625977502
national conference
on
LESS COSTLY
WASTE WATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FOR
SMALL COMMUNITIES
J0> ^
LIBRARY
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EDISON, N. J. 08817
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Date: April 12, 13, and 14, 1977
Location: Reston, Virginia
-------
FOREWORD
The papers within this volume were presented at the
U.S. EPA National Conference on "Less Costly Waste-
water Treatment Systems for Small Communities," at
Reston, Va., on April 12, 13, and 14, 1977. The focus
of the conference was sound and economical alternatives
to conventional centralized wastewater collection and
treatment systems for small communities.
Discussion included present governmental policy on
wastewater facilities, and descriptions of major types of
conveyance and treatment systems (with comparative
costs). Examples were provided of successful and cost-
effective installations which meet environmental require-
ments. Alternative organizations for maintaining and
operating small facilities were also discussed.
Attendees at the National Conference included
municipal officials, state health and water pollution
control officials, consulting engineers, educators in san-
itary and environmental engineering, and representatives
from environmental and public interest groups.
This conference was co-sponsored by the following
EPA offices: Environmental Research Information Center
(Technology Transfer), Cincinnati, Ohio; The Office of
Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C.; and The
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
U. S. LHviaGuuiuJAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EDISON, N. L 0881Z
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SMALL COMMUNITIES AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS: A NEW VIEW - Administrator's Welcome
Douglas M. Costle 1
RURAL AMERICA NEEDS SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR SANITATION PROGRESS - Keynote Address
U.S. Senator Jennings Randolph 3
CURRENT COSTS OF CONVENTIONAL APPROACHES
Keith H. Dearth 6
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SEWERING SMALL COMMUNITIES
Marilyn W. Klein 9
EFFECTS OF DATED NATIONAL CODES ON COSTS OF SEWERED SYSTEMS
Michael R. Alford 14
THE ADEQUACY AND UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL -
A STATE VIEWPOINT
Gary D. Plews 20
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS
James F. Hudson 29
O&M COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
James L. Gamble 33
OPPORTUNITIES FOR USE OF INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS
Theodore C. Williams 42
PRESSURE SEWERS (WITH GLIDE/IDLEYLD CASE STUDY)
Terry Bounds 45
FOUNTAIN RUN, KENTUCKY (CASE STUDY)
Jack L. Abney 54
BOYD COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Lawrence E. Waldorf 68
A CONSULTANT'S OVERVIEW OF ON-SITE NEEDS
John T. Winneberger 73
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF SMALL PLANTS
John L. Fripp, Jr 77
OWPO POLICY
John T. Rhett 80
208 PROG RAM
Joseph Krivak 83
STATE PERSPECTIVE - FACILITIES PLANNING FOR SMALL UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES IN ILLINOIS
James R. Leimcke gg
FmHA PROGRAMS FOR SMALL COMMUNITY SEWAGE FACILITIES
Glenn E. Walden 93
-------
Administrator's Welcome
SMALL COMMUNITIES AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT COSTS:
A NEW VIEW
Doug/as M. Cosfle*
I am very pleased that you are here today to help us
take a fresh look at the critical issue of wastewater
treatment costs, focusing especially on how these costs
affect our smaller communities.
I am sure many would agree that there is an urgent
need to find "less costly wastewater treatment systems
for small communities," as the conference topic sug-
gests. On how to pursue this goal, however, there is less
agreement.
Fortunately, interest in this subject is growing
rapidly. Our design conferences on this issue, held in
Seattle and Philadelphia, were packed to overflowing.
Already, similar conferences planned for Kansas City,
San Francisco, and Denver, have evoked wide interest.
This conference is expected to move the discussion
beyond case histories and technical questions to a
consideration of policy. While we plan to focus at-
tention during these three days on economical alter-
natives to conventional wastewater collection and treat-
ment systems for small population centers, we also
expect to explore governmental policy issues involved,
including the need for public input in developing that
policy.
We are honored today to have s keynote speaker who
has been at the heart of environmental policy develop-
ment, beginning long before the environment became a
popular issue. Senator Jennings Randolph, chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee, is also
an expert on the problems and concerns of America's
small towns. I am delighted he was able to join us
today.
From his service in West Virginia, Senator Randolph
knows first hand the character of our rural populations.
My experience in Connecticut, where more than one-
third of the population resides in small towns, has given
me a special appreciation and affinity for smaller
communities.
"Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
To many Americans, life in a small town represents
an ideal lifestyle. Such settings appear to integrate man
with his environment in the least harmful way. Their
problems appear less complex; their pollutants are often
less troublesome.
In setting national priorities and developing plans for
abating pollution, the special conditions and advantages
of our smaller communities have not always been taken
fully into consideration.
This series of conferences is designed to build on
these special advantages in developing acceptable alter-
natives to approaches based on conventional wisdom.
In our wastewater treatment construction grants
program, some of the costs and planning approaches
that have been developed now appear out of step with
small town realities. The costs in initial capital, oper-
ation and maintenance of facilities, collector sewers,
individual home connections, and so on, have exceeded
residents' resources, in some cases.
In terms of the national costs, we currently have an
$18 billion Federal program providing 75 percent of the
costs of wastewater treatment construction. When the
State and local share is added, we have a $24 billion
program. Dollar outlays are expected to amount to close
to $4.5 billion this year. More than 8,000 projects are
underway, and we expect this number to top 10,000
this year.
More than half of our current grants, about 4,600,
are for facility plans, the majority for small commu-
nities. New facility planning grants are being cleared at a
rate of more than 2,000 per year, most going to smaller
towns. These are the subject of our present concern.
Our new facility-needs survey has broken down the
projected requirements for present and 1990 popula-
tions in this way:
• For large plants we need more than $11 billion.
• For small plants we need more than $10
billion.
-------
For the first time we are setting needs for small
communities as high as for large cities. The numbers of
small town projects have always outweighed the large
city projects but, previously, the dollar investments have
not approached the big cities, except on a per capita
basis.
Costs and cost-effectiveness, therefore, become much
more critical issues.
On the cost side, a survey conducted last summer of
completed facility plans for communities under 50,000
in population found that capital and O&M costs of the
250 or so plans involved would exceed $100 per year
for the homeowners in 40 percent of the towns. For 10
percent of the towns costs would exceed $200. The
smallest towns, with fewer than 10,000 people, generally
experienced the greatest cost, occasionally approaching
$300 per household, or even more.
The survey found that the major cost was in
conventional collector systems, where plans called for
the installation of complete systems. Upgrading of
existing systems was seldom considered in planning, nor
were smaller collection alternatives, such as pressure or
vacuum systems.
As a result of the findings, EPA is now taking a
number of steps to be sure that the facility planners do
consider the alternatives, and that the full costs, in-
cluding operation and maintenance, are included.
• We are requiring that plans present local costs-
capital and O&M—so they can be easily under-
stood. This information must be presented at
public hearings on the plans.
• We have changed our secondary treatment
requirements to eliminate the need for disinfec-
tion, except where the standards for water quality
in-stream require it.
• We are also relaxing somewhat the suspended
solids limits for small treatment lagoons. A large
proportion of the small towns in this country use
these lagoons since they are fairly inexpensive,
fairly efficient, and fairly simple to operate.
• We are modifying our guidelines for cost effec-
tive planning to make sure over-sized treatment
works are not built.
• We are encouraging sanitary engineers, health
officials and others to update their practice and
criteria to take into account new alternatives,
improved building materials, and accumulated
knowledge and experience.
• We have also doubled our funding to the
agency's research and development program in this
area.
Our hope is that conferences like this one, together
with the work and experience of planners, managers,
and engineers like yourselves, will inevitably lead to
more workable solutions to the wastewater treatment
problems of small communities than those presently on
the drawing boards. We are concerned about costs. Many
small town homeowners have incomes well below the
median national level. Our experience shows that costs
that exceed the $66 to $130 per year cost for the
typical homeowner in small towns will lay a heavy
financial burden on many poorer residents.
Alternatives to relieve the local costs may be found
in the add-on grants or loans from the Farmers Home
Administration and other Federal agencies. The new
loan guarantee law is another possibility. Under the new
law, loans from the Federal Financing Bank to finance
the local share will be guaranteed by EPA, if no other
funds can be obtained at reasonable rates.
Our goal in this effort is to reduce pollution and raise
the quality of living without imposing undue costs on
localities.
At the same time, we seek alternatives that will help
conserve our precious energy and water resources,
particularly in drought-stricken areas. We are making
every effort to assure the use of energy-saving ideas and
the conservation of water. We are using our facility
planning grants to help fund demonstration projects for
some of the advanced design concepts. We urge engi-
neers, planners, and community leaders to help in
developing the reasonable and cost-efficient alternatives
to fit the individual local situations.
One of my first official acts as EPA Administrator
was to join many of Senator Randolph's friends in
honoring him for being named "Resource Recovery Man
of the Year."
Besides his continuing, vital role in promoting re-
source conservation and environmental protection, he
has long been a champion of research into new
technologies tailored to the needs and concerns of rural
America.
In response to these concerns, my predecessor, Russ
Train, pledged to redouble EPA's effort in this regard.
And here today, Mr. Senator, I renew that pledge.
I am delighted that you were able to be with us
today and we all look forward to your comments on
this critical issue.
-------
Keynote Address
RURAL AMERICA NEEDS SPECIAL PROGRAMS
FOR SANITATION PROGRESS
U.S. Senator Jennings Randolph*
As individuals, and as a Nation, it is not unusual for
us to rely on familiar persons, ideas, and concepts. When
we have what we think is a good idea, the natural
tendency is to stick with it. The tools of our trade,
whatever that trade might be, are often used in the same
way. There seems a tendency to over-rely on trusted
tools and methods, to stretch their use to fit as many
applications as possible, or to attempt to alter our
problems or circumstances to fit our old reliable tools.
This has been the case with our over-dependence on
large, centralized sewage collection and treatment sys-
tems. We have attempted to take them from highly
urban settings, where their economies of scale and
efficiency are most suited, and apply them to the
different and varied needs of rural America. Such
systems are not suited to many of the 19.5 million
households that are now unserved by public sanitation
facilities. The estimated costs per home of $8,000 to
$10,000 and more is evidence that we cannot use the
same old tools we have relied on in the past in these
situations.
Representing one of the most rural States in the
country, I have been concerned with the need to
provide the same advantages for rural families as those
enjoyed by urban ones. As Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have
been concerned with the cost and effectiveness of our
water pollution control program. As a member of
Congress, I am concerned with the overall, long-range
effects of such policies on our environment and our
economy.
Because of these concerns, I have become increasingly
aware of the need for a more comprehensive and
flexible approach to economically balance the problems
of rural sanitation and environmental quality. On Feb-
ruary 20, 1976, I wrote to Russell Train, then Admin-
istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to
express my concern that the intent of Congress was not
being fully implemented with respect to Sections 104(q)
and 105(e) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972. These sections call for an active program
to find and use cost-effective alternative wastewater
*U.S. Senator Jennings Randolph
D.-W. Va.
Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
systems for rural areas. In his reply, Mr. Train outlined
the Agency's efforts in this area and pledged increased
efforts during 1977.
On October 26, 1976, in the Senate, I again
expressed concern for the need of an accelerated pro-
gram, using alternative systems funded by the Federal
Government, to provide reliable, cost-effective sanita-
tion for rural families.
Since my first letter to Mr. Train, the Agency has
moved in a responsible way to increase its program to
encourage and evaluate new alternative wastewater sys-
tems. The recent series of EPA regional seminars and
this conference are important steps in the right direc-
tion. However, this is only a start and much remains to
be done. It should also be noted that the Farmers Home
Administration, which is specifically charged by Con-
gress with the responsibility for meeting the needs of
rural Americans, has an ongoing program to develop
more cost-effective rural sanitation techniques, partic-
ularly with low pressure sewers.
The major efforts to date have been by private
industry. In various parts of the country, a relatively
few private businessmen saw the need for equipment
specifically designed to meet the problems of rural
sanitation—long before we in Washington began to
understand the problem. For many years these business-
men have dedicated their energies and substantial capital
to the development of reliable equipment and tech-
niques for the collection, treatment, and disposal of
wastewater in rural America. Some of these products
and methods provide the added advantage of water reuse
and water saving, which will become increasingly im-
portant in the near future.
To you, in this new industry, I urge that you make
yourselves and your ideas known to your government.
This could be most effectively accomplished through the
establishment of a trade association for all alternative
systems manufacturers. Such an association could
present your views to those of us who must make
policies and laws to meet the problems that our Nation
and our people face.
It would be a mistake, in my judgment, for any of
you to insist that your product or method is the single
-------
answer to this complex problem. Such a position,
carried to its logical conclusion, merely places us where
we began, with the mistake of over-reliance on a single
tool.
We at the Federal level should encourage the further
development of promising techniques through an on-
going program that places greater emphasis on research.
In the implementation of programs for rural sanitation,
we must view the available options and select those
tools most appropriate for a given situation. Whether it
be individual aeration plants, package plants, low pres-
sure sewers, or septic tanks, it is essential that we have
the facilities from which to select the most appropriate
and efficient combinations of collection, treatment, and
disposal techniques.
It is equally important that regardless of equipment
or techniques selected, that rural sanitation be provided
to whole communities, small clusters of homes, and
individual households under a system approach. Such a
program was developed at the Boyd County, Kentucky
project, providing public ownership and maintenance.
Through this central management and ownership, there
should be no hesitation in providing this basic public
health service for each rural family, whether it lives
close to other families or a mile down the road. Diseases
associated with poor water and sanitation are highest in
those areas without publicly owned, operated, and
maintained sanitation facilities.
Because of the need for new ways to solve the
problems of rural sanitation and environmental quality, I
have become familiar with the various methods available
as alternative systems. Perhaps because of this concern,
our staff receives many inquiries asking for more
information about alternative systems. There is a real
need to make this information more readily available.
It is difficult to keep up to date on the research
being conducted in widely scattered areas of the
country. In the universities of California, Wisconsin,
Connecticut, and Toronto, at Rutgers, Penn State and
Dartmouth, significant work is continuing. Numerous
projects and programs are also being carried out by
private business, Federal agencies, and State and county
governments.
To assure the maximum benefit of such studies, to
avoid duplication, and to insure wide publication, there
is an urgent need for more coordination. To provide a
mechanism to coordinate present and future studies, I
propose the establishment of a central clearinghouse for
all information on alternative wastewater systems for
rural areas.
Such a clearinghouse could perhaps be funded
through the Environmental Protection Agency's Waste-
water Research Division. It would insure that the great
amount of research on this subject would be readily
available to others concerned with the further devel-
opment of alternative systems. Equally important, such
a clearinghouse would insure that general information
and data and research would be condensed into the
most usable form of State and local governments and
concerned citizens.
The Agency should evaluate the National Sanitation
Foundation at Ann Arbor, Mich., as a possible operator
for this clearinghouse. NSF has provided testing and
sanitation standards for food service and other products
for more than 20 years. Since 1966, NSF has worked to
develop and upgrade standards for alternative wastewater
systems through the coordination of health officials,
industry representatives, and regulatory officials.
As with any important subject involving the com-
plexities of public health, engineering, and various other
sciences, we cannot expect total agreement on what is
the best method for meeting the sanitation needs of a
given area. Debate—vigorous debate—is essential on such
issues. We must welcome different points of view by
insuring that information developed through research is
available in usable form.
As we have become more sensitive to our fragile
environment, we have also begun to understand the
interrelationships and interdependence of environmental
matters. One of the consequences of our overdepen-
dence on large municipal collection and treatment
facilities is that water drawn from the ground for
domestic use is often treated and disposed of many
miles away. This treatment technique, which is now an
accepted procedure, does not permit the replenishment
of local ground water supplies. The result has been the
significant lowering of the ground water table in many
areas. Coastal regions such as Long Island, Florida, and
California are particularly vulnerable because, as the
ground water table recedes, salt water has begun to fill
the voids in these underground reservoirs.
In addition to lowering the ground water table, the
use of conventional collection and treatment encourages
wasteful use of water. These two factors increasingly
contribute to local water shortages and restrictions of
use. In one-year, for each person, the typical flush toilet
contaminates 13,000 gallons of fresh drinking water to
carry away 165 gallons of body wastes. That's more
than 50,000 gallons for the average family of four. We
have been forced to search for new sources of energy
and more efficient use of existing supplies. We must
now begin to use our limited water supplies more
efficiently.
The current serious water shortages in California
should remind us that water is one of America's most
precious resources. It is the life blood of civilization.
But in the United States and elsewhere water shortages
are becoming commonplace.
-------
The world's fresh water supply remains relatively
constant. The world population of four billion will reach
seven billion by the year 2000. Each day in the United
States an estimated one-quarter trillion gallons of water
are drawn from our rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and under-
ground sources for non-industrial purposes. Total daily
water needs are now about 400 million gallons per day,
and this figure is expected to double by the year 2000.
Household use accounts for more than 30 billion gallons
per day, and will approach 55 billion in the next 20
years.
Our major use of clean and fresh water is for
agriculture. Some estimates place this use as high as 83
percent of our potable water supply. In 1960, the
United States had 37 million acres of crops under
irrigation. By 1980 we will have 50 million such acres.
In fact, 30 to 40 percent of the world's total food
supply is now dependent on irrigated crop lands.
The demand for food grows daily with the increase
of the world's population. The amount of land under
irrigation must be accelerated to meet the growing
hunger.
It is shocking and tragic that throughout the world
today, and every day, 10,000 people die of malnutri-
tion. Hunger takes one life every nine seconds. And yet
food production is not keeping pace with the world's
growing population. Senator McGovern noted in 1975 to
the National Conference on Rural America that "there is
now less food per person worldwide than there was in
the midst of the Depression 40 years ago."
It was estimated in 1975 that countries where hunger
is most common must double their production of food
by the year 2000 just to hold their own against rising
populations. Consequently there is, and will continue to
be, a heavy dependence on the United States to feed
great numbers of the world's population.
Blessed with good lands and climate, we are the
world's most efficient food producers. In 1973, the
United States produced 45 percent of world wheat and
flour, 70 percent of world corn, and 85 percent of
world soybeans.
In addition to the moral obligations that our food
production places on us, the maintenance and growth of
agriculture is vital to the economy and health of our
own country. Agriculture is the Nation's biggest industry
with assets totalling more than $530 billion. From
planting the seed, through all the steps involved to bring
food to the family table, agriculture employs, directly
and indirectly, between 14 and 17 million Americans.
The continued growth of American agriculture as a
major source of world food supply, as a vital facet of
the Nation's economy, is dependent on a continuous
and reliable supply of clean water. Much of what we do
now will determine the availability of clean water for
the soaring demands of the future.
In addition to general conservation measures, two
basic programs can help preserve our water supplies.
First, in rural areas, we should encourage sanitary
systems that return treated waters to the ground where
they can replenish the source of supply. The use of
efficient small on-site wastewater treatment systems
producing a relatively high quality effluent can help
accomplish this in an environmentally sound way.
The concept of spray irrigation, under study at Penn
State University, appears to demonstrate the feasibility
of this concept. Not only have the researchers been able
to return water to the land without ill effects, but the
resultant tree growth at four times the normal rate
produces trees which are superior to normal growth for
use in pulp products. This is the kind of efficient use of
resources that we should encourage.
The second measure that can be used to preserve our
water supplies is wastewater recycling. Tests at the
Appalachian Commission's Boyd County project have
shown that, with proper maintenance, water may be
reused for sanitary purposes. This type of system can
save the average family 40 percent of its total water
consumption. Similar savings in water consumption can
be realized through the use of composting and oil flush
toilets.
The alternative systems for rural sanitation, in all
forms, that this conference will discuss in detail, hold
great promise for the future when used in a responsible
manner through a public ownership or "system ap-
proach."
Yes, I see the promise of an improved quality of life
for the people of rural America. I see the promise of
making our water pollution control efforts more equi-
table and effective. I see the promise of progress toward
an improved overall policy that will help present and
future generations live in a sound and healthful environ-
ment. I see the promise in your dedication and
commitment as you cope with the problems of people
living on this fragile planet. I salute your constructive
efforts.
-------
CURRENT COSTS OF CONVENTIONAL APPROACHES
Keif/i H. Dearffi*
This morning we are going to look at the economic
impact of our construction grants program on small
communities. We will examine O&M costs as reflected in
user charges and the costs of debt retirement which may
or may not be included in the established user fees.
First, let us take a few actual cases:
Projection 1
Community "A" is a midwestern community adjacent
to a large lake. Septic tanks were replaced by a
conventional collection system leading to a tertiary
treatment plant.
Plant size - 3,000,000 gpd
Users served - 1600
Sewered population — 4700
Total cost - $14,500,000
Local share funded by loans, bonds and assess-
ments
Average costs to property owners after initial
$1800 assessment:
Average hookup - $1,000
User charges - $175 to $200 annually
Tax levy — $300 per year per property
Total - $500 per year per family
Median income — $9,700 per family
Annual sewerage costs — 5% of median income
83% of users have less income than
$10,000/yr.
Capital cost per capita — $3,100
Value of average home - $20,000
Capital cost per home - $9,100
"Keith H. Dearth
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Projection 2
Community "B" is a northeastern town, again ad-
jacent to a large lake. Septic tanks and direct outfalls
were replaced by a conventional collection system and
tertiary treatment.
Plant size - 250,000 gpd
Population served -1350
Users served — 650
Plant designed to serve a population of 2500 even
though the population has been declining in recent
years.
Total cost of project to date — $4,200,000
Cost of plant - 75% EPA, 25% State grants
Cost of collection system-50% FmHA, EDA
Grants
Balance-FmHA Loan, 5% — 40 year
Connection costs — $500 to $1,200 per connec-
tion
User charge. Annual, and debt retirement —
$220/family
Median income — $6600 per family per year
Annual sewerage costs - 3.3% of the median
income
82% of families make less than $10,000
Value of average home — under $20,000.
Capital cost per home - $6,500
What do these examples mean in human terms?
We have found that small towns have many older
people often living alone. For both communities "A"
and "B", approximately one-fourth the population is
over 60 years of age mostly living on small social
security payments.
One example is that of the 80-year old aunt of one
of the selectman of the Board of Selectman of Com-
-------
munity "B" who had to pay over one-fourth her total
$4,000 life savings for connection costs and is faced
with a $200 per year sewage charge from her small
social security income.
These people are proud to be self-sufficient and many
would literally starve before they would go on welfare.
In low-income community "B", only 3 people are on
welfare.
What are their reactions to these high sewer charges?
In community "B" over half the potential users have
refused to connect in to the sewer. Many of those who
have connected in refuse to pay the charges. Court
action is being sought by several who want to keep their
septic tanks. At the public meetings in both commu-
nities and over the telephone I've heard words like
"bloodshed", "march on Washington", "fraud",
"deceit", and other harsh terms. In other words-civil
disobedience. Both sewer authorities have filed suits-
community "A" against both the engineers and the
contractors, and community "B" against the contractor.
Publicity for a growing number of similar cases is being
witnessed on national and local TV, in newspapers and
magazines in States across the length and breadth of the
country. These are States like Maine, California, Ohio,
New York, Wisconsin, etc.
We first became concerned about the economic
impact of our program on small communities approx-
imately two years ago during our routine quality reviews
of facility plans from our ten regions.
As we have gained experience with the costs resulting
from the standard collection and treatment works we
have become even more concerned. To attempt to
determine the scope of this developing problem we
studied 258 facility plans for pending projects from 49
States for communities under 50,000 in population.
Projection 3
The survey indicated that operation and maintenance
plus debt retirement of the local share for recommended
new facilities will cost in excess of $100 per household
per year in 40 percent of the communities, and $200
per household in 10% of the communities. The major
problem arose when of these 258 plans, 83 called for
completely new collection and treatment systems. Three-
quarters of the 83 indicated costs in excess of $100 per
year per household and one-fifth in excess of $200 per
household per year. Costs will even exceed $300 per
household in several instances. Communities under
10,000 persons in general seem to have the most serious
problem. By the way, these costs are from engineers'
estimates, some made three and four years ago, so
without a doubt actual costs will be higher. This next
projection pinpoints the increase in costs of sewering per
capita as less densely-populated, small communities are
considered.
Projection 4
40
$ 30
I
0 20
10
Cost ($/month) = 43e ~° ^
-------
An idea of the significance of these figures may be
gained by analyzing Bureau of Labor Statistics figures
concerning consumer expenditures for median income
non-farm families and families in small communities.
The median income for the non-farm family was
approximately $13,000 annually at the beginning of
1975. For small communities we have examples in-
dicating that the median family earns from half to 80%
of this amount-$6,500 to $10,000. BLS surveys in-
dicate that the American family spends from 22% for
the non-farm median family, to 30% for the small
community family for total housing costs. Of this, 0.6%
to 0.9% consists of "water, trash, sewerage" costs.
Assuming the cost of each service is equal, then the
national median family has been spending 0.2% of its
income or $26 annually, and the small community
median family has been spending 0.3% of its income or
$20 to $27 on sewerage costs. Any costs much above
this will reduce family funds available for discretionary
and even necessary items. If you assume 1% of total
income is the maximum bearable user charge, noting
that this is 3 to 5 times that spent in the past by the
median family, then $65 to $130 per year depending on
the communities, is the maximum user charge which can
be made without materially affecting the quality of life.
We must not forget that by definition half the families
earn less than the median income.
We are seeing actual user charges of $200, $300, and
even $400 annually.
Projection 5
EXAMPLES
User Charges and Debt Retirement Costs
Dugger, Indiana
Lake Villa, Illinois
Napolean, Ohio
Munising, Michigan
Rangely Lake, Maine
$240
$350
$350
$150O&MOnly
$160 O&M Only
65% exceed $100 per year
31% exceed $130
9% exceed $200
5% exceed $300
Additional adverse economic impacts on the costs of
goods and services from community businesses also will
affect the user.
We feel that the state-of-art is such that provision and
maintenance of adequate wastewater facilities for small
communities are normally possible within reasonable
costs.
Some costly projects are, of course, unavoidable due
to high construction costs, soil and climatic conditions
which do not lend themselves to inexpensive systems, or
stringent water-quality standards requiring advance waste
treatment. Where relief is essential in these situations,
EPA is at this time primarily dependent on publicizing
additional financial support available from other Federal
agencies such as the Farmers Home Administration.
To summarize: Current costs of conventional sew-
ering are sometimes too great to bear for families in
rural and semirural communities. Actual annual user
charges resulting from our construction grants program
are ranging upwards of $200, $300, and $400 per family
in some communities including operation, maintenance
and debt retirement costs. Charges in excess of $65 to
$130 per year could materially affect the quality of life
for families making the median income or less.
During this National Conference you will receive facts
and figures about alternative methods to conventional
sewering. Unbiased consideration of all feasible alter-
natives and elimination of outdated codes, criteria and
restrictions will result in the truly cost-effective solution
to the specific water pollution problem and the lowest
possible user charges.
Actual user charges per family of 4 in 89 midwestern
communities:
EPA policy will be discussed during the last day of
session.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SEWERING SMALL COMMUNITIES
Marilyn W. Klein*
Someone once said that, "Any beneficent public
policy, if persecuted vigorously, is bound to conflict
with an equally beneficent public policy." The struggles
are often not between the good and the bad, but
between the good and the good. It is clearly a good idea
to clean up the waters of the United States and to make
them fishable and swimmable, as called for by P.L.
92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. It is definitely in the public
interest that publicly owned treatment works are con-
structed to meet existing pollution problems and that
areawide waste treatment management approaches for
point and non-point sources of pollution are developed
and implemented. However, in the haste to develop
sewer systems to serve communities large and small,
other environmental "goods" are often insufficiently
considered. Sewer systems, particularly in smaller com-
munities, are sometimes constructed that are not en-
vironmentally and economically effective—and are put in
place before an overall water quality management plan
for the area has been developed.
Small communities sometimes find themselves drawn
into environmentally and economically costly solutions
that may not be in their own best interests because of
how the Act is funded, interpreted, or administered. The
lure of 75 percent Federal funding (and often 15
percent State funding) encourages communities to seek
Federal dollars to correct their pollution problems. The
requirement in Title II of P.L. 92-500 for areawide
waste treatment management has often been misinter-
preted to mean complete centralization of facilities,
whether or not existing densities or locations make such
an approach economical or desirable; and in some cases,
in pursuit of a regional approach, recently built treat-
ment plants are abandoned in favor of one central
facility. A small community may be able to climb high
on a State's priority list only if it is part of a regional
system. Thus, in many cases, community is connected
with community by large new interceptors that reach
out across undeveloped land, opening the land to
subdivision development that may not have been co-
ordinated with local planning or budgeting for provision
of services. Problems of runoff, erosion, non-point
'Marilyn W. Klein
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
source pollution, flooding, and increased automobile
reliance with increased air pollution and gasoline con-
sumption often accompany such development.
Furthermore, perhaps because Federal funds are
available with a small local share required for construc-
tion and because regional systems serve communities of
varying size, such systems tend to be oversized to build
in "sufficient reserve capacity," to provide a margin for
error, or because they are predicated on excessive
population growth rates for extended design periods and
assume high per capita flow rates. Generally, when small
communities attempt to solve the potential or real
pollution problems that are created by increasing
population density, failing septic tanks, or overloaded
lagoon systems that are in violation of State and local
public health standards, they opt for collection and
treatment systems. Alternatives such as small scale
systems, staging of treatment works, package treatment
plants, small treatment lagoons, or community septage
systems are often inadequately considered. Water conser-
vation efforts in septic tank communities can avoid the
need for sewers, and such efforts in sewered commu-
nities can save the enormous expense of enlarging and
expanding current local or regional treatment facilities.
With less water pumped from the groundwater supply,
more will be available for needed river flow and quality.
Elected officials and the general public, however, are not
always aware of what the direct and indirect effects of
sewering will be and what changes infrastructure invest-
ment will provoke in their community. And when a
local community prefers a small localized system, it is
not always possible to obtain State support with a high
place on the priority list.
How do these concerns relate to the environmental
review process under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)? NEPA encourages public scrutiny of
proposed Federal programs and projects. Agencies gen-
erally prepare environmental appraisals or assessments to
determine whether a full Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) is necessary pursuant to Section 102(2)(C)
of NEPA. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency's procedures, based on Council of Environmental
Quality (CEQ) guidelines, an EIS will probably be
necessary when as a result of the project there will be:
-------
• Major land use changes;
• Changes in energy supply and demand;
• Increased development in floodplains or wet-
lands;
• Significant changes in ambient air and water
quality or noise levels;
• Significant changes in surface or groundwater
quality or quantity;
• Adverse effects on significant amounts of prime
agricultural land or agricultural operations on such
land;
• Significant effects on a residential area;
• Significant adverse effects on parklands, por-
tions of rivers designated or likely to be designated
as wild and scenic, or other public lands or areas
of recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological or
historic value;
• Problems of effluent or sludge disposal that
require resolution; or
• Significant controversy over an EPA action.
In the past two years, several studies have included
examination of EPA's environmental appraisals, negative
determinations, EIS's, and treatment grants for their
consideration of overall environmental effects. As EPA's
programs often involve highly technical considerations, it
is particularly important that the public is informed of
the impact of proposed actions in public notices,
hearings, environmental appraisals, and EIS's. In many
cases, recent studies have found that environmental
appraisals have not made the basis of need for the
project clear, have not adequately considered the en-
vironmental and economic costs and benefits of the
proposed project and its alternatives, and have not
sufficiently addressed the impacts of proposed projects
on wetlands, flood plains, and other significant envi-
ronmental areas. In other cases where potential sig-
nificant effects have been identified, an EIS has not been
prepared.
Recent headquarters EPA guidance to the regional
offices has encouraged improved environmental ap-
praisals and better communication with interested Fed-
eral and State agencies about EPA construction grant
projects to insure that sensitive environmental areas
receive proper attention. EPA is also preparing guidance
to the field to insure that environmental issues are not
avoided by breaking down a major project with sig-
nificant impacts into small components for review and
that cumulative impacts of a wastewater treatment
system as a whole are evaluated. EPA has also recently
issued proposed cost-effectiveness guidance that is in-
tended to improve project design so that it serves
existing population centers with a carefully calculated
reserve capacity. EPA has also issued guidance to the
regional administrators encouraging the construction of
less costly wastewater treatment facilities for small
communities.
In addition to the construction, operations, and
maintenance costs involved in large systems, such sys-
tems can create problems of groundwater depletion as
water is piped away downstream where it is no longer
available to local aquifers or to the upper reaches of the
river. A breakdown in a high technology centralized
plant will cause problems for all the connected commu-
nities and for the river's water quality when the effluent
reaching it is insufficiently treated. Even when the
effluent is of a reasonably high quality, downstream
recreation, fishing, or water supply could be affected by
a sudden inflow of treated sewage, particularly in a dry
season when the river flow is low.
A large system built to overdraft surface water to
flush sewage systems can cause hardship when seasons of
drought strike—as we have seen recently in the west.
Not only does a large water-demanding plant require
careful maintenance but there are other difficulties as
well. It may be difficult to site such a plant and its
connecting interceptors. Keeping the plant and the
interceptors out of the floodplain and away from
wetlands, and avoiding prime farmland and archaeo-
logical sites is more difficult with a big system than a
small one.
Reusing and recycling waste by spray irrigation or
other land application methods and the management of
sludge as a resource are more feasible when smaller
quantities are generated and waste and resource systems
are considered in an integrated way. A small community
with a low technology system generates effluent and
sludge primarily from household waste and will not have
to worry about the carcinogens and other toxics and
heavy metals that accrue when industrial waste is part of
the system. Where industry is present in a small
community, a careful pretreatment strategy and rea-
sonable rate structure will make it possible to reuse
sewage wastes as well as reduce the flows into the
system.
If a project is proposed for Federal funding and it
appears necessary to prepare an EIS to consider the
effect of the proposal, the affected community has an
opportunity to carefully examine its future. A good EIS
will reflect consideration of sound alternatives-
alternatives and impacts that the public can understand
and review, prior to commitment to a specific proposal.
Alternative locations, staging plans and capacities, and
their economic costs to the locality along with their
environmental effects on growth and sensitive areas will
be examined in the EIS. As project proposals are
developed, such issues as the extent of regionalization
desirable, per capita per day consumption rates, design
year, and reserve capacity require careful attention. It is
also important to consider in an EIS the requirements of
Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
10
-------
(and Section 101 (b) of NEPA) for recycling of re-
sources—both in regard to wastewater reuse and to
sludge.
EIS's are being prepared that recognize the broad
range of issues that must be dealt with when providing
infrastructure facilities. In Region X an EIS was deter-
mined to be necessary in Jerome, Idaho, in a primarily
agricultural county, where 8 percent of the county is in
urban use. A major issue in the case is the 4 percent
growth rate projected for the 20 year planning period—
the effect of which would be to convert large amounts
of undeveloped land to residential uses. This is of
particular concern, since there is no formally adopted
land use plan for the area to support this change. Prime
agricultural land will be used for the treatment plant site
and the project is controversial for its direct and indirect
land use effects.
Also in Region X, near Seattle, an EIS is under
preparation to consider community aesthetic and water
quality concerns connected with the location of the
treatment plant (presently on beachfront property), as
well as issues regarding secondary treatment benefits,
combined sewer overflow abatement, the risks of cen-
tralized or decentralized systems, growth and devel-
opment, resource, energy and labor supply questions,
sludge disposal, and the distribution of costs and
benefits among population groups. Along the coast of
Oregon, in Lincoln County, as a result of the EIS the
community decided not to sewer.
Region IV in Atlanta determined that an EIS would
be prepared for several proposed facilities in a portion
of the greater Birmingham, Ala., metropolitan area. The
primary intent of the EIS is to address publicly the
direct and indirect effects of the project on water
quality before going forward with its further de-
velopment.
In Region V (the Chicago region), an EIS was
prepared for a proposed system in Delaware County
outside Columbus, Ohio, because the proposed project
would affect a wild and scenic river, a significant
recreation area, a valuable fishery, and archaeological
sites, and it would have growth impacts. This project has
been challenged in the consideration of alternatives that
could avoid some adverse effects.
Region II will be preparing an EIS in Orange County,
N.Y., to consider realistic population projections in the
light of declining family size and immigration, resource
and energy availability, sewer capacities, and correspond-
ing development patterns that are likely to occur.
Consideration of regional and subregional alternatives
will include potential adverse land-use impacts, impacts
on future costs of other public services, impacts on the
quantity of stream flow, and the impacts on the
assimilative capacity of stream corridors and on wet-
lands.
In Region I an EIS on a proposed treatment and
collection system for three towns of Martha's Vineyard
will carefully consider the need for sewering by exam-
ining the extent, location, and cause for failing septic
systems as well as the feasibility of non-structural
solutions in problem areas; it will examine the impacts
of land disposal, and of on-lot disposal systems on
groundwater. It will also examine the effects of treated
wastewater and sludge on quality and quantity of
groundwater in sewered and/or unsewered areas as well
as any secondary growth effects on land use, water and
air quality, and the social environment. The public will
be informed and involved in data evaluation and
interpretation and in screening alternatives.
Weston, Mass., recently voted overwhelmingly to build
a community septic system designed to handle wastes
from the town's center, currently served by overloaded
individual septic and holding tanks. The town will either
join a regional septage facility, contract with a conven-
tional sewage treatment plant, or build a septage
treatment plant of its own. To extend the life of the
system, the town plans to use removable leaching field
chambers, thus allowing the field to be cleaned period-
ically. The system will permit multi-purpose use of the
leaching field area, as needed construction, and mod-
erate capital and operating maintenance costs. It will
avoid excess capacity, is designed to be cost effective,
replenish groundwater, treat the sewage locally instead
of sending it to Boston Harbor or elsewhere, and will
have no adverse environmental impacts if State and
Federal guidelines are followed.
And increasingly, when EPA has found that im-
plementation of a proposed sewerage project would have
significant regional and subregional urban development
impacts, the grants have included conditions to address
such impacts. The National Environmental Policy Act,
EPA's procedures for its implementation, and EPA
Program Guidance Memorandum No. 50 (issued in June,
I975) call for mitigation of secondary impacts when,
without such mitigation, unplanned development with
adverse impacts on air and water quality and the
deterioration of the physical environment would result.
The memorandum, titled, "Consideration of Secondary
Environmental Effects in 'the Construction Grants Pro-
cess," lists various mitigation strategies, such as:
• Phasing and orderly extension of sewer service;
• Project changes;
• Improved land use planning;
• Better coordination of planning among commu-
nities affected by the project;
• Sewer use restrictions;
• Modifications or adoption of environmental
programs or plans such as Air Quality Maintenance
Plans; and
• Improved land management controls to protect
water quality such as sedimentation, erosion con-
trol, and floodplain management.
11
-------
Several EPA projects reviewed by CEQ have included
mitigation measures and grant conditions to address such
impacts and to supplement State and local planning.
In Region X, as a result of the NEPA process, a
proposed project in Tillamook County along the Pacific
Ocean was reevaluated. The applicant is required as a
condition of the grant to comply with local land use
requirements when extending services, to evaluate devel-
opment plans, and to provide services only to those
areas selected as environmentally sound. This condition
will discourage development that could adversely affect
water quality in Netarts Bay and that would be
inconsistent with the character of the area particularly
near the wetlands.
Also in Region X, a proposed project in Fremont
County, Idaho near Grand Teton and Yellowstone Parks-
an environmentally sensitive and unique area — was
changed in the design and location of the facilities. The
Step II and III grants were conditioned on the county
adopting growth management measures (consistent with
the requirements in the Idaho Local Planning Act of
1975) to resolve secondary impacts on the area's
resources, such as subdivision development that could
follow construction of the sewerage facilities.
In Region II, a proposed Step II grant for a project
in Chesterfield County, Va., southwest of Richmond,
was modified because future growth facilitated by
increased sewerage capacity could further degrade the
Swift Creek Reservoir, a public water supply impound-
ment, and impede access to and recreational use of the
reservoir. As a result of the environmental review
pursuant to NEPA, a decision was made to fund a
smaller expansion of the Falling Creek wastewater
treatment facility than had been proposed. This decision
was based on actual 80 gpcd sewage flow instead of the
assumed 100 gpcd figure; revised population projections
that discounted long term continuation of a recently
experienced high growth rate; a recognition that the
smaller modified facility would serve the existing
population's needs as well as provide sufficient reserve
capacity for moderate growth; and the cost-effectiveness
analysis that found there was no savings in funding
larger systems immediately versus staging construction as
it was found to be necessary. In addition to sizing down
the facility, the Step II grant was conditioned on the
county's developing and adopting a management plan
that included provisions to insure that growth in the
affected watershed would be managed to minimize its
adverse environmental effects upon the watershed and
the reservoir.
In the East Bay of the San Francisco area. Region
IX's EIS called for measures that would reduce auto
dependency so that the provision of an improved
sewerage system would not have negative effects on air
quality. The applicant was to be responsible for securing
agreements to provide mass transit facility and service
improvements, automobile disincentives, and land use
controls to insure that land-use planning and transporta-
tion controls are related and that the effect of
increased sewerage capacity is not increased vehicle miles
traveled with increased air pollution in the service area.
As a result of the mitigation proposals, resolutions were
passed by the local general purpose governments to
perform additional studies, implement specific infra-
structure investment proposals, and implement land-use
measures. Grant conditions will require all reasonable
steps to achieve implementation of these measures.
In Region I, a grant for a collection and treatment
system on Block Island (New Shoreham on Long Island
Sound in Rhode Island) was scaled down to serve a
smaller, already developed service area and conditioned
on not accepting discharge from new development on
wetlands in accordance with State law.
The careful evaluation of impacts and improved
attention to mitigation represents a significant step
forward in substantive attention to environmental im-
pacts called for by NEPA. Such attention should not be
a burden if the environmental review is developed
concurrently with the development of a facility plan —
the EIS can serve as a tool to assist in the development
of a better plan. Hopefully, as 208 areawide water
quality management programs are developed and re-
viewed for their environmental impacts, facilities that
are components of these will be better integrated into
the water management program and will be more
environmentally sound projects. And, hopefully, im-
proved EPA guidance will lead to better projects.
It is important, however, that we recognize the
conflicts inherent in beneficent public policies. No
growth, or slow growth, may be wise policies when
necessary to correlate resources to population and to
preserve important environmental assets. Small systems
may make resource management possible as well as
reduce costs for communities. However, while the intent
of Federal assistance for sewerage systems is not to
subsidize development of subdivisions and shopping
centers, small systems should not be used to keep
newcomers out and to reduce housing opportunities.
There must be an equitable approach to environmental
benefits. With good planning and an informed public
involved in decisionmaking, environmental, social and
economic imbalances can be avoided and sound devel-
opment encouraged. But solutions will not be easy.
The last quarter of this century is likely to see
continued urban growth and continued suburbanization,
converting rural land to residential subdivisions. New
trends are emerging, however. Changing consumer pref-
erences, rising housing prices, and national resource
shortages are encouraging the development of more
clustered, higher-density communities. Hence it is impor-
12
-------
tant that infrastructure investments be designed to courages such awareness on the part of all of us
enhance the positive features of these new trends in concerned with the physical shape of our common
development. At an absolute minimum, local decision- future. Hopefully by recognizing and addressing direct
makers and their planning advisors should be aware of and indirect environmental effects of infrastructure
the environmental, social and economic implications of investments, we can avoid aesthetic, economic, and
their public facilities investment decisions. NEPA en- environmental mistakes that reduce our future options.
13
-------
EFFECTS OF DATED NATIONAL CODES
ON COSTS OF SEWERED SYSTEMS
Michael R. Alford*
One approach to cutting down the costs of sewered
systems is to reexamine the design assumptions and
engineering rules-of-thumb under which they have been
constructed for years. Standard practice, as set down
in such texts as Metcalf and Eddy's Wastewater Engi-
neering: Collection, Treatment, and Disposal, or Recom-
mended Standards for Sewage Works ("Ten State Stan-
dards") of the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River
Board of Sanitary Engineers has tended to close discus-
sion of several important topics which together have a
tremendous influence on sewer sizing. While there are
undoubted economies of scale in sewer construction
(most studies set the scale factor at about 0.5),
unneeded capacity is no bargain, no matter how cheap it
may be. My presentation today covers five design issues:
the first three - minimum pipes sizing, per capita flow
estimation, and infiltration allowances — are directly
related to engineering; the last two - population
projection and design-life economies — are planning
related, but traditionally are interpreted by engineers.
MINIMUM PIPE SIZES
Both Metcalf and Eddy and the Ten State Standards
call for 8" diameter pipes as the minimum size in any
collection system. (See Exhibit 1). The populations
served by 8" collector lines of minimum size typically
fall short of their maximum flow capacity. Arguments in
favor include ease of cleaning, safety against clogging,
and low additional system costs, if any. Although the
pipe itself is slightly more expensive, the increase is
considered insignificant in relation to total installation
costs; trenching expenses may even be reduced, since
slope requirements for 8" pipe are less than for 6" pipe
(the minimum practical size available for use). In some
situations, however, the use of 8" pipe may significantly
increase system costs, either directly or indirectly. Direct
savings might be achieved in typical suburban installa-
tions, where some 70 percent of total system length
may consist of minimum size pipe. Indirect savings may
be the more important issue, however, since the use of
8" pipe tends to imply the oversizing of lines on down
the system: at junction points, the engineer often tends
•Michael R. Alford
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass.
to increase pipe diameters automatically, reacting to the
collector as if its size were based on real flow require-
ments, not on the convenience of installation.
EXHIBIT 1
Minimum Pipe Size
Metcalf and Eddy 8 inches
Ten State Standard 8 inches
Most States 8 inches
Minimum Practical Size 6 inches
Population Equivalents
(100gpcd/5 1 P/A Flow)
507
900
House Connection
Interceptor
Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Effluent Outfall
14
-------
PER CAPITA FLOW
EXHIBIT 2
A significant opportunity for system savings may be
had in the area of per capita wastewater generation.
Both sources quoted above advise the use of 100 gallons
per capita per day (gpcd) for estimating flows, and
EPA's Need Surveys have based cost estimates on 125
gpcd. (See Exhibit 2). Neither of these figures is
defended by empirical data on actual household water
use — rather, the figures have been established in large
part by looking at systems from the treatment plant
side, where incoming flows include many contributions
besides domestic waste, the most important being
infiltration from ground water, inflow from storm
sewers or unauthorized connections, and commercial and
industrial contributions. From the treatment plant end,
implied per capita flows may range to many hundreds of
gallons per capita per day.
In 1960, the Public Health Service Study published
figures on average per capita water use and wastewater
generation, showing 60 gallons per capita per day to be
the mean water consumption, with approximately 42
gpcd returning to the sanitary sewer system. Tabors,2
using data developed by Ligman,3 synthetically es-
timated per capita water use to be no more than 89
gpcd under the most generous assumptions of behavior.
Cohen and Wallman, in a study of an admittedly limited
number of dwelling units in California, found an
empirical range of wastewater generation of between 28
and 72 gpcd. Empirical data on the Boston Metropolitan
District Commission water supply system suggests that
per capita water use in this metropolitan area runs to
about 62 gpcd.4 In sum, the evidence suggests much
lower wastewater generation figures should be used than
are currently accepted in practice: 50 to 76 gpcd
appears to be fully defensible for estimation purposes.
This has been recognized by EPA's new proposal for
Cost Effectiveness Guidelines,5 in which the figures
shown in Exhibit 2 would replace the present 100 gpcd
figure if fully documented flow records are not avail-
able, and if State standards did not take precedence.
Even granting the scale economies of sewer systems,
such revisions of per capita wastewater flow would
indeed reduce the cost of systems considerably.6
An argument that has sometimes been brought
forward in defense of standard estimating figures for per
capita is that, as personal income rises, so will water
consumption: additional appliances will be bought, and
households will be more profligate in their habits. While
to a certain extent this is true, the effect is not
pronounced. In point of fact, appliances such as dish-
washers may actually reduce water use, since they are
more efficient than handwashing. Other convenience
items like garbage grinders do not contribute excessively
to water use, and many such appliances are no longer
considered luxuries; their use is not closely tied to
Per Capita Flow
Metcalf and Eddy
GLUMR
State Agencies
EPA NEEDS Survey
100 gpcd
100 gpcd
100 gpcd
125 gpcd
Water Use Wastewater
1960 Public Health 60 gpcd 42 gpcd
Ligman/Tabors (Synthetic) 89 gpcd
Cohen & Wallman 28 to 79 gpcd
Boston Area Estimates 62 gpcd
Factors Reducing Per Capita Flow
• Energy Costs (Pumping, Hot Water)
• Supply Problems (Treatment Costs, Source Depletion)
Responses
• Low Water Use Appliances
• Low Water Use Sanitary Fixtures
income. The large discretionary water uses that are tied
to income tend not to be hooked into sewer systems.
The obvious example is the swimming pool. Car washing
is also related to income, but does not return waste to
the sewers.
More important to sewer sizing is the trend toward
lower per capita water use overall. Both constraints on
water supply systems and on energy use tend to
encourage lowered per capita water use. Low volume
flush toilets are expected to be more widely installed in
all sectors of construction — so long as the unit is
functional, flush volume is of no concern to the
homeowner, and toilets contribute about half of the
daily wastewater volume. Water conserving shower heads
and a variety of other devices also will cut down on
wastewater in future construction.
In sum, the rule-of-thumb figures used today are too
large. The best estimation for sewer sizing would be
based on observed wastewater generation in a commu-
nity: winter water consumption rates (as indicated on
water meters) are a good basis for estimation. Second
best would be a rule-of-thumb figure on the order of 50
15
-------
to 75 people gpcd, especially for service to new
construction, where plumbing codes could require the
use of efficient appliances. Estimates of industrial and
commercial flow would be calculated separately. These
are most accurately done either by direct metering (in
the case of industrial process water use), or through land
use or employee contribution estimates. Light commer-
cial land use can accurately be estimated on a per acre
basis. The standard texts also contain figures on waste-
water generation on a per employee basis.
ally figured at an average number of gallons per day per
mile per inch of pipe). On the other hand is field evidence
suggesting that products are not performing to specifica-
tion, and that installation is so poor that new systems leak
more than old ones. To date, the evidence is not
conclusive; long term performance of today's installations
cannot yet be evaluated. However, where engineers have
confidence in the specifications and installation quality of
systems they design, new materials can cut down signifi-
cantly on the overall sizing of pipes.
INFILTRATION
Infiltration rates are a separate design factor, and
should not be incorporated into mean per capita water-use
figures. One justification for the 100 gpcd flow figure is
that it includes a margin for infiltration allowance. Such
an estimation technique is defective insofar as it leads to
the multiplication of infiltration allowances by peak-to-
average flow ratios. Furthermore, it is also standard
practice to make an additional allowance for infiltration
wherever it is considered a significant problem.
Though sewer construction is an ancient science, there
have been recent improvements in techniques. Pipes are
now available in longer lengths, cutting down on the
number of potentially leaky joints. Joints themselves have
been improved through the use of PVC and rubber
gaskets. Prefabricated, presealed manhole units are now
commonly installed. Pipe materials themselves are now
more durable, and less susceptible to damage in the long
term. This has led to much higher performance specifica-
tions for new systems (see Exhibit 3), and reduced
infiltration rates compared to older techniques, at least in
theory.
EXHIBITS
Infiltration
Metcalf and Eddy 375 to 600 gpcd/mile/inch
diameter
G LUM R 500 gpcd/mile/inch diameter
"Normally" included in per
capita flow
Concrete Pipe with Negligible
Rubber Gasket
Clay Pipe with PVC Negligible
Peak/Average Flow
Should Exclude Infiltration Allowances
On the one hand, it is possible, on the basis of
current product and construction specifications, to de-
crease the infiltration allowance for new systems (gener-
POPULATION PROJECTION
Small area population projections of the kind needed
for estimating sewer system sizes, are tenuous at best. To
demonstrate this, Exhibit 4 shows population projections
for the City of Clay, N.Y., as developed by Tabors and
Shapiro.7 Using available census data, two sets of plots
were calculated using standard methods of mathematical
extrapolation. Actual growth in the community between
1960 and 1970 did not follow any of the graphic
extrapolations based on 1940 and 1950 censuses: the real
rate fell between the extremes. The curves plotted for
growth over the 1970 to 1980 decade show a projected
maximum 1-2/3 times the minimum estimates. Such
uncertainties are compounded when the projection period
is extended to the 50 years common in municipal sewer
planning: 50 year projections for small areas can be little
more than guesses.
Aside from the statistical uncertainty of small area
population projection is the observed fact that sewers
interact dynamically with population migration and urban
growth: even if a precise estimate of future population
could be made, the introduction of the sewer system itself
will change the nature of the assumptions on which the
estimate was made, probably rendering it invalid. Sewers
are often the missing link without which development
cannot proceed; construction often releases a local spurt
of growth as regionwide development pressure finds an
outlet. This effect often appears to substantiate the overly
optimistic population projections commonly made by
sewer planners, but across regions, the consistent over-
estimation of future populations typical of sewer planning
will result in money wasted on unused capacity.
The incentive for engineers is to overdesign: in the
absence of serious local land use planning, each system
typically is designed to handle the "worst case"—the
geographically complete development of its service area.
Since service areas for common gravity systems are
geographically defined by large tributary basins, and since
sewers—being a public health facility—cannot in practice
be denied to anyone technically able to connect, the
timing and location of growth within a sewer service area
may be virtually uncontrollable. The solution, although
obvious, is unpalatable to most communities: deliberate
land use plans, or at least development ceilings, must be
defined, and sewers sized to fit.
16
-------
EXHIBIT 4
Population Projections
• Arithmetic
• Geometric
• Decreasing Rate of
Increase
• Logistic
|
Q.
O
CL
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1940
Sub-regional Step
Down (208 Area)
Land Use (Zoning)
Ultimate Population of
Tributary (GLUMR)
1 Arithmetic
2 Geometric
3 Decreasing rate of increase
4 Logistic S
'Actual
1970
Population
Projected
from 1960
1
"
/'/
1
1980
Population
Projected
from 1970
1950
1960
Year
1970
1980
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Clay, N.Y., 1970-1980
(Tabors, Shapiro)
made an error? Not necessarily. It may mean that the
sewer's apparent "undercapacity" is compensating for the
system's dynamic effect on regional population growth
patterns.
Although the distribution of new population within a
community is its own affair to control or not to control,
it does face regional obligations to absorb its share of
growth. Areawide population projections showing the
proportional distribution of growth within a region are
being made by "208" Planning Agencies set up by the
1972 Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act.
The problem in the past has been that these projections
are often in variance with the sum capacity of facilities
planned within the region: due to uncertainties about
migration patterns, the total capacity of sewer systems is
often considerably in excess of that required to serve the
total growth of the region. Bringing regionwide popula-
tion projections into harmony with individual facility
planning not only would make other municipal services
easier to plan, it would save substantial amounts of money
in sewer systems themselves.
OPTIMUM DESIGN LIVES FOR SEWER SYSTEMS
With most sewer systems designed for ultimate tribu-
tary basin population, systems traditionally have been
built to serve populations that may not materialize for
decades after construction of the system. In the past, with
municipal bond rates on the order of 3 percent, design
periods in the 50-year range were not unreasonable from a
cost-effectiveness standpoint, but with today's much
higher bond rates, reexamination of conventionally ac-
cepted design periods is in order.
Present value calculations of sewer costs suggest that
shortened design periods are increasingly defensible from
the point of view of cost effectiveness. Even assuming that
additional capacity may have to be laid parallel to the
existing lines at some time in the future, and granting that
penalty costs for disruption will be paid for doing this, the
cost differences between the options are minimal— under
some circumstances (interest rates of 6 percent, popula-
tion growth rates above 1 .5 percent per year) the cost of
two-stage construction is less than that of one stage.
The graph in exhibit 5 shows relative construction
costs under different assumptions of interest rates and
design periods. Considering that interest rates on the order
of 6 percent are likely to persist in the foreseeable future,
it seems reasonable to reduce the design period for
interceptor construction considerably.
Such a policy can lead, through the vagaries of
population movements and development trends, to sys-
tems reaching their design capacities before the end of
their design lives, or before their tributary basins are
developed to capacity. Does this mean that the designer
Optimum design lives for sewer construction have been
estimated by Binkley,9 under various assumptions of
interest rates, and relative inflation within the sewer
construction industry. Assuming no relative inflation in
the industry, Binkley found 21 to be the most reasonable
design period for sewer construction (instantaneous dis-
17
-------
count rate = .04150, scale factor = .50). No penalty costs
are assumed in this model. Perhaps the most persuasive
argument in favor of shortening sewer design lives is the
increased control gained over other municipal planning
sectors. Since sewers interact dynamically with regional
population migrations, potentially producing abnormally
high populations and growth rates within their service
areas, it is essential that population figures used in sewer
design be the same as those assumed by other municipal
departments, especially school, police, and fire depart-
ments. Often, decreasing sewer design lives gives increased
planning reliability for these other municipal services.
Where increased costs may be incurred over the long term,
the studies quoted here suggest that they will be modest.
EXHIBITS
Optimal Design Periods
(Interceptors)
Traditional
California
Binkley
50 Years
20 Years
21 Years (29 years
@ 1.8% Inflation)
Interest Rate= 6%
Scale Factor(b)- 0.5
1. 25-year Design Period, Penalty13 2.0
2 25-year Design Period, No Penalty
3. 50-year Design Period
Annual Growth Rate (annual growth/year zero population)
NOTES
1 Select Committee on Natural Resources, United States
Senate. Water Resource Activities in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960.
2Tabors, R.D., et al. Land Use and the Pipe. Lexington
Books, D.C. Heath and Company. Lexington, Mass.,
1976.
3Ligman, et al., "Household Wastewater Characteriza-
tion," Journal of the Environmental Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE, Volume 1, Number EE 1 (February 1974):
201-213.
4Data developed by Urban Systems Research & Engineer-
ing, Inc.; for the Council on Environmental Quality and
the National Science Foundation.
540 CFR 35, Appendix A, Amendments proposed Febru-
ary 4, 1977.
6Even if the variance in actual per capita flows is
considerable, with instances of personal contributions in
excess of the mean figure used for design, this would not
lead to system overload in the affected sections of the
line if traditional minimum pipe sizes are in use. As
indicated above, selection of minimum diameters is not
based on flow requirements, but on issues of conve-
nience and maintenance capability: flow capacities of
collectors have more than enough excess capacity to
handle a large variance in per capita contribution.
7Tabors, et al., op cit, p. 25.
8Binkley, et al. Interceptor Sewers and Urban Sprawl.
Lexington Books, D.C. Heath Company, Lexington,
Mass., 1975. This assumes scale economies construction
of 0.5, which is consistent with the results of past
cross-sectional studies of scale factors for this industry.
Synthetic cost analyses have suggested greater scale
economies, but these do not appear to be substantiated
by empirical data.
9Binkley, Clark. "The Optimal Federal Design Life Policy
for Interceptor Sewers Under Inflation and Uncertain
Scale Economies," 1976, Unpublished.
REFERENCES
Binkley. "The Optimal Federal Design Life Policy for
Interceptor Sewers Under Inflation and Uncertain Scale
Economies," 1976, Unpublished.
Binkley, et al. Interceptor Sewers and Urban Sprawl.
Lexington Books, D.C. Heath Company, Lexington,
Mass., 1975.
18
-------
Cohen, J., and Wallman, H. "Demonstration of Flow
Reduction from Households," U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Environmental Protection Technology
Series, National Environmental Research Center, Cincin-
nati, Ohio. September, 1974.
Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State
Sanitary Engineers. Recommended Standards for Sewage
Works. Albany, New York. 1970 edition.
Ligman, et al. "Household Wastewater Characterization,"
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Volume 1, Number EE 1 (February 1974):
201-213.
Metcalf and Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: Collection,
Treatment, Disposal. McGraw Hill Book Company, New
York, 1972.
Select Committee on Natural Resources, United States
Senate. Water Resource Activities in the United States.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960.
Tabors, R.D., et al. Land Use and the Pipe. Lexington
Books, D.C. Heath Company, Lexington, Mass., 1976.
19
-------
THE ADEQUACY AND UNIFORMITY OF REGULATIONS FOR
ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL - A STATE VIEWPOINT
Gary D. P/ews*
INTRODUCTION
Background
Individual on-site sewage disposal regulations generally
grew out of a need to protect the public health and a
desire for in-home conveniences. Improper disposal of
human waste has caused major epidemics. Most reference
books on water-borne illness will cite many case histories
of typhoid, cholera, and other disease outbreaks attrib-
uted to either improper collection, treatment or disposal
of human wastes.
Historically, the methods for controlling communi-
cable disease outbreaks attributed to sewage were limited
to treatment rather than prevention. In seeking answers to
the problems, the prevention concept was developed.
Laws were passed that prevented the circumstances that
caused the outbreaks from occurring. Thus, the idea of
public health protection through preventive measures,
including laws and regulations, was developed. The estab-
lishment of environmental health laws is old and can
easily be traced to the Old Testament period. Regulations,
therefore, have been around for a long time.
Problems
Even with this history, inconsistent laws and problems
exist. Presently, the following appear to be the primary
problem areas in the specific area of on-site sewage
disposal.
1. State on-site sewage regulations are not uniform.
2. The purposes for the regulations change rou-
tinely.
3. Regulations are used to accomplish political
needs rather than public health objectives.
4. There is a lack of program standards and clear
delineation of responsibilities and authority.
BASIS AND CHANGE OF REGULATIONS
Public health has for many years been a basis for
establishing a variety of laws at all levels of government.
*Gary D. Plews
Health Services Division
Department of Social and Health Services
Olympia, Washington
This public cause provides an extremely large and some-
times unspecific base from which to operate and also is
the cause for some of the problems in the area of on-site
waste disposal. Specific construction requirements are
many times difficult to justify in terms of preventing
disease. For example, how many illnesses are prevented by
requiring four-inch drainfield pipe as opposed to using
three-inch drainfield pipe? This concept should be held in
mind while growth of regulations from World War II to
the present is traced.
After World War II, a mass migration of people to a
new kind of life and existence began. Suburbia was born
with all its accompanying problems of improper land use,
restricted utility services and lack of standards for
development. The development of new homes beyond the
reach of proper utilities was the rule. Thousands of
homes, whole communities and towns developed. The
Federal and State government participated in funding the
developments. HUD, FHA, State and local housing
authorities supported the trend. At this point in time it
appears that the septic tank or the on-site system moved
from the country to the city type developments.
Problems then developed and housing units were
vacated due to on-site system failures. Agencies reacted
and passed new regulations and the Federal housing
authority finally researched the problem. Studies began
and continued, mainly at the University of California in
Berkeley for a period extending well into the early sixties.
Documents were printed describing the correct way to
design systems. Local and State health departments
accepted the materials and passed regulations using the
new studies as a basis for their standards. In the
meantime, technology on the subject did not advance
significantly. The basic system used continued to be the
80-year old septic tank and drainfield. Most regulations
covered this system thoroughly and stopped.
A significant change also occurred at this time. The
basis for regulating on-site waste disposal began to change
from a singular public health protection foundation to
include consumer protection and environmental control.
The use and misuse of on-site regulations began. The
effort which started on the premise of preventing disease
evolved to a very powerful tool that is used today by
different levels of government to accomplish different
objectives. For example, in many rural counties, the septic
20
-------
tank permit is the only mechanism available for control-
ling building.
A direct result in the evolution of control and
standards is the diversity in regulations with administra-
tive control found on four levels of government: city,
county, regional and State. The effectiveness of the
various regulations and approaches for the most part is
unknown, since there is generally no comprehensive
program evaluation or program standards.
PRESENT STATE REGULATIONS
Many of the present problems concerning regulations
are then a direct result of changing objectives and use of
the regulations for political control of non-waste issues.
An examination of a select number of State regulations
will demonstrate the point. I might add that it has been
difficult to determine exactly what the various State
programs encompass since they do change routinely.
Another difficulty encountered was getting documents
from the States. The responses were mixed and not
complete. The samples I have chosen are limited to readily
retrievable requirements from those States that responded
to my request for information.
The first area examined was administration and the
department most directly responsible for the day to day
on-going administration, including permit issuance. An
overview of Table 1 discloses that local health depart-
ments are, by-in-large, the chief implementers of on-site
sewage regulations. The States have assumed various
positions ranging from no program to some extremely
stringent regulations.
Of the State programs reviewed, Idaho appears to have
a unique, and perhaps the most workable, approach.
Almost all the authority for the program is delegated to
regional health districts. The approach allows for maxi-
mum flexibility on standards for construction to accom-
modate local conditions. Groups of counties that have
common characteristics can provide some insulation from
local vested interest groups and thus minimize political
misuse of the standards. The arrangement can also provide
a larger financial base from which to operate the program.
In Tables 2 through 6, there is a breakdown by State of
various design requirements. It appears obvious, from
reviewing the breakdown, that the Manual of Septic Tank
Practice has had some influence. However, the diversity in
certain requirements is questionable and demonstrates
that many of the documents have been developed through
political compromise rather than by sound technical
advice. Setback distance and soil depth requirements
demonstrate the influence of something other than
technical recommendations (examples on Tables 3 and 5).
If one considers that approximately 30% of the citizens
in the United States use on-site systems, a more concen-
trated effort is needed to develop and evaluate effective
programs and standards. Uniformity on technical issues is
desirable. It is presently very difficult to justify good,
technically sound regulations when adjacent States are far
less stringent and allow installations in unsuitable loca-
tions because of political purposes.
RESPONSIBILITY AND PROGRAM STANDARDS
Most State programs lack standards for evaluations. It
is therefore difficult to judge program effectiveness.
Because of a lack of standards, it is difficult to determine
at what level the program should be administered: local,
regional or State.
Before the selection of program administration respon-
sibility is made, there should be some program standards
and evaluation criteria established. Such standards or
criteria should include the following:
1. A working knowledge of local conditions.
2. The ability to supervise the administration of the
regulations.
3. The ability to communicate with the citizen
being regulated.
4. The ability to finance the program.
5. The ability to understand the community organi-
zation.
6. The ability to keep abreast of the latest technol-
ogy on wastewater disposal.
7. The ability to objectively review goals and
objectives.
8. The ability to provide meaningful technical
consultation.
9. The ability to legally intervene.
10. The ability to fund and conduct research.
11. The ability to provide basic documents and
data.
12. The ability to coordinate and integrate the
on-site sewage program with proposed legislative
action.
A review of the criteria should suggest that local health
departments appear to be in a better position to adminis-
ter the basic program. The State's role should include
program development, program support, and evaluation.
The Federal role appears to be more clear: research and
State program support. An objective look should disclose
there is a legitimate need for involvement by all levels.
The roles should, however, be clearly defined and imple-
mented. I submit that States, and certainly the local
governments, have attempted to play their roles well even
though inconsistencies exist. The Federal Government, in
my opinion, has fallen far short of meeting its responsi-
bilities except for recent activities including this confer-
ence.
21
-------
States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
V'-st Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Table 1. Basic Program Administration
Local Regional State
None
X
X
X
No Response
X
X
X
X
X
X
No Response
X
X
X
No Response
No Response
X
No Response
No Response
X
X
X (Limited)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
44 — Responses
15—Local Control 1—Regional Control
18-Local-State 6-State Control
4—No State Involvement
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X?
X
X?
X
X
X
22
-------
Table 2. Septic Tank Design
Septic Tank Capacity in Gallons By Number of Bedrooms
States
Alabama 1000 1000 1000 1200 1400
Alaska 750 750 900 1000 1250
Arizona 960 960 960 1200 1500
Arkansas
California
Colorado 750 750 900 1000 1250
Connecticut 1000 1000 1000 1250 1500
Delaware 750 750 750 1000 1250
Florida 750 750 900 1000 1200
Georgia 750 750 900 1000 1250
Hawaii 750 750 1000 1200 1350
Idaho 750 750 900 1000 1250
Illinois
Indiana 750 750 900 1100 1250
Iowa 750 750 1000 1250 1500
Kansas
Kentucky 750 750 900 1000 1250
Louisiana 500 750 900 1150 1400
Maine 750 750 900 1000 1250
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana 750 750 900 1000 1250
Nebraska 750 750 900 1000 1250
Nevada 1000 1000 1000 1000 1250
New Hampshire 750 750 900 1000 1250
New Jersey 750 750 900 1000 1250
New Mexico 750 750 900 1000 1250
New York 750 750 900 1000 1250
North Carolina 750 750 900 1000 1250
North Dakota
Ohio 1000 1000 1500 2000 2000
Oklahoma 1000 1000 1000 1000 1250
Oregon 750 750 900 1000 1250
Pennsylvania 900 900 900 1000 1100
Rhode Island 750 750 900 1000 1250
South Carolina 890 890 890 ? ?
South Dakota 1000 1000 1000 1250 1500
Tennessee 750 750 900 1000 1250
Texas 750 750 1000 1250 1500
Utah 750 750 900 1000 1250
Vermont 1000 1000 1000 1000 1500
Virginia 30 Hour Detention - 100 Gallons Per Person
Washington 750 750 900 1000 1250
West Virginia 750 750 900 1000 1250
Wisconsin 750 750 975 1200 1375
Wyoming 750 750 900 1000 1250
23
-------
Table 3. Absorption Field Design
States Setback Distance Drainfield To Setback Distance Drainfield To
Well In Feet Surface Water In Feet
Alabama 50-75 ?
Alaska 50-100 50-100
Arizona 50-100 100
Arkansas
California
Colorado 100 50
Connecticut 75 50
Delaware 50-100 50
Florida 75-100 50
Georgia 100 50
Hawaii 50 50
Idaho 100 100-300
Illinois
Indiana 50-100 50
Iowa 100-200 25
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana 100 ?
Maine 100-300 50-100
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana 100 100
Nebraska 100 50
Nevada 100 100
New Hampshire 75 75
New Jersey 50-100 50
New Mexico 100 50
New York 100 100
North Carolina 100 50
North Dakota
Ohio 50 ?
Oklahoma 50-100 50
Oregon 50-100 50-100
Pennsylvania 100 50
Rhode Island 100 50
South Carolina 100 50
South Dakota 100 100
Tennessee 50 25
Texas 100-150 75
Utah 100 100
Vermont 100 50
Virginia 35-100 50-100
Washington 75-100 100
West Virginia 100 100
Wisconsin 50-100 50
Wyoming 100 50
24
-------
States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Table 4. Absorption Field Design
Minimum Percolation Restriction
None
None
None
None
None
Yes
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Yes
No
Yes
None
Yes
Yes
None
None
None
None
None
Yes
None
None
Yes
None
Yes
None
None
None
Yes
None
None
None
Sizing Methods
Perc
Perc & Soils
Perc
Perc
Perc
Perc
Perc & Soils
Perc& Soils
Perc
Perc & Soils
Perc
Perc & Soils
Perc
Perc
Soils
Perc & Soils
Perc
Perc
Perc
Pere & Soils
Perc& Soils
Perc & Soils
Perc & Soils
Soils
Perc Test
Soils
Perc
Perc
Perc & Soils
Perc
Perc& Soils
Perc & Soils
Perc
Perc & Soils
Perc & Soils
Perc & Soils
Perc
Perc& Soils
Perc
25
-------
Table 5. Special Restrictions
States
Required Soil Depth Below Bottom
Of Trench In Feet
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska6
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
4
4
4
No Minimum
1.5
1.5
No Minimum
No Minimum
4
?
1.5a
7
None
2
4
7
4
4a
4
2
1
4a
4
1.53
4
3
6"
4
4a
4
1
4
No Minimum
3a
4
3a
4
Allows Surface Discharge
?
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes, Conditional
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
aAllows less with special design
bGuidelines
26
-------
States
Table 6. Absorption Field Design Requirements And Sizing Methods
Minimum Spacing In Feet Minimum Soil Cover Over Range of Drainfield
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
oeiween Lines in reel
6
6
6
6
6-9
6.5-7.5
6-8
10
6
6
6-7,5
7.5
?
?
10
6
6
6
6-7.5
6-7.5
6
8
6
8
10
6
6
10
6
6
7
6-7.5
6
6-9
6
6
10
6-7.5
i reiiun in incites
6
12
12
12
6
9
12
12
12
12
12
12
None
6-12
2-6
12
6
4-6
6
12
12
12
6
10
6
12
12
9
?
12
6
12
6
None
6
12
12
6-12
vvmins in mcnes
18-36
12-36
12-18
18-36
18-36
12-36
18-24
18-36
18-36
12-36
18-36
18
?
12-18
24
12-36
18-36
12-24
12-36
18-36
24
18-36
8-30
24
24
12-36
18
18-36
?
18-36
18-36
12-36
12-48
18-36
18-36
12-36
18-36
12-36
27
-------
SUMMARY
State on-site sewage disposal regulations have evolved
from a variety of needs over an extended period of time.
Some needs were justified, others, perhaps not. The
existing State guidelines and regulations are not consistent
or uniform and their adequacy cannot be measured. The
regulations generally follow the basic design concepts
outlined in the Manual of Septic Tank Practice which is a
general and outdated document. The most widely ac-
cepted method for on-site sewage disposal is the simple
septic tank and drainfield system.
Septic tank and drainfield design requirements vary
considerably from State to State. Water course setbacks
range from 25 feet to 300 feet, and soil depth require-
ments range from nine to four feet below the bottom of
the trench. Nine of the 44 States responding allow the
open discharge of treated effluent from sand filters,
aerobic units or wastewater stabilization ponds. Sizing of
a drainfield in most States is accomplished by a non-
standardized percolation test. Less than half of the States
surveyed address soil types, and soil classification systems
for sizing.
There are some recent changes in State regulations that
may be indicators of change:
1. Increased involvement in subdivisions and larger
system approvals.
2. Increased involvement in providing standard de-
sign criteria for alternative systems.
3. Increased emphasis on establishing minimum lot
sizes.
4. Increase in field research activities.
The levels of government involved in administering the
on-site sewage disposal program must be clearly deline-
ated. Basic administration of the program appears best
exercised at the local level. State activities should include
program development, program evaluation, research and
technical support. The Federal role should be expanded in
order to provide for more research, training and to
provide up-to-date documents.
REFERENCES
1 Environmental Health Program Standards, Office of
Environmental Health Programs, State of Washington,
Department of Social and Health Services, August, 1975.
2Klock, J.W., and Winneberger, J.T., Current and Recom-
mended Practices for Subsurface Wastewater Disposal
Systems in Arizona, Engineering Research Center, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe, Arizona, 1973.
o
McGauhey, P.H., and Winneberger, J.T., Causes and
Prevention of Failure of Septic Tank Percolation Sys-
tems, Sanitary Engineering Research Lab, University of
California, Berkeley, California, 1964.
4Patterson, J.W., et al., Septic Tanks and The Environ-
ment, Institute for Environmental Quality, Chicago,
Illinois, 1971.
5Current Rules, Regulations and Guidelines Governing
On-Site-Disposal for the following States:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
DShuval, H.I., The Use and Misuse of Environmental Stan-
dards, Paper presented at Environmental Health Seminar,
University of Michigan, March 5, 1962.
28
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS
James F. Hudson *
The title of this portion of the program is "Environ-
mental Impact of On-Site Systems", but I'm going to take
a fairly broad view of the term "environment" and look at
those impacts discussed earlier—comparing on-site systems
and sewers to the extent possible. Over the next two days,
you will be hearing about a number of case studies of new
technologies, new management methods, and new ways to
fit on-site and small-scale technologies into the Federal
program. My concern, simply stated, is "If we do make
on-site systems more common, what effects will that
have?" Beyond that, I am also concerned with current
on-site systems, which the Census says served about 20
million households in 1970. For those systems, the
questions are:
• How much damage are they doing right now?
• What can be done about the failing systems? and
• What can be done to keep the good systems
working?
My paper will be concerned primarily with conventional
septic tank systems, since they are the on-site technologies
with which we have the most experience.
As a researcher, my first step in preparing the talk was
to look at the literature, and I found a paper entitled
"Septic Tanks and Their Effect on the Environment," by
P.H. McGauhey, where he identified three stages in septic
tank research:
• In the early periods, when pressurized water
supplies became common for rural areas, and there
was concern for methods to dispose of the wastes
but still protect the public health. However, little
data was collected, and the systems were installed in
very low-density situations
• In the 1950's and early 1960's, after government
funding of mortgages and uncontrolled installation
of septic tanks by suburban developers had led to
numerous failures
• In the 1970's, as groundwater became an impor-
tant concern.
I feel there should be a fourth period of interest
identified, since we have recently learned that sewering is
"James F. Hudson
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass.
not necessarily the answer for all situations; this confer-
ence and other activities show the need to consider all
solutions and choose among them, rather than just
following simple rules which lead to unwise solutions.
The environmental impacts of septic tanks are numer-
ous, but there are two which have generally been of
concern: failure and groundwater pollution. Failure of
septic tank systems is generally caused by complete soil
clogging, so that the wastes are unable to pass through the
soil layer and either rise to the surface, or back up from
the tank into the household (or both). This becomes
obvious relatively quickly, and leads to odors, surface
water pollution, public health problems, and similar
impacts. It is often the result of failing to clean the sludge
and scum out of the septic tank so that they overflow into
the leaching field, but can also be caused by high
groundwater or poor soils which will not accept sufficient
flow.
The other type of problem arises when pollutants reach
the groundwater without being sufficiently treated. EPA
requirements state that any discharge to groundwater in
the neighborhood of existing or potential aquifers must be
of drinking water quality, and this is generally the goal of
septic tank/soil absorption field systems. However if the
soil is fractured, or if the percolation rate is too high or
the groundwater too close, the system will not treat
enough to meet these standards. Too fast percolation can
be just as bad a problem as too slow. The soils may also
not remove heavy metals, some of the nutrients, or
chemical wastes effectively, so that septic tank systems
may require pretreatment before dosing with industrial
wastes, photographic chemicals, or near lakeshores where
eutrophication may be a problem. Nitrates in groundwater
are likely to be a major difficulty in meeting drinking
water standards.
Conversely, septic tank and other land application
systems may be an important benefit to the groundwater,
with one household providing the equivalent of 31/a inches
of groundwater recharge annually. In areas where ground-
water is being used for supply sources, and particularly
where depletion is a problem, the use of septic tanks and
on-site systems may be extremely important. The best
planning practice for this situation is probably to estimate
the total recharge from the septic tank/soil absorption
system, and from other sources, and thus estimate the
dilution of pollutants entering the groundwater.
29
-------
It is important to note that, while EPA requirements
for treatment systems under the Water Pollution Control
Act require drinking water quality at the groundwater,
they do not require it at the effluent end of the septic
tank. The standard is also extremely strict, since many
pollutants will continue to be treated in the groundwater
itself through soil contact, and the residence times before
reaching wells and returning to the surface depend on
distance. For any particular design, it is possible to
estimate pollutant migration and see whether groundwater
quality problems are possible. This is, however, an
expensive process and the simple standard of having the
water clean when it reaches the groundwater should be
followed in most cases, and in all situations where Federal
construction grants are concerned.
This covers tha major environmental impacts from the
systems themselves; minor ones such as odors, resource
use, construction land disruption, and so forth also exist,
but they are minor. The only other primary impact from
the system comes from septage it leaves behind.
This septage is a strong waste, sludge and scum left in
the tank after it settles or floats. For the 20 million
households with septic tank systems, and an average of
three-year pumping with a 1000-gallon tank, there should
be about 20 mgd of septage generated nationally, which
does not sound like very much waste. Septage is difficult
to treat, however, involving COD of over 3000 mg/l, and
total solids of over 30,000 mg/l. Experience with septage
treatment is limited, though land treatment, landfill, and
addition of the septage to either the influent or sludge
systems of treatment plants have been tried. At least one
septage treatment plant is also being funded under the
construction grants program, serving Sudbury and Way-
land, Massachusetts, and EPA is testing septage treatment
at conventional plants.
At this point, we do not know where most of the
septage goes. It seems likely that large quantities are
simply pumped into manholes, for discharge either to
treatment plants or to rivers; large quantities also enter
the soil through septic tank systems which are never
pumped out, and which overflow solids. Since the waste
has been decomposing in a highly anaerobic environment,
but is otherwise relatively clean (few pathogens, few
metals), land treatment may be the method of choice in
the future. At this point, the research still needs to be
done on effective septage treatment.
The secondary impacts of septic tank and other on-site
disposal systems have to be evaluated. Lack of sewers has,
in some areas, led to complete building moratoria; in
others, it has justified lot sizes up to 5 acres, because of
the need to use septic tank and soil absorption systems.
Sewers can clearly be used in higher densities than septic
tanks, but the critical cutoff is still open to question.
While it is not a major concern for small communities, the
subject of this conference, cutoff densities from 1/4 acre
to 2 acres per field have been suggested, and may even be
appropriate depending on the conditions. There is no
good rule of thumb, and our data on system outputs is
generally poor. In general, though, septic tanks and soil
absorption systems should be accepted in any situation
where the soil will clean sufficiently, and where effluent
entering the groundwater will be diluted enough by the
percolating rainwater to reach acceptable levels. While the
information was not included in Gary Plews' talk, the
variation in maximum septic tank densities is enormous,
and rational bases for setting standards need to be
developed.
The secondary impacts of allowing on-site systems as
alternatives to sewers have to be considered. Leapfrogging
is the result, as developers use the cheap and available land
rather than waiting for parcels near the existing infra-
structure. This may lead to greatly increased municipal
service costs, for roads, storm drains, busing (both school
and mass-transit), solid waste pickup, and other utility
services. Most of these services cost more when provided
on a dispersed basis, so that development controls based
on the location of infrastructure make sense. Develop-
ment near sewers showed that they were often more
important than master plans in determining what went
where. Now, planners and engineers may work together to
provide infrastructure, only to find that development
occurs far away, and is expensive to service. The secon-
dary impacts of on-site systems may be large, and need to
be considered in allowing them.
Besides these economic impacts on the community, the
economic impacts of the on-site system itself need to be
considered. The sewer systems described earlier may
include a total capital and O&M cost of $100/household
per year, without including the $500 — $1500 for the
house connection. As an alternative, most unconnected
households already have septic tank systems in place, and
most of these may work adequately (though no one
knows). The added cost of sewers is a very large burden.
In areas where on-site systems fail, in new developments,
or in areas where the on-site systems simply need
replacement, the economics are much closer. A tank plus
500 square feet of leaching field, with maintenance on a
regular basis, may cost $150/year for the household,
comparable to sewering, and mound systems, aerobic
systems, and the like will only show increased costs.
Therefore, the main gain is in areas where densities are
low so that sewering costs are high, or in areas where
septic tank systems already exist, and complete replace-
ment is not required.
MITIGATING MEASURES
Every environmental impact statement discusses miti-
gating measures, and that is also a useful concern in
analyzing the environmental impacts of on-site systems.
Most of the effort in the past has been on design — on
finding better ways to build on-site systems so that they
30
-------
can be applied more widely. On the other hand, most
failures seem to be the result of poor installation (e.g. on
poor soils), and of insufficient maintenance. The tools we
use may be insufficient in some cases, but our manage-
ment of them is ineffective and needs to be improved.
In the design area, we should look for procedures
which will reduce the maintenance requirements, increase
the life of septic tank-soil absorption systems, and
improve their performance. One method for doing this is
the alternate leaching field concept, which allows the soils
to regularly rest, and regain their cleaning capacity. Each
year, a valve is turned to divert flow from one set of
parallel fields to another, preventing major long-term
clogging. Figures 1 and 2 give an example. Another idea is
an overflow sensor, which could be electrical, or could
simply be a blocking plug. Overflowing sludge and scum
cause many, very expensive, failures of the soil absorption
field, and a sensor which would monitor the sludge level
and alert the resident could save large amounts of money.
One simple version just blocks the outlet pipe so that the
waste backs up instead of destroying the field; this is
unhygienic, but quickly convinces the resident to clean
the tank.
In installation, it is obviously important to get the
pipes placed parallel and level, yet this is often missed.
Similarly, it is important to test soil percolation, yet
percolation tests show wide ranges in their results and are
difficult to trust, especially when carelessly performed, or
when done by people with an incentive to find a good
result. Connecticut data has shown that systems installed
in dry years fail more often than systems installed in wet
years, simply because the soils appear to be better; careful
combination of soil data and percolation tests seems to be
the best practical alternative now, but the emphasis
should be on the careful.
The main area of emphasis, however, should be on
maintenance. EPA may be willing to fund public manage-
ment systems, pumping trucks, and communal on-site
treatment and disposal systems; the O&M, though, will
remain the responsibility of the community. This can be
done as part of a community system, going along with the
public ownership of the on-site systems. However, it is
also possible to use a regulated industry approach to
ensure that tanks are maintained, pumped, and inspected.
Under this alternative, each homeowner would be re-
quired to have a permit for his or her on-site system,
Figure 1. Layout of a Field with an Even Number of
Trenches
Figure 2. A Flow Diversion Valve with an
External Regulatory Key
Source: Clayton, J.W., An Analysis of Septic Tank
Survival Data from 1932 to 1972 in Fairfax
County, Virginia
31
-------
which would be renewed every two years (5% or so of the
tanks would overflow under a three year interval). To
renew the permit, the householder would have to pay a
permit fee and present proof of inspection and, if
necessary, pumping. The inspection would be done by a
licensed pumper, who would be required to pump the
tank if sludge and scum were over 1/3 of the total tank
volume, and to dispose of the pumpings in the community
treatment site. Performance bonds and quality control
would ensure that the pumpers provided satisfactory
service.
Either the public or the regulated private approach
could reduce many of the maintenance and performance
problems of existing on-site systems. When combined with
attempts to provide careful design and installation, low-
cost techniques like pressure sewers to redeem old
failures, and public ownership options qualifying for
Federal grants, a system of on-site waste treatment could
be set up which would provide excellent treatment at low
cost.
There are missing factors, however. We have never been
able to develop a program of operations and maintenance
which is truly effective in the wastewater area, and will be
working under the current lack of consistent regulation,
which blocks innovation and supports variable perform-
ance. Money and support from EPA will help, but may
not be sufficient.
Over the past several years, we have come full circle.
Failing septic tank systems caused a great increase in
sewering, and led to the belief that septic tanks were
unacceptable and sewers were the only answer, a view still
common in the profession. Now, we may have learned
that sewers are not always acceptable, either environ-
mentally or economically, and we are again suggesting the
use of on-site systems. However, if we do not worry about
the Q&M, or if we decide that on-site systems are the
answer, we will be back in five years doing it all again. The
only "answer" is good engineering and good implementa-
tion, and that takes work.
REFERENCES
McGauhey, P.M. "Septic Tanks and Their Effect on the
Environment" in W.J. Jewell and R. Swan(eds.). Water
Pollution Control in Low Density Areas: Proceedings
of a Rural Environmental Engineering Conference.
University of Vermont, 1975.
Clayton, J.H. "An Analysis of Septic Tank Survival Data
from 1952 to 1972 in Fairfax County, Virginia", in
Jewell and Swan.
McClelland, N.I. (ed.). Second National Conference on
Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, National Sanita-
tion Foundation, 1975, Particularly papers by Salvato
and Harkin, Jawson / Baker.
McClelland, N.I. (ed.). Individual Onsite Wastewater
System (Third National Conference), Ann Arbor: Ann
Arbor Science, 1977. Particularly papers by Stewart,
Mellen, Goddard.
Proceedings, Conference on Alternatives to Sewers, E.
Bridgewater, MA, December 1976. Particularly papers
by Healy, Hill, Goldrosen, Wilkes.
Hill, D.E., and C.R. Frink. Longevity of Septic Systems in
Connecticut Soils. Bulletin 747, Connecticut Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, New Haven, 1974.
McGauhey, P.H., and J.H. Winneberger. A Study of
Methods of Preventing Failure of Septic-Tank Percola-
tion Systems. SERL, University of California, Berke-
ley, for HUD, October 1967.
Alford, M.R., and J.F. Hudson. "On-site Wastewater
Disposal", chapter IV of Improving Environmental
Quality Through the Use of Local Powers and Regula-
tions. Urban Systems Research & Engineering for the
Office of Research & Development, U.S. EPA, 1976.
32
-------
O & M COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
James L. Gamble*
PREFACE
To step from private life into public life as an elected
official of a small town is quite a learning experience.
Indeed, my training began very early.
Just a few weeks after I had been sworn into office, I
arrived home one cold snowy January evening to be told
by my wife that the Town Marshall was not only the
Town Marshall, but the Water Commissioner, Street
Commissioner, Director of Parks and Recreation, and our
only full time employee. Today, the situation has only
improved slightly.
It didn't take me long to find him because in a town of
only 569 people, one can't stay lost for a long period of
time. He told me rather abruptly that a water main had
broken and he needed help. We drove to the location of a
broken main and he handed me a pick, marked off a spot
in the middle of the street and said, "the shut off for this
section has been paved over and needs to be uncovered."
So I began digging into the asphalt. My hands became
blistered, my feet got cold, and my back ached, but I dug
until the shut off was unconvered. I must confess that as I
dug, I wondered what I had gotten myself into! But I
learned some pretty important lessons, the first being,
that you don't pave over shut offs.
More importantly, I learned that a local official lives
not only close to the people he serves, but close to the
services he provides. They can and do have a direct
influence on his life. Since then, I have been submerged in
water past my hips repairing broken water lines, loaded
trash, spent the night patrolling, chased strayed animals,
including large, stubborn, and smelly sheep, and a
thousand other tasks too numerous to mention. Fortu-
nately, it hasn't been necessary to dig up any more streets
by hand! But of at) the tasks I have been asked to
perform, none has been as frustrating and defies resolu-
tion more than the construction and operation of our
wastewater treatment system.
* James L. Gamble
President of the Town Board
Whitestown, Ind.
INTRODUCTION
It is necessary when we discuss the operation and
maintenance of Whitestown's wastewater treatment sys-
tem to include in that discussion, the original capital in-
vestment of the community and the financial ability of
the community to bear that capital investment. It has
been our experience that only when the interaction of
these factors are taken into account can the community
successfully operate and maintain a treatment system.
Unfortunately, these considerations were not made and
the result is a treatment system that is an administrative
problem.
It should be noted at the outset of this report that it is
not intended to ignore the fact that Whitestown desper-
ately needed a wastewater management system. Indeed,
during the 1971 municipal election, the slate of candi-
dates, of which I was a part, advocated the hasty
construction of sewers and a treatment system. It should
also be noted that that slate of candidates was elected by
a substantial majority; therefore, we can assume that the
residents also recognized the need and were willing to
accept the additional cost of a monthly sewer bill.
However, it can be said, without fear of contradiction,
that a pro-construction slate today would undoubtedly be
defeated. What originally appeared to be a popular
proposal became extremely unpopular and today is
considered a burden by most of the residents. Moreover,
as we, the administrators of the system, attempt to
moderate this burden, the management of the system
becomes an increasingly difficult problem. The demand of
debt service requires that operation and maintenance costs
be held to a minimum, so that other necessities may be
purchased. In developing this report, let us first examine
the resources of the town.
HISTORY OF WHITESTOWN
Local historians disagree about Whitestown's origins.
However, the explanation that has the most credence is
rooted deeply in American traditions — railroad and land
speculation. I tend toward this notion for the following
reasons. First of all, it is readily apparent that Worth
Township, in which Whitestown lies, was created by
33
-------
removing parcels of land from four other townships.
Secondly, this new township was named Worth, a name
shared by the secretary-treasurer of the railroad. Thirdly,
Alexander White was president of the railroad and just
happened to be a Congressman when Whitestown applied
for a post office. It goes without saying that their
application was satisfactorily processed. Finally, there is
some evidence that a site along Eagle Creek was aban-
doned not long after the town was founded. Even though
the historians disagree about the town's origins, they do
agree that Whitestown's early success was as a railroad
shipping and receiving center serving an extremely produc-
tive agricultural community and some industry.
As the use of the railroad began to decline in the late
1940's and early 50's and the family farm gave way to the
corporate farm, Whitestown's economy declined as well.
During the 1960's, the school was removed by a consolid-
ation. Businessmen began to move to other locations. The
removal of these two services meant the loss of many of
the amenities that justify the added taxes of living within
the corporate limits. By 1970, buildings were empty and
many houses vacant. By 1971, the town had become a
discouraged hamlet of 569 people. A frequently suggested
solution was that the town should disband or unincorpo-
rate and let the county provide whatever services were
needed. It was in the midst of these trends that the
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board mandated all
communities with a water works and no sewers to have a
wastewater treatment system constructed by December
31, 1971.1 Since Whitestown owned a water works, they
were included in that mandate.
COMMUNITY RESOURCES
As can be seen in Figure 1, the costs of constructing a
wastewater treatment system would be borne, for the
most part, by persons who were, retired and living on a
fixed income, a substantial number of whom were
widows, or relatively new households with younger
children. It can be reasonably assumed that neither group
would feel capable of having a large portion of their
income diverted from other necessities to wastewater
treatment. Figure 1 compares the age-sex composition of
Whitestown with the SMSA. The predominance of these
groups at both ends of the scale can easily be seen.
The little old lady in tennis shoes with her Social
Security check clutched tightly in her hand has been made
famous by the social scientist. It is not quite the same,
however, when one lives across the street, next door, and
immediately behind you! Their problems become very
real; indeed, very close. Keep in mind if you will, that the
lady who lived behind me, a widow, received a Social
Security check of slightly over seventy dollars a month. It
might also be good to keep in mind, that this particular
lady just happened to be my mother-in-law!
Age
75*
65 74
55 64
45 54
35 44
25 34
20 24
10 19
0 9
16
Male
2 24
Percent
stown Source: U.S. Bureau of Census
Figure 1.* Age—Sex Composition, 1970
The reason for the predominance of these age groups in
the population profile can probably be attributed to three
reasons. As can be seen from Table 1, the prominent
out-migration, not only for Whitestown, but for Boone
County is in the 20-24 age group. These are the major
job-hunting years when many migrate to larger cities for
employment opportunites, as illustrated by the Marion
County statistics.
A more important reason, however, is the availability
of low and moderate priced housing. As can be seen in
Table 2, the value of houses in Whitestown is predomin-
antly between $5,000-$14,999. Rental units are, likewise,
lower than the metropolitan averages, however, rental
units are a very small portion of the total housing stock.
It can be suggested at this point that the remaining
population falls into two general categories, 1) those who
feel that they have no alternative to move elsewhere, (the
retirees and widows would probably fall into this cate-
gory, or, 2) persons in low or moderate income occupa-
tions, who could not afford amenities or those whose life
style made them willing to sacrifice amenities to live in
the "country."
Table 3 will bear out both these conclusions. The
median family income in Census Track 8107 (the Census
Tract in which Whitestown is located) is slightly lower
than the county and SMSA median incomes. This lower
*Since Census data was available only in this form, the
age group categories are not consistent; therefore, not
providing a totally accurate analysis.
34
-------
Table 1. Migration Rate 1950-60 by Age Group
Age Group
All Ages
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
Indiana
1.4
0.8
1.7
2.6
2.3
2.2
7.1
3.1
0.7
0.9
1.8
1.0
0.3
-0.1
-3.3
-2.1
-4.1
Boone County
3.6
7.3
14.6
6.7
-3.7
-14.1
3.6
18.8
2.5
6.0
3.5
1.7
7.5
4.6
-3.2
-0.3
-6.6
Marion County
5.5
-1.0
-0.5
3.1
5.6
25.8
39.0
17.1
4.2
2.7
4.8
4.0
2.1
-0.8
-3.8
-3.8
-2.5
Source: Net Migration of the Population, 1950-60, USDA, Economic Research Service,
Vol. I, Part 2
Table 2. Selected Financial Data
Whitestown
Characteristic
Total owner-occupied
reporting value
Value of owner-
occupied less than
$5,000
$5,000- 9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-19,999
20,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 34,999
35,000 - 49,999
50,000 +
Total renter-occupied
less than $40/mo.
$ 40-59
60-79
80-99
100-119
120 +
No cash rent
Not reported
Units Pet. of Stock
Remainder Worth Twp.
Units Pet. of Stock
124
16
47
33
22
5
1
0
0
47
3
7
15
6
2
0
13
100%
12.9
38.0
26.6
17.7
4.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
100%
6.4
15.0
31.9
12.8
4.2
0.0
27.6
2.1
117
1
9
43
32
21
7
2
2
13
0
6
5
2
0
0
100%
0.9
7.7
36.6
27.5
17.9
6.0
1.7
1.7
100%
0.0
46.2
38.5
15.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Source: U.S. Census of the Population, 1970
35
-------
median income reflects the predominant rural population,
however, with a large enough urban community to bring
the median well above the U.S. rural median income. It
should be noted, however, that these data are for the
census tract which would include Worth Township. Since
Table 2 indicated that the value of houses is slightly
higher than in Whitestown, it can be concluded that those
seeking a "country life style" would be found in the
Township while those seeking low and moderate priced
housing would locate in the Town.
Table 3. Median Family Income in 1970
suggest that income and employment would be easily
influenced by fluctuations in the economy. Whitestown is
receiving Title II Public Works funds, under the anti-
recessionary funds and is eligible for other areas of public
works funding.
As can be seen from the data that even if the residents
of Whitestown were willing to contribute a large portion
of their income for wastewater treatment, it would have
been difficult for them to do so. Moreover, we can safely
assume that the other necessities required by a young
family, or a fixed income household, would probably
receive higher priority. Let us now examine how much the
treatment facility costs.
Area
U.S. Total
U.S. Rural
Indianapolis SMSA
Boone County
C.T. 8107
Income
$9,590
8,071
9,109
8,944
8,828
Table 4. Occupational Characteristics
Source: U.S. Census of the Population: 1970,
Indianapolis SMSA, Table P-4 Income
Characteristics
In Tables 4 and 5, we see the conclusions supported
further. In Table 4, we see that the percentage of
professional-technical and manager-administrator em-
ployees is considerably lower than the metropolitan
percentage. The proportion of farm workers is approxi-
mately eight times the metropolitan area proportion.
Moreover, the relative youth of the population suggests
that many are just beginning their careers; therefore, not
having accumulated enough seniority or education to
ascend to manager-administrator levels. It would also
Occupation
Professional, Technical
Managers, Administrators
Sales
Clerical
Craftsman
Operatives
Transport Operatives
Laborers
Farm Workers
Service Workers
Private Household Workers
Unemployed
Percent of Employed
Persons Over 16
SMSA
14.0%
8.7
7.7
19.8
14.2
14.7
3.9
3.8
1.4
10.7
1.1
3.2
C.T. 8107
6.3%
6.0
6.6
16.2
16.2
16.5
6.6
2.6
10.6
10.8
1.6
1.5
Source: U.S. Census of the Population: 1970, Indianapolis
SMSA, Table P-3; Labor Force Characteristics
Table 5. Educational Achievement 1970 — All Persons 25 Years and Over
Achievement
0 years completed
1-8 years
9-12 years
13 + years
High School Graduates
Median School yrs. completed
U.S.
1.6%
26.6
50.9
20.9
50.3
12.1 yrs.
SMSA
0.6%
22.4
56.3
20.7
56.0
12.2 yrs.
Tract 8107
0.5%
26.8
63.1
9.6
53.1
12.1 yrs.
Source: U.S. Census of the Population: 1970, Indianapolis SMSA, Table P-2 Social Characteristics
36
-------
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT
On January 16, 1968, the Town of Whitestown
submitted a proposal to the Indiana Stream Pollution
Control Board.2 The total cost of the project was
estimated at $370,200. It included sewers for the entire
town and a waste stabilization pond. Apparently the town
felt the cost prohibitive and failed to follow up on this
proposal. On October 1, 1970, the Town Board author-
ized an application for a grant to construct a sewage
treatment facility to be completed by July 1, 1972.3
In the meantime, the Indiana Stream Pollution Control
Board had revised its standards to require that communi-
ties that discharge into a stream with a 7-day, one-in-
10-year low flow of less than two times plant design flow,
would be required to install advanced waste treatment
capable of removing 97.5 percent carbonaceous BOD5.
They had further determined that facilities discharging
within forty miles of an impoundment, must provide 80
percent removal of the total phosphorus entering the
plant, and if within forty miles upstream of a public water
supply, then the effluent must be disinfected throughout
the entire year.4 Since all of these requirements were
applicable to Whitestown, a new design was needed.
By December, 1971, the 569 residents of Whitestown
had become one of the State's worst polluters. We were
rated tenth on the priority point rating.5 However, by this
time a new proposal had been completed. This proposal
called for mechanical extended aeration, with chlorination
and advanced treatment. It had a capacity of eighty-five
thousand gallons per day and the effluent to be 200 mg/l
BOD. Of course the higher level of sophistication had a
higher cost. An increase from $370,200 to $546,000 -
slightly over half a million.
At this time, people became concerned; however, with
State and Federal assistance we were assured the cost
would be in the area of $6.00 per month, certainly under
$10.00 per month. We were told, informally, however,
that the standard would be met even if the cost rose to
thirty dollars per month. For a while it seemed that the
cost might reach that figure. The cost finally stabilized at
$618,0006 or just slightly over the assessed value of the
entire town! That unique situation caused us to be on the
wrong end of an April Fool's Day joke. The newspaper in
a neighboring community announced that Whitestown
had been condemned to become a penitentiary! The
rationale was that it would be less expensive for the State
to purchase the town than to construct a treatment
facility! Of the total cost of $618,000, $215,560 was
eligible for State and Federal assistance. The local share
was $466,000.7
The Town Board proposed to raise the local share
through a revenue bond with the Farmer's Home Adminis-
tration at five percent interest per year. The cost per
household was $12.00 per month as a minimum with an
average combined water and sewer bill of slightly over
$30.00 per month.8
Unfortunately, billing had to begin when the bond was
issued, meaning we began paying for the service a year
before it was provided. This was necessary to meet the
first year interest. Needless to say, I avoided my mother-
in-law.
Table 6. Whitestown Water Rate Increase Approved by
State Public Service Commission, September 1975
Gallons
Water
Sewer
Tax
Bill
Delq. Chg.
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
$ 6.22
6.22
7.26
8.30
9.34
10.38
11.42
12.46
13.50
14.54
$12.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
22.00
24.00
26.00
28.00
$.25
.25
.29
.33
.37
.42
.46
.50
.54
.58
$18.47
18.47
21.55
24.63
27.71
30.80
33.88
36.96
40.04
43.12
$.31
.31
.42
.45
.49
.52
.55
.58
.61
.64
Water Charges
1st&2nd 1,000 gal.
Next 8,000 gal.
Next 10,000 gal.
Next 30,000 gal.
Next 50,000 gal.
@$3.11 each 1,000
@ 1.04 each 1,000
@ .93 each 1,000
@ .83 each 1,000
@ .73 each 1,000
Sewer Charges
1st&2nd 1,000 gal.
Next 8, 000 gal.
Next 10,000 gal.
Next 30,000 gal.
Next 50,000 gal.
@$6.00 each 1,000
@ 2.00 each 1,000
@ 1.80 each 1,000
@ 1.60 each 1,000
@ 1.40 each 1,000
37
-------
THE RESPONSE OF THE COMMUNITY
THE FUTURE
What had begun as a well supported project was now
opposed by a rather large and vocal majority at the rate
hearing. Many novel suggestions were made, and some
that were not so novel. Once again, unincorporating was
proposed. Interestingly enough, this would have solved
the problem, because Indiana Law prevents a county from
building sewers and treatment plants, unless the citizens,
through their township government, petition for a sewer
district. This obviously wasn't going to happen. Indeed, at
this time a neighboring county has been trying to deal
with a very severe health problem in this manner, but due
to citizen opposition, has been unable to do so.
The resistance to the project continues today. Indeed,
in one instance the town was forced to exercise its police
powers and hook one person's property into the system
and file a mechanics lien against his property to recover
the cost. This extreme measure was used because the
proper depth of the interceptor was in question and the
last of the funds could not be released until the question
was resolved. In another instance, we had to file suit to
mandate hook up, and in yet another, we provided a zero
interest loan. For one old gentleman, whose only source
of income is welfare, and who has been using a facility
constructed in his back yard by the WPA, we sought and
obtained a Community Development Grant to construct a
modern facility. Unfortunately, he passed away before we
could complete the grant. So we condemned the house
and removed it.
THE PROJECT TODAY
In an atmosphere of hostility we completed construc-
tion. After four payments the bond has been reduced
until we only owe $462,000. The system has yet to live
up to its design standards, partially because of design
oversights. Moreover, it was extremely difficult to find
competent operators who could provide construction
oversight for $2,000 a year. To get the system operating
properly for the past year we have been helped by the
City Engineer of a neighboring community and we hope
to have all the kinks out of the system at the end of this
summer.
The system continues to be a financial problem,
however, operating costs were estimated at $40,017. Of
this, $28,100 is required for debt service. Unfortunately,
last year the operating costs were $44,120. A substantial
portion of this increase was for electricity which last year
totalled $6,950 and continues to rise. Indeed, last month
it exceeded $1,000. Just to add to these problems, the
utility only generated revenues totalling $38,457.10 Since
our other services could only best be described as token,
and our General Fund budget just barely exceeds $15,000
it would appear that a rate increase is forthcoming. Which
means, I will probably start avoiding my mother-in-law
again, and probably many others!
The future doesn't look much brighter. The Stream
Pollution Control Board is revising their standard and
ammonia removal may have to be added. Estimated costs
of this addition run from $1.00 to $2.00 per month more
than the present rate.11
Since the system is operating at one quarter to one half
capacity, more consumers would help relieve the situa-
tion. However, when potential developers get a look at
our rate structure, they depart never to be seen again.
Probably to build in a neighboring county on septic
systems.
P.L. 92-500
The question must be asked: "Why didn't the town
wait?" The increase in Federal activity through Public
Law 92-500 was on the horizon. One year would have
reduced the cost substantially. Indeed, the cost would
have been reduced from $466,000 to probably less than
$120,000. Because of several civil lawsuits, a neighboring
community in Hancock County was required to wait. The
result was, that the mandate stayed in effect. Under the
priority rating their chances may be reduced; therefore,
they are proceeding under the requirements of P.L. 660,
rather than losing their present grant and starting anew.
And that only after they were granted a special exception.
We were assured that that is what would happen to us.
The priority rating system would be changed and we
would not be considered. Indeed, I must ask the question,
"Was the problem that severe? Could something less
sophisticated have been substituted?"
Finally, I must ask the question — is swimmable and
fishable appropriate where swimming and fishing are not
natural uses of the water, or should it be applied where
those activities do take place; indeed, where they are
possible? Are we protecting theoretical fish and theoret-
ical swimmers? I don't raise those questions to challenge
the standard, or to deny that Whitestown needed sewers,
but that we do a better job of finding less expensive
methods, less burdensome costs, less costly alternatives.
After all, I still have to go home and face my mother-in-
law.
FOOTNOTES
1 Department of Metropolitan Development, Division of
Planning and Zoning, Indianapolis-Marion County, Indi-
ana. Water Quality Management Plan, Summary Report.
May, 1973, p. 30.
2Clyde E. Williams and Associates, "Summary Final Plans
and Specifications Sewers and Sewage Treatment Plant."
Indiana State Board of Health Files. October 1, 1970.
38
-------
3Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Civil Town of
Whitestown.
^Department of Metropolitan Development. Water Quali-
ty Management Plan, Summary Report, p. 29.
5Clyde E. Williams and Associates, "Summary Final Plans
and Specifications Sanitary Sewers and Wastewaters
Treatment Plant, Whitestown, Indiana." Indiana State
Board of Health Files, December 9, 1971.
6McCullough and Associates, Public Accountants, Letter,
of March 29, 1976. Files, Civil Town of Whitestown.
''Ibid.
8Records Civil Town of Whitestown.
9McCullough and Associates, Letter of March 29, 1976.
10The Reporter, Lebanon, Indiana, January 20, 1977, p.
9.
11 Indiana Heartland Coordinating Commission, Prelimin-
ary Report 208 Water Quality Study. January, 1977.
12 Interview, Roger Bedard, A-95 Officer, Indiana Heart-
land Coordinating Commission. April 7, 1977.
Appendix
SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE PERMIT
As was the case for diversion valves and split fields, the
mechanism by which a town may require and implement a
septic tank maintenance program will vary considerably,
depending on the existence and extent of other regulatory
controls (at the State, county, and local level). In
particular, the constitutional and "Home Rule" doctrines
of a given State may raise rather complicated questions of
a municipality's power to exercise a continuing regulatory
function such as maintenance permitting. Again, for the
purposes of this report, we assume that the town has
concluded that the necessary authority and legal powers
are available, and that it may lawfully implement and
supervise a maintenance permit requirement.
If the town already has in place an effective and
comprehensive sewerage disposal ordinance then mainte-
nance permit requirements should probably be inserted in
the appropriate sections of that ordinance. In the event
that the municipality has no comprehensive sewer ordi-
nance, virtually identical maintenance requirement lan-
guage can be coupled with a statement of purpose to
produce an ordinance which may be implemented inde-
pendently. In either case, the following model should be
helpful in guiding the ordinance drafters. Inclusion of the
statement of purposes (bracketed) would depend on
pre-existing ordinances. This material is drawn from the
work of David E. Stewart, Small Scale Waste Management
Project, Environmental Resources Unit, Madison, Wiscon-
sin.
Model Section 1. Septic Tank Maintenance Permit —
Purpose:
[It is recognized that proper maintenance of
septic tanks will increase the useful life of all on-site
sewage disposal systems which rely on soil absorp-
tion of septic tank effluent. To further the purpose
of increased life of such on-site disposal systems,
and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the town of , the town of
, hereby establishes a septic tank mainte-
nance permit program.]
Section 2. Permit Required.
No owner may occupy, rent, lease, live in or
reside in, either seasonally or permanently, any
building, residence, or other structure serviced by a
private domestic sewage treatment and disposal
system; unless the owner has a valid septic tank
maintenance permit for that system issued in his
name by the (sanitary inspector or zoning
administrator). Owner is defined to mean a natural
person, corporation, the State or any subdivision
thereof.
Section 3. Fee.
A fee of $ shall accompany each application
for the septic tank maintenance permit.
39
-------
Section 4. Permit Application.
Application for a septic tank maintenance permit
shall be made to the (sanitary inspector or
zoning administrator) on forms supplied by him. All
applications shall state the owner's name and
address, the address or location of the private
sewage system and shall contain the following
statement:
"I certify that on day of , 19 , I
inspected the septic tank located at the address
stated on this application, and I (check one):
- pumped all sludge and scum out of the septic
tank, or
- found that the volume of sludge and scum was
less than 1/3 of the tank volume, and I did not
pump the septic tank.
Signature
Sanitary License Number
Section 5. Issuance.
The
.(sanitary inspector or zoning admin-
istrator) shall issue a permit to the applicant upon
receipt of the fee and a completed application,
properly signed by a person licensed to service
septic tanks and stating his sanitary license number.
The permit shall include on its face all information
contained in the application and shall contain the
date of issuance.
Section 6. Validity.
The permit issued under this section shall be
valid for a period of two years from the date of
issuance.
Section 7. Sale of Property.
When property containing a private domestic
sewage system is sold the new property owner, prior
to occupying, renting, leasing, or residing in the
building, residence or structure served by the
system, shall make application for and receive a
septic tank maintenance permit; however, the sys-
tem may be used for a period not to exceed 30 days
after making application for a permit.
Note that this permitting structure assumes the exis-
tence of a licensed septic tank service firm. There is, of
course, a potential for abuse or exploitation whenever a
private owner's compliance with a permitting standard is
based on the opinion or certification of a fee charging
third party. In the absence of state licensing and regula-
tory control of the septic tank service firm, the town may
wish to be rather creative in its efforts to ensure integrity
in the permit process and protection of the interests of
the owners. One approach would be for the town itself to
assume licensing or regulatory control over the service.
This alternative may, however, encounter very serious
constitutional or restraint of trade problems, depending
on the State involved. An alternative would be for the
State to assume licensing and regulatory powers. In either
case, the model ordinance, code, or statutory language to
accomplish licensing would be as follows (the material is
again drawn from the Stewart paper):
Licensing: (a) License; application; fee. Every per-
son before engaging in the business of servicing
septic tanks, seepage pits, grease traps or privies in
this State (municipality) shall make application on
forms prepared by the (department of
licensing) of each vehicle used by him in such
business. The annual license fee is $25 for each
vehicle for a State resident licensee and $50 for a
nonresident licensee. If the (department),
after investigation, is satisfied that the applicant has
the qualifications, experience, and equipment to
perform the services in a manner not detrimental to
public health it shall issue the license, provided a
surety bond has been executed. The license fee shall
accompany all applications. The (depart-
ment) shall maintain a list of all those licensed
under this section and shall make the list available
to all interested persons.
The "Qualifications, experience, and equipment" should
be defined to include an acceptable septage disposal site,
of course.
As a third alternative, the town could create a
department charged with the duty of regularly checking
private septic systems, and given the power to contract
directly with private service firms to pump septic tanks
when necessary. The cost of pumping would then be
assessed against the property owner. This approach would
assure that pumping occurred when, and only when, it
was necessary. However, it might raise fiscal problems for
the town; more importantly, it might lead to problems
related to a town's power to contract with private parties
to have work performed. A legal opinion should be
received early in such planning.
DIVERSION VALVES AND ALTERNATING FIELDS
The mechanism whereby a town may require that
diversion valves and split fields be included in new sewage
disposal systems will vary considerably, depending on the
present nature of on-site sewage system regulations in the
town. In many instances, only minor revisions of existing
codes or ordinances will be necessary to include the new
structural requirements. In other situations, where exist-
ing regulation is either weak or non-existent, the town
may be forced to implement an elaborate set of controls
40
-------
in order to incorporate the suggested design standards. In
either case, the town or municipality must be certain that
the new standards can be mandated in a manner which is
consistent with any overriding State or county powers.
Thus, depending on existing laws and enabling legislation,
it may be necessary in some States to implement the
design criteria at a government level other than the
municipality.
For the purposes of this report, we assume that the
town has the necessary statutory and constitutional power
to implement the suggested design criteria without further
State or county involvement or authorization. The pri-
mary issue facing town officials will, therefore, be the
manner in which the design change requirements are
implemented. If the town possesses, in place, an elaborate
or comprehensive set of standards for the construction of
on-site sewage systems, a slight amendment to those
standards should suffice. The following language is,
therefore, designed to be added to existing ordinance
specifications for sewage systems. The material has been
taken, with minor revisions, from the Fairfax County,
Virginia, Code for Sewers and Sewage Disposal.
Section 1. General Requirements for Composition
of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
All individual sewage disposal systems installed
or repaired shall consist of the following:
(a) Building sewer
(b) Septic tank
(c) Diversion Valve
(d) Distribution boxes
(e) Distribution sewers
(f) Soil absorption system of herinafter specified
materials.
Section 2. Specifications and Location of Approved
Building Sewers.
[Incorporate existing municipal regulations or
standards.]
Section 3. Septic Tank Specifications.
[Incorporate existing municipal regulations or
standards.]
Section 4. Specifications and Location of Diversion
Valve.
(a) There shall be a diversion valve located in the
four inch (or larger) pipe between the septic tank
(or aerobic tank) and the distribution boxes. The
diversion valve shall be a three-port, two-way valve
of approved materials (i.e., resistant to sewage and
leak-proof and designed so that the effluent from
the tank can be directed to flow into either one of
two distribution boxes).
(1) There shall be a manhole from the top of the
valve to the ground surface with an appropriate
cover to be level with the ground surface.
(2) There shall be provided a handle of proper
length, designed so that the valve can be turned
above the ground surface.
(b) In lieu of the aforementioned diversion valve
any system that can be designed and constructed to
conveniently direct the flow of effluent from the
tank into either one of two distribution boxes may
be approved if plans are submitted to the [Health
Director] and he is satisfied that such system is
satisfactory.
Section 5. Specification for Distribution Boxes and
Watertight Lateral Lines.
[Incorporate existing municipal regulations or
standards.]
Section 6. Subsurface Disposal Fields.
[Incorporate existing municipal regulations or
standards in such a way as to provide for split fields
of adequate size and capacity.]
Where a comprehensive set of on-site sewerage systems
controls or design criteria do not exist, the municipality
may need to draft and implement a somewhat elaborate
sewage disposal ordinance in order to mandate diversion
valves and split fields. Naturally, the elements of such an
ordinance will vary considerably from town to town and
State to State, depending on the contents and coverage of
existing sanitary or health codes (State or local) and
applicable State or county regulations.
41
-------
OPPORTUNITIES FOR USE OF INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS
Theodore C. Williams*
Small communities - communities under 10,000 popu-
lation offer a virtual plethora of opportunites for innova-
tive solutions to problems. In the first place, 80% or more
of the EPA funded wastewater treatment projects are for
towns of less than 10,000. In the second place, the smaller
communities generally have fewer preconceived notions
and are less skeptical about what will work and what
won't work. While in large communities, there is too
much inertia, too much experience and too much knowl-
edge to gain the acceptance of significantly new ideas.
Thirdly, many of these small communites are starting
from scratch, and there are no existing facilities of any
consequence that have to be incorporated into the design;
so you do have a modicum of freedom which is not
available in larger communities with existing treatment
facilities.
Hundreds of smaller communities are undertaking
projects. As a result, the stage has been set for advance-
ments and improvements. We have both the opportunity
and the obligation to develop innovative methods. We
must be willing to make new mistakes. From an idealistic
standpoint, this is commendable. But we must also
consider the increased responsibility and the existence of
some very real obstacles.
It's not easy to be innovative. It's like going off alone
into the wilderness and it's easy to get lost. There are lots
of wild animals and insects — things that are frightening.
There are little things like mosquitos — these are the EPA
audit staff. They are a nuisance and they are distracting.
You get so busy slapping at the little buggers that you
can't keep your mind on your job. And then there are
snakes. The snakes are the program guidance memoranda,
the program requirements memoranda. These little pieces
of paper that sneak up on you after you have something
almost done and they bite you right in the leg and you
didn't even know they were there because they're not
published in the Federal Register. No, they are just kept
in the regional offices until they are needed to stop
something from happening. You can start down a path
and there is a big rhinoceros standing in the way —it's the
rules and the regulations. It's hard to get a rhinoceros to
move. They have a thick hide and they are very big. If you
•Theodore C. Williams
Williams & Works, Inc.
Grand Rapids, Mich.
get him mad at you, he'll chase you right out of the
forest.
And then there are the parrots that distract you. They
repeat EPA regulations (or what they think the EPA
regulations are) even though they are not appropriate in
the circumstances. Another animal is the bear. Now a bear
is generally quite peaceful and they are rather like our
clients. They are very peaceful and they go along and they
do their own thing unless they are aroused, upset, irritated
and then there's no logic — and then they will tear you
apart - they will claw you and they will kill you. Then
there are the wolverines. The wolverine is an interesting
animal and there aren't many of them left. Wolverines will
kill more than they can eat. They will eat whatever they
want from a carcass, but then instead of leaving it for
someone else, they will urinate on it — spoil it so no one
else can eat it. This is rather like some of our consulting
engineers — they take more than they can do and then
they spoil it — and it takes a long time for a small
community to recover from this sort of thing. I could go
on about the animals, and the insects and so forth in the
woods, but you get my point and then my imagination
has, perhaps, already been strained.
In spite of all of these things, progress has been made.
Someone once said, "You never realize how far you have
come until you look back." And that's true, you know.
Progress has been made. There have been innovative
solutions to problems. There are a lot of projects of which
we, the engineering community, can be proud.
As I look down through the topics for discussion for
these two days, I find that we, in our own office, have
completed projects using almost all of these methods. We
did the first pond spray irrigation system in the State of
Michigan. We did the first pressure sewer system in
Michigan. We did the first rotating biological surface
treatment system in Michigan. We did the first system of
aerated lagoons followed by chemical precipitation in
Michigan. We initiated the action to make the spacing
between manholes 600 ft. instead of 300 ft. We have the
first marshland effluent irrigation system in Michigan. We
have the first use of polyethylene pipe for force main in
Michigan. We had the first use of chemical oxidation of
sludge in Michigan. We have designed more land treatment
schemes than anyone else in the country.
42
-------
We have come a long way, but we have a long way to
go and there have been obstacles in developing these
innovations. Some of them minor — some of them major.
But if innovation, if accomplishment, if achievement, and
professional satisfaction are really important to use, we
will figure out a way to overcome hindrances.
Just as an example, consider the project for which we
just received one of the Consulting Engineers Council's
national awards. It's a simple thing where we achieve
tertiary treatment of the effluent from a lagoon system by
spreading it into a somewhat nutrient deficient marshland.
We decided that there would be some mutual benefits.
The community would save significantly in construction
costs and in operating costs, and the nutrients and the
effluent would serve to replenish the marsh, and improve
its productivity. The marsh would be able to grow more
ducklings per acre. We presented our case to the State
regulatory agency and were told that it was a new concept
and they would have to have much more information
before they could approve it. The State water people
wanted us to put the effluent on the land; the State land
people wanted us to put it in the water. None of the
regulatory agencies wanted us to put it in the marsh
because that had never been done before.
A University of Michigan professor heard our presenta-
tion to the State and thought the idea had merit. He
obtained a National Science Foundation Grant to study
the concept and to analyze the impact of the project.
After a three-year research program, we are now finally
into Step 2 and have been able to obtain approval for the
use of this method in that one location.
The system will actually be in operation in 1978.
We first presented the idea in 1971.
We were fortunate that the system could be built in
stages. If that had not been the case, we would have had
to abandon the concept and the million dollar savings
would have been lost. And, even more to my point today,
if we had had to obtain that design contract on the basis
of the low bid, we never would have taken the time to
work with such an idea. The correspondence file on the
project includes 162 letters just to get the idea approved.
That's just one example. And it is characteristic of all
these kinds of innovative solutions to problems. Obtaining
approval to use innovations and new techniques has
required hundreds of man-hours, stacks of correspon-
dence, a myriad of phone calls and scores of meetings.
The end result of these innovations, of course, is the
advancement of the art, the reduction of the cost of the
project to the client, and if engineering fees are based
upon the percentage of the construction, it would result
in a reduction in our fee. But then that's why engineering
is a profession.
There are few things in the world that approach the
sense of accomplishment that comes from having an idea
that will possibly do the job as well, or maybe even better,
than any other way and still save the client money. Every
savings on a system for a small community is especially
significant because the cost is divided amongst fewer
customers. Any change has a greater impact on the
individual customer. This points up again the difference in
perspective that applies to small communities, and I
believe that perspective is important. For example, the
EPA cost effective analysis doesn't always coincide with
what is in the client's cost effectiveness analysis. We do
both — we do an EPA cost effective analysis to present to
the Federal establishment, but we also do a client cost
effective analysis which is for our own use in our own
office in deciding which alternatives are in the client's best
interest. This is very important in small communities.
Operation and maintenance costs and particularly
energy costs should, in my opinion, be given much greater
weight in ,the cost effective analysis than they are. It
doesn't do any good to build a magnificent facility if the
community will not operate it. If by making some slight
changes in design and some increased construction costs,
perhaps we can make significant changes in operating
costs, then I think this should be taken into consideration.
I've always thought that for a town of 1,000 or less a
30 or 40 acre facultative lagoon system that would
provide about 2 years of retention of wastewater in a
series of ponds would be the ideal facility. I can't justify it
on the EPA cost effectiveness basis primarily because land
for that type of a system is not grant eligible. But in terms
of operating simplicity, operating costs, energy conserva-
tion - in terms of all of these things, it has to be the ideal
solution for a small rural community. Grant programs will
come and go and bond issues are paid off, but operation
and maintenance costs go on forever.
Now, I want to do just a little arithmetic with you.
Let's assume that the cost of operation and maintenance
(no capital recovery) on a per million gallon basis could be
any place between $150 per million gallons and $600 per
million gallons depending upon the type of treatment that
you design. This is a range that we see in small towns.
Assume the average residential customer with 3.5
persons per dwelling unit and a flow of 70 gallons per
capita per day —
3.5 x 70 x 30 x 150/million gallons = $1.10/month
3.5 x 70 x 30 x 600/million gallons = $4.40/month
If this were a community with 833 customers, the
difference is then not the difference between $1.10 and
$4.40, but the difference is between $11,000 and $44,000
a year - or $33,000. Now for $33,000 a year, you ought
to be able to spend some time thinking about how you
can save that. It's worth some "thinking about" time.
Now, I want to get paid for my "thinking about" time,
and there has to be a mechanism by which people who
have ideas that permit projects to be built with this much
43
-------
difference in annual operation and maintenance cost are
rewarded for having the ideas and for doing things that are
necessary to make it happen. There is no provision in the
present procedures for this. There must be if less costly
wastewater treatment is to be encouraged.
Now, let's do a little bit different arithmetic. Let's
assume that power is 4tf a kilowatt hour, and if you run a
10 hp electric motor continuously, all year, the electricity
will cost over $2,500 per year. Assuming a 7%, 20 year
bond issue, this would retire a local capital expenditure of
over $26,000 — and with grants - from the local
perspective only - over $100,000 in capital could be
invested in construction to save operation of this 10 hp
motor. That is cost effective in terms of the community.
If we can keep the O&M costs down and keep the
energy requirements down, maybe we are doing the best
job for the world — because lower O&M plus easier O&M
equals better O&M.
The perspective again — what is our goal in this whole
program? Our goal is to abate pollution; it is to ameliorate
undesirable situations. It's not our goal to make it perfect.
We're just trying to make it better. Rules, regulations,
forms, audits — all of these things stand in the way of
obtaining our goal which is to abate the pollution.
In order to achieve this goal — this goal of abating the
pollution — consulting engineers must make a commit-
ment to the development of creative, innovative, less
expensive solutions to the problems. Government agencies
must make a commitment to cooperation in expediting
the program and react positively to new ideas. Too often
we hear from consulting engineers and from regulatory
agencies the response that begins, "Yes, but what if. . ."
"What if ..." I submit that the pursuit of asking the
question, "Yes, but what if . . ." and the answering of the
question becomes an indulgence and the result is a
disservice to the very people we have taken an oath to
serve.
There have been other problems having to do with the
administration of Public Law 92-500. This would have
been a monumental task even without the impoundment,
but since the impoundment occurred, the results have
been chaotic. The rules, regulations, interpretations have
been the source of frustration and concern - to say
nothing of those instances when State or Federal officials
made speeches that included intemperate — even incorrect
— generalizations about consulting engineers; engineers in
turn have made generalized remarks about governmental
officials and, as a result, an attitude of mistrust has surged
into the adminsttation of the program. The audit proce-
dures which border on assumed guilt make it extremely
difficult to function as a design professional. I am not
advocating that any reprehensible situation be condoned.
I am advocating mutual respect and reasonableness.
There are three things that I should like to see
changed . . .
First, I should like to see the cost effectiveness analysis
give more credit to energy - outside energy — require-
ments. Perhaps a multiplier of 3 for outside energy costs
in the cost effectiveness evaluation would be appropriate.
The second change that I would like to see would be
that land would be grant eligible for facultative pond
systems. The present regulations read that land is eligible
where it's part of the treatment process. If you make the
ponds large enough, I suppose one could stretch the
regulation somehow, but it would probably take a special
memoranda from Washington.
The third change I would like to see would be that
engineering Step 1 and Step 2 be removed from the list of
grant eligible items so that the cost of engineering is paid
for entirely by the local community up to the point of
construction. It will remove the Federal establishment
from its interference with the client/engineer relation-
ships. It will permit the engineer to negotiate in whatever
way he feels is appropriate with the owner and will permit
more innovative designs to come forward.
I want to close with three quotations. . .
First, Cardinal Newman: "A man would do nothing if
he waited until he could do it so well that no one would
find fault with what he has done."
Second, Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Congratulate yourself
if you have done something strange and extravagant and
broken the monotony of a conventional age."
Third, Mark VanDoren: "Bring ideas in and entertain
them royally for one of them may be the king."
44
-------
PRESSURE SEWERS (WITH GLIDE/IDLEYLD CASE STUDY)
Terry Bounds*
SUMMARY
This paper introduces the topic of pressure sewers with
particular attention directed to the practice of pumping
septic tank effluent.
Pressure sewer systems should be considered to serve
areas where sewage collection by conventional means is
impractical, uneconomical or otherwise infeasible. Often
this concept provides the best alternative to individual
on-site disposal as well.
Pressure sewers utilize small diameter PVC pipelines
which are shallowly buried and resemble rural waterline
installations. Pumps are used at each home or group of
homes.
Sewage flows first from the home to the septic tank
where floatable and settleable matter is retained and
partially digested. The clarified effluent then flows into a
vault where it is pumped into the main and conveyed to
the plant for treatment. Figure 1 illustrates a simplified
pressure sewer installation serving a single home.
OBJECTIVES
Perhaps you may someday be faced with the task of
finding a means of alleviating sewerage problems in a
small, semirural community which cannot economically
be served by conventional sewers and has high ground-
water and soils of predominately tight clay preventing
satsifactory use of subsurface alternatives. This was the
assignment undertaken by the Douglas County Special
Projects Division late in 1973.
If this had been a strict farm area where homes were
well separated there would have been comparatively little
concern for health hazards. Instead, Glide, Oregon is a
community where public contact with effluent from
failing drainfields is of indisputable concern. A survey of
the 500 homes involved revealed that 60% of the
drainfields showed evidence of failure.1 And as a result of
this survey, a building moratorium was imposed rendering
properties unsaleable though land use planning endorsed
development of the area.
•Terry Bounds
Public Works Department
Douglas County, Oreg.
ALTERNATIVES
Numerous alternatives to the use of conventional
drainfield disposal systems had been reviewed. Some were
known to have merit, but required either discharge to
waters or less restrictive soil and development conditions
than those prevalent.
Discharge from numerous facilities was not favored nor
was it allowed by regulatory authorities, while sites
suitable for subsurface alternatives were generally distant
from the homes to be served. Also, if a multiplicity of
subsurface alternatives were used, surveillance and opera-
tional problems would be expected. Therefore, an overall
sewer system was preferred.
Attention was then directed to previous engineering
studies which had been prepared. Essentially, the conclu-
sion presented in each study was that sewerage costs were
beyond the financial capabilities of the area. Thus,
conventional sewers were categorized as an infeasible
consideration.
Further investigation of these sewerage studies revealed
an interesting fact: the sewage treatment plant was
estimated to represent only 9% of the project costs.2 The
remaining 91% was for the collection system. Why was the
collection system so expensive?
The area is sparsely populated, resulting in long lengths
of sewer line between homes. Also, being mountainous
and rocky, the terrain presented many expensive obstacles
for conventional sewers. It seems odd that areas such as
this are often served by rural water systems, frequently
without benefit of grant funds. Why then, do most of
these rural communities seem to find it economically
infeasible to collect the wastewater?
It is a general fact that exclusive of infiltration,
wastewater flows would be less than water use due to uses
not contributed to the sewer, such as lawn watering.
Again, why was sewage collection cost so prohibitive
while water supply was not? Considerations such as these
dictated interest in pressure sewers.
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
Literary searches performed by the American Society
45
-------
Check Valve'
Figure 1. Pressure Sewer Service Connection Simplified
of Civil Engineers, Oregon State University, Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, and others, resulted in the
accumulation of over forty references. Correspondence
was conducted with many of the authors and installations
were inspected in Texas, Florida, Indiana, Idaho and
Oregon. EPA officials were interviewed in Washington,
D.C. and at the research laboratories in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Also, the Farmers Home Administration was consulted.
The results of these investigations were encouraging.
With strong public acceptance of the engineering report,
design is presently underway to provide pressure sewers to
serve the Glide, Oregon area.1
DESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE SEWERS
The basic elements of one type of pressure sewer are
shown in Figure 1. Sewage from the home flows first to
the septic tank where floating and settled matter is
retained and partially digested. The effluent then flows to
a vault where it is pumped into the main and conveyed to
a disposal field or plant for treatment.
Septic Tank (Interceptor Tank)
Functions of the septic tank are several. Most impor-
tantly, it becomes an excellent trap for grit and grease.
This benefits pumping substantially and eliminates many
of the problems associated with the piping system.
A reserve space with a capacity exceeding one day's
sewage flow is also provided within the tank between the
normal top of the scum layer and roof of the tank. Should
a pump malfunction, sewage flow from the home is not
immediately interrupted. A high level alarm will alert the
homeowner whose only inconvenience would be a tele-
phone call to the maintenance office.
A secondary benefit provided by the septic tank is the
degree of pretreatment achieved. Studies on the character-
istics of septic tank effluent show that reductions of 50%
to 60% for BOD and suspended solids may be expected
with grease removals of 70% to 90%.3 Of course, periodic
disposal of septage from the tank must be accomplished.
The occasional carryover of light and filamentous
solids may not be detrimental to the pressure system
though this has not yet been fully demonstrated. This
might indicate that septic tanks used on pressure sewers
could be pumped less frequently than when subsurface
disposal is used. The entire tank assembly including vault
and appurtenances has been termed an "interceptor tank"
by Rose.4 This calls attention to the differences between
a septic tank used in conjunction with subsurface disposal
and a tank intended for use with pressure sewers, where
there is capture of grease, grit, stringy material and the
provision of reserve space (which is of primary im-
portance).
46
-------
Commonly, recommendations are to pump septic tanks
at about two year intervals. However, a study on the
subject of septic tank performance by Weibel, et. al, is
interpreted to suggest that longer periods may be reason-
able.5 Experiences by Warren show indications that
500-gallon tanks used in conjunction with pressure sewers
may need pumping at intervals of five years, or even less
frequently.6 Measurements by Schmidt indicate intervals
of ten or more years to be adequate when 1,000-gallon
tanks are used.7
Treatment means used by Warren and Schmidt do not
employ subsurface disposal though they have not sug-
gested whether the intervals would be shortened had this
been the case.
In Douglas County, Oregon, the cost of having a tank
cleaned is about $40. Though not negligible, the annual
cost is seen to be small even if septage were required to be
pumped from the tanks fairly often. Treatment and
disposal of the septage may be accomplished in a variety
of means and should be a matter included in pressure
sewer proposals. No elaboration is given here as that
subject is beyond the scope of this paper and is covered in
other reports.3-8'9-10
Grinder Pumps
Some prefer the use of a grinder pump rather than a
septic tank and effluent pump. These grind or cut solids
within the sewage to reduce it to a slurry for pumping.
However, grinder pumps are more costly than effluent
pumps and quite often the entire installation is more
expensive than an effluent pumping system, even when
accounting for the cost of the septic tank.
Maintenance of a grinder pump is usually reported as
being more frequent and more expensive, owing to the
grinding function the pump must perform and the close
tolerances common to this kind of pump. Grease is
present in grinder systems, sometimes presenting problems
with the controls. Also, the piping system design is more
critical. Grease may accumulate on the crown of the pipe,
reducing its capacity and interfering with the action of air
release valves. Grease and grit within the piping system
dictate that scouring velocities are required,11 which is
sometimes difficult to achieve.12 Usually, grinder pump
vaults are small, thus providing less reserve space than an
interceptor tank. Accordingly, the need for prompt
attention in event of failure is more critical.
For these reasons, effluent pumping has been selected
as the preferred practice in the Glide, Oregon installation.
In other installations, however, it may be important for
the sewage to remain aerobic. In these instances, grinder
pumps should certainly be considered. Evaluation should
be made of the time the sewage remains in the vault and
to residence time in the closed pipeline, as the sewage can
soon become septic.
Effluent Pumps
One-third horsepower pumps are the most commonly
used effluent pumps and usually cost about $150.
However, the pumps must be selected based on hydraulic
requirements and operating conditions, and may vary
from one-fourth to two horsepower.1^-11 The matter of
simultaneous pumping from a number of installations to a
common header (similar to pumping parallel) has been a
topic of concern for many. Readers interested in this
subject are referred to publications by Battelle and
others.11-12-13
Traditionally, engineers have avoided pumping sewage
whenever possible. There are important differences to be
kept in mind when applying that rationale to pressure
sewers:
1. Pressure sewer pumps may easily be remoed
from the vault and replaced in minutes.
2. Reserve space provides sufficient safety margin
to insure uninterrupted service at the home.
3. Grease, grit and stringy material are not present
in the pump vault.
4. The pumps are inexpensive.
5. Enough pumps may be involved to justify
district employment of a trained and efficient
service repairman.
Those who have had limited experience with the
pumping of septic tank effluent have a tendency to
associate the practice with frustration, when in actuality
the reasons for failure are boldly apparent upon careful
examination. Typically, they are poorly constructed
installations with improperly selected components.
In contrast, the pressure sewer pump installations by
Schmidt7 are an uncluttered and durable design, where
maintenance functions can be performed without diffi-
culty, and in minutes. All installations are identical, so
parts may be exchanged if necessary, and maintenance
functions are simplified. Because of proper maintenance
and careful selection of components, the systems designed
by Schmidt have had seven years of successful operation.
An installation in Priest Lake, Idaho, having about
500 effluent pumps in operation, experienced problems
with 8% of the pumps during the first year of operation.6
This figure dropped to less than 2% during the second
year and maintenance personnel have anticipated even
fewer difficulties in ensuing years.
For the pressure sewer concept to be successful, design
excellence is a necessity. Equipment must be selected with
great care and installed with the criteria that maintenance
functions be made as simple as possible. This becomes a
more difficult task than is apparent. Since the advent of
pressure sewers is relatively new, suppliers and designers
do not have the years of experience on which to rely.
47
-------
Though most investigators of pressure sewers will be
cautious of the need for excessive pump maintenance,
well designed installations have proved to be easily
maintainable at reasonable expense and a minimum of
inconvenience. Readers interested in reviewing pump
maintenance data are referred to work by Schmidt,7
Durtschi,14 Klaus,15 and others, described in some detail
in the Glide report,1 wherein an assumption of $50 per
year for pump operation and maintenance was adopted.
Service Line
The service line between the pump and main is usually
1-1/4-inches in size. Installation is easily accomplished
with a trencher in contrast to the more difficult installa-
tion of conventional sewer laterals.
When sewerage is provided to existing dwellings,
homeowners often find the plumbing outlet is oriented to
the rear of the house where the septic tank is generally
located. Consequently, to connect to a gravity sewer often
requires that the house plumbing be reoriented, some-
times at substantial expense.
Mains
Sewer mains are PVC and resemble rural waterline
installations. They are sized as dictated by hydraulic
design, 'I.I2 Du-t; -to describe order of magnitude, the
following table may be used. Sizes and costs shown are
approximations and should be used for only the most
cursory of estimates. To illustrate how widely costs may
vary, a recent installation in Texas16 cost 90c per lineal
foot for four-inch pipe as opposed to the $5 per foot
estimated for the Glide area.
Size and Cost of Pressure Sewer Mains
Cost of Mainb
Number of
Homes Served
5
60
150
400
Size of Main8
(dia., in.)
2
3
4
6
3
4
5
7
aPipe sizes have been reported using design flows proposed by
Battelle11 and assuming a velocity of 2.5 fps.
bCosts shown are those adopted for the Glide Study1 where
topographic difficulties are more extreme than average. Costs
include furnishing and installing the pipe, fittings, valves,
bedding, pressure sustaining devices, road crossings, pipe clean-
ing, pressure testing, engineering, etc.
Lack of extensive data will justifiably cause engineers
apprehension with regard to determination of adequate
pipe size. At present, there are but a few pressure sewer
systems in operation, most sized for a future population.
Consequently, pipe sizing may be as yet unrefined,
especially with regard to larger systems which approach
design figures.
The provision of reserve space within the interceptor
tank, and the inherent characteristic that centrifugal
pumps can operate at shutoff head periodically, provides a
safety factor. Suppose a pump should turn on during a
time when the pressure in the main is too great for the
pump to discharge. Then the pump would run without
discharging until the pressure in the main lowered.
Normally this period would be brief and occasional.
Meanwhile, service to the home would be uninterrupted
due to the reserve space available. Unless flow from the
home continued until the effluent reached the high level
alarm sensor, this condition would not be known.
This feature is desirable, but not to the point that
systems should be undersized with undue reliance on
shutoff head operation and the use of reserve space.
Air Entrainment
Desirably, pressure sewers should be oriented such that
flow is in the upslope direction,11 i.e., the outfall should
be at a higher elevation than any significant portion of the
collection system. Should conditions require that pump-
ing downslope is necessary, large quantities of air may
enter the main which can result in hydraulic difficulties.
Detrimental effects of air in pipelines are generally known
and have been covered in papers by Lescovich17 and
others. The matter of flow in closed conduits on
downgrade slopes where two-phase flow may occur is
lesser known. However, a paper by Kent describes this
condition.18 To maintain a positive pressure in pipelines,
several methods have been used, including the use of
vertical stacks or pipe risers, and also special control
valves. Readers are referred to work by Burton and
Nelson,19 Biggs16 and Whitsett.20
As yet, the need for such control on pressure sewer
systems awaits further demonstration, but recommenda-
tions by Battelle11 and others12 suggests that control to
avoid two-phase flow and to prevent the entrance of air
may well be required.
PRESSURE SEWER VS. CONVENTIONAL SEWERS
In areas where conventional sewers are economically
attainable there may be little need to consider alterna-
tives. However, pressure sewers may be feasible when
conventional sewers are not. In areas of "difficult"
terrain, certain advantages favor the use of pressure sewers
and are recounted here for descriptive purposes.
Costs
Under favorable conditions, conventional gravity sew-
48
-------
ers may be installed at a cost of about $15 per lineal foot.
In these cases and where homes are closely spaced, the
conventional sewer is feasible and practical. However, if
rock excavation is encountered, prices may rise to $50 or
more per lineal foot. Another condition detrimental to
the economic installation of gravity sewers would be the
existence of high groundwater.
At one installation in Oregon the trench could not be
dewatered even when using pumps capable of discharging
several hundred gallons per minute. Once the pipe was
installed, it suffered many breaks due to poor bedding.
These breaks, of course, admitted great amounts of
infiltration requiring expensive repair to the newly in-
stalled sewer.
Cost advantages may dictate the use of pressure sewers
under far less extreme conditions than those just men-
tioned. Where construction within roadways is required,
gravity sewer costs might average about $25 per lineal
foot. Construction problems may also include the shoring
of trench walls, the avoidance of culverts and buried
utilities which sometimes require sewer depths to be
increased, and springs which may be intercepted during
trenching necessitating dewatering and many other
factors.
When gravity flow in a conventional sewer cannot be
continued due to topography or excessive sewer depths,
lift stations are required. Though costs vary widely, the
least expensive lift stations may cost about $15,000.
These are infrequently required in areas conducive to
gravity sewer collection, but in areas of difficult terrain
where pressure sewers would be considered they may be
frequently needed. In the Glide, Oregon study,1 19 lift
stations would have been required had gravity sewers been
used. In the pressure sewer proposal this number was
reduced to three.
Pressure Sewers Combined with Gravity Sewers
When homes are located at an elevation substantially
lower than the route a conventional sewer might follow,
the required depth of sewer often becomes great with
resulting high cost.
In the conventional sewer option of the Glide study,1
48 homes were planned to be served by pressure sewer
connections into the gravity main because the homes were
at such an elevation with respect to the main that gravity
connections were totally infeasible. So pressure sewers can
be advantageously applied in conjunction with gravity
sewers.
Discussion
Compared to conventional sewers, pressure sewer
piping is relatively inexpensive. This allows for sewerage
service in extreme topographical conditions or where
homes are widely spaced. Also, in using conventional
sewers most of the investment must be made in the first
stage of development. In contrast, pressure sewers offer a
low cost infrastructure with the cost of the pump and
interceptor tank being deferred until the home is built and
connected to the main. This consideration becomes
significant in slowly developing areas.
Infiltration is common to gravity sewers, often produc-
ing wet weather flow of five to ten times that of dry
weather. As pressure sewers receive nearly negligible
infiltration, a substantial benefit is gained. This must be
considered when evaluating these two systems.
After all these factors are taken into account, a
determination must be made: Will the cost of interceptor
tank, pump, etc., and the maintenance required, outweigh
the initial cost savings? This question cannot be answered
in general; a particular setting must be evaluated. In the
Glide study, a 20-year cost effective evaluation favored
pressure sewers by a margin of two to one, as determined
by present worth analysis.
While there are many differences to be acknowledged
between conventional and pressure sewers, it is presumed
the preceding has argued the point for pressure systems
sufficiently to acquaint readers with some of the advan-
tages, and perhaps the instances, where pressure tech-
niques may be successfully applied.
It is not intended that pressure sewers replace or
eliminate the use of gravity sewers. Certainly, in densely
developed areas where topographic conditions are condu-
cive to the construction of conventional sewers an
evaluation of the two alternatives may well favor conven-
tional. It is also difficult to evaluate pressure sewers as
there are always unknown factors associated with a new
concept. Only by experience can the performance of
pressure sewers be forecast without some measure of
anxiety.
PRESSURE SEWERS VS. ON-SITE DISPOSAL
There may be no better means than the use of a septic
tank and drainfield for disposal of sewage in appropriate
areas. Installed, costs in Oregon average $1,550,1 opera-
tion and maintenance requirements are low, and the
practice is environmentally sound. Septic tanks and
drainfields are normally successful in rural or semirural
areas where soils are conducive to subsurface disposal.
Alternatives, then, may be suggested when the soils are
not suitable for conventional disposal means. As a
reasonable cross section, the following choices may be
considered:
• Mound systems
• Sand filters
• Evapo-transpiration.
49
-------
Mounds
Evapo-transpiration
The mound system may be used where soils are not
suited to drainfield construction, but only in certain
instances described by Otis, Bouma and other researchers
at the University of Wisconsin.22 They are rather large,
requiring a suitable site of two to five thousand square
feet,23 which is not always available.
Mound systems are rather expensive with an average
installation costing from $3,000 to $5,500.23 Carefully
executed construction is also required which is not as
easily accomplished as might be idealized.
Operation and maintenance costs have not been estima-
ted but the system requires the same septic tank and
pump as does a pressure sewer system. Mound systems are
an endorsed practice and in many areas a good and valid
alternative. The choice between a mound system and
effluent disposal in another manner will depend on the
particular site being evaluated, but pressure sewer compo-
nents will likely be used in either case.
Sand Filters
Sand filters exist in several designs, notably the
intermittent sand filter under study by Otis,23 Sauer,24
et 3/v and the recirculating sand filter developed by Hines
and'Favreau.^5 These systems are reported to treat the
JNgjite very effectively, leaving the requirement of disposal.
Again, there are options which include (a) disinfection
and discharge to receiving waters, or (b) drainfield
disposal.
When discharge to waters is employed, there is concern
as to the reliability of treatment and of disinfection
practices. Also, substantial space is required in addition to
a septic tank and pump. Costs in Oregon for a single home
are reported to be in the order of $3,000 to $4,00026
which includes the drainfield required by the State.
Without the drainfield, costs have been estimated at
about $2,000.26 The sand filter alternative to subsurface
disposal is thought to have considerable merit and is the
system judged most promising by State of Oregon
regulatory authorities. However, when serving individual
homes, Oregon authorities do not endorse discharge to
streams. This is largely due to surveillance problems.
Pressure sewers would more likely be considered for
groups of homes rather than for single homes. Sand filters
may, in some instances, become the treatment method of
pressure collected effluent. When a number of homes can
be served, economy of scale can be realized and a
responsible agency formed to insure proper operation and
maintenance of the single treatment facility. The fact that
treatment has been consolidated is of merit, and provides
a more simple and effective monitoring program.
Evapo-transpiration systems are climate dependent,
thus they are limited in application. Costs may vary
widely, depending on the particular design employed, but
those proposed for experimental use in Oregon are
reported to cost from $3,000 to $7,500 when serving a
single home.27 These systems also require considerable
space on the home-owner's property.
Discussion
In recent years considerable progress has been made in
developing alternatives to conventional subsurface dis-
posal with results that are highly respected. But the point
of this discussion is that each alternative, whether
subsurface disposal or conventional sewerage, requires
proper application. A large gap exists between those
choices, introducing pressure sewers.
PRESSURE SEWER GENERAL COST
Though there are numerous reasons for use of pressure
sewers, economics play a major role. In the Glide study it
was estimated that pressure sewers would cost each
home-owner $1,925 initially and $9.50 per month for
management, operation, and maintenance.1 These costs
are complete, including the treatment plant, interceptor
tank and pump, mains and appurtenances. The capital
cost per home is represented as follows:
Estimated Cost of Pressure Sewer System per Home
Glide, Oregon
Interceptor tank, pump, etc.
(all work on homeowner's property) $1,150
Collection system 475
Treatment plant 300
Total $1,925
Nearly half of the $9.50 charge for operation and
maintenance was represented by maintenance of the
pump and interceptor tank. Conventional sewers, as
previously noted, were estimated to cost homeowners
about twice as much as determined by present worth
analysis, using 6% interest and a 20-year period.
Where obstacles to conventional sewers are even more
severe, the cost advantage for the use of pressure sewers
widens. An installation in Priest Lake, Idaho serving 500
homes was constructed in 1974 at a reported initial cost
of one-twelfth that estimated to provide conventional
sewers.
14
50
-------
MAINTENANCE
It can be argued that the true cost of maintaining
pressure sewers will only be known after many years of
operating experience. While that is acknowledged, it is
also difficult to estimate the cost of maintaining conven-
tional sewers. Historical records from which one would
compile statistical cost data have often been gathered
from systems with excessive infiltration and inflow and
where bypassing has occurred. Assuming that such prac-
tices are no longer acceptable, historical maintenance cost
records are equally unsuitable for purposes of forecasting.
A similar situation is true regarding maintenance of
septic tank-drainfield installations. Often, little or no
maintenance is given to these systems but generally their
performance has not been satisfactory. One of the factors
leading to misconceptions about maintenance required of
septic tank-drainfield installations is the lack of adequate
records. Where surveys have been conducted, results
frequently refute assumptions of satisfactory service.2*5
A basic choice confronts those proposing the use of
pressure sewers: Should maintenance of the interceptor
tank and pump be performed by the owner or by an
established agency? Judging from the maintenance nor-
mally provided to septic tanks, owner maintenance is
regarded as a risky venture. Also, a valid economic
comparison of alternatives can only be made if the
systems considered are approximately equal in ability to
dispose of sewage without public nuisance or hazard to
health. With these thoughts in mind, the Glide study
recommended that maintenance be agency-provided. This
justifies employment of a qualified service repairman and
allows for the more economic purchase of materials and
repair. Experience at other pressure sewer projects has
indicated that pressure systems, when properly managed
and maintained, will provide a quality of service generally
comparable to that obtained from a conventional sewer-
age system.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Treatment and disposal may be accomplished by a
variety of means. In the Glide, Oregon proposal, a lagoon
followed by intermittent sand filters and irrigation dis-
posal is presently under construction by regulatory
authorities. Another alternative is the use of the extended
aeration mode of activated sludge treatment with effluent
polishing being accomplished by mixed media filtration.
If the number of homes to be served were small, a
conventional subsurface drainfield (or alternative) might
be used. The pressure concept could offer benefits:
1. The disposal site could be located distant from
the homes in a select area.
2. Pressure distribution and dosing principles are
often simplified.
In some cases an existing sewer may be close enough
that pressure sewer effluent could be discharged into the
sewer, but where topographic conditions might have
rendered the extension of gravity sewers infeasible. In
such cases consideration should be given to three factors:
1. Corrosion
2. Odor
3. Toxicity.
Conditions of concern include quantity of septic waste,
quantity of receiving sewage, sewer pipe materials, and
degree of turbulence. These subjects become a far too
involved matter for discussion in an introductory paper.
Interested readers are encouraged to refer to publications
by Pomeroy.29
Treatment might be accomplished by a conventional or
nearly conventional treatment plant.3 Though discussion
of this aspect is also beyond the purpose of this paper,
some differences between pressure sewer waste and
conventional sewage should be recognized:
1. Pressure sewer effluent is septic with potential
for odors.
2. There is comparatively little history of treating
septic tank effluent which would provide basis for
design.
Very good results have been experienced by those
treating septic tank effluent, but in large scale the
experience is limited. For the reader's reference the
following are listed:
Schmidt7
Durtschi14
Otis & Sauer23-24
Nines & Favreau25
Activated Sludge
Lagoon
Intermittent Sand Filter
Recirculating Sand Filter
Advantages to the treatment of pressure collected
septic tank effluent are:
1. The waste has been pretreated in a clarifier
(interceptor tank). Because of this a grit chamber,
bar screen or comminuter would be redundant. The
BOD and SS concentrations have been reduced by
50% or more,3 and little grease is present. Because
of the pretreatment provided by the septic tank,
simple processes such as sand filters may be used
when serving a small number of users.
2. Infiltration and inflow have been nearly elimin-
ated.
In all, the practice of treating pressure collected septic
tank effluent may require further demonstration, but
appears promising. An important point to keep in mind is
that the treatment and disposal of pressure sewer effluent
may be accomplished by any of the methods used in both
subsurface practice (or alternatives) and in the treatment
51
-------
of conventional sewage, though modifications may be
desired.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Pressure sewers may advantageously be used:
1. When serving individual homes or groups of
homes in conjunction with subsurface disposal
techniques.
2. To convey wastewater to a receiving sewer.
3. As an alternative to conventional sewers.
Pressure sewers are particularly adaptable to serving
rural or semirural communities where public contact with
effluent from failing drainfields presents a substantial
health concern.
Benefits are primarily economic, but may include
better land use by enabling the development of areas
difficult to serve otherwise. Bypasses and overflows
common to conventional sewers are eliminated owing to
negligible infiltration and inflow.
Design requires attention to detail in order to provide a
properly functioning and easily maintainable system.
Parameters are in the formative stage due to the newness
of this concept.
It would seem prudent to encourage the construction
of small systems which will acquaint designers with the
concepts prior to undertaking more sizable commitments.
It is incumbent upon designers of any new system such as
this to strive for quality installations. Otherwise, the
concept is likely to earn an undeserved poor reputation.
REFERENCES
1Bowne, W.C., Glide-ldleyld Park Sewerage Study, Doug-
las County, Oregon, 1975.
2Cornell, Howland, Hayes & Merryfield, Proposed Sani-
tary Sewerage Plan: Glide-ldleyld Park, January 1972.
3Vivian, R., Treatment Study, Septic Tank Effluent and
Septage, Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc., Oregon,
1975.
4Rose, C.W., Farmers Home Administration, Washington
D.C., Personal communication.
5Weibel, S.R., Bendixen, T.W., and Coulter, J.B., Studies
on Household Sewage Disposal Systems, Part III, Wash-
ington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955.
6Warren, C., Priest Lake Sanitary District, Priest Lake,
Idaho, Personal communication.
Schmidt, H.E., General Development Utilities Company,
Miami, Florida, Personal communication.
8Kreissl, J.F., Septage Analysis, Letter report, 2/2, 1976.
9
Kolega, J.J., and Dewey, A.W., "Septage Disposal Prac-
tices", Paper presented at the ASAE Home Sewage
Disposal Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, 1974.
10 Spohr, G.W., "Municipal Disposal and Treatment of
Septic Tank Sludge", Journal Public Works, December,
1974.
11 Flanigan, L. J., and Cudnik, R. A., State of the Art
Review and Considerations for the Design of Pressure
Sewer Systems, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Ohio,
1974.
12Bowne, W.C., Pressure Sewer Systems, Report pre-
sented to Douglas County, Oregon, 1974.
13 Environment One Corporation, Design Handbook for
Low Pressure Sewer Systems, 1973.
14Durtschi, K. A., Durtschi & Associates, Engineering,
Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, Personal communication.
15Klaus, J.G., Klaus Pump & Equipment Company,
Portland, Oregon, Personal communication.
16Biggs, J.E., Biggs and Mathews, Inc., Wichita Falls,
Texas, Personal communication.
17Lescovich, J.E., "Locating and Sizing Air Release
Valves", Journal, AWWA, July, 1972.
1^Kent, J.C., The Entrainment of Air by Water Flowing
in Circular Conduits with Downgrade Slopes, Thesis,
University of California, 1952.
Burton, L.H., and Nelson, D.F., Surge and Air Entrain-
ment in Pipelines, Paper presented at conference:
Control of Flow in Closed Conduits, Colorado State
University, 1970.
20 Whitsett, A.M., Practical Solutions to Air Entrainment
Problems, Paper presented at conference: Control of
Flow in Closed Conduits, Colorado State University,
1970.
21 State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Qual-
ity, On-Site Sewage Disposal in Oregon, a status report
to the Oregon State Legislature, 1976
Otis, R.J., Bouma, J., etal.. Design and Construction
Procedures for Mounds, April, 1975.
Otis, R.J., University of Wisconsin, Personal communi-
cation.
52
-------
24 Sauer, O.K., Intermittent Sand Filtration of Septic 27 Ronayne, M., State of Oregon, Department of Environ-
Tank and Aerobic Unit Effluents under Field Condi- mental Quality, Personal communication.
tions, Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1975.
28 Cotteral, J.A., and Norris, D.P., "Septic Tank Sys-
25 Nines, J., and Favreau, R.E., Recirculating Sand Filter: terns". Journal Sanitary Engineering Division ASCE,
An Alternative to Traditional Sewage Absorption Sys- 1969.
terns. Paper presented at ASAE symposium, Chicago,
Illinois, 1974. 29 Pomeroy, R.D., Process Design Manual for Sulfide
Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems, U.S. EPA, Tech-
26Ball, H.L., Consulting Engineer, Roseburg, Oregon, nology Transfer Publication, 1974.
Personal communication.
53
-------
FOUNTAIN RUN, KENTUCKY (CASE STUDY)
Jack L Abney*
SUMMARY
Public Law 92-500 contains provisions which, as some
interpreted them, may allow for Federal funding of
publicly-owned onsite wastewater treatment/disposal
systems. Such systems would be required to meet the
requirements of the Federal facilities planning process.
One small community in Kentucky seemed especially
well suited for such consideration. Currently without a
sewer system, preliminary cost estimates for conventional
sewers and central treatment showed excessively high
sewer bills would be required, even with 75 percent
Federal assistance.
The experience of the consultant led to a system design
of individual septic-tanks, effluent sewers and clustered
subsurface disposal sites. The final preliminary plan
includes 22 community subsurface disposal sites and a
similar number of single-user disposal sites.
Monthly sewer bills required to support the two
systems have a significant difference. The conventional
system would require about $17 per month while the
selected system would require about $7 per month.
OBJECTIVES
Fountain Run, Kentucky, is a small city which decided
that reliance on individual sewage disposal was hindering
development of the town. In 1976, a wastewater facilities
plan was prepared under a grant from the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency as provided in Section 201 of
Public Law 92-500. The objectives of this plan were as
follows:
1. Provide adequate public wastewater management
to serve the needs of the community through 1995.
2. Comply with stream quality standards and other
environmental regulations.
3. Minimize total 20-year costs for achieving the
previous two objectives.
4. Develop a plan of implementation.
5. Assess environmental effects of various alterna-
tive systems which could meet the first three
objectives.
•Jack L. Abney
Parrot, Ely & Hurt
Lexington, Ky.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLANNING AREA
The planning area includes one incorporated city,
Fountain Run, and about 3 square miles of unin-
corporated land, all in Monroe County, Kentucky, Most of
the area is served by the Fountain Run Water District. No
major water-using industries are located within the area.
The plan was prepared under the authority of the
Water District, with the city cooperating.
The total population was 436 in 1975, with 318 living
in the city. Lot sizes are fairly large, with the average city
lot covering about one acre. About 130 residential and
commercial occupied structures existed within the city
limits in 1975.
Households and businesses all utilized on-site disposal
of wastewaters in 1976. Most had septic tanks but a few
pit privys also were used. About 80 percent of existing
wastewater sources were located on soils having good
characteristics for subsurface disposal of wastewater.
Major soil series include the Crider, Frederick and
Trimble, which have USDA textural classifications ranging
from silt loam to heavy silty clay loam.
The topography is rolling with some karst develop-
ment. Underlying rocks are limestone and dolomite, with
some interbedded shale.
WASTEWATER EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Any effluent discharging to a surface stream was
required to meet fairly strict standards. Concentrations of
key pollutants were not to exceed the following levels:
Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand: 10 mg/l;
Suspended Solids: 15 mg/l;
Ammonia Nitrogen: 1 mg/l;
Dissolved Oxygen: 8 mg/l.
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
In attempting to develop alternative systems, most of
us are bound by our experiences, training and prejudices.
One cannot usually consider an alternative that is not
known or readily understood. Neither is a person likely to
54
-------
consider an alternative with which only negative experi-
ences have been gained, unless forced to do so by
regulatory or managerial edict.
Perhaps these are common reasons for not considering
on-site disposal in engineering plans. But when a person
has succeeded in breaking through the regulatory re-
straints against designing on-site disposal and has success-
fully designed systems on difficult sites, he is likely to
consider this approach in future applications.
In 1965 the author was fortunate enough to be able to
apply flexible design criteria for on-site disposal in a local
Health Department in Indiana. Working from Federal
Housing Administration studies of septic-tank systems and
with the aid of soil scientists and a geologist, he was able
to develop a set of design criteria for on-site disposal that
worked in that county very well. A further opportunity
was gained in 1969, when he became associated with an
Environmental Demonstration Project in Southeastern
Kentucky. In that project several demonstrations of
improved on-site disposal systems were installed on sites
which could not be approved under the State Plumbing
Code.
The Appalachian Project also had prepared several
preliminary engineering plans for community sewerage
systems. These plans included fairly detailed costs for
sewer line construction which showed clearly the exorbi-
tant cost of conventional sewers. Table I shows an analysis
of these costs, updated by means of the U.S. EPA sewer
construction cost index.
In some of the proposed service areas, sewer construc-
tion alone would cost more than the median annual
family income of the persons served. When compared to
the costs for the on-site disposal systems we had devised,
sewers could not be economically justified in most of the
areas studied in Appalachian Kentucky. However, no
regulatory, financial or managerial system existed which
would permit the effective utilization of "engineered"
on-site disposal systems.
Therefore, the Project could merely make recommen-
dations for improvements in design of on-site disposal
systems. These recommendations are contained in a
report,2 published shortly before the Demonstration was
terminated.
In developing the Fountain Run plan, accepted Federal
policy was followed and, initially, only conventional
sewers and central treatment were considered. Various
treatment alternatives were examined, with simplicity of
operation a primary goal. The final treatment process
selected was a 3-cell oxidation pond with land application
of effluent. It was only after calculation of the average
monthly bill that it was realized that the community
probably could not afford such a system. Subsequent
meetings with the local people confirmed that this
conclusion was shared by community leaders.
Table 1. Appalachian Sewer Construction
(Costs Updated to March, 1976)
Type of
Area
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
All
Rural
Rural
Urban
Urban
Suburb
Urban
Suburb
Above
Users
596
136
2,025
73
330
44
335
Ave. Cost
Per User
$7,960
6,190
5,970
5,730
3,980
3,750
3,470
$5,860
Max. Cost
Per User
11,350
19,180
26,280
12,420
N/A
N/A
5,240
With an assumed Federal grant of 75 percent and a
low-interest loan for most of the remaining 25 percent,
the average monthly sewer bill would be over $17. With
no grant, the average bill would be over $30. At the time,
grants were only available for treatment and so the higher
figure would have been closer to reality.
Therefore, the consultants began to consider true
alternatives to the familiar conventional sewers. The
experimental sewer system installed at the Grady W.
Taylor subdivision near Mt. Andrew, Alabama, served as
initial inspiration for determining the cost of a similar
system for Fountain Run. Further encouragement was
given by recommendations developed by Paul Pate of
Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Health. Both capi-
tal and operating costs were projected to be lower for this
"effluent sewer" system, as it was called. But the average
bill would still be high: about $13 per month.
It was then decided to divide the service area into
smaller subareas and eliminate the central treatment
facilities, while utilizing effluent sewers and subsurface
disposal. This approach required a careful evaluation of
the location of soils most suited to subsurface disposal
and the identification of soil factors which might restrict
their use for sewage disposal. Unit costs were developed
for septic tanks, dosing devices, effluent sewers and
disposal systems. Several trial-and-error combinations of
users were tried before settling on a reasonably efficient
arrangement. The final system consisted of 22 "com-
munity" systems having 2 or more users on shared
disposal fields, plus 22 on-site disposal systems.
The cost for this "community subsurface disposal
system" was significantly lower than the two previous
systems. The average bill was estimated to be $7.30 per
month, with 144 customers contributing. A further plus
was the fact that an additional 24 customers were
included.
As a final consideration, the cost for total on-site
disposal with public management was analyzed. The same
55
-------
144 customers were assumed to require replacement of
their disposal system with new, "engineered", systems.
Standard absorption systems were estimated to cost
$12,000, while special designs required to overcome soil
limitations were estimated to average $1800 each.
The costs for the total on-site plan would be lower
than costs for the community system. Average monthly
billings would be about $5.70 with 75 percent Federal
assistance on construction costs.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Table II summarizes the main features of these four
alternate wastewater systems. Total construction costs,
including engineering, for these alternatives are shown on
Figure I. Alternate "A" would require $524,400, "B" would
require $367,500, "C" would require $340,200 and "D"
would require $247,000. Conventional sewerage system
"A" would cost more than twice as much as on-site
disposal "D", and 1.54 times as much as the community
subsurface system "C". This resulted even though a much
greater cost for engineering and contingencies was in-
cluded in "C" and "D" than in "A". A rate of 20 percent
was allowed in "A", while 30 percent was allowed in "C"
and "D" for engineering.
Table II. Alternative Systems
A. Central System:
Conventional Sewers
Oxidation Pond
Infiltration-Percolation
B. Central System:
Effluent Sewers
Oxidation Pond
Infiltration-Percolation
C. Decentralized System:
Effluent Sewers
Subsurface Disposal
D. On-Site Systems:
Septic Tank
Subsurface Disposal
Annual funds required for operation, maintenance,
billing and debt service are shown in Figure II. Even
though 20 percent fewer users are included in Alternate
"A", it would require 2.3 times as many annual dollars as
"D" and 1.8 times as many as "C".
Figure III illustrates the relationship in present worth
for the four alternates. This comparison is the one
mandated in the "201" planning guidelines. Present worth
is a composite of initial capital, a lump sum to provide
operation and maintenance for 20 years, and an allowance
made for any salvage value at the end of the 20 year
period. Relationships are similar to those in the preceding
graphs, but not identical.
The economic comparison which matters most to the
local citizen is the monthly bill for services. Due to the
effect of Federal funding, and the varying service popu-
lation the relative difference in the four alternatives is
greater than in any other comparison.
500 -
Figure I. Total Initial Cost
Figure II. Total Annual Funds Required
56
-------
500 -
| 300 -
S
tt'
| 200 H
Q
Figure 111. Present Worth
In all four alternatives, it was assumed that a Federal
grant for 75 percent of the initial cost would be obtained.
In reality, this would be unlikely in any case.
But it could not be predicted with relative certainty
how much of each alternative would be funded through a
grant, and therefore equal outside funding was assumed. It
was further assumed that a small "tap-in" fee would be
charged each customer and the remainder of the local
share would be borrowed over a 40 year period at 5
percent interest, the current FmHA loan terms. If no
grant was available, the 75 percent portion would be
financed locally through a greater loan and possibly a
bond issuance.
The computed dollar amounts for these mean monthly
bills were:
With 75% Grant With No Grant
Alternate A
Alternate B
Alternate C
Alternate D
$17.30
12.80
7.30
5.70
$37.80
27.60
17.30
12.90
These values are compared in Figure IV.
This analysis indicates that Alternate "A" would cost
the homeowner 3 times as much as "D" and 2.4 times as
much as "C", with a grant. It is recognized that the
long-term financing of 95 percent of a project, as is
assumed in the "No Grant" column, is rather unrealistic.
It would seem very likely that most of the "on-site"
users would be unwilling to pay the monthly cost in
Alternate "C" without a grant.
18 -,
16 -
14 —
12 -
10 -
8-
6 —
4 —
2 —
B C
Alternatives
Figure IV. Average Monthly Bill
SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATE
These data were presented to the officers of the Water
District and a public meeting was held to explain the
alternates to the affected citizens. It was decided by the
District Board of Commissioners that Alternative "C", the
effluent sewer system with community subsurface dis-
posal, would be the preferred alternate. Alternate "D"
was not chosen, because of a general feeling on the part of
the citizens that no real advantage would be gained to
justify the expenditure of $5.70 per month. Alternates
"A" and "B" were rejected because of the high cost to the
user.
DETAILS OF THE SELECTED ALTERNATE
The design of the selected systems is fairly simple. A
septic-tank and dosing tank would be placed at each user
location. The effluent from the dosing tank will discharge
into a plastic sewer of 4-inch inside diameter. Where the
dosing tank must be located lower in elevation than the
sewer, a sump pump will be used as described by
Hindricks and Rees.3 Otherwise a dosing siphon will be
used to ensure scouring velocities near the lateral connec-
tion.
In a report by Otis and Stewart,4 effluent drains are
described which have been used in South Australia since
1962, apparently with no need for such elaborate devices
to provide a scouring velocity. But it would seem logical
57
-------
to expect a reduction in maintenance flushing of the
sewers where intermittent dosing was provided. Effluent
would be carried to the subsurface disposal fields via the
plastic sewers. No manholes are proposed for these sewers,
but cleanouts would be provided at intervals to allow
flushing of lines should any sediment accumulate.
The preliminary design of the disposal fields is largely
based on the work by Winneberger at Berkeley.5,6 Field
applications of the "narrow-trench" concept have proven
successful in the author's experience in Jackson County,
Indiana, and in Appalachian Kentucky. A comparison of
the trench geometry required by Kentucky State Code
with that recommended in the plan is shown in Figure V.
It may be readily seen that if the invert of the distribution
pipe is considered the maximum design depth, then the
narrow configuration provides an area per unit volume
ratio of 2.33 times that of the standard configuration.
Other calculations show that the total cost per useful
square foot provided would be about one-half as much,
using the narrower trench.
Other design criteria are rather conservative, as may be
seen in Table VI. In addition to the low application rate,
two sets of trenches would be provided for use on a
biennial cycle. Some persons have suggested that utiliza-
tion of a biennial cycle should allow a reduction of up to
30 percent in the absorption surface area provided.
Bouma, et a/.,7 recommended an average loading rate of
1 gallon per square foot per day in moderately permeable
fine silty soils, when using intermittent application of
effluent. In each disposal field, alternate trenches would
be connected to a common header. This would allow a
more diffuse application of effluent over the entire field.
A design flow of 200 gpd per user may not seem very
high, but the existing water consumption in Fountain Run
is only 23 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) or about 70
gpd per customer. This preliminary design rate therefore
provides for nearly 3 times as much flow as is presently
occurring. Intermittent dosing of the disposal fields would
be provided by either pumps or automatic siphons,
depending on the size and topography of the field. This
would help to provide uniform loading and avoid satu-
rated flow through soil.
In determining the optimum locations for disposal
fields, available soil maps, topographic maps, aerial photo-
graphs and personal observations were utilized. Certain
areas were eliminated due to the existence of soils with
low permeability. Homes were grouped above available
open land to try to achieve gravity flow to all disposal
sites. Costs for effluent sewers were weighed against cost
of disposal sites, convenience of maintenance and com-
munity acceptability. By a process of elimination, the
total number of multi-user sites was reduced to 22, and 22
on-site systems in the built-up area were retained in the
recommended plan. These latter users would receive a
level of service equal to that provided the multi-user sites
and would be charged at the same rate for services, if they
chose to participate.
Kentucky Code
Recommended
2 3
33
Figure V. Disposal Trenches
The pattern of septic tanks, effluent sewers and
disposal fields obtained in the preliminary design is shown
on Figure VI, which covers the central part of the
incorporated city. Smaller sub-systems as well as on-site
systems would exist in adjacent areas but were not shown
in this illustration.
Due to the uncertainties presented by several very
small lots on the west side of the business district, a short
length of conventional sewer leading to a central septic
tank was proposed. If final design investigations show that
septic tanks could be placed to serve these businesses,
then an effluent sewer may be recommended at that time.
Land on which the multi-user sites would be located
would be owned by the Water District. Land prices are
low, due primarily to the low average income level and the
lack of growth pressures. Accessibility to the on-site
systems would be obtained by a utility easement, which it
is assumed the homeowner would give in exchange for
installing a new system that would be publicly owned and
maintained.
Details of construction costs are shown in Table III.
Unit prices were obtained from quotes by local contrac-
tors and recent bid tabulations for jobs. No significant
allowances were made for possible quantity discounts. A
summary of total materials and quantities provided in this
alternate is presented in Table IV.
Operating and maintenance requirements for the rec-
ommended system were more costly than might be
expected. The system would contain 17 pumps of 1/3 to
2 horsepower size. Replacement units should be stocked
in each size for rapid repair of malfunctioning pumps.
Multi-user field dosing tanks would contain dual pumps
for increased reliability.
The method used in computing total annual funds
required is shown on Table V.
58
-------
Table III. Detailed Construction Costs For Preliminary Design
Community Subsurface Disposal System
Fountain Run, Kentucky
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Total
Subsystem 1
On-Site Septic Tanks
Pumps, 1/3 hp. w/tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tanks w/pumps
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 2
On-Site Septic Tanks
Pumps, 1/3 hp. w/tank
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Gravity Sewer, 8" dia., in place
8" Sewer Fittings
Manholes
Main Septic Tank, 3000 gal.
Main Dosing Tank, w/pumps
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 3
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/pumps
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 4
On-Site Septic Tanks
Multi-User Septic Tanks
Pump, 1/3 hp.
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
34
1
33
4,250
790
2
10,200
2.5
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
Ea.
LF.
Ac.
$ 200.00
300.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
1,200.00
2.10
2,000.00
$ 6,800
300
6,600
17,000
2,380
2,400
21,420
5,000
2
2
450
950
5
1
1
5,100
1.2
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
LF.
Ac.
$61,900
200.00
300.00
4.00
10.00
500.00
750.00
1,200.00
2.10
2,000.00
400
600
1,800
9,500
1,200
2,500
750
1,200
10,710
2,400
$28,660
12
12
760
240
1
3,600
0.8
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
LS.
LF.
Ac.
200.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.10
2,500.00
2,400
2,400
3,040
720
1,200
7,560
$ 2,000
$19,320
6
2
4
4
1,270
200
3,300
0.8
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
LF.
Ac.
200.00
300.00
300.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.10
2,500.00
$ 1,200
600
1,200
800
5,080
600
550
6,930
2,000
$18,960
59
-------
Table III. Detailed Construction Costs for Preliminary Design
Community Subsurface Disposal System
Fountain Run, Kentucky (Continued)
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Total
Subsystem 5
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" Dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" Dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 6
On-Site Septic Tanks
Multi-User Septic Tank
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 7
Multi-User Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 8
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
1/3 hp. Purnp w/tank
1/2 hp. Pump w/tank
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 2" dia.
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 9
On-Site Septic Tanks
Effluent Sewers, 4" dia.
Main Dosing Tank w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
7
7
1,080
140
2,100
0.5
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
$ 200.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
3,000.00
$ 1,400
1,400
4,320
420
550
4,725
1,500
3
300
900
0.33
Ea.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
4.00
2.25
3,000.00
$14,315
3
1
4
720
100
1,800
0.75
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
300.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
2,500.00
600
300
800
2,880
300
550
4,050
1,875
$1 1 ,355
2
2
230
1,200
0.5
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
Ac.
300.00
200.00
4.00
2.25
3,000.00
600
400
920
2,700
1,500
$ 6,120
3
2
1
1
500
100
900
0.6
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.F.
Ac.
200.00
200.00
300.00
450.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
2,500.00
$ 600
400
300
450
2,000
300
2,025
1,500
$ 7,575
600
1,200
400
2,025
1,000
$ 5,325
60
-------
Table III. Detailed Construction Costs for Preliminary Design
Community Subsurface Disposal System
Fountain Run, Kentucky (Continued)
Quantity Unit
Unit Price
Total
Subsystem 10
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
Subsystem 11
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Effluent Sewer, 3" dia.
Main Dosing Tank, w/siphon
Absorption Trenches
Land
Subtotal
2-Unit Disposal Systems
(Sites 12 through 22)
On-Site Septic Tanks
Multi-User Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
1/3 hp Pump & Tank
Effluent Sewer, 4" dia.
Absorption Trenches
Land Cost
Subtotal
Individual Disposal Systems
On-Site Septic Tanks
Small Dosing Siphons
Absorption Trenches
Subtotal
Total Treatment & Disposal Costs
Sludge Pump, Soil Injector and Truck
Grand Total
3
2
350
100
900
0.5
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
LF.
Ac.
$ 200.00
200.00
4.00
3.00
2.25
2,500.00
$ 600
400
1,400
300
400
2,025
1,250
22
22
6,600
Ea.
Ea.
LF.
200.00
200.00
2.25
$ 6,375
3
2
400
50
900
0.33
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
Ft.
L.S.
LF.
Ac.
200.00
200.00
4.00
3.50
2.25
3,000.00
600
400
1,600
175
400
2,025
1,000
$ 6,200
14
4
14
1
1,220
6,600
1.8
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Ft.
LF.
Ac.
200.00
300.00
200.00
300.00
4.00
2.25
3,000.00
$ 2,800
900
2,800
300
4,880
14,850
5,400
$31,930
4,400
4.400
14,850
$23,650
$241,685
20,000
$261,685
61
-------
Table IV. Summary of System Components
122 Septic tanks;
13,250 Linear feet of effluent sewer;
960 Linear feet of 8" sanitary sewer;
104 Small dosing siphons;
9 Small effluent pumps;
4 Main dosing tanks with pumps;
6 Main dosing tanks with siphons;
44,100 Linear feet of absorption trenches at 44 sites;
10.6 Acres of Land;
1 Set sludge pump and soil injection equipment.
Table V. Alternative C Annual Fund Requirements
Operation and Maintenance $ 6,100
Office and Billing Expense 1,000
Subtotal $ 7,100
Debt Service
Construction Cost $261,685
Engineering, Legal & Contingencies @ 30% 78,506
Total Initial Cost $340,191
Less Grant (75%) (-) 255,143
Local Share 85,048
Less Tap-On Fees @ $50 ea. (130) (-) 6,500
Net Debt Amount $ 78,548
(Assume 40 yr. loan @ 5% Use Capital
Recovery Factor of 0.05828)
Average Annual Principal & Interest $ 4,578
Surplus for Reserves at 20% + 915
Total Debt Service Funds 5,493
Total Annual Funds Required $12,593
Table VI. Design Features For Subsurface Disposal
1. Application Rate: 0.33 gpd/sq. ft.
2. Biennial Use of Alternate Disposal Trenches.
3. Width-Depth Ratio of Disposal Trenches: 1.3.
4. Design Flow of 200 gpd per Customer.
5. Intermittent Application of Effluent.
62
-------
.-i-^'VN
^.-vy:-'vx.v:;.\
ft?:'-?: Subsystem 2 3
i. 'AJ -s-i...;.. . . - . . . ••.!
Pump
Figure VI. Community Subsurface Disposal Plan
63
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
STREAM-BANK DAMAGE
All of the four basic alternatives would appear to meet
the effluent criteria and other environmental criteria of
responsible regulatory agencies. As in most wastewater
projects, the primary impacts are more readily determined
than secondary impacts. The following discussion only
describes the more significant environmental effects.
The following factors were considered in analyzing
construction effects:
1. Erosion from sewer construction.
2. Erosion from treatment and disposal sites.
3. Stream-bank damage from sewer lines and treat-
ment facilities.
4. Aesthetic effects of excavation, etc.
5. Noise from construction equipment.
6. Air quality effects from fugitive dust.
7. The presence of sensitive ecosystems, unique
plants, endangered species and archaeo-historic sites.
8. Dislocation of individuals, businesses and govern-
mental services.
9. Employment.
EROSION
Erosion was estimated for each alternative by assuming
a uniform soil erodibility (K factor) for the soil (the
dominant soil type) and uniform erosion control practices
(mulching) and estimating the steepness of the affected
area by use of a topographic map. The Universal Soil-Loss
Equation was applied to these assumptions and the total
annual soil loss was adjusted to the estimated time of
construction exposure. The results of these calculations
follow.
SOIL LOSS FROM CONSTRUCTION
Alternate Soil Loss, Tons
A
B
C
D
30
25
6
2
From this table it may be predicted that the conven-
tional gravity sewer system and lagoon with disposal in an
infiltration basin (Alternative "A") would create the
greatest soil loss. The least soil loss would be created by
Alternative "D", using on-site disposal and Alternative
"C" would create slightly higher losses than "D" due to
the effluent sewers being provided.
Since all such losses would be distributed over a fairly
large area in a "non-sensitive" environment, no significant
adverse impact would be anticipated.
Damage to stream banks in the form of earth cuts and
fills would be experienced in Alternatives "A" and "B"
due to the construction of a 2-acre lagoon in the bed of a
stream. This construction would require the diversion of
the intermittent stream around one side of the lagoon.
Additional damage could occur from construction of
sewer lines crossing streams in Alternatives "A" and "B".
Alternatives "C" and "D" would not cause such
damage since no major construction is proposed in any
stream.
NOISE
Since larger construction equipment generally produces
greater noise levels, Alternatives "A" and "B" would tend
to produce greater significant noise impact than Alterna-
tives "C" and "D". However, the most noise would be
produced by bulldozers constructing the lagoon, and the
lagoon site is located more than 500 feet from the nearest
residence.
Sewer line construction in an existing community
often produces noise levels which exceed the U.S. EPA
criteria for noise. Since the construction of effluent
sewers, as in Alternatives "B" and "C", would be done
with smaller equipment, fewer excessive noise incidents
would be expected.
The total lack of pavement crossings in Alternative
"D" would indicate that this alternative would have the
least adverse noise impact.
OTHER IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION
All other potential impacts from construction were
considered to be insigificant. No rare or endangered
species, sensitive ecosystems or historic sites would be
adversely affected by any alternative considered feasible.
GROUNDWATER EFFECTS
All of the final alternatives utilized some form of
disposal to the soil. Consideration of soil conditions and
the hydrogeology of the area have shown that the
possibility of groundwater contamination by the proposed
facilities is remote. All soils considered for disposal are
fine textured and moderately well drained. They are
considered to have a large capacity for absorption of
ammonia nitrogen, nitrate and phosphorous. No higher
groundwater conditions were evident in any disposal area.
Concern is often expressed in engineering reports about
nitrate contamination of groundwater below septic-tank
effluent disposal fields. An attempt was made by Ra-
jagopal, ef a/., to relate groundwater quality to septic
tank densities in an area with sandy soils and fairly high
64
-------
water table. In 123 samples, only nitrates were found to
approach or exceed USPHS limits for drinking water.
Only 6 samples had concentrations in excess of the
standard, and these were apparently caused by fertiliza-
tion of cherry orchards, not by septic tanks. Where no
orchards were nearby, nitrate apparently did not exceed 2
ppm (as NO3-N) average concentration.
More detailed consideration of the location of any
existing wells will be made in the Step 2 (design) process.
Nearly all persons in the area of concern are customers of
the Water District, but a few private wells may still exist,
and if so, adequate separation distances from disposal sites
must be provided or the wells should be abandoned and
sealed.
The potential for overflow of partially treated waste-
water in the effluent sewer system is probably much less
than the potential for overflow of raw wastewater in the
conventional system. This is due in part to the provision
of on-site storage of several hours capacity in the dosing
tanks and septic tanks. A typical 1,000 gallon septic tank
would have a reserve storage capacity of about 100 gallons
with a rise of 6 inches in liquid level. This would equal
about 12 hours of average flow, which should be
sufficient time to complete most repairs or replace failed
pumps.
In addition, hydraulic overloads from infiltration and
inflow appear to be much more likely with conventional
sewers than with effluent sewers, due to the relative
integrity of joints and the presence of manholes in the
conventional system. Investigations of infiltration and
inflow in existing sewer systems have demonstrated that
untreated discharges were common in all systems.
Further protection against accidental overflow in efflu-
ent sewers could be provided by small emergency sand
filters located adjacent to disposal field pumps, or by
emergency subsurface disposal trenches.
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION &
OPERATING EFFECTS
Each of the effects described above has been given a
numerical rating and the ratings added to give a total for
ranking purposes. The total rankings, in ascending order
of possible negative impact, were:
1. Alternative "D" = 29
2. Alternative "C" = 30
3. Alternative "B" = 37
4. Alternative "A" = 40
SECONDARY IMPACTS
Conventional gravity sewers often are considered to
stimulate growth and encourage new industry to move to
an area, where excess capacity exists in a sewerage system.
Of course, this is dependent on many other factors as
well, such as availability of general and skilled labor,
transportation facilities and distance to markets. Never-
theless, it would appear likely that conventional gravity
sewers as considered in Alternative "A" would tend to
cause more development and, therefore, create a potential
for greater secondary impact than Alternatives "B", "C"
and "D".
EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION
Based on the consultant's understanding of the powers
of Water Districts, any of the alternatives could legally be
implemented by the District. Alternatives "C" and "D"
are apparently unique proposals in Kentucky and for that
reason, may entail more original thought and careful
evaluation for successful implementation.
On the other hand, the conventional sewer with central
treatment would require such a large expenditure of local
funds, even with Federal assistance, that opposition from
potential customers may be even greater than anticipated.
Alternatives "A" and "B" may also require a trained
operator, or at least require considerably more manpower
than the other alternatives, which would be a dis-
advantage.
Alternative "D" would seem particularly difficult to
implement from the standpoint of the 20% of homes
located on soils of low permeability. As pointed out
previously, that alternative could involve much higher
costs for design and construction of the systems located in
poor soils than was used to determine relative present
worth. From this standpoint, Alternative D was not
recommended.
In perspective, none of the alternatives had any
overwhelming advantage for implementation. Further
consideration of implementation is contained in the
Facilities Plan.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A notice of public hearing for discussion of the
environmental inventory and alternatives developed in the
Plan was published in a local newspaper. About 15
community leaders attended the hearing.
Discussion during the meeting centered around Alter-
native "C", the community subsurface disposal system.
Alternative "A", conventional sewers and central treat-
ment, was considered too expensive by all participants.
Even Alternative "B", the effluent sewer system with
central treatment, was considered too expensive for local
income levels. Several participants mentioned the fact that
a significant portion (local estimates were 30 percent) of
the population was living on retirement income and Social
Security.
65
-------
It was pointed out that the element of risk of "failure"
may be higher in Alternative "C" than with conventional
sewers, due to the complexity of soils and relative
sensitivity to errors, but that any failure would probably
only affect a few persons and would be correctable. The
importance of the central management concept to correct-
ing problems was explained.
To those attending who had no immediate problem
with their individual disposal systems, even the expendi-
ture of $7.00 per month seemed to be little justified when
the discussion was commenced. An objection to Alterna-
tive "C" was that it might not attract new industry in the
manner hoped for by some citizens. Some questioned
whether as many persons would "sign up" for services as
had been projected, and this led to a discussion of the
possible mandating of subscriptions by health authorities
or city ordinance. An opinion of the State Attorney
General advised that Water District Commissioners would
have legal authority to require use of a sewer system.
The participants largely agreed that the community
disposal system would be a more desirable improvement
and that Alternative "C" would probably not cost any
more than maintaining and replacing existing septic tank
systems. Several persons mentioned neighbors and busi-
ness places where septic tank failures were known but
have not been corrected.
Since the majority favored Alternative "C", subsurface
disposal, due to the lower cost and simplicity of opera-
tion, the Chairman instructed the consultants to proceed
with Alternative "C" as the preferred alternate.
CONCLUSIONS
The community subsurface disposal concept favored in
this Plan is not a new concept. But it has had little, if any,
application. To the best knowledge of the author, no
demonstration has included the mix of septic-tanks,
effluent sewers, community subsurface disposal and on-
site disposal recommended in the Plan. Since the overall
concept is somewhat new and unfamiliar to the Federal
funding agencies, the possibility of substantial Federal
assistance is unknown. On the Kentucky State Priority
Ranking, the project is listed as 240th out of 241. This
low rank is due primarily to the lack of recognized
wastewater discharges in the local area. Malfunctioning
septic tank systems are not included in the weighting
system for determination of need.
The low ranking given not only delays funding of the
project, but it also delays approval of a project. Personnel
at the U.S. EPA Regional Office have stated that the
Fountain Run Plan would not be reviewed for approval
until higher ranking projects had been reviewed, and no
timetable for such review was available. The most recent
advice from the State Office is that funding of this Project
is at least 10 years in the future, assuming funding levels
do not increase. Therefore, other sources of funding are
being investigated.
In discussing the proposed system with persons in
various positions, from citizen to regulator, it seemed that
most persons are initially prejudiced against all these key
elements of the concept. Retaining septic tanks at the
individual wastewater sources seems to violate what most
sanitary engineers and citizens feel is right — that all
wastes should be carried away from the point of genera-
tion as quickly as possible. Similarly, it violates common
practice to specify a sewer as small as 4-inches diameter,
when in some local jurisdictions 8-inch sewers are laid
right up to the house foundation. And the history of
subsurface disposal of wastewater has been so filled with
negative experiences that regulatory officials sometimes
are unable to give this alternative serious consideration.
But in the final analysis, the facts about the monetary
and environmental advantages of community subsurface
disposal in Fountain Run are still true. If this concept is
ever to be applied at the required scale, decision-makers at
both the State and Federal levels will need to take positive
action based on the facts. When this is done, it will then
seem more feasible to apply these concepts as alternatives
in other communities. But without such positive action,
most plans will continue to be written as though there
were no alternatives to conventional sewers.
REFERENCES
1 Sewerage Facilities Plan - Fountain Run, Kentucky.
July 1976. Parrott, Ely and Hurt Consulting Engineers,
Inc., 620 Euclid Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky.
2Abney, Jack L. On Site Sewage Disposal Systems -
Technical Considerations and Recommended Design
Approaches. June, 1973. Appalachian Environmental
Demonstration Project, Kentucky State Department for
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Cor-
bin, Kentucky.
3Hendricks, G.F. and S.M. Rees. Economical Residential
Pressure Sewer System with No Effluent. SI ECO, Inc.
Columbus, In. Dec. 1975. EPA-600/2-75-072.
40tis, R.J. and Stewart , D.E.: Alternative Wastewater
Facilities for Small Unsewered Communities in Rural
America. Small Scale Waste Management Demonstration,
Phase III. Annual Report, July 1976. University of
Wisconsin, Madison.
5Winneberger, J.T.H. and McGauhey, P.H., A Study of
Methods of Preventing Failure of Septic-Tank Percola-
tion Systems, 1965, SERL Report No. 65-17. Sanitary
Engineering Research Lab. University of California,
Berkeley.
66
-------
6Rajagopal, R., R.L. Patterson, R.P. Canole and M.J. 7Bouma, J., J.C. Converse, J. Carlson and F.G. Baker.
Armstrong. "Water Quality and Economic Criteria for "Soil Absorption of Septic Tank Effluent in Moderately
Rural Wastewater and Water Supply Systems." July, Permeable Fine Silty Soils." Transactions of the Ameri-
1975, Vol. 47, No. 7, Journal Water Pollution Control can Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1975.
Federation.
67
-------
BOYD COUNTY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Lawrence E. Waldorf*
BACKGROUND
Traditionally there have been two choices, once it is
agreed that rural sanitation is a problem which should be
addressed. At one end of the spectrum has been municipal
collection and treatment facilities; at the other extreme,
individually owned and maintained septic tanks, out-
houses or some other "devices." Between the two
extremes there has been a great void; and, when either the
cost of municipal facilities was too high or septic tanks
would not function, nothing was one. In rural Appalachia,
not to mention the rest of the United States, for hundreds
of thousands of families, the cost of municipal collection
and treatment is not economically feasible, even with 75%
grant money from EPA. Because of the combination of
low population density and severe topographical prob-
lems, the cost of providing municipal collection and
treatment is now regularly between $5,000 and $10,000
per house. For example, in West Virginia's Hepzibah
Public Service District, a system designed to serve 150
homes had an estimated cost of $1.2 million or $8,000
per house. In Garrett County, Maryland, a system built
with ARC funds cost $8,500 per house. Another system
in the same area cost $8,700 per house. The result of
these high construction costs has been high user fees such
as that experienced by a small community in Monroe
County, Pennsylvania. Here, in order to finance a munici-
pal collection and treatment system, even with the
assistance of both EPA and ARC funds, a tap-on fee of
$500 was charged, and a service charge averaging approxi-
mately $20 per month assessed. These are actual projects
in our records at the commission, and it was this kind of
project which prompted ARC to try to find some
alternatives which would help to fill the gap between
municipal treatment and individually maintained septic
tanks.
There are still 2,700,000 homes in Appalachia alone
which do not have access to public sanitary facilities. One
of the primary reasons for this is that the option of
high-cost municipal collection and treatment facilities,
with their resultant excessive monthly charges, is not
suited to the needs of the people in many rural areas. As
Senator Randolph has stated before in the U.S. Senate,1
19,500,000 households across America are not served by
* Lawrence E. Waldorf
Appalachian Regional Commission
Washington, D.C.
public sanitary facilities, and these familities must provide
for themselves some method of home disposal for the
nearly 3 billion gallons of domestic sewage which they
generate daily. These conditions exist despite the appro-
priation by Congress of tens of bill ions of dollars for the
construction of sanitary facilities.
The "System Approach to Individual Home Treat-
ment" is an attempt by ARC to develop a tool which can
be used to fill the gap between municipal treatment and
collection, and individually owned and maintained septic
tanks. It is not the answer to the problems of rural
sanitation. No one has the answer, because the problems
are so diverse that only a serious, ongoing program to
improve and develop new tools which can become parts of
a total answer is a realistic solution. What is needed is an
inventory of tools between the two extremes, from which
the rural sanitation engineer can draw those which are
best suited to his particular situation. The system ap-
proach is an attempt to develop one of those tools, to be
one component of that inventory.
The Boyd County system approach is based on two
important assumptions:
1. The average homeowner either cannot, or will
not and probably should not, properly assume the
maintenance of his own sanitation device.
2. Rural families are entitled to the same quality of
public service as those living in more urbanized
areas.
Our project, therefore, is based on the premise that
rural sanitation must be treated as a public utility, i.e., all
equipment involved must be owned, operated and main-
tained by a public body-in this case, a public sanitary
district. For purposes of system maintenance and eligi-
bility for Federal grant funds, this concept is essential.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project area is located approximately five miles
from the Huntington Airport in Kentucky. The area has
the typical characteristics of low population density and
rough topography found throughout Appalachia. There
are about 60 families living within the boundaries of the
sanitary district. This project serves 47 of these families
68
-------
and includes 36 individual home aeration treatment
plants, and 2 multifamily aeration plants serving 11
families. One of the goals of the project was to build into
the system for demonstration purposes as many variables
as possible with respect to equipment installation. The
aeration equipment being used in Boyd County is manu-
factured by Multi-Flo, Cromaglass, Flygt, Bi-A-Robi, Jet,
and Nayadic. Most of the conference attendees are
probably familiar with this equipment, because each of
these manufacturers has received the NSF seal.* Within
the overall sanitation system, there are 16 stream dis-
charge units, two spray irrigation units, and one evapo-
transpiration unit. The remainder of the units rely on
subsurface tile field discharge. In addition, four families
are using recycled wastewater from a single installation.
The sanitary district employs a licensed sewage treat-
ment plant operator to monitor, service and test all
equipment in the project. Each unit in the project has a
control panel which will alert the homeowner of any
malfunction. Should a malfunction occur, the project
operator is on call to handle emergencies.
INSTALLATION AND RESULTS
Two years ago, at the first NSF Onsite Conference, it
was stated that "What we are trying to prove is that home
aerobic systems seem to be a viable alternative to
municipal teatment facilities in places where it costs
$8,500 per house to put in a municipal treatment plant."
The commission feels that an objective analysis of the
equipment now in use in Boyd County must support the
contention that this equipment is a workable alternative.
The test results achieved thus far at Boyd County indicate
a remarkable similarity to the tests conducted here at
NSF. The conclusion drawn from this fact is that, despite
the very different and fluctuating condition encountered
in the field, the system approach concept with regular
inspection and maintenance can, and has, assured opti-
mum operation of the various installations.
It was necessary in many cases in Boyd County to use
stream discharge for the disposal of treated effluent,
because, with the limited size or layout of the homesites
involved, surface disposal was the only way these families
could be served. The equipment which has been in service
for many months now has consistently met or exceeded
EPA stream discharge requirements. After initial treat-
ment, all steam discharge units at Boyd County are
followed by sand filtration and disinfection. It should be
kept in mind that all homes which now are using surface
discharge were previously either dumping raw sewage into
Upper Chadwick Creek directly, or allowing septic tank
runoff to flow into the creek.
*The Cromaglass model designated C-5 has not been listed by NSF
and is not authorized to display the NSF seal.
For the surface discharge systems which have been in
operation long enough to gather results (most of these are
Multi-Flo), some rather consistent patterns have de-
veloped. The following table is a composite of surface
discharge test results over the last five months:
DO, mg/l
PH
Temp. °F SS, mg/l BOD, mg/l
0.5-8.0 6.24-7.88 78-90
1-44
80*
2-11
47*
*The results of one test following a unit malfunction.
Naturally, some units have performed better than others,
and equipment malfunctions have occurred. The main
equipment problem has been the failure of electric pumps.
To date, the operator has had to replace nine malfunction-
ing pumps, all of which were under warranty. However,
such malfunctions do show clearly on test results. Specific
instances at Boyd County have yielded test results with
suspended solids counts that range as high as 358 mg/l on
subsurface discharge units.
Two other components of the project deserve special
mention: evapotranspiration and wastewater recycling. At
the O.T. Carter residence in Boyd County, with the
assistance of the Cromaglass Corporation, the sanitary
district has constructed a 2000-square foot evapotrans-
piration (ET) bed for the disposal of effluent from a
Cromaglass model C-5 aeration plant. The ET system,
which is actually two 1000-square foot beds, is sealed
with plastic to prevent the high ground water at the site
from flooding the beds. Constructed with 8 inches of
gravel and 18 inches of sand, the beds are crowned to
facilitate rainwater runoff. Covered with a layer of
topsoil, the beds have been planted with grass and
junipers.
One of the values of an in-the-field test of such
equipment is to observe the system's reaction to changing
circumstances and shock loading. In the case of this
particular evapotranspiration system, the design was in-
tended to serve the needs of a family of four; however,
because of a tragedy in the family, seven people now live
at this site, including three small boys. While the result has
been a large increase in water usage, particularly for
laundry use, the evapotranspiration bed has thus far
performed extremely well with only a slight modification
to the distribution box. Prior to the installation of the
treatment plant and ET bed, raw sewage stood in the yard
of this house from an inoperative septic tank and
drainfield, although the water usage was much lower than
it is today. Although the high rainfall in the area caused
some doubts as to whether the evapotranspiration concept
would function properly, the results thus far have been
very satisfactory. However, any final judgment on this
installation should await monitoring of its performance
through the winter and spring months ahead.
69
-------
One of the most important and perhaps most contro-
versial components of the Boyd County project from the
outset has been wastewater recycling. This component
appears to have been controversial to nearly everyone
except the families involved in the demonstration project.
In fact more requests were received for recycling equip-
ment within the district than could be met. Because the
use of this equipment was a source of considerable debate,
it is particularly gratifying to find that it has been one of
the most successful components of the project. Four
recycle systems, serving five homes, are part of the overall
Boyd County system: three Multi-Flo units, and one
Cromaglass unit. At this time, however, test data are
available only on the Multi-Flo equipment.
The recycling systems at Boyd County are composed
of a treatment plant, holding tank, disinfectant, polishing
filter and pressure tank. The standard treatment plant is
followed by a 1000-gallon holding tank used to regulate
flow by assuring an adequate quantity of relatively clean
water for the recycling equipment, even in the event of a
temporary problem with the treatment plant. From the
holding tank, water is pumped past an iodine disinfectant,
receiving a constant dose of 0.5 ppm. A small contact
tank is used to retain the iodine-treated water for 20
minutes to allow for maximum disinfection. From here
the water is filtered in a charcoal column equipped with
automatic backwash to reduce maintenance. The charcoal
removes iodine from the water, and provides a final
polishing cycle by further reducing suspended solids
before the water enters the pressure tank, ready for reuse.
Tests show that this recycle system provides extremely
consistent results. A clear, odorless water of excellent
quality is produced with suspended solids averaging 5
mg/l, and a zero fecal coliform count. Equally important
has been the high degree of consumer satisfaction with the
day-to-day use of recycled water.
Also at the first NSF Onsite Conference, it was stated
that ". . . . one of the most significant aspects of the
system approach for the future is that if we form a sewer
district, a body of municipal government, it gives us for
the first time a vehicle by which the Federal Government
can participate in the funding of home onsite sewage
treatment plants." The goal was first to show that the
sanitary district or system approach was a workable
solution for the management of a rural system of onsite
equipment, then to work with other Federal agencies to
provide grant funds for such systems. Although the Boyd
County testing program will continue for some time, the
initial results indicate that the system approach is indeed a
workable idea for rural areas. Through the efforts of
Senator Randolph and his excellent staff, and the many
people at EPA who have expressed interest in the project,
the ongoing funding for projects using the system ap-
proach is now a reality.
LESSON LEARNED
At this point, with the option for Federal funding
before us, it is important that we also point out some of
the pitfalls and lessons of the Boyd County project. One
of the most important and difficult problems in Boyd
County has been simply getting the system built. Two
years ago it was expected that, by this time, the
demonstration would have been completed. Today, how-
ever, systems serving 24 families are now in place, with an
additional 11 units now in the installation process. In the
next month, an additional group of six installations will
be made. There are three basic reasons for this slow pace
of project completion, and each is important to the
success of future systems. The first problem has basically
been one of grants management, and has resulted in no
small measure from unfamiliarity with the complexities to
be encountered on the part of both the commission and
the grantee. This has now been resolved through negotia-
tions with the grantee. Basically, this is an internal matter
that other Federal agencies can avoid through careful
preparation of grants management guidelines.
The second problem was one of legal delay. As with
many new ideas, there has been a cautious attitude on the
part of State and local regulatory officials who are
responsible for public safety and health. Although frustra-
ting at times, this cautious attitude, when viewed from a
long-range perspective, is important to avoid serious
mistakes involving the well-being and safety of the general
public. Therefore, a great deal of time was spent in
securing the necessary approvals to begin the implementa-
tion of the project while insuring proper safeguards. With
more systems being constructed with Federal grant funds,
and the resulting familiarization with the advantages and
limitations of alternative systems, this reluctance toward
alternative systems should begin to diminish in the near
future.
The third problem is that not many engineers and
contractors are, as yet, familiar with standards, methods
and requirements for the most efficient installation of
alternative systems, particularly in the wide variety of
installation problems found in servicing all homes in any
given rural area.
Basically, there is a great need for the widespread
availability of technical information on the design, instal-
lation and operation of alternative systems. The lack of an
adequate technical base is one of the reasons that the
Boyd County project has not been installed efficiently,
resulting in duplications of effort and higher costs. It was
found in Boyd County that it is a very complex task to
install a system of individual units, and general expertise
in this field is not yet available. There is a definite need
for a detailed engineering study which takes into account
the particular needs of each family being served, including
70
-------
family size, site layout, appliances in the home and many
other factors.
It is important to note that wherever possible, i.e.,
where pressure was available, iodine was used as a
disinfectant rather than chlorine. Thus far in the program,
we are satisfied that iodine is very reliable. Finally, it has
been found that, where applicable, multifamily units offer
greater economy of installation and operation, and greater
efficiency for maintenance purposes.
OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE
Looking to the future, now that we can see the
emergence of alternative systems as a recognized, accepted
tool for addressing the problems of rural sanitation, we
are hopeful that other Federal agencies will follow the lead
of EPA. This is particularly true of the Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA), which over the years has been so
responsive to the needs of rural America. The Farmers
Home Administration has a total of $800 million for
water and sewer system construction ($200 million for
grants and $600 million for loans). Unlike other major
Federal programs, FmHA is specifically charged with
meeting the needs of rural America. Involvement in the
system approach alternatives will help that agency serve
more people with the resources that it has available.
It is essential at the outset that we proceed wisely so as
not to abort the new grant process in its infancy.
For both the industry involved in alternative systems
and for regulatory officials, it is extremely important that
a comprehensive manual be developed (similar to the
Manual of Septic Tank Practice) which will put into the
hands of sanitarians, engineers and health officials an
authoritative "How To" book on methods, standards and
procedures. Such a manual, based on the experiences of
the Boyd County project and the numerous other
installations around the country, should provide specific
information with respect to system applications, uses of
disinfectants, surface and subsurface disposal system
construction, recycling, etc. The value of such a manual
cannot be overstated in the development of future
systems, both as a guide and as a statement of minimum
standards. In fact, the need for such a manual is so
important to the whole concept of rural sanitation in
Appalachia and elsewhere, that I would like to announce
that the Executive Director of the Appalachian Regional
Commission, Mr. Harry Teter, Jr., will within the next few
months request the participation of industry, government
funding agencies, and experts in the field to gather in
Washington, D.C. to discuss the funding and composition
of a representative committee to assist in the development
of such a document.
Secondly, I urge the industry to establish a trade
association which can effectively set industry standards
and can present the industry's viewpoint in the drafting of
future legislation and regulations which affect rural
sanitation.
Further, with respect to future Federal grants for a
system approach, it is equally important that the param-
eters for funding alternative onsite equipment be struc-
tured in such a way as to insure that the end-product will
resemble the intent, namely, to improve environmental
health conditions in rural areas by providing sanitary
services which are effective and within the financial reach
of rural areas which have incomes below the national
average. Obviously, no matter how good a proposed
solution (or tool) may be, it is worthless if the intended
users cannot afford it. It must be kept in mind during this
discussion, that we are referring to relatively small systems
serving perhaps less than 250 families. Therefore, the
commission urges the consideration of the following
funding proposals by other Federal agencies:
First, the initial construction grant should provide not
only for the purchase and installation of equipment, but
should provide funds for an initial 90-day startup period
for the system. This startup is a critical period of
adjustment in which numerous unforeseen problems may
arise requiring a great deal more maintenance than the
normal operating period. Funded as a component of the
basic construction grant, this 90-day period would assure
adequate attention to the equipment without depleting
the resources of the newly formed sanitary district with
very limited capital. During this 90-day startup period, the
sanitary district should be encouraged to collect its
established maintenance fee so that, at the end of the
startup period, the district will have sufficient operating
capital to provide quality services on better than a
marginal financial basis.
Another essential element of the initial construction
grant should be the ability to stock spare parts and tools.
This is essential from both the standpoint of starting the
sanitary district off on the right foot as a financially
self-sustaining, ongoing service organization, and from the
standpoint of providing effiecient maintenance. For exam-
ple, the operator of the system will not have time to stand
out in the rain trying to determine why a pump or other
pieces of equipment are not working. Provided with an
adequate parts inventory, he can simply replace nonfunc-
tioning equipment and examine it for possible repair at a
later date, as time permits.
Finally, and perhaps most controversial, as part of the
initial grant for equipment and installation, the Federal
agency regulations should provide for one service vehicle
for a community initiating a "system approach" concept.
Such eligibility should be restricted as to the maximum
dollar amount by a sliding scale based upon the number of
families to be served, within an overall maximum and
minimum size. This eligibility should be on a one-time
only basis and with an explicit prohibition against
replacement.
71
-------
The point of these recommendations on future Federal REFERENCE
funding is to insure that our ultimate purpose will be
attainable. The purpose—affordable, effective sanitation 1 "Senator Randolph Stresses the Need to Explore New
for rural areas. Whatever we can do at the Federal level to Sewage Treatment Concepts," Congressional Record
get new sanitary districts using a system approach with 122:152 (October 26, 1976).
onsite equipment off to a good strong financial start, will
serve us well for years to come. We are on the verge of a
new era in meeting the needs of rural America. Let's start
here to assure that the challenge ahead will be successfully
met.
72
-------
A CONSULTANT'S OVERVIEW OF ON-SITE NEEDS
John T. Winneberger*
INTRODUCTION
Einstein searched for the common denominator of the
universe and philosophers searched for common denom-
inators of human experience. They must have been lonely
men, surrounded by people segmenting unifying concepts
and understanding ideas only in terms of real devices.
Concepts become reality slowly and usually only in
response to great need.
THE OSWMD CONCEPT
California has had no greater need for the On-Site
Wastewater Management District (OSWMD) than other
States. Still, California has been the vanguard of the
concept, but only because someone with the concept in
mind was there when a chance came to apply it as much
as practical. There is a need for understanding the concept
and applying it as often as practical to do so.
Essentially, the OSWMD concept is:
1. Provision of public responsibility with matching
authority, for management of all wastes; and,
2. Return of all wastes to an assimilative environ-
ment, as close to sources of generation as is
practical.
A LOGICAL PROGRESSION
Years of neglect led to the environmental movement.
And when the EPA was created, there was a huge job to
be done. Understandably, first efforts were directed
towards greatest sources of pollution, and public sewerage
collected the largest volumes of pollutants. Concurrently,
public sewers were constructed because public sewerage
compared to on-site sewerage, has always been simpler in
technical concepts, simpler to manage, and easier to find.
Energies have been directed towards providing public
sewerage in many places, but everyone knew that we
couldn't sewer all of the nation and the day would come
when we would be forced to face that fact. That day has
come. Witness this EPA first: National Conference on
"Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small
Communities."
•John T. Winneberger
Project Director
Governor's Office of Appropriate Technology
Berkeley, Cal.
For a variety of reasons, minor public sewerage will
likely receive major attention, and pressure sewers seem
the likely device. Later might have been on-site devices,
but a common component, the septic tank, might assist
co-evolvement of minor sewerage and on-site sewerage.
Also, the OSWMD concept embraces both devices.
The EPA and the OSWMD concept have a future
together. Economics demand it, students of governmental
progressions would predict it, and people and their
environment would benefit from it.
PRESSURE SEWERS
Effluent Collection
A most promising, less costly wastewater treatment
system for smalt communities and perhaps urban fringes
appears to be the pressure sewer. Treatment begins within
individually located septic tanks, from which effluents are
pumped into pressure mains and transported to sites of
final treatment. If septic tanks, pumps, mains, and final
treatment plant are publicly owned, the system is public
and might be governed by conventional laws, agencies,
and such.
Pressure sewers are less costly than customary gravity-
flow sewers and do not pose difficult technical problems.
They are not a common tool of sanitary engineers, but
can be easily understood. Sumps, pumps, and pipes are
hardware, available in good quantities, and are always
being improved. Pressure sewers which collect effluents,
however, have septic tanks, or the same devices identified
by some other name. Septic tanks used in pressure sewers
are not well understood and many functions are technical
mysteries. It is suggested that:
1. The EPA could study septic tanks as "extended
primary sedimentation basins," with emphasis on
production of effluents best suited for pressure
sewer collections and final dispositions.
ON-SITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Public Responsibility to Replace Private Responsibility
The myriad of household situations, devices available
for on-site treatment, and absence of competent on-site
management, point to the need for the on-site waste-
73
-------
water management district, the OSWMD. Once the
OSWMD is available, septic-tank systems and other
treatment devices, may become suitable where they were
not before. Therere, the OSWMD concept constitutes a
less costly wastewater treatment approach for small
communities.
The OSWMD concept has become topical. Largely
from efforts of Gary Plews, R.S., for example, statewide
guidelines for OSWMDs are now provided in the State of
Washington. The EPA has expressed interest through
support of interested staff of the Small Scale Waste
Management Project, University of Wisconsin. Doubtless,
districts will be started in many places and some may be
grant-supported.
Grant-supported OSWMDs risk becoming econom-
ically unable to stand alone when outside funding
ultimately leaves. It is not always obvious how to guide
a financially dependent project into financial indepen-
dence. In California, the OSWMD concept has become
reality in various ways and degrees. Each California
OSWMD has been self-starting and, ignoring imperfec-
tions, economically sound. Therefore, California's
OSWMDs could serve to guide efforts elsewhere towards
economically sound practices. It is suggested:
2. The EPA could study the history of evolvement
of California's OSWMDs, their economics, practices,
and likely futures.
Cursory descriptions of OSWMDs and guidelines for
them have been discussed in draft: Winneberger, J.T.,
and J.A. Burgel; On-Site Wastewater Management (Rural
Wastewater Disposal Alternatives), Final Report, Phase I;
Report from the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research to the California State Water Resources Con-
trol Board; P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, California 95801;
In preparation.
The OSWMD concept is broad. In application, an
OSWMD might design, construct, own, and maintain
both on-site systems and, if needed,'a common sewer to
some sites leading to a common treatment facility. From
such total management of all wastewaters, OSWMD
applications could range down to perhaps a district
without contiguous boundaries and providing infor-
mation to homeowners until economics permit more
services. Thus, it is believed proper to suggest that:
3. The EPA could endeavor to provide guidelines
for OSWMDs capable of little to total responsibil-
ities, and to demonstrate their value.
Manuals, Standards, Guidelines, etc.
The USPHS Manual of Septic-Tank Practice was not
intended to be ubiquitous law. Nevertheless, what were
intended to be guidelines for a kind of on-site systems.
became rigid regulations in many places. Soon it was
believed, for example, that seasonally high groundwaters
always needed to be 4-feet or more below the bottom
of a disposal field, physical reality notwithstanding. That
and other restrictive and technically unsound regulations
have needlessly deprived some property owners of their
rights.
Worse yet, some zealous authorities wishing to bypass
public judgments, have found restrictive septic-tank
regulations an excellent subterfuge in personal efforts to
control land use, to control kinds and densities of
developments, and to curtail growth. The EPA, being a
potent national authority, might unintentionally worsen
matters by provision of rather specific "guidelines",
granted by knowledgeable scientists to be unsound.
There are current efforts to produce manuals, stan-
dards, guidelines, or whatever else would consistute
attempts to predesign systems for unknown myriads of
applications. Some proposals have been directed towards
achieving EPA involvement. Based on extensive research
and on-site experiences, it is asserted that no amount of
new standards will replace rational judgment of on-site
situations. New tools and education, rather than new
restrictions, are needed. It is suggested that:
4. If the EPA provides guidelines for non-
proprietary, on-site wastewater disposal systems,
only general, positive, and practical guidelines
would be of general benefit. Restrictive guidelines,
unless based on well-established scientific fact, and
unless needed to be presented, would best be
provided by local authorities. Criteria for OSWMDs
would be an example of positive guidelines.
Qualification of Proprietary Devices
There is no governmental agency adequately funded
and charged with responsibility for qualifying propri-
etary on-site wastewater disposal devices. A non-profit
but still private business, supported by industries having
devices tested, could not be believed by everyone to be
genuinely independent of its sources of revenue.
The rapid development of proprietary devices for
on-site sewage management has far surpassed the ability
of local authorities to judge each. Thus, there is an
immediate need for a governmental organization which
by laboratory and real field tests, describes attributes of
proprietary devices. From published data, local author-
ities could then judge matters for themselves. Objec-
tivity, contrary to some beliefs, would be enhanced by
avoidance of provisions of standards, seals of approval,
wall plaques, or other symbols of acceptance, con-
stituting what ultimately must be arbitrary goals to be
achieved.
Perhaps a governmental agency could be govern-
74
-------
mentally funded (to provide job security), industries
with candidate devices could be charged for services, and
those monies could be diverted to other areas such as to
render the governmental organization as insensitive as
possible to influences of interested industries. At the
same time, a forum for outside scientific input should
be provided.
The need is now. But input from industries, local
authorities, engineers, and scientists should be had
before a full program is set forth. A pilot program might
be first in order.
AN OVERVIEW OF NEEDS
Disproportionate EPA Support
About 29% of the all-year-round housing units in the
United States are served by on-site wastewater systems,
mostly septic tanks. At the same time, the EPA's
Wastewater Research Division has spent 6- to 8-million
dollars on studies oriented towards public sewerage, and
only $793,000 last year on on-site wastewater tech-
nology. Roughly 29% of our citizens received 10% of
the monies spent searching for answers to problems.
Towards satisfaction of first needs, the EPA has
granted huge sums of monies in support of public
sewerage projects. Without a chance of direct self-
benefit, a taxpayer not served by a public sewer
subsidized his sewered neighbors. At more than one
public meeting, someone served by a septic tank said,
"How come I am buying sewers for somebody else? I
pay taxes too!"
5. The EPA would seem well justified to spend far
more monies in research and development of
technology of on-site wastewater treatment than it
has in the past.
Complexities of Technology
Although impressive in hardware, the public sewerage
system is technically simple. Most persons grasp the
concepts readily and successful systems can be predict-
ably designed. In contrast, on-site situations pose a
myriad of complexities. Few people understand the
functions of the most common device, the septic-tank
system. And, successful systems cannot always be
predictably designed.
Too Few Seasoned Scientific Authorities
People knowledgeable in on-site technology know
that there are at most, a handful of seasoned scientific
authorities. And, fewer yet are scientific authorities who
are at home in the practical world.
Essentially, any rapid evolvement of OSWMDs could
not be staffed by fully prepared personnel. If univer-
sities chose to educate in on-site technology, there are
no trained teachers or even an adequate textbook. More
yet, not all research developments have been reported,
time to write them up being needed.
6. There is an immediate need for a textbook
approach to on-site wastewater treatment devices,
with special emphasis on subsurface disposal fields.
The book should be written by a recognized,
practical authority.
Creative Scientists Are Needed
In dispensing public monies, government needs jus-
tification for choices of expenditures. When building a
bridge, for example, firm understandings before projects
are begun are proper. Creative research, however, cannot
be purchased as would a bridge. Researchers have no
way to know beforehand where understandings of the
unknown are to be found. They only can direct and
redirect as data are collected.
It is common knowledge that acquisition of EPA
support for research requires more skills than likely to
be had by creative researchers. At least one nationally
recognized authority testifies to the situation. Univer-
isities and other research businesses employ professional
proposal writers. There are courses in grantsmanship.
And, it is well understood that proposals for projects
with predictable outcomes are more likely to be funded
than perhaps more imaginative proposals. As a result of
such matters, some creative scientists may not be
available to the EPA, and thus to serve the public. Also,
some research programs tend to be not more than
enlargements of past, known works. Corroboration of
knowledge is worthwhile, but that is not the entire
reason for repetition.
7. There is a real need to view creative scientists
as national resources and put them to work with
as few aggravations as possible. Of course, not
every creative scientist is known, but some have a
discernible track record.
Complexities of Communications
A child's game is each in turn, whispering a message in
one another's ear. Initial messages and end results rarely
match. For such reasons, lawyers respect rules of
hearsay. Governmental processes, however, suffer such
chances of miscommunications. The pyramid descends:
from Federal, to State, to county or township, and
finally to the individual on-site situation. Each level has
its own pyramid, and regional arrangements may be
inserted. Universities constitute an interesting side
75
-------
branch in that communication pyramid. The grant 8. There is a need for top-level, decision-making
process has caused development of relatively direct lines governmental authorities to confer with nationally
of communications between researchers and liaison staff recognized, practical, scientific authorities on on-
of funding agencies. But, university researchers generally site wastewater systems.
have poor communications with the on-site sewerage
industry. University researchers and practical fieldmen Such a conference, or conferences, needs to be as
simply do not communicate in the same language. That, informal as possible, with as few participants as are
in part, contributes to a time gap between research genuinely needed, and with adequate time to explore
findings and practical applications. individual thoughts.
76
-------
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF SMALL PLANTS
John L Fripp, Jr.*
The Georgia Department of Transportation is very
much involved in the functions associated with the
operation and maintenance of numerous and diverse
small wastewater treatment plants.
At this time, we have eighteen small plants operating,
to treat wastewater being generated from the same num-
ber of safety rest areas located on Georgia's interstate
highway system. Some of these are located up to three
hundred and fifty miles apart.
When our interstate highway safety rest area program
is completed, it is anticipated that the Georgia Depart-
ment of Transportation will be operating and main-
taining thirty-eight small wastewater treatment plants
for fifty-one safety rest areas. Some of the safety rest
areas will be served by city or county wastewater treat-
ment systems.
These small wastewater treatment systems range in
capacity from fifteen to forty thousand gallons per day.
The small capacity plants consist of septic tanks, the
effluent of which is dosed to sub-surface sand filters and
the effluent chlorinated. There are four of these that
have been in operation for about ten years with very
satisfactory service.
Ten plants consist of activated sludge primary treat-
ment, followed by secondary treatment polishing ponds
and chlorinated effluents. These have been operated for
four to six years.
In addition there are four activated sludge plants
which are furnished with rapid sand filters for secondary
treatment. These have been in operation for a period of
one to three years.
Obviously, if each of the eighteen wastewater treat-
ment plants were managed independently of all others,
the cost effectiveness of the entire system would be
questionable.
"John L. Fripp, Jr.
Georgia Dept. of Transportation
Atlanta, Ga.
All treatment plants are required, by Public Law
92-500 as administered by the regulatory agencies, to
restrict the pollutants in our discharge to what have
been acceptable levels, and what will soon be even lower
levels of pollutants. It follows, then, that operation and
maintenance levels of performance must be regulated by
management in order to insure operation within the
legal limitations imposed upon us all.
Good management requires that sound judgment be
applied to the use of resources to accomplish a goal.
Recognizing that the goal is the continued, uninter-
rupted service provided by a wastewater treatment plant,
we next should acknowledge that the resources con-
sist of many things, much more than money. If good
management is applied to all resources, then the amount
of money required should be reduced. This should be
particularly true when multiple plants are constructed
and managed by a central agency, whether a city,
county, private industry, or State agency.
There are at least six major areas to consider in
constructing and successfully operating one, or many,
small plants. The same management policies should be
applied to all six of the following development pro-
cesses:
1. Selection of engineers to determine needs and
treatment process
2. Construction Phase
3. Select and provide a plant operator
4. Provide for laboratory testing
5. Maintain lines communication between reg-
ulatory agency, management, laboratory and oper-
ator
6. Exercise balanced fiscal policy.
Let us take each of the before mentioned items and
examine them in more detail in order to more clearly
define management's role:
1. Selection of Engineers: Just as with individuals,
no two engineering firms have equal experience,
skills, capabilities, work loads, and particular
abilities.
77
-------
The selection of an engineering firm should be
done after a preliminary investigation of several
engaged in providing the services required. This
selection for a specific endeavor can mean the
difference between a well-planned, low cost,
successful project or a costly, partially successful
one.
The firm selected should have successfully de-
signed and supervised construction of plants of
approximately the capacity, treatment function
and degree of treatment that will meet the
requirements of the project.
2. Construction Phase: The engineer who designed
the facility should represent the owner during
construction. The manager should maintain close
contact in order to become familiar with the
components of the system, if he is not already.
Once the construction is completed and the
engineer's services are fulfilled, then it will be
necessary for the manager to communicate with
the regulatory agency, the testing laboratory, and
the operator. This will require a knowledge of
treatment plant nomenclature and at least a basic
understanding of the design process.
3. Select and Provide a Plant Operator: In
Georgia it is required by State law that a plant be
operated under the supervision of an operator who
has been examined by a State board of examiners
and certified as a wastewater treatment plant
operator.
Management must usually provide for the nec-
essary training of operators and for their helpers.
Management should always make provision for
uniformity of testing procedures and for a pro-
gram of operation and maintenance of mechanical
equipment.
It is an unwelcomed bit of information, to most
people, to learn that waste treatment plants are
not automatic in operation and that it is necessary
to provide for a treatment plant operator's good
judgment to the system. This is an absolutely
necessary component of any good waste treatment
system.
The personnel requirements should be considered
at the same time that the treatment process is
studied. The two are inseparable because the
complexity of the treatment plant determines the
necessary qualifications of the operator.
For example, when a septic tank with a sub-
surface sand filter is being considered in design,
then it is generally recognized that land area
requirements and construction costs are higher. It
should be equally important to note that main-
tenance and operation costs are lower than for
similar sized activated sludge treatment plants.
Energy costs are lower than for similar sized
activated sludge treatment plants. Energy costs are
lower and the time and attention required of a
plant operator is considerably reduced. Not all
wastewater treatment problems can be applied to
this type of system, however, because flexibility is
limited.
When an activated sludge treatment system, of the
intended aeration type, is utilized, then capital
improvement cost might be reduced but opera-
tion and maintenance costs are increased. A more
knowledgeable plant operator is necessary in order
to maintain effluent quality with non-uniform
flows and strength of sewage.
These are basic considerations in balancing the
waste treatment system with operations and main-
tenance budget limitations.
When multiple treatment systems are centrally
managed, as with the Georgia Department of
Transportation, then the operating personnel cost
may be divided over several plants. This is partic-
ularly true when the geographical area in which
the plants are located is small.
As with all livelihoods, the salary requirements for
plant operators increase with skill and experience.
The degree of technical expertise, along with a
desire to do a good job by the plant operator does
affect the performance of any waste treatment
plant. The level of performance required of the
operator must be balanced with the complexity
and level of performance required of the plant.
Cutting operating cost by providing lower paid
unskilled personnel is false economy. The resulting
higher equipment operating cost due to misuse or
poor routine care can more than offset the savings
in salary cost. Then, too, maintaining the pollutant
limits of the plant effluent is usually not achieved
consistently, sometimes resulting in more capital
outlay being required in an effort to improve the
teatment process.
The selection of a plant operator is no less
important for limiting the discharged pollutant
levels than the selection of the plant treatment
system, although it is rarely considered in this
way.
4. Provide for Laboratory Testing: The effec-
tiveness of the treatment process must be mon-
itored in compliance with regulatory agency re-
quirements. This requires certain laboratory equip-
78
-------
ment and skilled personnel. We are fortunate in
that we have available good laboratory facilities
and skilled personnel to perform the necessary
testing.
The results of the test (five day bio-chemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform,
dissolved oxygen, pH, and chlorine residual) are
reviewed each month by the operator, the reg-
ulatory agency, and management.
Where deficiencies exist, corrective measures are
undertaken.
Composite samples are obtained and laboratory
analyses are performed once each month, by
Department laboratory personnel, on thirteen of
the eighteen treatment plants. The average yearly
cost of this monthly service is approximately
twenty-two hundred dollars for each plant.
5. Maintain Lines of Communication: I have little
doubt that this is one of the most difficult jobs
that management has. It is one of the most
important.
If the operator does not see the results of the test
until a month later, it does him little good.
Communication must be swift and concise or the
treatment process accomplishes far less than de-
signed for.
6. Exercise Balanced Fiscal Policy: The impor-
tance of placing the same level of consideration on
the operation and maintenance of the small plants
as is placed on the design and construction of
them is often ignored. One reason for this is that
during the design and construction phase, too little
is said about the cost of operation.
One of the responsibilities of the designing
engineers is to evaluate the operating cost of the
treatment process selected. This information
should be brought to the attention of manage-
ment, and the necessity of budgeting for equip-
ment maintenance, repairs and replacement, even
during the first year of operation, should be
emphasized.
Energy cost, lubricant cost, chemical cost, the cost
of safety equipment such as flotation gear, and
self-contained re-breathers for use in handling
chlorine gas, miscellaneous tools and electrical
fuses, and the cost of operator test equipment
should all be recognized and realistically budgeted
for.
In a centralized management system, bulk buying
at reduced unit cost should be taken advantage of
and distribution made as required.
In summary, by applying the same successful manage-
ment techniques to wastewater treatment plants, as is
applied to most other areas of business or government,
the best results can be obtained from our water quality
control efforts.
79
-------
OWPO POLICY
John T. Rhett*
I am very happy to join you in examining some new
approaches to provide less costly wastewater systems for
our smaller communities.
Since this session this morning will be wrapping up
the conference, it is appropriate to summarize a few of
your findings and to congratulate you as members and
participants, for the very worthwhile contributions you
have made to the exchange of information and ideas on
our subject.
This conference came about because evidence is
accumulating rapidly that many wastewater treatment
facilities that have been funded or planned for funding
through our National Construction Grants Program, are
too expensive for the local population, particularly the
small communities. During the past two days, you have
been exposed to alternatives which may be more cost-
effective in many instances than conventional sewering
and treatment.
Our problem is that solutions such as the pressure
and vacuum systems you have discussed, the cluster
systems, land treatment systems, honey wagons, cen-
tralized management of small plants, and the like, do
not currently belong to the lexicon of the centralized
treatment planner. In order to gain acceptance and a
full and fair consideration of such alternatives, our pro-
gram policy is to call for a careful evaluation of all
the viable alternatives in each situation. This evalua-
tion requires that the economic impact on the families
in the community be a significant consideration in the
planning and these costs, both in capital and O&M, must
be explained, in detail, at public conferences on the
facility plans.
Often insufficient credit has been given in the plans to
improvements that can be made to the operation of
existing systems—for example, to the septic tanks. Please
note that we are not trying to tilt the analysis toward
bias in favor of small systems but rather toward a care-
fully balanced analysis of all the solutions to the local
"John T. Rhett
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
water pollution problem. As you know, previously the
tilt has been against the small and innovative systems.
Whatever the alternative that is selected, it must of
course, be environmentally acceptable and meet the
requirements of the Water Pollution Control Act. It
must provide best practicable waste treatment tech-
nology or some more stringent level of treatment, as
required by standards for water quality, in-stream.
It should be noted that our definition of BPWTT
includes a standard for protecting ground water, where
planned disposal systems such as septic tank leach fields
are used. It is a major concern to us that this is often
misinterpreted to require that effluent must be of drink-
ing water quality when disposed of on the land, or into
the soil. The correct interpretation is that the effluent
has to be of this quality when it reaches an acquifier
that is presently being used, or may potentially be used,
as a drinking water source. Common sense would sug-
gest that local geographical, geological and climatic con-
ditions should be capitalized upon where these are for-
tuitous.
My office of water program operations is taking a
variety of steps to assure the costs are reduced, where
possible, for small communities.
• We changed the secondary treatment require-
ments to eliminate disinfection, except where re-
quired by water quality standards.
• We are allowing for less stringent limitations on
suspended solids from small treatment lagoons.
I cannot stress too strongly the benefits we expect
from this allowance for the small town ponds. There are
between 2,000 to 3,000 of these, and they provide
generally adequate treatment without overly sophisticated
or costly O&M.
• We are also requiring that facility plans present
local capital and operation and maintenance costs
in readily understandable form and that this in-
formation be presented at all public hearings on
facility plans.
80
-------
The stage is set for the examination of lower cost
alternatives by the people directly affected.
• We are modifying the cost-effectiveness guide-
lines to establish policies and guidelines that en-
sure cost-effective sizing and staging of treatment
works. To ensure plans do not overestimate future
growth:
• We are improving population projection criteria
and guidance for estimating wastewater flow and
treatment works size.
• We are improving the procedure for determining
construction staging periods that are most cost
effective.
• Finally, we are encouraging sanitary engineers,
regulatory engineers and health officials to update
design criteria, practices, and health requirements
to take into account the new materials, new knowl-
edge and accumulated experience.
This conference is one part of this educational, in-
formational effort.
Most importantly, we are currently preparing guidance
to our regions to emphasize that adequate consideration
be given to low-cost systems, and to emphasize the
eligibility of septic tank-soil absorption systems, or
alternative systems serving individual homes and small
clusters of homes. A copy of this draft guidance or pro-
gram requirements memorandum, was included in the
materials for this seminar. We are currently analyzing
the comments we received and preparing the final di-
rective. Until this is completed, the draft memorandum
you have represents the policy of the agency. Basically,
this policy is that on-site systems serving clusters of two
or more homes are eligible for grant funding, if they are
State approved and certified projects. Certain minimum
standards must be met:
1. A project must be the most cost-effective that
will meet local conditions and satisfy State and
Federal requirements.
2. A project must be owned, operated, monitored
and maintained by a municipality.
3. The facility must be located on public property,
except where easements will suffice, such as for
installing sewers, providing access to and main-
tenance of facilities located on private property.
4. Secondary treatment or some more stringent
level required by water quality standards, must be
the minimum, if the effluent is to be discharged
into our waters.
5. Septic tank leach fields or other land disposal
techniques must meet local. State and Federal
groundwater and public health criteria.
6. Vehicles and associated capital equipment re-
quired for servicing of the systems are also grant
eligible.
I will be specific on this point:
• Vehicles purchased under the grant must have,
as their sole purpose, the transmission or trans-
portation of liquid wastes from the collection point
(holding tanks) to the treatment facility. Neither
general maintenance vehicles, nor other types of
vehicles are allowable for grant participation.
One of the major causes of septic tank failure is the
lack of regular removal of septage.
I would like to emphasize that septage treatment
systems and vehicles purchased, as I just described, to
serve a group of individual family systems are eligible
for 75 percent Federal grants.
Also, by this time, you should be advised that cur-
rent Federal regulations specifically recognize pressure
sewers as grant eligible collection systems. These regula-
tions define the area of eligibility to include pumping
units and pressurized lines for individual structures or
groups of structures. This is when such units are cost-
effective and are owned and maintained by the grantee.
Where the planner does not consider the alternatives
we have been discussing, his project will be turned down
during State or EPA regional review. We are pleased to
see that projects, such as those for the bay-to-bay sanitary
district and for the Southwest Lincoln County, both lo-
cated in Oregon, were disapproved. Disapproval was
based on the judgment that the planned sewering was
unwarranted and truly cost-effective alternatives were
overlooked.
We are also pleased to see communities such as Apple
Valley, California, defer costly conventional sewering and
consider a septic system inspection and maintenance
program.
We particularly want alternatives to be assessed with-
out regard to eligibility for Federal funding.
For this reason, we are extending the use of facility
planning grants to consider carefully the alternatives
which may or may not be eligible.
Some project costs are, of course, unavoidable due to
construction inflation, adverse soil and climatic condi-
tions, or stringent water quality standards requiring ad-
81
-------
vanced waste treatment. Where relief is essential, EPA at
this time is primarily dependent on publicizing additional
financial support available from other Federal agencies
such as Farmers Home Administration.
To assist municipalities in raising the local share at
reasonable rates, the recently passed Loan Guarantee
Law will soon go into effect. Under this law, loans from
the Federal Financing Bank to finance the local share
will be guaranteed by EPA. Interest rates will be set by
the bank and should approximate the Federal borrowing
costs, plus a fee for servicing.
I have some thoughts in summary. Under certain con-
ditions smaller, less costly, wastewater treatment sys-
tems, servicing equipment, and residential waste disposal
facilities are eligible for EPA grants, where they are cost-
effective. Insofar as new installations are concerned, the
law and the regulations impose no restrictions on types
of sewage treatment systems. Septic tanks and absorption
fields, holding tanks, package plants, pressure systems,
and so forth, are all eligible for funding when projects are
State approved and certified and where minimum stand-
ards are met and two or more homes are served. Use of
small facilities may reduce capital and O&M costs. They
may also reduce the need for highly-trained operators
which the sophisticated systems generally require. Small
communities have difficulty in finding these operators
and even more difficulty funding them.
We hope this conference has been of value. We ap-
preciate your help towards cleaning up our nation's
waterways, and if this conference has provided you with
more capabilities toward this end, then it has been a
success.
Call upon us at any time if you have questions or
need assistance.
82
-------
208 PROGRAM
Joseph Krivalc*
For the past two days, you have heard a number of
horror stories about the economic impact of conven-
tional wastewater collection and treatment systems in
small communities. This topic unquestionably will con-
tinue to be highlighted and will receive continuing at-
tention by EPA regions, States, local communities, and
consultants. It is of course long overdue attention.
Let me provide you with a short quote from a re-
port on the subject which I looked at a few days ago. It
was a report from a symposium—such as this. It iden-
tified a number of problems as follows:
• The absence of clearly established responsi-
bility for planning and provision of services.
• The absence of clearly established responsi-
bility for risk-taking and development invest-
ments; and
• The absence of adequate procedures for co-
ordination.
The symposium was held by the Institute of Govern-
ment on Better Water and Sewer Services for Small
Communities. And it took place ten years ago.
While we are beginning to concentrate on this new
found interest in facility planning, we should keep in
mind and use the data-analysis and planning which is
currently underway under Section 208.
There is little doubt that Congress had this issue in
mind when Title II of the FWPCA was written. While
the program details were not spelled out, the language
in the act certainly provided the concepts and the direc-
tion we should take. Language in both Section 201 and
208 calls for consideration of the full range of alterna-
tives to meet cost-effective requirements, environmental
standards and social-economic objectives.
Four years later, how well have we done in 208 plan-
ning to carry out the mandates set forth in the act?
"Joseph Knvak
Chief Non-Point Sources Branch
Water Planning Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
While 208 is often seen as a complex section of the
act, it becomes less so when you focus on the purpose
behind each of its elements.
In respect to wastewater systems for small communi-
ties, the objectives of 208 are clear:
(1) The recognition that elected officials of local
government assume a major policy-making role in
the 208 effort. At the community level, the public
policy questions in balancing management of
growth, deciding who benefits and making de-
cisions on who pays the costs is as important as
in the major cities.
(2) The requirement that management and im-
plementation decisions be made as an integral
part of the 208 process. You have heard enough
speeches about plans on the shelf that it doesn't
bear repeating.
If we needed any more evidence of the scope of the
problem it has been provided to us by the 208 areawide
agencies. As you know, there are now 176 areawide
agencies funded—in addition to the work going on in
each State. When we provided guidance to these agencies,
we didn't ask them to do everything in the short time
they had to develop a program, but rather to tackle the
worst problems. It wasn't a surprise when better than
50% identified failing onsite wastewater disposal systems
as a significant source of surface or ground water pol-
lution.
The planning process is now well underway and plans
are now starting to emerge. While only one plan has gone
through the State approval process we have seen about a
half dozen in draft stage. In some, the old style engi-
neering view has prevailed. The agencies are primarily
recommending central treatment facilities with related
collection systems rather than the use of alternative cost-
effective systems for onsite wastewater disposal. Al-
ternative, efficient systems for onsite wastewater disposal
were usually not investigated in the plans. In instances
where the 208 plan indicated that the area contained a
proliferation of onsite disposal systems, but a problem
did not currently exist, little attention was given to any
kind of an operation or maintenance program that could
prevent potential future failures from occurring.
83
-------
The 208 planners as well as their consultants are look-
ing at onsite wastewater disposal systems in the tradi-
tional manner, mainly as short term interim systems that
will be abandoned as the central treatment plant and
collection system is extended further into rural and
suburban areas. This philosophy does not take into ac-
count the economic cost of colle.cting and treating munici-
pal wastewater. The simple fact is, as this meeting so
succinctly brought out, that many smaller communities
cannot afford the luxury of a central treatment system.
The alternative is to make the present system work
through implementation of 208 plans. Wastewater man-
agement agencies can be created at the State and local
level that will administer programs to regulate the design,
installation, operation and maintenance of onsite waste-
water disposal systems through licensing, certification,
bonding requirements and inspection permits. Let me
quickly spell out some of the findings and recommenda-
tions which are representative of the reports:
• Unsuitable conditions for subsurface wastewater
disposal.
• Lack of maintenance and repair
• No inspection once installation is completed
• Detection of violations depend primarily on
citizen complaint and occurs only from most
glaring problems.
You will note that the majority of the issues are not
technical—but institutional—legal problems. So it is not
surprising that a major emphasis of the 208 plan recom-
mendations and need for action is not laying out systems
of control but calling for management and maintenance
systems to tackle the tough political and regulatory
issues.
I believe the 208 plans provide a sound basis for fa-
cility planning. They will not and are not designed to be
the decision for the technical-financial-management
details. While I've expressed an optimism for the results
which will come from the 208 process—all is not rosy.
There are many hurdles to cross over before we have a
sound national program for small community systems.
While our policies are now or will soon be in a position
where we will permit certain things to happen, our pro-
grams must be developed so they encourage and are
responsible for these actions taking place.
The following points will be important in develop-
ing a program which will be responsive to meeting public
needs from an economic, social acceptance and environ-
mental standpoint.
(1) Do not spend time on reinventing the wheel.
208 planning has or will have laid a sound frame-
work for small community systems in many areas.
Funds for facility planning should not be used to
restudy the same issues. In few cases, if any, should
population projections be restudied. By and large,
problem identification and analysis will have been
studied in sufficient depth to make the decisions
which will be required without spending money
and wasting time on another similar exercise.
(2) The agency/States/local communities must
demand a change in direction in facility planning
in many areas. Conventional systems—such as those
you have heard about in the last two days and
which wasted time and money to design must be
nipped in the bud at the earliest stage of planning
as possible. I'm not saying that small community
systems will provide all of the answers and we
abandon everything else. I am saying that we truly
look at all alternatives, without prejudice of long
dead engineering or social acceptance values.
(3) Both public and private sector must look close-
ly at the kind of expertise we are utilizing. It may
be quite different than what we have used in the
past. I don't know if there will be any need for
recycling of engineering expertise. I do know that a
different mix of know-how is needed if we mount
a truly national program. The institutional and
management problems will be significant. Since
many of the projects will involve communities
with little or no history of providing services to
their constituents and the likelihood of that infra-
structure developing quickly is not high, the role of
EPA, State government and the private sector will
be very important.
(4) Someone—a public agency—will have to provide
hands on assistance to a greater degree than ever.
I'm not sure where this comes from—or even if it
exists in the form required at the present time.
EPA doesn't have it. Most states don't have it. Risk
capital may be required to get the private sector
involved.
(5) Better coordination at the Federal level will be
needed. This involves more coordination within
EPA-more coordination between EPA and other
Federal agencies. In most cases, the same need for
coordination exists at the State level.
(6) More attention must be paid to the common
issues, concerning water supply and waste dis-
84
-------
posal. Many small poorly managed water services In summary, the policy decision which will let us get
co-exist in the same areas with malfunctioning on with the task of helping small communities to develop
septic tanks. reasonable wastewater systems solutions has been made.
The planning done under 208 can provide a good start
• Upgrading of supervision and regulation of for facility planning in many areas. All of the tools we
small community waste disposal systems must need are available — if we know how to use them.
consider the water supply systems. EPA has
major responsibilities in both areas and must
decide how best to coordinate its authorities
and programs.
85
-------
STATE PERSPECTIVE - FACILITIES PLANNING
FOR SMALL UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES IN ILLINOIS
James R. Leinicke*
The State of Illinois has some 880 incorporated com-
munities of less than 2500 persons. Until the advent of
the construction grants program for sewerage facilities,
most of these towns were unsewered, with sanitary needs
being met with septic tank systems. These septic systems
were frequently poorly designed, installed, and main-
tained. Encouraged by State and county regulatory
agencies, most of these towns have applied for Federal
grant funds to solve their sewerage deficiencies.
In many cases, this cure has caused more problems for
our streams than were the malfunctioning septic tanks.
The financial resources for operation and maintenance of
treatment plants are low in these communities, and treat-
ment plants frequently perform far below their intended
efficiency. Our Agency has attempted to alleviate this
problem by encouraging the use of relatively simple types
of treatment plants, such as lagoon systems for towns of
under 2500 persons. Unfortunately, as ever stricter efflu-
ent and water quality standards have become effective in
Illinois, even lagoon systems have become complex, and
costly. With large numbers of small unsewered commu-
nities coming into priority for Federal Step 1 grants, we
began to realize that the conventional solution to waste-
water disposal problems in unsewered communities, which
up to that time was build a sewer system and treatment
plant, was no longer within the financial capabilities of
many communities, even with grant assistance.
This concern was given impetus by our experience in
our own State grant construction program.
Prior to the time when most small communities came
into priority for Federal Step 1 grants, the State of Illinois
pulled a number of them out of the Federal priority list
for funding with State money in a separate grant program.
Our State funded grants program, which was terminated
in July, 1976, was identical to the Federal program, but
allowed the State to get a number of projects under con-
struction for which we felt there was a pressing need ir-
regardless of their low Federal priority. Among these were
quite a few projects for small, unsewered communities
which had been certified by State health officials as hav-
*James R. Leinicke
Supervisor
Facilities Planning Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Springfield, III.
ing a serious public health hazard as a result of malfunc-
tioning septic systems. Under the State program, quite a
few of these communities went all the way to construc-
tion before we began to receive facilities plans for similar
towns on the Federal priority list.
This State program gave us an opportunity to evaluate
the economic effects of this type of sewerage project on a
small town. Towards the end of the State program, we
made a study of some 23 unsewered communities of
under 1000 persons which had let bids for a new sewer
system and treatment plant, mostly lagoon systems. The
results of this study were disturbing to us, particularly as
we had begun to receive indications that some of these
towns had seriously over-extended themselves financially
to fund the local share of their projects.
Our study revealed the following information about
costs in these 23 communities as they existed at the time
of plant construction:
1. The average total project cost, less O&M and in-
terest, was $1552 per capita, or about $4600 for a
household of three.
2. The actual local share for a typical small town
project consisting of collector sewers and lagoon
system with filters for algae and disinfection facili-
ties amounted to 43% of the total project cost. The
average local share cost per capita was $631.00, or
about $1900 per household of three.
3. Roughly 61% of the total project cost was for
the collection system.
4. The total project costs averaged 110% of the
1974 assessed evaluation of these communities. The
local share cost of these projects averaged 42% of
the 1974 assessed evaluation.
Carrying this one step further, we assumed the minimum
possible annual O&M cost for this type of treatment sys-
tem, roughly $7000.00 per year, and calculated monthly
user charges for the two most common types of local
share financing then in use — an FHA loan at 5.5% for 40
years and conventional financing at 7% interest for 20
years. The average monthly user charge using the FHA
figure was $15.64, while the average monthly user charge
86
-------
with the 20-year 7% loan was $19.36. Although calculated
using some conservative assumptions, these costs are high,
particularly when applied to small rural communities.
Along with our concern over the costs of conventional
sewerage systems, we also began to seriously question
their cost-effectiveness. Obviously, some of these small
unsewered towns had serious, widespread problems with
septic systems due to poor soils, water supply by private
wells, and other factors which seemed to indicate the
necessity of a sewer system despite the cost. However,
many of these towns applying for Step 1 funds had a
much less obvious need for such a system. Septic tank
malfunctions were scattered, and, while highly visible and
frequently a nuisance, were not clearly causing stream pol-
lution, and often were few in number compared with the
total number of systems in the community. It became
obvious to us that in many unsewered communities cor-
rection of individual malfunctioning septic systems would
have to be far less costly than a new sewer system.
Our Planning Section first suggested that facilities plans
seriously address the continued use of septic systems as an
alternative to conventional sewerage projects in 1975, but
failed to find support for the idea within our own Agency.
The general feeling at that time was that a Step 1 plan of
necessity should point the way towards a construction
grants project, and a policy favoring on-site disposal ran
counter to that goal. However, in the following year, evi-
dence that a less costly alternative to a conventional sys-
tem was needed continued to grow. Finally, U.S. EPA
provided us the mechanism we needed to establish a new
policy in the form of the "No Action" alternative require-
ment in planning. As conceived, the "No Action" require-
ment was literally a requirement to examine the actual
effects of foregoing a construction project to maintain the
status quo. We interpreted it broadly as giving us license
to require examination of a wide range of unconventional
approaches to sewage disposal in unsewered communities,
including continuance of some type of on-site waste dis-
posal, either with or without some sort of construction
grant project. As such, our concept frequently required a
good deal of action on the part of grant applicants.
In the spring of 1976 we began requiring an examin-
ation of the so-called "No Action" alternative in newly
submitted plans for unsewered communities, with very
unsatisfactory results. For decades, the whole thrust of
sewerage improvement in Illinois, indeed the nation, had
been away from individual septic systems and towards a
modern, centralized sewerage system for every commun-
ity. Policies encouraging sewer systems over septic tanks
were reflected in State and county septic tank regula-
tions, and in numerous State position documents. Quite
naturally, most Illinois consulting engineers failed to take
the "No Action" requirement seriously, viewing it as an
additional piece of Federally inspired red tape that did
not have State support and requiring only cursory treat-
ment in facilities planning.
Consequently, throughout the spring of 1976 we re-
ceived many facilities plans for small unsewered communi-
ties which dismissed the whole issue of continued use of
septic systems by statements to the effect that septic
tanks were unacceptable for use in the area due to poor
soil conditions, high seasonal ground water, or some other
cause. Virtually no one documented these conditions or
provided a cost-effectiveness analysis. More disturbing, the
universal assumption was that a lack of a sewer system
automatically meant a stream pollution condition existed,
again without documentation. A number of these com-
munities were towns with which I EPA personnel were
familiar, and in many instances we were positive that
there was no water pollution occurring.
It was at this point, in the summer of 1976, that our
Agency decided to commit itself to the serious examina-
tion of the "No Action" alternative for unsewered towns
of under 1000 persons. We had two goals in mind:
1. To determine in the Step 1 process whether or
not a water pollution problem actually existed
which justified a community sewerage project, as
our priority system had apparently failed to per-
form this function adequately;
2. To attempt to find less costly means of meeting
the legitimate needs of a community other than the
traditional sewer system and treatment plant. It was
our hope that if a facilities plan could not justify a
Step II and Step III grant for a sewerage project, it
could still serve as a worthwhile document for use
by the community in correcting its problems on a
local level. This seemed increasingly important in
view of the fact that many plans were recommend-
ing a conventional system with no other options,
and the communities were unable to raise the neces-
sary local share funds to proceed with the facilities
plan recommendation.
In response to these concerns, I EPA drafted a set of
basic guidelines for the examination of the "No Action"
alternative for small, unsewered communities, and mailed
them out to every consulting firm known to be doing
sanitary work in the State, and to every regional planning
commission. We also adopted these guidelines as a stan-
dard attachment to our application package for a Step 1
grant.
The guidelines contained several basic parts:
1. The guidelines required that when either stream
pollution or a public health hazard is alleged to re-
sult from malfunctioning septic systems, the facili-
ties plan must provide specific documentation of
the nature and extent of the problem.
2. As an extension of this, the plan must document
the nature, number, and location of septic tank mal-
87
-------
functions. To achieve all of this, the guidelines
recommend a community survey of every individual
disposal system, to be carried out by local officials or
their consultant.
3. The guidelines require that in cases where poor
percolation rates and high ground water conditions
are alleged as factors limiting the usefulness of in-
dividual on-site disposal systems, these conditions
will have to be documented by percolation tests and
soil borings.
4. The guidelines require that in any analysis of the
"No Action" alternative, a technically feasible pro-
posal for meeting the needs of the community by
some means other than a new collection system and
treatment plant should be made, and its present-
worth cost compared to the present worth of the
most cost-effective conventional system.
5. Because the use of individual septic systems in
Illinois is regulated by a separate Agency, the Il-
linois Department of Public Health, we included in
our guidelines several minimum conditions which
under IDPH regulations must exist before new indi-
vidual septic systems of conventional type can be
built. These exclusions, however, do not rule out
the more sophisticated types of on-site disposal
systems.
6. We required that where applicable, facilities
plans must examine alternatives such as a limited
service sewer system to serve a portion of a com-
munity. For example, in many small towns septic
systems work very well except in one isolated area,
such as the business district where open space for
adequate on-site disposal is not available.
7. Finally, we required estimated monthly user
costs be clearly spelled out for each alternative in
the facilities plan.
Reaction to the issuance of these guidelines was quite
pronounced. In drafting them, we were very much aware
that our own knowledge of how this issue should be ap-
proached was limited. However, in sending out the guide-
lines our intent was not so much to give the last word on
how the subject should be approached so much as to get
the attention of the consulting world. In this respect they
were successful. The guidelines by no means had the uni-
versal support of our own engineers, many of whom felt
that the entire concept was too radical a departure from
established practice. The initial response to the guidelines
was split between strong support, generally from the plan-
ning community, to strong dislike, generally from the en-
gineering community. But all parties immediately began
offering constructive criticism which in a matter of a
couple of months considerably modified the actual man-
ner in which these guidelines are applied. We decided, for
instance, that most of the theoretical business of soil
types, etc., was not really too relevant in determining
whether continued use of on-site disposal systems was
viable. In Lake County, for example, published soil
studies indicate some of the most unfavorable soil condi-
tions for septic systems in the entire State. However, a
vigorous and innovative county health department makes
systems work in that area. In contrast, many areas of the
State where favorable conditions predominate have a wide
incidence of septic system failure.
Finally, we de-emphasized many provisions of the
guidelines in favor of the community survey, intended to
accurately determine existing conditions. We felt that real-
istically these constituted the best indicator of the feas-
ibility of on-site disposal in a particular area. In practice,
virtually no one has been required, for example, to do
percolation tests or soil borings, but we have insisted on
good surveys.
To help implement this phase of the program, agree-
ments were reached with Region V of U.S. EPA so that
existing Step 1 grant offers could be easily amended to
pay the additional costs of the community survey and an
in-depth analysis of "No Action." We also prepared a
sample questionnaire as an aid to communities in their
surveys.
The results of this type of survey have been interesting.
Almost the first communities to carry it out were six
small towns in the central part of the State, all concen-
trated in one county. A single engineering firm had sub-
mitted almost identical facilities plans for the six com-
munities. All the plans dismissed septic systems as being
unworkable due to inadequate soils, alleged the existence
of water pollution, and indicated enthusiasm on the part
of the citizens for the proposed sewerage project, which in
every case was a collection system and multi-cell lagoon
system.
We required a community survey in each town. The
results may be typical of those we will see throughout the
state. Of the six towns, three were found to have no iden-
tifiable stream pollution resulting from septic systems,
and few individual system malfunctions of any sort.
Furthermore, the citizens of these three communities
when polled were found to be strongly opposed to a sew-
erage project, and were under the impression that it was
being forced upon them by the State and Federal Govern-
ment. We had only received a hint of this attitude in the
public hearing minutes submitted with each plan.
In the remaining three communities, one town had no
identifiable needs, but the citizens favored a community
sewerage project, apparently in hopes it would be a worth-
while community improvement. Only one community had
a clear, widespread need for a conventional collection
system and treatment plant, as well as community sup-
port. Not surprisingly it was the largest of the six. The last
88
-------
town had needs, but little public support for a sewerage
system. However, it appears that these needs may be met
by a project which does not involve construction of a
complete sewerage system.
Six small communities where facilities planning had
called for a conventional sewer system and treatment
plant, and upon close analysis, only one such system was
justified. In only two communities did the people even
want such a project. We believe that such results may
ultimately prove to be typical of much of the State.
Our application of this program has had some notable
successes, but has also pointed out some serious problems.
On the plus side we have seen a number of facilities plans
for communities currently served by septic tanks which
discharge to an existing small diameter village tile sys-
tem. In the past, our Agency would have insisted that
a new sanitary sewer system be built. We are now allow-
ing the continued use of such systems with only the
addition of a lagoon system to treat the tile discharge.
This departure from our past policy was made with
strong reservations in some quarters of our own Agency,
but seems justified in that even with tile improvements
as much as 50% of the cost of a conventional project
can be saved by this approach. A number of communi-
ties are going ahead with this sort of project.
We have just reviewed a facilities plan proposing new
on-site disposal systems to serve clusters of homes. In this
case, the disposal systems will be municipally owned and
operated, constructed on easements obtained from prop-
erty owners. This alternative appears to be very cost-effec-
tive, allows for much more sophisticated disposal systems
than are normally associated with single residences, and is
eligible for grant funding under the present rules.
We are very pleased with these successes. However, we
also have discovered some serious problems. One of the
most basic difficulties we have encountered is a general
lack of expertise within our Agency and within our State's
engineering community in regard to on-site disposal. This
is not surprising in view of the many years of official
discouragement towards this approach to waste treatment.
In Illinois, the officially recognized and widely known
methods of on-site disposal are the conventional seepage
field, the seepage bed, and the buried sand filter. Newer
developments, such as the Wisconsin mound, are virtually
unknown. Along with a lack of expertise goes consid-
erable mistrust for new approaches, and this mistrust
extends to such developments as pressure and vacuum
sewer systems. Without experience with these newer types
of systems, our consultants are reluctant to recommend
their use and our own engineers are even more reluctant
to approve them. We believe that there is a tremendous
need for an effective, national clearinghouse of infor-
mation on this subject, along the lines proposed by
Senator Randolph. The clearinghouse should report all
developments and experiences in this field, whether
resulting from a Federal research project, developments in
the private sector, or actual experiences in the States.
Without a tremendous effort in education in this field, we
are simply not going to be able to overcome the
widespread bias against these approaches to wastewater
treatment to the degree necessary to have a wide impact
on future sewerage practice.
Another serious stumbling block is the present lack of
eligibility for on-site systems serving a single residence. In
many instances, the total cost of upgrading individual
systems in a community appears to be far less costly than
a conventional sewerage project, but perhaps more than
the local share cost of the conventional project. In such an
instance the cost-effectiveness of maintaining single resi-
dence disposal is not too obvious to the local officials.
The people who have to bear the costs in that alternative
are frequently those who can least afford it. This dilemma
has been the single most significant problem we are facing.
Since we don't have a solution, we have advised many of
these communities to delay the completion of their plans
until we see whether or not and under what terms the
government might provide financial assistance to upgrad-
ing individual systems.
In addition to providing a national clearinghouse for
new technology and extending eligibility to upgrading
single residence disposal systems, we believe there are a
number of other steps which the Federal government
could take to aid the states in successfully applying this
program. One obvious field of assistance is in the
development of new technology. Some areas where
support is needed are:
1. Development of satisfactory "low" water or no
water plumbing fixtures for residences.
2. Development of "dual pipe" plumbing which
separates grey water and black water flows, with the
grey water being put to beneficial uses.
3. Development of new types of economical and
environmentally desirable on-site disposal systems
for use on marginal soils and small city lots.
In addition to expanding grant eligibility to single
residence systems when municipally owned and operated
there are other financial incentives that might be provided
to encourage on-site disposal:
1. Consider making the construction of public
water supplies grant eligible where the elimination
of private wells might make the continued use of
septic systems feasible.
2. Expand funding to research and development
grants for innovative and inexpensive disposal sys-
tems and for the management tools necessary to
make them effective.
89
-------
3. Fund demonstration grants for new types of
on-site disposal systems throughout the country to
reflect differing regional conditions and require-
ments.
4. To promote improvements to residential disposal
systems in areas where direct local government
control of facilities is not feasible, make low interest
loans or tax deductions available to homeowners for
the improvements.
5. Provide greater support for research and develop-
ment outside the Federal sector, including research
and development by industry in this field.
6. The government could encourage innovative pro-
jects by offers to piggy-back Title 2 grants with
demonstration grants to pick up the local share cost.
The present system discourages small communities
from innovative and therefore high-risk projects due
to the substantial investment they must make in the
system.
7. Finally, the Federal government and the States
must recognize that the success of this apporach to
waste disposal relies heavily on an intensive, highly
individualized approach to facilities planning on the
part of consultants. "Cookbook" solutions will not
suffice if maximum dollar savings and environ-
mental compatibility are to be achieved. What this
may mean is a substantially more detailed and
costly Step 1 effort, as the consultants will have to
be paid enough to make a highly individualized
facilities plan profitable for them, even if a major
construction project does not result from their
efforts. The potential savings in public money by
eliminating unnecessary conventional sewerage
projects are tremendous, as has been pointed out at
this conference. A greater Step 1 investment to
achieve this goal seems to be sound business.
We are hopeful and enthusiastic about the potential
economic and environmental benefits of decentralizing
wastewater disposal in small towns. Before we will enjoy
a great deal of success, however, this aspect of sewerage
practice has a great deal of catching up to do with the
tried and accepted centralized systems. We in Illinois will
continue to support this program as much as we possibly
can, but if it is really to have a significant impact on waste-
water practice, then all its aspects; technical, financial,
and managerial, must receive at least as much, and in
many ways more support from the Federal government
than has been given in the past to conventional methods
of wastewater disposal. We are now in the very midst of
the problem, and that support must be massive and
immediate.
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE "NO ACTION"
ALTERNATIVE IN SMALL, UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
To aid in the preparation of facilities plans for
unsewered communities of less than 1000 population, the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has prepared
guidelines for use by consulting engineers. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency regulations require that all
facilities plans examine the "no-action" alternative, which
for unsewered or partially sewered communities includes
examining the cost-effectiveness of upgrading individual
residential disposal systems as well as other alternatives
which might meet the sewerage needs of the community
short of an area-wide collection system and treatment
plant.
The need for siioh an approach in facilities planning has
been verified by engineering estimates demonstrating that
capital and O&M costs for a centralized sewerage system
in certain of these small communities are likely to be
prohibitive. The costs frequently exceed the financial
capabilities of the community. Adequate evaluation of the
"no-action" alternative would, in these cases, at least
result in a facilities planning document which could serve
as a working plan for a community to resolve its
individual wastewater problems if a community system
were economically infeasible or non-cost effective. It is
the intent of this Agency that all facilities plans contain
some implementable solution to satisfy both community
wastewater needs and water quality goals.
With this in mind, the following guidelines will govern
this Agency's review of planning for small, unsewered
communities:
Definition: Malfunctioning systems are generally de-
fined as disposal systems discharging to farm tiles, storm
sewers, village tiles, surface drainage ditches, ground
surface, rivers, lakes, streams, or intermittent waterways.
Included in the malfunctioning category are all cesspools.
A) No Action Alternative:
1) In cases where it is alleged that malfunctioning
septic systems are causing or contributing to viola-
90
-------
tions of Chapters Illinois Water Pollution Control
Regulations or provisions of the Environmental
Protection Act, the applicant shall provide evidence
in the form of stream sampling and discharge data,
to support such allegations.
2) In instances where malfunctioning septic systems
exist, but stream pollution cannot be clearly demon-
strated, a health hazard may nonetheless exist. Any
claim to such a condition must be supported by
documentation from State, county, or local health
authorities, citing specific conditions in the com-
munity.
3a) For either of case one or case two above, a
community survey must be conducted to determine
the number of residential disposal systems in the
community, and the number, nature, and location
of malfunctioning systems.
It is suggested that the following questions be
answered for each residence:
1. How old is the septic system?
2. How often is it cleaned?
3. Any known surface discharges?
4. Any other malfunctions?
5. Lot size?
6. Is a garbage grinder connected?
Force account work may appropriately be used for
the collection of this information providing prior
Federal/State approval is obtained.
3b) Percolation tests shall be performed in the
community, and the results included in the planning
to determine the local soils' compatibility with
septic systems. In general, a separate representative
percolation test should be performed for each
different soil type in the community. Percolation
tests shall be performed in conformance with Rule
7.02 of the 1974 Private Sewage Disposal Licensing
Act and Code (hereafter referred to as the 1974
Act) by the Illinois Department of Public Health
(IDPH).
4) For either of case one or case two above, and
based on the information obtained in the com-
munity survey and soil tests, an alternative to
sewage collection and treatment shall be provided
which specifically lists the capital costs and meth-
odology involved in bringing all of the malfunction-
ing systems into compliance with IDPH regulations
using any approved method listed in the 1974 Act,
or by any other method which the consultant can
support as being a workable alternative for that
geographical area. To these capital costs may be
added a reasonable estimate of additional capital
costs to upgrade systems which may be currently
functioning, but which, based on the community
survey, may be expected to malfunction during the
planning period due to old age or because the
installation does not meet current IDPH construc-
tion or design standards.
The consultant shall list the total costs, for up-
grading individual systems, and document the basis
of the cost estimate.
An operation and maintenance cost shall be in-
cluded for operation of septic systems which con-
sists of pumping out the tanks not less than once in
three years. More frequent pumping, up to once a
year, may be justified for specific systems identified
in the survey as requiring it due to garbage grinders,
other unusual wasteloads, inadequate tank size, etc.
The consultant may wish to analyze the desirability
of regular septic tank pumpage as a municipal
service, using municipal equipment. (The cost of
such municipally-owned and operated equipment is
eligible for grant consideration.)
The sum of the above costs will be regarded as the
cost of upgrading residential systems, and expressed
as present worth, may then be compared for
cost-effectiveness with other alternatives, including
a partial or complete sewer system and centralized
treatment plant.
5) In place of the survey and percolation tests
described in three above, where the following
conditions can be proven to exist based on pub-
lished soil studies, soil borings, and percolation
tests, it may be assumed that the soil is unsuitable
for conventional septic tank-tile field disposal sys-
tems, and that alternative may be eliminated from
further consideration:
a. An overburden of less than 30' of soil over a
creviced limestone formation.
b. The presence of the maximum seasonal
ground water level, based on soil borings, less
than 4' below the lowest point of a distribution
field.
c. The presence of "fragipan" or other im-
permeable formations less than 4' below the
lowest point of a distribution field.
d. Percolation test results in excess of 360
minutes for a 6" fall of water in the test hole.
6) In cases where it is shown that conventional
residential disposal may not be suitable for a
particular geographical portion of a community (for
example, in an old business district where no ground
is available for disposal fields and septic tanks
91
-------
discharge to a storm tile), but the remainder of the
community is suitable for septic tank service, the
applicant should include an alternative of a limited
collection and treatment system.
B) Sewage Collection and Treatment Alternatives:
In the presentation of a community collection and
treatment alternative, the plan must state the estimated
monthly sewer charge to each user. In addition, the
estimated charge must be presented at the public hearing
on the facilities plan.
COST GUIDELINES
Costs of residential disposal systems will, of course,
vary depending on topography, the nature of the system,
the size of system, and the area of the state. However, this
Agency has asked the Illinois Department of Public Health
to provide some cost figures based on rates charged by
several central Illinois contractors. The following cost
figures were suggested for the complete, installed price of
conventional septic tank-tile field systems, on level
ground:
750 gallon septic tank with 250 lineal feet of
distribution field - $650 installed
1000 gallon septic tank with 300 lineal feet of
distribution field - $800 installed
1500 gallon septic tank with 300 lineal feet of
distribution field - $1050 installed
Buried sand filter installations of all types, including
septic tanks and tile fields, were estimated to cost
between $2000-$3000, with $2500 as an average.
Understandably, estimated costs will vary from county
to county across the State. However, these figures will be
used by this Agency as a basis for judging appropriateness
of actual estimated costs for no action alternatives in
facilities plans.
92
-------
FmHA PROGRAMS FOR SMALL COMMUNITY SEWAGE FACILITIES
Glenn E. Walden<
It is indeed a pleasure for me to attend this conference
on behalf of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This morning I
would like to share with you some information about the
Farmers Home Administration, particularly as it relates to
the Agency's program of financial assistance to rural
communities for the development of waste disposal
systems. My discussion will touch on the Agency's
delivery system, a brief review of the program back-
ground, funding, basic eligibility requirements, and some
of our observations in working with rural communities in
the development of waste disposal systems.
The Farmers Home Administration and its predecessor
agencies have been in existence for well over 40 years and
have administered a continually growing program of
financial assistance to farmers, rural residents, and rural
communities. These programs are administered through a
delivery system composed of a network of 1777 county
offices located throughout the Country, 42 State Offices,
and a National Office located in Washington,D.C. Within
each State there are district offices. The district director is
a field representative of the State Director's staff and is
the organizational link between the county and State
office. The focal point in this delivery system is the local
county office which is managed by the County Supervisor
and staff and serves one or more counties. The county
office should be an individual's or organization's first
contact with the Agency since all requests for assistance
are processed through this office. The State Office,
composed of the State Director and staff, provides
assistance to the County Supervisor when needed in
processing applications. It also reviews and approves loans
and grants which exceed the County Supervisor's approval
authority. The National Office, composed of the Admin-
istrator and staff, provides program planning and policy
guidance, technical assistance, and reviews and concurs in
certain projects for approval consideration. This delivery
system has proven to be a most effective approach to
working with rural residents and rural communities,
primarily because it offers ready access to the Agency at
the local level and lends itself to establishing an effective
channel of communication between Agency personnel and
prospective applicants.
"Glenn E. Walden
Community Programs Loan Officer
FmHA
Washington, D.C.
Through this delivery system the Agency administers
over 27 different loan and grant programs that include
funds to assist farmers and ranchers acquire, develop, and
operate farms and ranches; housing for rural residents and
migrant laborers; rural business and industrial develop-
ment; and essential community facilities. These programs
are budgeted at over $6.4 billion for fiscal year 1977.
However, as I mentioned earlier, today we will focus on
our loan and grant program for assisting rural community
organizations in the development of new and improved
waste disposal systems.
Authority for FmHA to finance community waste
disposal systems originated in 1965 with the passage of
the so-called Poage-Aiken bill. Prior to this time and
dating back to 1937 with the passage of the so-called
Water Facilities Act, FmHA and its predecessor agencies
had worked only with farmers and other rural residents in
the financing of community water systems. The Poage-
Aiken bill also authorized a program of development
grants for water and waste disposal facilities. Presently the
program of loans and grants for communities is authorized
under the authority of Section 306(A) of the Consol-
idated Farm and Rural Development Act.
As of December 31, 1976, the Agency and its
predecessor agencies have committed over $3.5 billion of
loan funds and $676 million of grant funds to approxi-
mately 9187 communities for the development of com-
munity water and waste disposal systems.
The systems financed under this program have or will
provide service to over 3.5 million rural families or over
13.6 million rural people. The program has expanded
considerably since 1970 with over 79 percent of the funds
being committed since then. This indicates two important
points:
1. There is a recognized need for new and improved
water and waste disposal facilities in rural America.
2. Funds are being made available to meet these
needs; however, the demand is far exceeding the
funds made available.
As is the case with most other Agencies, we are
dependent on funds made available annually with which
to administer the program. For the 1977 fiscal year that
we are presently in, we have available $600 million in loan
93
-------
funds and about $265 million in grant funds. I might
point out that amounts are for both community water
and waste disposal systems. Historically, we have given
priority to water systems. This is not the case now,
however. Our experience indicates that roughly two-thirds
of the funds are used for water projects.
When the loan and grant funds are received they are
allocated to the States based on a formula which considers
each State's proportion of the U.S. population in open
country and towns of less than 10,000 population outside
urban areas and each State's proportion of rural per capita
income which is below the National rural per capita
income. The rural population factor and the rural per
capita income factor are weighted 2 to 1, respectively.
In addition to the formula amount, each State is given
a base amount of $20,000. A national reserve is main-
tained which is administratively distributed to the States
by the Farmers Home Administration Administrator
when he determines the additional allocation is necessary
and appropriate. Within the State allocation, the FmHA
State Director determines which projects should be
funded.
Eligibility for water and waste disposal loans and grants
is based primarily on five factors:
1. The applicant must be a public body such as a
town, county, district or authority; a nonprofit
corporation; or an Indian tribe. Water and waste
disposal funds may not be used to serve any city or
town having a population in excess of 10,000
according to the latest decennial census of the
United States. Priority is given the public bodies
serving communities with a population of 5,500 or
less having an inadequate water or waste disposal
system.
2. The applicant must be unable to obtain the
needed funds from other sources at reasonable rates
and terms. FmHA cannot compete with commercial
credit sources.
3. The applicant must have the necessary legal
authority to borrow funds and repay a loan, to
pledge secu 'ty for a loan, and to construct, operate,
and maintain the facilities or services.
4. The applicant must propose a project that is
economically feasible and one that represents a
cost-effective approach to provide the needed ser-
vice.
5. In the case of a grant, it cannot exceed 50
percent of the eligible project development cost.
Grants are considered only on those projects serving
the most financially needy communities where
needed to help achieve a reasonable user cost.
Ordinarily, grants are considered only when the
debt service portion of the average user cost exceeds
one percent of the median income for the commu-
nity.
Funds may be used to build or improve facilities for
waste collection and treatment including collection lines,
treatment plants, outfalls, disposal fields, and stabilization
ponds. Our authorities are quite broad in that essentially
any cost necessary to establish a community water or
waste disposal system is eligible. Our eligibility require-
ments are also broad and very few rural communities are
ineligible, providing they do not have adequate water or
waste disposal facilities and are unable to meet their credit
needs through other credit sources at reasonable rates and
terms.
As I mentioned earlier, all requests for Farmers Home
Administration assistance should be made through one of
our county offices. The County Supervisor will provide
guidance to the applicant in assembling the necessary
preliminary information and documentation as to the
eligibility and feasibility of the proposal. This information
consists of such items as preliminary cost estimates,
feasibility studies, organizational documents, information
on availability of other credit, options or required
property rights, copies of consultant contracts, and
financial statements. Funds are committed to the project
based on a favorable review of this information. Once a
tentative commitment of funds has been made, the
applicant and its consultants normally proceed with final
design, bidding, contracting, and actual construction of
the facility.
At this point I would like to discuss with you in more
detail some of our experiences in working with rural
communities in assisting them to develop adequate waste
disposal facilities. First, I think we should briefly discuss
our requirements relative to the planning, designing,
construction, and operation of these facilities. Basically,
these are:
1. The facility must be designed, installed, and
operated so as to meet the requirements of the State
Health Department or State Regulatory Agency, as
well as to meet the requirements of other financing
institutions, and Federal, State, or local regulatory
agencies.
2. Systems must have sufficient capacity to provide
for reasonable growth.
Within this framework, we view our function primarily
as that of a lending institution rather than a regulatory
agency. However, in this area there is a great deal of
latitude and room for judgment as to what constitutes
adequate facility and what is cost-effective. In reviewing a
proposal for funding, we must be mindful of the real
needs of the community, the resources available in the
community, and the potential of the community to
94
-------
properly operate and maintain the facility over the
long-run. We can see no productive purpose in stifling
rural community development which is the basic thrust of
the Agency's program by financing facilities that are
obviously beyond the means of rural communities to
support or which are obviously not cost-effective or in
harmony with the needs and desires of rural communities
to provide the necessary infrastructure for its residents to
have a better place to live and work.
Our experience has shown that due to a number of
factors, many rural communities have and are continuing
to install facilities that are very questionable from the
standpoint of being truly cost-effective. Also, many rural
communities have not been able to install any kind of
system for reasons beyond their control. However, in
viewing this whole spectrum, several issues stand out as
being in need of consideration. These are:
1. The cost of developing waste disposal systems
continues to increase due to inflation and other
factors. For example, recent cost estimates for a
waste disposal facility have run as high as $10,000
per connection which is far beyond the realm of
possibility for many small communities.
2. Rural communities cannot be considered on the
same basis as their urban or suburban counterparts
due to differences in such things as population
density, tax base, and income. However, their
pollution problems are just as severe.
3. Rural communities many times do not have the
"know how" or resources to properly operate and
maintain large complex facilities that are being used
in many cases at much less than their rated capacity.
Many times costs such as utilities, attracting and
retaining qualified operator personnel, when they
are available, and treatment costs for regional type
facilities, represent an unreasonable demand on
users of the facility and the resources of the
community as a whole. For example, we reviewed a
proposal for funding of a waste disposal facility that
would serve portions of three townships. The
wastewater was to be treated by a regional-type
plant. The treatment charge alone would amount to
over $140 per year for residential size connections
on the facility. When the operation and mainte-
nance cost for the remainder of the system was
added to this the total annual cost per connection
before giving any consideration to reserve or debt
retirement was over $177 per year.
4. There is a need for more funding to be made
available in rural areas for development of waste
disposal facilities. Several Federal agencies such as
EPA, FmHa, HUD, EDA, as well as other private
and institutional lenders are providing funds. How-
ever, several of the programs are urban oriented and
a small percentage of the total funds available are
actually being channeled into rural communities.
In considering available options to try to deal with the
issues I have just mentioned, FmHA believes that there are
several viable approaches. We recognize, of course, that
there are not any patent answers and that each commu-
nity must be looked at individually. However, based on
our experience in working with rural communities over
the years, we offer the following as some possibilities.
Most of these are interrelated.
1. In considering the development of a waste
disposal system, a realistic design should be per-
mitted without being locked into a given type of
collection or treatment system as specified by a
regulatory agency so long as the facility is designed
in accordance with sound engineering practices and
represents proven technology. For example, we have
found that in many cases a waste stabilization pond
with disposal of the effluent by land treatment
would provide the degree of treatment needed much
more economically than through the use of a
mechanical plant. Another example consists of a
case where a cost savings of approximately 30
percent was realized by using a vacuum-type collec-
tion system rather than a conventional gravity flow.
In addition, we have financed several pressure
sewers with interceptor tanks that are providing
satisfactory results. We are not inferring that in
many cases the use of mechanical plants and
conventional gravity collectors will not result in a
cost-effective design simply by proper sizing of the
facility.
I would like to emphasize again here that the real needs
of the community and its available resources be consid-
ered.
2. Additional consideration should be given to the
training of operator personnel. Most States have
implemented an effective training program, how-
ever, there is still a large gap between the demand
and the availability of trained personnel.
3. The use of shared services should be used to the
extent practical. In many cases this offers a viable
option to small communities to enable them to ac-
quire needed services of the desired caliber. Along
this same line the consolidation or merger of smaller
facilities should be considered when economies of
scale can be achieved. However, our experience
indicates that in many cases the regional concept
has not been effective in providing any reduction in
the cost of these services. In many cases, we have
found that the cost of connecting to and using a
regional system has been exorbitant for many small
communities.
95
-------
I realize that this discussion has only brushed the I would again like to express my appreciation for
surface about many of the complex issues involved in allowing us this time to talk with you about the role of
development of waste disposal facilities for small com- the Farmers Home Administration in rural community
munities and about our financial assistance program. waste disposal system development.
However, there are no easy answers and consensus is
difficult to achieve many times as to the correct approach.
96 •£ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-757-056/6566 Region No. 5-11
------- |