5
\
Vo Handbook for Managing
* Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized)
Wastewater Treatment Systems
An Introduction to Management Tools and Information
for Implementing EPA's Management Guidelines
EPA No. 832-B-05-001
December 2005
-------
EPA thanks the many organizations, public agency officials, and others who assisted in the development of this guide.
Participating organizations include:
National Environmental Health Association (NEHA)
National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA)
National Environmental Services Center (NESC)
National Association of City and County Health Officials (NACCHO)
Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP)
Water Environment Federation (WEF)
Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT)
National Association of Wastewater Transporters (NAWT)
National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT)
National Association of Counties (NACO)
For more information visit www.epa.gov/owm/onsite
Visit U.S. EPA's Onsite Wastewater Systems web site for more information
on onsite and cluster systems or how to start a management program. The
web site also provides design information for onsite and cluster system
technologies, information on management programs, links to partner
organizations useful in community education and outreach, publications
for homeowners, and guidance manuals, including additional documents
that supplement this Handbook.
Electronic copies of this Handbook can be downloaded from the
U.S. EPA Onsite Wastewater Systems web site at: www.epa.gov/owm/onsite
Printed copies can be obtained from:
U.S. EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications
PO Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (800) 490-9198
-------
Handbook for Managing Onsite
and Clustered (Decentralized)
Wastewater Treatment Systems
An Introduction to Management Tools and Information
for Implementing EPA's Management Guidelines
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled/Recylable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that contains a minimum of 50 percent
post-consumer fiber content processed chlorine free.
-------
Foreword. Why do I need this handbook? 1
What's inside 2
Introduction. What is management and why is it needed? 3
Benefits of decentralized systems 3
Building effective onsite programs 4
How to use this handbook 5
Chapter 1. How do we get started? 7
Initial scoping and outreach 7
Assessing the situation 7
Getting the ball rolling 8
Chapter 2. Where are we going? 9
Setting goals and objectives 9
Identifying stakeholders and their roles 9
Establishing goals and objectives 10
Convening a stakeholder group 10
Key questions to consider 11
Chapter 3. What is our current situation? 12
Assessing and analyzing existing conditions 12
Developing a community profile 12
Reviewing regulatory powers and management 14
Assessing public health and environment risks 15
Analyzing growth, development and future risk 16
Chapter 4. What is best for our community? 18
Developing or enhancing your management program 18
Selecting a management approach 18
A management framework to address gaps 21
Implementing the selected management program 22
Integrating wastewater system management 24
Conducting a reality check 25
Dealing with opposition to management 25
Chapter 5. How do we make our plan a reality? 26
Program implementation 26
Consideration of program authority 26
Funding management activities 27
Selecting a management entity 31
Evaluating the program 33
Additional Information and resources .. ...33
-------
Appendix A. Management program elements fact sheets 35
Public education and participation 36
Planning 37
Performance requirements 38
Recordkeeping, inventories, and reporting 39
Financial assistance 40
Site evaluation 41
System design 42
Construction and installation 43
Operation and maintenance 44
Residuals management 45
Training and certification/licensing 46
Inspections and monitoring 47
Corrective action and enforcement 48
Appendix B. References and additional resources 49
Management resources 49
Informational databases and websites 49
Guidance and policy documents 49
Financial assistance/funding documents 50
Planning/decision-making resources 50
Homeowner guides 51
Technical resources 52
Technical assistance resources 52
System design 52
Alternative systems 52
State onsite fact sheets 53
Risk assessment 54
Operation and maintenance 54
Training 54
Inspection, monitoring, compliance 54
EPA cooperating partners 55
Appendix C. Glossary of terms 56
-------
Why do I need this handbook?
One in every four households in the United States relies on an individual
onsite or small cluster system to treat wastewater. In far too many cases,
these systems are installed and largely forgotten - until problems arise.
On the other hand, EPA concluded in its 1997 Report to Congress that
"adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effec-
tive and long-term option for meeting public health and water quality
goals, particularly in less densely populated areas."
The difference between failure and success is the implementation of
an effective wastewater management program. Such a program, if
properly executed, can protect public health, preserve valuable water
resources, and maintain economic vitality in a community. To facilitate
proper management, EPA published Voluntary National Guidelines for
Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment
Systems. This handbook assists with implementing the guidelines and
is intended as a guide for communities that have evaluated a full range
of wastewater options and determined that decentralized wastewater
treatment is the most cost-effective and appropriate long-term option.
The handbook will help you to address some of the many challenges
faced by communitites. Here are some common scenarios:
• Waterfront seasonal recreational communities have
transformed into year-round bedroom communities whose
residents find their onsite systems overwhelmed and their
water quality threatened.
• Growing numbers of retirees are creating a demand for
development in relatively remote rural areas, which lack
significant wastewater infrastructure or management capacity.
• Scattered rural populations, often with limited incomes, suffer
nuisances and public health hazards due to poorly-built,
inadequately maintained, aging septic systems.
• Increasing growth pressure is occurring in the fringe areas just
outside established metropolitan areas, where it is not feasible
to extend sewer lines from existing treatment plants.
If you are facing similar wastewater challenges and are interested in find-
ing solutions for your community, this handbook is for you. It provides:
• A basic overview of the elements essential for the sound
management of decentralized wastewater systems.
This handbook is a great resource
for communities looking for
creative and affordable ways
to address their wastewater
management needs. It serves as a
gateway to a wealth of practical
tools and resources. Those who
will benefit from this handbook
include sanitarians, regulators,
other wastewater professionals,
community leaders, planners, and
utility managers."
Benjamin H. Grumbles
U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator
for Water
Coming soon—
expanded online version
An expanded version of this
handbook is being developed,
and will include links to more
specific information on topics
of interest. A series of case
studies is also being published to
provide examples of successful
management programs. Please
visit the EPA Web site
www.epa.gov/owm/onsite/or
more information.
A step-by-step process for developing a management program specifically suited to your
community.
Links to extensive resources (articles, publications, web sites, databases, software, government
programs) for more thorough investigation of particular topics or management program elements.
Why do I need this handbook?
-------
What's inside
This handbook provides an overview of key considerations for developing or enhancing
management programs for decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Here's an
overview of what you'll find inside...
Introduction. What is management and why is it needed? Provides information on
what a decentralized management program entails. A flow chart details the manage-
ment development process.
Look for
this icon
throughout
the handbook to
reference additional
sources 9f useful
information.
Chapter 1. How do we get started? Outlines some of the driving forces behind a decentralized wastewater
treatment management program. Information-gathering and public outreach are reviewed as critical factors
in this phase to help communities identify management options that are technically feasible, cost-effective,
and protective of public health and the environment.
Chapter 2. Where are we going? Discusses the important role of formal leadership in the program develop-
ment process. During this phase, key stakeholders are identified, convened, and tasked with setting program
goals. Various leadership options are reviewed.
Chapter 3. What is our current situation? Reviews necessary risk assessment and analytical work that
must be undertaken to characterize the current situation and identify existing gaps in wastewater system
management.
Chapter 4. What program is best for our community? Considers the authority needed to implement various
program elements, such as operation and maintenance, enforcement, and permitting.
Chapter 5. How do we make our plan a reality? Offers options for implementing a management program,
including the adoption of the model programs developed by EPA. Integrated wastewater planning, linkages
between wastewater management activities, and compliance with state, tribal, and federal water resource
protection programs are also reviewed.
Appendix A. EPA decentralized wastewater treatment fact sheets. Informative Fact Sheets summarizing
each of the 13 program elements that make up an onsite management program. These one-page fact sheets
describe various levels of management based on community needs along with real life examples to help
guide decision-makers.
Appendix B. References and resources. Offers readers additional sources of information to further develop
and enhance an onsite management program. These resources include links to information and offer many
examples of onsite management programs across the country.
Appendix C. Glossary of terms. Provides common definitions used in the decentralized wastewater field.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
What is management and why is it needed?
Onsite and clustered wastewater systems (commonly called "septic
systems) serve nearly 25 percent of U.S. households and up to 33
percent of new development. More than half of these systems are over
30 years old and surveys indicate at least 10 percent might not be
functioning properly.
Malfunctioning septic systems can cause bacterial contamination of
groundwater and recreational waters as well as algae growth and other
problems in lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal waters. The
high cost of sewers and centralized wastewater treatment plants have
greatly limited communities in their efforts to address their wastewa-
ter treatment needs. State and local governments are now looking to
innovative treatment systems and management options to help reduce
or eliminate problem systems. Some communities have built advanced
sewage treatment systems and
Decentralized systems can provide
appropriate treatment if they are
managed properly.
created management entities as
a long-term, reliable solution for
unsewered areas. Others are focus-
ing on enhancing existing programs
to help homeowners better man-
age their septic systems.
The key to achieving effective per-
formance of decentralized sewage
treatment systems—from the sim-
plest "box and rocks" septic tank
and drainfield system to the most
complex treatment and dispersal
unit—is an effective management
strategy. This strategy must con-
sider a number of critical elements
What is a decentralized wastewater system?
Decentralized wastewater systems include a wide range ofonsite and
cluster treatment systems that process household and commercial sewage.
Most discharge treated septic tank wastewater to the soil, but some
discharge to ditches, streams, lakes ,and other waterbodies and need
special federal or state permits. Some systems in arid regions promote
evaporation or wastewater uptake by plants. Onsite and clustered
wastewater treatment systems are known by many names, such as
• Septic systems
• Onsite sewage systems
• On-lot sewage systems
• Private sewage systems
• Individual sewage systems
• Cluster, neighborhood or community systems
This handbook refers to all of these as decentralized wastewater
treatment systems.
such as planning, site conditions,
risk factors, system design, and operation and maintenance, all of which comprise a management program.
Benefits of managed decentralized systems
An estimated 60 million people in the United States rely on decentralized systems to treat their wastewater.
These systems will play an even greater role in the future because they are often more affordable than con-
ventional centralized sewage treatment plants and can be designed to perform under a variety of specific site
conditions. A decentralized approach to wastewater treatment offers other benefits, including:
• Protection of property values. Well-managed, properly designed onsite or cluster systems can
provide sewage treatment equivalent to a centralized plant, often at a lower cost.
What is management and why is it needed?
-------
Underground leaching chamber
installation on an onsite wastewater
system. Photo: State Conservation
Service Kansas
• Water conservation. Decentralized systems can help recharge
groundwater aquifers and maintain dry season flow in
streams.
• Preservation of the tax base. Decentralized systems can be
installed on an as-needed basis, thus avoiding the large up-
front capital costs of centralized sewage treatment plants.
• Life-cycle cost savings. Proper management can result in
lower replacement and repair costs, increased property values,
enhanced economic development, and improved quality of life.
• Effective planning. Decentralized systems provide flexible
wastewater options and help achieve land use objectives.
Although decentralized systems offer many benefits, they are not with-
out problems and critics. Each communitiy must carefully evaluate its
situation and management needs to develop a program that is supported
by residents, protects public health and the environment, and allows the
community to grow and prosper in a sustainable manner consistent with
land use plans and needs.
Building effective management programs
It's important to better understand why management programs have not
been effective in the past. A review of current state and local onsite regu-
latory and management approaches reveals that many programs rely on
homeowners to assume full responsibility for the operation and mainte-
nance of individual treatment systems. Many of these programs, how-
ever, do not provide the information and trained service providers that
homeowners need to accomplish this job. Local regulators often lack the legal authority to hold homeowners
accountable for properly maintaining their systems. This is compounded by the fact that few homeowners are
trained to check their systems. Without proper training, they can actually risk injury or death from exposure to
hydrogen sulfide and other gases generated in the tank. As communities
grow, many new rural and suburban residents move to unsewered areas
unaware of their system location and the need for periodic mainte-
nance. In this "unmanaged" condition, septic systems will not perform
adequately and many will ultimately have problems.
Barnstable County,
"±=^~ Massachusetts Department
of Health and the
Environment Alternative Septic
System Information Center. This
Web site contains information on
alternative onsite technologies.
See page 52, reference 36.
Benefits of effective
decentralized
wastewater
management include...
• Reduced costs for
repairs, operation,
maintenance and
replacement
• Longer system life
• Improved system
performance
• Increased reliability
and overall satisfaction
• Higher property values
In order to enhance management of decentralized wastewater treat-
ment systems, state and local governments should develop a well-
thought-out strategy that considers a number of factors, including
design options, site conditions, operation and maintenance require-
ments, periodic inspections, monitoring, and financial support. Central
to this strategy is ensuring that the legal authority is in place to carry
out program requirements. Legal authority can be granted at the
state or local level. For example, some local health departments are
authorized by state statute to adopt regulatory powers as necessary to
carry out program functions such as issuing operating permits, requir-
ing maintenance contracts, setting system pumping/repair/replace-
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
What is decentralized wastewater management?
Decentralized wastewater management is not just about septic systems.
It is about how much your community will grow, what your community
will look like, how clean your local stream or estuary will be, and even
the layout of your streets and subdivision. Finding answers to these
questions means understanding:
• Community wastewater needs and their effects on public
health and the environment
• Your local setting and technical options and solutions
• The relationship between the technical solution and the
shape and form of your community
merit schedules, and promoting
compliance through inspections
and fines. Other communities
have adopted local ordinances
to provide the necessary legal
powers to support management
efforts and to take appropriate
action when public health or
water resources are threatened.
In some cases, communities have
elected to give legal authority to
a public and/or private responsible management entity (RME). Depending on state, tribal, and local codes,
revised enabling legislation or special ordinances or agreements might be needed for a third-party entity to
assume responsibility for certain services, such as system operation, inspection, monitoring, and ownership.
Oversight of the management entity by the state or local regulatory authority is usally needed, regardless of
the management approach selected.
Integrating decentralized wastewater treatment considerations into other
programs also offers opportunities to manage systems more effectively.
For example, planning agencies typically develop land use plans and
zoning designations for various tracts of residential, commercial, and
industrial land. However, they rarely consider clustering wastewater
treatment facilities in unsewered areas or consult with water resource
professionals on ways to accommodate soil-based or other treatment
in rapidly developing locations. Integrating wastewater treatment into
other programs can spur the development of creative and cost-saving
approaches to wastewater management.
EPA's Voluntary National
Guidelines for Managing
Onsite and Clustered
(Decentralized) Wastewater
Treatment Systems provides
information on the impacts of
decentralized wastewater systems,
the need for management, and
five management program models
that can be used by states and
communities. See page 49,
reference #4.
How to use this handbook
The process of finding solutions to wastewater problems must be driven by local needs consistent with
community sentiment and state and federal requirements. This handbook offers guidance on ways to tailor
a management approach to the specific needs of a community. It recommends the basic format for develop-
ing an effective onsite sewage management program based on the principles in EPA's Voluntary National
Guidelines for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. This hand-
book is not a regulation, and readers remain free to use approaches other than those suggested here.
Figure 1 summarizes the five major steps outlined in this handbook
for developing or enhancing a decentralized wastewater management
program. You can find additional resources in the appendices of this
handbook. Fact sheets describing the 13 program elements of a
decentralized wastewater management program appear in Appendix A.
The management program elements provide a good basis for reviewing
and evaluating existing programs and developing new ones. Resources
Management involves technology, ancj references are listed in Appendix B, and a glossary of terms used
engineering, and regulatory issues.
Planners, health environmentalists, in this handbook appears in Appendix C.
installers, elected officials, and citizens
also play important roles.
What is management and why is it needed?
-------
Figure 1. Process for developing a decentralized waste-water management program
STEPS KEY ACTIVITIES
Conduct initial
scoping and
outreach.
Convene interested
stakeholders to
investigate system
performance and set
goals.
Analyze existing
information to assess
the community and
evaluate current and
future risks.
o
Enhance existing
management program
or develop new
management
entities.
Implement selected
elements of the
management program,
monitor and adapt as
necessary.
Chapter 1
• Conduct informal surveys of existing system performance.
• Review potential problems.
• Identify organizations involved in system planning, permitting,
operation, and maintenance.
• Conduct initial outreach and education and convene interested
parties to define problems and how to address them.
Chapter 2
• Identify key stakeholders (community leaders, regulators) and
other potential partners (planning departments, developers,
service providers, existing management entities, and watershed
groups).
• Develop a formal or informal group of key stakeholders to
evaluate current activities, assess existing information, define
problems, determine the feasibility of establishing or enhancing
a management program, and develop goals.
Chapter 3
• Develop a community profile to assess socioeconomic and other
community factors.
• Review existing statutory and regulatory authority.
• Determine the current management approach of the existing
regulatory authorities.
• Inventory or otherwise collect information on existing systems
and impacts, analyze risks posed by existing systems, and
assign potential of risk to systems and groups of systems.
• Assess growth and development trends and create risk scenarios
under various management approaches to determine wastewater
planning and management needs for newly served areas.
Chapter 4
• Synthesize information to identify and prioritize risks and
management gaps.
• Select program management approach.
• Partner with stakeholder organizations (planning/zoning, water
resource, service providers, and other entities) to determine
implementation feasibility.
• Conduct a reality check to determine the availability of
management, technical, financial, and other resources.
Chapter 5
• Investigate resources needed to implement the program.
• Establish management requirements for existing and new
treatment systems based on health and water resource risks.
• Evaluate approaches and powers needed for implementing
management programs.
• Coordinate with other wastewater and water programs.
• Solicit support and resources from stakeholders.
• Develop indicators to determine progress.
• Implement and adapt management program as necessary.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
How do we get started?
Initial scoping and outreach
Developing an effective decentralized wastewater management program
is complex and often challenging, but it is essential to the future envi-
ronmental and economic health of a community. The process can be
broken down into several manageable tasks. This chapter offers some
general guidelines for getting started.
Scoping is a relatively quick process of
gathering information, discussing its
importance, and deciding how to proceed.
Detailed analysis is usually undertaken at
a later stage (see Chapter 3).
Assessing the situation
Communities across the nation—big and small, rural and urban—will all
face wastewater management issues at some point. One of the greatest
challenges facing many small or rural communities today is the set of problems associated with poorly operat-
ing small-scale wastewater treatment systems. These problems include:
• Threats to public health from malfunctioning septic systems, resulting in bacterial contamination of
well water and swimming areas, or sewage surfacing on the ground
• Inadequate treatment that contributes to nutrient-induced algae growth or other problems in
recreational and coastal waters
• Aesthetic concerns including odors, noises from aerators or other system components, or
inadequately treated discharges of sewage to neighborhood ditches or streams
• High costs, lowered water tables, and construction-related disruptions associated with replacing
onsite systems with sewer lines that transport wastewater to a distant centralized sewage
treatment plant
These concerns often prompt residents and public officials to demand action from state and local officials.
The question community officials most often face is "Do we stay with onsite systems and try to fix the prob-
lems, or do we move in another direction to a community-based or centralized system?"
During this early stage of decision-making, it is important to fully investigate wastewater issues and needs
and review potential solutions. Key to a successful scoping process is ensuring that it is done in an open
manner—one that supports
education and outreach to the
community. Figure 2 shows the
actions that occur during the
scoping process. Adequate scop-
ing and initial outreach is critical
in setting the stage for an open,
honest process that focuses on
the needs of the community.
Figure 2. Initial scoping and outreach
Cost, technical feasibility
and
public acceptance issues
Public health and water
quality issues (groundwater
and surface water)
How do we get started?
-------
Getting the ball rolling
Public awareness of wastewater issues brought about by news stories
or complaints can provide a real opportunity to involve a number of
stakeholders in the decision-making process and begin a community-
wide dialogue regarding wastewater treatment needs. Local agencies
can capitalize on the energy and resources of various interested parties,
which can lead to innovative and effective management programs. It's
not unusual for a developer, neighborhood association, citizen group, or sanitation district to kick off the
effort to develop a decentralized wastewater management program. But local decision-makers and regulators
must be actively involved and help to drive the process at the earliest opportunity.
Choices for
Communities:
Wastewater Management
Options for Rural Areas. This
document helps communities
explore their wastewater
treatment options. See page
51, reference #17.
The scoping process typically involves:
• Collecting data and information on water quality
• Identifying the number and types of onsite systems in an area
• Reviewing complaints and system malfunctions
• Assessing the types of system problems that have been
reported to pumpers and other service providers
• Considering where new systems are likely to be needed
The use of a data management system and innovative mapping tools
can greatly assist in reviewing this information.
Maryland partnership develops septic system impact study
The Department of Environmental Resources and Health
Department in Maryland's Prince George's County worked
together to develop geographic information system (GIS) tools to
quantify and mitigate nonpoint source nutrient loadings to the
lower Patuxent River, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The
agencies developed a database of information on existing onsite
systems, including system age, type, and location, with additional
data layers for depth to ground water and soils. The resulting GIS
framework allows users to quantify nitrogen loadings and visualize
likely impacts under a range of management scenarios. Information
from GIS outputs is provided to decision makers for use in planning
development and devising management strategies. For more
information see page 51, reference #25.
Scoping is an informal
activity to...
• Identify driving
forces such as system
malfunctions and
health and water risks
• Gather information
from regulatory
authorities, water
resource agencies,
planning departments,
and other interested
parties
• Contact system
installers and service
providers to see what
sorts of problems they
have encountered in
the field
• See if a discussion of
identified issues can
be "piggybacked" onto
an existing activity or
program (health board,
planning commission,
water quality meeting)
• Convene an informal
discussion of
interested parties
at a time and place
convenient for them
8
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Where are we going?
Setting goals and objectives
Stakeholders need to be involved at every stage of the program development process. If scoping indicates
that problems exist and management solutions are needed, a formal (steering committee) or informal
(advisory committee) stakeholder group can be formed to assess the situation and recommend options. The
problems, goals, and strategies that the stakeholder group generates will help to define what is desirable and
ultimately what is achievable. This effort will require a committed group of people who can work together to
assess the problems uncovered during the scoping phase outlined in Chapter 1.
Identifying stakeholders and their roles
Figure 3. Establishing a stakeholder group
Regulatory Authority
• Local health agency
•State health agency
Other Public
Agencies
•Planning/zoning
• Water/wastewater
System Owners
Individual onsite
Cluster systems
Discharging systems
Private Groups
Service providers
Resource protection
Lending/finance
Set
Program Goals
Selecting members of a stake-
holder group requires carefully
considering a wide range of
participants. For example, people
with technical understanding,
community outreach skills,
fiscal/financial training, legal
backgrounds, and community
organization experience should
be strongly considered. Elected
officials and senior staff from
regulatory agencies such as local
and state health and environmen-
tal agencies, are almost always
key stakeholders and should be
involved in the program development process. Figure 3 provides some examples of key stakeholders. An
effective stakeholder group will:
• Understand the problems clearly before seeking solutions
• Take responsibility for and ownership of the problems
• Exercise strong leadership, coordination, and communication
• Help to develop a clearly defined vision, mission, and goals
• Gather information from as many sources as possible
• Take the time to identify and examine all options before making decisions
• Identify and use appropriate decision-making processes
• Keep all affected parties informed and involved
• Develop criteria for hiring and working with consultants
Where are we going?
-------
Establishing goals and objectives
As the process unfolds, it's likely that some organization—usually one
of the stakeholder entities—will assume leadership for the process.
This organization could be a local health department, sanitation district,
private or public corporation, or homeowner association. The sponsor-
ing organization and several of the stakeholder groups might have their
own perceived outcomes and objectives. It is important, however, to
go through a process to identify the group's common objectives and
interests, such as:
• Characterizing and addressing existing problems such as
health or water quality threats
• Identifying and minimizing impacts from future commercial or
residential development
• Protecting public health, economic vitality, and important
recreational or water resources
• Generating public awareness and interest in resolving
problems
• Building trust between the sponsoring organization and
partners
• Creating support for funding and implementing selected
management actions
Remember that these objectives are only a subset of those which will
be pursued during the program development process. Stakeholders
will bring to the table their own goals and objectives, which need to be
considered when developing the management program.
Convening a stakeholder group
The members of the stakeholder group must clearly understand their
roles and responsibilities (see the Public Education and Participation
Fact Sheet on page 36). Will the group develop an issues and needs
assessment, or will it be charged with actually designing the program?
Will it have decision-making authority or play an advisory role? It is
important that the framework of the group be clearly defined to avoid
any confusion. Establishing ground rules and time frames will also be
necessary to keep the group on task. If you choose to hire a wastewa-
ter planning consultant, look for someone who is knowledgeable about
both centralized and decentralized treatment options. Staged develop-
ment of wastewater facilities through both centralized and decentral-
ized systems, selected through an objective process, should be the
focus of a wastewater planning consultant.
Involving key stakeholders in the
management program helps to build
trust, communication, and support for
whatever options appear to best address
community needs. Stakeholders often
bring additional resources to the table for
assessment and program development.
When developing a
stakeholder group
answer these questions:
• How will the group
be structured—will it
be a fully empowered
decision-making entity,
steering committee,
advisory body, or ad hoc
group?
• How will decisions be
made—by majority vote,
consensus, input received
but decisions made by a
responsible party?
• What is the membership
of the group—is there
one representative from
each locality or interest
group, or a cross-section
of stakeholder groups?
• What are the roles and
responsibilities of the
stakeholders—will they
include outreach, analysis
and assessment, selection
of management options,
preparation of reports?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Key questions to
consider
The following questions might
help to guide the stakeholder
group as they begin the program
development process.
1. Where are we now, and where
do we want to go? Asking this
question will help the group to
focus on problems and desired
outcomes. It is also helpful for
stakeholders to consider the
consequences of not taking
some kind of action.
2. How do we get there?
Identifying common goals and
preliminary objectives during
initial meetings helps to keep
the group focused. Goals are
generally broad expressions of
a future vision of the group.
For example, a goal might be
to "improve the operation and
maintenance of existing onsite
systems." Objectives are then
linked to the goals and provide
a yardstick against which
progress can be measured.
For example, the group might
identify a specific objective such
as: "within 2 years, all systems
having electrical or mechanical
parts will be inspected annually,
and those that discharge to
ditches or the ground surface
will be replaced with soil
infiltration systems."
3. Do we always need consensus? Who has decision-making authority? Stakeholder consensus is not
needed for every decision. In some cases, it might be more appropriate to simply gather information from
the stakeholders. The factors to consider when selecting a decision-making protocol include the time
frame, the importance of the decision, the information needed to make the decision, and the capability and
authority of the group to make the decision. For a decision to be generally accepted by the public, people
must be informed of an impending decision or action, be heard before the decision is made, and have the
opportunity to influence the decision.
Where are we going?
Stakeholder involvement tasks
• Summarize and review the driving forces for better
system management
• Determine the level of stakeholder involvement
expected
• Decide which stakeholders are needed and invite them
to participate
• Provide background information and general goals to
the stakeholder group
• Convene the stakeholders to discuss their interest and
desire to participate
• Develop a framework for stakeholder meetings,
decision-making, and actions
• Conduct outreach to build awareness and interest.
Gaining public support for wastewater management in Idaho
Because of accelerated development in the Idaho panhandle and a
rapid rise in nitrate concentrations in the Rath drum Prairie Aquifer,
the Panhandle Health District (PHD), which covers the state's five
northernmost counties, developed a plan to implement an interim
moratorium on new development served by conventional septic tank
soil-absorption systems. The high nitrate problem had been traced
through groundwater monitoring to wastewater systems in densely
developed subdivisions. To gain support for the plan, the PHD made
presentations that documented the problem and proposed solutions to
school, civic, and professional groups. The agency also used radio and
television ads. In all cases, the PHD attempted to craft the presentation
contents and supporting materials specifically for the audience being
addressed. All public presentations were conducted in a cooperative,
rather than confrontational manner.
The PHD then formed an ad hoc citizens' committee to develop
and present suggested changes to the preliminary policy developed
by the PHD. This committee included representatives from the home
builders, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and two other affected federal agencies, farmers,
planning boards, the state legislature, the League of Women Voters,
and conservation/environmental organizations. The committee
members not only reached out to their respective constituencies
but also solicited feedback from other interested parties. For more
information see the Public Education Fact Sheet on page 36.
••
-------
What is our current situation?
Assessing and
analyzing existing
conditions
During this step, stakeholders
will continue to build on their
knowledge of community and
resource conditions. This chapter
focuses on developing a com-
munity profile, reviewing legal
authorities, assessing current
management practices, preparing
a risk assessment, and consider-
ing future community growth and
development (Figure 4).
Community
profile/
assessment
Existing powers
and management
practices
Assess
and Analyze
Current health
and environmental
risk
Growth,
development and
future risk
Figure 4. Assessing and analyzing existing conditions
Developing a community profile
A sense of community conditions is needed to provide context for stakeholder discussions. Therfore, it is
beneficial for the stakeholder group to create a profile of their community which has three parts:
1. Socioeconomic conditions. A review of social and economic conditions provides perspective on the
types of management actions that are likely to be acceptable and affordable for a community. For
example, dealing with system malfunctions in densely populated low-income areas with small lots served
by inadequate older treatment units might require cost-share assistance as opposed to stepped-up
enforcement.
2. Land and water resource conditions. Information on a wide
range of land and water resources that can assist in developing a
community profile is readily available from a number of sources
including:
• Aerial photographs from property valuation and tax agencies,
the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and local utilities
• Population and housing census data (www.census.gov)
• Wastewater, drinking water, and other data from local utilities
• Soil data from the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(www.soils.usda.gov/)
• Topographic data from the U.S. Geological Survey (www.
usgs.gov/)
• Land-use and mapping data from planning agencies.
• Water quality and watershed data from state water agencies
and EPA websites (see page 45, reference #1 and #2)
Information and
planning
Collecting information should
not become burdensome. Focus
on collecting information that
is needed and available. For
example, if the objective is to
improve waste-water treatment
systems in a specific area,
target data collection efforts to
assess the status of the existing
systems, ground-water and.
surface water quality, and where
infill development might occur.
Denote potential areas where
cluster systems might replace
malfunctioning systems to
capitalize on performance and
cost efficiencies.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
A geographic information system (GIS) can be used to store
information and generate maps. These maps can familiarize
stakeholders and the public with community conditions. Stakeholder
groups are strongly encouraged to partner with planning agencies or
data managers to develop or share GIS capabilities.
3. Onsite and cluster system inventories. An important step in
developing a community profile is to estimate the number and
types of onsite/cluster systems, along with their location and where
they disperse treated wastewater. Information can be accessed by
contacting a number of agencies including:
• County or city health departments
• Planning/zoning agencies
• Regional wastewater treatment plants
• Economic development offices, county/city housing, and
property valuation agencies
Water quality information sources include:
• Source water assessment and protection plans from local drinking water utilities
Inventories and assessments of system
performance provide vital information for risk
analyses. These can begin as broad screening
characterizations of service or geographical
areas, with more refined analysis conducted
in potential problem areas.
• Watershed studies from local water/wastewater utilities and
state water quality agencies
• Data from local or regional water quality monitoring
organizations or volunteer groups
Service providers are also a good source of information, and
include:
• Onsite service providers such as septic tank pumpers,
designers, and installers
• Well drillers and other water-related professionals
Wastewater professionals can be a valuable source of information
regarding the types of systems being installed, malfunctioning
systems, and homeowner compliance with recommended service
schedules.
Using GIS maps to assign risks
GIS maps can assist with developing a framework for assigning risk
tiers to groups of systems. Several tools exist to aid in this process. One
such tool is the "susceptibility determinations" that drinking water
utilities make as part of their source water assessments. These assessments
determine which potential sources of pollution, including onsite
wastewater systems, pose the greatest threats to potable water systems.
An assessment of
resource conditions can
be used to...
• Identify and prioritize
problem systems
• Identify the causes for
inadequate performance
of existing systems
• Collect soil data and
other information needed
for system design
• Evaluate the trends
and likely impacts of
future residential and
commercial growth
• Examine technologies
and system
configurations that might
accommodate growth
• Estimate costs and
environmental and
public health impacts of
alternative solutions
• Define the desired
character of the
community
What is our current situation?
"
-------
Using GIS tools to characterize water quality threats in Colorado
Summit County, Colorado, in partnership with the Colorado School of Mines and other organizations,
developed a GIS to identify the adverse effects of nitrate from septic systems on water quality in the upper
Blue River watershed. The GIS database included geologic maps, soil survey maps, topographic features, land
parcel maps, domestic well sampling data, onsite system permitting data, well logs, and tax assessor data. The
database can be updated with new water quality information, system maintenance records, property records,
and onsite system construction permit and repair information. The database is linked to the DRASTIC
groundwater vulnerability rating model and is being used to identify areas that have a potential for excessive
contamination by nitrate-nitrogen, which helps in prioritizing water quality improvement projects. See page
54, reference #56 for more information.
Reviewing current regulatory powers and
management
As part of the assessment and analysis phase, a review of the statutory
and regulatory authority in place to carry out a decentralized wastewa-
ter treatment management program should be conducted, including:
• Authority to enter private property for inspection or health
nuisance abatement
• Authority to require repair or replacement of malfunctioning
systems
• Authority that allows private entities to manage systems,
charge fees, or apply for funding
Existing management practices should also be reviewed, including:
• Site evaluation procedures
• Educational, training, or other requirements for service
providers
• The permitting process
• Design requirements
• Installation/construction requirements
• Operational and maintenance requirements
• Inspection, complaint, and compliance assurance procedures
• Program funding, including fees for permitting, inspection, or other management activities, and
whether they cover costs
A review of existing statutory, regulatory, and management approaches will help to identify program gaps,
barriers to new technology, and other shortcomings that might need to be addressed to enhance existing
activities or develop a new management program.
Onsite wastewater treatment systems in
Prince George's County. Source: Prince
George's County OSDS Database
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Assessing public health and environmental risks
One of the most important goals of the management program should be to target actions in direct propor-
tion to the risks posed by malfunctioning treatment systems. The importance of this concept cannot be
overstated. In practice, this means that some systems need only minimal management, while others must be
managed much more intensively.
Developing integrated risk assessments for wastewater systems is
a demanding task, but the benefits can be significant. Examples of
parameters to consider in assessing public health and environmental
risks for existing systems are soil permeability, depth to groundwater,
aquifer type, groundwater and surface water use, proximity to sensitive
surface waters, topography, geology, density of development, and
system types. In developing risk assessments, the objective is not to
produce an expensive, time-consuming, lengthy and complicated study,
but rather to quickly assimilate available data and identify classes
or groups of systems posing similar risks so they can be managed
in a similar manner. For example, widely scattered older systems
sited in deep, well-drained soils far away from surface waters need
not be managed as intensively as newer, electromechanical treat-
ment units serving beach-front properties. Densely packed systems
installed during the 1950s near a downtown area bisected by a
trout stream might be targeted for replacement with a new clustered
facility featuring neighborhood collection lines, a biofiltration unit, and
pressure distribution to soils.
The development of a database and GIS mapping capabilities, or even
hand-drawn maps, can help to inform risk assignment decisions.
Inspections of individual systems in areas targeted for more intensive
management can confirm risk decisions and bolster homeowners' confi-
dence in the process and its outcomes. Table 1 summarizes some of
the risk factors that indicate more intensive system management might
be needed.
Potential problem indicators
Untreated or partially treated sewage pooling on ground surfaces and
in ditches, sewage backup in household plumbing fixtures, and sewage
breakouts on slopes
High nitrate or bacteria levels in downgradient drinking water wells,
presence of toxic substances in well water, and taste or odor problems in
well water caused by untreated or poorly treated wastewater
Shellfish bed and recreational beach closures due to bacterial or viral
contamination
Algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen concentrations in nearby surface
waters
General approach
for conducting risk
assessments
Many researchers have used
the following general approach
to identify onsite and cluster
systems that might be impairing
or threatening water resources:
Identify pollutants such
as pathogens, nitrogen, or
phosphorus that are impairing
or threatening waterways.
List likely sources of the
pollutants of concern.
Estimate the total load of
pollutants to the receiving water
from each source. Estimating
the total load of pollutants from
onsite/'cluster systems requires
modeling system flows, pollutant
output, transport and rate, and
assimilation by the receiving
waters. An alternative approach
is to conduct lot-level analysis
of system type, age, proximity
to receiving water, repair
and service records, and site
conditions.
Create a matrix that ranks lot-
level system risk by assigning
ratings or risk level values and
applying them to each lot or
parcel. This approach is useful
for areas where onsitelcluster
systems are collectively judged
to be a significant source of
the pollutant or pollutants of
concern.
What is our current situation?
"
-------
Analyzing growth, development, and future risk
Analyzing growth, development, and future risk is similar to the process of assessing risks posed by existing
systems. Projecting residential and commercial build-out and estimating likely system numbers and types
can be challenging if there is no comprehensive land use plan or wastewater management plan. Consultation
with the local planning agency and developers can yield significant information regarding planned build-
out. The assessment can also be used to project risks posed by systems that might be installed in the
future. Getting "ahead of the curve" by forecasting future risk is useful in developing design requirements
(performance targets) and management needs for wastewater systems that will serve new subdivisions
and commercial areas. Combining or coordinating treatment service planning for both centralized and
decentralized wastewater treatment
Table 1. Onsite system risk factors
Risk category Risk fact
| * Impermeable soils such as heavy clay
* Shallow depths to groundwater
Rock layers near the surface
* Hilly terrain with thin soils and steep slopes
*High densities of system installations
* Sensitive waterbodies nearby
Environmental
sensitivity
Public health
Treatment
complexity
Drinking water wells nearby
* Recreational waters nearby
* Effluent surfacing or plumbing backups
* Potential for rapid groundwater movement
* Systems more than 25 years old not maintained
* Illegal system discharges
* Electrical and mechanical system components
* Heavy sewage loads (high-strength wastewaters)
*High fat, oil, and grease content in wastewater
Industrial and certain commercial wastewaters
Watershed planning
Local government land use
planning programs should be
integrated with the selected
wastewater management
program. Planning can
include performance targets
for wastewater treatment
and promote integration
ofwastewaterlstormwaterl
watershed management
programs and policies. For
more information on integrated
wastewater planning, see page
51, reference #25 and page 52,
reference #35.
facilities is highly recommended.
Developing a seamless approach to
treatment planning by integrating
individual, cluster, and sewage plant
services builds efficiency, promotes
effectiveness, and contributes to a
sense that all wastewater treatment
services are community assets that
should be managed appropriately for
public benefit.
In practice, this means that local com-
munities should examine future goals
for growth, development, resource
protection, and community character
prior to evaluating wastewater treat-
ment options, because the type of
treatment selected - centralized, decentralized, or a combination of
the two - can have a significant impact on these goals. For example,
appropriately designed individual systems and cluster systems serving
targeted areas can promote a "pay as you go" approach and ensure
that extension of centralized sewer service does not promote unwanted
growth or overload treatment plants already at capacity or experiencing
overflow problems. Information from consultants or engineers familiar
with the full range of treatment options, the planning guides cited in
this chapter, and EPA's Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual
(see page 52, reference #34) are all useful in analyzing the range
of options available. This handbook is intended to aid in developing
appropriate management programs for areas that select individual or
clustered decentralized systems.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Assessing onsite system risks in Malibu
Malibu, California, relies on residential onsite wastewater treatment systems to protect valuable inland and
coastal waters. A team of consultants and city staff conducted a three-year risk management study to develop
recommendations to protect these resources and to meet state water quality standards. Many stakeholders,
including regulators and environmental advocacy groups, were involved throughout and were essential to the
study's success. The study area was defined by groundwater recharge zones in the alluvial aquifers around
Malibu Creek and Lagoon, Winter Canyon and the surf zone of the Pacific Ocean near Surfrider Beach. The
groundwater aquifer was the focus of the study because it receives the treated effluent from onsite systems and
transmits groundwater to local surface waters.
The study integrated data from a network of new and existing monitoring wells into a centralized, web-
based information management system. Using this information, a three-dimensional groundwater model was
developed to evaluate impacts of onsite systems on groundwater quality and to determine the directions and
rates of groundwater flow. The risk assessment approach used six steps:
1. Define receiving waters and objectives for key water quality constituents
2. Identify, locate, and quantify contamination contributed by onsite systems.
3. Evaluate hydrological conditions to determine groundwater flow directions and travel times
4. Estimate the assimilative capacity of unsaturated and saturated zones to account for the reduction or
assimilation of pathogens and nitrogen during groundwater transport
5. Delineate specific areas that might pose pathogen and nitrogen risks to the receiving waters
6. Identify and evaluate alternative strategies to reduce risks to acceptable levels
The results indicated that portions of the study area might be contributing pathogens or nitrogen to
either Malibu Creek and Lagoon or the surf zone. The recommendations focused on the desired water
quality outcomes—specifically, meeting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for pathogens and nitrogen.
Suggested actions included initiating a point-of-sale onsite system inspection program, requiring inspections
for systems within the six-month pollutant travel time zones, evaluating a proposed clustered wastewater
collection/treatment/dispersal system, and requiring disinfection or nitrogen removal for systems in the
contributing areas. The City of Malibu is incorporating the action items into its Wastewater Management
Plan. For more information see page 54, reference #49 and #50.
All management
programs should...
• Have sufficient local
support and legal
authority
• Be flexible in adapting
to changing demands
• Ensure reasonable
homeowner costs
• Be able to achieve
public health and
environmental
objectives
What is our current situation?
-------
What is best for our community?
Developing or enhancing your program
This chapter discusses the development or enhancement of your decentralized wastewater management
program based on 13 principal program elements (Figure 5 and Table 3; also see Appendix A for fact
sheets on each of these elements.)
Figure 5. Decentralized wastewater management program elements
Administration
•Public
education
•Planning
• Performance
requirements
• Record keeping,
reporting
• Financial
assistance
Installation
•Site
evaluation
• System
design
•Construction
installation
Operation and
Compliance
•Operation,
maintenance
• Residuals management
•Training, certification/
licensing
• Inspections, monitoring
•Corrective actions and
enforcement
Develop or
enhance management program
Management programs typically
support the twin goals of protecting
human health and environmental
resources. They might also influ-
ence future growth and community
character, promote water recycling
and reuse, protect and enhance
private property values, and protect
against water resource diversions.
Developing management approaches
for specific groups of onsite sys-
tems—which can be classified
as having high, moderate, or low
risk—will constitute much of the
work in devising the overall manage-
ment program.
Selecting a management approach
Figure 6. Using risk inputs to select a management model
The EPA Voluntary Management Guidelines (see page 49, reference #4) detail five management approaches
that respond to varying levels of risk posed by decentralized wastewater treatment systems (see Table 2 and
www.epa.gov/owm/onsite). These conceptual models represent a range of possible programmatic responses to
water quality and public health concerns or local wastewater infrastructure needs (Figure 6). Management mod-
els 2 through 5 are recommended
for electromechanical systems and
moderate- to high-risk site condi-
tions. Each management approach
consists of a "package" of manage-
ment activities. The mix of institu-
tions, procedures, and arrangements
involved in a management program
varies depending on enabling leg-
islation, environmental conditions,
resources, and other factors. Because
of this diversity, the outcomes of
management efforts will be different
RME Ownership
RME Operation
and Maintenance
Operating Permits
Maintenance
Contracts
1. Homeowner
Awareness
Risk Factors
Management Models
across the country depending on local
conditions and needs.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Table 2. EPA management models for decentralized waste-water treatment systems
Typical applications Program description
Benefits
1. Homeowner Awareness Model
+ Areas of low environmental
sensitivity where sites are
suitable for conventional
onsite systems
* Systems sited and
constructed based on
prescribed criteria
* Maintenance reminders
4 Inventory of all systems
+ Code-compliant system
4 Ease of implementation
+ Inventory of systems that
is useful for tracking and
areawide planning
+ No compliance ID
mechanism
* Sites must meet siting
requirements
4 Cost to maintain database
2. Maintenance Contract Model
4 Areas of low to moderate
environmental sensitivity
where sites are marginally
suitable for conventional
onsite systems due to
small lots, shallow soils or
low-permeability soils
4 Small cluster systems
4 Systems properly sited and
constructed
+ More complex treatment
options (mechanical, clusters
of homes)
* Service contracts must be
maintained
4 Inventory of all systems
+ Contract tracking system
4 Lower risk of treatment
system malfunctions
+ Homeowner's investment
protected
4 Difficulty tracking and
enforcing compliance due
to reliance on the owner or
contractor to report a lapse
in services
* No mechanism provided to
assess the effectiveness of
the maintenance program
3. Operating Permit Model
* Areas of moderate
environmental sensitivity
such as wellhead or source
water protection zones,
shellfish-growing waters,
or bathing/water contact
recreation areas
* Systems treating high-
strength wastes, or large-
capacity systems
* Performance and monitoring
requirements
4 Engineered designs allowed
but may provide prescriptive
designs for specific sites
4 Regulatory oversight by
issuing renewable operating
permits that may be revoked
for noncompliance
+ Inventory of all systems
* Tracking of operating permit
and compliance monitoring
* Minimum for large-capacity
systems
* Systems can be located in
more environmentally sensi-
tive areas
+ Regular compliance moni-
toring reports
4 Noncompliant systems
identified and corrective
actions required
* Less need for regulation of
large systems
+ Higher level of expertise
and resources for regulatory
authority to implement
Requires permit tracking
system
Regulatory authority needs
enforcement powers
4. Responsible Management Entity (RME) Operation
* Areas of moderate to high
environmental sensitivity
where reliable and sustain-
able system operation and
maintenance is required
(sole-source aquifers,
wellhead or source water
protection zones, critical
aquatic habitats, and
outstanding value resource
waters)
* Cluster systems
* System performance and
monitoring requirements
+ Professional O&M services
through RME (public or
private)
+ Regulatory oversight by
issuing operating or NPDES
permits directly to RME
(system ownership remains
with property owner)
4 Inventory of all systems
* Tracking system for operating
permit and compliance
monitoring
+ 0&M responsibility
transferred from the system
owner to a professional
RME that holds the operat-
ing permit
+ Problems identified before
malfunctions occur
4 Onsite treatment in more
environmentally sensitive
areas or for treatment of
high-strength wastes
+ One permit for a group of
systems
+ Enabling legislation might
be necessary to allow RME
to hold the operating permit
for an individual system
owner
+ RME must have owner's
approval for repairs; might
be conflict if performance
problems are identified and
not corrected
4 Need for easement/right of
entry
+ Need for oversight of RME
by the regulatory authority
5. Responsible Management Entity (RME) Ownership Model
4 Areas of greatest environ-
mental sensitivity, where
reliable management is
required. Includes sole
source aquifers, wellhead
or source water protection
zones, critical aquatic
habitats, and outstanding
value resource waters
4 Preferred management
program for cluster
systems serving multiple
properties under different
ownership
4 Establishes system per-
formance and monitoring
requirements
4 Professional management of
all aspects of decentralized
systems
4 RMEs own or manage
individual systems
* Trained and licensed profes-
sional owners/operators
Regulatory oversight through
NPDES or other permit
4 Inventory of all systems
+ Tracking of operating permit
and compliance monitoring
4 High level of oversight if
system problems occur
+ Model of central sewerage
that reduces the risk of
noncompliance
* Onsite treatment in environ-
mentally sensitive areas
^ Effective planning and
watershed management
4 Potential conflicts between
the user and RME removed
* Greatest protection of
environmental resources
and homeowner investment
4 Enabling legislation or
formation of special district
might be required
4 Might require significant
financial investment by
RME for installation or pur-
chase of existing systems or
components
+ Need for oversight of RME
by the regulatory authority;
might limit competition
•* Homeowner associations
may not have adequate
authority
What is best for our community?
«
-------
Table 3. Decentralized wastewater management program elements
Elements
Administration
Advanced activities
Performance
requirements
Planning
Record-keeping,
inventory and
reporting
Financial assistance
and funding
Public education and
participation
Installation
Site evaluation
System design
Construction
Link treatment standards
and relative risk to health
and water resource goals.
Consider site and regional
conditions and effects on
long-term watershed and
public health.
Create inventory of systems
and O&M logs, planning
and reporting to oversight
agencies.
Provide financial and legal
support for management
program.
Maximize public
involvement while
developing a management
program.
Assess system site and
relationship to other
features (groundwater and
surface water).
Ensure that system is
appropriate for site,
watershed and wastewater
characteristics.
Ensure installation as
designed; record as-built
drawings.
Prescribe acceptable site
characteristics and system
types allowed.
Identify minimum lot sizes,
surface water/ground water
separation distances, and
critical areas requiring
protection.
Provide inventory
information on all systems;
submit performance
reports to health agency.
Implement basic powers,
revenue-generation fees,
and legal backup for a
sustainable program.
Sponsor public meetings,
forums, updates and
education programs.
Characterize landscape,
soils, ground and surface
water location, lot size, and
other conditions.
Prescribe a limited number
of acceptable designs for
specific site conditions.
Inspect installation prior to
covering with soil and enter
as-built information into
the file record.
Stipulate that system
performance must meet defined
standards that consider water
resource values, vulnerabilities
and risks.
Monitor and model regional
pollutant loads; tailor
development patterns based
on environmental and physical
limitations; require clustering for
large developments.
Provide CIS-based
comprehensive inventories,
including web-based monitoring
and O&M data input for
administrative reporting and
watershed assessment studies.
Initiate monthly or quarterly
service fees; cost-share or other
repair/replacement program;
full financial and legal support
for management program;
equitable revenue base and
assistance programs; regular
reviews and modifications.
Maintain public advisory groups,
review groups, and other
involvement opportunities in the
program; distribute educational
and other materials.
Assess site and cumulative
watershed impacts,
groundwater mounding
potential, long-term specific
pollutant trends, and cluster
system needs.
Implement codes for developing
designs that meet performance
requirements for each site;
address wastewater, reuse and
dispersal options.
Provide supplemental training,
certification and licensing
programs; provide more
comprehensive inspection of
installations; verify and enter
as-built information into the
record.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Table 3. (continued) Decentralized wastewater management program elements
Elements
Purpose
Operation and Compliance
Operation and
maintenance
Inspections
and monitoring
Residuals
management
Training and
certification/
licensing
Corrective
actions and
enforcement
Ensure that systems
perform as designed.
Document provider
performance, functioning
of systems, and impacts.
Remove and treat
residuals; minimize health
or environmental risks
from residuals handling,
use, and dispersal.
Promote excellence in
site evaluation, design,
installation, O&M, and
other service provider
areas.
Ensure timely compliance
with applicable codes
and performance
requirements.
Initiate homeowner
education and reminder
programs that promote
O&M.
Perform inspection prior to
cover-up and property title
transfer; provide complaint
response.
Ensure compliance with
federal and state codes for
residuals dispersal.
Recommend use of only
state-licensed/certified
service providers.
Provide for complaint
reporting under nuisance
laws; inspection and
prompt response
procedures and penalties.
Require service contracts or renewable,
revocable operating permits with
periodic reporting; log service reports
in database; ensure responsibility for
O&M activities.
Conduct regional surface water and
groundwater monitoring; web-based
inspection reporting and system
operational monitoring; require
installation and periodic operational
inspections.
Conduct analysis and oversight of
residuals program; web-based reporting
and inspection of pumping and
dispersal facility activities; assistance
in locating or developing residuals
handling facilities.
Provide supplemental training and
certification/licensing programs; offer
continuing education opportunities;
monitor performance through
inspections; sponsor mentoring
programs.
Deny or revoke operating permit until
compliance measures are satisfied; set
violation response protocol and legal
response actions, including correction
and liens against property by RME.
A management framework to address gaps
The management program elements summarized in Table 3 and
detailed in the Decentralized Management Program Elements Fact
Sheets (see Appendix A) provide a useful framework for identifying
and addressing potential gaps in the current management approach. It
should be noted that Table 3 covers only broad programmatic manage-
ment activities. The level or intensity of management activities applied
to specific systems or groups of systems should be commensurate with
the relative risks identified.
For example, implementing only the basic management activities for
each program element might be appropriate for systems posing a low
risk to public health or water resources, such as new gravity-flow soil
infiltration systems installed at low densities on sites with suitable soils.
However, advanced management activities would be more appropri-
ate for higher-risk systems such as older systems or those installed at
high densities on sites with poor soils, greater slopes and proximity
to groundwater or surface waters. The intent is to manage groups of
similar systems under a fairly uniform approach. For example, dozens
of septic tank and leach field systems installed over two to three years
Training of service
providers
Service providers should
be professionally trained,
licensed, or certified in
system design, installation,
inspection, operation, and
maintenance. The use of
certified professionals is
endorsed by most wastewater
industry organizations,
such as the National Onsite
Wastewater Recycling
Association, the National
Environmental Health
Association and the National
Association of Wastewater
Transporters. For more
information see the Training
and Certification/Licensing
Fact Sheet on page 46 and
reference #53 on page 54.
What is best for our community?
*
-------
Addressing water
pollution
Managing water pollution risks
posed by onsite systems is a
process that includes:
• Identifying pollutants of
concern in the drainage
area surface waters or
aquifer
• Identifying pollutant
sources and estimating
relative contributions
from each source
• Determining methods
and costs of reducing
pollutant contributions
• Sharing information
and involving the public
• Denning what's
economically feasible
and technically
achievable
• Determining the
pollutant reductions
necessary from each
identified source or area
• Establishing authority
to regulate the target
sources
• Implementing a
pollutant reduction
strategy
Use of NPDES permits
for onsite systems
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permits have been used by
some states to regulate onsite
sewage discharges, and are
required for all systems that
discharge to ditches or surface
waters. The Clean Water Act
authorizes NPDES permits for
individual or group dischargers.
A state may implement a
general NPDES permit
program to cover the general
class of individual or clustered
wastewater systems that
discharge to surface waters.
in a residential development would be managed in the same manner
if site conditions warrant. This concept allows management programs
to be tailored to the setting, whether it is a small rural town or a large
jurisdiction such as a township or county. The key is to characterize
systems according to their similarities, so that management approaches
can be tailored to address the systems specific needs (see the System
Design Fact Sheet on page 42). Grouping systems by the risks they
pose based on location, technology type, and other attributes will help
create a useful framework for screening out low-risk systems and focus-
ing on those needing more intensive management.
Implementing the management program
The mix of institutions, procedures, and arrangements involved in a
management program varies depending on a host of factors, including
enabling legislation, environmental conditions and resources available.
Because of this diversity, the outcomes of management efforts are
likely to be different across the country. Table 4 provides a framework
you can use to explore management issues.
Management programs can range from an informal network of private
service providers, public agency staffs, and other partners operating
under a coordinated framework, to a highly structured RME (respon-
sible management entity) that owns or maintains a set of treatment
systems. The key objective in developing the program is to ensure that
it reflects the community's best effort to deal with public health and
water resource threats. Developing a viable management program is a
case-specific process, highly dependent on the commitment, creativity,
and cooperation of the community and the stakeholders.
Many management programs are developed and overseen by local
health departments. These programs may include performance-based
requirements for design, construction, and operation and maintenance
performed by outside contractors or other entities. State and local
codes, memoranda of agreement, conditional permits, and mainte-
nance contract requirements should clearly identify how the manage-
ment program will be executed.
The most intensive management programs are those which rely on
RMEs to manage designated systems. An RME is defined as a legal
organization with the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to
operate and maintain viable decentralized wastewater systems within
the RME's jurisdiction. Sanitation and water districts, public/private
corporations, public agencies or authorities, and special districts can
all function as RMEs. Homeowner associations have proven to be less
effective as RMEs because of their large scope of interests, lack of
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Consideration of
residuals management
Community decentralized
waste-water management
programs will need an
ordinance to specify the
frequency of residuals removal,
approved service providers,
and reporting requirements.
The ordinance can require a
specific frequency for pumping
or inspection to determine if
pumping is necessary. Existing
management programs use
both techniques. For more
information see the Residuals
Management Fact Sheet on
page 45.
technical expertise, and lack of
managerial/staffing support for
providing wastewater services.
Oversight by the local regulatory
authority is needed to ensure that
the RME complies with federal,
state, and local rules regarding
system permitting, operation, and
maintenance requirements.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems Manual.
This comprehensive reference
manual is designed to provide
engineers and regulators with
guidance on the planning,
design, and operation of onsite
systems. See page 52, reference
#34.
In addition to the necessary legal authority, RMEs should have the
technical, managerial and financial expertise needed to ensure system
performance over the long term. RMEs can be formed in a variety
of ways, which include modifying the missions of existing sanitation
districts, public agencies, other public/private service providers, and
profit or nonprofit corporations or by creating special districts. The early
planning efforts should sort out what type of management entity can
be created under specific state laws and determine whether additional
enabling ordinances or legislation is necessary.
Table 4. A framework for exploring management issues
Issue Questions to be addressed
Time frame *At what point will the planned management program structure be sustainable?
+ If the program is sequentially implemented, when will each sequence be completed?
* When will the management program be fully operational?
Service area
Purpose
*What areas or which systems will the management program serve?
*Are these areas compatible with a local public jurisdiction that would have the necessary
powers to make the program effective and sustainable?
* Do specific subareas need different management approaches (system designs,
staffing, regulatory controls)?
*What public health and water resource problems will be addressed?
* What measurements should be made (monitoring) to verify success?
Structure *Can existing entities be modified or be included in a partnership to provide management
services or will a new entity be needed?
Should the management program be limited to decentralized wastewater treatment, or
should other water, stormwater, or wastewater infrastructure be included?
* How will the program elements of the management program be staffed and administered?
Will formal agreements, ordinances, or other legal mechanisms (articles of
incorporation, public charter) be needed to create the structural elements of the program?
Authority and
liability
* Which systems will be under the jurisdiction of the management program?
Will the onsite treatment systems be privately or publicly owned?
* How will future wastewater systems be planned, designed, installed, operated,
maintained, inspected, and repaired or replaced?
*What is the relationship between the management program and the regulatory authority?
What formal agreements, ordinances or other legal mechanisms (e.g., with system or
property owners) are necessary to implement each element of the program?
How will the program be funded (planning, construction and operational phases)?
What is best for our community?
*
-------
Regulatory
considerations for
onsite programs
All treatment systems that
discharge effluent to surface
waters through a pipe, swale,
drain, tile, or other man-made
conveyance must comply with
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits and
the antidegradation provisions of
the federal Clean Water Act.
Treatment systems that discharge
effluent below the ground
surface and serve 20 or more
persons per day - or those that
receive commercial or industrial
wastes - are regulated as Class
V injection wells under the
Underground Injection Control
Program of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Class V injection
wells are authorized by rule,
i.e., a permit is not required as
long as the system is constructed
and operated in a manner that
protects underground sources of
drinking water and the owner or
operator submits basic information
about the system to EPA or the
state ground-water agency. States
can be more stringent and may
require additional information
or a permit in order to ensure
that groundwater is adequately
protected.
Treatment systems that cause or
contribute to a violation of state
or federal water quality standards
may be subject to the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
program under section 303 of
the Clean Water Act. State or
local implementation ofTMDLs
may require the use of better-
performing treatment technologies
or more stringent system
management to ensure long-term
protection of the designated uses
of surface waters.
Integrating wastewater system management
Integrating wastewater planning and management for individual onsite,
cluster, and centralized sewage treatment is highly recommended (see
the Planning Fact Sheet on page 37). The federal Clean Water Act
requires areawide wastewater management plans for many urban areas
and other areas with water quality problems. It further requires that
states conduct an ongoing planning process to ensure that wastewater
treatment plans and other water quality control efforts are integrated
and updated. Some states have adopted this approach to ensure that
centralized and decentralized wastewater services are provided in the
most effective manner possible.
Partnerships are helpful to promote wastewater management in your com-
munity. Have the stakeholder group explore opportunities to partner with
other organizations and agencies. Cooperation and communication can
often lead to wastewater improvements. For example, working coopera-
tively with neighboring communities to address residuals can help the
community identify land application sites, wastewater treatment facilities,
or other alternatives that can help manage wastewater treatment by-
products. Because of environmental impacts linked to onsite and cluster
system malfunctions, federal, state and local water resource protection
agencies are often interested in partnering with decentralized wastewater
programs to ensure that management efforts are locally and regionally
coordinated. Consider partnering with:
• Planning/zoning and economic development agencies
• Local water, wastewater, and other public utilities
• State surface water and groundwater bureaus
• State wastewater discharge permitting agencies
• Volunteer water quality monitoring groups
• Onsite system service provider groups
Likewise, you can integrate other programs into your decentralized waste-
water management program such as the following:
• Watershed Management
• The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
• Biosolids and Residuals Management
• Stormwater Management, Water Quality Management (including
Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs)
• Water Quality Standards
• Source Water Assessment and Protection
• Underground Injection Control
• Coastal Zone Management
• Nonpoint Source Control
• Technology Transfer
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Conducting a reality check
Specifying wastewater system management requirements can be chal-
lenging, particularly for existing systems. In general, acceptance of new
management activities like inspections, operating permits, and mainte-
nance contracts is greater if:
• Negative health or environmental impacts have been
demonstrated
• The impacts have been linked to onsite systems
• The management program will address the impacts
Before launching new program requirements, it helps to conduct a real-
ity check by reviewing data collected during the assessment/analysis
phase and sharing it with system owners. Involving the management
program stakeholder group is also vital during this phase because the
stakeholders' constituencies can help to provide information, explain
technical and socioeconomic issues, and tap into community and other
organizations that can build support for program implementation. If
stakeholders have been directly involved in assessing current condi-
tions, analyzing risk and developing the management program and if
they have communicated with their constituents during this process,
it is likely that program requirements will be known and generally
understood.
Dealing with opposition to management
Some resistance to a new or enhanced management program might
emerge because of citizens' reluctance to pay for a service that previ-
ously was "free." Past experience indicates that most residents will
begin to comply once they recognize that the program is needed to
address real community problems. In some cases, delaying (or phasing
in) necessary technological upgrades and management services until
after a substantial portion of the service population has accepted the
program rules can help to create momentum and support.
Working through the underlying concerns such as maintenance costs
or private property inspections can be addressed through a number
of options, such as providing access to cost-share funds or notifying
homeowners in advance of inspections. The best approach in most
cases is to proceed with program implementation if there is general
public support for the program. Remember to keep communication
lines open and honest and express the desire to work with residents to
address their concerns. Balancing mandatory compliance with persis-
tent persuasion requires a person-to-person approach and patience,
and provides the best guarantee of eventual success.
Prescriptive versus
performance onsite
system requirements
Most state and local health
departments rely on prescriptive
codes when issuing permits for
onsite systems.
These prescriptive codes typically
establish minimum setback
distances between treatment
system components and property
lines, structures, and water
resources; establish minimum
square footage requirements for
infiltration fields; and restrict the
type of onsite systems that can be
used.
Performance-based codes focus
on treatment outcomes rather
than system components or
their location. The codes do
not specify the type of system
permitted but rather allow the
design of a treatment system to
meet the standards.
Performance-based codes
are related to environmental
sensitivity and are often
created in concert with state
environmental agencies. A
performance-based code might
specify pollutant concentration
standards for the effluent at some
specific point in the treatment
process.
RME management is typically
needed to ensure compliance
with performance-based codes.
For more information see the
System Design Fact Sheet on
page 42.
What is best for our community?
*
-------
How do we make our plan a reality?
Program implementation
Decentralized wastewater management programs will be as varied as
the communities they serve. Each community has different issues and
needs, but by targeting planning, design, performance, installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements to those areas or system
types that pose the most significant threats, the program should
achieve its goals (see Figure 5).
Inspecting a septic system.
Photo: Kentucky Department of Health
Consideration of program authority
Legal authority is necessary to carry out an effective management program. In most cases broad legal mandates
for onsite programs are vested under state law (see the Corrective Actions and Enforcement Fact Sheet on page
48). But when it comes to who can actually manage a wastewater program and under what circumstances
special districts or private management entities may be formed, state laws are typically much more specific. For
example, West Virginia law specifies three entities that can manage onsite
systems, while California statutes authorize more than a dozen entities
with the power to manage community wastewater systems.
Figure 7. Key outcomes
of a management plan and
implementation strategy
Address current and
future health and water
resource risks
Plans for treatment options
in new developments
Integrates and coordinates
with other wastewater
planning efforts
Is sustainable through
adequate funding sources
and local support
Coordinates with water
resource programs, including
source water protection,
total maximum daily loads,
stormwater management,
areawide planning
Is continuously
monitored and evaluated
in order to adapt or
improve as necessary
The authority to carry out an onsite management program can be
granted to local entity such as a township or county by local ordinance.
Table 5 and Table 6 review the levels of authority required to carry out a
management program based on the jurisdiction of the agency.
Onsite management authorities in Missouri
In Missouri the Department of Health regulates all single-family-
residence wastewater systems and other sources of domestic sewage
with flows less than 3,000 gallons per day that discharge to soil or
holding tanks. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates
systems with flows of 3,000 or more gallons per day, systems treating
industrial facilities, and systems that discharge to surface waters
except single-family systems discharging to lagoons. This "split"
responsibility is typical for most states.
The DNR permits clustered systems. The agency requires the
designation of a "continuing authority" defined by state rules
before an operating permit is issued. The continuing authority is a
permanent organization responsible for the operation, maintenance,
and upgrading of the cluster system. The hierarchy of acceptable
continuing authorities is listed in preferential order in the Missouri
regulation. In recent years the legislature created an option of forming
a nonprofit sewer company and establishing management guidelines
on a watershed basis. For more information see page 49, reference #7
for a link to the Missouri law.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Table 5. Public institutions as onsite management entities
Program State agency County
considerations
Municipality Sanitation or Improvement Public
special district district authoritv
Authority
Financing
capabilities
Advantages
Disadvantages
Enforcement
of state
laws and
regulations.
Usually funded
through
appropriations
and grants.
Authority level
and code
enforceability
high; programs
can be
standardized;
scale
efficiencies.
Sometimes
not sensitive
to local needs
and issues;
often leaves
enforcement
up to local
entities.
Enforcement
of state
codes, county
ordinances.
Able to charge
fees, assess
property,
levy taxes,
issue bonds,
appropriate
general funds.
Authority level
and code
enforceability
are high;
programs can
be tailored
to local
conditions.
Sometimes
unable to
provide
service,
conduct
enforcement;
debt limits
could be
restrictive.
Enforcement
of municipal
ordinances
and state/
county codes.
Able to charge
fees, assess
property
taxes, issue
bonds,
appropriate
general funds.
Authority level
and code
enforceability
are high;
programs can
be tailored
to local
conditions.
Might
lack legal,
financial,
or other
resources,
thus needing
special
ordinances.
Powers
defined; may
include code
enforcement.
Able to charge
fees, assess
property taxes,
issue bonds.
Flexible, renders
equitable
service (only
those receiving
services pay);
simple and
independent
approach.
Could promote
duplication/
fragmentation of
public services.
State statutes
define extent
of authority.
Can apply
special
property
assessments,
user charges,
other fees; can
sell bonds.
Can extend
public services
without major
expenditures;
service
recipients
usually
supportive.
Could
contribute to
fragmentation
of government
services; can
result in initial
administrative
delays.
Duties
specified
in enabling
instrument.
Can issue
revenue
bonds,
charge user
and other
fees.
Can provide
service when
government
is unable
to do so;
autonomous,
flexible.
Financing
ability
limted to
revenue
bonds; local
government
must cover
debt.
Funding Decentralized
^=^~ Wastewater Systems
Using the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund. A fact
sheet that explains the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund and
activities that can be funded.
See page 50, reference #8.
Funding management activities
Financial support for management programs is available through grant
programs, low-interest loans, or service contracts (see the Financial
Assistance/Funding Fact Sheet on page 38). A review of funding options
reveals that user fees or service charges typically cover operational
expenses for management programs (see Tables 7 and 8). If construc-
tion is required to install cluster systems or replace significant numbers
of existing septic systems, loans, grants or both will likely be needed.
Public-private partnerships are also a good source of funding support.
Private partners include commercial wastewater sources, because these generators have the most to gain
from a successful wastewater management program. The federal government is another source of funding.
For example, a public or privately owned/operated RME is eligible under federal guidelines to receive EPA
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans. However, many states have not yet implemented the rules
needed to authorize these loans for decentralized wastewater programs.
How do we make our plan a reality?
*
-------
Table 6. Public/private corporations as management entities
Management
considerations
Public nonprofit
corporation
Private nonprofit
corporation
Private nonprofit
corporation
Authority
Financing
capabilities
Advantages
Disadvantages
Powers are specified in
articles of incorporation.
Can charge fees; sell stock;
issue bonds; accept
grants and loans.
Can provide service when
government is unable to do
so; autonomous, flexible.
Building support for this
concept may be challenging.
Powers specified in articles
of incorporation (homeowner
association).
Can charge user fees; accept
grants and loans.
Can provide service when
government is unable to do
so; autonomous, flexible.
Range of powers and services
likely limited; must partner
with empowered entity.
Powers specified in articles of
incorporation.
Can charge fees; sell stock;
accept some grants and loans.
Can provide service when
government is unable to do so;
autonomous, flexible.
Company might not be fiscally
viable; not eligible for some
major grant or loan programs.
The following entities have provided support for decentralized programs and facilities in the past. Use the
information links below to contact these agencies regarding your program needs:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a low- or no-interest loan program that has
financed sewage treatment plants across the nation.
Web site: www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf Phone: 202-564-0752
• The Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection is a searchable database
of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund watershed
protection projects.
Web site.- http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/
• The Environmental Finance Program provides financial technical assistance to the regulated
community and advice and recommendations on issues, trends and options.
Web site.- www.epa.gov/efinpage/ Phone.- (202) 564-4994
• The Nonpoint Source Pollution Program can support a wide range of nonpoint pollution abatement
projects including onsite wastewater system projects.
Web site: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/319hfunds.html Phone: (202) 566-1163
Financing onsite systems in Pennsylvania
State financing programs for onsite systems often merge various funding streams to provide an accessible,
easy-to-use support mechanism for individual system owners. The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment
Authority (PENNVEST) provides low-cost financing for systems on individual lots or within entire
communities. Teaming with the Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Environmental Protection,
PENNVEST created a low-interest loan program for low- to moderate-income homeowners. The $65
application fee is refundable if the project is approved. The program can save system owners $3,000 to $6,000
in interest payments on a 15-year loan of $10,000. Since 1999 PENNVEST has approved 230 loans totaling
$3.5 million. The program is financed by revenue bonds, special statewide referenda, the state general fund,
and the State Revolving Fund. For more information see page 50, reference #12.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Funding onsite systems and management in Massachusetts
Massachusetts has developed three onsite management funding
programs. The first program provides low-interest loans to
homeowners to address onsite system problems. Another program
provides tax credits of up to $6,000 ($1,500 per year) to defray
the cost of system repairs for a primary residence. Finally, the
Comprehensive Community Septic Management Program, sponsored
by environmental, finance and housing agencies, provides low-interest
loans for long-term community, regional, or watershed-based solutions
to system malfunctions in sensitive environmental areas. Loans of up
to $200,000 (and more, in some cases) are available and are repaid by
the communities and homeowners that participate in the program.
Funds for these programs include the State Revolving Fund loan
program, state general funds, and loans from area banks. For more
information see page 50, reference #13 and #14.
U.S. Department of Agriculture
• The Rural Housing
Service makes funding
available to low- and
moderate-income rural
Americans to acquire
homes through several
loan and grant guarantee
programs.
Web site: http://www.
rurdev. usda.gov/in/
loansandgrants.htm
• The Home Repair Loan
and Grant Program is
for low-income families
that own homes in need
of repair and offers loans and grants for renovation. Loans are for up to 20 years at one percent
interest.
Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/sfh/brief_repairloan.htm
• The Rural Utilities Service loans assist public or nonprofit entities developing water and waste
dispersal systems in rural areas and towns with populations of no more than 10,000.
Web site: www.usda.gov/rus/water/programs.htm
• The Rural Business-Cooperative Service provides guaranteed loans to help create jobs and
stimulate rural economies. This program provides guarantees for up to 90 percent of a loan made
by a commercial lender.
Web site: www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/b&i_gar.htm
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Community Development Block Grants provide annual grants for community development to
smaller cities and counties for rehabilitating residential and nonresidential structures, constructing
public facilities, and improving water and sewer facilities, including onsite systems.
Web site.- www.hud.gov/cpd/cdbg.html Phone.- (202) 708-1112
• The Appalachian Regional Commission helps communities to fund the development of
onsite programs.
Web site.- www.arc.gov Phone.- (202) 884-7799
Tribal Sources
• The EPA Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Program administers grants in cooperation with the Indian
Health Service to address tribal sanitation needs.
Website: www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/cwisa.htm Phone: (202) 564-0621
• The Indian Health Service-Sanitation Facilities Construction Program administers the Sanitation
Facilities Construction Program to deliver environmental engineering and sanitation facilities to
Native Americans.
Web site: www.dsfc.ihs.gov Phone: (301) 443-1046
• RCAP Native American Program services include onsite technical assistance to address drinking
water supply and wastewater treatment needs, including decentralized wastewater training,
construction and repair, operator certification, income, and rate surveys.
Web site: www.rcap.org Phone: (202) 408-1273
How do we make our plan a reality?
"
-------
Table 7. Advantages and disadvantages of various funding sources
Source
Loans
Grants
General obligation
bonds
Revenue bonds
Special assessment
bonds
Bondbank monies
Certificates of partici-
pation
(COPs)
Note
Property Assessment
Connection fees
Impact fees
Money lent with interest;
can be obtained from
federal, state and
commercial lending
institutions.
Funds awarded to pay for
some or all of a community
project.
Bonds backed by the full
faith and credit of the
issuing entity. Secured by
the taxing powers of the
issuing entity. Used by
local governments.
Bonds repaid by the
revenue of the facility.
Bonds payable only from
collection of special
assessments.
States use taxing power to
secure a large-issue bond
that can be divided among
communities.
Certificate that may be
issued by a community
to several lenders that
participate in the same
loan.
A written promise to pay a
debt.
Direct fees or taxes on
property. May include
grant and bond anticipation
notes. Sometimes referred
to as an improvement fee.
Charges assessed for
connection to existing
system.
Fees charged to
developers.
State and federal agencies
can often issue low-
interest loans with a long
repayment period. Loans
can be used for short-term
financing while waiting for
grants or bonds.
Funds do not need to be
repaid. Small communities
might be eligible for many
different grants to build or
upgrade their wastewater
facilities.
Interest rates are usually
lower than those of other
bonds. Offers considerable
flexibility to local
governments.
Can be used to circumvent
local debt limitation.
Removes financial burden
from local government.
Useful when direct benefits
can be identified.
States can secure bond
at a lower interest rate.
The state may issue the
bond in anticipation of
community need.
Costs and risks spread
out over several lenders.
In some cases COPs
may beissued when
bonds would exceed debt
limitations.
Method of short-term
financing while a
community is waiting for a
grant or bond.
Useful when benefits from
capital improvements are
identifiable. May be used
to reduce local-share debt
requirements for financing.
May be used to establish
a fund for future capital
investments.
Connection funded by
beneficiary. All connection
costs might be paid.
Paid for by only those who
profit. Funds may be used
to offset costs.
Loans must be repaid with
interest. Lending agency might
require certain provisions to
ensure repayment of the debt.
Commercial loans typically are
available at high interest rates
and might be difficult to obtain
without adequate collateral.
Requires time and money to
manage. Wage standards may
apply increasing project expense.
Might require use of material/
design requirements that exceed
local standards resulting in
higher costs.
Community debt limitations
might restrict use. Voters often
must approve of using these
bonds. Usually used for facilities
that do not generate revenues.
Do not have full faith and credit
of the local government. Interest
rates may be higher than those
of general obligation bonds.
Might be costly to some
landowners and inappropriate in
areas with nonuniform lot sizes.
Interest rate may be high.
Many communities compete for
limited amount of bond bank
funds.
Involve complicated agreements
among participating lenders.
Community must be certain
of receipt of the grant money.
Notes are risky because voters
must approve general obligation
bonds before they are issued.
Initial lump sum payment
of assessment might be a
significant burden on individual
property owners. Some states
and localities restrict the
allowable burden on individuals.
Might discourage development.
Can be restricted by state and
local laws.
Might reduce potential for
development. Can be restricted
by state and local laws.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Table 8. Fee-far-service management agency examples
Maintenance reminders.
Complaint response.
Inspection upon title transfer.
Inspection every 2 to 5 years.
Tank pumped out at time of
inspection. Effluent screen cleaned
or replaced annually.
Inspection of system every year.
Effluent screen cleaned or replaced
annually. Tank pumped out every 5
years.
Inspection of system every six
months. Effluent screen cleaned &
replaced annually. Tank pumped out
every 5 years.
System inspections as needed.
On-call service for problems.
Repair of faulty system components.
Replacement of system if needed.
County health department staff.
Owner pays for maintenance services
needed.
County health department staff.
Contracted licensed inspector.
County health department staff.
Contracted operation and
maintenance service providers.
County health department staff.
Contracted operation and
maintenance service providers.
County health department staff.
Contracted operation and
maintenance service providers.
Responsible management entity.
Contracted service providers.
Negligible
~ $75 to $150 at
the time of sale
~ $25 quarterly
~ $30 to $40 quarterly
~ $15 per month
~ $30 to $35 per
charges for repairs
month; other
or replacement
A Responsible
Management Entity
(RME) may...
• Purchase, lease and
rent real and personal
property
• Access and inspect the
systems it manages by
covenant ordinance or
other instrument
• Apply for and receive
loans and grants
for construction of
facilities
• Enter into contracts,
undertake debt
obligations, borrow
funds, and issue stock
or bonds
• Establish and collect
charges for system
usage or oversight
• Make rules and
regulations regarding
the use of systems
• Ensure the repair
or replacement of
malfunctioning systems
Selecting a management entity
In some cases a community might choose to adopt a basic manage-
ment approach by selecting management actions to target problem
systems, track compliance, and respond to noncompliant owners
through a stepwise approach such as (1) notification and persuasion,
(2) technical/financial assistance, and (3) enforcement action. In other
cases, a community might opt for a more advanced management
approach through a Responsible Management Entity (RME). RME man-
agement has been the preferred option for areas with very intensive
management needs, and it is best suited to areas that include cluster
systems (see the Operation and Maintenance Fact Sheet on page 44).
The common ownership of collection lines and larger treatment and
dispersal systems typical of cluster facilities make a "single manager"
RME approach preferable. These management entities can also handle
individual onsite systems within their jurisdiction and seek to maximize
the number of dwellings served in order to be financially sustainable.
Creating a centralized management
entity will be a new undertaking
for many localities. States and
communities can consider several
options. In some cases, a manage-
ment partnership—coordinated
by the regulatory authority and
supported by local planning agen-
A Guide to the
Public Management of
Private Septic Systems.
Communities can use this
handbook to examine their
wastewater treatment options
and design a unique program
that meets their needs. See page
51, reference #20.
How do we make our plan a reality?
-
-------
cies, service providers, and public agencies—might provide the best
option to oversee and implement a program. Another option is to enlist
an existing sanitation or other special district to provide a solid base of
support for management functions like planning, installation, operation
and maintenance, inspection, enforcement, and financing. For example,
a sanitation district could be responsible for regional planning, inspect-
ing systems, and ensuring system maintenance such as tank pumping
and residuals reuse/dispersal, while the health department would retain
authority over approving system designs, issuing permits, and oversee-
ing construction.
Enforcement Authority
and Tools
Enforcement authority can be
granted through
• State enabling
legislation
• Municipal ordinances/
codes
• Local health board
powers to abate
nuisances and provide
public health services.
Onsite management programs
use a variety of enforcement
tools to compel compliance, from
citations and property liens to
turning off water service.
Public service providers such as
utility districts can also serve as
a management entity. Private or
public RMEs have been created
to manage the full range of decen-
tralized system management
activities—from regional planning
and system permitting to inspec-
tion and enforcement. RMEs can
relieve the strain on the regulatory
authority by engaging in fee-for-
service activities with only occa-
sional compliance support from
or intervention by the regulatory
authority. The approach selected
will be unique and based on each
community's situation.
System inspections are a key component
of management programs, Clogged septic
tank effluent filters (above) can trigger
calls for needed service, but regular
inspections tailored to system type,
setting, and use profile provide a better
approach for ensuring long-term system
performance.
Septic System Checkup:
The Rhode Island
Handbook
for Inspection. A Handbook
with instructions for gathering
septic system records, locating
components, diagnosing minor
in-home plumbing problems,
conducting flow trials, dye
tracing, and maintenance
scheduling. See page 54,
reference #56.
Creation of an onsite management district in Colorado
In 1969 the Crystal Lakes Development Company began building a residential community 40 miles
northwest of Fort Collins, Colorado. Three years later the company sponsored the creation of the Crystal
Lakes Water and Sewer Association to provide drinking water and sewage treatment services to the growing
community. Membership in the Association is required of all lot owners, who must also obtain an onsite
system permit from the Larimer County Health Department. The Association enforces county health
covenants, assists in system design and installation, monitors surface water and groundwater, and has
developed guidelines for inspections, which are conducted at the time of property transfer. The Association
conducts preliminary site evaluations for proposed treatment systems.
The county health department has also authorized the Association to design systems. The Association
manages wastewater treatment for more than 100 permanent dwellings and 600 seasonal residences.
Management services are provided for all systems in the development, including 300 holding tanks, seven
community vault toilets, recreational vehicle dump stations, a lodge, offices, a restaurant, and a cluster system
that serves 25 homes on small lots. The Association is financed by annual property owner dues of $90 to $180,
and a $25 property transfer fee, which covers inspections. For more information see page 53, reference #38.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
A formal program
evaluation includes:
• An evaluation
team composed of
stakeholders
• A review of goals,
objectives, and
operational
components of the
various management
program elements
using a checklist to
identify which program
elements already exist
and evaluate whether
they are meeting their
objectives
• A review of the program
elements and feedback
collected from staff
and stakeholders to
determine the level of
progress toward goals
and objectives and to
assess current status,
trends, administrative
processes, and
cooperative
arrangements with
other entities.
• Identifying program
elements in need of
improvement, as well
as actions or amounts
and types of resources
needed to address
deficient program areas
• Identifying sources of
additional support or
assistance to improve
program performance
• Communicating
suggested
improvements to
program managers
for consideration in
program structure and
function
Evaluating the
program
Monitoring of program performance
is key to effective decentralized
wastewater management. The
management authority should
regularly review inspection reports,
Septic System Checkup:
~^=^ The Rhode Island Handbook
for Inspection. A Handbook
with instructions for gathering septic
system records, locating components,
diagnosing minor in-home plumbing
problems, conducting flow trials, dye
tracing, and maintenance scheduling.
See page 54, reference #56.
water quality monitoring data,
customer complaints, and fee structures to track the progress of the
management program in achieving goals and objectives. Although an
annual management program review is recommended, the management
program should be able to make interim adjustments in response to
unanticipated problems that arise during the course of normal operations.
The 13 program elements listed in Appendix A provide a framework
for reviewing and adapting management approaches. The evaluation
method you choose for each program, like the program itself, will
depend on local circumstances, the types and number of stakeholders
involved, and the level of support by management agencies.
Additional information and resources
This handbook should be used in tandem with the EPA National
Voluntary Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered
(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems (see reference #4) as
a starting point for developing and implementing an effective decen-
tralized wastewater treatment management program. EPA has also
developed information on decentralized wastewater treatment manage-
ment to supplement this handbook. The information is available on the
EPA web site at www.epa.gov/owm/onsite. Information is also
available from the EPA cooperating partners listed on page 55.
There is no "cookie-cutter" approach for improving decentralized
wastewater system management. By following the steps outlined in this
handbook and using the resources listed in appendices A and B along
with supplemental materials on EPA's web site, you can develop the
program that best fits the needs and resources of your community.
How do we make our plan a reality?
33
-------
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
EPA FACT SHEETS
Decentralized Wastewater Management Program Elements
Program Management Elements
Administration
Wlp Public education
Oy) Planning
Oj) Performance
requirements
4. y|| Recordkeeping
— and reporting
Oj) Financial
^^ assistance
Installation
T Site Evaluation
System design
Operation and Compliance
9.
Construction and
installation
10
11
12
13
Develop
or enhance decentralized
wastewater treatment management
program
(Operation and
maintenance
(Residuals
management
Training and
certification/
licensing
Inspections and
monitoring
Corrective actions
and enforcement
EPA Fact Sheets
-
-------
. FACT
\ SHEET
Public Education and Participation
Decentralized wastewater management programs require public support. The
success of these programs will depend on how well homeowners, system service
providers, and other stakeholders are involved in the development process. Unless
people understand the need for a management program, there is little chance
it will be adopted. Once in operation, the program must keep the community
involved and informed to perform at its best.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Involving and educating homeowners, service providers, and the public will set
the groundwork for how well a management program is received and ultimately how well it performs. Public
awareness is particularly crucial when it comes to initiating several management program elements including
planning, inspections/monitoring, operation/maintenance, corrective actions, and financial assistance.
Options
Public education and participation can be implemented by regulatory agencies or through cooperative
actions supported by program partners. The figure below shows the varying approaches to public education
and participation.
Basic
Public Education and Participation Approaches
> Promote public awareness of management program development and rule revisions.
> Distribute multimedia materials on basic system operation and maintenance needs.
> Reminders sent to owners when operation and maintenance should be scheduled.
Intermediate
> Public involvement in program development and annual program reviews.
> Develop locally specific educational materials including information on watershed impacts.
> Provide users with lists of approved service providers.
> Provide information through workshops, fairs, schools, and other events to educate system owners on
them on operation and maintenance, health and environmental impacts, causes of malfunction, and
program procedures.
Advanced
> Involve public in program development, annual program reviews, and public education and outreach
efforts.
> Educate homeowners about management program advisory boards, variance and complaint review
panels.
>Work with homeowners in system design phase and during inspections to optimize management
program performance and acceptability.
> Conduct outreach programs at civic, school, and other events to answer questions and obtain feedback
from citizens.
Examples
In south Deschutes County, Oregon, a decentralized wastewater project determined that education was the
key to public support of the maintenance program. The project team involved and educated homeowners,
real estate professionals, and building contractors through a one-hour training session that provided
continuing education unit credits for real estate professionals.
Key Evaluation Questions
> What are your outreach objectives, messages, target audiences, and communication venues?
> Which activities would benefit from public or partner involvement, and how can we implement them?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
FACT
SHEET
Planning
Planning can be used to integrate management strategies for areas served by
both centralized and decentralized wastewater treatment facilities. Integrating
wastewater planning functions provides better long-term management of facilities
and can help local officials deal with a number of needs such as sewer overflows,
NPDES effluent limitations, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and antidegradation
requirements. Variables to consider during the planning process include wastewater
flows, proximity and uses of nearby water resources, landscape topography,
hydrology, hydrogeology, soils, environmentally sensitive areas, system options and
locations, population densities, and need/potential for clustering treatment/reuse
facilities.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Planning is the foundation for many program elements including the establishment of local performance
requirements and criteria used for site evaluation, system design, construction, inspections, operation and
maintenance, and residuals management.
Options
Planning can be implemented by enhancing existing planning and zoning programs or through integrated
wastewater facility planning. The figure below shows the varying approaches to planning.
Planning Approaches
Basic
Intermediate
Advanced
>Work with local and regional planning agencies to access and utilize information such as soils data
planning requirements.
and
>Assess vulnerabilities of receiving waters.
> Identify treatment standards based on health and water resource risks.
> Establish overlay treatment zones based on environmental sensitivity and potential health impacts.
> Identify cluster system opportunities for existing and new developments.
Example
In Prince George's County, Maryland, the Department of Environmental Resources and the Health
Department worked together to develop geographic information system (GIS) tools to quantify and mitigate
nonpoint source nutrient loadings to the lower Patuxent River, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The
agencies developed a database of information on existing onsite systems, including system age, type, and
location, with additional data layers for depth to ground water and soils. The resulting GIS framework allows
users to quantify nitrogen loadings and visualize likely impacts under a range of management scenarios to be
used to manage wastewater in new developments.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Do current land use planning and zoning approaches consider the full range of wastewater treatment
options?
> Are centralized and decentralized wastewater planning and management approaches integrated?
EPA Fact Sheets
*
-------
. FACT
\ SHEET
Performance Requirements
Performance requirements for systems are derived by characterizing the risks
they pose to health and water resources and by setting pollutant loading limits
based on limiting those risks to specific levels. Performance requirements specify
objectives for each wastewater management system, which may include physical,
chemical, and biological process components. Performance compliance is based on
cumulative, extrapolated pollutant removals for the various system components
(e.g., septic tank, suspended growth or fixed film reactors, lagoons, wetlands, soil,
disinfection). Performance can be measured via numeric or narrative criteria.
Numeric criteria reflect time-based mass loadings or pollutant concentration limits
designed to protect sensitive water resources. Pollutants commonly targeted in performance requirements
include nutrients, bacteria, oxygen demand, and solids.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Performance requirements are derived from planning goals and projected system impacts, site evaluations,
system design, inspections/monitoring, and operation/maintenance.
Options
Performance requirements can be implemented through regional analysis, planning, statutes, ordinances,
and actions by the regulatory authority. The figure below shows the varying approaches to performance
requirements.
Basic
Performance Requirements Approaches
> Prevent direct and indirect contact with wastewater through prescribed site requirements, hydraulic
loading restrictions, and separation distances.
> Designate specific and acceptable system designs.
Intermediate
>Specify alternative technologies for certain sites or conditions that do not meet prescribed require-
ments.
> Establish inspection and maintenance reporting requirements based on system type and performance
desired.
Advanced
> Identify water resource uses and characterize surface and groundwater quality.
> Evaluate cumulative impacts/allotments for all sources of critical pollutants.
> Establish numeric and narrative performance requirements for onsite/decentralized systems based on
water quality criteria and assimilative capacity of land and water resourcefe).
> Develop protocols and frequencies for measuring (monitoring/ inspections) compliance.
Examples
Massachusetts' onsite regulations designate several specific areas as "nitrogen-sensitive." Onsite systems in
those areas must remove at least 40 percent of the influent nitrogen loading. Restrictive maximum discharge
flows are specified per acre/day unless the treatment systems can meet certain specific requirements for
nitrogen reduction.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Which water resources receive treated effluent and what are their uses and protection criteria?
> What loading limits should apply to which systems, given the cumulative and mass pollutant loads
expected?
> How can we implement or apply these loading or concentration limits to treatment systems
(e.g., through permits)?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
.
\ SHEET
Recordkeeping, Inventories, and
Reporting
System inventories provide the nuts and bolts for onsite management. Basic system
information—CIS location, type, design capacity, owner, installation, and servicing
dates—is essential to an effective program. The best recordkeeping programs
feature integrated electronic databases with field unit data entry (i.e. using a hand-
held PDA), save-to-file CAD drawings, and user-specified reporting formats.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Data collection and inventories provide information for planning and support
establishment of performance requirements for critical areas. All program elements
rely on system inventories, reports, and similar data—particularly planning, inspections/monitoring,
operation/maintenance, and compliance/enforcement.
Options
Recordkeeping, inventories, and reporting are implemented by management agencies and RMEs. The
figure below shows the varying approaches to recordkeeping, inventory and reporting.
Basic
Recordkeeping, Inventories, and Reporting Approaches
> Maintain system inventory, site evaluation, construction permit, and inspection files.
>Conduct maintenance reminder and public education programs.
Intermediate
> Develop reporting approaches to collect operation and maintenance information from service providers
and from inspections, in addition to system inventory.
> Institute electronic reporting and database system for operating permit program actions.
Advanced
> Provide system inventory and tracking system as an intermediate approach with watershed character-
ization information and data to assist staff and state agency.
> Develop interactive, real-time information tracking programs to maximize productivity.
>• Track watershed and groundwater trends.
> Facilitate reporting to oversight agencies and maximize public education/involvement.
Examples
Cuyahoga County, Ohio developed a Microsoft Access Database to enter, access, and track permits, system
drawings, evaluation results, and other information on each onsite system. The database allows the county to
respond to homeowner and service provider questions and send out tank pumping reminders as needed.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Does our tracking system for new permits contain CIS location, system size and type, installation date,
design capacity, and other key data (system components, site evaluation report, facility type)?
> How do we report, track, and manage data on inspections, repairs, pumpouts, and other services?
> Can our data be used for new development planning and generating service reminders?
> Are we coordinating our inventory and reporting systems with those of our partners (e.g., planning
office)?
> Can we use our data to track service provider performance, training needs, and identify other
management needs?
EPA Fact Sheets
-
-------
. FACT
\ SHEET
Financial Assistance and Funding
Financial assistance is needed to:
1) Develop or enhance a management program.
2) Provide support for the construction and modification of wastewater facilities.
3) Support operation of the program.
Funding for program development and operation is often available from public
and private loan or grant sources, supplemented by local matching funds. It can also
be derived from some form of resource sharing among management program partner
organizations such as planning departments or health and water resource agencies.
Developing a responsible management entity (RME) and financing for the construction and operation of
facilities require larger investments which might come from grants and loans. Long-term operating costs are
usually borne by system users through payment of fees and tax assessments.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Program funding and other financial support is essential to develop, implement, and maintain a
management program. All program elements depend on cash or in-kind support.
Options
Funding support can be acquired through grants, loans, user fees, and other assessments. The figure below
shows the varying levels of financial assistance approaches.
Basic
Financial Assistance and Funding Approaches
>State/local governments provide necessary legal and administrative support to conduct all aspects of
the management program.
Intermediate
>State/local funds support basic administrative and other costs.
>Work with state, tribal, or local governments and local lending institutions to develop low interest loan
programs.
> Provide guidance to help owners seek funding for system upgrades or replacement.
Advanced
>State/local funds support basic administrative and other costs.
> Grants, cost-share funds, low-interest loans, or other programs help low income owners pay for system
repairs or replacement.
>User fees cover inspections, repair, replacement, operation and maintenance costs, and a sinking fund
to cover future infrastructure needs.
Examples
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has developed three programs that help finance onsite systems and
management programs. The loan program provides loans at below-market rates. Another program provides a
tax credit of up to $4,500 over three years to defray the cost of system repairs for a primary residence. Finally,
the Comprehensive Community Septic Management Program provides funding for long term community,
regional, or watershed-based solutions to system malfunctions in sensitive environmental areas. Low interest
management program loans of up to $100,000 are available.
Key Evaluation Questions
> What management activities and infrastructure needs require funding, financing, or other support?
> Are some essential management activities or infrastructure needs underfunded? By how much?
> Where can funding for these activities or facility components come from?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
FACT
SHEET
Site Evaluation
Evaluating a proposed site in terms of its environmental conditions, physical
features, and characteristics provides the information needed to size, select, and
locate the appropriate wastewater treatment system. Regulatory authorities issue
installation permits based on the information collected and analyses performed
during the site evaluation . Prescriptive site evaluation, design, and construction
requirements are based on experience with conventional septic tank/soil absorption
systems and empirical relationships that have evolved over the years. A soil analysis
using core sampling to a depth of 4-6 feet or a backhoe pit, rather than a simple
percolation test, provides the best approach for assessing soils, seasonal water table
fluctuations, and other subsurface site features. Performance-based approaches require a more comprehensive
site evaluation. Site evaluation protocols may include presently employed empirical tests, specific soil
properties tests and soil pits to characterize soil horizons, mottling, and a variety of other properties.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Site evaluations that consider soils, slopes, water tables, surface hydrology, overall system densities, and
other features provide the basis for system design and help to focus on planning and the establishment of
performance requirements.
Options
Site evaluation protocols are adopted by the regulatory authority and implemented through training,
outreach, and certification/licensing programs. The figure below shows the varying approaches to site
evaluation.
Basic
Site Evaluation Approaches
> Require assessment of site hydraulic acceptance and other physical features, including slope and verti-
cal and horizontal setbacks for soil-based systems to determine compliance with prescriptive rules.
> Require licensed/certified site evaluators.
Intermediate
> Prescribe a broader set of site conditions to permit prescribed alternative technologies.
> Require third-party licensed/certified site evaluators.
> Designate alternative systems for sites not meeting conditions prescribed for conventional systems.
Advanced
> Provide supplemental protocols for assessing site assimilative and treatment capacity keyed to local
hydrogeology and critical pollutants.
> Characterize critical design and performance requirements and system boundaries.
> Provide supplemental certification/licensing training for site evaluators to meet local needs.
Examples
In 1997, Texas eliminated percolation test requirements for onsite systems and instituted new performance
requirements for alternative systems such as drip systems, intermittent sand filters, and leaching chambers.
Site evaluations in Texas are now based on soil and site analyses. Service providers must also be certified.
State officials took these actions after onsite system installations nearly tripled between 1990 and 1997.
Key Evaluation Questions
> What are the current site evaluation procedures and how are they linked to various system design
options?
> Who is authorized to conduct site evaluations and what are the education, training, or certification
requirements?
EPA Fact Sheets
«
-------
. FACT
\ SHEET
System Design
Decentralized wastewater treatment system design requirements focus on
protection of public health and water resources. However, systems should also be
affordable and aesthetically acceptable. Prescriptive codes that specify standard
designs for sites meeting minimum criteria simplify design reviews but limit
development options and the potential for meeting performance requirements.
Where management programs rely on the state code for design, there may not be
any need for special design protocols. However, in sensitive environments where
performance codes are employed, there is a need to include a design protocol even
if it only expands the number of prescriptive system choices and site parameters for
sites that do not meet the conditions for conventional systems. Design protocols should address the potential
implications of water conservation fixtures, impacts of different pretreatment levels on hydraulic and
treatment performance of soil-based systems, and the operation and maintenance requirements of different
pretreatment and soil dispersal technologies.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
System designs are based on the program elements of performance requirements, site evaluations, and
planning-level considerations. System design will also affect the inspection/monitoring elements of a
management program as well as operation/maintenance requirements.
Options
System designs are developed by certified professionals or the regulatory authority. The figure below shows
the varying approaches to system design.
Basic
System Design Approaches
> Design only conventional septic tank/gravity-flow soil treatment systems on sites meeting code-
described prescriptive criteria.
> Require state certified/ licensed designers.
Intermediate
>Allow limited number of alternative designs on certain code-specified non-compliant sites.
> Require state certified designers; provide potential for engineered alternative designs for larger and
cluster systems.
Advanced
> Institute protocols for use of risk-based designs based on site evaluation results, specific wastewater
sources, planning considerations, and receiving water uses
> Provide supplemental training and licensing/certification for designers based on specific needs of local
water resources.
Examples
The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission adopted a regional, interstate process
for reviewing proposed wastewater treatment technologies. A technical review committee evaluates innovative
and alternative technologies as well as system components that replace part of a conventional system, modify
conventional operation or performance, or provide a higher level of treatment than conventional onsite
systems.
Key Evaluation Questions
> What sort of system designs are allowed on which type of sites and who develops the system design?
> Is there a need to adopt a performance design approach or to expand the type of systems and sites
allowed?
> If more complex designs are permitted, how can we assure that they are competently reviewed?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
FACT
SHEET
Construction/Installation
Poor installation can adversely affect performance of both conventional and
advanced systems that rely on soil dispersion and treatment. Most jurisdictions
allow installation or construction to begin after issuance of a construction permit,
which occurs after the design and site evaluation reports have been reviewed and
approved. Performance problems linked to installation/construction are typically
related to soil moisture conditions during construction, operation of heavy
equipment on soil infiltration areas, use of unapproved construction materials
(e.g. unwashed aggregate containing clay or other fines), and overall construction
practices (e.g. altering trench depth, slope, length, location). The impacts of
improper installation of soil-based systems generally occur within the first year of operation in the form of
wastewater backups. Some improper construction practices may not be as evident, and may take years to
manifest themselves in the form of degraded groundwater or surface water. Inspections by the regulatory
authority or other approved professional should be conducted at several stages during the system installation
process to ensure compliance with design and regulatory requirements.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
The primary program element linked to installation of the system is training, certification and licensing of
installers.
Options
Construction and installation of systems is typically coordinated by the regulatory authority through
the permitting, inspection, and oversight process. The figure below shows the varying approaches to
construction/installation.
Basic
Construction/Installation Approaches
> Construction permit based on code-compliant site evaluation and system design.
> Installation by trained professionals.
> Inspection of system prior to backfilling to confirm installation complies with design.
Intermediate
> Use of more proactive measures such as pre-construction meeting at site with owner, installer during all
phases of construction.
> Maintain certification/licensing and training requirements for installers.
Advanced
> Provide extensive construction oversight for all critical steps such as field verification and staking of
system components; inspections after backfilling and installation are complete.
> Supplemental training for installers on difficult sites and new technologies.
> Verification and database entry of as-built drawings and other installation information.
Examples
The Responsible Management Entity (RME) for Shannon City, Iowa uses its trained and certified staffer
USDA Rural Development staff to provide construction oversight. Final pre-cover inspection and permitting
are also performed by the Union County Sanitarian.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Are installers trained and certified/licensed to build or install the type of systems they are working with?
> Do inspectors visit the site before, during, and after installation to verify that design directives were
followed?
> Are records of system design, location, installer, owner, and as-built drawings kept in permanent files?
> Is advanced training available for installers who work with new technologies, difficult sites, and other
challenges?
EPA Fact Sheets
-------
. FACT
\ SHEET
Operation and Maintenance
O&M for most systems includes some user awareness of inputs that might impact
treatment processes, such as strong cleaners, lye, acids, biocides, paint wastes, oil
and grease, etc. Gravity flow soil-infiltration systems require little O&M beyond
limiting inputs to normal residential wastes, cleaning effluent screens/filters,
and periodic (e.g. every 3-7 years) tank pumping. Systems employing advanced
treatment technologies and electromechanical components require more intensive
O&M attention, e.g., checking switches and pumps, measuring and managing sludge
levels, monitoring and adjusting treatment process and system timers, checking
effluent filters, monitoring effluent quality, and maintaining disinfection equipment.
Operators and service technicians should be trained and certified for the types of systems they will be
servicing; services should be logged and reported to the management program so that long-term performance
can be tracked. The use of a dial-up modem or Internet-based monitoring equipment can improve operator
efficiency and performance tracking when large numbers of systems are involved.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
O&M is linked most closely to system design, inspection and monitoring, residuals management,
performance requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting. O&M also relates to training and certification
for service providers.
Options
O&M can be implemented through homeowner education (for simple gravity-driven, soil-based systems),
trained service providers (for more complex systems), or RMEs (for systems owned/operated by a responsible
management entity). The table below summarizes basic, intermediate, and advanced approaches.
Basic
Operation and Maintenance Approaches
>0&M educational materials and service reminders circulated to system owners
>Complaint response protocols published
>0nly certified/licensed O&M providers can be used
Intermediate
> Maintenance contracts and reporting required for electro-mechanical systems
>Operating permits renewable upon reported completion of required O&M tasks and inspections
> Prescriptive requirements for surface risers and inspection ports
Advanced
>• Trained, certified service providers handle O&M tasks for all systems in accordance with established
protocols
>Supplemental training and certification programs provided or supported by RME through training
centers or other means
> Electronic access to O&M records by field personnel
>0&M provider performance reviews frequently updated and local approval list disseminated
Examples
Fairfax County, Virginia requires septic tank pumping every five years. System owners must provide the
county health department with a written notification within 10 days of the pump-out. A receipt from the
pump-out contractor, who must be licensed to handle septic tank residuals, must supplement the notification.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Do we have clearly defined O&M requirements based on system type and performance requirements or
risk factors?
> Are operators and service personnel trained and certified before servicing systems?
> How are O&M services reported to the management program? Is the data easily entered and retrieved?
> Are system owners aware of waste restrictions, their system type, and how to access O&M services?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
FACT
SHEET
10
Residuals Management
The primary objective for septage management is to establish procedures for han-
dling and dispersing the material in a manner that protects public health and water re-
sources and complies with applicable laws. Approximately 67 percent of the estimated
12.4 billion gallons of septage produced annually in the U.S. is hauled to POTWs or
other facilities for treatment, while the remaining 33 percent is land applied. Federal
regulations (under 40 CFR Part 503) and state/local codes strive to minimize exposure
of humans, animals, and the environment to chemical contaminants and pathogens
that may be present in septage. Residuals management programs include tracking or
manifest systems that identify sources, pumpers, transport equipment, final destina-
tion, and treatment or management techniques.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Residuals management is closely linked to planning, operation/maintenance, inspection/monitoring, and
training/ certification of service providers. Public education is also a key factor when new residual facilities are
proposed.
Options
Residuals can be land-applied after proper treatment, discharged to a septage or wastewater treatment
plant, or delivered to an approved dispersal site. The figure below shows the varying approaches to residual
management.
Basic
Residuals Management Approaches
>Assure that residuals are being reused or managed in compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local requirements
> Educate and remind owners of the need to inspect and/or pump tanks.
> Require only state-certified/ licensed 0/M residuals handlers using approved sites and management
practices.
Intermediate
> Require homeowners and licensed/certified service providers to report when tanks are inspected,
residuals are removed, and how the residuals are managed in order to renew operating permit.
> Maintain and disseminate list of acceptable O&M service providers.
Advanced
> Create and administer tracking, inspection, and monitoring plan for all aspects of tank inspections,
residuals removal, hauling, treatment, and reuse/disposal.
> Provide any necessary supplemental training and registration/licensing programs for local O&M provid-
ers or arrange it with training centers and universities.
> Develop contingency plans for alternative management practices or disposal sites.
> Employ only approved service providers.
Examples
Hollis Warren Incorporated has operated a dedicated land application site for septage in Kent County,
Delaware for more than 10 years. The operation processes 4 million gallons of septage annually by screening,
grit removal, and lime stabilization. The decanted liquid is then land applied to irrigate reed canary grass, corn,
and soybeans. Solids removed during decanting are applied at agronomic rates to farmland for beneficial reuse
as a soil amendment.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Where are pumpers currently hauling septage removed from tanks, and how is it treated, used, or dispersed?
> Do we have adequate capacity to handle current and future septage loads?
> What are the barriers to expanding existing land application and septage facilities or establishing new ones?
> Can the management program provide support (e.g., public education, financing) to overcome these
barriers?
EPA Fact Sheets
-------
. FACT
\ SHEET
11
Training and Certification/Licensing
A variety of professionals and technicians including planners, regulators,
designers, installers, operators, pumpers, and inspectors, are all involved in some
aspect of a decentralized wastewater management program. Training, along with
certification or registration, provides system owners and users with competent
service providers and "raises the bar" in promoting professionalism among the
industry. Service providers need to have a solid working knowledge of treatment
processes, system components, performance options, operation/maintenance
requirements, and laws/regulations. This training can be provided by universities,
colleges, technical schools, agency-sponsored training programs, regional/local
workshops, or formal/informal apprenticeship programs. Service providers should have extensive and
detailed knowledge of their particular service area and a general grasp of other related activities (e.g.
planning or site evaluation). Opportunities for cross-training, joint accreditation/certification, and sharing of
training resources should be pursued wherever possible.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Training and certification are linked primarily to site evaluation, design, construction, residuals
management, inspections/monitoring, and operation/maintenance.
Options
Training and certification programs can be implemented by the regulatory authority, RME, or other
regional/national trade organizations. The figure below shows the varying approaches to training,
certification and licensing.
Basic
Training and Certification/Licensing Approaches
> Require homeowners to use only state or tribal certified/licensed service providers.
>Track and investigate system owner complaints.
Intermediate
>Support more comprehensive state/tribal training requirements for certificate or license.
> Create and disseminate lists of acceptable service providers contingent on their accuracy of reporting
and service complaint investigations.
Advanced
> Develop an inspection program and performance reviews for approval of service providers in district.
> Implement supplemental training programs for service providers seeking to perform services based on
local protocols, system variations, and other specifications.
Examples
A number of states and national trade groups such as NSF International, the National Association of
Wastewater Transporters, National Environmental Health Association, and the National Environmental
Service Center have developed training and accreditation programs to verify the proficiency of persons
performing system inspections and other services. Training and certification programs include written
and field tests and have continuing education requirements. Providers that past tests are often included on
vendor lists which help to support quality services.
Key Evaluation Questions
> What state or regional training and certification programs are available, and for which service areas?
> Can we approve joint accreditation or common recognition for regional, state, or multi-state training/
certification?
> Are apprenticeships available for providers-in-training opting for experienced-based competency
approaches?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
FACT
SHEET
12
Inspection and Monitoring
Perhaps the most significant shortcoming in existing management programs is
the lack of regular inspections and performance monitoring. Area-wide monitoring
regimes include testing groundwater and surface waters for indicators of poor
treatment, such as the presence of human fecal bacteria and excess nutrients. All
systems need to be inspected, at an interval defined by the technological complexity
of system components, the receiving environment, and the relative risk posed to
public health and valued water resources. The best approach is to establish an
inspection regime and schedule based on the consideration of the system's relative
reliance on electromechanical components combined with health and environmental
risk. Less effective surrogate approaches include, in order of descending effectiveness:
1) Requiring comprehensive inspections at regular intervals.
2) Third party inspections at the time of property transfer.
3) Inspections only as part of complaint investigations.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
Inspection and monitoring are defined by source characterization, site evaluation, and system design, and
are influenced by planning objectives and residuals management and performance requirements.
Options
Inspections and monitoring can be implemented by regulatory authority personnel, RME staff, or third-
party inspectors. The figure below shows the varying approaches to inspections and monitoring.
Basic
Inspection and Monitoring Approaches
> Educate homeowners on how and when to conduct basic walkover inspections.
> Require comprehensive inspections by licensed/certified persons at time of property transfer, change in
system use, and complaint investigation.
> Require only trained inspectors.
Intermediate
> Specify regular operating inspections of all systems as part of operating permits
> Develop inspection reporting program with O&M provider/homeowner inputs
> Permit only licensed/certified inspectors to perform comprehensive inspections.
Advanced
> Conduct aquifer or watershed and pretreatment system effluent monitoring.
> Regularly evaluate monitoring data and permit requirements to determine if any program adjustments
are needed.
> Develop supplemental training programs specific to local needs for approved inspectors.
> Formalize comprehensive system construction inspections.
Examples
Wisconsin requires management plans with maintenance or service contracts stipulating inspection/
monitoring schedules for certain systems with electromechanical components. Property deeds must note that
management plans are in effect. Inspection/monitoring services must be provided by a licensed, certified, or
registered provider.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Are system inspections required?
> Is the inspection schedule based on system type and relative risk factors?
> Who is authorized to conduct inspections or monitoring, and how are they trained and certified?
> How are inspection/monitoring results reported and it is required to be provided to regulators?
EPA Fact Sheets
-------
. FACT
\ SHEET
13
Corrective Actions and Enforcement
A decentralized wastewater management program should be enforceable in order
to assure compliance with laws and to protect public health and the environment.
Management agencies should have the legal authority to adopt rules and assure
compliance by levying fines, fees, assessments, or by requiring service providers
to respond to system malfunctions. Emphasis should be placed on those tools that
encourage compliance, rather than punishment. It also helps to have the support
of the courts to implement an effective enforcement program. In order to assure
compliance, management agencies typically need authority to:
> Respond promptly to complaints.
> Provide meaningful performance inspections.
> Issue notices of violation (NOVs).
> Implement consent orders and court orders.
> Hold formal and informal hearings.
> Issue civil and criminal actions or injunctions.
> Condemn systems and/or property.
> Correct system malfunctions.
> Restrict real estate transactions.
> Issue fines and penalties.
Relationship to Other Program Elements
The enforcement program provides backup and support for planning, site evaluation, construction,
certification/ licensing, residuals management, inspections/monitoring, and operation/maintenance.
Options
The enforcement component of the management program is typically a function of the powers granted to
it. The figure below shows the varying approaches to corrective actions and enforcement.
Corrective Actions and Enforcement Approaches
Basic
Intermediate
Advanced
> Issue Notice of Violation (NOV) and negotiate compliance schedules for problems.
>Administer enforcement program with fines or penalties for malfunctions
> Comply with requirements in a timely manner.
> Develop revocable operating permit program to assure corrective actions through required inspections
and enforcement.
> Create electronic reporting system to track corrective measures with real-time input from staff and
service providers.
> Implement public education and involvement programs that promote the economic and health/environ-
mental protection benefits of code compliance.
>RME implements corrective actions with power to compel compliance by imposing property liens or
other enforcement instruments.
Examples
Cranberry Lake, New Jersey passed an ordinance which requires owners/operators of onsite systems to
operate and maintain their systems, pump out tanks as needed, perform repairs, maintain service records and
issue reports. Those failing to comply can face fines up to $1,000 per day, up to 90 days of community service,
and court proceedings.
Key Evaluation Questions
> Does a complaint response system exist, and do residents know how to use it?
> Are there local ordinances and legal procedures in place to enforce codes and health/environmental
rules?
> Do inspectors have the right to enter private property to inspect systems and assess needed repairs?
> Is there a public outreach and involvement program to engage and educate people on the benefits of
compliance?
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
References and resources
These resources are offered to provide additional information on
decentralized wastewater treatment management. Many of these sources are
referred to in the Handbook and correspond to the reference number below.
Management Resources
Informational Databases and Websites
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Surf Your Watershed
Gathers environmental information available by geographic units by state, watershed (Surf's primary focus),
county, metro area, and tribe. Visit Website http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002 National Assessment Database.
Summarizes electronic information submitted by the states to EPA in the 2002 water quality reporting
cycle. This information should not be used to compare water quality conditions between states or to identify
statewide or national trends because of differences in state assessment methods and changes to EPA guid-
ance. This represents the most recent electronically available state water quality information. We are cur-
rently assembling information for the 2004 reporting cycle. To access this information visit http://www.epa.
gov/waters/305b/index.html
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Site for Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater
Treatment Systems.
Website provides tools for communities investigating and implementing decentralized management programs
and contains fact sheets, program summaries, case studies, links to design manuals and other materials,
and a list of state health department contacts. Visit www.epa.gov/owm/onsite for more information.
Guidance and Policy Documents
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Voluntary Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered
(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems.
This guide provides information on the impacts of decentralized wastewater systems, the need for manage-
ment, and five management program models that can be used by states and communities. Visit the EPA
Website to view this document at www.epa.gov/owm/septic
5. Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems.
This EPA document describes the benefits and barriers to implementing an onsite wastewater management
program. It can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/owm/onsite
6. Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources.
This web site includes model ordinances to serve as a template for those charged with making decisions
concerning growth and environmental protection. For each model ordinance listed, there are several real -life
examples of ordinances used by local and state governments around the nation (onsite sewage is included
under the illicit discharges category). Visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/index.htm
7. Missouri Onsite Regulatory Authority
is specified in: 10 CSR 20-6.010, Construction and Operating Permits, Continuing Authority http://www.
sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c20-6a.pdf and Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 398.825,
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/STATUTES/C393.HTM
References and resources
45
-------
Financial Assistance/Funding Documents
8. Funding Decentralized Wastewater Systems Using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
This fact sheet explains the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the types of activities that can be funded.
It can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/factsheets.htm#Decentralized
9. Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies A Catalog of Benefits, Costs, and Economic Analysis
Techniques.
Presents a "catalog" of the economic advantages and disadvantages of decentralized wastewater systems
relative to larger scale, centralized solutions. It also discusses techniques that can be used to place economic
values on positive and negative impacts brought about by a community's choice of a wastewater system.
Visit http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Water/W04-21_ValuWstWtr.pdf to download the report.
10. National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project Case Studies of Economic
Analysis and Community Decision Making for Decentralized Wastewater Systems.
This report examines how communities consider and value the benefits and costs of different scale waste-
water facility options (onsite, cluster, and centralized options) in monetary or other terms, and examines the
driving issues, motivations, thought processes, and decision-making methods of stakeholders relative to
choices of wastewater system scale. Case study communities are included. Visit http://www.rmi.org/images/
other/Water/W04-20_DecentWasteSys.pdf to download the report.
11. Rural Empowerment Zone and Economic Community Program.
The road to economic opportunity and community development starts with broad participation by all seg-
ments of the community. This Website provides information on how to involve the community and develop a
strategic plan. Visit www.ezec.gov/index.html
12. PENNVEST Onlot Sewage Disposal Funds
PENNVEST was established in 1988 to help provide more than $2.5 billion for improvements in
Pennsylvania's drinking water, sewer and stormwater systems. PENNVEST provides Low-cost financing for
wastewater systems across the Commonwealth. See the PENNVEST Website http://www.pennvest.state.
pa.us/pennvest/ or go directly to http://www.penm/est.state.pa.us/pennvest/cwp/view.asp?A=4&Q=75918
13. Community Onsite System Management Program.
Provides tools to help communities regulate and manage on-site systems. See Website http://www.mass.
gov/dep/water/wastewater/onsite.htm
14. Potential Roles for Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs in Smart Growth Initiatives.
The CWSRF is a widely available financing source used to fund municipal wastewater treatment projects
as well as nonpoint source pollution control and estuary protection projects. See Website http://www.epa.
gov/owmitnet/cwfinance/cwsrf/smartgro.pdf
15. Onsite Wastewater Management: Cost and Financing
Several approaches are being used to collect the funds necessary to maintain an onsite wastewater manage-
ment system. Visit http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0751.html to view this fact sheet.
Planning/Decision-Making Resources
16. Building Our Future: A Handbook to Community Visioning.
This manual provides community residents with a process for planning for their mutual future. It can be
downloaded from http://cecommerce.uwex.edu/pdfs/G3708.PDF
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
17. Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management Options for Rural Areas.
This 17-page document helps communities explore their wastewater treatment options. It can be down-
loaded from http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/plymouth/septic/98hoover.html
18. City of Vancouver Citizen Handbook on Building Community.
The handbook is meant to encourage more active citizens—people motivated by an interest in public issues
and a desire to make a difference. See www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/Welcome.html
19. Community Visioning: Planning for the Future in Oregon's Local Communities.
This report describes how new approaches to anticipate and plan for change are needed—approaches that
actively engage citizens in thinking about the future at the local level. The report can be downloaded from
www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings97/ames.html
20. A Guide to the Public Management of Private Septic Systems.
Communities can use this handbook to examine their wastewater treatment options and design a unique
program that meets their needs. This document can be downloaded from www.cardi.cornell.edu/Guide%20t
o%20Septic%20Systems.pdf
21. The Neighborhood Charrette Handbook: Visioning and Visualizing Your Neighborhood's Future.
The Charrette workshop is designed to stimulate ideas and involve the public in the community planning and
design process. This handbook can be downloaded from www.louisville.edu/org/sun/planning/char.html
22. National Environmental Services Center (NESC).
NESC's NODP (National Onsite Demonstration Program) has produced two videos and a series of CD ROMs
that can be used to communicate wastewater options to citizens. Order from www.nesc.wvu.edu/
23. A Quick Handbook to Small Community Wastewater Treatment Decisions.
This document guides communities through choosing an effective and reasonably priced wastewater treat-
ment system. See www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7735.html
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Community-Based Environmental Protection.
Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) integrates environmental management with human
needs, considers long-term ecosystem health, and highlights the positive correlations between economic
prosperity and environmental well-being. For more information, visit www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/
25. Wastewater Planning Handbook Mapping Onsite Treatment Needs, Pollution Risks, and Management
Options Using CIS.
This handbook is a guide to wastewater management planning for small communities using geographic
information systems. See Website http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/WUHT0117_post.pdf
Homeowner Guides
26. Environmental Protection Agency Homeowner Septic System Checklist.
Worksheet that allows homeowners to keep track of septic system inspections and maintenance. See http://
cfpub.epa.gov/owm/septic/homeowners.cfm#more_info
27. The Easy Septic Guide.
This handbook describes everything homeowners need to know about their onsite systems. It has chapters
on checking, understanding, and maintaining a system. The handbook can be downloaded from http://www.
cessnock.nsw.gov.au/cessnock/uploadedfiles/council_services/building_and_development/frequently_asked_
questions/easy%20septic%20guide.pdf
References and resources
"
-------
28. Homeowner's Handbook to On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone.
The Sea Ranch Association, an onsite management entity, developed this handbook for new homeowners.
The handbook explains a septic system and explains a typical inspection. See www.tsra.org/Zone.htm
29. The Septic Education Kit.
The Department of Commerce's National Technical Information Service distributes this toolbox that contains
everything needed to organize an education program on the care and maintenance of onsite systems. The kit
can be ordered from www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr/septickit/moreinformation.html
30. Septic Yellow Pages.
This Website provides useful information concerning onsite systems for homeowners. To view see www.
septicyellowpages.com/homeowner.html
Technical Resources
Technical Assistance Resources
31. National Environmental Services Center.
National Environmental Services Center provides technical assistance and information about drinking water,
wastewater, environmental training, and solid waste management to communities serving fewer than 10,000
people. Visit www.nesc.wvu.edu/
32. National Small Flows Clearinghouse.
The National Environmental Service Center at NSFC has produced a technology overview CD ROM. Visit
www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfcjndex.htm or call 800-624-8301.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Municipal Technologies Branch Fact Sheets.
These fact sheets cover difference treatment technologies. See www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/mtbfact.htm
System Design
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual.
This comprehensive reference manual is designed to provide state and local governments with guidance
on the planning, design, and oversight of onsite systems. It can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/ORD/
NRMRL/Pubs/625R00008/625R00008.htm
35. Creative Community Design and Wastewater Management.
A guidance manual for local officials to demonstrate the use of alternative on-site wastewater treatment
technologies to support zoning for compact and sustainable land use patterns. See www.ndwrcdp.org/user-
files/WUHT0030_post.pdf
Alternative Systems
36. Barnstable County, Massachusetts Department of Health and the Environment Alternative Septic
System Information Center.
This Web site contains information on alternative onsite technologies. View the site at www.barnstablecoun-
tyhealth.org/AlternativeWebpage/indexl.htm
37. City of Austin, Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Fact Sheets.
The set of fact sheets covers many onsite topics from conventional systems to alternative systems. The fact
sheets can be downloaded from www.ci.austin.tx.us/wri/fact.htm
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
38. Are Cluster Treatment Systems the Key to Implementing Effective Decentralized Wastewater
Management?
Given a choice of managing hundreds of onsite systems versus systems that serve several hundred homes,
management professionals will favor the cluster scale. To access this article see Website httpV/www.infiltra-
torsystems.com/word/NOWRA_Cluster_S%C9n8-24-01_l.doc
39. A Simpler, Cheaper Alternative to Sewer Systems.
This handbook describes a wastewater project in Willard, a village in New Mexico, where the sole supply of
drinking water is threatened by wastewater. Visit http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:4_NHGbJP-SoJ:
www.nmenv.state.nm.us/cpb/Jan%252003%2520Willard%2520Case%2520Study.pdf+Willard,+a+villag
e-Hn+New+Mexico+septic+system&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=l and http://www.forester.net/ow_0507_
large.html
40. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment.
This document describes constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and has numerous case studies. It
can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ConstructedWetlands-Complete.pdf
41. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assessment.
This report verifies that a subsurface-flow constructed wetland can be a viable and cost-effective wastewater
treatment option. This document can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/sub.pdf
42. Washington Sea Grant Septic Manuals.
Five homeowner manuals Pressure Distribution, Gravity, Mound, Sand Filter, and Proprietary Device can be
viewed at www.wsg.Washington.edu/outreach/mas/water_quality/septicsense/relatedinfo.html
State Onsite Fact Sheets
43. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
These fact sheets describe different wastewater disposal systems. Visit http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/
dnrec2000/P2/Septic.htm
44. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Publications.
This Web page contains links to many publications concerning septic systems and alternative technologies.
For more information, visit www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/t5pubs.htm
45. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheets.
This series of fact sheets cover topics from septic system maintenance to costs and financing. They can be
downloaded from http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/
46. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality On-Site Fact Sheets.
These fact sheets provide information on septic system installation and maintenance. They can be down-
loaded from www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/onsite.htm
47. University of Minnesota Fact Sheets.
This set of fact sheets covers topics from homeowner education to alternative technologies and can be
downloaded from www.extension.umn.edu/topics.html?topic=2&subtopic=110
References and resources
-
-------
48. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Management Fact Sheets.
These fact sheets cover topics from sewage planning to sewage disposal systems. The fact sheets can be
downloaded from www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqp_wm/Pubs-c.htm
Risk Assessment
49. Risk Assessment of Decentralized Wastewater Management in High Priority Areas of the City of
Malibu, California.
Powerpoint presentation can be viewed at http://www.coastalconference.org/h20_2005/pdf/wednesday_
2004/lC/Georgeetal-Risk_Assessment_of_Decentralized_Wastewater_Trea.pdf
50. Integrated Risk Assessment for Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems
The primary objective of this project was to develop an approach to risk-based decision making for individual
onsite wastewater treatment (OWT) systems. To view this report see http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/
WUHT0118_ORNL_Electronic.pdf
Operation and Maintenance
51. Septic Tank Maintenance
These three publications explain the relationship between septic systems and water quality, and provide
recommendations for septic system maintenance (e.g. tank pumping schedules). They can be downloaded
from http://www.aces.edu/pubs/speng/sepmaint.pdf, http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/C/CRD-0081/, and
http://www.epa. gov/owm/septic/pubs/homeowner_guide_long.pdf.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Decentralized Onsite Management for Treatment of
Domestic Wastes.
This program provides operation and maintenance information for on-site wastewater treatment systems and
can be downloaded from www.epa.gov/glnpo/seahome/decent.html
Training
53. Model Decentralized Wastewater Practitioner Curriculum
A model decentralized wastewater field practitioners training curriculum for use throughout North America.
Visit http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/WUHT0105.pdf
Inspection, Monitoring, Compliance
54. University of Rhode Island Fact Sheets.
This set of fact sheets covers topics such as what you should know about inspectors, how to hire a contrac-
tor, and how to order and buy a distribution box. The fact sheets can be downloaded from http://www.uri.
edu/ce/wq/owtc/html/owtc_factsheets.htm
55. Septic System Checkup: The Rhode Island Handbook for Inspection
This handbook includes instructions for gathering septic system records, locating components, diagnos-
ing minor in-home plumbing problems, conducting flow trials, dye tracing, and maintenance scheduling.
Website: http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/water/isdsbook.pdf
56. Summit County Water Quality: Septic Systems and Potential Nitrate Pollution Analysis
This study demonstrates the use of a geographic information system (GIS) for modeling septic system nitrate
impacts to water quality in the upper Blue River watershed, Summit County, Colorado. See Website: http://
ehasl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/projects/water.summit.county.html
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
EPA Cooperating Partners
EPA and eight partner organizations signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2005 to address envi-
ronmental problems resulting from failures of decentralized wastewater treatment systems (often called
septic systems) when they occur. The agreement formalizes the collaboration between EPA and its partners
to help community governments improve their wastewater programs. The agreement focuses on better
planning, septic system design, and long-term operation and maintenance of septic systems. To view the
Memorandum of Understanding visit the EPA Website: www.epa.gov/owm/onsite
The partners joining EPA in this effort are:
National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT). The purpose of NATaT is to strengthen the effec-
tiveness of town and township government. NATaT does this by educating lawmakers and public policy offi-
cials about how small town governments operate and by advocating policies on their behalf in Washington,
D.C. Website: http://www.natat.org/
National Association of Wastewater Transporters, Inc. (NAWT). NAWT is dedicated to serving the interests
of the liquid waste pumping and drain cleaning industries. The association works with EPA to promote train-
ing and certification of the pumping industry. Website: http://www.nawt.org/
National Environmental Health Association (NEHA). NEHA fosters more cooperation and understanding
between and among environmental health professionals, contributing to the resolution of environmental
health issues, and by working with other national professional societies to advance the cause, the image,
and the professional standing of the environmental health profession. Website: http://www.neha.org/
National Environmental Services Center (NESC). NESC provides information about drinking water, waste-
water, environmental training, and solid waste management in communities serving fewer than 10,000
individuals. Website: http://www.nesc.org/
National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Inc. (NOWRA). NOWRA is the largest organization
within the U.S. dedicated solely to educating and representing members within the onsite and decentralized
industry. Website: http://www.nowra.org/
Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. (RCAP). RCAP operates as a national service delivery
network of six regional partners and a national office in Washington, D.C. Every year, more than 200 RCAP
specialists provide technical assistance, training, and financial resources to more than 2,000 small rural
communities in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Website: http://www.rcap.org/
Water Environment Federation (WEF). WEF is a not-for-profit technical and educational organization with
members from varied disciplines who work toward the preservation and enhancement of the global water
environment. Website: http://www.wef.org/Home.htm
Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT). CIDWT often referred to as
"The Onsite Consortium", is a group of Educational Institutions cooperating on decentralized wastewater
training and research efforts. The Consortium also includes people from educational institutions, citizens
groups, regulatory agencies and private industry. Website: http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/
References and resources
*
-------
Glossary of terms
Aerobic Treatment Unit (ATU): A mechanical wastewater treatment unit that provides secondary wastewa-
ter treatment for single home, cluster of homes, or commercial establishments by mixing air (oxygen) and
aerobic and facultative microbes with the wastewater. ATUs typically use either a suspended growth process
(such as activated sludge, extended aeration and batch reactors), fixed film process (similar to a trickling
filter), or a combination of the two treatment processes.
Alternative Onsite Treatment System: A wastewater treatment system that includes different components
than typically used in a conventional septic tank and subsurface wastewater infiltration system (SWIS). An
alternative system is used to achieve acceptable treatment and dispersal of wastewater where conventional
systems either may not be capable of protecting public health and water quality, or are inappropriate for
properties with shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock or soils with low permeability. Examples of com-
ponents that may be used in alternative systems include sand filters, aerobic treatment units, disinfection
devices, and alternative subsurface infiltration designs such as mounds, gravelless trenches, and pressure
and drip distribution.
Centralized Wastewater System: A managed system consisting of collection sewers and a single treatment
plant used to collect and treat wastewater from an entire service area. Traditionally, such a system has been
called a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
Cesspool: A drywell that receives untreated sanitary waste containing human excreta, which sometimes has
an open bottom and/or perforated sides (40 CFR 144.3). Cesspools with the capacity to serve 20 or more
persons per day were banned in federal regulations promulgated on December 7, 1999. The construction of
new cesspools was immediately banned and existing large-capacity cesspools must be replaced with sewer
connections or onsite wastewater treatment systems by 2005.
Cluster System: A wastewater collection and treatment system under some form of common ownership
which collects wastewater from two or more dwellings or buildings and conveys it to a treatment and disper-
sal system located on a suitable site near the dwellings or buildings.
Construction Permit: A permit issued by the designated local regulatory authority that allows the installa-
tion of a wastewater treatment system in accordance with approved plans and applicable codes.
Conventional Onsite Treatment System: A wastewater treatment system consisting of a septic tank and a
typical trench or bed subsurface wastewater infiltration system.
Decentralized System: Managed onsite and/or cluster system(s) used to collect, treat, and disperse or
reclaim wastewater from a small community or service area.
Dispersal System: A system which receives pretreated wastewater and releases it into the air, surface or
ground water, or onto or under the land surface. A subsurface wastewater infiltration system is an example of
a dispersal system.
Engineered Design: An onsite or cluster wastewater system that is designed and certified by a licensed/cer-
tified designer to meet specific performance requirements for a particular wastewater on a particular site.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
Environmental Sensitivity: The relative susceptibility to adverse impacts of a water resource or other receiv-
ing environment from dispersal of wastewater and/or its constituents. The impacts may be low, acute (i.e.
immediate and significantly disruptive), or chronic (i.e. long-term, with gradual but serious disruptions).
Large Capacity Septic System: A soil dispersal treatment system having the capacity to serve 20 or more
persons-per-day subject to EPA's Underground Injection Control regulations.
Management Model: A program consisting of thirteen elements that is designed to protect and sustain pub-
lic health and water quality through the use of appropriate policies and administrative procedures that define
and integrate the roles and responsibilities of the regulatory authority, system owner, service providers and
management entity, to ensure that onsite and cluster wastewater treatment systems are appropriately man-
aged throughout their life cycle. The program elements include public education and participation, planning,
performance requirements, training and certification/licensing, site evaluation, design, construction, operation
and maintenance, residuals management, compliance inspections/monitoring, corrective actions and enforce-
ment, record keeping, inventory, and reporting, and financial assistance and funding. Management services
should be provided by properly trained and certified personnel and tracked via a comprehensive manage-
ment information system.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: A national program under Section 402
of the Clean Water Act for regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United
States. Discharges are illegal, unless authorized by an NPDES permit.
Onsite Service Provider: A person who provides onsite system services. They include but are not limited
to designers, engineers, soil scientists, site evaluators, installers, contractors, operators, managers, main-
tenance service providers, pumpers, and others who provide services to system owners or other service
providers.
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS): A system relying on natural processes and/or mechanical
components to collect, treat, and disperse or reclaim wastewater from a single dwelling or building.
Operating Permit: A renewable and revocable permit to operate and maintain an onsite or cluster treatment
system in compliance with specific operational or performance requirements stipulated by the regulatory
authority.
Performance-Based Management Program: A program designed to protect public health and water quality
by seeking to ensure sustained achievement of specific, measurable performance requirements based on site
and risk assessments.
Performance Requirement: Any requirement established by the regulatory authority to assure future compli-
ance with the public health and water quality goals of the community, the state or tribe, and the federal
government. Performance requirements can be expressed as numeric limits (e.g., pollutant concentrations,
mass loads, wet weather flow, structural strength) or narrative descriptions of desired conditions or require-
ments (e.g., no visible scum, sludge, sheen, odors, cracks, or leaks).
Permitting Authority: The state, tribal, or local unit of government with the statutory or delegated authority
to issue permits to build and operate onsite wastewater systems.
Prescription-Based Management Program: A program designed to preserve and protect public health and
water quality through specification of pre-engineered system designs for specific sets of site conditions,
Glossary of terms
-
-------
which if sited, designed, and constructed properly, are deemed to meet public health and water quality
standards.
Prescriptive Requirements: Specifications for design, installation and other procedures and practices for
onsite or cluster wastewater systems on sites that meet stipulated criteria. Proposed deviations from the
stipulated criteria, specifications, procedures, and/or practices require formal approval from the regulatory
authority.
Regulatory Authority (RA): The unit of government that establishes and enforces codes related to the
permitting, design, placement, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and performance of onsite
and cluster wastewater systems.
Residuals: The solids generated and/or retained during the treatment of wastewater. They include trash,
rags, grit, sediment, sludge, biosolids, septage, scum, grease, as well as those portions of treatment systems
that have served their useful life and require disposal such as the sand or peat from a filter. Because of
their different characteristics, management requirements can differ as stipulated by the appropriate Federal
Regulations.
Responsible Management Entity (RME): A legal entity responsible for providing various management
services with the requisite managerial, financial, and technical capacity to ensure the long-term, cost-effec-
tive management of decentralized onsite and/or cluster wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with
applicable regulations and performance requirements.
Septage: The liquid and solid materials pumped from a septic tank during cleaning operations.
Septic Tank: A buried, watertight tank designed and constructed to receive and partially treat raw waste-
water. The tank separates and retains settleable and floatable solids suspended in the wastewater and
discharges the settled wastewater for further treatment and dispersal to the environment.
Source Water Assessment: A study and report required by the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act addressing the capability of a given public water system to protect water
quality that includes delineation of the source water area, identification of potential sources of contamination
in the delineated area, determination of susceptibility to those sources, and public notice of the completed
assessment.
Underground Injection Well: A constructed system designed to place waste fluids above, into, or below aqui-
fers classified as underground sources of drinking water. As regulated under the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Parts 144 & 146), injection wells are grouped into five
classes. Class 5 includes shallow systems such as cesspools and subsurface wastewater infiltration systems.
Subsurface wastewater infiltration systems with the capacity to serve 20 or more people per day, or similar
systems receiving non-sanitary wastes, are subject to federal regulation. Class V motor vehicle waste injection
wells and large-capacity cesspools are specifically prohibited under the UIC regulations.
Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
------- |