The treatment system shall be checked as follows:
a. surface conditions; i.e. wetness, unusual plant growth, erosion, and other visible signs
-------
Appendix E
b. any drop boxes, distribution boxes, alternating valves, etc. that may! be exposed to the surface
c. any surface discharge area checked for conditions indicating improper functioning of the secondary treatment
system. I
8.5 Operation and maintenance To aid in the proper operation and longevity of systems the following items are
required and specified.
8.5(1) Septic tanks shall be pumped when scum levels exceed 4" in thickness or when sludge levels exceed 16" in
depth, except as noted for sand filters. Scrubbing or disinfecting tanks eifter pumping is prohibited.
8.5(2) At no time shall vehicles, construction equipment be driven on the septic tank, pump pit, secondary treatment
system, or other damageable parts of the system.
i
8.5(3) Metal, cement, or other construction equipment, or pumping equipment be driven on the septic tank, pump
pit, secondary treatment system, or other damageable parts of the systeni.
8.5(4) Mechanical equipment such as pumps, siphons, aerators, and alarms shall be maintained in an operational
condition as specified hi the manufacturer's recommendations.
8.5(5) Wiring, connectors, and electrical components shall be repaired or replaced if deemed necessary by the
Sanitarian in order to assure proper equipment operation and to prevent safety hazards.
8.5(6) At the time of sale of a residence older portions of the system that[ do not meet current standards of
installation, such as wiring, may be required to be upgraded to current regulations.
i
8.5(7) Improperly operating systems cannot be repaired until the owner and Sanitarian agree on an acceptable plan
for repair that conforms to these rules as best is possible. It is realized that on some existing sites the rules may not
be able to be adhered to strictly and variances to certain sections may be necessary. Serious system problems will be
reviewed by the Committee for approval of repairs. \
8.5(8) At the time of abandonment of the old pre-1980 aerators, observation ports shall be installed on as many of
the existing lateral lines as can be located.
8.6 Maintenance of the split fields :
a. The Sanitarian shall be responsible for switching the alternating valve.
b. The valve shall be diverted from field to field once each year at approximately the same time each year.
c. Any system which develops symptoms of failing to operate satisfactorily under this dosing schedule may have
the dosing schedule modified by the Sanitarian. i ' '
8.7 Tank pumping I
a. A property owner can only hire persons or firms holding a current license from the Guthrie County Board of
Health to clean septic tanks within District.
b. When work begins on cleaning a tank, it shall be continued without interruption until the work is done and the
tank is properly closed.
c. Contents pumped from tanks may not be applied to land within the District except in a location and manner
approved by the Sanitarian and the Lake Panorama Association in order to protect the surface and groundwater
quality as well as for public health concerns. j
8.8 Disinfection. The Committee may require the disinfection of certain'systems that surface discharge. Such
disinfection systems shall be commercially manufactured units that meet! the Committee's approval.
8.9 Types of repairs To correct failing or problem systems the following! maJ ^e u^ze<^- This list is only a partial
listing and others may be approved by the Committee. i
-------
Appendix E
a. converting gravity-fed systems to doses systems
b. converting a single field to a split field
c. ; re-leveling the distribution box
d. ', increasing the dosing chamber size
e. implementing water conservation practices and installing water conservation devices
f. installing a second lateral field and developing a split field system
g. installing of curtain drains, terraces, and other water diversion structures
h. redirecting runoff and foundation drain water
i. increasing the lateral field size
j. installation of a mound system
k. segregation of black water and grey water systems
1. developing a pressurized subsurface absorption system
m. installation of a dosed, pressure sand filter
n. removal of structures affecting the subsurface absorption field.
8.9(1) The Committee shall establish a time limit for the completion of the repairs
8.9(2) Any consultants or other professionals hired as directed by the Committee shall be the responsibility of the
homeowner as regards payment for services.
8.10 NPDES Permits For systems designed to discharge treated effluent into waters of the State or onto the surface,
it will be necessary to obtain a Notice of Intent to fall under the requirements of NPDES General Permit No. 4. The
Committee is responsible for determining that the requirements of the permit are met including the monitoring
program. However, the homeowner is responsible for all costs associated with meeting these requirements.
8.11 Variances Variances to these rules may be granted by the Committee provided sufficient information is
submitted to substantiate the need and propriety for such action. Applications for variances and justification shall be
in writing and copies filed in the Committee minutes.
The rules were approved by the Administrative Committee at the April 10, 2000 meeting.
The rules were submitted to the Guthrie County Board of Health for review.
The Guthrie County Board of Health held a public hearing on these rules at its May 17,
2000 meeting.
-------
-------
-------
------- |