United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
EPA 904/10-64 124
November 1984
&EPA
Environmental
Assessment
Mountain Communities
Wastewater Management
Alternatives Report
Volume I - Summary Document
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA
MOUNTAIN COMMUNITIES WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT
ALTERNATIVES REPORT
VOLUME I
NOVEMBER 1984
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OP FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction and Background
1.2 Glossary
Chapter 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Summary of Technical Engineering Alternatives
2.2 Summary of Institutional Management Alternatives
2.3 Summary of Financial Alternatives
2.4 Findings and Conclusions
i
ii
1-1
1-1
1-3
2-1
2-1
2-5
2-9
2-11
-------
VOLUME I
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
No. Trtle Page
1-1 Study Area 1_1
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert B. Howard
Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer
Project Monitor
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Thomas M. Rachford
Stuart L. Miner
Lynette J. Rezac
John W. Jacobs
David B. Babcock
Richard N. Koch
Kenneth B. Kullman
Dorothy A, O'Neill
Project Manager
Project Director
Land Use Planner
Engineer
Engineer
Financial Management Analyst
Graphics Specialist
Secretary
Applied Biology, Inc.
Nancy W. Walls
David J. Herrema
Project Manager
Project Director
-------
VOLUME I
INTRODUCTION
This is the first of four volumes which make up the Final Alternatives
Development Report for the Mountain Communities Wastewater Management
Assessment. This first volume contains Chapter 1—Introduction and Chapter
2—Executive Summary, Findings and Conclusions.
Chapter One is an introduction to the Alternatives Development Report
as a whole. This chapter also gives a brief project background description.
The executive summary—Chapter Two—briefly and concisely summarizes the
key findings of this report. This includes the identification of most
appropriate alternatives for specific conditions and needs and factors
which were found to limit implementation.
11
-------
VOLUME I
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction and Background
The goal of the Mountain Communities Wastewater Management Assessment
is to review and document the unique problems of the study region and
develop recommendations and guidance to help implement feasible solutions.
The project study area includes 82 largely rural counties in six states
which have been identified by the Appalachian Regional Commission as the
highlands portion of southeastern Appalachia. This area is shown on Figure
1-1 which follows.
This Draft Alternatives Development Report is the third document
prepared as part of the Mountain Communities Assessment. The first report,
Mountain Communities Assessment, Final Background and Orientation Report,
November 1983, defined the project's objectives, generally discussed the
problems and issues which needed to be addressed and set forth a plan of
study for the project.
The second report prepared for this project, the Survey of Existing
Conditions Report, February 1984, set the stage for this Alternatives
Development Report by describing in detail natural and man-made charac-
teristics of the study area and discussing their actual and potential impact
on wastewater management in the study area. This review identified a number
of features which were found to limit the success of wastewater management
efforts within the study area. Among those issues which were identified,
the following were considered to be the most significant:
• average income is well below both state and national averages
with significant numbers of residents below the poverty line,
• population has been rising at a greater rate than at the state
or national level since 1970 and is projected to continue to
increase,
1-1
-------
FIGURE I-l
-------
• population is highly dispersed due to mountainous terrain and
lack of land use controls,
• 60% of study area homes are on individual water supply systems,
• most study area residents rely on on-site wastewater disposal
with many using straight pipes or privies,
• although use of on-site systems is feasible in many parts of
the study area, failures still occur, due primarily to poor
installation, design and O&M practices,
• septic tanks which do fail are causing well contamination on
small lots,
• water quality problems are occuring from non-functioning
centralized treatment plants,
• very few 201 plans have been implemented,
• most facility planning has been done for larger communities.
The objective of this document is to identify and discuss available
engineering techniques, management systems and financial alternatives
appropriate for use in small mountain communities based on limiting
characteristics and other implementation problems identified in the Survey
of. Existing Conditions Report and listed above. Following identification
and description of available technical, management and financial altern-
atives, methodologies are presented for selecting the most appropriate
alternatives for a given situation.
1-2
-------
1.2 Glossary
The following is a glossary of pertinent terms used throughout this
report.
• Fact Sheet—a summary in fold-out table form of key information
on alternatives presented in each chapter.
• Technique—method or procedure used for carrying out or performing
wastewater activities, e.g.—
engineering techniques—septic tank; holding tank; surface
sprinkler.
management techniques—sanitarian survey; land management;
permit program.
financing techniques—EPA Construction Grant; North Carolina
Clean Water Bond; tapping fee. ,
• Management Function—activities, such as planning, design and
permitting, which are necessary to maintain adequate public
service and to guarantee long-term performance of a wastewater
system. Management techniques are used to carry out these
functions.
• Management System—Overall process for organizing and carrying
out all functions necessary to adequately meet community
wastewater needs, e.g. the Conventional Homeowner-Centered
Management System.
1- 3
-------
CHAPTER 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Summary of Technical Engineering Alternatives
A wide variety of engineering techniques are available for managing
wastewater and sludge generated by mountain communities. Wastewater
techniques appropriate for individual homes and business establishments
usually include a septic tank in conjunction with one of an array of soil
absorption systems for final treatment and disposal. Basically, soil
absorption techniques consist of beds, trenches and mounds, all of which can
be constructed in various configurations to meet specific site conditions.
Trenches are preferred where soils are deep and well-drained. Mounds extend
the use of soil absorption to areas with shallow soils. These systems may
be further modified including use of aerated septic tanks and low pressure
distribution of effluent to meet siting limitations related to land slope,
hydraulic conductivity and depth of unsaturated soil.
Additional options where no ground absorption is possible include
privies, holding tanks and small scale discharging alternatives such as a
sand filtration system.
Cluster systems would be those employed to treat and dispose of
wastewater from a group of congregated individual homes or businesses.
Cluster systems can be more feasible than separate systems for each
establishment if the individual homes or businesses are too densely
concentrated, if variable soil conditions make one large absorption area
more feasible, or if a discharging system is the only option. Typically, a
cluster system would use one of the land disposal techniques discussed
above; however, slow rate irrigation or systems employing surface water
discharge are also feasible.
Where cluster systems are used it becomes necessary to use some form of
wastewater collection system. Among the feasible collection systems which
2-1
-------
are discussed in Chapter 3 are small diameter gravity sewers which require
use of individual septic tanks; pressure sewers which also require either a
septic tank or grinder pumps; or vacuum sewers.
Small community systems are used in this report to refer to facilities
that handle flows from more than a cluster of establishments or flows up to
100,000 gallons per day. Small community systems may be appropriate where
individual or cluster-type systems are not adequate because of large sewage
volumes or service area size.
Engineering techniques for small communities include many of the
approaches applicable for cluster systems. Collection systems would
include those identified above plus conventional gravity sewers. Soil
absorption is generally too costly for all but the smallest community. For
larger systems, various types of biological treatment including rotating
biological contactors, different lagoon systems, conventional extended
aeration, trickling filters, slow rate spray irrigation, overland flow and
marsh/pond/meadow systems merit consideration.
Centralized systems are defined as those that handle more than 100,000
gallons per day. Centralized systems have historically been used for most
communities with large population concentrations. These systems have high
construction, operation and maintenance costs and their use is being
increasingly questioned and evaluated against alternative techniques for
all but the largest, most densely settled areas.
Wastewater collection treatment and disposal techniques typically used
for centralized systems are discussed in Chapter 3. Small diameter and
pressure sewers may be used, but large diameter gravity sewers, force mains
and pumping stations are typically favored. Treatment works are generally
quite complex, often designed to produce high quality effluent. Some plants
even incorporate advanced filtration to remove additional nitrogen, phos-
phorus, metals or organic compounds. Disposal techniques most often
include stream discharge, with some facilities using land application.
2-2
-------
Most of the engineering techniques identified above are technologically
simple: problems that do arise are typically the result of improper
installation or operation, maintenance and repair. Any one of a number of
problems following system design could completely eliminate a system's
effectiveness. Most of these problems can be minimized, however, by use of
a qualified site inspector, good communication between the inspector and
contractor and other installation procedures as discussed in Section 3.3.
In general, systems with the most hardware and moving parts are those
which require the most operation, maintenance and repair, but even
conventional septic systems require periodic maintenance. The most common
maintenance procedure for on-site systems is pumping out of accumulated
solids. The recommended minimum frequency varies depending on tank size and
usage. If pumping is not performed as needed, solids will accumulate in
drain fields greatly limiting their effectiveness. OMR procedures for
collection and treatment systems can become quite complex. Sewers should be
flushed and periodically inspected. Treatment plants should be inspected
at least weekly.
Other measures can also be taken to ensure proper, efficient func-
tioning of any of these techniques. Practices within the home or business
that can enhance performance of any wastewater system include:
• use of water saving devices,
• avoiding or discontinuing use of garbage disposals,
• using grease traps,
• separating toilet wastes (blackwater) from other
wastewaters (greywater),
• diverting roof runoff away from wastewater system,
• increasing hydraulic gradient by lowering
the groundwater table,
• diverting storm runoff from absorption areas.
2-3
-------
Specific design practices can also be utilized to more effectively
design small systems. These include detailed procedures for soil and site
evaluations, proven methods for adapting systems to particular site con-
ditions, sizing systems and methods for distributing effluent.
A recommended approach for selecting the appropriate engineering
technique would be to consider the alternatives in order of .increasing
complexity. In other words, develop a characterization of community
wastewater needs and then determine whether they can be met using
conventional on-site systems, alternative on-site systems, cluster or small
community conventional or innovative techniques or centralized systems.
The least complex systems are typically least expensive, most straight-
forward to install, and require the least amount of OMR. However, the
simplest techniques will not be appropriate for all communities. In some
locations more complex systems may be needed to ensure adequate per-
formance. In selecting which technique to implement, four basic factors
should be evaluated: costs, environmental impacts, operation and im-
plementation. Any one of these can rule out use of a certain technique.
2-4
-------
2.2 Summary of Institutional Management Alternatives
Proper management of community wastewater systems requires that the
following seven management functions be performed:
• problem identification,
• system planning and design,
• construction and installation,
• permitting,
• operation and maintenance,
• monitoring and compliance,
• training and public education.
There are many different ways in which these functions may be carried out
and at least five general system types available which can be used to
coordinate all management functions.
For example, the problem identification function can be performed
using sanitarian surveys, water quality sampling, aerial photography, water
meter installation or a combination of these techniques. The same range of
optional techniques is available to carry out most of the required
management functions.
The selection of a most appropriate technique is dependent upon a number
of factors including degree of wastewater problems, available expertise,
funds available and, particularly, the type of management system which will
be used to carry out the functions. Under different general system types,
the responsibility center for each function may change, in turn altering the
type of technique which may be most suitable for performing the function.
The five general management system models which have been proposed
include:
• conventional homeowner-centered,
2-5
-------
• conventional system with monitoring,
• private ownership with required operation,
maintenance and monitoring,
• private ownership with public operation and maintenance,
• public sector-oriented management.
Selection of the management system which is most appropriate for a
particular community should be made after thorough evaluation of such
limiting factors as:
• natural physical limitations,
• existing wastewater needs and problems,
• growth and development patterns,
• available expertise,
• community attitudes,
• available regulatory authority.
The conventional homeowner-centered management approach is most ap-
propriate for highly rural communities with low population densities, a
predominance of on-site systems, low growth rates, large areas of suitable
soils, and few existing problem areas. Though limited regulatory authority
and technical expertise are necessary, the basic approach can be improved
significantly if the management agency staff has the capabilities to assist
homeowners and installers in design and installation of alternative systems
where lot sizes or natural features limit conventional septic tank-soil
absorption systems. This management approach is further improved if at
least a limited public education program is carried out, particularly to
address the benefits of, and best techniques for, water conservation.
Public education is a very important component of a wastewater management
program.
The addition of monitoring to the conventional homeowner-centered
approach results in a system which may be more suitable for communities
with a higher number of failing on-site systems, less suitable natural
conditions, or privately-owned cluster systems. Monitoring of system
2-6
-------
performance either directly by the management agency or supervised by the
agency can help ensure that systems are properly operated and maintained and
that they continue to function properly. The addition of the responsibility
for monitoring, however, adds to the level of expertise required and if
performed directly by the public agency will require greater legal
authority.
The third model system incorporates required operation and maintenance
along with monitoring. Under this system O&M would not be performed by the
management agency, but would be required and supervised by the agency.
Techniques which can be used to oversee required O&M would include:
• revocable operating license,
• deed attachment,
• septage collection and disposal program,
• maintenance permit forms,
• service call light system.
This alternative is still most applicable for communities where on-site
systems are most prevalent. However, because proper O&M will be ensured,
this approach is also more suitable for alternative and innovative on-site
and cluster systems as well as small, private package plants or alternative
small community systems.
Staff expertise and regulatory authorities required for this management
system need not be any greater than for the second alternative as long as
operation and maintenance activities are carried out by a private con-
tractor .
The fourth alternative system model differs significantly from previous
approaches by shifting responsibility for operation and management, as well
as monitoring, to a public management agency. This approach would be
suitable for communities with major wastewater management needs and it
would apply to any system type. It is the surest approach for ensuring
proper functioning of facilities, however, application of this system may
2-7
-------
be limited by the level of expertise and regulatory authority required. The
number of personnel and level of expertise required may be beyond the range
of many mountain communities.
The final alternative managment system model concentrates all manage-
ment activities and ownership of wastewater facilities in the public
sector. This approach is typical in more densely settled suburban and urban
areas where conventional collection and treatment systems are most pre-
valent. Public ownership may also be applied to on-site cluster and small
community systems and such complete public responsibility may be most
appropriate for communities with numerous wastewater problems, extensive
growth and natural feature or socioeconomic limitations.
Required staff expertise and cost would be great, and the extent of
regulatory authority required and the effect of public attitudes would
significantly limit the number of mountain communities where such an
approach would be appropriate. Even in larger communities it may be
possible that private ownership of conventional collection and treatment
systems is cost-effective. Though complete public responsibility does have
significant benefits, the implementation problems may outweigh them in all
but the most populous communities in which other "urban-type" services are
provided. /
2-8
-------
2.3 Summary of Financial Alternatives
There are several sources of funds available to small communities in the
study area for solving wastewater problems. These sources include federal,
state and local governments as well as private entities.
Probably the major source of funds for wastewater projects at the
Federal level is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Con-
struction Grants Program. Generally, construction grant funds have not
been available to rural communities because of competition with urban and
suburban areas for these funds. Inclusion on a state priority list for
funding of a wastewater project is a prerequisite for construction grant
funding. Where a potential project falls on the list is largely dependent
on the degree of impact to water (surface or ground) quality. Hence,
priority areas tend to be developed communities which discharge to surface
water where most water quality monitoring has taken place. One advantage a
rural area has in obtaining construction grant funds is that if a state has
a rural population of 25 percent or more it must reserve four percent of its
allotment for small communities to implement alternatives to conventional
wastewater systems.
Other federal funding sources available to small communities include
grants and loans from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) especially
targeted for water and wastewater disposal systems in rural areas;
Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) grant funds; and U.S. Economic
Development Administration (U.S. EDA) funding mechanisms. The objective
of both ARC and EDA wastewater funding is economic development residential
use.
Each of the six study area states with the exception of Alabama has some
type of grant or loan program for funding wastewater facilities. Generally,
the objective of these local funding programs is to cover part of the local
2-9
-------
costs to communities which have received a Federal grant for wastewater
facilities. In addition, state governments may receive Community Develop-
ment Block Grants which are available to fund sewer projects in small
communities. The grant program is managed directly by each state.
Local funding sources, such as general obligation bonds, revenue bonds,
bond anticipation notes and commercial bank short-term loans, may be used
to either match Federal grants or to totally finance wastewater facilities
if Federal or State funds are not available.
In addition, a community must implement a system for generating funds
for annual operation and maintenance. These sources of revenue can include
special assessments, connection charges, tapping fees and sewer rentals.
Taxes are generally used only as a last resort to support system operation.
In many instances, although these mechanisms are available to small
communities, they are not normally taken advantage of because of the limited
financial capability of a small, rural community.
Private funding sources available to small communities include short-
term bank loans, private investment by developers and private company
ownership and operation of facilities. None of these sources has been
frequently applied to small communities. Short-term bank loans can have
relatively high interest rates, effectively pricing out many small, rural
communities. A private developer may construct a facility, but generally
operation and maintenance is turned over to the community which, as
discussed previously, generally does not have the resources to finance an
effective, long-term O&M program. Most private ownership and operation of
wastewater facilities has occurred in urban areas and, since this trend is
fairly new, it is too early to determine if it will spread to the study area.
In order to select the financing methodology best suited to its
particular circumstances, a small community must review all of the above
available options, focusing on grant/loan eligibility and availability,
local financing and revenue requirements and financial capability to
support local requirements.
2-10
-------
2.4 Findings and Conclusions
The intention of this report is to present a range of alternative
technical, management and financial systems which may be more suitable to
the particular wastewater needs of mountain communities than prevailing
approaches. Each chapter presents information on methods for evaluating
the alternative systems and selecting those which may be most appropriate
for the needs of a specific community. There is no detailed evaluation of
each alternative and no recommendation of specific approach for specific
communities. Such information will be more thoroughly developed in later
phases of the mountain communities assessment.
Because of the overall objective of the material in this report, it is
not in general of a conclusionary nature. However, there are certain
findings with regard to alternatives in each of the three chapters that
would be useful to identify. Regarding technical alternatives, the
following findings are significant:
• even the complex physical limitations in the study area can
be overcome by certain technical approaches,
• for many communities renovation of existing on-site systems and
water conservation measures may be most effective alternatives,
. methods for ensuring proper design and installation and
enhancing operation of conventional or less complex systems
may be preferable to use of costly, complex techniques,
• on-site systems can meet wastewater and water quality
needs in most communities on a cost-effective basis,
provided the systems are properly designed, operated and
maintained,
• for many communities, centralized systems may be too complex
and costly.
2-11
-------
For institutional management alternatives, the following significant
findings have been identified:
• the function of problem identification and planning is too often
not carried out,
• management systems vary in their range of public
sector control from almost no public agency
involvement to total ownership and control,
• regardless of whether public or private entities are
responsible, for management to be effective, the
following seven functions must be carried out:
• problem identification,
« system planning and design,
• construction and installation,
• permitting,
• operation and maintenance,
• monitoring and compliance,
• training and public education.
• conventional homeowner-centered management is adequate
only for on-site systems and in the past has not provided
sufficient incentives to properly operate or maintain
systems,
• full public ownership and management may not always be
appropriate, even for communities with centralized systems
because of higher costs, public reaction and the level of
expertise necessary,
• the most appropriate techniques will be those which blend
private and public responsibilities and provide sufficient
controls or incentives to ensure proper system operation
and maintenance.
For financial alternatives, the following findings have been iden-
tified:
2-12
-------
• U.S. EPA Construction Grant funding is the primary source of
Federal funding for wastewater projects, however, few rural
communities have received such funding due to stiff urban/
suburban competition,
• generally, most state funding programs only provide funds
to cover that part of a project not covered by Federal funds,
• although a small community may be able to partially fund the
implementation of a system, the financial capability of the
community's population may not allow for effective, long-term
operation and maintenance of a system,
• small communities may not generally rely on private funding
sources for their wastewater projects because of a lack of
revenue to support adequate O&M of a system built by a
private developer and also because many private investors
have not, as yet, been attracted to small, mountainous communities.
• money for planning is difficult to obtain from any of the
funding sources.
*U.S.GOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE:198
------- |