M687
(&OO
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
INTERIM STUDY REPORT
Management of On-Site and Small Community
Wastewater Systems
-------
-------
H687
INTERIM STUDY REPORT
MANAGEMENT OF ON-SITE
AND SMALL COMMUNITY
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DOCUMENTATION:
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND
CASE STUDY SUMMARIES
Prepared By
ROY F. WESTON, INC.
Des igners-Consultants
Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania
from research on
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2753
Don C. Niehus, Project Officer
November 1979
Prepared For
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
u.s. "ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO ^5268
-------
WESTON PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Andrew W. Breldenbach, Ph.D.
Glenn M. Johnson, P.E.
*Peter A. Ciotoli, AICP
*Kenneth C. Wiswall, P.E.
Thomas J. Tuffey, Ph.D.
Van Dyke Polhemus
David S. Friedman, P.E.
Gerald Emtson, P.E.
C&arles H. Martone, P.E.
Boyd Possin
Patricia Saia
Project Director
Project Manager
Principal Investigator
Senior Engineer
Senior Consultant
Senior Economist
Project Engineer
Institutional Analyst
Project Engineer
Project Scientist
Editor
Principal authors of this report.
11
-------
FOREWORD
With passage of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1977,
greater emphasis has been placed on consideration of less costly,
decentralized wastewater handling technologies for rural communities.
Although widespread utilization and extensive research have demonstrated
the technical and economic feasibility of such wastewater treatment and
disposal alternatives, little guidance has been available to engineers,
planners, and governmental agencies in implementing these technologies
in small communities. This report represents partial documentation of
an on-going research study, "Institutional Arrangements for the Manage-
ment of On-Site and Alternative Wastewater Systems." Through proper
management, the long-term operational performance of these alternative
sewage disposal systems can be improved and enhanced. The political,
economic, legal, and technical issues associated with on-site and alter-
native systems management are explored in this report and a guidance
manual to follow. Eighteen case studies conducted for the research
study are discussed in this report. The guidance manual will offer
recommendations for formulating management programs, based on these
case study experiences.
iii
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document is a draft report prepared by Roy F.
Weston, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
(MERL), Cincinnati, Ohio.
A limited number of copies of a similar report
(which contained 10 of the 18 case studies) have
been published for distribution at the 1979 EPA
Technology Transfer Seminars on Small Wastewater
Treatment Systems.
This report has not been officially approved by
EPA for publication and distribution. Detailed
review and revision of this document and similar
research study reports will continue, with an
expected publication date of an EPA Guidance Manual
in the summer of 1980.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WESTON PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
FOREWORD - /
DISCLAIMER ; . . ;
INTRODUCTION . ,
Definition of On-Site and Alternative Systems
Relevant Course of Events
Key Implementation Factors
Types of Management Programs
Purpose of Study
MANAGEMENT NEEDS
Evaluation of Alternatives
Consequences of Not Providing Program Management
Key Management Functions
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS - ,
Specific Management Functions
Functional Relationships
Types of Institutional Arrangements
MANAGEMENT DIMENSIONS
CASE STUDY SUMMARIES
Community Case Studies
Vermont On-Site Specialists Program
On-Site Wastewater Management Program,
Fairfax County, Virginia
On-Site Sewage System Inspection Program,
Marin County, California
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District,
El Dorado County, California
Stinson Beach County V/ater District,
Stinson Beach, California
On-Site Wastewater Management Program
Acton, Massachusetts
i i i
i v
1
1
k
5
6
7
'3
3
10
10
12
12
14
21
2k
27
33
M
50
57
67
76
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Lake Meade Municipal Authority,
Lake Meade, Pennsylvania
General Development Utilities, Inc.,
Port Charlotte and Port St. Lucie, Florida
On-Site Wastewater Management Program,
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
State Case Studies
New Hampshire Noncentral Wastewater Management
Program
Illinois Noncentral Wastewater Management Program
Maine Noncentral Wastewater Management Program
Pennsylvania Noncentral Wastewater
Management Program
Washington Noncentral V/astewater Management
Program
Vermont Noncentral Wastewater Management
Program
Minnesota Noncentral Wastewater Management
Program
Maryland Noncentral Wastewater Management
Program
California Noncentral V/astewater Management
Program
86
94
102
no
122
134
146
159
171
182
192
200
vi
-------
MANAGEMENT OF ON-SITE AND SMALL
COMMUNITY WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DOCUMENTATION-:
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND ;
CASE STUDY SUMMARIES
INTRODUCTION
This report is divided into the fol lowing sections: ,--
Introduction
Management Needs
Management Functions
Management Dimensions
Case Study Summaries
After introducing the concept and history of on-site and alternative
wastewater management systems in this first section, the presentation
discusses the needs, functions, and dimensions of management programs
in three separate sections. The discussion of management needs identi-
fies the reasons for organizing a management program, and raises points
to be considered in determining functional,requirements. Management
functions arg presented to establish the range of services and respon-
sibilities which can be related to the management of on-site and alter-
native systems, depending on program objectives. The section on manage-
ment dimensions addresses the various institutional approaches which
can be utilized to serve the specific program objectives and the range
of management functions needed. Finally, summaries of case studies on
on-site and alternative wastewater system management programs are pro-
vided.
Definition of On-Site and Alternative Systems
On-site and alternative wastewater treatment systems can.be defined by
a broad range of terminology referring to the various types of collection,
treatment and/or disposal methods applied in lieu of conventional
centralized sewerage systems. These methods, which are listed in Exhibit
1, include individual septic tanks with drainage fields, and alternate
on-site systems such as sand mounds, as well as small community collection
and treatment systems which typically utilize small diameter gravity or
-1-
-------
EXHIBIT 1: ON-SITE AND ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
INDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS
Standard septic tank and drainage field
Alternate treatment methods
- Aerobic tank
Alternate disposal methods
- Elevated sand mound
- Evapo-transpiration bed
- Alternating disposal areas
- Electro-osmosis system
Black water/grey water systems
- Wastewater recycle units (e.g., mineral oil media)
- Waterless toilets (e.g., compost toilets)
- Reduced size disposal areas for grey water
Accessory water-saving devices ' ...
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ,
Conventional gravity sewers
Small diameter gravity sewers
Small diameter pressure sewers
- Individual grinder pumps
- Individual effluent pumps
Conventional noncentral treatment (i.e., package plant)
Alternate treatment systems
- Lagoon treatment
- Community subsurface disposal (after septic tanks or other
treatment)
- Land application (after secondary level treatment)
-2-
-------
pressure sewers. When a number of these independent, sma11community
systems are used to serve an area instead of a centralized collection
system, they may be referred to as cluster systems. In the case of
small diameter pressure sewers (also referred to as low-pressure sewer
systems), either grinder pumps or septic tank,effluent pumps (STEP
systems) may be used. Other on-site waste treatment methods include ,
waterless or water-saving toilet devices, such as compost toilets =and
'black water/grey water systems which may involve wastewater recycling
and conservation. > ..-- ; v
Obviously, many different wastewater collection and treatment technologies
can be involved in an on-site and alternative systems "management1^ pro-
gram, ft is not important to define all the various devices and
combinations of devices that can beapplied in the design of such systems.
tt is appropriate, however, to emphasize the basic approach to:on-site
and small community systems - that of relying on relatively simple conveyance
and treatment methods for serving individual (scattered or development)
home sites or small communities.
This .approach is generally offered as an "alternative" to, central i zed
sewerage systems, when the centralized systems involve capital and
operating costs beyond the financial capacity of the suburban and rural
communities. Therefore, any re!iable wastewater disposal system, which
precludes the need for costly treatment facilities and complex operation
and maintenance requirements, would probably qua 11fy as an alternatiye
system. Commonly, such systems rely on the use of on-site systems
(either standard septic tank systems or one of several on-site treatment/
disposal variations), or may utilize low cost collection systems, such
as small diameter pressure or gravity sewers (i.e., small community systems).
In this report, both individual systems and sma11 community systems are
referred to as "noncentral" wastewater systems, that is, alternatives to
centralized sewerage systems.
-3-
-------
Relevant Course of Events
Legislation and guidance addressing noncentral systems include:
PL 92-500
208 Areawide Studies
PRM 76-3
PRM 77-8
PL 95-217
PRM 78-9
Until recently, conventional centralized sewerage facilities were
generally considered to be the most reliable direct and most logical
means of dealing with a community's wastewater services needs. As
centralized facilities have been constructed and operated over the
years, It has been noted that large projects or traditional designs
may not have been the most cost-effective solution. In fact,
for many small rural and suburban communities, the necessary capital
and operating costs for conventional systems can create undue financial
burdens on individual homeowners.
This problem, in the limited range of solutions being employed, was
recognized to some degree in the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500), which charged the USEPA Administrator
with investigating appropriate rural wastewater management alternatives.
Subsequent areawide water quality management planning efforts (specified
In Section 208 of PL 92-500) clearly identified the need for better
managed individual on-s5te wastewater systems and lower cost small
community systems. Certain 208 studies specifically proposed on-site
and small community systems as alternatives to centralized treatment
facilities. At this time EPA expanded its study of various aspects of
on-s?te and small community treatment technology. Resulting research
projects defined the state-of-the-art for different technologies related
to this field. Independent research and study was also taking place,
as evidenced by the proceedings of technical conferences dating back to
1974, sponsored by the National Sanitation Foundation, and the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, among others.
-4-
-------
The impact of sewerage project costs on small communities was first offi-
cially recognized by the EPA Construction Grants Program in =1976 through
a Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM 76-3') which cal led for disclosure
>of individual user costs. This issue was also addressed in several ,
internal EPA memoranda dealing with the grant.eligibility^ of individual
systems, and the encouragement of less- costly treatment systems for
sma11 cpmmuni ties. In 1977, PRM 77-8- ca11ed for a more thorough eva1ua-
tion of nonconventional treatment alternatives for small communities and
rural areas.
Individual and .alternative systems were given further attention by certain
provisions of PL 95-217, the 1977 Clean Water Act. Incentives for con-
sidering such systems were provided primarily through the funding,of
individual systems, and the allocation of state-level "set-aside" funds
for alternative wastewater system construction grants. ' '"
Given these incentives, many states are actively'encouraging the appli-
cation of alternative wastewater management systems. A number of states
had established programs dealing with individual and/or small community
systems even prior to the Federal program incentive actions. However,
even with these ongoing state programs and the Federal incentives, and
even with the currently changing attitude toward alternative systems,
the actual implementation of nbnconventional wastewater management systems
' is occurring only gradually. As the related technologies and management
techniques are further developed and demonstrated, these systems will;.
become more widely acceptable. ,>
Key Implementation Factors
The major factors affecting the implementation of alternative systems
include:
Technology Selected :
Available Funding
Public Acceptance and Level of Support
Institutional Arrangement Selected
-5-
-------
Factors other than technology greatly influence the acceptability and
ImplementabMIty of alternative systems. Obviously, technical feasibility
and cost are the most visible issues in facilities planning studi.es,
where alternative systems are considered. Technical issues also include
how well the system will perform in meeting treatment requirements, and
how reliable the system will be to maintain that performance .level.
Furthermore, the cost issues relate not only to capital cost, but also
to long-term operating and maintenance costs. ,
Although technical issues and initial and annual costs are the major
determinants in evaluating system alternatives, the issues of public
acceptance and institutional arrangements become more important in the
actual implementation of a particular plan. This is especially true
when considering alternative systems. As alternative technologies have
become more established and their total costs have become better defined,
the public has gradually accepted these systems, just as they have
accepted .the more traditional sewerage technologies.
Probably the most important element remaining, which needs to be addressed
before alternative systems can be more fully implemented, is the manage-
ment component. The different ways in which management requirements
can be satisfied is the subject of this presentation. ,
Types of Management Programs ' ;
Management programs for alternate systems are evolving in at least three
forms:
On-Site Systems Management Programs (Local or
Areawide)
Small Community Systems Management (Local or
Areawide)
State Regulatory and Guidance Programs
-6-
-------
This discussion is oriented towards local management programs (involving
the actual operation of either on-site or small community systems), as
well as state programs directed at the planning, regulation, and funding
of on-site or alternative systems. Local on-site management programs
usually provide numerous functions such as system design, installation
supervision, and occasionally system operation and maintenance. Both
public and private entities can assume administrative.and regulatory
responsibilities for on-site management. Similarly, small community
system programs may involve a public or private entity; these programs
are typically oriented toward the actual operation of col lection and
treatment facilities. - ' '
State programs related to on-site and alternative systems are very ,
diverse. They range from loosely-structured regulatory programs (i.e.,
promulgation of design standards) to much more comprehensive facilities
planning and technical assistance programs, providing funding for planning
and demonstration projects. State programs are discussed later in relation
to state case studies, and to implementation of local program case
studies.
Purpose of Study ,
The issues previously raised, concerning the implementation of on-site and
alternative systems, are being addressed by Roy F. Weston, Inc., as part
of EPA's current Small Flows Projects Research Program. The "Study of
Institutional Arrangements for the Management of On-Site,and Alternative
Wastewater Systems" has the following objectives:
Inventory Existing Operating Management
Experiences
Describe History, Functional Effectiveness,
and Cost of Case Study Programs
Summarize Issues, Problems, Constraints, and
Program Strengths
Define and Evaluate a Range of Management
Alternatives and Program Requirements
Recommend Procedures for Selection and Imple-
mentation of Management Arrangements -
' . ' -7- . . ' :.- -
-------
This report provides information for the first two objectives, and touches upon
the third. The other objectives will be addressed in a study report to
be prepared in handbook format as a guide to local communities and state
agencies interested in establishing such programs.
-8-
-------
MANAGEMENT NEEDS . ; . ;.
The reasons for.considering on-site and alternative systems can include:
Existing On-Site Systems Failures
Conventional Sewer System. Being Too Costly
Conventional Sewer System Having Unwanted Secondary Impacts
On-site and .alternative systems are usual ly,considered in the faci 1 i tie's
planning process after existing systems have failed, or in new applications
when conventional methods prove too costly. Such situations are becoming
more and more common, especially in small community and rural applications.
In these situations, a complete assessment of technical feasibility, per-
-formance reliability, total costs, and management requirements should be
performed to determine if alternative systems are appropriate,
Evaluation of Alternatives ,
In evaluating on-site and alternative system options, it 5s important to
consider all viable solutions, and offer a fair assessment of their
advantages and disadvantages. Too often, the evaluation of alternatives
is incomplete due to one or more of the following conditions:
True Extent and Cause of Failing Systems Not Identified
Rehabilitation of Existing Systems Not Given Fair
Consideration
Full Range of Viable Alternatives Not Considered or
Understood
Limitations (or Opportunities) of Site and Planning
Area Not Fully Assessed
A Cluster of Small Systems Viewed as Unmanageable
The consulting professionals, local governments (grant applicants), and
state regulatory agencies can all contribute in attempting to avoid such
oversights. As on-site and alternative systems prove themselves as viable
disposal methods, they wi11 be given more attention in the evaluation of,
alternatives. The potential advantages in terms of smaller scale, ,
reduced total costs, and simplified operational requirements definitely
warrant their consideration.
-------
Consequences of Mot Providing Program Management
Without establishing effective management programs to assure proper
planning, design, installation, and operation of on-site and alternative
systems, adequate system performance will probably not be realized or
maintained. Even properly designed and installed systems can and will
fail due to misuse and/or insufficient attention. The relationships
between different categories of system problems and specific contributing
causes is shown by examples in Exhibit 2.
Key Management Functions
Management objectives often flag the critical management needs. The four
primary management functions are:
Planning
Site EvaluationDesign
Installation
Operation and Maintenance
The various contributing causes of system failure listed in Exhibit 2
relate directly to deficiencies in planning* designing, installing, or
operating a given wastewater system. These elements, therefore, define
the key activities which must be addressed in formulating an effective
management program. These and other supporting management functions are
discussed in the following sections.
-10-
-------
*
Z£
O
«
H-
^
-«1
I
<
1
c/)
z.
*
1
LU
O
o£
LU
0. 3
O O
o;
OL H-
5 -S
uu
0 0.
1-0
O Of
LU O
t
"^
^J
LU
C£. ' ' .
to
Z
LU
«t
CO
O
cc
Q_
*
CM
t
P"^
CQ
2C
X
LU
~
O
_
O 4)
Q.
-Q
c to
O
"in
c *«-
4> o
4-1
in x c
4) 4) O
in in
3 S. 4-1 4)
fO 4) IO >
C_J 2 5- ~
0) 4) 4J
Oi in TJ to
.5 S~Z £
4.) U C 4)
3 O O -w
j3 M_ U
_ -' B- (0
U C 4)
4-1 34-14-1
C to C
O " 3 9J
o o cr s
_i£ TJ (0
o a 4-1
3 in
»- >.
4) 1)
0 0
in
4)
U
«
4-1
C 0
O to
. C U
4J CTI Q.
10
3 in c
4> O
(O TJ
> 4J
4) S <0
4)
1«
3
to
u_
E
4-1
in
^»
<^
4)
*J
(0
*n
,
^
m
(j) (TJ -
S 4) TJ
^3 C
4J
O W 4J
O >. 10
4) in v
i- 4) in
in en o. 4-1
O c c o c
a> *w "S c* S
U (0 O C t.
« *Z .Z* o *3
I« s 4> in c cr
m >
tJ_ O TJ 1-
^w
4)
Iw
3
^"^
IO
U_
E
4J
U)
"'- ^**
tf>
E
4)
H-
1
O>
..C
o
4-1
o
10
Q.
u E
4-1
to to
c c
O O 3
. . , s
4J ai 3 a)
as a) o in
3 L. 3
, 4)
(O J- in N TJ
> Q) «J -C
4) TJ C CIO
g) o>
4) in £ O
4-1 C 4) U O)
O >- 4) C
*3 T5
4) O or- O c
4-14-1 4) 4-1 3
to »- o
34) fl) i-
S~3^3 3
TJ o.« in
C "(0 3 *tO <*-
u. in u- o
t^j
*M
4-1
O
IO
I".
to
c
o
^
*J
a
r~~
^"
O
1-
4) 4)
^^ ^
J3 O
10 >«-Q
in ja to
3 »-
c m TJ
3 4) 4)
C C
0)
ja i_ u-
O 4)
O TJ
4-1 i-
m m
: S 4J aj
4) to
4J 30)
in TJ u
'/>». C 3
in 3
O '
4) u nj
« Ol "I
4-1
<4- £
01 O l>
C 4-1
« cm
in * . O >
3 4-> ~- in
(03 4J
o o to o)
-^ C C
c m >_ «.
O 4) E >-
J_ (0
4-1 -Ct 4J O.
m c"s
4-1 U U
as >
in 14- O
(0 3 L.
in in - a)
4) 3 C
(U o O 4J
L. (0 10 O
.a a. c
.8) E
u a> -
3 O» ,«-
3 *tO 4J
m a) c to
M- in o 3
4) O 3
(ft » a. m
« ' CM
-11-
-------
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
To properly manage noncentral wastewater systems, an implementation-,
administration, and operation program with sufficient technical,
financial, and legal capabilities must be developed to perform selected
functions. These functions are essentially actions or activities
carried out through various institutional mechanisms to ensure adequate
public service and performance of the noncentral system.
Specific Management Functions
Local management program functions typically include:
Planning
Site Evaluation
System Design (or Guidance/Assistance)
Installation or Construction Supervision
Operation and Maintenance
Financing
Water Quality Monitoring and Wastewater Systems
inspection
Public Education
Environmental/Public Service Programs
Coordination
Important functions are displayed in the following figure:
Programs
Coordination
Inspection and
Monitoring
-12-
-------
Planning, one of the-first functions to be performed, involves prepara-
tion of a water quality control (and wastewater disposal) plan for the
community, indicating 'the relative suitability and opportunities for
on-site alternatives, and more traditional centralized wastewater
col lection and treatment systems. These plans can be prepared for the
entire community as well as specific subareas, such as subdivisions and
other development sites. Coordination of agencies and programs is also
a part of the planning function.
System design activities involve the preparation of specifications,
drawings, and layouts showing the size and type of system to be used at
any given .site. The design function is supported by various soil and
site feasibi1ity analyses (i.e., site evaluation acti'vities) conducted
to gain a better understanding of local conditions and limitations to
noncentral system applications. Special plan review and approval pro-
cedures are a part of this function also. The review of subdivision
plans, for example, !s an integral part of the wastewater management
planning and design functions.
Inspection during and after installation of on^site and alternative
systems is another essential management function. Regulatory mechanisms
to ensure proper installation include issuance of a certificate of final
inspection, and licensing or registration of system installers.
i " -
The performance of routine and emergency maintenance of noncentral
systems is a key functional requirement for proper wastewater system
operation; however, it is a function that is not widely performed.
Operation and maintenance activities can be carried out by a private
firm, a public agency, and even the homeowner. Issuance of operating
permits, based upon satisfactory completion of routine maintenance pro-
cedures, is one common regulatory tool used to encourage homeowners to
fulfill this maintenance responsibility. Handling and disposal of
septage is another component of the operation and maintenance functions.
-13-
-------
System financing involves the application for Federal or state financial
assistance to plan, design, and construct alternative wastewater systems,
Major sources of financial aid (e.g., PL 95-217) are limited to repair
or replacement of existing systems, rather than installation of new
systems for private developments or small communities. User charges to
cover system operation and maintenance (in the form of service fees and
property assessments) are usually set and collected by the management
en t!ty.
Water quality monitoring of surface discharges and groundwater near non-
central systems is conducted to check compliance with permit require-
ments, and observe overall system performance.
Public education (informing the public of available waste reduction,
water conservation, and routine maintenance procedures) is also an
important management function to be considered.
Functional Relationships
Exhibit 3 displays the management functions previously discussed in
more detailed form. The presentation shows a series of specific
functional activities to be conducted as part of the overall management
responsibilities. These activities are further divided in a series of
steps or actions to be implemented to meet administrative/technical
management requirements, and regulatory/enforcement management require-
ments . As shown in Exhibit 3, each of the administrative/technical
steps has an associated regulatory enforcement step or action.
The more detailed display of management functions is intended to demon-
strate the relationship between administrative/technical actions (such
as plan review) with regulatory/enforcement actions (such as issuing
construction permits after plan approval). In this way, a full range
of management functions, along with specific functional activities,
management steps, and actions can be reviewed and evaluated. This range
of functions should be considered'and specific functions selected in
forming a management program.
-------
UJ
*
!
~
1>1[
i_
1^
3: MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND
k
oa
UJ
Ul
4)
atory/Enforcement Act
f^
c
4)
ce.
ui in
k, 41
41 -C
3 0
tO B to
4J Ul O
C k.
(11 -^ Q_
ess economi c/envi ronnx
deoffs between centra
noncentral system api
U> <0 "O
ui u e
< 4J (O
Ul
4)
tnistrative/Technical Activit
. s
-c
*
4->
"1
emble and maintain data on co
formance and design criteria.
Ul 1-
in B
< . « a.
i -O
to c
k. (0
4J
4) 4>
U O
c c
. : . O |2
c «2
iW
"o a. to
Iv -
(0 >-
4) Ul 41
Ul 4-> 4-1
4) Ul ~
k. O k.
OO
4«J
O S C
3 4) Ol
oil -a 4J .
C C tfl Ul
0 >- 41
C tJ Ul T3
e
10
a.
t
4)
e '
U 41
O
<*- Ul
>.
Establish mechanisms
cording noncentral s
permits issued.
13
u>
TJ Ul
41 Ul O
4-1 <3 m
4J e
4J -a m 41
e c > w
4) It) Ul X
O O to >.
J- ~ k. 4-1
4) 4-1 4J
> BJ C
4) O 4J ~
T.^00-
a o
c >- c -a
_ «- Ul
4) c a.
4J B >> O
(0 TJ *» <-
3 _ a.
. Ul
> C 41 C
m
a
e
(0 1
B
en oi
C ^0
"c to
e S »
fO .£»
"^2 t!
4^ k-
B to O
ui 31*-
3 B ,
*J 01
1 S.5
to 3 c
- B 55-
o . "a. 'c
3 3 2
TJ to 4-1 S
e B c S
O k. 4», O
(J flj S O
pj
k. C Ol
B ~ e
4J "~ 'e
o o c
J-> to
TJ
c ui a.
Develop ordinances a
regulatory mechanism
wastewater facility
j£
0
C-
"o.
Prepare wastewater facility
*
oi
c
c
n>
"a.
4)
3
o
C
2
o
C *"~
(O 1 4->
p o 'O
Q. J- C-
CL~
(0 ~O
> 3. i-
<1) 0
ui O
C > 0
Establish comprehe
preparation and re
cedures to ensure
o
Ul
4> nj
in
Coordinate planning activiti
on a community and small an
basis.
U
MB
M-
o
(U
Q.
Ul
1
0)
4->
Ul
-o
c
(o
Q-
k. 4J O O
*B
-T3 ._ > 01
C -Q 4) C
<0 10 O
4J C
Estabi ish guidei ines
cedures fof soi 1 sui
and si te selection.
criteria for determi
size.
to
.
Ul 1 1 k. C
k. o O O
Ul 4) k.
>. 4J TJ 4J 4J
o > o to
(O fl -C >-
Conduct site suitability an
by evaluating physical char
istics (soils, topography,
logy, geology) of an area,
disposal site under conside
^
lO
i
B C 1
4J O JD
Ul B 3
10 TJ Ul Ul
~Z B tO
* _ 0 k.
B (O
3 0..0
to i o
in B *
to 4) m
B .a to
14.- 0 10
O 3 Ul
4-1 4*4 k» TJ **"
. ui o ui
SP > (0
B >.- J3
. c~ c
. Ul 3 O
c ?^ .* "^
C u £ .in
B B O Ol
4-1 4J O ^
B to B
Q 3 (0 ^^ TJ
.
UJ
Ul Ul
B B
s =
> TJ
v B
4-1 O
0 0
B k.
<*- Q.
B TJ
1 C
Ul
O ui
O B
C
O
B
0) TJ
O Ol
JO
B
>
^
to
c
Identify and evaluate alter
wastewater systems.
9
_Q
-15-
-------
I- 3
§
Ul o
03
U
u
<
C
u
u
nee standard
as
e
,0
i.
4)
Q.
J=
Ul
ja
4-1
in
UJ
fications,
w
u
a.
Ul
c
0
ttt
u
4»J
Ul
O
U
U TI
> U
4) 4>
a
t_
10
a
c
(0
4-4
in
c
Ol
Ul
4)
a
o
c
10
c
*c
(0
u
4-1
M
01
c
Ul
c
u
"
u-
o
Ul
4>
01
Ul
4)
a
L.
^
E
m
^
Ol
S.
a.
S
w
w
' , §
O 4)
o.">
4>
-o u
C
(0 Ol
Ul
4) ' S
4)
4.1
Ul
J^
UI
-M
U
J
4)
U
C
Q.
O
4)
4)
T3
4)
4-1
J
5
u
O
O
Ul
in
4*
U
O
u
a.
u
T3
c
O
U
U
£
in
0)
Mk
_
(U
,^
n
Q)
1
§>
4>
O
4-1
C
4>
s
Ul
Ul
a)
in
Ul
i f
U
.-
"-> 3 C
Ul 3 4> 4>
C -Q 4J 4)
o ui ja
u >. «j
, «- 2 ui
1- 03
n 4-1 4-1 r-
<£ O fl
2- _c «
£
E « v.
U S C 41
4) 4) 4) Q.
Q. 4J S
Ul 4J £
4) >. U 41
ui Q. Ul
Ul U- 4) >.
O "O Ul
4)
U
C u
g o
u ^
41 i.
Q. o»
Ol - «»
~ ui 10
3 -o 4J
cr c "i
4)
U
I C
U flj
I ui u u
c c « o
8O in <«-
C u
4J O
10
4)
O
4) 4-1
Ul (9
3 U
3
m a)
3 C 3
wi ui u 1/1 o cr
4) >.« 4> 4)
a ui in -a >-> i_
SE
"e *-
-C Ul
u >
4) Ul
4»
o
ui u>
Ol Ol
C C
4J 4J 4-»
>. U. O
M- m 3 3
a. ui "a
«- 4) e e
« u o o
> a. u u
a)
tg u
_ (0
(J _
o o
Ul O C
ui (0
Ul
mo.
(Q
I-1 Ul 4J
e ,0. o.
o j o
~ 4)
> O >
C 4)
>> C 41
<*- o JT
U 4-1
« -a 4J
T3 C
Ul
4> ui
i- -o
a. c
^L fU
u £
°c
4) O
O -a
u a)
a. ui
cx» w
< -a
a> o
3 >-
U) 4-1
0)
(0
C
3
_ u>
tn O
O *J
C U tn
m ID >.
-C in
u
a) nj
E c ID
o «-
o -w c
UJ <1)
> (I) C
a> a. o
a o c
41 O C
in ui
e o
o> u
O ui
_ 4| _
w -o ~U tn
ui
. (O 41
Ul 3 4-1
13 at
4) nj > ui
4> 3
ee. ui
-16-
-------
EXHIBIT 3
(continued)
in
4)
j 1 atory/Enf orcement Act 1 v i
a
4)
ce
14) - C JI
O V 01 O **
Develop guidelines and pr
cedures for installation
view. Establish licensin
training, and certificati
program for installers wi
provisions for renewal.
<0*
. -a a.
in
4>
w
:ive/Technical Act!
**
ra
\-
u
in
e
-1
"C
. <
14) 3
>_ U L.
4) « 1 4)
0. 3 C >
3 a- o > Q
Ul 4) O 0
, -a 4) m 4>
c tn .c i-
nj nj »- 3 a.
u
u m c
Q. m jc in T3
m ** & m <8
C ui 4) l-
e ui u cn
3 O
4) O «- O
ui w ia c ui
-- m 01 -w m m
O C O 4)
<*- 4) 3 *» Ol
u in >- i- m
m _ 3 4-1 e <->
-t > -o m ~ in
m
_
.2
. ~ w
o
' 3 S -
*j 25
W (A
C >
8J2
dl IQ
Ul U
*> C
!u 8
a. c
3 O
e me
rt "*»^
-34)
4^ Q} J^
10 *->
^« 4) uli
m oe o
in
c
Issue occupancy or final
inspection permi ti
^
i
JS
.
O)
c
1J
-o
3
1
in
Q
TI
8
o
Ol
e
J4->
s
in C
o
O) Q.
C S
*i °
>.
4) in
3 N
ja -o
i in 4)
Ul
-a c <»
T» ! 4->
"* S *Zf !
£ ' C <0 >
O 4) U O
U_ 1_ ._ J_l J_t
Establish program to perl
maintenance requirements.
Issue operating permit (i
periodically) and cert if
of replacement/repair aci
Attach operating permit i
property deed.
cm 4) O
O > t O in l-
in O C 4» O. >.
w u m i-
(o a. c -u 4) o
v. (I) 4) U in
ecu
fl) O 4-1 M- O
3 e c o a. * *-
5 in S O
« <*- 5 >. u
O E O u u >
in C4>1-
4) 1) >. 4) 4) J= fl
U <«- 3 U « -t-1
o c ~ cr c 4> c
(O 4J 4! fl .C 3
e c i- c s
O 4) 4) «- 0) O
a. 4-1 -o w 4) >
c - c c
ex- m « -» v>
o a 4> «j s ~
« £ .£«
4) Ul 3 4) S
> -O S T3 "O *J CO
4) C 4» 4> C 4J U
a n> fc» u (0 a o>
(0
-a
C 1 4)
(0 C U
4) C
° 2 E
J-> O
<0 in >*
U «) V
jj) « ^J
a. -u o.
° *> >-
o t
~. iJ O
T3 O *>
o m o
i_ a) *-
4) u m
cu c
m -u
S c m
i- 4) >n
O "
t f 2 -
4) (O 3
a. e «
(8
o> in E
o> a) in i- <*-
c 4> 4) O
0 JS. Q.
>. c o c
Develop system for notif
homeowner of inspection,
pumping, or other specia
activity (e.g., turning
diversion valve). Obtai
authority for right of a
to private property. Li
maintenance functions to
conditions (e.g., renewa
-a
_
^r
31
in -
S 4)
m in
U T3 4)
Ol C 1-
O <0 3
U TS
agj,
8£ S
c 4-> a.
fl U
C 41 4)
(U Q. O
u ui e
e e . 4) >
!_ Ct O
1- C
-------
' «
If
1
U
°>
ilatory/Enforcement Actl
j
01
u i in
~o en 4) 4.) 4)
c c a. to
to Ol in 4) 4->
C 0. C i
in - S - w _
License septage haulei
set standards for haul
equipment. Inspect pi
trucks. Regulate and
operations of septage
ment and disposal faci
and locations.
*
(O
.
ni en
in
4
4*J
>
4-1
C
**
:lve/Technica
(0
4J
Ul
C
1
"D
C 0)
4J *^
(O in
"3
cn m
4) u)
, >- 0
a.
TS in
10 T3
31
in
4) in
u
y 4>
"3
o to
0.-C
a. 4>
O en
to
4) 4-1
> a.
41 «
O in
IO
I
Q.
^
O.
o
41 C
W (0
(0
4-1
4> C
in 4>
U 4J
O to
U. 4)
2 .
en en
2 .5
Q.
Q. IO tO
O jz en «
4) C *^
^^ i in "TJ
CM
in
10
O in i-
4-1 4) O
Require septage hauler
record pumping activit
a condition of license
certification renewal.
-Q
i- y
nj c
Q. 10
c
in 4)
IO u
«
4) to
^J
"> C
~ (TJ
4-1
y c
IO O
U 73
4) nj
"3 «
y o
in o to
-0 4J u
> y to
8.2 § c
0. CL«- O
1
,>_!_
^ fO
c **-
O> 0)
fli C t»
^3 I-L1 3
<*-l
T3
C
to
in
e
on property, injunctloi
fines.
i i
10 (0
4J U .
4) 4J
Q. U | ,
O O 4)
X) 14-4-1
(O **- <4- ITJ ''
-C O (U -Q
4> 10
U 4-1 4)
u y 13
S to c c
4) O. IO (TJ
" C
in in 4) c
>. (0 4J O
in c .
E ~ 4-1 .
- c > o
Q-Q-n] C
U 4,
O C C 3 4J
y o o in c
c ~> in 4>
4J 4-1 . £
XI
4> in
.
u- ;
<2 c
u
in O
in
4> §
C U
en
"S 2
Ci ^^
XI
1
(J
c
IO
c
iZ
_
4J
4)
o -a
. 4*4
>. .3
. 4J U
4J C
3 10
10
in
4->
* to C
ai to
4> L-
en
C 4-1
« §
4«* y
-Q y
O to
»
10
«
4>
10
in
' E
>- in
<4- 4)
y
m u
to o
O in
"~ u
*^3 Q)
C JS
"S
in
^j ^g
e c
i^
en
c *«
.55
o <2
m
IA
E
en 4)
C 4J
* ' in
c >
e -a «
IO C'
10
a. to
4) C 4J
-c o c
4J o
4-1 U
t- y c
030
M-UC
in in *
a c o
co
3 y c
*" . ° '
4> C 4-1
u o> to
3 . U
U in 41
a.
to « O
-18-
-------
.
f^\ 13
r- 3
5.5
:E c
->^ O
LU O
--.-. u
TJ
in
4)
4-*
>
4J
U
<
. 4-1
C
4)
U
U
O
u-
LU
. ^
1_
O
- ' 4-1
CO
C
tn O 4)
1. I- !" "" S iil '
4»4Jl_,n4JCUCUl- TJCO<*-
.am «ji-.a.i-o e
E >» 3 in O O tn O > .^3 **-
CO 4JCL4»mU rocUQ.
Q Z ja <4-4J4) TJQ.E
4) Ujr-inO. C CO
in
-'. - s ' .
At in
-. -« c c 't'g 2 1 **== :.
w . flJ C ' S -^ **"
. . Q.O)1- C *- W
s| -=! -5i8>- -..
1-^HUs iii If, 11! f^i
ja-a-coj=cuine4) « ~- "J S|E o~ - s i- .«4-l«"°' . *""S. > 2 a, i-°«.-.' ='5^os-
-.-. Sfi±^85^.B± JH? =£= I :«= ^^i"J
4J3Z SZ S £± S. '^5 || X-3T5 JCiJSf 1n»^"S^
5^-8 83'«8:a£ . ' «S-5£S- "§"2 -SS.Q..U. LU 3 o «, m
.-«" '*"'
^
tn '«
.4) O , . .
4» tn T»
in
4)
4-1
>
4J
, £
"!5
u
c
(J
. 41
41
>
4-1
CO
V.
4J
ifl
e
*«
J
<
\^. .» * | «.. ^
c -c «-*»- Z°° S o-u - - 2-
(/) 4-1 4J .
EcnT>4jin4J cjeij
4J CO C 3 4» *~" S
o i- in co o 4J "2"
14) Cn 4) , *> C O
Z2^ « .- u ~ c -
o a. E o m ** co co
U 4) C 4-> _Q C Q.
i_4Jtotn~-H ?
TJ 41 in c O m E ' " c;
c>>.tuijcco: y
co O "»
- -
j.; *-
OB
cn 4) f
; 4J C
-O in o
e >. o
co in
" ' 4J
' cnl t» . in co u
4J 4) C
. t- C CO
. " 0
CO 4J U
3 . 4-1 3- 1 «
to OtnTJO) <«
ti: >, 4) .. co cu
u u> u ..cn . ~
..-.- s O 3 cn o
§ . « i- cr , 4» e c
4j jatno.4) m 4)
M 3TJ 1- 4JIOOJ
>., Q.O4) into CO
M -C 0 S 4) W
, Q4JCCO ~3,OTS
> 4-i4tcQi~ .ocncoc
ca E C Cn c 41 co
j* C»O 4»UTJ
4J OC4JU cncin
e «-acCLCO«<0--
53 4-1 tn 4)
4J co 4J CO 41 ^4) »> C
2 -- ' w 5 e *j o S
a u co 3 *- g
« t-ffline 4>S
cmC4l 4). o
;5 eo" " *» -<=
cn O C co3in
./ 4>ij4.i~ C4)C
« -a u to . .- o «
m. ~ v. 41 E in TJ U a)
3 4) Q. «» >- C 3
>'4) O4Jin-oe gj34)4J
Cl_ l_COeC4JO3cl)4l
3 a. 3 co £ ucucoja
,
.Q CO J
... ' 1 . " '
I in
to 4) C
U J- O
4J -. Q.
§3 tn
cr 4)
4)
0 C
<*- C 3
0 co 0
c 4J
U 4) S '
c .. »> o
p c J-t
4-1 3 tg TJ
. to a. E c m
n o ca 4)
5 -aiuin-
- LU O 4J.4J .
u «- in c
- o c > 11
o .- in S J3
"T
3 « .' - -
..-,- Q. «
-19-
-------
rf-*.
f*\ *n
d)
H 3
" * C
= S
2 Ji
en
c
"O C 1
u
4-1
^
"*"
u
c
4)
4)
u
o
~
UJ
>.
o
4-J
m
3
CO
4)
a:
C CO.
in i in c e en i- o
TJ X 0)1)
a» (0 c > -a
c tn (o
tr nj > -a .c
to en o 4) -^
4J CL ^" L* <^
.
U> fl} (0 41 C 4) 1
o. >-' CL in 4>
u
TJ
1
3 flj O
u) n i_ i- j-i
(L
) i
M.
>
_
^J
U
^
"In
(j
c
U
1
10
u.
in
c
£
TJ
j: 4>
O to in
cr> 2 4»
4J fll *t^
* 4-* 2» rn
fli ^_rl l^ ^ 2^
CL in ** 3
O «) 4J C
u <_ c u c
Q. O V- O "3
- to -a c 01
qj C 92 E
OB 41 TO C *"*
O TJ o c >
4) D ~ >
- o u u .
D »- c
U- (D to
c i tn 4-i
C 4-1 ~
(0 a) in «n c
i- en
in L. O in
-a j_ o
«»- > C ID
>- UI -C 4-1
o a) v- o m
w m C
co o en o - >
-------
Types of institutional Arrangements
There are several types of agencies and forms of institutional arrangements
available to carry out the wastewater management functions just described.
They include: , .' . ,
1. Existing public agencies such as municipalities, counties,
states, and soi1 and water conservation districts.
2. Special service agencies created solely for t;he purpose of
wastewater management, such as special districts, sanitary
districts, or public authorities.
3. Private sector entities, such as private contractors, private
utilities, rural cooperatives, and property owner'associations.
These agencies could be used singly or in combination to'implement these
wastewater management functions. The purpose of this discussion and
the next section is to identify a number of'instl tutional. options that
can be used to manage different types of wastewater systems using
individual or small community applications. The authority and adminis-
trative structure of a particular management entity varies from
community-to-community, and state-to-state; a sample of some of the
possible types of institutional approaches to management are described
as follows:
1. Municipal Government (such as a' Township) , Loca1 unit
of government typically involved in wastewater management,
general1y possessing a full range of financing powers:
revenue and general obligation borrowing, taxation, use
of special assessments; as well as regulatory authority,
such as zoning, and sewer use ordinances, etc.
2. County Government Generally counties have some of the
same broad-based authority to operate, finance,^ and manage
sewerage services as a municipal government, and usually
cover a much larger geographical area than the municipality.
3. Other Public (Governmental or Quasi-governmental) Agencies
These include regional planning agencies, .regional (mul,tt-
town or multicounty) boards of health, or other advisory/
regulatory entities (excluding special districts or public
authorities), as well as state governments and specialized
state agencies (e'.g., State 'Department of Health or Environ-
mental Protection). '
-21-
-------
** Special District (or Service District) An independent
unit of government with limited powers to provide services
(e.g., water supply and/or sewerage services) to an area
within a municipality or county. In terms of wastewater
services, a special district's powers are generally
parallel to those of a municipality or county. (The
extent of these powers is usually precisely defined by
state enabling legislation.) Generally, a special district
may issue general obligation and revenue bonds, establish
rates and charges for services, and levy property taxes.
Special districts are usually created to perform specific
functions with costs incurred being paid only by those
residing within the district. Special districts can
appear as sanitary districts, sanitation districts, or utility
districts, and can provide single or multiple services.
5. Authority One variation of a special district, that is,
a special unit of government (or a special purpose type of
government) authorized to perform specific functions (e.g.,
provide water and/or sewerage services). Its jurisdictional
coverage is flexible; it can be comprised of a municipality,
group of municipalities, county, or group of counties. Its
revenues are limited to those derived from its water and
sewerage operations, and from Federal or state grants for
these purposes. It cannot issue general obligation bonds
or levy property taxes like a municipality or special dis-
trict. (Again, state enabling legislation defines the
powers of an authority.)
6. Private (for Profit) A sole proprietorship or incorporated
business such as a septage hauler, plumbing contractor, or
private utility formed to provide sewerage services. Private
utilities are usually regulated by the state public service
or public utility commission.
7. Private (Nonprofit) A property owners' association or a
privately-owned cooperative can finance and manage sewer
services for a specific area. Depending on state legisla-
tion, these entities may also be regulated by a public
service or public ut11ity commission.
As indicated in the previous material, a critical review of state and
local enabling legislation is necessary before a specific management
approach can be selected. An equally important assessment to be made
when selecting a specific institutional approach is the willingness and
capability of certain types of institutions for performing specific
functions. For example, it may be appropriate to create a special
-22-
-------
district to set and collect user fees for the operation and maintenance
of a wastewater system, but designate regulatory control over;the
location and design of the systems to another unit of government, such
as the township, county, or state. Likewise, a private contractor may
be employed to perform specific operation and maintenance functions,
with administrative/regulatory/financing functions remaining with a
public agency. The factors that shouVd be considered when addressing
these various combinations of institutional approaches are discussed in
the section that follows. ,
-23-
-------
MANAGEMENT DIMENSIONS
The initial assessment of institutional arrangements in selecting a
particular management approach is one of the critical steps .in formulat-
ing an alternative wastewater system management program. The assessment
of institutional arrangements should include a discussion of broad
management concepts, whose dimensions include:
Time Frame
Size
Purpose
Authority
Staging
Charter
Exhibit 4 displays these management dimensions and their characteristics.
This graphic display points out the major components of an assessment of
institutional arrangements for a particular area, and helps to highlight
the significance of certain management constraints, including service
area characteristics, type of wastewater system applied, and scope of
management functions. These management constraints are summarized as
fo11ows:
1. Service Area Characteristics
a. Land use, population, and distribution.
b. Growth prospects.
c. Governmental structure.
d. Willingness of local agencies to accept new
responsibilities.
e. Responsiveness of private homeowners to assume
certain responsibilities.
f. Diversity of problems and wastewater disposal
needs.
2. Type of Wastewater System Applied
a. Individual versus community.
b. Surface versus subsurface disposal.
c. Traditional versus innovative.
d. Degree of installation and operational .complexity.
-24-
-------
I
Dimensions
Time Frame
Size
^Purpose
Structure
Authority
Staging
Charter
. Range in Concepts
Interim (Short-Term ) to Permanent
(Long-Range) Solutions
Single (Local) Jurisdiction to
Multiple Jurisdictfonal and
Countywide Levels
Single-Functton Arrangements to
Comprehensive Management Approaches
Extension of Existing Entity Services to
New Organization with Specific
Management Powers
Planning and Coordination Services to
Systems Ownership and Operation
Time-Sequenced Evaluation of Planned Size,
Purpose, and Authority to the "One-Shot"
Installation of All Jurisdictions and Powers
.
Private Arrangements Among Developments/
Developers to Public (Government or
Special District) Arrangement for Management
EXHIBIT 4: MANAGEMENT DIMENSIONS
-25-
-------
3. Scope of Management Functions
a. Short-term or long-term system approach.
b. Remedial versus preventive solutions.
c. System ownership and system operational
responsi b!1 I ties.
d. Regulatory versus advisory perspective of
management entity.
Translating these management constraints into management programs involves
the integration of necessary management functions, selected institutional
authority and capability, and physical system needs. These management
considerations are illustrated by utilizing examples of actual wastewater
management program applications (i.e., community and state case studies
conducted as part of the aforementioned USEPA-sponsored study).
-26-
-------
CASE STUDY SUMMARIES
As mentioned in the Introduction, the USEPA has sponsored a study in
response to the growing awareness that institutional aspects of these
wastewater programs need attention. This study is investigating alter-
native institutional arrangements (i.e., programs, agencies, methods
for administration, planning, regulation, financing, and operation)
based on case studies representing examples of existing local and state
programs related to the management of on-site and alternative systems.
The actual experiences of these local and state agencies are being
analyzed to identify and evaluate successful implementation of these
management programs. ,
The case study findings are intended to provide the following infor-
mation:
1. Management features and innovations in selected existing
smal1-community wastewater treatment systems employing
on-site or alternative treatment, collection, and disposal
technology.
2. Definition of the issues, problems, constraints, and
opportunities bearing on the establishment and management
of on-site or alternative wastewater systems, at both
local and state government levels.
3. Evaluations of the range of institutional alternatives
available for management of on-site and alternative waste-
water systems.
k. Recommendations for procedures to select and implement
management arrangements.
The completed case study summaries appear in this final section. The
case studies themselves involve extended field trips by planners and
engineers to the respective locations. These teams review actual program
administrative and operational practices, the type of technology applied
and observe performance, as well as compiling the enabling legislation,
rules, regulations, and financial arrangements pertinent to each case
study situation. The summaries that follow highlight the key aspects
of the case studies by discussing the background objectives, scope, and
purpose of each program, along with assessing the performance of the
=27-
-------
particular institutional arrangement. Agencies and individuals con-
tacted during the case study field trips, along with selected references,
are noted. *
Exhibits 5 and 6 list the community (local) and state case studies con-
ducted as part of this USEPA-sponsored project. The community case
studies can be organized according to their scope of management function
(i.e., the dimension or comprehensiveness of the program). Community
case studies are divided into the fol lowing three major groups, rep-
resenting the different forms or approaches to noncentral wastewater
management: .
1
3.
Management of on-site systems by emphasizing the
evaluation of site suitability as a basis of system
des i gn .
Management of on-site systems through a more formal
service area concept that incorporates operation and
maintenance activities, along with site evaluation
procedures.
Management of small community wastewater systems
(pressure sewers, cluster systems, etc.) in various
development settings such as lakes or rural-developing
areas.
A brief description of each community program is included in Exhibit
5; the case study communities are organized by their type of management'
approach, as follows:
On-site Management through Site Evaluation and Design
1. On-Site Specialists, Vermont
2. Fairfax County, Virginia
On-site Management through Operation and Maintenance
3.
4.
5.
6.
Marin County, California
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, California
Stinson Beach, California
Acton, Massachusetts
Management of Small Community Systems
7. Lake Meade, Pennsylvania
8. General Development Utilities, Florida
9. Otter Tail County, Minnesota
-28-
-------
The state program summary, Exhibit 6, is organized in a different manner.
The type of state/local approach, and program approach applied by each
state is displayed. A distinction is made between state-level and local-
level involvement in planning, design, and regulation of.on-site systems,
system designers, installers, and septage haulers. The display illustrates
the"manner in which these management activities vary within individual
states, as well as among the nine states selected. The state case studies
are also grouped according to the!r management approach,, i.e., whether
the state program is a strong state program, a strong local program, or a
combination state/local program.
Strong State Program
1. New Hampsh i re
Combination State/Local Programs
2. Illinois
3. Maine
k. Pennsylvania
Strong Local Programs
7.
8.
Minnesota
Maryland
5. Washington
6. Vermont
9. California
As indicated in the exhibits, a total of 18 case studies were conducted;
nine community case studies, and nine state case studies.
-29-
-------
Nane/Location
Type of Manager-lent
Agency
Program Description
Service Area
Type of Collection
and Treatment Systems
Applied
Dumber of Systems
Existing
Projected
Established
Management Functions
Vastewater facility
planning
Site evaluation
System design
Design review
Installation
supervision
Operation Inspec-
tion (frequency)
Tank punping
Valve switching
System repair
Monitoring
Public education
Program Activities/
Staffing
Number of permits
Issued (annually)
Number of field
staff
Number of office
staff
User Charges
Service fee
Connection fee
Permit fee
Operation fee
Monitoring fee
Hauler registration
Billing method
Annual budget
(FY 1979)
Federal/state
grants
Enforcement Techniques
Deed restriction
Access easement
Special legislation
Lien
Health code
Service agreement
On-Slte
Specialists
Program, VT
Soil and water con
servatlon distric
Cooperative effort
between state,
municipality, and
conservation dis-
tricts In Vermont
to provide site
evaluation and
system design
services to home-
owners.
Rural towns
Septic tank/drain-
field
3,000
1973
tunlclpal i ty
Special ists
Special ists
Health officer
Special ists
lone owner
lomeowner
Special ists
,000
50
ppl ication
100,000
158,000"
EXHIBIT 5: SUMMARY
Fairfax County, VA
County health department
County on-site system per
mitt ing program that
applies comprehensive sit
evaluation, system design
and installation criteria
County
Septic tank/drainf ield
25,000
1954
County Department of
Public Works (DPW)
Bounty health/soil
scientists
Engineer
)ounty health department
Bounty health department
Homeowner
County health department/
homeowner
Homeowner
lounty health department
County health department
,000
5
5
60
400/hauler/year
ppl ication
27^,000
137, OOO12
Marin County, CA
County health department
County on-site managemen
program, where periodic
inspections of septic
systems are made to chec
performance.
County
Septic tank/drainfield
450
1971
County Department of
Public Works (DPW)
County DPW
Eng inter
County DPW
County DPW
County health department
(2 years)
Private hauler
Homeowner
County health department
County health department
100
32
2
$200
$20/year
$
-------
OF COMMUNITY CASE STUDIES
Stinson Beach, CA
Water district
(SBCWD)
District manages
both new and old
on-stte and
alternative systems
for small
communities.
Town
Ixed on-stte
750
1978
SBCWD
SBCWD
Engineer
SBCWD
SBCWD
SBCWD (2 years)
Private hauler
SBCWD
Homeowner
SBCWD
SBCWD
20-30
1
$1 Oil/year
$10
$10/vis!t
Quarterly billing
$69,700
$1)8, OOO14
X
X
X
cton, MA
unlclpal ity
ommunity septage manage-
ent program using private
taulers with public-owned
nd operated treatment
acHlty.
own
eptic tank/drainf ield and
eptage treatment facility
I),IOO
5,200
975 (lagoons built)
'own
'own health department
Engineer
Town health department
Town health department
lomeowne r
'rivate hauler
Homeowner
Town health department
Town health department
80-100
23
2
$2/septage truck
$25/hauler/year
Coupons purchased
$150, ooo9
None
X
ake Meade, PA
Municipal authority
LHMA)
uthority designs,
nstalls, owns, and
aerates grinder pump-
ressure sewer system
round the lake.
,ake community
ressure sewer - grinder
>ump
77
00'
977
LMHA
LHHA
LMHA
LMMA
LHMA
LMMA (1 year)
LMHA
LMMA
LMMA
10-20
11/2
1
5268/year ,
51,750 ($975)
Quarterly bi 1 ling
5138,000
si.ois.ooo'5
X
X :
X
eneral Development
tllltlesi Inc. (SOU), FL
rlvate utility company
publ Icly-regulated private
tlllty owns, designs, Installs
nd maintains septic tank-
f fluent pump systems at two
major developments.
'ort Charlotte, Florida
eptic tank effluent pump
20
0,000
970 ' - .
DU
DU
GDU
GDU
GDU
GDU
GDU
GDU
GDU
GDU -
80-100
3
1 ,
596/year
5650 :
Monthly bi 1 ling
$150,000
None
X
X
Otter Tail County, HN
Lake homeowners '
association manages
septic tank-effluent
lump system around lakes.
bounty Department
of Land and Resource
Management (LRM)
coordinates and approves
these local programs.
communities.
with common absorption
fields.
30 clusters1
197
-------
EXHIBIT 6: SUMMARY OF STATE CASE STUDIES
State Case
Studies
naming ton
Vermont
Facility Pla
Approvals/
Grants
Adralnlstratl
State AEC
department
Promulgate
Design
Standards.
departrent
department
epartment
tate health
epartnent
tate ONR
epartment
epartment
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
Plan-Review Permit Issuance
Individual
System
departnert
department/
local agent
ocal agent
epartment
Local health
department
epartnent
epartnent
epartnert
Large
System
WSPCC
State
health
depart-
ment/
state
EPA "
health
depart-
DER
State
DOE/
state
health
depart-
ment/
ocal
ealth
epart-
ent
State
AEC
PCA/
ocal
hea 1 th
ment
ealth
epart-
ment/
ocal
ealth
epart-
nent
egiona
RCB/
ocal
ealth
epart-
ent
Subdivision
Layout
State/local
health
departments
State DEP
local agent
State DOE/
state health
department/
local health
department
State AEC
Local health
department
department/
local health
department
Regional
WRCB/
local
hea 1 th
depart-
ment
Licensing/Certification
Site
Evaluators
State
WSPCC1
State
health
department
State DER
State AEC
Local
hea 1 th
department
Sys tern
Designers
State
WSPCC'
State
health
departmen
Local
health
depart-
ment
...
Sys tern
Instal ler
State
WSPCC1
State
health
department
...
...
.ocal
health
ment
...
System
State
hea ! th
depart-
Local
hea 1 th
depart-
ment
State
hea I th
depart*
uent
Local
Local
health
depart-
ment
State
hea 1 th
depart-
ment
Local
health
ment
ocal
ealth
epart-
Unique Program
Smal I Community
Wastewater
Management
Interagency
Facility Plan
Review Committee
State certified and
trained site evaluators
and local plumbing
State_ certified and
trained local agents.
sewage enforcement
officers, planning
State mandate for
management of on-site
systems in sub-
divisions.
m-Site Special ists
Program (soil and
water conservation
itstrlcts)
trong state regu la-
Ions governing on-sfta
ys terns near lakes
Shoreline Management
ct).
aryland Envirorwontal
ervfce, a state waste-
ater management
tlllty.
tate URCB Alternative
astewater Systems
ss I stance Unf t
Wtes
1. State WSPCC recently proposed licensing requirement for State Legislature approval
2. No provisions for thl« function.
Abbreviations;
WSKCWater Supply and Pollution Control Commission (New Hampshire)
DECDepartment of Environmental Protection (Maine)
EPAEnvlronmantal Protection Agency (Illinois)
OCR"Department of Environmental Resources (Pennsylvania;
DDEDepartment of Ecology (Washington)
AECAgeney of Environmental Conservation (Vermont)
URCBWater Resources Control Board (California)
KAPollution Control Agency (Minnesota)
ONR--Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota)
-32-
-------
COMMUNITY CASE STUDIES
VERMONT ON-SITE SPECIALISTS PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Vermont Natural Resource Conservation DJstrict On-Site Specialists
Program was initiated on a pilot program basis in June 1973 at the White
River Natural Resources Conservation District in Vermont. The White
River District is a county soil and water conservation district, and is
one of 14 conservation districts in the State of Vermont.
The on-site specialists program is an effort to provide professional'
technical expertise to local governments and individual homeowners
to assist in planning, design, and installation supervision of on-site
systems for rural residences throughout the State of Vermont. This
technical assistance is provided by on-site specialists who are trained
technicians employed by the Vermont Association of Conservation Dis-
tricts (VACD), and whose services are provided on a contract basis to
town health boards. The specialist performs site evaluations, designs
on-site systems, and conducts precover-up inspections. The town,
through the town health officer, is responsible for assuring compliance
with local health laws and regulations governing on-site systems. The
on-site specialists are also authorized to provide information for the
State's single-lot subdivision permit program, providing technical
and site evaluation services to individual landowners.
The on-site specialists program now serves 60 out of about 24? towns,
villages, and municipalities in the State (involving six of the 14 con-
servation districts). A stated goat of the Vermont Association of Con-
servation Districts is to expand the program Statewide by 1981.
The on-site specialists program is administered at the State level
through the Association of Conservation Districts, and the District
Conservationist (of the White River Valley Conservation District).
-33-
-------
A Resource Development specialist from the Cooperative Extension Service,
(CES) serves in an advisory capacity. Presently, five specialists, and
a director, with technical backgrounds in fields related to soils and
on-site wastewater disposal systems design, are employed by the program.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
The on-site specialists program was promoted primarily by members of the
Vermont Association of Conservation Districts (VACD) program in the
State (i.e., farmers, concerned citizens, and Cooperative Extension
Service and Soil Conservation Service personnel) in response to the
problem of malfunctioning on-site systems in scattered rural areas. Due
to the lack of technical assistance and other reasons, local health
officers had paid insufficient attention to administering these regu-
lations. It was, therefore, felt by the conservation district repre-
sentatives that local health officers needed assistance in administering
State health regulations governing individual sewage systems.
State and Federal on-site management assi-stance offered to local health
officers in the past was in the form of technical standards and guide-
lines, which could not readily be applied to site-specific situations.
In addition, State legislation does not mandate adoption of local ordi-
nances governing on-site systems. Thus, only a few towns had ordinances,
and those that did, found them difficult to enforce without technical
support. As a result, the homeowner and/or on-site system contractor
usually installed a system they felt would work; however, system failures
were common, a result of improper siting, design, construction, or main-
tenance.
The SCS and CES helped develop and implement this program through the
conservation districts. Farmers, working with the districts, have long
used SCS soi1 survey data as the technical basis for making land use
and land treatment decisions. The districts believed these soil data,
-------
and site evaluation procedures could be applied to the on-site sewage
problem. Thus, the conservation districts (Initialty through 'the White
River Natural Resources Conservation District) sought to provide local
governments with the technical support needed to implement workable
on-site management programs.
To help implement the program on a Statewide scale, a uniform on-site
ordinance contract form was prepared, and the primary focus for pro-
gram administration shifted to the Vermont Association of Conservation
Districts (VACD). The VACD is currently lobbying to achieve complete
Statewide implementation of the on-stte -specialists program, and attempt-
ing to become more involved in planning and design of alternative
wastewater systems for small communities (e.g., through the 201 facili-
ties grants program).
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Most towns participating in the on-site specialists program have become
more involved through the efforts of the VACD, the local conservation
districts, and the Cooperative Extension Service. Contact is made with
the local board of health by a representative of the on-slte specialists
program. If the town has a local health ordinance (governing indivi-
dual sewage systems), it is reviewed by the on-site specialist and com-
pared to the model ordinance prepared through the on-site specialists
program. (The model ordinance essentially adopts the standards for system
design set forth by the Vermont Board of Health.) If the town does not
have local health ordinances, or regulations requiring town approval of
sewage system installation, an ordinance must first ba adopted by the
town officials before the on-site specialists can perform their work.
Towns must request on-site specialist services from the local conser-
vation district, and sign a working agreement with the district.
After the program is established, the procedure for reviewing and approv-
ing individual sewage systems is as follows:
Homeowner files an application and pays a fee to town officials
(usually town clerk or zoning officer) for on-site program
services. This fee, which is collected by the town, is then
turned over to the district.
-35- ' ' ..."..-',' .''-"''
1.
-------
2. Town health officer requests on-site specialist services to
evaluate a proposed site for suitability for an on-site sewage
system. Specialist prepares a report with minimum criteria
for system design based upon site evaluation results.
3. Specialist reports on-site conditions and design recommendations
to town officials. SCS technicians and State agency (e.g.
Agency of Environmental Conservation and Health Department)
personnel are contacted for technical assistance when necessary.
4. Town officials (local health officer and/or board of health)
approve, approve with modifications, or reject permit appli-
cations based on the recommendation of the on-site specialist
Town gives notification in writing of action to applicant
and district.
5. If application is approved and a permit is issued by the town
health officer, the property owner or contractor installs the
sewage system following the design provided to him by the
specialist. The installer or homeowner notifies the specialist
of the proposed installation schedule.
Specialist inspects the installation (before covering), and
prepares .a completion report, noting any deviations from the
proposed system design and modifications needed to town
health officer.
Town officials certify proper installations, or take action to
correct any deficiencies (e.g., if system was not installed
according to the design specifications, an approved system may
have to be installed in its place).
Specialist prepares a report describing soil suitability testinq
results, proposed system design, on-site system and well loca-
tions, and alterations to system performed by contractor in-
cluding as-built drawings. (This report becomes the official
record of system installation, and is filed with the VACD, town
and homeowner.)
9. Maintenance of the on-site system is the responsibi1ity of the
homeowner. The specialist offers suggestions as to tank pumping
frequency, or site modifications to improve long-term system per-
formance, and is always available for consultation by homeowner
and/or health officer should problems occur. Some followup is
being done to check on system performance.
Responsibility for establishing the program at the local level rests
.with: a representative of Vermont Association of Conservation Districts,
6.
7.
8.
-36-
-------
the District Conservationist in the White River District, and a Coopera-
tive Extension Service agent located at the State university. These
principal program administrators are responsible for providing Ijaison
with participating towns, expanding the program to new towns, and inter-
acting with State agencies on matters such as State policy toward non-
central wastewater management, State-adopted minimum design criteria,,and
State legislation governing the roles of State and local agencies in
noncentral wastewater management.
Five on-site specialists conduct the field work, and work on an open
schedule, enabling them to service as many requests as possible during
the installation seaspn (usually responding within 48 hours of a request).
In general, soils data and site evaluations are used to identify suitable
disposal areas and to design the on-site system. Based upon review of
the soils data, detailed soils tests (e.g., test pits) are conducted to
identify specific profile characteristics. At problem sites, several
test pits may be required to locate a suitable area on a particular site.
The main objective of the program is to determine the optimum location
for a disposal system on a given site, and assure that the septic tank
system is properly designed and installed. The on-site specialist makes
every attempt to overcome site limitations through system design and
location. , ,
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The Vermont On-Site Specialists Program is a unique example of conser-
vation district participation in an on-site management program. It
represents an efficient and effective means of providing professional,
technical expertise to local governments and homeowners in rural areas
where such services are difficult to provide on a uniform basis. This
is an extremely critical service in Vermont, where (according to State
-37-
-------
legislation) all of the local health boards are responsible for adminis-
tering ordinances that govern on-site system design and installation.
The program is politically acceptable to local governments because it
is sponsored by the soil and water conservation districts (an existing
agency), rather than a governmental unit. Furthermore, local control and
enforcement of on-site system regulations have been maintained. The
on-site specialist only serves in a technical advisory role. In addition,
the specialists' participation in the State's single lot subdivision
program was found to be cheaper and faster than the pre-existing re-
quirement of a report by a 1icensed engineer.
From a technical standpoint, the on-site specialists program encourages
thorough evaluation of soil survey data supplemented by actual field
inspections for a particular site. Thoroughness at the initial site
evaluation phase provides a very sound basis for determining not only
site suitability, but also the optimum location of a disposal area on
a given site. The on-site specialists program appears to have been
successful (based on the past six years) in minimizing the number of
failed systems resulting from improper design, location, or construction.
(Since inception of the program, the on-site specialists have prepared
nearly 3,000 permit applications for new or replacement systems.)
Despite the apparent success of the program, the on-site specialists
program has not been accepted Statewide. Many towns are unwilling to
participate voluntarily, and as long as the State does not require local
health ordinances governing individual sewage systems, this is likely
to continue. Objections have been raised by professional engineers
and system installers who feel that the on-site specialists encroach on
their work. On the other hand, many installers and individual homeowners
greatly appreciate the advice of the specialists. Other concerns relate
to the adequacy of the specialists' background and training, and the
potential conflict of interest that exists since the specialists are
involved in designing individual sewage systems, as well as in administer-
ing local health regulations governing these systems.
-38-
-------
One of the major constraints to continuing the program and expanding
the program Statewide in Vermont is the availability of funding.
Currently permit fees ($50 per on-site permit, $100 per single lot
subdivision form) partially support the on-s5te program, (it is
estimated that permit fees cover about half of the program costs.) Since
1975, the State legislature has contributed $123,000!to the program,
while the Vermont 208 Program has allocated $26,000 to districts for
' - £- ,
conducting special technical studies. In 1978, $73,000 was received
in the form of a State grant. This grant was the first time State
financial support was issued on a line item basis, and it is felt that
the State legislature wi11 continue to fund the program at its current
level.
The present limitations of the program are that it is not implemented
Statewide, and is not completely coordinated with other programs (i .e.,
State 201 Facilities Planning Program) directed at providing wastewater
service in unsewered areas. The most important asset of the on-site
specialists program is its ability to work cooperatively with local
governments to implement uniform administration of local health
ordinances governing individual sewage systems.
-39-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jack Snyder
Executive Di rector
Vermont Association of Conservation Districts
Barry Stryker
Area Resource Development Specialist
University of Vermont Cooperative Extension Service
William Steele
District Conservationist
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Merri1 Severy
Chairman
Vermont Association of Conservation Districts
Francis Favreau
Town Health Officer
Morrisville, Vermont
Joseph Trombley
Selectman
Morrisville, Vermont
Eugene Fellows
Technician
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Carl ton Piper
Technician
USDA Soil Conservation Service
KEY REFERENCES
"Management of Rural Septic Systems Utilizing the Natural Resource Con-
servation District Program," Stryker, Barry W., and Steele, William T.,
presented at the Fourth National Conference on Individual On-Site Waste-
water Systems, National Science Foundation, October 1977.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Barry Stryker
Area Resource Development Specialist
Extension Service, University of Vermont
162 Elm Street
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
-40-
-------
ON-SITE-WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA ' '
GENERAL DESCRIPTION , .'. '
Fairfax County, Virginia is a major suburban jurisdiction near Washington,
D.C. The County has a population of about 600,000, with development
generally concentrated in those parts of the County closest to the Wash-
ington urban area. Since 1950 the County has experienced rapid suburban
growth associated with the growth of the Washington metropo1itan area.
The County provides an example of wastewater management in a rapidly
growing suburban area.
The County has a counci1-manager form of government. The members of the
Board of Supervisors are elected for four-year terms., The County Executive
is appointed by the Board, and manages the day-to-day government operations.
The County Health Department reports directly to the Board of Supervisors,
through the County Executive, and to the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Secretary of Health. The Health Department staff members are employees
of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Director of the Health Department
is appointed by the Commonwealth's Secretary of Health, with approval by
the County Board of Supervisors. The on-site management program is
administered by the County Department of Health, through the Environmental
Health Division.
The program for alternative/on-site wastewater management in Fairfax County
is oriented directly to septic tank management. The principal components
of this management program are planning, design, and construction review
of septic tank systems (i.e., on-site systems) through a comprehensive
permit program. Lesser emphasis is placed on operation and maintenance of
septic tanks. ,
-------
The County's service area for this program consists of the portion of the
County not served by public sewers. Of a population of 600,000 about
80,000 people use septic tanks (approximately 25,000 systems), with
approximately 1,000 septic tanks being added each year. The County's
policy is not to extend sewer service at public expense. This places
the burden on septic tanks for treating wastewater generated from growth
In fringe areas. Consequently, the County views on-site systems as the
permanent wastewater management method for a significant portion of the
County, especially those areas which have yet to be developed.
Management of Fairfax County's on-site wastewater management program is
characterized by interaction among public agencies and private developers,
lenders, and homeowners. The Environmental Health Division (EHD) i.s,
charged by the Board of Supervisors with administering the program. The
program emphasizes prevention of problems by stringent planning, design
and construction, and permitting. At the heart of the program is site
soils suitability. Initial analyses of plans are based on examination
of County- and State-developed soils maps of the County. Design deter-
minations are based on on-site borings made by private firms contracted
by a developer, but overviewed by County employees. Satisfactory
construction is determined by staff members examining the systems during
the entire construction period. The subdivision plat, building permit,
and occupancy permit approvals are not issued by the Environmental Health
Division, but the issuing agencies must have EHD's approval before issuing
the permits. An interesting aspect of the program comes from the financial
lending industry. Before new mortgages are approved, the lending institu-
tions request the EHD to inspect the size and operating condition of a
home's on-site system. This inspection is not mandatory.
Operation and maintenance of the systems are the responsibility of each
homeowner. Private firms provide pump-out services on a free-market basis,
controlled by County licensing. The EHD provides 1iterature to homeowners
on proper maintenance practices, but does not actively intervene unless
a system fails and a health hazard results.
-42-
-------
Two branches of the EHD are involved In the on-site program. "One branch
reviews plans and designs, while the other handles inspection of testing
and construction. There are 10 professional sanitarians employed by the
program, who are employees of the Commonwealth of Virginia, but are
responsible to the Board of Supervisors for conducting the program.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY .-
The program began in 1954 in response to politically-unpopular cap!tal
expenses required for sewering areas with failing septic tanks. In the
early 195'0's, the County experienced many septic tank failures due to
inadequate planning, design, and construction. After issuing bonds to
support the needed sewer extension, the Board of Supervisors directed
the Health Department to develop a program that would prevent future
failures. The Health Department agreed on soils suitabl1ity as the
cornerstone of a prevention program. The soils extension service of
Virginia Polytechnic In-stitute (VPI) mapped the entire County for soils
(at a scale of 4 inches to a mile) to establish a data base. The EHD
drafted legislation (which the Board of Supervisors enacted) to require
a set of permits for a developer to install a septic tank.
The major difficulties in initiating the program concerned the adequacy
of the soils maps. To address the problem, the*EHD required further
site specific samples (at least four per system) during the permitting
process.
The EHD staff members, present during the successful development of the
on-site program, attribute its success to:
1. The program had, very strong support from top-level.
County management. ' .
2. The program was technically and verifiably sound.
The Board of Supervisors backed the Health Department's initiation of
the program, and provided funds and legislation when the program was
starting. The vigorous support of the Director of the Health Department
during the program's startup helped overcome the i nitial. difficulties.'-.
-43-
-------
Another key ingredient for successful program development was a strong
verifiable technical basis for day-to-day program decisions. Mapping
the entire County for soils characteristics initiated this technical
basis. Staff training in soils interpretation added to the technical
strength of the program.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The management program addresses the adequacy of individual septic tank
systems by County regulation of the planning, design, and construction
activities undertaken by private contractors. The Environmental Health
Division administers the program by issuing permits to design, construct,
and use individual septic tank systems (described in Chapter 68,
"Individual Sewage Disposal Facilities" of the County Health Department
which outlines the required permits and methods applicable to the pro-
vision of individual septic systems).
The Board of Supervisors and the EHD do not believe that alternative or
small community systems are sufficiently proven for other than experimental
use. Although the County is pursuing alternative systems (e.g., sand
mounds and aerobic treatment units) for small areas, it does not expect
to depart from individual system septic tanks as the alternative to sewer
service in the immediate future.
The crucial part of the program is the soils suitability analysis, The
subdivision plat must show the soils types, and location of the proposed
on-site system. This information Is supplemented by soil profile data
based on at least four auger borings per lot to verify the soils charac-
teristics and to locate a suitable site for a drainfield. These profiles
are prepared by the developer's contractor (usually a soil scientist or
geologist), and submitted for review by EHD staff who then verify the in-
formation through a site visit. After review of the soil profile data,
EHD specifies the location and depth of percolation tests to be performed
by the developer's contractor. The actual percolation test must be super-
vised by EHD staff.
-44-
-------
A subdivision plat is only approved once it has been determined (via
soil profiles and percolation test data) that each lot has a suitable
site for a disposal field. The approved site (and locations of soi1
profile and percolation test holes) are identified on the preliminary
subdivision plat. The construction of individual homes, roads, or other
infrastructure is not allowed until the plat is approved and a "certifi-
cate of adequacy" is issued.
When the builder is ready to construct a home, a building perm i t app.l i ca-
tion is submitted for review by the County building inspector and the
County Health Department and others. The permit applicat ion must be
accompanied by a plat and grading plan showing the location, size, and
layout of the septic tank/drainfield, as well as existing and final grades,
Upon comparing the individual system proposal to the approved subdivision
plat and staking out the location of the tank and the drainfield at the
lot, a permit to construct the on-site system is issued. A professional
engineer or surveyor is required to prepare the plat and grading plan.
According to County design criteria (revised in May 1973), all drainage
fields must be divided into two separate fields to allow the use of one
drainage field (while one is "rested"), and provide for future expansion
of the field. The system is equipped with a diversion valve to permit
"alternate dosing." The septic tank size required depends on the number
of bedrooms served. For instance, a four bedroom house must have a tank
of at least 1,480 gallons capacity, and a liquid depth of 5** inches. The
County expects systems built according to these standards to last more
than 30 years.
A typical on-site system costs about $5,000 (about $300 for design,
$3,200 for the septic tank and drainage field, and up to $1,500 for
pumping equipment, which Is applied to about 30 percent of all newly-
installed systems).
-------
The EHD conducts an elaborate construction inspection program for these
individual on-site systems. Staff members inspect the system construction
at least six separate times to ensure that all phases of construction
are completed according to specifications. For more sophisticated systems
(e.g., where pumps are involved), at least eight inspection visits are
made to each system. A separate group in EHD is assigned the task of
inspecting the construction. No occupancy permit is issued by the
Department of Environmental Management without EHD approval of the system.
The County's direct involvement in on-site systems diminishes after the
system commences operation. The EHD notifies the homeowner (via post-
cards) when the "dual dosing" diversion valve should be turned. EHD
also provides septic tank operation and maintenance pamphlets to home-
owners. County policy requires that individual homeowners assume
primary O&M responsibility of the systems. Private haulers are con-
tracted by the individual homeowners and septage is disposed of at one of
two County-approved disposal sites in the County (both involve septage
treatment via the County-owned and operated treatment plant). The County
pumper's license fee ($400/year/firm) is used to cover the cost of
septage treatment. "
The costs of the sewage disposal program are estimated as follows:
1. 1978 (FY)
2. 1979 (FY)
$259,000
273,900
The State Health Department financially supports about half of the costs
of the program. The remainder of the costs are covered by the County
General Fund. Permit fees are collected to raise part of the County's
revenue share.
-46-
-------
These fees include.site evaluations, subdivision reviews, soU evaluations,
new system permits, inspections, repair, and other miscellaneous expenses,
and are summarized as follows.:
T. Initial' fee $65/lot.
2. System relocation fee $30.
3. On-site system evaluation -- $25.
4. Septic tank installer license $25/year.
5. Pumper license fee $400/year.
Abotit 30-40 percent of the total program costs are raised by the permit
fee system. In addition-to these fees, the County requires the installers
to be bonded (to $5,000).
County Health Department activities in on-site management include County
and joint state/County-sponsored trainjng seminars, which, up to now,
have been oriented primarily to persons conducting soil evaluations.
It has recently been proposed that a parallei training seminar be held
for system installers. At present, installers are licensed, but there
is no '-'formal" training or certification program (installers who apply
for a license are interviewed by a Health Department representative
before a license is issued). ,
PROGRAM'ASSESSMENT ,
The County's program is a capital-intensive program aimed at preventing
problems through construction of adequate on-site wastewater disposal
facilities. The result is a failure rate which was approximately 6-8
percent during the early 1950's, and has dropped to zero since the mid-
19601 s.
The program is not explicitly covered in the County's master plan and
zoning ordinances. The on-site program is a single objective program
that does not overlap with other County programs.
-------
The emphasis on satisfactory capital facilities stems from the County
investing its efforts in the system design and installation phases.
The EHD believes that a County-operated/sponsored operation and main-
tenance program could yield improvements, but the atmosphere for expand-
ing local programs is not strong. Also, difficulties are foreseen in
managing a program with over 20,000 component systems.
The preference, however, is to achieve a high quality program by rigorously
regulating planning, design, and construction by the private sector. This
preference for planning is reinforced by conducting detailed soils
evaluations before a subdivision plat is approved. In this way, proper
consideration of topography, soil characteristics, and subdivision design
and layout can be conducted before any construction takes place.
The County's citizens have an average household income well above $25,000
annually. Recent studies have identified the County as having the
highest per capita income in the nation. The citizens are active par-
ticipants in the governing process, and County performance on all pro-
grams is closely followed. This close monitoring serves as a stimulus
for meeting program objectives. The EHD staff attributes citizen interest
and participation as key factors in keeping the on-site program as an
important item during annual budget decisions.
-43-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .
John Clayton
Di rector .
Fairfax County Division of Environmental Health
James Bowman ' - . '
Assistant.Director _ <
Fairfax County Division of Environmental Health
Horace Jones
Manager, Design Rev'iew Division
Fairfax County Division of Environmental Health
Wi11iam Berger
Supervising Sanitarian
Fairfax County Division of Environmental Health
Dennis Hill
Manager, Inspection Division
Fairfax County Division of Environmental Health
Richard Little
Senior Planner
Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning
Bruce Douglas
Associate Planner
Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning
KEY REFERENCES
"Analysis of Septic Tank Survival Data From 1952 to 1972 in Fairfax,
Virginia;11 Clayton, John W. , R.S., Journal of Environmental Health,
Volume 36, No. 6.
Fairfax County. Virginia Soil Survey. USPA Soil Conservation Service,
Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, and Fairfax County 0/A) Health
Department.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
John W. Clayton, R.S.
Director, Division of Environmental Health
Fairfax County Health Department , .
4080 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
-------
ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM INSPECTION PROGRAM
MAR IN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Marin County, California, a suburban county located just north of the
City of San Francisco, has operated an inspection program for on-site
sewage systems installed pursuant to County Code 18.06 (since October
1971). This County code altered some of the previous County rules and
regulations governing on-site system design, construction, and mainten-
ance. The most significant and innovative changes in the ordinance
concerned the requirement for a County-administered biennial on-site
system inspection program. Associated with this inspection program is
a Certificate of Inspection, which is issued when the system is built,
and which must be renewed every two years. To facilitate this inspection,
the County code requires that risers be installed above the access lids
of the septic tanks. The cost of the renewal and inspection service is
$20 per year.
The inspection program is currently administered by the Marin County
Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Environmental Health
Services. The staff of about eight persons conducts the inspections in
addition to other duties related to public health. (Some of the field
inspectors are registered sanitarians.) The review and approval of
applications for new on-site systems was the responsibility of the Health
Department, but has recently been shifted to the Marin County Department
of Public Works.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
In 1967, Marin County retained the services of a consultant to study the
problem of individual disposal systems, and identify future sewerage
facility needs. In the preceding 40-year period, the County experienced
a growth in population from about 40,000 persons in 1930, to over 200,000
persons in 1970. This rapid rate of development was largely spurred by
-50-
-------
the opening of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937, connecting the County to
San Francisco. The County became,.and continues to be, a major residential
area for commuters since it offers 'good highway access to a large metropol-
itan area, and has attractive topography and natural features.
The large demand for housing, the rugged topography, and the low population
density have caused homebuilders to use on-site systems in many portions
of the County. As of 1967, about 70 percent of the County residents were
.served by public sewers maintained by numerous special districts through-
out the County. The continued use of on-site systems seemed to pose a
threat to public health, most particularly in areas near existing or ./
proposed water supply reservoirs. In 1963, the County upgraded its rules
and regulations governing on-site systems to conform with" the U.S. Public
Health Service and Federal Housing Authority standards. Adoption of
these criteria strengthened County control over the design and installa-
tion of on-site systems. The passage of County Code 18.06 expanded the
approach to on-site system management in Marin County, since it not only
further upgraded the standards for on-site system design and construction,
but incorporated a periodic inspection program to monitor system perform-
ance.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Marin County Code requires that the County Health Department Issue an ,
occupancy permit (i.e., Certificate of Inspection) to any homeowner with
an on-site wastewater system. The certificate is effective for two
years from the time of Installation, and must be renewed every two years
thereafter. This inspection program only applies to on-site systems
installed under the rules and regulations of County Code 18.06. There
are about 500 homes included in the program at this time. It is estimated
that 85 to 100 permits for new on-site systems *(out of approximately 1,000
building permits for single family residences) are issued each year.
There are approximately 9,000 homes served by on-site systems that were
installed prior to the adoption of County Code 18.06. The Code, however,
does not authorize the inspection of these on-site systems.
-51-
-------
The present administration of the County Code Is as follows:
1. The County Department of Public Works (DPW) receives
applications for new on-site systems, reviews the
designs, and percolation tests (performed by the
private engineer or applicant), conducts necessary
site inspections, and issues permits to construct
or repair.
2. The County DPW inspects system installation, and
issues a Certificate of Inspection.
3. Two years from the date of system installation (or
from the previous biennial inspection), a letter is
sent to the property owner from the County Health
Department, informing the owner that an inspection
is required.
4. Within a two-to three-week period, the owner is
asked to schedule an inspection by a County Health
Department field inspector, provide access to the
septic tank manhole cover, and pay the renewal fee.
5. The on-s?te system inspection is conducted by the
County field inspector. The homeowner is asked to
remove the tank manhole cover, and the County official
measures the scum and sludge levels in the tank. The
homeowner has the option of having the inspection
performed by a County-1 1 censed septic tank pumper
with supervision by a County field inspector.
6. The field inspector locates and inspects the leach
field area for any noticeable signs of system mal-
function (e.g., surfacewater breakout, wet ground,
etc.).
7. If the inspection is satisfactory, the Certificate
Inspection is renewed (i.e., a new certificate is
If
of
issued). This renewal is recorded with the homeowner's
deed by the County Recorder. The date of the next
inspection and renewal is noted on the certificate.
Should repair or pumping be required, the homeowner
must submit proof of repair or pumping before the
certificate is renewed. (A follow-up inspection of
repair or pumping is usually not required. Septage
haulers are required to submit quarterly reports
to the County Health Department summarizing hauling
activities and locations of septage disposal.)
-52-
-------
The certificate is valid for two more years, regardless of any change
in home ownership prior to the expiration date. Violations of these
requirements are subject to nuisance abatement provisions of the County
Code which authorizes judicial proceedings and fines against violators.
Further enforcement is provided by requiring that the Certificate of
Inspection be val.j.d and current when home ownership is transferred,
since the Certificate of Inspection is recorded-on the deed to the
property, jf the biennial inspections have not been performed, the
.system must be inspected and the certificate renewed before the property
is sold.
From January 1972 to December 1978, about 450 on-site systems had come
due for biennial inspections. These included on-site systems installed
according to County Code 18.06 from January 1972 to December 1976, for
which the first biennial inspections had been performed, plus systems
which had second biennial Inspections (systems installed between 1972
and 1974) and third biennial inspections (systems installed in 1972)
performed. Approximately 440 inspections were completed during this
period by the Marin County Health Department. Of these Inspections,
about 115 systems needed pumping (26% of those inspected). Only four
failures have been observed. The reasons for system malfunction have
been attributed to the unique physical conditions at the individual
sites. . -
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The Marin County biennial on-site system inspection program represents
one of the few examples of a formal operation and maintenance program
administered on a Countywide basis. The program offers several benefits
to the County residents, namely:,
1. It provides an opportunity to ensure adequate performance
of on-site systems without the politically-unpopular approach
,, of adopting rigid standards and procedures for system design .,
and location.
-53-
-------
2.
3.
The program seems to be financially self-supporting as far
as the administrative costs to the County are concerned.
The County field inspectors are a vital source of information
and assistance to homeowners regarding proper installation and
use of on-site systems.
There are several aspects of the program that might be improved, however:
1. The County Code requires that the field inspector have
the consent of the homeowner before an Inspection can be
made. Follow-up letters and telephone calls have been
directed toward those who have failed to respond, but
to date legal action has not been taken against them.
The present response rate by owners for inspection
services is 60 percent (which is a lower response rate
than in previous years).
2. At present, the jurisdiction is limited to unincorporated
areas. Some cities have adopted the County Code, others
have not. (This does not appear to be a major problem
since the majority of new on-site system construction
appears to be situated in the unincorporated portion of
the County.)
3. The inspection program is only applicable to new systems,
which essentially ignores the vast majority of on-site
systems currently in use throughout the County which were
installed prior to County Code 18.06. The County consul-
tant's report, however, suggested that the program should
be gradually applied to existing systems by conducting
an initial inspection of systems in certain "failure-prone"
areas of the County.
4. Most of the inspection fees paid by the homeowner are
collected by the field inspector at the time of inspection.
This sometimes places the field inspector in an awkward
position. It has been suggested that the fees be included
as part of the County tax bill, which would provide a
better basis for enforcement.
Perhaps one of the most pressing problems with the program, is the
growing demands being placed on the County Health Department staff to
conduct the inspections. Each year more inspections are required as
initial and follow-up inspections accumulate, and as new systems are
installed. The present inspections workload is shared by eight County
Health Department personnel, each spending about 5 percent of his time
on the program.
-------
Prior to California's Proposition 13, the responsibi1ity for conducting
the inspections rested with only one or two of the County Health Depart-
ment staff. These individuals were able to give the program greater
attention which afforded the opportunity for discussing the program
requirements with homeowners scheduled to have inspections completed.
This personal interaction with the homeowner is difficult to achieve
at present where numerous staff members share the program responsibilities
on a limited basis. This appears to be a major reason for the decreasing
response rate by homeowners in scheduling biennial inspections.
County Health Department personnel are considering the following alter-
native actions to alleviate this problem:
1. Lengthen the inspection interval from two to three years
at the minimum, and possibly up to four or five years.
(The extension of the time interval for inspections
might be coupled with a public education program to inform
homeowners of maintenance activities they could perform.)
2. Develop a computerized program for scheduling inspections.
(This program will be incorporated into a current effort
in the County to develop a computerized data retrieval
system for other County Health Department activities.)
3. Gradual1y shift the responsibility for inspections to the
private septage haulers and/or to local agencies (e.g.,
special districts such as Stinson Beach County Water
District, and Bolinas Public Utility District which
currently operate on-site maintenance programs within the
County).
The Marin County experience with on-site management has shown that it is
possible to incorporate an inspection program within an existing
governmental framework. The relatively small number of households in
the program, the restriction of the inspection program to only new
systems, and the nominal publicity given to the program have helped it
evolve into a well operating program. The future exercise of the
right-of-entry and inspection capabilities of the County Health Depart-
ment, along with the extension of the inspection program to pre-existing
systems by the County supervisors can strengthen the program considerably.
-55-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
W!11iam L. Desmond
Director, Environmental Health Services
Harin County Department of Health and Human Services
James J. Jurik
Sanitarian, Environmental Health Services
Marin County Department of Health and Human Services
Wtl15am A. Schenck
Senior Planner
Marin County Planning Department
Mark J. Riesenfeld
Principal Planner
Marin County Planning Department
Jack Baker
Civil Engineer
Marin County Department of Public Works
KEY REFERENCES
Sewerage Study for Marin County. California. Brown and Caldwell Consulting
Engineers, October 1967."
"Report on the Implementation of the Recommendations for Septic Tank
Controls of Chapter 7, Brown and Caldwell Report," North Marin County
Water District and Marin Municipal Water District, May 1970.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
William L. Desmond
Director, Environmental Health Services
Marin County Department of Health and Human Services
Marin County Civic Center
Room 276
San Rafael, California 9^903
-56-
-------
GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
EL DORADO BOUNTY, CALIFORNIA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION _. ,
The Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD) located in El Dorado
County, California, adopted Ordinance 71-3, "An Ordinance Establishing Rates
and Charges for Sewage Disposal Service and Providing Procedures for its
EnforcementAuburn Lake Trails Area" in June 197.1. This ordinance set
forth the regulatory and administrative framework for an on-site management
program in the Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision, a development of 1,80?
lots ranging in size from 1/4 acre to 7 acres (250 lots are presently
developed). Originally planned as a rural recreational subdivision, the
development now mainly consists of permanent dwellings.
The GDPUD is responsible for managing wastewater systems within this sub-
division, which involves site evaluation, design and inspection related to
new system installation, as well as periodic operation and maintenance
inspections. The district is also responsible for water quality monitoring,
sewer feasibility studies, and providing centralized sewage faci1ities
as needed within the subdivision, in addition to its duties as water
purveyor for the subdivision. In order to extend these services to other
subdivisions within GDPUD's jurisdiction, an improvement district is
created, and appropriate rules and regulations are established for that
special district. The Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision (which consists of
Improvement Districts A and B) is, at present, the only area within the
GDPUD jurisdiction that has an operational on-site management program.
The GDPUD has employed a full-time manager to develop the program at the
Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision, and to provide overall program administra-
tion. A soils scientist/geologist and four field technicians (who are work-
ing on a temporary but intensive basis) are also involved in daily activities
at the subdivision. In addition to the GDPUD employees, the developer,
Transamerica Development Co., employs a sanitarian as assistant general
manager for the development to coordinate land development activities ;w1th
-57-
-------
the GDPUD's on-site management program. Overall management of the GDPUD
is conducted through the Board of Directors (elected for four-year terms)
and the District General Manager, who is responsible for all planning and
operational activities of the District.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
TransLand, a copartnership between Transamerica Development Co. and
LandTec, the original developer of Auburn Lake Trails, had prepared a
series of site plans and detailed feasibility studies for the development
(November 1969 to May 1971). The initial plan called for installation
of a centralized water supply system with on-site septic tank systems for
wastewater treatment and disposal. (The GDPUD now operates and maintains
the water supply system.) Preliminary studies conducted during the
construction of the Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision concluded that individual
septic tanks with leach fields would be generally acceptable for treatment
and disposal of wastewaters from individual houses. It was recognized
that there were areas marginally suitable for septic tanks, however, it
was felt that this could often be overcome by installation of more
sophisticated individual treatment and disposal facilities, or by construc-
tion of a common leach field to serve a relatively large number of lots
which were poorly suited for individual leach fields due to groundwater or
soils conditions.
As the initial septic tanks and leach fields were constructed and put
into operation in late 1970, the California Water Resources Control
Board (WRCB), Central Valley Region, raised concern over soil depths,
slopes, high water tables, etc. in the area being developed, and issued
an order prohibiting on-site systems, and recommended central services
Instead. Estimated costs for installing a sanitary sewer system in the
development were $3.6 million, or nearly $2,000 per lot for collector
sewers and wastewater treatment facilities. The initial high capital
cost, coupled with the anticipated low buiId-out rate for the subdivision
(approximately 3% per year), made it infeasible to sewer the development
at that time.
-58-
-------
Subsequent discussions among individuals from the El Dorado County Health
Department, the GDPUD, the Central Valley Region of the California WRCB,
the developer and its consultant, along with several feasibility studies
prepared by the developer's consultant helped to develop a framework for
establishing an on-site management program within the subdivision. It was
successfully argued by the County Health Department representative and
the developer's consultant that the proper performance of on-site systems
could be ensured through a management program. The WRCB then Issued an
order" allowing' the use of on-site systems on most lots. In addition, a
requirement was initiated for a management program through the existing
- f ' '
GDPUD to "assume responsibi1ities for the design, installation, main-
tenance, and repair of any sewage disposal system constructed within the
subdivision" (Waste Discharge Requirements - WRCB 72-2)..
As a result, a special sewer improvement district was created by resolution
of the GDPUD Board of Directors in June 1971 (Ordinance 71-3), and a
ful1-time wastewater program manager was hired by the GDPUD in the fall
of 1971 to develop and administer the program. One of his first accom-
plishments was preparation of "Regulations for. the Installation of
Individual Waste Disposal Facilities Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision."
The on-site management program has evolved through the mutual efforts
of the GDPUD wastewater manager, the developer's sanitarian (assistant
general manager), and El Dorado County Health Department personnel. The
result is a coordinated program where the GDPUD, the developers, and
the County Health Department share on-site management responsibilities.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The GDPUD on-site wastewater management program was required, by an order
from the California Regional WRCB, to accept certain management respon-
sibilities. In keeping with this requirement, the GDPUD provides the
following services:
1. Conducts site evaluations for each lot to determine the suit-
ability for on-site systems.
-59-
-------
2. Designs a system for each site.
3. Ensures proper installation through inspection of system con-
struction.
4. Inspects and maintains operating systems.
5. Assumes responsibility for the immediate correction of any
system which does not function properly.
6. Monitors watershed water quality to evaluate any possible
effects of the systems on the area's water resources.
7. Conducts feasibility studies, and operates and maintains "public"
(i.e., centralized) wastewater systems where needed.
8. Sets and collects fees for wastewater management services.
9. Provides direct liaison and education to the homeowner concern-
Ing the maintenance of the individual on-site systems.
The procedure followed by the GDPUD and the County Division of Environ-
mental Health In providing these services consists of numerous steps.
When a lot is to be developed, a plot plan showing property location,
dwelling location within the lot, and general topograph'ic and physical
features of the site (along with a $10 permit fee), is submitted by
the applicant to the GDPUD. The application also includes an agreement
between the applicant and the GDPUD which allows the GDPUD to maintain,
operate, and repair the waste disposal facility and obligates the home-
owner to abide by all GDPUD rules, and to pay all district charges.
Failure to do so may result in fines or liens against the property.
Upon receipt of the plot plan and agreement, the GDPUD will evaluate
site conditions, conduct necessary tests, and design a sewage disposal
system to serve the homesite. The homeowner (should he so desire) has
the opportunity to contract with a professional engineer of his choice
to conduct any necessary percolation tests and site evaluations, and
to prepare an on-site system design which is then reviewed by the GDPUD.
In this case, the engineer must conform to District rules and regulations,
ind his design must meet GDPUD approval prior to issuance of permits at
the County level.
-60-
-------
With some minor exceptions. County and GDPUD rules and regulations are
consistent, tn the case of special designs (given reasonable safeguards
for the public's health and maintenance of environmental quality), the
District rules and regulations are waived and each proposal is considered
on an individual basis.
The application, along with the design recommendations of the GDPUD, are
sent to the County Health Department (Division of Environmental Health)
for review and approval. A building permit cannot be issued (by the County
Building Department) until the GDPUD and County Health Department have
issued final approvals for the sewage system construction.
At this time, inspections of each sewage system installation are conducted
by the GDPUD during various phases of the construction process (initially
this had been a reluctant function of the local building inspector). Only
when the GDPUD is satisfied that the construction standards have been met
can a final inspection be conducted. Any modifications to the system design
must be approved by the GDPUD. A final inspection of the system installation
is performed by the County Health Department upon GDPUD request.
Typical GDPUD operation and maintenance practices include inspection of
observation pipes in disposal fields, turning diversion valves, and
general site inspection at least twice a year. Replacement/repair of
malfunctioning on-site systems is the responsibi1ity of the homeowner. In
the event of a malfunction, the County Health Department issues the order
to repair or upgrade failing systems, with recommendations by the GDPUD.
If the homeowner fails to perform the necessary repairs, the GDPUD will do
so and bill the homeowner accordingly. These charges can also be added to
the district tax roll, and consequently become liens.
The GDPUD was required to develop and implement a watershed monitoring
program as a part of the State waste discharge requirements. The program
was initiated in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. The primary
-61-
-------
intent of this program has been to develop baseline values for selected
water quality parameters, and to periodically monitor the watershed to
detect degradation, should it occur. In such an event, corrective
measures can be initiated before a major water quality problem emerges.
The GDPUD Is also currently involved in an extensive site evaluation study
encompassing all remaining undeveloped lots. The 18-month effort
(financed by the developer) will determine the suitability of each lot for
on-slte wastewater disposal. Detailed soil analyses (through test pit
evaluation), percolation tests, along with information on lot size, slope,
drainage, and groundwater presence are being collected. The study is
being conducted by a soil scientist/geologist (assisted by several field
technicians) employed by the GDPUD through the CETA program (a Federal
assistance program).
In addition to this site evaluation study, other special studies have
been conducted to assess the applicability of alternative systems such as
sand mounds, evapotranspiration beds, aerobic tank systems, and pressure
sewer systems within the subdivision. Alternative systems in use at
present are:
1. Two sand mounds (two more have been designed and approved
and are ready for construction).
2. Two evapotranspirat Ion beds (one aerobic, one anaerobic).
3. Three electro-osmosis units (one of which is sealed with
a 1iner).
k. A modified system which maximizes trench sidewall.
5. Three aerobic systems (two of which are under construction)
incorporated into dwellings utilizing reduced-flow
plumbing fixtures.
6. A gravity flow community disposal system which handles
settled effluent.
-62-
-------
In addition, there is a variety of other modified systems serving homes
in the subdivision. It is the policy of GDPUD to apply innovative
technology in as many situations as are applicable, given acceptable
safeguards such as adjacent common areas, etc. The GDPUD also routinely
recommends that water conservation devices such as low-volume flush
toilets and low-pressure shower heads be installed in each home, as well
as the liberal planting of various forms of vegetation to minimize
erosion potential, and enhance the disposal processes through
evapotranspiration.
Operating revenue for the on-site management program at Auburn Lake Trails
is derived from four principal sources: 1) a monthly service charge,
2) a permit fee, 3) general tax revenues (raised within the district)-, and
4) a one-time assessment payable by the developer to support any future
sewering efforts. The basic program is funded by a monthly charge against
each lot in the subdivision, regardless of its development status. In
1971, this charge was set at $0.85. On 1 July 1975, the charge was in-
creased to $1.00 per month, and further increased to its present rate of
$1.30 on 1 July 1977. A second (and relatively minor) source of income
has been the permit fee. This was $5.00 in 1971, and was increased to
$10.00 in 1977.
A third source of revenue has been general tax funds which would be
utilized to augment income derived from other sources. Prior to
California's Proposition 13, the GDPUD had a general tax revenue of
$1.20 per $100 of assessed valuation. The revenue was the basic subsidy
for all District operations (irrigation water, treated water, engineering,
administration, as well as sewage). With the passage of Proposition 13,
this source of revenue has been severely curtailed.
A fourth, but restricted source of income, is a one-time $50 per lot fee
payable by the developer at the time a lot is initially sold. This fund
has provided start-up money for feasibi1ity studies (and monitoring), as
required over the last eight years. It has been and will continue to be,
an important source of revenue for special studies.
-63-
-------
The GDPUD has found that homeowner interaction is one of the more impor-
tant duties of the district personnel. Interaction and communication
with the homeowner by GDPUD and developer representatives are encouraged
in order to inform the homeowner of his/her responsibilities to ensure
adequate system performance.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The GDPUD on-site wastewater management program is a good example of a
total management concept. The GDPUD is responsible for performing a
broad range of functions involving all aspects of on-site system design,
inspection, maintenance, and regulation. The GDPUD is limited only in
not owning the individual systems, as far as the concept of total manage-
ment is concerned.
One of the greatest assets of the program is its local orientation, i.e.,
accessibility to the specific needs of the subdivision residents, and
close attention to individual site characteristics. Another important
aspect of the GDPUD on-site management program is the overall program
management and administration that has been conducted to date. The GDPUD
has played an instrumental role in coordinating the efforts and interests
of the California Regional WRCB, the El Dorado County Health Department,
the developer, and the property owners' association (at Auburn Lake
Trails).
As far as the performance of the existing on-site systems is concerned,
the number of system failures has been small, given the physical conditions
of the area. Of the approximately 250 systems currently installed in
Auburn Lake Trails, 14 have shown operational deficiencies. In the documen-
tation of these problem sites, the most prominent cause of failure was due
to Improper installation on the part of the contractor. The second most
common cause was a significant change in on-site characteristics under
different climatic conditions (e.g., perched water tables).
-6k-
-------
To correct these situations, the GDPUD has Initiated -two. programs. The
first involves close inspection of system installation by the GDPUD.
Detailed as-built drawings are prepared by the GDPUD and preserved in an
operation and maintenance file. Duplicate files are retained by both
El Dorado County Health Department and Transamerica Development Co. The
second program is a continuous and on-going collection of data relative
to on-site conditions on a year-round basis. This has given the GDPUD
a better appreciation for changing conditions, and has led to the
recognition of selected indicators of potential problems. With this
type of information, the District personnel can now design on-site
systems with those limiting factors in mind.
The detailed individual site evaluations performed assure the proper
application of septic tank systems, and other alternative systems. This
is supplemented by periodic operation/maintenance inspection, and overall
program administration by GDPUD. The program is well run and successful,
primarily due to the full-time efforts and attention of GDPUD wastewater
personnel and the cooperation of the developer.
-65-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Richard N.
Water Q.ual i
GDPUD
Prince, R.S.
ty Superintendent
Marie Eisen Davis
Geologist
GDPUD
Charles F. Gierau
General Manager
GDPUD
Kent B. Seitzinger, R.S.
Assistant General Manager
Transamerica Development Co.
Ronald Duncan, R.S.
Director, Division of Environmental Health
El Dorado County Health Department
Jerrold Klatt
Former Environmental
GDPUD
Technologist
KEY REFERENCES
Septic Tank Maintenance District Implementation. GDPUD and El Dorado
County Health Department, Revised September 1977.
Nitrogen Relationships in Auburn Lake Trails on the Fol
Watershed. Winneburger, John T., Ph.D.,
am
Corp.), July 1971
(consultant to Transamerica
"Public Management of On-SIte Wastewater Proposal Systems "
Anderman, William H., R.S. (former Director of the El Dorado
County Division of Environmental Health) for the Association of
Bay Area Governments, December 1976.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Richard N. Prince, R.S.
Water Quality Superintendent
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District
P.O. Box 338
Georgetown, California 95634
-66-
-------
STINSON BEACH COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
STINSON BEACH, CALIFORNIA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Stinson Beach County Water District established an on-site wastewater
management program in November 1977 with the adoption °* Ordinance WW-77-1,
"Regulating the Use of Wastewater Disposal Systems and Faci1ities - Providing
for Permits and Fees and Regulating the Discharge of Waste or Polluted
Waters." The on-site management program at the community of Stinson
Beach, California is one of the State's first on-site wastewater manage-
ment district's (OSWMD) programs established within an existing community.
The OSWMD manages about 500 on-site systems (mostly conventional septic
tank-drainage field systems), and is currently cooperating with the State
of California Water Resources Control Board (WRCB) in a demonstration
project concerned with OSWMD administration and operation.
Stinson Beach is a small isolated, coastal community situated about 20
miles north of San Francisco in Mar in County. The community is bounded
by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area on the south and east, the
Bolinas Lagoon to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The
geography of the area (rather mountainous terrain), has helped to place
a natural limit on the growth the community can accommodate, and currently
is near saturation in terms of development potential. The present per-
manent population is approximately 1,200 persons, which expands to about
2,200 during the summer months.
The OSWMD at Stinson Beach is administered by the Stinson Beach County
Water District. The District employs one wastewater supervisor and a
part-time assistant who perform both administrative and field work ac-
tivities in managing the onsite program. The activities of the super-
visor and his assistant include inspection of system installation,
checking system operation through routine inspection, water quality
monitoring, and overall program administration.
-67-
-------
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
In 1961, the Mar in County Health Department conducted a survey to deter-'
mine the adequacy of wastewater disposal in the Stinson Beach area. The
results of the survey showed that the use of on-site systems for waste-
water disposal .constituted a public health hazard, and that a public
district should be formed to deal with the problem. The following year,
the Stinson Beach County Water District was formed to act as the waste-
water planning agency, and to provide sewerage services for the coastal
community.
Subsequent water quality sampling of the community's water resources
(conducted between 1961 and 1972) by the County and State Health Depart-
ments indicated that conform counts exceeded the water quality standards
established by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). These findings led the San Francisco RWQCB to adopt Resolutions
73-13 and 73-18 (September 1973) which required phasing out all on-site
wastewater systems in Stinson Beach by October 1977. The resolutions
also placed a ban on new buildings with on-site wastewater systems.
Meanwhile, the Stinson Beach County Water District and its consultants
had prepared several wastewater management plans and feasibility studies,
investigating various alternative methods of handling the community
wastewater disposal problem. The recommended wastewater management plan
in many of these studies was replacement of existing on-site systems with
a centralized sewage col lection and treatment system for the entire
community. The central treatment system plan recommendation was rejected
by the residents. The high user costs, and the contention that alternative
solutions were not adequately considered were reasons given for rejecting
the proposal.
Prompted by these objections and the recognized need to investigate alter-
native solutions, the District and the State WRCB initiated another
feasibility study in 1975 (through the 201 Program-Step 1 planning grant)
-68-
-------
to survey existing on-site systems and document the extent of the problems
associated with these systems. After conducting a house-to-house survey
of on-site system performance of all the residences in the community
(about 10% of the systems were determined to be fa fling), and evaluating
a wide range of alternative solutions, both the wastewater management
feasibility study and the environmental assessment (performed by a
separate contractor) recommended the on-site'alternative program as the
"best" alternative. It was further recommended that the selected program
be administered by an 6n-site system wastewater management district,
and that a sampling and inspection program be instituted to monitor
on-site system performance. The State Water Resources Control Board is
presently reviewing the Step 1 facilities plan for Stinson Beach.
Based upon this assessment, the RWQCB agreed to modify its previous
resolutions which called for the abandonment of on-site systems as the
principal method of wastewater disposal in Stinson Beach (via Resolution
77-2), as long as a local regulatory agency was created to assure the
continued proper operation of on-site systems. State enabling legisla-
tion (SB 1902) was prepared and adopted (in 1976) which essentially gave
the Stinson Beach County Water District'the .expH-cJt authority to manage
priva'tely-owned on-site wastewater systems. This legislation was sub-
sequently expanded to a 1 low the creation of on-site wastewater manage-
ment districts statewide.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The district's rules and regulations specify the criteria to be used
in issuing permits for new on-site systems, as well as for the repair
or replacement of existing systems. For new on-site systems, the
procedure followed is essentially the same as any other new installation
in Marin County. The applicant initially contacts the County Department
of Public V/orks (DPW) for permit information, and hires an engineer to
prepare a system design. The design is reviewed by the District's
-69-
-------
wastewater supervisor and the RWQCB (for certain cases where high ground-
water conditions prevail). The District comments on the plans; however,
the County is responsible for issuing the construction permit. (The
California Coastal Commission also reviews the application for conformance
with several coastal zone management policies.) A final inspection of
system installation Is then conducted by the County DPW, usually in the
presence of the District wastewater supervisor.
For repair/replacement systems, the District has adopted its own set of
design criteria which it enforces. The permitting procedure is different
than the procedure for new installations. In this case, the District
wastewater supervisor takes a more active role in developing a system
design for a particular location, based on initial site inspection and
verification of percolation tests, depth to groundwater, and other site
condition measurements.
This information is used by a professional engineer (hired by the home-
owner) to design a replacement system. The proposed design is reviewed
and approved by the District's consulting engineer, subject to the
District's regulations. (This engineer is also allowed to design re-
placement systems.) The Marin County DPW is not involved in the permit
process for repair/replacement systems within the District. The inspection
of system construction is also done by the District wastewater supervisor.
The wastewater supervisor and his assistant presently devote most of
their time to inspecting existing systems. One of the District's ob-
jectives is to inspect every system in the community at least once by
the end of 1979. About half of the systems in the community have been
inspected thus far. Nearly all wastewater systems in the community,
however, had been inspected as part of the initial feasibility study.
Of the total number of systems (approximately 500), about 12 percent
(61 systems) were found to be fai1 ing through the feasibility study
-70-
-------
inspections. Forty-five of these failing systems have been corrected
(as of December 1978). Only about six of the failing systems had to
be completely replaced. The remainder had only partial system corrections
performed, such as replacement or repair of a tank or drain field. Of
the failing systems, about half were made up of deteriorated tanks
and/or drain fields or cesspools which had to be replaced.
Most of the systems in the community including those corrected or re-
placed, are inspected once every two years. The systems operating only
marginally, or those that require special monitoring, are inspected
two or three times a year. Frequently-monitored systems include those
installed in high water table areas, alternative waste disposal systems
(e.g., waterless toilets), and grey water systems. There are about 35
of these specially-monitored systems in the community. Some of the
systems in the community (about 40) fall under the jurisdiction of
Marin County Code 18.06 which requires biennial inspections. The Dis-
trict has assumed the responsibi1ity of inspecting these systems.
The District maintains card files on each home within its jurisdiction,
and uses this system to notify the homeowner of an inspection (via a
"Notice of Inspection" letter). The homeowner is required to provide
tank access (through risers) at both the inlet and outlet ends.
During the inspection procedure, the septic tank dimensions, tank con-
dition and construction, inlet/outlet height, scum thickness and sludge
level, household size, and water consumption are recorded. Based on this
information, usable tank volume and detention time is computed. The
operation of the tank and drainage system is also checked during an
inspection. The District supervisor simulates peak load usage by load-
ing the system with water, and subsequently measures tank 1iquid levels,
and inspects drainage field conditions. If the system is operating
satisfactorily a two-year permit to operate is issued. Should the
-71-
-------
system need pumping, the property owner is required to show proof of
this action before an operating permit is issued.
Where the system is not operating properly, a "failed system investigation"
is required. The failed system investigation, which can be done at the
same time as the initial inspection, is a more extensive inspection per-
formed to determine the causes of failure. It is then the homeowner's
responsibility to repair the system.
In accordance with the RWQ.CB resolutions, the District also conducts an
extensive water quality monitoring program of the community watershed.
Surfacewater samples are collected on a weekly basis, and groundwater
samples are collected on a biweekly basis. The monitoring results are
reported to the RWQCB on a monthly and annual basis.
The total revenue raised by the District consists of an annual service
charge (permit fee) of $120 per household, but in 1979 the District
received a two-year demonstration grant of $48,000 from the State WRCB
to partially cover salaries and support two annual technical reports to
be prepared by the District. Due to the State grant and a revenue surplus
from the previous year, the permit fee for FY 1980 was reduced to $10V
household/year. The State WRCB has also authorized;a $100,000 loan
program (revolving fund) to provide low-interest loans for homeowners
who are required to repair or replace their on-site systems, and can
show financial need. The State loan will also be used to assist the
District in purchasing private property for off-site correction of
failing systems (e.g., via community drainage fields), or correcting
failing systems when the homeowner refuses.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT .,-.'.-
Although the on-site wastewater management program at Stinson Beach has
only been operating since January 1978, it has already done much to :
demonstrate the viability of on-site systems serving the wastewater
-72-
-------
management needs of an existing community. The District, in its efforts
to provide sewerage services for the community residents, has become a
respected, visible, and active local service agency. It has established
itself as a service organization by emphasizing public awareness and
education regarding on-site system practices. The District's recently
prepared'"Homeowners and Users Guide for On-Site Wastewater Disposal
Systems" i s an example of the attention placed on homeowner"involvement
in the on-site management program.
The homeowner's willingness to participate in the OSWMD program is exempli-
fied by the willingness of the homeowners to have their systems inspected,
and to make necessary repairs or improvements. Even though the costs
of these system corrections are borne entirely by the homeowner, a few
homeowners have had to install new systems (under the direction and
supervision of the District). An apparent Inequity exists, however,
since many homeowners have had to bear the costs of system rehabilitation
on their own, despite the potential avai labi 1 i ty'of Step 2/Step 3 grants
in the near future. The District is currently pursuing these grants and
expects to be awarded a construction grant, pending approval of the Step
I Facilities Plan currently under review by the WRCB.
The District has, in addition, a complementary broad range of regulatory
authority to perform on-site management functions. Its personnel can
enter onto private property to perform inspections, it has established
rules and regulations governing the design of on-site systems, it can
force homeowners to upgrade and repair malfunctioning systems (by
terminating water service or by placing liens on property), and it has
the authority to set and collect user fees.
The Board of Directors thus far has been very supportive of the on-site
management program, and has been willing to exercise enforcement authority
in several cases to assure compliance with program regulations. It is.
not surprising that the majority of the community residents favored the
continued use of on-site systems because of the results of the initial
house-to-house survey, the relatively high cost of the central system
-73-
-------
alternatives, and the public attitude toward maintaining the present
rural character of the community.
The on-site program has also met with the approval of County and State
agencies, which have emphasized the political attractiveness of local
management of on-site systems. The District's voluntary participation
in a demonstration program, sponsored by the State Health Department
and Office of Appropriate Technology, for example, to evaluate the per-
formance of alternative on-site systems has also been a positive feature
of the Stinson Beach on-site management program. Under this program
about nine waterless toilet/grey water systems have been installed, and
their performance monitored on a monthly basis.
-7k-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ,
Michael Batz .
Water Quality Supervisor
Stinson Beach County Water District
Joyce Moran
Vice President, Board of Directors
Stinson Beach County Water District
Andrea diMarco
Former President, Board of Directors
Stinson Beach County Water District
George Tchobanoglous, Ph.D.
Consultant to the Stinson Beach County
Water District
Al Ian Sproul
Contractor's Assistant :
Bill Tacherra Contracting Company
(Septic system installers and cleaners)
KEY REFERENCES '
Homeowners and Users Guide For On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems, Stinson
Beach County Water District.
Chronologies and Reports Related to Wastewater Management in Stinson Beach,
Stinson Beach County Water District, July 1976.
Stinson Beach Wastewater Facilities Planning Study, Eutek, Inc., April 1977.
Final EIR, Stinson Beach Wastewater Management Plan, URS Company, October
Wastewater Management Program Rules and Regulations, Stinson Beach County
Water District, January 1978.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT . .
Michael Batz
Water Quality Supervisor
Stinsdn Beach County Water District
P.O. Box 2k5
Stinson Beach, California 9^970
-75-
-------
ON-SITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
ACTON, MASSACHUSETTS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Acton, Massachusetts Is an affluent suburban community of 20,000 situated
25 miles west of Boston. Like many other New England towns, Acton has
undergone a transformation in the last three decades from a rural sparsely-
developed area to one which Is predominantly residential. About 90
percent of the town is currently served by a central water system, and
most developed lots are less than one acre. Despite this rapid rate of
growth and rather compact development pattern, the Town continues to use
on-site systems for wastewater treatment and disposal. Acton is set
apart from neighboring towns with similar developmental characteristics
by Its vigorous on-lot wastewater management program. This program es-
tablishes well-defined procedures for site testing, design, installation,
inspection, and approval of septic systems. An integral part of this
program is a septic tank permit provision that calls for biennial pumping,
and provision of a municipa 11y-owned septage disposal facility which is
used by private septage haulers to accommodate this maintenance require-
ment.
The on-site management program is administered by the Town Health Depart-
ment, consisting of the Director of Public Health and his assistant, under
the supervision of a three-member Board of Health. The Health Department
is assisted by the Planning Board which administers Township zoning and
subdivision ordinances, and by the Engineering Department which is re-
sponsible for review and inspection of subdivisions (for drainage improve-
ments, road construction, etc.), and for various aspects of wastewater
facilities engineering, including review of 201 and 208 planning. Acton
has a town manager form of government.
A Wastewater Management Advisory Committee was established in 1964 to
compile data and prepare recommendations for long-term wastewater manage-
-76-
-------
merit-programs. The Wastewater Management Advisory Committee, made up
of interested citizens appointed by the Town Manager, is reviewing the
findings of the Step 1 (201) Facility Plan being prepared by the Town's
consulting engineers. The plan recommends formation of a Town on-site
wastewater management program. The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control (WPC) administers 201 funding in "the State, and will' be
reviewing the 201 Facility Plan while the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQ.E) has reviewed and approved the
plans for the Town's septage treatment facility.
ORGAN IZATIONAL HI STORY
Seven major studies concerning wastewater management in Acton have
been prepared over the past 15 years. The first two studies, completed
in 1966 and 1972, recommended sewer construction, largely due to the
fact that the Town was experiencing a rapid rate of growth, and soils
were considered unsuitable for bn-site systems. (Only 15 percent of
the Town's land is considered suitable for on-site systems according
to U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soils
maps.) The 1966 wastewater management report, e.g., recommended an
eight-phase sewer construction program for the Town wi.th estimated
collection and treatment facilities costs of nearly $10,000,000 (in
1966). These recommendations were rejected by a town meeting vote as
too costly and unnecessary, given the perceived adequacy of existing
on-site systems.
Three subsequent studies, prepared in 1975 and 1976, questioned the need
for sewers in the Town, and instead recommended that use of on-site
systems be continued. On-site disposal appeared in these studies to
be satisfactory from the viewpoint of public''heal thf costs, density of
development, and environmental impact. A preliminary study prepared
in 1977 by the 208 areawide planning" program concluded that sewers should
be installed in parts of Acton (and neighboring communities) due to
-77-
-------
soils and water table limitations. The final areawide 208 Plan (com-
pleted in late 1978) called for a number of nonstructural solutions for
Acton area communities (e.g., management of existing septic systems)
based upon regional septage management alternatives that had been inves-
tigated. Residents in the region preferred these nonstructural solutions,
fearing the excessive costs and induced development associated with
sewers.
To resolve the conflicts of previous studies, a 201 (Step V planning).
study is being prepared. The current 201 Facility Plan supports the
use of individual subsurface disposal systems on a Townwide basis, and,
recommends:
1. Continued reliance on on-site disposal as the most cost-
effective alternative in view of the Town's present
standards and surveillance program.
2. An educational campaign to encourage homeowners to
maintain their systems properly.
An integral part of Acton's current reliance on subsurface disposal is
its program for handling septic wastes. In the early 1960's, private
haulers disposed of septage in a pit disposal area situated on Town
forest land. The Town quickly outgrew this facility, and in 1968, con-
structed two septage lagoons. Within a few years, these lagoons were
inadequate. In 1974-75, the Town began renovating and expanding the
septage disposal facility. Layout and design of the facility were pre-
pared by the Town's Engineering Department and approved by DEO.E. A
septage disposal system using settling lagoons in series with infiltra-
tion beds was envisioned. This proved an inexpensive solution (costing
approximately $47,000 to date for materials, financed completely by the
Town with labor and equipment supplied by the Highway Department).
The septage handling facility is located on a 60-acre tract purchased
by the Town in 1976. Approximately 15 acres are used for disposal of
septage tank wastes, with the remainder set aside for sanitary landfill.
-78-
-------
The Town Highway Department is responsible for maintaining the septage
disposal facility, while the Health Department reviews and issues permits
for on-site system construction and replacement.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Acton maintains strict local regulations regarding design, installation,
and operation of private subsurface disposal systems. These regulations
are complemented by an active inspection and survei1 lance program, rein-
forced by careful record-keeping, so that subsurface systems are con-
structed according to approved designs. Each new septic system or sys-
tem repair must have a construction permit and operational approval
from the Board of Health. Permits and approvals are issued in the
following manner:
1. Plans (i.e., designs) for individual systems are prepared
by a professional engineer and submitted to the Board of
Health for review. > .
2. Each subsurface disposal site is tested by an engineer
or sanitarian hired by the homeowner in the presence of
the Director of Public Health or his assistant.
3. If the site and design plans are acceptable, an in-
stallation permit is issued. V
k. Once a system is in place, but prior to cover-up, a Board
representative inspects the installation for compliance
with the plans, and quality of workmanship.
5. Operational approval is issued for a correctly-installed
system, subject to a flow limitation and a biennial pumping
requirement. (This requirement is not enforced by the
Town, but remains the owner's responsibility.)
6. To accommodate septic system maintenance and to insure
safe disposal of septage, the Town owns and operates
;a septage disposal facility.
Acton uses Soil Conservation Service maps to determine general soil
suitability of individual sites, but relies on specific site test data
(e.g., percolation tests and observation pits) for actual evaluations
and approvals. The Board's design requirements for septic systems in-
clude:
-79-
-------
1. 1,000-gal septic tank (1,500-gal tank if a garbage disposal
is used).
2. 4-foot minimum distance above seasonal high groundwater.
3. Percolation rate ^20 min/in.
4. 800 sq ft minimum area for 3-bedroom house.
5. 900 sq ft minimum area for 4-bedroom house.
The average cost of a new subsurface disposal system having a 1,000-gal
septic tank and a 900-sq ft leaching field in Acton is about $1,500. A
replacement system of the same size costs the homeowner about $2,400.
The increased cost for replacement systems is primarily due to factors
such as lawn replacement, access to the installation site, etc.
Maintenance of an individual system is the owner's responsibility. The
Board of Health takes action to correct system failures upon receipt
of a complaint, or when a system failure is suspected. Problems with
on-site systems can be determined by the health officer through the
following means:
1. When frequent pumping is required (records of septage
pumping are kept by the Health Department).
2. Through sanitary surveys conducted in conjunction with
the State.
3. When a homeowner requests a permit to repair or enlarge
a system.
Whenever possible, system repairs must meet the standards established
for new systems. Private haulers pump out septic tanks at an average
charge to the owner of about $55. The average frequency of pumpout in
Acton (determined through a homeowner questionnaire) is once every two
years.
Septic wastes are trucked by private haulers to the municipal septage
disposal facility, which is staffed by one full-time attendant, employed
by the Acton Highway Department. Supplemental equipment and personnel
-80-
-------
are supplied by the Acton Highway Department as required to maintain the
facility.
Dumping septage from outside the Town is not allowed at the Acton site.
(Massachusetts law delegates responsibility for, septage disposal to
municipalities. Most of the towns near Acton leave the responsibility
of septage disposal to the private hauler.)
The septage disposal facility In Acton consists of eight settling lagoons
(each measuring 40 ft x 80 ft), any six of which may be operating at
one time. A large 500,000 gallon lagoon provides cold-weather storage
during December, January, and February. The settling lagoons have a
20-day retention time and a 3-ft operating depth. Clarified liquid is
discharged to infiltration beds with a design load rate of 1 gpd/sq ft.
Sludge i's allowed to accumulate to about one foot in the lagoons. When
this level is reached, the liquid in the lagoon is allowed to flow into
the infiltration beds, and the sludge which remains is exposed for air
drying. The dried sludge is mixed with sawdust and scraped up by a
front-end loader and stockpiled. Eventually, it is mixed with more
sawdust, woodchips, or other bulking materials, and spread on adjacent
land. Limited groundwater quality monitoring around the septage dis-
posal facility has been conducted by the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission. A 95 percent treatment effectiveness
level at the two-ft depth has been shown.
The Board of Health 1icenses all septage haulers, and requires adherence
to a prescribed system for disposing of septic wastes. The Town Treasurer
sells coupons to licensed haulers at the rate of $2 per 1,000 gallons of
septage. These coupons entitle the haulers to use the Town1s .septage
disposal facility, and are turned over to the gate attendant upon arrival.
The $2 per 1,000 gallon charge is approximately equal to the Town's cost
of operating the facility. In addition, the haulers must fill out trip
-81-
-------
tickets in triplicate for each septic system inspected and pumped out.
The hauler keeps one copy, one goes to the system owner, and one to
the gate attendant for transfer to the Town's files. The tickets give
the hauler's name, location of the system serviced, quantity of septage
pumped, and the date. This information is entered in daily logs and
monthly summaries. The system of coupons and tickets enables the Town
to effectively monitor the sources and volumes of septic wastes being
handled at the disposal facility. Approximately 17,000 gallons are
handled daily at the present time (July 1979). The total design capacity
is approximately 18,600 gallons per day (based on the use of six
lagoons on a 20-day retention time and liquid depth of 3 feet).
A key to Acton's wastewater management program is record-keeping on
individual disposal systems. A file on each system is maintained to
monitor the status of the installation and frequency of maintenance.
The fIle contains:
1. Percolation test data.
2. A copy of the installation permit.
3- Design and record drawings.
4. Repair permits.
5. Pertinent correspondence.
6. Septage disposal trip tickets.
The file serves a variety of purposes, and can signal a potential prob-
lem if tickets accumulate at a faster than normal rate.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
Acton has an effective wastewater management program due mainly to the
professional and technical staff which the Town employs. The Town resi-
dents are highly educated, and public involvement in the on-s?te waste-
water management program is facilitated by the Town meeting form of
government which encourages active citizen participation in community
programs. The unique aspect of Acton's on-site management program is
its concern for proper septage disposal. The provision of a septage
-82-
-------
treatment facility, owned and operated by the'Town, for the use of private
haulers servicing community residents,- is the key feature 'of this Town's
program relative to other on-site management programs that may require or
suggest periodic maintenance, but do not provide for treatment and dis-
posal of septage.
While the hauler trip tickets do specify the location of the home served,
a hauler could pump a system in a neighboring town, and then serve an
Acton resident before disposal. One solution would be to require trucks
to have meters to measure the quantity of septage disposed of in the
lagoons. Thus, the volume of septage pumped at the home (via the invoice
to the homeowner) could be compared to the volume disposed of at the
treatment site. This metering requirement has been considered, but does
not appear warranted at this time.
The Wastewater Management Advisory Committee is vigorously pursuing a
study of long-term management policies and programs, and has recently
requested 201 funding for this purpose. The Committee has outlined an
ambitious 20-year program based on continued, extensive use of on-site
disposal systems. The major program elements include:
1. Public education.
2. Wastewater volume reduction (including water conservation).
3. Wastewater source identification.
4. Water resources monitoring (including groundwater monitoring).
5. Optimization of management system.
6. Corrective program for faulty systems. ,
The Advisory Committee is not only concerned with establishing an on-
site management program to ensure continued reliance on subsurface dis-
posal systems within the Town, but recognizes a potential threat from
the Town's long-term wastewater management policies on the quality of
the aquifer which recharges the municipal water supply wells. A signi-
ficant portion of the Committee's 201 funding proposal, therefore, is
devoted to developing a program to monitor surface and groundwater
resources to detect system failures and help establish a program for
rehabilitating contaminated water resources. This proposal for 201
-83-
-------
funding has recently been submitted by the Advisory Committee to the
Town Manager, and will most likely be sent to the State Division of
Water Pollution Control for review.
The Town has asked to be included on the State's priority list as an
innovative and alternative program. It is the community's consensus
that a decentralized approach to wastewater disposal, coupled with a
strong management program, is the most cost-effective solution to the
Town's future wastewater management needs.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Steven Calichman, R.S.
Di rector of Health
Acton Health Department
Eric .K. Durl ing, P.E.
Junior Civi1 Engineer
Acton Engineering Department
? - - --"-, *" - ^'- -'"-..
James Fuller
Regional Environmental Engineer, Central Region
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Tom Conroy . '
208 Planner
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Boston, Massachusetts
Zeke Nichols
Septic Tank System Installer/Cleaner
Acton, Massachusetts
Daniel Costello, P.E.
Chairperson
Acton Wastewater Management Advisory Committee
REFERENCES '
i^****. . (
Town of Acton. Wastewater Management Study. Final Draft Facilities Plan,
Anderson-Nichols Corporation, April 1979.
Interdepartmental Correspondence, "First Draft of Suggested Wastewater
Management Program,11 from Acton Wastewater Management Advisory Committee
to Christopher J. Farre11, Acton Town Manager, 10 July 1979.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Steven Calichman
Director of Health
Town of Action
P.O. Box 236
Acton, MA 01720
-85-
-------
LAKE MEADE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
LAKE MEADE, PENNSYLVANIA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Lake Meade is a small community in south-central Pennsylvania, located
in Adams County approximately midway between Harrlsburg and Gettysburg.
The man-made recreational lake is bisected by Reading and Latimore
Townships. The community Is currently made'up of 277 single-famijy
residential homes, with an expected potential of 600 when fully
developed. Originally planned as a seasonal recreational community,
the development is rapidly shifting to mostly permanent residences.
Community sewerage services are now provided by the Lake Meade Municipal
Authority (LMMA) which owns and operates a pressure sewer system around
the lake. The LMMA is one of several municipal authorities established
within the State to manage pressure sewer collection systems.
Lake Meade was developed in the late 1960's by Lake Meade, Inc., a sub-
sidiary of the American Realty Company which is a major developer of
lake community projects across the County. In 1969-, the LMMA was created
by the developer. The objective was promotional in nature, stemming,
from the needs of the developer to present an attractive development
package to Latimore and Reading Townships In order to gain approval for
the development plans. The development package included the creation of
a Lake Meade Water Utility, provision of a 10-foot right-of-way around
each Lake Meade property to permit Installation and service of public
utilities, and incorporation of the Lake Meade Municipal Authority under
the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act of 1945. Under the State
enabling legislation, a municipal authority can acquire, own, operate,
and maintain sewerage faciIities within any defined service area.
After experiencing fairly widespread failures of existing septic tank
drainage field systems, and studying the feasibility of several wastewater
management alternatives, a combination grinder pump-pressure sewer/
gravity sewer collection system with a package plant was installed
-86-
-------
under the supervision of the LMMA and operation began in the summer of
1977. Al1 277 residents of the community are now served by the system
(80 percent of the connections are to pressure sewers).
The LMMA employs one .full-time and one part-time treatment plant operator
to manage the sewerage system. They are responsible for operating and
maintaining the pumps, collection system, and the treatment plant. Part- .
time secretarial and bookkeeping staff are also employed, and the services
of.engineers and legal specialists provided on retainer basis.
The LMMA charges $268 per year for its sewerage services. It also collects
initial connection and assessment fees from its customers to, cover in-
stallation costs.
ORGAN IZATIOMAL HISTO RY
In the early .1970's,. septic systems around Lake Meade began to, fail. The
lake had shown early signs of eutrophication, necessitatirig a chemical
treatment program for weed control. The community continued to develop,
using holding tanks as an emergency,method of wastewater management.
New septic systems were not permitted by Pennsylvania regulations in
soil conditions like those found near the lake. Eventually the sewage
treatment plant near Gettysburg, where the pumpage from Lake Meade
holding tanks was disposed of, refused to accept any more of Lake Meade's
wastewater, and subsequently, the Department of Environmental Resources
(DER) issued a moratorium on new construction in the community until
the wastewater problem was resolved.
By September 1973 the LMMA initiated meetings to discuss alternative
methods for resolving lake water quality problems from malfunctioning
septic systems. As noted earlier, the LMMA was originally created by
the developer (in 1969) to plan for, own, and maintain sewerage services
for the communUy. It was not until 1976, however, that the LMMA was
legally activated to provide wastewater disposal services, (by resolution
of Reading arid Latimore Townships).
-87-
-------
Between 1973 and 1975 the LMMA, with the assistance of a consultant, began
to examine alternative wastewater management systems that could be in-
stalled in the community. Several alternative wastewater collection
system configurations were considered, including vacuum systems, gravity
sewer systems, and combination pressure/gravity systems, as well as
several treatment options such as package plants (extended aeration,
and rotating biological contactor), and connecting to a regional system.
The combination pressure/gravity sewer collection system with a package
plant (rotating biological contactor with discharge to a nearby stream)
was chosen because of its relatively low cost and ease of operation.
During this time, the LMMA was also concerned with alternative methods of
financing and implementing different engineering solutions. The Authority
anticipated financing and implementing the wastewater management program
through the authorization and low-interest bond capabilities of Reading
and Latimore Townships. The Authority was particularly Interested in
a lease-back arrangement that would provide low-interest loans and regu-
latory authority In financing-and managing the system. This approach,
however, was not acceptable to the two townships. '
Preliminary investigations into financing alternatives for the LMMA indi-
cated that the community was probably not likely to receive a 75% grant
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500)
because of the community's low position on the State priority list. As
a result, attention was directed to local financing, and grants and loans
from other Federal and State agencies. In 1976, the Authority received
funds from the Farmers' Home Administration (FmHA), and a grant from the
Department of Commerce, State of Pennsylvania. Over $1 million in grants
and $528,000 in low-interest loans were secured by the LMMA.
To be eligible for these funds, the community had to provide a portion
of the funds necessary to construct and acquire its proposed sewage
collection, transportation, and treatment system. Funding for the commu-
nity's share was arranged by the Authority's bond counsel with a local bank.
-88-
-------
Numerous legal resolutions and agreements were also made to ensure the
long-term capabiII ties of the Authority. Many of these agreements
were required by the FmHA as prerequisites for-a.grant.and loan. Others
were written to assure rights-of-way on private property. Specific re-
solutions, agreements, and ordinances include those for the purpose of:
1. Providing FmHA funds and specifying security, and setting forth
necessary agreements regarding receipts and values.
2. Setting tapping fee charges, manner of payment, and enforcement
provisions. ' .
3. Fixing and charging rental rates and charges for use of the
sewer system, providing for collections and fi1 ing of liens;
regulating the discharge of sanitary sewage and industrial wastes
into the system; and permitting access to improved properties
served by the sewer system.
l*. Enforcing requirements for connection to and use of the sewer
system, granting of certain easements, rights-of-way, rights,
and privileges to the-Authori ty.
5. Outlining the Authori ty's rights and privileges in, along, over,
and under streets and roads.
6. Requiring connection to the system and the manner in which connec-
tion will be made, consideration of costs, and the abandonment
of previously used septic tanks, etc.
7. Enforcing requirements for connection to and use of the sewer
system, and granting certain easements.
3. Establishing an agreement with each property owner to protect
the LMMA from damages to personal property resulting from flooding
or stoppage of sewers or backwater from the system.
9. Permitting the LMMA to regulate, maintain, and inspect the system,
, and to otherwise release the LMMA from liability or responsibility
for damages or injuries.
Once these resolutions were adopted, agreements obtained, and funds se-
cured, the system was built and operation began in the summer of 1977.
-89-
-------
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The LMMA owns, operates, and maintains all elements of the collection
and treatment system, including the individual grinder pumps serving
each home (in some cases, duplex grinder pump units service multiple
dwellings), the pressure lateral sewers from each pump to the street,
and all pressure sewer and gravity lines conveying wastewater from the
individual residences to the treatment plant. The homeowner i's respon-
sible for installing a gravity discharge line from the home to the
pump unit.
The LMMA employs one full-time technician to operate the treatment plant,
conduct inspections and repair all collection lines and pump units. He
is assisted by a part-time machinist, who specializes in pump repair and
service operations.
The plant operator is responsible for daily monitoring of plant perfor-
mance '(laboratory tests), and routine faciIities maintenance. In addi-
tion, he periodically surveys the collection system to insure its proper
performance. All system users have an emergency telephone number to
call if a significant malfunction occurs. The operator has been trained
to do minor troubleshooting of the grinder pumps and other system com-
ponents. The Authority keeps a supply of spare pumps and parts for
emergency use. The Pennsylvania DER monitors water quality in the re-
ceiving waters of the treatment plant, and inspects plant performance on
an annual basis.
Overall program administration Is provided by the five LMMA members. Each
member is appointed from the community for a five-year term, which overlaps
to ensure experienced membership. Authority members are required to own
property within the community, and are appointed to reflect the interests
of the two townships (thus, two members reside in one township and three
in the other, based upon the population distribution between the two towns).
-90-
-------
Three different revenue-producing charges are used by the LMMA. These
are:
1. Assessment $975 (one-time assessment charged to all 600 lots
within the community by the LMMA prior to system construction).
(This assessment was designed to reflect the improvement in pro-
perty values in the community due to the provision of a sewerage
system).
2. Connection charge $1,750 (one-time assessment charged to all
.improved lots where connection to the sewerage system is made).
3. Sewer rental and charges $263 per annum (paid on a quarterly
basis to cover operation, maintenance, and financing costs).
As a method for controlling the use of the sewer system by owners who
are delinquent in making payments, or violate Author? ty discharge re-
quirements, the LMMA has considered shutting off water and"electric!ty
to the home, and terminating wastewater services altogether. The most
feasible approach, according to the Authority, is to shut off the waste-
water line which connects each user to the system. (Valve boxes are
available at each house.) This method may not be acceptable from a health
viewpoint, but the threat of such action may achieve the Authority's
objective.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The Lake Meade Municipal Authority represents one method for managing a
nbncentral alternative approach to community wastewater disposal. The
management approach is conventional in the sense that it is the primary
method for organizing an ordinary sewer authority within the State of
Pennsylvania. Several important factors can be considered key elements
in the success of the Lake Meade arrangement. These include:
1. Concern by an educated group of citizens that timely and effective
solutions were needed to preserve Lake Meade, and to provide^an
affordable wastewater disposal service to the area; leadership
came from this group by way of specific individual effort.
-91-
-------
2. Utilization of skilled professionals by the LMMA in establishing
the Authority's approach with respect to legal and financial
matters, the technical system, and in developing necessary
agreements with other governing bodies and private interests.
Authority minutes document the process of developing the institutional
framework, and developing the powers of the Authority to provide sewerage
services. This documentation points out the active involvement of the
Lake Meade Property Owners' Association. Because of the private nature
of the Lake community, and the Property Owners' Association's responsi-
bilities for providing municipal services to the communi.ty (including
security, ambulance and fire service, trash removal, and road repairs),
the early LMMA members were motivated to find an acceptable wastewater
management solution. In addition, these concerned officials were pro-
fessionals in the community. Although their backgrounds were not ,in
engineering or planning, they knew when to utilize professionals in
developing a management prpgram. Members of the Authority included
master plumbers who could assist in construction and installation of the
system, as well a.s accountants and financial experts who could research
the availability of grants, and were important in establishing the finan-
cial support needed in the early development stages of the Authority.
Aside from some initial minor startup problems, the Lake Meade system
has performed well. Although some property owners are delinquent in
paying the required bills, the majority of the residents, as well as State
agency personnel, support the system and appreciate the benefits that
have accrued to them (e.g., improvement in lake water quality, as evi-
denced by the reduction of algae blooms and other signs of eutrophic
conditions). While it appears that the service charges to the homeowners
are excessive ($268 per year), the LMMA anticipates that these charges
can be reduced once some of their major loans are repaid. (As pointed out
earlier, the LMMA was not able to secure a 15% grant for construction
from the EPA, but did manage to obtain other loans and grants to finance
construction costs.)
-92--
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Carl Brothers, M.D.
Chairman
Lake Meade Municipal Authority
Justin Donne 1ly
Technician
Lake Meade Municipal Authority
Richard Wood, Esq. *
Bond Counsel
Rhoads, Sinon 5 Hendershot
John Buchy, Esq.
Attorney
Shelbaker, McCaleb S Elicker
Richard Poole, P.E.
Buchart-Horn Consulting Engineers and Planners
Dan Delp
Farmers Home Administration
William Loar "
Bank of Hanover
KEY REFERENCES
V/astewater Faci 1 ? ties for Lake Meade Muni cipal Author? ty, Prel iminary
Engineering Report, Buchart-Horn Consulting Engineers and Planners,
February 19 71*. .
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Carl Brothers, M.D.
Chairman, Lake Meade Municipal Authority
RD #1
East Berlin, Pennsylvania 17316
-93-
-------
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILITIES, INC.
PORT CHARLOTTE AND PORT ST. LUCIE, FLORIDA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU), is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of General Development Corporation (GDC), a major land development com-
pany in Florida. General Development Utilities provides all forms of
water and sewer utilities to GDC land development projects, including
over 200,000 acres on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in Florida. GDU is
the topic of a community case study because of Its application of
pressure sewer technology in two GDC communities Port Charlotte and
Port St. Lucie, Florida.
The form of pressure sewer technology used is a septic tank effluent
pump-pressure sewer collection system (STEP system) presently serving
about 320 residences in these two communities. There are approximately
10,000 households in Port Charlotte, and 3,000 in Port-St. Lucie. The
number of residences served by the STEP system obviously represents only
a small portion of the total population within these two communities.
The remaining households are served by conventional gravity sewer systems
also maintained by GDU. The STEP system, called "Suburbanaer," has re-
ceived conditional approval from the State of Florida, and the system is
being tested at the Port Charlotte and Port St. Lucie sites.
The application of alternative technology (i.e., STEP systems) to serve
GDC developments was encouraged primarily by the current president of
General Development Utilities, Inc. As a result of his efforts, GDC
agreed to financially support the utilization of STEP systems to serve
some of their land development projects. This venture has grown (over a
period of eight years) to the point where four people, besides the GDU
president, are directly involved in the management, operation, and main-
tenance of STEP systems. GDU employs two people responsible for adminis-
tering the "Suburbanaer" program and product development activities, and
two full-time maintenance technicians.
-94-
-------
GDU provides complete operation and maintenance of the collection and
treatment systems, including the individual septic tank and effluent
pump units. The system is ent5 rely owned by GDU; access to private
"--' " J . ' ; ' - * --- . - . , ^ .
property is provided through a service agreement with the homeowner.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
During the 1960's, GDU was faced with a problem familiar to many land
developers. Due to poor soil conditions, seasonal high water tables,
and faulty installation by independent contractors, many difficulties
were being encountered with conventional septic tank/drain field systems.
GDU, through economic analysis and financial feasibility studies, rea-
lized that the cost of providing conventional gravity sewers to many
sparsely populated, widely scattered communities was prohibitive. This
scattered type of land development is typically associated with "home-
site developments" where lots are sold in a parcel of land without fmme-
f|ate plans for building on those lots. Lots are developed at the lot
owner's discretion, at some point in the future. The rate of develop-
ment is slow, and the pattern of homes built Is random.
The environmental and economic impacts of serving this type of develop-
ment with conventional on-site systems or gravity collection Systems,
led GDU to design and install a STEP pressure sewer system in a
section of Port Charlotte in 1970. The STEP systems were originally
allowed to provide central wastewater collection in sparsely developed
areas with poor soils as a temporary measure. In 1972, the system was
extended to the Gulf Cove area in Port Charlotte, and this site became
the official test area for expansion of the Suburbanaer pressure sewer
system via a state demonstration project. GDU's Suburbanaer system has
received "conditional",approval from the Florida DER, with final approval
dependent upon the completion of the current demonstration program.
The terms and conditions of the demonstration project provide for a two-
year study period during which a total of 230 individual STEP units
can be installed. A monthly status report is submitted by GDU to DER
-95-
-------
indicating the number of units Installed, and number remaining within
the approved demonstration program. In addition, GDU reports to DER
documenting system installations, service calls, customer complaints,
and preventive maintenance activities. GDU was also required to secure
a substantial performance bond.
In spring 1977, after approximately 200 STEP systems were installed by
GDU under conditional approval, the formal demonstration program was
Initiated. Basically the demonstration agreement constitutes the only
permit necessary for installation of individual units, providing GDU
notifies DER prior to installation of each unit.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GDU's principal activities are in utilities operation, design and finance,
and product development. The Suburbanaer system is administered predomi-
nantly through the product development branch of GDU, which employs two
people responsible for the management and development of Suburbanaer
systems. The utility design group with GDU works closely with the GDU
engineering staff in preparing layouts and other plans for future land
properties. Utility rates administration, accounting, and legal services
are provided fay the GDU Finance and Administration Division.
Suburbanaer systems maintenance personnel are drawn from exisiting util-
ities operations staff, and generally perform work for both Suburbanaer
and conventional sewer systems. At present, one full-time technician is
employed at Port Charlotte, and another at Port St. Lucie to perform
general maintenance, repair, inspections, and supervision of new installa-
tions. (System installations at Port St. Lucie are performed by a private
contractor, while In Port Charlotte the GDU-employed personnel install
Suburbanaer systems.) In addition to these employees, a GDU plant operator
has been assigned to the Port Charlotte demonstration septic tank effluent
treatment plant. He inspects lift stations, operates the treatment plant,
and assists with plant operation at another GDU plant located in Port
Charlotte.
-96-
-------
Maintenance activities consist of service calIs (in response to customer
complaints) as we)1 as preventive maintenance checks. The GDI) Suburbanaer
operations people indicated that most service calls are minor in terms of
the time and extent of repair required to correct the problem. Most
service calls have been a result of poor installation practices. These
problems have been significantly reduced by requiring a Suburbanaer main-
tenance staff person at each installation site when work fs done by other
contractors.
If the problem is severe, the entire pump can be replaced,in less .than
one half hour. The GDU people have found it necessary to replace a pump
in only a few cases over the past several years of operation (after re-
placing an earlier pump model which did not perform satisfactorily). Due
to this experience, they do not maintain a large stock of spare pumps.
Aside from service calls, preventive maintenance calls are being insti-
tuted on an annual basis. In the older service areas, this will include
retrofitting new valves and pipe connections in the pump chamber. This
operation takes about 40 minutes. Service and preventive maintenance
calls are usually handled by one person.
Pumping septage from septic tanks, when necessary, is also performed by
GDU with their own equipment and manpower. The septage is disposed of
at various GDU treatment facilities located within the two communities.
The costs of Suburbanaer systems presently in operation are supported
by a monthly service charge of $7.00 to $8.50 per unit, and a $650 connec-
tion fee. At present,.customers on the Suburbanaer system are billed
at the same rate and pay the same connection fee as GDU customers on the
conventional sewer system. ,
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The Suburbanaer system is one of the many applications of STEP system
technology in this country. The most distinguishing feature of this
management program is private utility involvement. GDU has designed,
-97-
-------
built, and is operating the Suburbanaer system without any public grants
or incentives. Furthermore, it is doing so under a demonstration program/
conditional grant approval by the Florida DER. Another unique feature of
this program is that GDU maintains these STEP systems in conjunction with
the conventional gravity sewer systems In'its land developments.
The future of the Suburbanaer project, however, seems somewhat tentative.
The Florida DER has been less than enthusiastic about the project even
though pressure sewer systems have been installed elsewhere in the State.
Perhaps a primary reason for DER's reluctant attitude toward the GDU
project and the STEP system is the initial lack of cooperation between
GDU, the county health department, and the Florida DER in applying the
new technology. The initial STEP systems were installed with approval
by county and State agencies without prior submittal of design specifi-
cations, projected number of units to be installed, maintenance require-
ments, etc. This lack of supporting Information at the early stages of
the project eventually led the Florida DER to establish the demonstration
project.
It is felt that through the demonstration project, a better understanding
and improved communication between GDU and the Florida DER can be achieved.
Indications are that the two parties are moving in that direction. With
approval of the STEP system by DER, it is likely that GDU will apply the
Suburbanaer concept on a larger scale at its homesite development areas,
which constitute a growing housing market for GDC.
The application of STEP systems has proved to be a successful venture for
GDC in terms of their cost-effectiveness as compared to wastewater collec-
tion methods. GDU has shown (through several feasibility studies) that the
Suburbanaer system costs much less to-build and operate than the conven-
tional system. According to the GDU studies, the average cost per unit
(including capital and operation and maintenance costs)., for the conven-
tional system is about $2,300, while the unit cost for a Suburbanaer'system
-98-
-------
is about $870. Unlike the conventional gravity system, major portions
of the capital investment required for the Suburbanaer system can be
deferred until homes are actually built. GDU is currently refining
their operation and maintenance cost estimates and will most likely
adjust the service charges to residents served by the Suburbanaer
system accordingly.
-99-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Harold E. Schmidt, P.E.
President
General Development Utilities, Inc.
G.P. Mozian
Vice President ,
Finance and Administration
General Development Utilities, Inc.
J. Thomas Campbell
Director
Project Control and Financial Analysis
General Development Corporation (Homesite Development Division)
Susan S. Rench
Utility Rate Analyst
General Development Uti1ities, Inc.
Patricia H. Lodge
Sanitary Engineer
General Development Utilities, Inc.
Paul C. Kloser
Product Development Engineer
General Development Uti1ities, Inc.
Luis Balerdi
Manager, Land Planning '
General Development Corporation (Homesite Development Division)
Karl Pulvermuller
Director of Environmental Permitting
Florida DER, Ft. Pierce Subdistrict Branch Office
Phillip R. Edwards
District Manager
Florida DER, South Florida District
Wil]iam Reese
Florida DER, South Florida District
Dr. G.J. Thadaraj
Florida DER, Tallahassee, Florida
Warren Strahm
Subd-istrict Manager
Florida DER, South Florida Subdistrict
-100-
-------
KEY REFERENCES
Investigations of Existing Pressure Sewer Systems, Draft Report, Cooper,
Ivan A.! and Rezek, Joseph W., for EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Suburbanaer Information Package
General Development Uti1ities, Inc.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Patricia H. Lodge ; "
Sanitary Engineer
General Development Utilities, Inc.
1111 South Bayshore Drive
Miami, Florida 33131
-101-
-------
. ON-SITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
OTTER TAIL COUNTY, MINNESOTA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Otter Tail County Is a rural recreation-oriented county situated in
central Minnesota. It is a large county (2,000 square miles) ranking
sixth in geographic area and eleventh in population (with a permanent
population of nearly 50,000 and a seasonal population of 200,000) In the
state. The County has 1,048 lakes, one-tenth of Minnesota's 10,000
lakes.
The County Department of Land and Resource Management, and one small
community within the County, are the focus of this case study. It is
through this department that Otter Tail County implements its Shoreline
Management Ordinance to control on-site and sma11-community wastewater
disposal systems. Rothsay Camp, a small community on Lake Lida,
represents one of many small lake communities within the County that
have met the requirements of the County Shoreline Management Program
through the implementation of a small community (cluster) wastewater
system.
Otter Tail County was one of the first counties in the State to initiate
a shoreline management program for regulating on-site and small community
wastewater systems under the State's Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
This legislation requires counties and municipalities to adopt and admin-
ister shoreline management ordinances according to the guidelines,
standards, and criteria developed by the State Division of Waters. The
Department of Natural Resources assists local governments in developing
required ordinances, reviews the administration of programs, and takes
direct regulatory action in certain situations.
The County Shoreline Management Ordinance establishes rules and regula-
tions governing design and location of on-site systems within 1,000 feet
-102-
-------
of lakes', and 3°° feet of streams. The ordinance:
1. Establishes system design standards.
, , .. .. f. - ''- <. , '.'-'
2. Establishes procedures for issuing building and -- .; _.
wastewater system permits.
3. Conducts site inspections within the lake and
stream shoreline areas.
k. Certifies on-site system Installers Cquntywide.
Rothsay Camp is a small community in Otter Tail County that Has worked
closely with the County Department of Land and Resource Management to
develop a small community wastewater management system, servin'g seasonal
homes at the perimeter of a large lake.- This sma11 community wastewater
system is typical of 20-30 other local county arrangements where community
systems serve 10 or more residents or resort units, and an additional
20-30 cases where two or more neighbors (less than 10) have common waste-
water disposal systems. The Rothsay Camp system was installed and is
operated by a homeowners' association.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
With the adoption of the Shoreline Management Ordinance in October 1971,
Otter Tail County became one of the first counties in the State of
Minnesota to establish and adopt an administrative and regulatory pro-
gram governing the use of on-site wastewater systems in Lake communities.
The statewide shoreline management program was established to:
1. Provide a comprehensive review of on-site systems
located within sensitive shoreline areas.
2. Establish the regulatory framework for upgrading
and/or rehabilitating fa 5 ling systems, and address
noncompliance within these shoreline areas.
The County has been innovative in finding coltective solutions to existing
failing or nonconforming on-site systems which must be remedied under the
State act and County ordinance.
-103-
-------
Although the State shoreline management program establishes the regulatory
framework for these sensitive shoreline areas, individual counties are
responsible for developing a local ordinance to administer the State
guidelines. Since Otter Tail County's Shoreline Management Ordinance
and Sewage Disposal Systems Cleaners Ordinance, were among the first to
be developed in the State, the Department of Natural Resources used the
County's administrative forms and permits as a guide for other counties
to establish such programs.
Rothsay Camp was established .as a small Swedish recreational community
in the early 1900's. In 1915 it was incorporated as a nonprofit corpora-
tion. The association operates under formal Articles of Incorporation
and has By-Laws. The purpose of the Association is to own and improve
the lake-shore property for the benefit of its residents. The community
occupies approximately 30 acres, mostly undeveloped. Twenty-three acres
are used as a buffer and for open space. Some of this space is used for
the community drainage field.
In a desire to conform to the County's Shoreline Management Ordinance,
and with persuasion by the County Department of Land and Resource Manage-
ment, the Association decided to construct a small community (i.e.,
cluster) wastewater system to meet their needs. The only legal agreement
signed by the members was a Deed of Easement to permit construction, opera-
tion, and maintenance of a system that would cross the property of each
member. The deed further stated that when a property was sold, the new owners
would be obligated to comply with its requirements. Total cost to each
homeowner for construction of the common system (includes the small
diameter sewer lines, pumping units, pressure sewer lines, and drainage
field) was $481.17 (September 1974). Each resident was also responsible
for having two septic tanks (375-gallon precast concrete) installed in
series. Costs for installation of each of these units were borne by
the resident.
-104-
-------
Two Peabody Barnes submersible sewage ejector pumps were installed to.
pump, effluent-uphill..to the drainage field. Both pumps were installed
and wired to the household electrical system of one resident (it was ,
cheaper to add the additional load to an existing system than to pay
the minimum monthly rate for a separate meter). A large buffer lot
located at one end of the development provides land for the common
drainage field for final wastewater disposal. ,
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM , ''..._.
Two ordinances provide the basis for implementing the Otter Tail County
on-site wastewater disposal program: the Shoreline Management Ordinance,
and the Sewage Disposal Systems Cleaners Ordinance. These ordinances
and.,the associated administrative procedures, are implemented through
the Department of Land and Resource Management. The five-person office
is staffed by a Director, two key technical personnel (one in Fergus
Falls, the other in a, regional off ice in'Perham), and technical and
administrative assistants.
The department is responsible for issuing building and sewage permits,
and making necessary site inspections, as well as licensing installers
and pumpers who service on-site systems. Land use planning activities
of the County are relatively weak. The County Department of Land and
Resource Management administers a subdivision ordinance, however, there
is no zoning ordinance in the County. ,
The on-site wastewater disposal program services the following functions:
1. Disseminates information regarding on-site wastewater
disposal requirements to prospective buyers.
2. Processes applications and issues permits to build and
construct sewage systems.
3. Controls site evaluation and system installation.
4. Issues certificates of compliance and operating permits
for on-site systems.
5. Issues abatement and violation notices.
-105-
-------
The first element, information dissemination, is a key part of the pro-
gram to ensure that new systems are installed and existing systems are
upgraded to the requirements of the County Shoreline Management Ordinance.
Prospective buyers are informed by realtors of the Shoreline Management
Ordinance requirements, and the department's authority to issue building
permits and septic system permits (for new installation and rehabilita-
tion). The Department of Land and Resource Management staff work closely
with installers (who are licensed and bonded) and residents to ensure
satisfactory siting and installation of on-site systems.
The latter elements, issuing certificates of compliance and abatement"
and violation notices, are unique aspects of the County Shoreline Manage-
ment Ordinance. Certificates of compliance are issued after a system
has been installed according to the County regulations. A valid certificate
is required upon sale of the property. Abatement and violation notices
are issued by the Department of Land and Resource Management to property
owners where systems are not in compliance. The County regulations require
that homeowners within the jurisdiction of the shoreline ordinance upgrade
nonconforming on-site sewage systems to meet elevation (four feet above
high water table) and setback requirements from shorelines (50 to 75 feet,
depending on type of structure).
The Shoreline Management Act provided a five-year grace period to
accustom the state residents to the new law. During this period many
residents have upgraded their systems on their own. Rothsay Camp was
one of the communities in the County where members of the community
collectively and voluntarily initiated compliance with the Shoreline
Management Act. The community, with technical assistance from the
County Department of Land and Resource Management, hired a local contractor
and installed the central collection system pumping units and community
absorption field. Installation of two septic tanks and individual hook-
ups to the community collection system were the responsibility of each
resident.
-106-
-------
Operation and maintenance of the small community system at Rothsay Camp
is the responsibility of the local residents. By resolution of the Board
of Directors of the Rothsay Camp Association, the Board is responsible
for operation and inspection of septic tanks, distribution lines, lifts,
and disposal field. Periodically, individual residents (appointed by
the Board) inspect effluent color. Where the effluent shows discoloration,
the individual septic systems are checked and possibly pumped out. Septic
tank pumping is the responsibility of the homeowner. If a pump should
fail, the local hardware store (which was involved in install ing the
system) has spares available for installation. Pumps are easily replaced,
and costs for such services are shared by the system residents,on a
service call basis. Aside from initial installation, service, and pumping,
the only cost charged to the homeowner is a $4 per year fee for electricity.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The Rothsay Camp approach is a product of the Otter Tail County Shoreline
Management Program. It fs a good example bf the common-sense/cost-effective
approach of the County program. The County Shoreline Management Ordinance
has helped to promote wastewater management planning through the sensitive
shoreline areas of the County. The program is recognized for its environ-
mental value, and is generally well received by elected officials and
residents. ,
Several other important elements can also be identified in the County
program that accounts for its success. Information dissemination is an
important factor. Realtors, for example, report that potential purchasers
of lakeshore properties recognize the benefits of such an environmental
protection program to their future investments. Existing residents view
the program as having the legal authority to correct system failures, yet
administrative flexibility to work with homeowners to find effective
preventive approaches to wastewater disposal problems.
-107-
-------
Furthermore, the County septic system licensing program helps ensure that
septage haulers, as well as system installers, are competent and reliable.
This program also allows the County to keep track of pumpers and the dis-
posal sites they use, as well as identify residents having problems with
their systems, and the frequency residents-have their systems pumped out.
Drawbacks to the County's Shoreline Management Ordinance are:
1. The ordinance controlling the design, construction,
and location of on-site systems does not apply County-
wide (only to shoreline areas and unincorporated parts
of the County). This problem is relatively minor
because of the large number of lakes and streams on
which the majority of the people live. In addition,
the incorporated communities can decide, individually,
whether or not to adopt the County's shoreline ordinance.
2. Otter Tail County Department of Land and Resource Manage-
ment personnel are limited to an advisory role in assisting
local residents plan wastewater disposal systems. As
such, County personnel cannot be involved in the design
of on-site or cluster systems, even though they are
technically capable of doing so. This limitation reflects
the fact that County staff are not protected by professional
malpractice.
A key to the Rothsay Camp program's success is the fact that the wastewater
system is affordable (and less expensive than individual solutions), and
can be easily managed and maintained by local residents. The successful
implementation of this program is the product of the willingness of the
individual homeowners to cooperate, and the ability of the County Depart-
ment of Land and Resource Management (particularly its executive director)
to provide an effective liaison between State agencies, County elected
officials, and local permanent and seasonal residents. Most importantly,
the Rothsay Camp Association's wastewater management program is typical
of the voluntary participation-style utilized throughout the state,
particularly in its rural recreation-oriented areas, and stems from a
desire on the part of local residents to seek preventive solutions to
wastewater disposal problems.
-108-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Malcolm Lee
Director, Department of Land and Resource Management
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
Larry Krohn
Technician, Department of Land and Resource Management
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
Jim Johnson
Technician, Department of Land and Resource Management
Otter Tail County, Minnesota
Marv Swann
Resident, Rothsay Camp
Lake Lida, Minnesota
Morris Bailey
Resident, Rothsay Camp
Lake Lida, Minnesota
Howard Paulson
Resident, Rothsay Camp
Lake Lida, Minnesota , .
KEY REFERENCES '- "
"Shoreline Management Ordinance, Otter Tail County, Minnesota,"
1 April 1978.
"Sewage Disposal Systems Cleaners Ordinance, Otter Tail County, Minnesota,"
1 May 1973.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT ,
Malcolm K. Lee
Director, Department of Land and Resource Management
Otter Tail County ,
County Courthouse
Fergus Falls, Minnesota
-109-
-------
STATE CASE STUDIES
NEW HAMPSHIRE NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
New Hampshire's approach to noncentral wastewater management is one
in which the State government takes an active role in regulating small
wastewater systems. This is realized through well-defined procedures
for obtaining subdivision approvals, construction permits, and oper-
ating permits from appropriate State agencies. The broad responsibilities
and authority of the State relative to local government are unique
among State programs for noncentral wastewater management. To a large
degree, this arrangement is the result of widespread concern for pro-
tection of New Hampshire's scenic and recreational water bodies, and
the perceived inability of local government to protect water resources
without direct State involvement.
Principal authority for water quality protection is the Water Supply
and Pollution Control Commission (WSPCC). Its Small Systems Division
Is responsible for review and approval of subdivisions, individual
septic systems, and other small-scale wastewater facilities for on-site
disposal. Review and approval of larger facilities involving land
application of wastewater is the joint responsibility of the Small Systems
Division and the Design Review Division (a group involved with 201
Facility Planning). Land disposal of wastewater sludge and septic tank
wastes, however, is regulated by the Division of Public Health of the
Department of Health and Welfare. Consistency between Health Department
policy toward septage disposal, and WSPCC policy toward noncentral waste-
water management is being addressed by the New Hampshire 208 Program.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
Prior to 1967, noncentral wastewater management (primarily regulation
of on-site septic systems) was controlled by the individual cities and
towns under enabling legislation adopted by the State Board of Health.
-110-
-------
There are about 2"$k cities and towns (i.e., local government units) in
the State. About 90 percent of these communities have populations
under 5,000. Localities, at their discretion, could adopt their own
codes, design requirements, and enforcement procedures for individual
wastewater disposal systems. In many cases, local regulations and
enforcement were minimal or nonexistent, resulting in many failing
septic systems. Lakes began to show the adverse effects of nutrient
enrichment from inadequate subsurface disposal facilities serving
shoreline homes.
These circumstances prompted the State legislature to transfer review
authority to WSPCC for all subdivisions with lots smaller than five
acres, and for all individual wastewater disposal systems. The law
establishing this transfer of authority was passed in 1967, and is
still in effect. As originally written, the law (the Shoreline Law)
applied to all properties within 1,000 feet of surface water, and in 1971
was amended to include all of the land area of the State.
The 1967 legislation showed the increasing awareness of environmental
pressures arising from rapid growth, particularly around lakes and
ponds, and the need for better planning for and controls on residential
development. The concept of home rule, however, is a cherished institu-
tion in New Hampshire, and all zoning and land use regulations are still
the domain of the individual cities and towns. Proposals submitted
to the State legislature to establish comprehensive or Statewide land
use controls have consistently been defeated. New Hampshire has an
Office of State Planning, as well as eight regional planning agencies.
These agencies serve in advisory and assistance roles to local govern-
mental units. The regional planning agencies assist member communi-
ties in preparing zoning ordinances and land use plans. They also
serve as an A-95 review agency. The local orientation of land use planning
contrasts sharply with the State's authority over wastewater management
plann rng.
-Ill-
-------
New Hampshire has two designated 208 regional planning agencies: the
Lakes Region Planning Commission, serving approximately 20 towns in the
central portion of the State; and the Southern Rockingham Regional Planning
District Commission, serving seven towns in the State's southeast corner.
Areawlde 208 planning for the remainder of the State is conducted by WSPCC.
Both the designated 208 agencies and the WSPCC have addressed the manage-
ment of on-site and alternative wastewater systems through special studies
tn township and multitownship situations.
WSPCC has completed a delegation agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to administer the Federal Construction Grants Pro-
gram In New Hampshire, and channels Federal and State funds for waste-
water management projects to participating local agencies. These funds
are allocated according to a WSPCC priority list. Present cost-sharing
for conventional systems (75 percent Federal share) is 20 percent State
share and 5 percent local share. For innovative and alternative systems
(85 percent Federal share), the State's share is 12 percent and the local
share Is 3 percent.
Administration of Federal and State funds is conducted by the Director
of Municipal Services and Assistance, assisted by the Director of Small
Community Assistance. The latter position was created in response to
the recent amendments to the Clean Water Act, and to assist small
municipalities with the financial and administrative aspects of complying
with the Act.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
WSPCC performs most other functions related to wastewater management
In New Hampshire, including:,
1. Definition of 201 and 208 study areas and planning elements.
2. Plan review for subdivisions and individual lots.
3. Design standards for large and small treatment or disposal
facilities.
-112-
-------
4. Design review.
5. Surveillance of wastewater facilities installation and
performance. ,
6. Issuance of permits for small systems construction and opera-
tion (operation permits).
7. Certification of treatment plant operators.
8. Water quality monitoring and surveillance.
9. Dissemination of public information.
The backbone of New Hampshire's overall program for decentralized waste-
water management is its program for small systems and subdivisions. Most
small systems installed in the State are conventional subsurface septic
tank/leaching field systems. WSPCC also allows alternative methods such
as privies, and incinerator and composting toilets, as long as segregated
grey-water disposal systems are provided.
A three-step approval process must be followed to subdivide and/or con-
struct an individual on-site disposal system:
1. Obtain WSPCC subdivision approval for any proposed subdivision
of land Into lots smaller than five acres. The agency deter-
mines whether the number and location of lots are generally
suitable for their proposed use on the basis of soil, slope,
and other property characteristics.
2. Obtain system design approval for each waste disposal system
proposed. Individual system designs can be prepared by the
homeowner or by a contractor. Individual systems installed
in "ledge" lots,1 as well as large systems (>2,500 gal/day)
must be designed by a professional engineer.
3. Obtain system operational approval after system has been
installed, but before it Is covered over. Approval cannot 2
be issued until site inspection by WSPCC or its local agent
finds the system acceptable.
"Ledge" lots are areas where there is "less than five feet of soil above
ledge or bedrock.
There are about 30-40 local agents in the State. These individuals are
local health officers employed by municipalities, and are also recognized
by the WSPCC via local agent status.
-113-
-------
The State has published detailed guidelines for obtaining subdivision
approval, and for designing and installing small wastewater disposal
systems. WSPCC sets minimum lot sizes according to soil type, system
size, etc. The smallest permissible lots are 30,000 square feet where
on-site water and waste disposal are to be provided, and 20,000 square
feet where an external public water supply is available.
System design requirements are explicit, stating minimum distances above
bedrock and seasonal high groundwater, minimum distances from wells and
surface waters. These requirements are keyed to estimated flow or the
number of bedrooms. WSPCC has no control over systems installed prior
to 1967, unless a failure is reported or expansion or modification of a
system (but not simple replacement) is undertaken, in which case the normal
approval procedure must be followed. (Allowance is made for systems where
occupancy is changing from seasonal to permanent.)
Special or unconventional systems, such as sand mounds or community systems,
are not subject to rigid design guidelines, but are reviewed on an in-
dividual basis. Where a subsurface disposal system is proposed to handle
only gray water from sinks and showers, etc., WSPCC will generally allow a
50 percent reduction in leachfield size.
These design standards are minimum requirements for all on-site systems
installed in the State. About 50 municipalities have adopted local or-
dinances which contain more stringent standards than the State's. In
these cases, the WSPCC reviews all system proposals according to the
Statewide minimum criteria, while the municipality is responsible for en-
forcing the local requirements which are more stringent than the State
minimum.
Several facility plans prepared through the 201 and 208 Programs have
emphasized noncentral wastewater management alternatives. .These plans
(some were developed as pilot or model studies) have attempted to address
wastewater management problems in a broad perspective, i.e., integrating
1
A recent proposal by WSPCC increases the minimum lot size to 40,000 square
feet.
-114-
-------
nonpoint source controls, innovative and alternative wastewater manage-
ment approaches, and active public participation.
One pilot study concerns the coastal town of Rye, which is examining
alternative solutions, such as land use planning (plus other norr-
structural controls), and noncentral wastewater management approaches
to develop an integrated facility plan addressing point and nonpoint
pollution sources. A similar project which focuses on watershed and
land management Is the study of Little Lake Sunapee. This project
investigates three possible growth scenarios and management alternatives
for each, and is assisted by computer modeling of the lake and its
drainage area.
Included as part of the 208 Water Quality Management Plan is land
application of wastewater sludge near the Town of Somersworth, which
focuses on heavy metals and leachate quality. Future studies will in-
vestigate nutrient migration in well-drained soils, and hydraulic testing
to simulate conversion of septic systems from seasonal to year-round
use. In the Lakes Region 208 Plan, a wastewater system maintenance
precinct is being considered as a management agency to maintain individual
disposal systems around Squam Lake. Such a precinct would involve lake
property owners residing in five contiguous towns. (A precinct is a
local governmental unit that has authority to own and maintain sewerage
systems.)
New Hampshire has four 201 projects in the planning or design phase
which propose using community subsurface disposal systems as alterna-
tives to conventional treatment and discharge. The Step 1 study for
the Town of Ossipee, e.g., is unique for the size of the system under
considerationa septic tank and leaching field to handle an average
flow of 100,000 gpd. Water quality monitoring wells will be provided
in conjunction with the subsurface disposal system. The Town of Dal ton's
Facilities Plan proposes a number of cluster systems, in addition to
-115-
-------
management of individual on-site systems for this community of 230
residents. (Many smaller towns pursuing 201 projects are applying
to HUD and FmHA for assistance in meeting those capital costs which
are ineligible under the Construction Grants Program.)
The clustered on-site management approach has not been widely applied
In New Hampshire. Presently only a few subsurface disposal systems
serve multiple dwellings in tfte State. Most of these community systems
are private facilities for condominiums. WSPCC requires that some
legally recognized authority be responsible for maintenance of jointly-
owned wastewater faci1itieseither a municipality, a precinct, or
an incorporated body of property owners. Usually a condominium agree-
ment with the managing entity is required.
With the increasing concern over noncentral management alternatives,
problems with septage management have also been investigated in the
State 208 and 201 Programs. According to State law, each municipality
is required to arrange for safe disposal of septage, nevertheless,
disposal is usually left to private haulers. Septage disposal firms
and disposal sites must be licensed by the Department of Public Health,
but there is little or no policing of disposal practices. New Hampshire
currently has no written guidelines on septage disposal, however, a
set of guidelines and regulations ls currently being prepared by the
State Health Department and WSPCC with assistance from the State's 208
Program.
Some 13 million gallons of septage are disposed of annually at waste-
water treatment plants and land disposal sites approved by DPH. Thirty-
four of 50 treatment plants in the State receive septage, but most are
not designed for this purpose, offering little control against shock
loading. Plant attendants can refuse septic waste dumping at their
facilities. Where septage Is accepted, the dumping fee typically ranges
from $5 to $10 per 1,000 gallons. It is estimated that more septage
-116-
-------
is disposed of on land than at wastewater treatment facilities, .often
because of lower cost to the hauler and easier access. There are at
least 59 land disposal sites in the State, including seepage pits,
trenches, and land-spreading operations, but a complete inventory of
these sites is not -available. The State is showing a greater interest
in regional approaches to septage handl ing,7 and WSPCC now requires that
new wastewater treatment plants built with State funds provide for treat-
ment of septic wastes from towns outside the immediate service area.
- -.. ' ' "' '
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT :
New Hampshire's on-site management program provides an interesting ex-
ample of State and local participation in regulation and maintenance
of on-site systems. Regulation of on-site systems is administered
by WSPCC at its central (i.e., State capital) headquarters and four
regional offices. The central office staff is responsible for re-
viewing plans, proposals* and system designs. The regional staff assist
in this review, conduct site inspections of precoverup installations,
and (occasionally) perform evaluations of the construction site, par-
ticularly at large subdivisions. About 83,000 on-site systems have been
permitted since 196?, with about 10,000 construction approvals and
'2,000 subdivision approvals issued annually.
Regional personnel also conduct sanitary surveys where water quality
problems or on-site malfunctions are suspected. The physical limits
of each survey are determined from the watershed characteristics .(surveys
can be performed for communities or watersheds), and generally involve
*^ *' i .-'--'''
house-by-house inspections of individual wastewater disposal systems.
The manpower required is fairly significant, but the work force is
small, thereby limiting staff involvement in conducting inspections of
development sites and precoverup on-site system installations. This
manpower problem has been recognized by WSPCC, and additional regional
staff positions have been created to perform current program duties.
-117-
-------
The State 208 Program has conducted a comparative study of on-site
system performance prior to and after the adoption of current State
regulations to assess the effectiveness of this program. Two
field studies were completed: one in 1977, which investigated a
sample of on-site systems installed according to present regulations;
and another in 1979 which evaluated the performance of a sample of
on-site systems installed prior to the regulations (adopted in 1967).
The following conclusions and suggestions were made:
1. The failure rate (i.e., observed surface ponding or other
signs of system malfunction) for year-round septic systems
Installed prior to 1967 was 31 percent, and only 12 percent
for year-round systems installed after 1967.
2. Two-thirds of the subsurface disposal approvals issued for post-
1967 systems did not have corresponding operational approvals.
(Thus, up to two-thirds of the sampled systems did not have
precoverup inspections performed.)
3. It was suggested that a soils manual be prepared, and a
training and certification program .for designers and installers
be considered. (To this end, the WSPCC has initiated a
series of seminars and workshops to help train persons per-
forming soils evaluations and preparing system designs.
Currently, a certification exam is being prepared. A sub-
committee of State and local officials is also being assembled
to review current design standards and approval procedures.)
k. The participation of local agents in the on-site system review
and approval process should be reevaluated. (The WSPCC has
recently located its regional offices to provide greater
access to areas where frequent site inspections are required.)
The New Hampshire 208 Program has addressed noncentral wastewater manage-
ment issues, including:
1.
Community education regarding adoption of local ordinances,
alternative wastewater management schemes, conversion of
homes from seasonal to year-round occupancy.
2. Establishment of a comprehensive septage management program,
including monitoring septic waste disposal facilities.
3. Dissemination of sludge disposal and utilization guidelines.
-118-
-------
4. Distribution of information on solid waste management'and
best management practices. '»' :
5. Mapping groundwater and nonpoint wastewater sources to '*
Identify existing and potential locations of groundwater
quality degradation from septic systems, wastewater impound-
ments, sludge disposal sites, etc.
The State 208 planning approach recognizes the key role of local govern-
ments in wastewater management planning, even though the primary authority
for on-site system regulation lies with the State. The 208 Program
has reviewed current on-site management enabling legislation and operating
practices through numerous reports involving regional planning commissions
and individual townships. The WSPCC, through its Division of Small
Community Assistance, is further developing strong State/local cooperation
in the area of noncentral wastewater systems planning.- -
-119-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Robert Cruess, P.E.
Design Review Division '
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Fred Elkind
Director
Water Quality Management Planning
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Lindsay Col 1 ins
Director
Municipal Services and Assistance
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Thomas Seigle
Design Review Division
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Dan Allen
Director
Small Community Assistant Division
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Terence Frost
Director
Permits and Enforcement
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Russell Bowie
Sanitary Engineer
Permits and Enforcement Division
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Paul Cavicchi
Permits and Survei1 lance Division
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Richard Flanders
Biologist
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
David Scott
Director
Regional Planning Division
New Hampshire Office of State Planning
-120-
-------
David Neville
Director
State Planning Division
New Hampshire Office of State Planning
Jim McLaughlin
New Hampshire Office of State Planning
Thomas Sweeney
Director
Bureau of Solid Waste
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services
REFERENCES
Guide for the Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Small Sewage
Disposal Systems, New Hampsh?re Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, January 1978.
"Review of Existing State Laws and Regulations," Mew Hampshire Water
Supply and Pollution Control Commission, WSPCC Staff Report No. 861,
January 1979.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Fred El kind . .
Director, Water Quality Management Planning
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
105 London Road
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
-121-
-------
ILLINOIS NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
There are 880 incorporated communities with populations of less than 2,500
people in the State of Illinois. For this reason, Illinois agencies have
been Interested in the concept of noncentral wastewater management in small
communities for some time. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Illinois EPA) has for many years encouraged evaluation of noncentral waste-
water systems (e.g., lagoons, community septic tank/drainage fields, and
individual systems) for small communities. To facilitate the process of
establishing noncentral wastewater management programs for small communities,
the Illinois legislature (under sponsorship of the Illinois EPA and the
Illinois Municipal League) passed legislation in August 1978 authorizing
the creation of "Municipal Wastewater Disposal Zones." This legislation
provides mechanism for a municipality to assume legal responsibility and
authority to inspect, upgrade, and maintain private on-site systems within
its jurisdiction, and to finance such programs through taxes, user charges,
and the sale of bonds. The legislation also gives municipalities the
authority to enter onto private property to perform system maintenance or
repair services.
The Illinois Department of Health (DPH), in conjunction with local (i.e.,
county, multicounty, or municipal) health departments, is also involved in
regulating noncentral systems in the State.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
The State of Illinois adopted the Illinois Environmental Protection Act in
1970 to "provide a unified Statewide program to restore, protect, and enhance
the quality of the environment." The Environmental Protection Act established
the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board), the Institute of Natural Re-
sources (Institute), and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois
EPA). The Illinois EPA is the principal water pollution control agency
-122-
-------
for the State. The Board establishes regulations, and serves in a judiciary
capacity in enforcing Environmental Protection Act regulations. The third
agency created by the 1970 Act, is the Institute of Natural Resources,
which is charged with supporting the Board and the Illinois EPA in the
form of applied research, data compilation, and policy recommendations.
In administering the Federal construction grants program under PL 92-500,
the Illinois EPA realized the special needs of unsewered small communities
were very low on the priority list for funding. Many small communities
received funding through a separate State grants program which was identical
to the Federal program, but provided funds to projects considered to have
low priority on the Federal grants list. Some of these communities com-
pleted construction of facilities before similar small communities re-
ceived Step 1 funding under the Federal program.
Although this State grants program was terminated in 1976, it made the
Illinois EPA aware of the appropriateness of alternative wastewater manage-
ment technology in small communities. The agency responded by developing
a policy calling for "serious examination of the No Action alternative"
for unsewered towns of less than 1,000 persons. Enforcement of this policy
was initiated in the summer of 1976, and is still in force under the re-
vised facilities planning guide!ines issued in September 1977-
With passage of the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act and code by the
111inois General Assembly in 197^, the I 11inois DPH was in charge of ad-
ministering a Statewide regulatory program governing individual (residential)
on-site systems. Prior to 1971*, there were no Statewide minimum design
criteria for on-site systems. Regulation, where it existed, was exercised
by local governments, but lacked uniformity. About 20 county and municipal
health departments had ordinances governing design and installation of
on-site systems. Involvement of the Illinois DPH was limited to preparation
of technical bulletins offering specific design criteria recommendations to
local health departments.
-123-
-------
The 1974 Licensing Act authorized the Illinois DPH to promulgate rules
and regulations, and set minimum standards for design, installation, and
maintenance of these systems across the State. Essentially the Act
authorized the Illinois DPH to perform the following services:
1. To license (or otherwise regulate) septic system contractors and
septage haulers throughout the State (a $50 license fee is charged
to contractors).
2. To govern design, installation, and maintenance of all domestic on-
site systems of less than 1,500 gpd.
3. To review plans and specifications for systems greater than 1,500
gpd using subsurface disposal methods. (All systems with surface dis-
charges greater than 1,500 gpd are governed by Illinois EPA.)
k. To delegate responsibility for administering on-site wastewater
disposal ordinances to county and municipal health departments.
5. To prepare community needs surveys upon request.
6. To monitor the performance of septic system contractors, and to remove
or suspend licenses if installers fa?1 to adhere to the State code.
7. To respond to complaints of system failures or potential health
hazards associated with on-site system malfunctions.
8. To give technical advice to county health departments, and review
plans for subdivisions or larger on-site systems submitted to
county health departments and the Illinois EPA.
9* To update and refine technical criteria for on-site system design and
installation.
10. To hold symposiums and training sessions at the State and regional
level on private sewage disposal systems for installers and
sanitarians.
11. To allocate State funds to local health departments to administer on-
site sewage programs.
About half of the Illinois counties have state-approved ordinances governing
on-site disposal systems. It is Illinois DPH policy to encourage all counties
in the State to adopt and implement on-site disposal regulations.
-124-
-------
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Illinois noncentral wastewater management program is divided among
the Illinois EPA, the Illinois DPH, and local health departments. The
Illinois EPA conducts and coordinates various water pollution control
programs, including MPOES permits, 201 facilities planning and construction
grants programs, and 208 areawide water quality management planning. This
agency also conducts a water quality monitoring and surveillance program,
and assists in training and certification of wastewater treatment operators.
The Division of Water Pollution Control is the principal group within the
Illinois EPA involved with noncentral wastewater management issues; it in-
cludes:
1. Planning and standards. ,
2. Grant administration.
3. Permi ts. , - ' !
4. Field operations.
The first section, Planning and Standards, is responsible for 208 Manage-
ment Planning and 201 Facility Planning. The section consists of:
1. Facilities planning.
2. Planning support.
3. Standards. ' ' :
4. Water quality planning.
5. Technical planning.
The Facilities Planning Unit, which is particularly involved in noncentral
wastewater planning, develops guidelines for preparing Facilities Plans,
and reviews such plans for technical reliability and comprehensiveness.
Two individuals in the unit are normally assigned to review facility plans
where noncentral wastewater systems are recommended.
The "Guidelines for the Preparation of Facilities Plans for Unsewered
Communities" was developed and issued by the" Facilities Planning Unit in 1977-
1
The Facilities Planning Unit has recently been transferred from the
Planning and Standards Section to the Grants Administration Section.
-.125-
-------
The guidelines, which are similar to the requirements of the USEPA PRM
77-8, provide for: , ,,
1. Establishment of a community's "needs" for sewerage improve-
ment.
2. Documentation and evaluation of the study area and sewerage
system characteristics.
3. Selection of alternatives for cost-effectiveness analysis
based upon survey and physical evaluation of the community.
4. Evaluation of a "no action" alternative, which considers
retaining existing private septic tank systems, with
necessary improvements being carried out by the individual
homeowners or through any on-site management program.
The Grants Administration section of the Division of Water Pollution
Control is responsible for facility plan review and maintenance of the
State's priority list for planning and construction grants. About 1,200
projects are currently included on the priority list, representing
about 900 communities Statewide.
A recent revision to the priority list system, affecting some facility
plan applicants, is the incentive given to grant applicants having Step
1 plans who are interested in obtaining Step 2-3 funding for rehabili-
tation and replacement of individual on-site disposal systems. Where
this wastewater management approach is shown to be cost-effective and
is selected for Step 2 design, the applicant can proceed from Step 1
immediately to Steps 2 and 3, regardless of priority. Such "priority
breaking" measures obviously provide an opportunity for the small
community, which may be fairly low in the overall priority list rank-
ings, to obtain the 85 percent funding available to individual systems
rehabilitation.
The Permits Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control handles
a wide variety of activities affecting design and implementation of
-126-
-------
noncentral wastewater management systems. These activities include
facility plan review (particularly for technical system reliability
and design), issuing discharge permits, and setting design standards
for wastewater treatment facilities.
One of the Permits Section units, the Facility/Process Unit, reviews
the technical design portions of fact 1ities plans, and assists in de-
velopment of standards for wastewater treatment system design. These
standards, currently in draft form, contain detailed discussions of
technical criteria for various treatment methods such as conventional
wastewater treatment, land application of wastewater effluent, waste
stabilization ponds and aerated lagoons, and septic tank/drainfield
systems, intermittent and recirculating sand filters, as well as sewer
collection systems.
The Permits Section also issues construction and operating permits for
publicly-owned septic systems serving clustered homes. These types
of septic systems fall under Illinois EPA permits requirements, and
are regulated by the Illinois EPA, rather than the 11 lino is'Department
of Public Health under its "Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act."
Operator certification requirements for these systems are also developed
fay the Illinois EPA. (For privately-owned septic tank/leachfield systems,
appropriate Illinois DPH or county design criteria are used when .re-
viewing plans calling for system rehabilitation.)
., - - , - ,' ^
The Field Operations Section is the final section within the Division
of Water Pollution Control. The field operations personnel, located at
seven regional offices Statewide, perform water quality sampling, in-
spect wastewater treatment facilities, and occasionally assist or verify
community needs surveys prepared at the local level.
Recently, an Innovative and Alternative Technology Design Standards and
Review Panel was created within the Illinois EPA to develop design
-127-
-------
standards for nonconventional wastewater systems. The committee, made
up of representatives of various units within the Division of Water
Pollution Control, also serves to review facilities plans where innova-
tive and alternative technology may be appropriate.
The Illinois OPH also has major responsibilities in the State's on-site
wastewater management program. It administers the program through its
central office and seven regional offices. Illinois DPH policy in ad-
ministering this program is to work in conjunction with local health
departments to encourage active local participation in regulation of
on-site systems. The Illinois DPH intends to promote local involve-
ment by encouraging local health departments (i.e., county, multi-
county or municipal health departments) to:
1. Adopt local health ordinances governing on-site systems.
2. Become "agents" of the State in administering local on-site
ordinances.
3. Place greater control over performance of system installers.
According to the 197*» Licensing Act, all powers given to the Illinois
DPH for on-site regulation can be delegated to the local health depart-
ments. The local health department, therefore, performs the same
functions as the Illinois DPH, i.e.:
1. Sets standards for system design, installation, and main-
tenance (these standards must satisfy the minimum criteria
of the IIlinois DPH).
2. Performs and reviews community needs surveys.
3. Reviews plans for on-site system construction.
k. Inspects system performance and follows up on complaints.
of malfunctioning systems.
5. Monitors system installer and septage hauler performance
(local departments general1y waive this program to the State).
6. Conducts research into performance and design requirements
of various on-site system options.
-128-
-------
There are presently about 38 local health departments in the State (serving
30 counties) which have State-approved on-site disposal system ordinance
and permit programs. An additional 17 county health departments have
been designated "agents" of the State. This designation allows these
health departments to perform on-site management duties in lieu of the
Illinois DPH. On-site regulations in the remaining 56 counties within
the State are administered by the State DPH through its regional offices.
The approach taken by the Illinois DPH in enforcing on-site regulations
is much different from that taken by the approved local health depart-
ments. The Illinois DPH relies predominantly on licensing control of
system installers as the primary vehicle for on-site system regulations.
The procedure utilized by Illinois DPH regional office personnel to
control design, installation, and maintenance of on-site systems is
as follows: '
1. Establish a working relationship with the system installers.
2. Review plans for on-site system design and site evaluations
prepared by consulting engineers or system installers, sub-
ject to the State minimum standards.
3. Occasionally inspect system installations.
k. Occasionally inspect system performance in response to
complaints.
As indicated, the Illinois DPH does not issue permits for newly con-
structed systems, but reviews the performance of installers, and relies
on the competence and reputation of the installer to comply with minimum
standards.
Local health departments can be formed In two ways: through a ref-
erendum of the local population (i.e., within the municipality or county),
or by resolution of the county board of supervisors (or commissioners).
-129-
-------
A referendum-type health department can finance its operations by levying
a property tax (or special assessment) within its jurisdiction. Res-
olution-type health department financing is limited to the general
funds of the locality. Both resolution and referendum health depart-
ments receive financial assistance from Illinois DPH.
The Illinois Department of Local Governmental Affairs (DLGA) is a
technical advisory agency created to provide professional expertise
and advice to local governments throughout the State. It is currently
involved in on-site management activities in the State. Through its
technical assistance advisory capacity, this agency has been performing
pilot studies on specific wastewater management topics. It has also
assisted in funding and technical direction of local planning projects
and educational workshops, and prepares and disseminates technical
documents on various issues to local officials. The Illinois DLGA
and the Illinois EPA are currently conducting a pilot study program
in several Illinois communities to determine the effectiveness and
feasibility of local water conservation programs. A specific study
goal is to determine whether water conservation programs can improve
on-site systems operation.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
Illinois State and local agencies have shown much interest and been involved
in noncentral management for many years. Illinois had conducted re-
search investigations as early as 1976 to demonstrate that capital in-
vestment and maintenance costs for central systems would be prohibitive
for small communities. It supplemented this initial investigation with
a series of technical memoranda explaining State and Federal policy
toward noncentral systems, passed legislation to create municipal waste-
water disposal zones, and modified 201 planning priority test procedures
to facilitate implementation of noncentral systems within small commun-
ities. Furthermore, the Illinois EPA has established a special Innovative
-130-
-------
and Alternatives Review Panel, composed of various sections of the
Illinois EPA Water Pollution Control Division to review facility
plans proposing noncentral wastewater management systems. These
activities fall under the normal facilities plan review and grant
administration responsibilities of the Division of Water Pollution
Control. Certain units in this division, however, particularly the
Facilities Planning Unit, have been especially concerned with innovative
and alternative system applications in small communities.
The Illinois DPH has established an installer and septage hauler licens-
ing program to promote better design and installation of on-site systems
in the State. While the Illinois DPH supports the concept of a con-
struction permit program, it does not believe that an effective permit
program can be carried out at the State or regional level. Its reliance
on installer licensing, however, has created numerous problems, which
the Illinois DPH recognizes. First, there is no competency or performance
testing involved, consequently many licenses are issued throughout the
State (approximately 1,800), creating obvious problems to the Illinois
DPH in monitoring and evaluating installer performance. Second, there
has been a fairly high turnover among Illinois DPH regional personnel,
creating major difficulties in developing a rapport with on-site system
installers. The Illinois DPH hopes to correct these problems through
greater surveillance of installer performance and mandatory testing of
installers as a licensing requirement. The Statewide 208 Plan has
suggested that a curriculum for training sanitarians, on-site system
installers and maintenance personnel be developed with the Environmental
Research Training Center (ERTC) at Southern Illinois University. This
program would involve DPA and ERTC personnel in training sessions held
at community colleges throughout the State.
-131-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
James Leinicke^
Grant Administration Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Donald Sutton
Supervisor
Project Management Southern Unit
Grant Administration Section
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
G. Michael Brandt
Division of Engineering
Office of Environmental Health
Illinois Department of Public Health
Richard A. Forbes
Division of Engineering
Office of Environmental Health
Illinois Department of Public Health
Charles T. Kincaid
Supervisor
Management Planning
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
S. Allan Keller
Permit Section
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Kenneth A. Alderson
Illinois Municipal League
Nancy Murmelstein
Attorney
Illinois Department of Public Health
William Mellon
Director of Environmental Health
Lake County (Illinois) Health Department
Debbie Cannon
Director of Environmental Health
Bond County Health Department
1
Formerly Supervisor of Facility Planning Unit, Planning and Standards
Section, Illinois EPA.
-132-
-------
Dale Vanderholm
Associate Professor
Agricultural Engineering ; , :
University of 111inois
Laird Starrick
Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs
REFERENCES ' -
''Point Sources of Pollution," State of Illinois 208 Water Qua 1'ity
Management Plan, Volume IV, 11 lino is"Environmental Protection Agency,
. January 1979. -....-.
"State Perspective - Facilities Planning for Small Unsewered Communities
in Illinois," Leinicke, James R., Illinois Environmental Protection,
Agency, National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems
For Small Communities, Reston, Virginia, H.April 1977.
An Alternative Approach to Waste-
Eisel, Leo M., Director, Illinois
"When No Action is the Best Action,
water Treatment," (Parts I and II),
Environmental Protection Agency, I 11inois Municipal Review, August
and September 1977.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
James Leinicke .
Grant Administration Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
-133-
-------
MAINE NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Maine depends largely on decentralized wastewater management methods to
protect Its extensive marine and freshwater environments. The principal
feature of Maine's noncentral wastewater management program is the State
Plumbing Code, which contains regulations and minimum standards for on-
site wastewater disposal. These standards are applicable Statewide,
however, municipalities can adopt more restrictive measures with State
Health Department approval. Disposal sites are selected based on the
findings and recommendations of independent site evaluators hired by
individual property owners. System inspection surveillance, and code
enforcement are carried out by local plumbing inspectors (LPI) employed
by individual cities and towns. The LPI's act as local State agents,
and have legal authority to enforce the Plumbing Code.
The Division of Health Engineering (DHE) of the Maine Department of
Human Services, is responsible for the minimum code for small subsurface
disposal systems (except publicly-owned systems). Systems larger than
2,000 gpd are reviewed by the DHE. The Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) regulates land disposal of residual materials, including
sewage sludge and septage, and has authority over subdivisions larger
than 20 acres. The Land Use Regulation Commission has adopted the Plumb-
ing Code and enforces lot size for unorganized townships (i.e., townships
without local governing bodies). Some unorganized townships, however,
have a local plumbing inspector.
DEP administers the State's 201 Construction Grants Program, and coordin-
ates the State's areawide 208 water quality management planning efforts.
Five regional planning commissions are active in 208 planning.
-------
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
The Plumbing Code approach to on-site wastewater management originated
in the 1920's, but the present code ;was not adopted until 197^. This
code defines the roles of the site evaluator and local plumbing in-
spector and sets minimum Statewide standards for siting and design of
subsurface disposal systems. Maine's first plumbing code, approved in
1926, did not address sewage disposal but concerned itself primarily
with interior plumbing. In 19^6, the plumbing code referenced "approved
sewage works" specifying lengths of trench for certain spiIs. This was
later supplemented with an appendix which discussed the percolation test.
With expanded home development and an increasing number of reported mal-
functions, the State Department of Human Services, Division of Health
Engineering, conducted an extensive literature survey of on-site system
codes and site evaluation procedures, and in 1973 restructured the
statutes and regulations governing on-site system siting and design. The
new statutes eliminated use of the percolation test in favor of a field
test to identify soil suitability, and.set up a certificatibn program ,
for local plumbing inspectors in individual towns. The soil evaluations,
according to the statutes, are to be conducted by registered professional
engineers and certified geologists with knowledge and background in soils,
and soils scientists. This new code, which became effective in July 197**,
separated the plumbing code into two parts: Part I, an interior plumbing
code; and Part-I!-, an exterior plumbing code for private sewage disposal
systems.
Other Statewide legislation important to the overall noncentral waste-
water management program includes:
1. Mandatory Shoreline Zoning Requires all land within 250
feet of surfacewater to be subject to minimum zoning and
subdivision control by the individual municipality. The
State Planning Office establishes shoreline zoning for com-
munities without their own ordinances. Approximately 99
percent of all towns in the State have adopted ordinances
equal to or more stringent that the State's Model Shoreline
Zoning Ordinance. ,
-135-
-------
2. Subdivision LawEstablishes municipal review author?ty
over all parcels of land to be subdivided into three more
lots,
3. Minimum Lot Size Law Requires a minimum lot size of 20,000
square feet where wastewater is disposed of by a subsurface
disposal system, and requires a minimum 100-foot frontage for
any waterfront lot.
** Conversion of Seasonal Dwellings in Shoreland Areas Requires
that dwellings which are to be converted to year-round use have
a conversion permit issued by the local plumbing inspector.
The converted dwelling must also comply with the Plumbing
Code.
5. Site Location Act Establishes the authority of DEP to
regulate major land development and development in environ-
mentally-sensitive areas, including all subdivisions in
excess of 20 acres.
6. Septic Tank and Cesspool Waste Mandates that each munici-
pality provide for the disposal of all sludge, septage, and
cesspool wastes originating within the municipality.
1 ,!?
7. Sanitary District Enabling Act Allows municipalities or
residents of unorganized townships to form sanitary districts
for waste management and public health protection. A unique
type of sanitary district was created by a special legislative
act in 1972 for the Cobfaossee watershed. The district has
broad authority for wastewater management on a multimunici-
pality basis. It can, e.g., build, own, and operate wastewater
systems as well as be involved in managing existing bn-site
systems (through the adoption of local regulations for
on-site system design and maintenance). The district also has
the authority to levy property taxes and eminent domain.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Maine DHE establishes guidelines for issuing on-site system permits
at the local level through the State Plumbing Code. Anyone proposing to
construct an on-site disposal system must contract with a private site
evaluator to analyze the suitability of a lot for a disposal system.
The site evaluator is a State-certified soil scientist, geologist, or
licensed professional engineer. The site evaluator uses observation
pits to record soil data, and recommends an appropriate design for the
site to the local plumbing inspector (LPI). A typical site evaluation
-136-
-------
costs between $100 and $200, Including $30 to $40 for a backhoe. The
stte eval.uator uses DHE procedures (presented in a State-prepared
technical manual) for analyzing individual sites. According to the State
statute, a soils evaluator must have an educational background and experi-
ence in soils to qualify him to design on-site systems. Qualified
individuals are allowed to take an exam to verify their familiarity and
understanding of the rules and regulations contained in the Plumbing
Code. A field examination in conducting soil profile descriptions supple-
ments the written exam. A training guide for site evaluators has recently
been prepared by the DHE.
When a suitable site for an on-lot disposal system has been located, the
property owner files a permit application (DHE-200 form) with the local
plumbing inspector accompanying the owner's design plans and .specifica-
tions. If these documents comply with local and State regulations (in-
cluding the State Plumbing Code), a plumbing (i.e., construction) permit
is issued upon receipt of the appropriate fee as follows:
Administrative Fee $ 3.00
System (each) $ 25.OO1
Engineered system (each) $100.00
The fee schedule below shall apply if single
components are replaced or altered:
Replacement, expansion, alteration, and/or installation of:
Treatment tank (each) $ 10.00
Holding tank (each) ' $ 20.00
Waterless toilets (each) $ 10.00
Disposal area $ 20.00
Engineered disposal area $ 50.00
Laundry waste system $ 10.00
Conversion permit $ 20.00
After installation, but before cover-up, the inspector visits the site
to determine whether it is in compliance with the prevailing requirements,
If it is satisfactory, the inspector issues a certificate of approval
and the system may be covered over and placed in operation.
1
May include a maximum of two waterless toilets.
-137-
-------
The local plumbing Inspector enforces all applicable codes and standards.
The State Plumbing Code establishes minimum requirements for siting and
design of individual wastewater disposal systems, but local codes may be
more stringent (about 12 municipalities have local codes more restrictive
than those of the State). The State code provides minimum standards for
design of nonconventional systems such as aerobic units, composting
toilets, holding tanks, and privies. Although the local plumbing inspec-
tor is an official employed by the locality, he must pass a qualifying
exam administered by DHE for State certification. The State holds
seminars, and has published a training manual to assist candidates.
Local plumbing inspectors and site evaluators can have their licenses
revoked by DHE through, a judicial process. System installers, however,
are not licensed.
Statewide, there are about 160 evaluators, and 350 to 375 inspectors
registered with DHE. In some communities, the local plumbing inspector
also acts as the building inspector and zoning code enforcement officer.
Some inspectors serve more than one community.
Permit fees collected by the local plumbing inspector are turned over to
the municipality. Seventy-five percent stays with the local government,
while the remaining 25 percent goes to the State to cover administrative
costs. Originally, the fee structure was to make the permitting system
self-supporting. This goal has not been realized to date, and supplemental
monies are provided out of the State budget. Consideration has been
given by DHE to increase the permit fees to help cover the increased costs
of the LPI program.
DHE employes 10 regional sanitarians at various locations around the
State. They investigate complaints, system malfunctions, and code vio-
lations, and assist local plumbing inspectors with special problems
(in addition to other public health-related duties). The procedure
1
An LPI may also serve as zoning officer, building inspector, or in
another capacity for a municipality. Often small towns .have a part-
time LPI.
-138-
-------
for local plumbing Inspectors in taking action against the owner of a
malfunctioning wastewater disposal system is as follows:
1. Oral notification to the system's owner that a malfunction has
been found in violation of the State code, and that the situ-
ation must be corrected.
2. Letter if the violation has not been corrected within a
reasonable time, stating a date by which the situation must
be corrected; failure to comply may result in civil action or
a special tax assessed on the land by the municipal officers
(e.g., councilman or selectman).
3. Abatement order issued by the municipal officers if the viola-
tion is still uncorrected by the date specified in the letter.
^. Service of abatement order hand delivered to the owner by a
municipal officer, county sheriff, or constable.
5. Return of Service Order form filled out by the municipal officer
who delivered the Abatement Order and filed with the District
Court.
6. Entry on Land by Municipal Officers to Correct Violation if
, the terms of the Abatement Order are not met within-the specified
10-day period.
In addition to the regional sanitarians, about seven professionals are
employed in DHE headquarters (in Augusta, the State capital). These
professionals, made up of sanitarians, engineers, and a licensed
plumber, are involved in the review of system plans for those systems
which require State approval prior to local approval by an LPU Systems
which involve active State review are domestic and commercial systems
with flows over 2,000 gpd, as well as conventional on-site systems where
the limiting factor criteria for drainage fields cannot be met. For
these systems (referred to as engineered systems), a professional engineer
must design the system, and DHE must review and approve the plan. The
LP! cannot issue a construction permit without prior approval of DHE.
For large developments (such as residential subdivisions in excess of
20 acres), a special impact evaluation is required by the State Site
Location Development Act (effective September 1971). According to the
-139-
-------
Act, the DEP Bureau of Land Quality Control (Division of. Review and Plan-
ning) is responsible for reviewing subdivision plan applications which are
usually prepared by a site evaluator, professional engineer, or planner.
The following items must be evaluated by the developer:
1. Soil type (including use of observation or test pits on
individual lots).
2. Road system.
3. Drainage improvements.
4. Proposed wastewater system.
5. Water supply distribution system.
The Division of Health Engineering will make a general preliminary assess-
ment of the suitability of the land for its intended use.
DEP Is responsible for Statewide management of septage and wastewater
sludge, and has published regulations and guidelines for disposal of
these residuals on land. DEP also prepares a newsletter for Independent
septic tank pumpers in the State. The Municipal Services Division
evaluates septage disposal alternatives submitted during 201 planning,
while DEP's Bureau of Land Quality Control reviews all septage disposal
sites. Individual towns are required by law to provide for disposal
of their septic wastes, and several communities have agreements for
septage disposal at municipal wastewater treatment plants. Most septage
disposal, however, is left to private haulers, with relatively little
control or record of septage volumes and septage disposal locations.
At present, DEP has no program to license private septage haulers.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
Maine's overall noncentral wastewater management program derives its
strength from the 197^ State Plumbing Code. The program involves partici-
pation of experienced professionals (site evaluators) in conjunction
with a certified local plumbing inspector, familiar with unique physical
-------
conditions of the locale. The involvement of the LPI arid site evaluator
provides some assurance of dependability and validity of site test results.
In addition, technical manuals prepared by DHE provide detailed step-by-
step procedures for enforcement and site analysis which increase the
efficiency of the site evaluator and LPI.
The Code's standards and regulations are generally regarded by DHE as
having a significant impact on water quality. Prior to adoption of the
current State Plumbing Code, 30 to 50 percent of individual systems,
according to a DHE study, were failing. DHE reports a failure rate of
less than one percent annually since the 197^ Code was established. One
of the principal features of the code, which DHE feels has contributed
to its positive impact on assuring satisfactory on-site system performance,
is the use of the site evaluation to observe soil profiles.
Some apparent weaknesses exist, however, in the present on-lot manage-
ment system. The most significant is the lack of uniform surveillance
and enforcement by local plumbing inspectors across the State. Shortcut
procedures and relaxation of State standards occur from time-to-time with
the number of individual inspectors involved in the permitting process.
The State DHE lacks the manpower and 'resources required to police the
LPI's individual practices. Regional DHE staff, e.g., have a wide range
of public health-related responsibilities, with sewage disposal system
permitting and inspection representing only a part of their total
activity. Participation by local municipal officials who hire (and fire)
LPI's Is an indispensible part of the overall program. To date, munici-
pal involvement and interest in the program varies across the State,
further reducing the effectiveness and uniform enforcement activity Of
the LPI.
Another problem in enforcing the Plumbing Code rests with the flexibil-
ity of the site evaluator and LPI in performing their duties. Many
LPI's frequently allow departures from the code because of unique local
circumstances. In most cases, the LPI is unaware of the seriousness of
-------
the variation issued. Some evaluators are more lenient in interpreting
site limitations than others, thereby not providing incentives to perform
a thorough analysis of site conditions. DEP has suggested, e.g., that,
the training level for site evaluators and LPI's be increased to improve
the performance of the locally-administered program. Another method of
improving local enforcement is for municipalities to pool their resources
and hire a qualified fulltime LPI, who could assure that site evaluations
are performed correctly. In, an effort to assess the performance of both
the site evaluator and the LPI, DHE is developing a computerized catalog-
ing system to record all on-site system permits that have been issued by
LPI's, copies of system plans, and construction inspection reports. (DHE
is currently recording about 8,000-10,000 permit applications per year.)
In conversion of seasonal residences to year-round occupancy, the State
requires that the existing on-lot disposal system meet new system stand-
ards as defined in the Plumbing Code, or that the existing system be
rebuilt or replaced to comply with those standards. DHE feels that there
is confusion with the present wording of the Code, and amendments are
under consideration.
The costs of correcting a malfunctioning system can be a serious burden
to people with fixed or low incomes, as is the case in many of the rural
towns in the State. Thus, the Council of Governments in Portland, one
of the five 208 regional planning agencies, proposed the creation of.a
revolving loan fund to assist low income persons to repair or replace
failed septic systems* This involves establishing about a. half-mi 11 ion
dollar fund made up of contributions from participating communities
which would be administered on a regional basis, with a five-year turn-
over time. A similar proposal by DEP (made prior to PL 95-217) to
establish a Statewide loan fund to finance system rehabilitation was
defeated by the State legislature.
DEP admits that present controls over septage handling and disposal are
very inadequate. Septage haulers are unlicensed and DEP is understaffed
-142-
-------
for monitoring the performance of municipalities in dealing with septic
wastes. Land disposal in the wincer is a major problem, resulting in
actual or potential nonpoint source pollution of lakes and streams.
A 208 study prepared by the North Kennebec Regional Planning Commission
addressed septage disposal, and made recommendations which have impli-
cations for the entire State. These include:
1. Providing incentives for the private hauler vto d! spose of
septage properly by increasing penalties for i11icit dumping;
strengthening DEP's enforcement capability; and instituting a
training and licensing program for private septage haulers.
2. Increasing the number and capacity of septage treatment
facilities at wastewater treatment.plants under the Con-
struction Grants Program.
3. Reducing the volume of septage which must be pumped by encour-
aging the use of composting toilets in conjunction with ,
separate gray water systems.
k. Improving the siting and operating procedures of land disposal
sites by strengthening DHE's review and inspection activities.
DEP views septage primarily as a regional problem, and future develop-
ments in residual materials management will probably include regional
septage disposal facilities. DEP is currently initiating on-site waste-
water management studies addressing septage management and facility
planning methodologies through its 208 and 201 programs.
-143-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Frank Fiore
Planning Division
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Allen Corson
Manager
Planning Division
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Alan Prysunka
State 208 Coordinator
Planning Division
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Bryce Sproul
Municipal Division
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Don Hoxie
Director
Division of Health. Engineering
Maine Department of Human Services
Eugene M. Moreau
Manager
Wastewater and Plumbing Control
Division of Health. Engineering
Maine Department of Human Services
Peter Lowall
President
Maine Congress of Lake Associations
Thomas Hannula
Vice President
Maine Congress of Lake Associations
Walter Sheren
Naturalist
Thomas U. Gordon
Executive Director
Cobbossee Watershed District
-------
Teco Brown
D? rector
Division of Review and Planning
Bureau of Land Quality Control
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Tom Radsky
Maine Land Use Regulation Commission
Eric Root
Portland, Maine Council of Governments
REFERENCES
"Development and Practice of Soil Evaluation Concept for Subsurface
Wastewater Disposal Systems," Eugene M. Moreau, P.E., Maine Department
of Human Services, October 1978.
Water Quality Planning Project, Nonpoint Source Assessment and Plan,
North Kennebec Regional Planning Commission, Fiore, Frank and Keene,
Elery, April 1979.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Eugene Moreau
Wastewater and Plumbing Control
Division of Health Engineering
Maine Department of Human Services
Augusta, Maine 0^333
-145-
-------
PENNSYLVANIA NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ranks first in the nation in total
rural population (approximately 3.4 million people in the 1970 census),
and has a long history of interest and involvement in small wastewater
systems. The Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is the focal
point of Pennsylvania's on-site and small community systems program.
It undertakes and supports research, regulatory, planning, and public
education activities.
DER has a central office and regional offices. The State's management
program is administered at the State, regional, county, and township
levels. The five primary DER entities, or levels of activity, in the
State's program are:
1. Office of the Secretary (in Harrisburg, the State capital).
2. Bureau of Community Environmental Control (in Harrisburg).
3. Bureau of Water Quality Management (in Harrisburg).
4. Regional offices throughout the State.
5. Sanitarian county offices throughout the State.
The Department Administration, centered around the Office of the
Secretary, sets program priorities and direction for DER, and also
serves as the Department's link to the State Legislature. The Bureau
of Community Environmental Control (BCEC) has had primary responsibility
for on-site and community subsurface disposal systems. The Bureau of
Water Quality Management (BWQM) is involved in construction grants,
201 and 208 planning, and regulation of all facilities with surface
water discharges, including "package plants." DER's seven regional
offices provide the primary contact among the Department, local govern-
ments, and the public. DER county sanitarians have the responsibility
for monitoring the performance of sewage enforcement officers within
their jurisdiction, and for keeping DER records on malfunctioning
sys terns.
-146-
-------
Major factors 'and legislation that have contributed to Pennsylvania's
program are:
1. History of interest and involvement.
2. Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537).
3. Sewage Advisory Committee (SAC).
k. Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO) Program.
5. Acceptance of and research on alternative systems.
Of these items, the Sewage Facilities Act, enacted in 1966, has had
the greatest impact on small systems by creating and enhancing the
mechanisms for regulation, planning, and innovative aspects of Pennsyl-
vania's community wastewater management programs,
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
The Department of Environmental Resources was created by Act 275 of the
general Assembly of Pennsylvania, adopted on 30 December 1970- The
intent of Act 275 was to consolidate the State's environmental programs
into one agency. Prior to that time, the majori ty of, Pennsylvania's
smaH systems management activities were carried out by the Department
of Health. Act 275 transferred these responsibilities to the new DER.
Pennsylvania's small systems regulatory activities date back many years.
In the early 1960's, the State was sponsoring related research at the
Pennsylvania State University. The on-site management program took a
major leap forward in 1966 with passage of the Pennsylvania Sewage
Facilities Act (Act 537). This one law contains comprehensive pro-
visions, enhancing the State's role in research, funding, planning/and
regulation of on-site and community systems. Act 537 has enabled the
State to furnish funds to local municipalities for planning activities
to identify and resolve sewage disposal problems. In addition, the law
created the Sewage Advisory Committee to guide the state's design cri-
teria, regulation procedures, and technology transfer.
The second key year in the State's program history was when Pennsylvania
Act 208 was signed into law. This Act, an amendment to Act 537, created
the Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO) Program. This represented a
-147-
-------
dramatic shift in DER's on-site program by requiring that each munici-
pality in the State retain a certified sewage enforcement officer to
issue permits for installing subsurface disposal systems. SEO's are
municipal employees, but their certification and performance evaluation
is DER's responsibility.
By the mid-19701s, DER's role had become more leadership-oriented, pro-
viding more technical guidance, regulatory reviews, and planning guidance
services rather than direct involvement in local problems assessment.
Local governments had inherited inspection and permitting functions
from Act 537 amendments. Within DER, BCEC emerged as the focal point
for on-site systems. BCEC has administered the Act 537 requirements,
and provided technical guidance and assistance to individuals and
communities on subsurface disposal systems. BWQM has supported BCEC
in reviewing "Act 537" plans by municipalities. BWQM has responsibility
for Pennsylvania's 201 construction grants programs, the Statewide
planning under Section 208 of PL 92-500, and for surface disposal
facility plan reviews and approvals. COWAMP, the State's Comprehensive
Water duality Management Planning Program, from its beginnings in
1973-1974 through its evolution into the State's 208 Program, has high-
lighted the rural wastewater management needs and options in the Common-
wealth, and identified ways in which the 201 and Act 537 planning
programs could collectively address on-site and small community systems
applications.
The current evolution of Pennsylvania's program is toward:
1. Decentralization of DER activities where regional offices can
best serve plan review and grant administration needs.
2. Merging^the complementary BCEC and BWQM central office
activities for on-site and small community systems.
As an example, an important reorganizational effort is occurring within
DER to coordinate the overlapping facilities planning aspects of Act 537
and Section 201 requirements, specifically as they pertain to planning
-148-
-------
guidance and reviews by DER and to grant eligible projects. (It is
important to note that every municipality, in Pennsylvania must have an
Act 537 plan, while Section 201 activities are oriented to certain local
wastewater projects and grants.)
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pennsylvania's program was chosen as a case study because of its long
standing and innovative nature. The State's management efforts are a
combination of:
1. Regulatory policy-making and enforcement procedures.
2. Research and technical guidance. ,
3. Grants for planning.
k. Assistance to local governments. '';
5. Integrated and comprehensive planning (both for policy and
for Statewide Information development).
6. Strong regional office role. ,
Based on Act 537, DER developed Chapters 71 and 73 of its Rules and
Regulations as key regulatory features. Chapter 71, "Administration
of Sewer Facilities Program," established:
1. Guidelines for preparation and approval of Act 537 plans.
2. Permit requirements for on-s5te systems.
3. Procedures for SEO inspection and permitting of such systems.
Chapter 73, "Standards for Sewage Disposal Facilities," regulates design
and installation of on-site systems. A noteworthy provision of Chapter
73 is the allowance for alternative (to the conventional drainfield)
systems under specified site conditions.
Act 537 requires each municipality to prepare and regularly update a
plan for resolution of community sewage disposal needs. DER, through
BCEC, has provided 50 percent funding for 537 plan development. Act
537 plans can serve as the vehicle through which local governments can
-------
Identify areas that are unsuitable for conventional or alternative on-
site systems, can study small community system options, >and can explore
the potential benefits from managing these small flow systems.
State-level interest in effective planning and policy-making is exempli-
fied by DER's Comprehensive Water Quality Management Program (COWAMP).
Initiated by BWQM, COWAMP is an ongoing study of Pennsylvania's surface-
and groundwater quality control, and wastewater disposal needs from both
regional (county and basin) and Statewide perspectives. Although
initially funded entirely by the State, DER has more recently emphasized
full integration of the nine major COWAMP studies around the State, and
State-level 208 planning program objectives. DER is using COWAMP find-
ings and recommendations to develop and modify policies and program
guidelines, some of which affect the technical, implementation, and
environmental management aspects of on-site and community wastewater
systems.
DER's central office staff is primarily responsible for state program
and policy decisions. The Department obtains input on small systems
application in Pennsylvania from the Sewage Advisory Committee (SAC)
established by Act 537. The SAC is composed of representatives from
State, county, and local government, Federal agencies, trade associ-
ations, public and professional societies, and other interested
organizations. SAC provides comments and recommendations on regula-
tions, procedures, policy, and technology to DER for consideration.
Certain responsibilities for program implementation are exercised by
DER's regional offices. Each regional office has BCEC and BWQM staff
working in small systems application. These offices interface with
local governments through specific plan reviews and permit enforcement
actions. In addition, regional office personnel can act as consultants
to public and private groups on wastewater management problems. The
BCEC regional sanitarian supervises Act 537 plan reviews and the DER
-150-
-------
sanitarians stationed in the counties. BWQ.M facilities planning and
grants sections deal with 201 project reviews and approvals.
At the local level, site-by-site implementation of Pennsylvania's pro-
gram is the responsibility of the sewage enforcement officers. To
become certified, a prospective officer must pass an examination
covering:
1. Administration of State and local programs.
2. Technical options and operations.
3. Planning and design.
4. Soils and other physiographic characteristics.
There are no formal educational or experience requirements for becoming
an SEO, although DER encourages participation in a six-day training
course given by DER staff. Most SEO's have an educational background in
engineering, soils, or geology.
All new subsurface disposal systems must receive a permit issued by an
SEO. DER monitors SEO performance through the county-level sanitarians.
These sanitarians are responsible for collecting data on on-site system
failures, and reviewing the work of SEO's in their county. The sani-
tarians form an important informational bridge between the regional
offices and local governments.
A homeowner (or developer) chooses a contractor for system design and
installation; contractors (i.e., installers) are not licensed. The
permit application is reviewed and the site is inspected by the SEO.
The SEO issues or denies a permit based on the ava?lable facts. State
guidelines and procedures are used in site evaluations (involving
physiographic data review, test pits, and percolation tests). During
construction final inspection by the SEO is required before the sub-
surface system can be backfilled and before use. Legal options are
available to the SEO to bring systems into conformance with standards
and plans, or to stop unpermitted construction. System failures are
reported and rectified in numerous ways. The builder, SEO, municipality,
-151-
-------
DER sanitarian and/or county health department (in, four of 67 counties)
may be involved with malfunction reports and problems. Permit and re-
lated correspondence record-keeping is the SEO's basic responsibility
(the county-level has copies). Failure records are normally compiled at
the county level by the Health Department or DER sanitarian. Complaints
to DER and related follow-up are recorded by the sanitarian. Failures
are also recorded on the permits which an SEO must issue for system
rehabilitation or replacement.
Larger subsurface disposal systems (for subdivisions or mobile home
parks, for example) are handled both by the CEC and the SEO's. The
BCEC regional office staff reviews and approves the facility plans for
all systems over 10,000-gpd before the SEO issues a permit. DER can
become involved in plan reviews for smaller systems on a case-by-case
basts.
Other Important elements of Pennsylvania's management programs are:
1. Current DER-sponsored research at Pennsylvania State
University (PSU); primarily on alternative on-site systems
design and construction, and land application of wastewaters.
2. Public information programs and literature prepared by BCEC;
including video tapes on small system options, construction
and use, training materials, homeowner and local government
informational booklets, PSU technical documents, DER speakers
for local organizations, and mass mailings of public
educational materials through COWAMP.
3. Provisions for small communities and local public health
problems to have better recognition for 201 funding by being
assigned special points in the Pennsylvania grants priority
rating system, and by the maintenance of a separate small
community projects list.
._(.:* h ,
In response to prior program needs to provide funding to small projects
and to the grant money set-aside provision of PL 95-217, DER has recently
revised Chapter 103, "Financial AssistanceFederal Grants for Construction
of Sewage Facilities," of its rules and regulations. In addition to
-152-
-------
formalizing the'arrangement of a separate priority listing for small
municipality projects, the procedures (specifically, the assignment of
rating points) has beeri modified to place more weight on public health
problems. In the public health categories, the maximum number of points
is given to areas where the majority of on-site disposal systems are
rated as malfunctioning or otherwise inadequate.
DER works with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to integrate
wastewater and community development planning efforts where possible.
DCA administers the Municipal Planning Act 24? of 1968 which enables
municipalities to develop ordinances and comprehensive plans that guide
community growth. DER has demonstrated a concern that Act 537 plans
and 201 projects recognize and consider local community planning efforts
and growth objectives (although formalities between these laws and plan
review processes do not exist now).
Regarding public management of small flow systems, DER has assumed a
passive rather than leadership role. DER's attitude toward management
districts is progressive, but guidelines and special assistance have
not been arranged. DER encourages local governments to investigate
their management options through use of Act 537 planning processes and
grants.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT -\
Overall, Pennsylvania has a very well established and comprehensive
on-site and small community wastewater systems program. The major
features of Pennsylvania's program are:
1. Long-standing involvement in on-site systems performance.
2. Act 537 provisions governing small systems planning.
3. Consistent position on regulations enforcement.
4. SEO program for local inspection and all on-site systems
permitting.
-153-
-------
5. BCEC and BWQM rules which both govern and guide small systems
applications.
6. Regional office structures which provide a more local presence
and contact point for DER.
7. State-level planning (COWAMP) that has highlighted rural waste-
water management needs on a Statewide basis.
8. Sewage Advisory Committee (SAC) inputs to DER as a legal
requirement.
Act 537 is recognized as a powerful tool, but its planning effectiveness
has been somewhat hindered by local government interpretations that
apply its provisions only to areas where conventional sewerage systems
were needed. Only in the past few years has DER fully explained that
the Act 537 planning requirements are as equally useful in supporting
programs for on-site and small community systems management. Also,
there has been local confusion over the role of Act 537 planning with
respect to Federally-funded 201 plans. Currently, DER is acting to
better coordinate and utilize Act 537 and Step-1 201 planning activities
to avoid duplication of effort and provide better use of State and
Federal planning grants.
In its five year history, the SEO program has, for the most part, gained
local acceptance and proven to be effective. DER has not had the re-
sources, however, to thoroughly monitor and review the capabilities and
performance of all SEO's. Recently, BCEC has addressed this issue
through investigating the criticisms of specific SEO's and investigating
ways to strengthen DER's monitoring procedures. The sanitarians at the
County level can fulfill the technical review and coordination roles
which are necessary to ensure uniform administration and a positive
attitude toward Sewerage Facilities Act provisions.
DER has had an "image" problem in Pennsylvania, being seen as a large
agency distant from local needs, and more interested in regulation than
in,problem solving. Compounding this problem has been communication
difficulties between DER's various levels. Many times this has led to
-154-
-------
both Department and local government frustration and confusion concern-
ing programs implementation. To counteract this, action has been taken
within DER to further streamline State-level programs effectiveness.
Further decentralization and increasing the public service aspects of
DER operations are examples. The regional office role, notably in 201
grant application reviews and ratings, is being intensified so that local
governments and residents are aware that DER representatives within their
area are sensitive to local needs. DER is also adjusting itself to be
a more service-oriented and locally-responsive agency by formally in-
creasing the attention given local problems that are brought to the
Central Office's attention, and by the increased use of demonstration
projects.
This fairly recent decision to pursue demonstration projects can be used
to test and refine optional technologies and management concepts. Both
the increased attention to immediate problems and demonstration activities
are limited to some extent by available staff time and the DER budget.
The various features of DER's program comprise a strong and innovative
approach to on-site and small community wastewater management. Expanded
DER activities for better coordination and communications would greatly
enhance the program's effectiveness. A State-level contact point or
person, such as that which California provides to answer questions, for
any State resident or entity, could reduce concerns about not being able
to reach within DER for program answers. An optional arrangement would
be the establishment of a visible contact person in each DER regional
office.
Over time, COWAMP may have a large positive impact on Pennsylvania's
program in terms of visibility and public education on small wastewater
systems. By involving local public and governments during plan prepa-
ration, COWAMP's recommendations and policy guidance has represented
local views concerning Pennsylvania's environmental programs. In the
-155-
-------
final phases of COWAMP, DER will attempt to pull together the various
Statewide findings and recommendations for revising State policies and
guidelines. Enhancing State rural wastewater management should be a
high priority in these future COWAMP efforts of DER.
-156-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ; '
William Mittendorf
Deputy Secretary for Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
filenn Maurer
Assistant Director
Bureau of Community Environmental Control
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Gary Shaffer
Chief, Local Agency Administration Section
Bureau of Community Environmental'Control
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Georgine Adams
Secretary, State Board for Certification of Sewage
Enforcement Officers
Bureau of Community Environmental Control
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Cedric Karper
Chief, Planning and Evaluation Section
Bureau of Water O.uality Management
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Stephen Fehr
Planning Analyst
Pennsylvania Department
of Community Affairs
Thomas Kuhn
Planning Analyst
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs
Maxine Worlfling
Assistant District Attorney
Pennsylvania Department of Justice
Dean Shultz
Certification Board
Sewage Enforcement Officer Program
Robert J. Mel low
Pennsylvania State Senator
-157-
-------
REFERENCES
Technical Manual for Sewage Enforcement Officers. Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, April 1977.
"Sewage Needs Determination and Analysis," Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources.
"Introduction to Environmental Planning for Local Decision Makers,"
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental^ Resources, July 1977.
"Helpful Hints on On-Site Sewage Disposal System Construction, Operation
and Maintenance," Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
"Special Circular 214 Alternative Methods of Effluent Disposal for
On-Lot Home Sewage Systems," Pennsylvania State University, College of
Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service.
Environmental Management; Handbook for Local Government. Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Department of Community Affairs.
August 1977.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Cedric H. Karper
Chief, Planning and Evaluation Section
Division of Sewage and Grants
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
12th Floor, Fulton Bank Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
-158-
-------
WASHINGTON NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT-PROGRAM '
GENERAL DESCRIPTION '"
Both State and local agencies are involved in regulation of on-site and
small communi-ty systems in the State of Washington. At the State level,
on-site wastewater disposal control is shared between the Department of
Ecology (DOE) and the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS).
There are 31 local health departments that administer local on-site dis-
posal ordinances in the State's 39 counties.
Under recently revised State policy toward noncentral system regulations,
local (county and district) health departments.a re responsible for regu-
lating on-site systems of less than 3,500 gpd (through an agreement with
DSHS) and small community systems with flows less than H,500 gpd. DSHS
is primarily responsible for regulating systems between 3,500 gpd and
14,500 gpd (unless a waiver is granted to a local,health department).
DSHS also acts as a technical advisor to local health departments. DOE's
plan review and permitting responsibilities cover:
1. Small community or cluster septic tank systems with flows
exceeding 14,500 gpd, and/or serving 50 or more housing units.
2. Mechanical treatment systems or lagoons with subsurface
disposal serving 10 or more housing units, or flows exceeding
3,500 gpd.
3. Al1^noncentral wastewater systems that discharge to surface-
water. ,..._
State Board of Health regulations presently provide for the local health
department approvals mentioned above, and DSHS review and approval (along
with local health department input) for all systems exceeding 14,500 gpd.
Certain overlaps in plan review and regulation authorities are now being
addressed by the State legislature, DOE, DSHS, and local health depart-
ments, through special sessions of the State House Committee on Ecology.
-159-
-------
State Board of Health on-site system regulations, adopted in 1974, es-
tablish a framework for developing local regulations consistent with
unique conditions in the locality. This legislation authorizes DSHS to
perform the following:
1. Review and approve local on-site disposal ordinances.
2. Mandate the use of Statewide regulations where localities
fail to adopt local ordinances.
3. Require permanent system maintenance programs for certain
subdivisions using on-site systems.
4. Act as a coordinator and technical assistant to local
health departments in on-site wastewater disposal issues.
For the third activity, DSHS has adopted "Guidelines for the Formation
and Operation of On-site V/aste Management Systems." The guidelines
describe maintenance requirements and applicable management agency
options in conjunction with DSHS regulations that require permanent
maintenance of on-site systems in subdivisions with gross densities
greater than 3.5 housing units or 12 persons/acre, or flows of 1,200
gallons/acre/day.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
The DSHS (formerly the State Health Department) was, until the mid-1940's,
the principal agency in charge of water pollution control programs in
the State. After the Water Pollution Control Commission was established,
and subsequently the DOE in 1970, the role of DSHS in water pollution
control activities diminished. As the Commission and DOE gradually
acquired staff and environmental programs responsibility, the role of
DSHS became one of:
1. Providing input on certain health related issues, such as
wastewater reuse and discharge of treated effluent in shell-
fish harvestery and recreational areas.
2. Promulgating and administering regulations such as the pro-
tection of drinking water supplies, and shellfish harvesting
areas.
-160-
-------
The regulatory and advisory roles have been maintained and formalized
by interagency agreements among DSHS, DOE, and other State agencies.
The process of developing current DSHS on-site system regulations in-
volved joint efforts of DSHS and local health departments. Prior to
adopting the DSHS regulations in 197**, local health departments issued
and administered locally-adopted on-site system rules and regulations
exclusively on a county and district basis. The regulations applied by
the local health departments varied considerably Statewide. The lack
of uniformity led to problems (and complaints) for residents, developers,
and local health departments throughout the State. Local health depart-
ments were confronted with added responsibilities when the State Platting
Law (RCW58.17) was revised in 1969, requiring that local health depart-
ments review preliminary wastewater facilities plans (i.e., plats) for
subdivisions. This responsibility, coupled with the increasing number
of proposed subdivisions and complaints by developers, consumers, and
local health officers concerning inadequate on-site sewage disposal,
prompted involvement of DSHS in investigating and coordinating local
health department functions.
DSHS conducted surveys of local health departments between 1969 and 1971,
and made the following observations:
1. Approximately 1.2 million persons utilized some form of on-site
sewage disposal.
2. U.S. Census data for the State disclosed a total of 403,000
septic tanks in use in 1970. (A more recent survey estimates
'650,000 systems currently In use Statewide.)
3. Approximately 25,000 new systems were being installed annually,
and 7,000 systems were reported as failing each year.
k. The level of control in county-level on-site programs varied
widely Statewide, and ranged from no restrictions to overly
stringent requirements with inconsistent design criteria.
5. Standard criteria for preliminary plat review and approval
concerning sewage disposal was needed.
-161-
-------
6. On-site systems were consistently being utilized on lots with
unacceptable soils and/or with high water table conditions.
7. Failing on-site systems were causing health hazards, decreasing
land values, and increasing consumer costs for more permanent
and adequate sewage disposal.
8. Program models, guidance, and evaluations were absent.
Based upon the survey and input from public and private interests in the
State, adoption of minimum State standards for on-site disposal programs
was advocated. DSHS, along with local health departments (in 1972-1973),
conducted several additional surveys to analyze on-site system perform-
ance in the State. To further assist in formulating minimum standards
and State regulations, an ad hoc committee representing public and
private groups was appointed by DSHS. In June 1974, the State Board of
Health passed the present standards, requiring adoption of local vari-
ations in soils and climate, and establishing a formal DSHS review and
approval process for local regulations to help insure consistency and
compliance with minimum State requirements.
Historically, the Department of Ecology has dealt with water quality and
other environmentally-oriented issues. Like many sister regulatory
agencies around the country, DOE has been heavily involved in urban and
industrial aspects of wastewater management. The faci1ities plan review
and related construction grants programs have recently complemented the
delegation of NPDES responsibilities by the U.S. EPA. Past attention
given noncentral systems has been through the 20.8 Program, through re-
gional office reviews, permitting small community projects, and through
assessing relevant technology for application in Washington. DOE is now
looking at options for handling noncentral system reviews, ranking
eligible projects, and dispersal of available grant funds (such as the
"4 percent set aside") in a way which is compatible with similar activ-
ities for larger projects.
-162-
-------
DSHS and DOE are now modi fy.ing thei r interagency agreement for on-site
management. DOE has recently adopted regulations governing the design
of on-site sewage systems larger than 14,500 gpd. (DSHS has current
authority over these large systems as well.) The issue and overlapping
responsibility, along with other related problems of State wastewater
program administration, are under review by the State House Committee
on Ecology. , .
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
DOE, DSHS, and local health departments have statutory responsibilities '
for regulating on-site systems in Washington. The DSHS role in on-site
sewage disposal is one of coordination, assistance, and support to local
health jurisdictions. Two full-time professionals are involved in a
wide range of DSHS activities, including:
1. Review and approval of local health ordinances Of the 31
existing State health departments, 18 departments apply
locally-adopted State-approved regulations, while the remain-
ing 13 apply State standards directly. DSHS also conducts
periodic evaluations of local health department programs to
assist them In improving the structure and orientation of
thei r programs.
2. Investigation and evaluation of alternative wastewater system
technologies Under the 197^ regulations, a technical review
committee was established to review new technology and develop
guidelines for its application. Guidelines have already been
developed for aerobic treatment, soil evaluation, evapotranspir-
ation systems, mound systems, and composting toilets. Manage-
ment guidelines for ensuring continuing operation and mainten-
ance of systems in subdivisions have also been developed.
DSHS has also been instrumental ( in organizing the Northwest
States Task Force for On-Site Disposal. (Oregon, Idaho,
Washington, Montana, Alaska, and the Province of British
Columbia are represented on this Task Force.) This organiza-
tion acts as a forum to discuss applied technology and manage-
ment experiences at both State and local levels.
3. Development and implementation of training courses for design-
ers, installers, and local health department personnel
Several regional workshops are held each year.
k, DSHS is involved in research projects These projects examine
failing on-site systems, and develop on-site management programs.
-163-
-------
5- DSHS personnel at the State capital and four regional offices
provide technical assistance to local health departments "
Much of the regional effort Is oriented toward protection of
drinking water, and review and approval of larger on-site systems,
(
DSHS works closely with local health departments in administering on-
site regulations. Each of the 31 health departments Statewide has an
active on-site management program. Collectively these local agencies
employ between 125 to 150 full-time employees who are involved in a
variety of environmental health program activities, such as:
1. Review and approval of individual system designs and small
community systems.
2. Supervision of individual system installations.
3. Review of preliminary subdivision plats.
4. Issuance of permits for community on-site systems.
5. Licensing of septic tank pumpers, designers, and installers.
6. Inspection and correction of failing systems.
Almost all of the 25,000 new systems installed each year are individual
units serving single family homes. There is a growing awareness, however,
of the need to formulate uniform policy toward application of larger on-
site systems by State and local officials.
DOE's activities in the State's noncentral wastewater management program
rest with the construction grants and 208 areawide planning programs,
as well as waste discharge permit programs. The State's 208 program
funds studies for watershed management investigations and pilot studies
for establishing on-site management programs to complement designated
area 208 agency efforts.
In addition to State and area 208 program activities in rural wastewater
management, State law requires that governmental entities involved in
developing and operating sewer facilities (such as cities, counties,
-------
sewer districts, water districts, public utl 1 i-ty-districts, and port
districts) must prepare comprehensive sewer plans. These plans are
subject to review and approval by DOE and DSHS. The plans must incor-
porate existing governmental comprehensive plans, and be consistent
with Step 1 Faci lities Planning., ,
DOE's structure for administering the construction grants program is
undergoing considerable changes at the present time. Plan review is
now conducted at the regional level through four offices, while the
State's priority list is being handled at DOE headquarters. This
arrangement wi11 soon be altered through gradual phasing out of regional
office plan reviews, priority 1ists, and policy-making activities, and
added to the administration activities in the Olympia Central Office.
The Projects Priority List preparation and maintenance system and
related construction grants funding policies, which wi11 affect imple-
mentation of noncentral wastewater alternatives, are being revised.
A separate pri'ority list exclusively for projects eligible for innova-
tive and alternative funds is under consideration by DOE's Water 0_uality
Management Division (Municipal Section). Diversion of the traditional
15 percent State share for construction grant funding to a separate
50/50 matching grant program to apply to smaller (primarily lower
priority) projects is being considered also. It is felt that this shift
in State funds will help promote consideration of lower cost wastewater
facilities for projects eligible for 75 percent Federal grants, and
provide some funding for smaller projects without a high priority rank-
ing, but that have demonstrated needs. .
A final key element of the State management program is the State DSHS
mandate for perpetual maintenance and management of noncentral wastewater
systems applied in large subdivisions. According to the DSHS regulations,
when subdivisions or multiple housing units have gross densities exceed-
ing 3.5 housing units or 12 people/acre, or waste flows of 1,200 gallons/
acre/day, noncentral systems will not be permitted unless perpetual
-165-
-------
maintenance is provided. Eligible management agencies include: an
existing sewer utility; county government agency; a sewer district; or
a water or public utility district operating a sewer service. If no
municipal agency is able or willing to operate a management program of
this type, a special management corporation may be organized to serve
as the management agency. DSHS currently promotes the use of municipal
agencies to manage noncentral systems, and is pursuing the concept of
"satellite support systems" to manage scattered community systems.
State guidelines outline the requirements of a management agency, if
the subdivision is outside the service jurisdiction of a functioning
municipal agency. In this situation, if a private corporation (i.e.,
special management corporation) is proposed as the management agency,
the permanency of the special corporation must be guaranteed by a public
agency through a third-party trust. A totally private management
corporation may not be formed unless the developer first exhausts all
public agency possibilities directly, or establishes a third-party trust.
There are many examples of community on-site management programs through-
out the State. County and city departments of public works are the most
common institutional approach to systems management. Several county and
city departments of public works in the State are maintaining large
community septic systems. The State is currently promoting this concept
of "satellite support systems" to manage scattered large community systems
as is currently practiced in several parts of the State.
DSHS and DOE 208 programs are now involved in conducting pilot-program
studies to develop comprehensive and model on-site wastewater management
programs. One study is a cooperative effort among the DOE (208 Program),
DSHS, and the Cowlitz County Department of Public Works. This.detailed
analysis of a community of approximately 300 homes will determine the
most feasible technical and institutional wastewater management options,
as a model for similar developments. Another on-going study includes
an investigation of on-site system management needs in the Seattle
Metropolitan area.
-166-
-------
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The State of Washington Is a recognized leader in developing on-site
management programs. This distinction is a result of its regulatory
requirements for managing subdivision pn-site systems, its relationship
with and support of local managing agencies, and its use of a State-level
technical review committee. This committee concept has been applied in
other states, and is-an effective mechanism to aid the successful imple-
mentation and updating of regulations governing on-site and alternative
systems.
One of the major current problems with the State's management program
is the overlapping and duplication of effort among DSHS, local health
departments, and DOE. This has been noted as a major problem by private
interests and public agencies. Testimony submitted to the State House
Committee on. Ecology by the State Office of the Attorney General points
out, e.g., that:
1. DSHS regulations require a permit from the local health officer
for any new on-site sewage system. Larger systems (over 14,500
gpd) must have State DSHS approval. These authorizations over-
lap those of DOE. For larger systems, an on-site system may
require approval from the local health department, DSHS, and
DOE.
2. Three different design and review criteria may then be applied
to the same system. If DOE begins to require State waste dis-
charge permits for on-site systems, then a fourth governmental
, approval would be added.
3. In addition, there is duplication in review of comprehensive
sewer plans. Some legislation requires that county plans be
approved by both DSHS and DOE. Other statutes require that
plans be approved by local health officers when DOE approval
ts also requ? red.
These items of possible duplication and conflict are being addressed
by the House Committee. While proposals for transfer of on-site
management activities from DSHS to DOE have been made, it appears that
many duplication problems can be resolved through interagency agree-
ments. Furthermore, an important State/local communication and working
-167-
-------
linkage may be lost or damaged by removing DSHS involvement in local
health department on-site programs. The State/EPA agreement outlines
some of these recommendations:
1. DOE will work with DSHS and local health departments to
delineate division of review responsibilities for larger
subsurface disposal systems.
2. DSHS will work with local health departments to delineate
division of review responsibilities for smaller subsurface
disposal systems.
3. DOE will clarify its responsibilities for issuing waste
discharge permits for domestic wastewater systems.
4. DOE will work with DSHS and local health departments to
update and finalize design criteria for larger systems.
Despite these current problems, Washington's involvement in preparing
guidelines for noncentral system operation and maintenance, establish-
ing technical review of wastewater system alternatives through DSHS
research, Technical Review Committee involvement, conducting educational
workshops for local health offices, designers and installers, and
pumpers, and initiating pilot programs to demonstrate on-site management
programs help to place its program at the forefront of State noncentral
management programs.
-168-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gary Plews, R.S.
Water Supply and Waste Section
.Health Services Division
Washington Department of Social and Health Services
David A. Lenning, R.S.
Water Supply and Waste Section
Washington Department of Social and Health Services
James C. Pluntze, P.E.
Section Head
Water Supply and Waste Section
Washington Department of Social and Health Services
John Spencer
Assistant Director
Office of Water Programs
Washington Department of Ecology
Glenn Grace
Office of Water Programs
Washington Department of Ecology
Don Oliver
Director of Environmental Health
Tacoma/Pierce County Health Department
Gordon Douglas
Office of Water Programs
Washington Department of Ecology
Nelson Graham
Director
Cowlitz County Department of Public Works
Richard Fleming
Cowlitz County Department of Public Works
Dave Rhodes
Cowlitz County Department of Public Works
J.P. Sanderson
Kitsap County Department of Public Works
-169-
-------
REFERENCES
"On-Site Sewage Disposal Program, A Preliminary Status Report to the State
Legislature," Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
Publication No. 77-1, February 1977. '
"Legal Responsibilities of the Department of Ecology Relating to the Planning,
Design, and Approval of Sewage Treatment Systems," memorandum to House
Committee on Ecology, from Charles W. Lean, Assistant Attorney General
30 July 1979. '
"Statement of the Health Services Division, DSHS, Before the House Ecology
Committee, Subcommittee on Sewage Treatment," James C. Pluntze, P.E.,
Section Head, Water Supply and Waste Section, Washington Department of
Social and Health Services, 30 July 1979.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
David A. Lenning, R.S.
Wastewater Management Specialist
Water Supply and Waste Section
Health Services Division
State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services
LD-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
-170-
-------
VERMONT NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION ,
The administration of the noncentral wastewater management program in
Vermont is shared by numerous agencies at State, regional, and local
levels of government. Vermont's program involves agencies at the
State level, local governments, and, indirectly, the Natural Resource
Conservation Districts (NRCD) program. The seven principal agencies
involved in management of on-site and alternative systems in the State
are:
1. Vermont Department of Health.
2. Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation (AEC).
3. State Environmental Board.
k. State Planning Office.
5. Municipalities (including towns, incorporated municipalities,
and vi1lages).
6. Vermont Natural Resource Conservation Districts (NRCD).
7. Regional Planning Commissions.
All Vermont health regulations dealing with noncentral wastewater systems
are administered and enforced by the Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation (AEC), or local municipalities through their local board
of health and local.health officer (in conjunction with the State
Department of Health).
The most important State law regarding sewage disposal (promulgated by
the State Health Department, but administered by the:AEC) is the State
subdivision regulations. These regulations govern the water supply and
sewage disposal in subdivisions where the lots are less than 10 acres.
No new subdivision may be created, nor any existing subdivision modified
or extended without a permit stating that these regulations have been
-171-
-------
satisfied. The Division of Environmental Protection of the AEC administers
these regulations. Local governments, if they choose, may regulate indi-
vidual on-site systems through Vermont Health Regulations, Part II.
Act 250, Vermont's Land Use and Development Law (adopted in 1976), as
as result of significant second home development in the State, is another
key State law which governs noncentral systems. Projects which fall
under Act 250 review (e.g., subdivisions of 10 or more lots) are subject
to examination for potential air and water pollution.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
The wastewater management program in Vermont, as it presently exists,
has evolved through a piecemeal change in priorities, laws, and regula-
tions addressing public health and water pollution control needs. The
Agency of Environmental Conservation (AEC) was established in 1970,
replacing the Water Pollution Control Agency, and expanding State in-
volvement in environmental management. The Vermont Department of Health
(a part of the Vermont Agency of Human Services) participates in the
program by advising and giving technical support to local health
departments.
Specific legislation promulgated in the State governing design and in-
stallation of on-site and alternative systems include:
1. State Health Regulations. Part I I (Vermont Health Regulations,
Chapter 5, Subchapter 10, Part II) -- Set guidelines for
design and installation of individual on-site sewage systems.
(It is not mandatory for a town to adopt these regulations.)
2. State Subdivision Regulations (Vermont Health Regulations,
Chapter 5, Subchapter 10, Part I) Governs subdivision
planning (i.e., a new lot of less than 10 acres). The sub-
division regulations assure that there is a potential loca-
tion for an on-site disposal system.
-172-
-------
3. Public Building, Mobile Home Park. Trailer Camp, and Tent
Site Regulations (Vermont Health Regulations, Chapter 5,
Subchapter 1; Vermont Environmental Protection Regulations,
Chapter 2; and Vermont Regulations for Trailer Camp and
Tent Sites, Chapter 5)-- Deal with developments of these
types.
k. State Health Regulations. Part III (Vermont Health Regu-
lations, Chapter 5, Subchapter 10, Part I 11, Wastewater
Treatment, Disposal by Land Application) Set standards
for the disposal of sewage effluent on or under the land
surface. ^ ,
5. Act 250, Vermont Land Use and Development Law (Chapter 151
of1 Title 10, Vermont Statutes Annotated) Requires people
who'wish to develop or subdivide land to obtain an Act 250
permit first. The Act 250 permit requires an assessment
of potential environmental and economic impacts of major
land developments.
6. Vermont Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 47 of Title 10
Vermont Statutes Annotated) -- Controls discharge of waste-
water effluent from any home, industry, or municipality to
a surfacewater body.
7. Vermont Water duality Standards . Authorize the Vermont
Water Resources Board to classify all public waters.
Under current legislation, some applications of on-site and alternative
systems are governed by State regulations, and some by local regulations,
A State task force has been established to address the institutional
issues, particularly legislative and regulatory requirements, involved
with management of on-site and alternative systems.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
According to the enabling legislation, the Vermont AEC is the principal
enforcement and administrative"agency for State rules and regulations
governing noncentral wastewater systems. The AEC, through its Division
of Environmental Protection, is responsible for administering the
State Subdivision Regulations (Part I and III), Regulations for Public
Buildings, Mobile Home Parks, and Trailer Tent Campsites, as well as
portions of Act 250.
-173-
-------
The Protection Division reviews both single and multilot subdivision
applications to fulfill Act 250 and State Subdivision Regulations
requirements. A single lot subdivision is a lot of less than 10 acres
in size. The seller of the lot must submit the application when the
land ownership is being transferred. The application can be completed
by State-certified plumbers, system installers, soil scientists, Natural
Resource Conservation District technicians, health officers, or pro-
fessional engineers. The application contains a site report requiring
the applicant to evaluate the suitability of the lot for on-site sewage
disposal. This is done by reviewing soil survey data, at a minimum,
and then (under certain circumstances) conducting percolation tests and/or
digging test pits at the proposed sewage disposal area. The single lot
subdivision application, therefore, serves as a method of assuring that
site conditions are suitable for on-site sewage disposal; it does not,
however, serve as a permit to build a system. A frequently cited short-
coming of this program, is the lack of follow-up after permit approval,
to check the actual location and design of the on-site system, based
upon the findings and data reported in the single lot application.
The multilot subdivision plan, which must be prepared by professional
engineers, essentially follows the same requirements of the single lot
subdivision application. Many of the larger multilot subdivisions
(50+ units) tend to provide sewage disposal through connection to munic-
ipal sewage treatment facilities. Clustered systems (e.g., community
septic tank-disposal fields or spray irrigation) are common methods for
sewage disposal at larger subdivisions. The Protection Division, which
administers the single lot and mult!lot subdivision permit program,
operates from the state capital (MontpeUer) and five district offices.
The Division of Environmental Engineering (AEC) is in charge of waste-
water facilities planning, including 201 Facility Planning, and adminis-
ters the NPDES program. The Water Resources Department (AEC) conducts
-174-
-------
303e, 208, and other water resources planning actlvities, as well as
water pollution investigations (i.e., sanitary surveys) associated with
surfacewater contamination.
Nearly 10 communities in Vermont are preparing 201 Plans which consider
the use of noncentral wastewater systems. Albany is investigating the
utilization of individual on-site systems instead of a conventional
collection and treatment system. In East Fairfie1d,Ta pilot project
investigating alternative wastewater management techniques (including
aerated lagoons, community septic tank/leachf5eld, and extended aeration)
has been initiated and funded through the Vermont 201 Program. Arlington
Township has been involved in a Vermont 201-sponsored feasibi1ity study
of alternative wastewater systems. This study and the East Fairfield
report, are"intended to illustrate alternatives to be considered when
preparing 201 Facility Plans in the future.
" ~ ' , ' " '. " '' <"%" --.--. -'-=",
The Vermont 208 Program has been very active in addressing noncentral
wastewater management issues, including:
1. Septage management.
2. Sewage treatment legislation.
3. Criteria for on-site wastewater system design.
k. Wastewater facility planning for small communities (methods
and case histories).
5. Model ordinances governing design, construction, and main-
tenance of on-site wastewater systems.
The Vermont 208 Program staff is currently working with AEC officials
in reevaluating current agency responsibilities in noncentral wastewater
management.
The State Department of Health (through its Sanitary Engineering Division)
is primarily responsible for setting and revising standards, and estab-
-175-
-------
Ifshlng minimum criteria for design and installation of on-site and
small community systems (as provided by State Health Regulations, Parts
I, II and III). The State Health Department does not enforce its regu-
lations, but merely acts in an advisory and assistance capacity to the
State AEC and local governments.
A township may adopt the State Health Regulations, and therefore govern
on-site systems. Township zoning ordinances, health ordinances, sub-
division regulations, or building codes may be used to enforce State
minimum criteria. About 100 of the 24? .towns in Vermont have adopted
local ordinances which control on-site system design and installation.
Of these, approximately 60 have joined the Natural Resource Conservation
District (NRCD) program which provides technical services to assist
local health officers in planning, designing, and supervising installation
of on-site systems. In addition, the NRCD program has developed a model
ordinance for adaption by participating municipalities. The model or-
dinance is basically compatible with State health regulations. (The
Vermont On-Site Specialists Program discussion explains the program
aspects in more detail.)
Regional Planning Commissions are technical advisory agencies organized
on a township or multitownship basis. .These agencies provide technical
assistance to local planning officials primari1y relating to zoning,
comprehensive planning, and most recently, wastewater management planning
issues. The State Planning Office, serves as the A-95 clearinghouse,
and acts as the coordinator of regional planning commissions throughout
the State.
The most recently organized Vermont agency dealing with noncentral
wastewater management is the State Environmental Board. The Board and
Its nine district.commissions were established by Act 250 in 1970. The
Environmental Board's primary responsibilities are:
-176-
-------
1. To issue Act 250 permits.
2. To adopt an interim land capability and,development plan.
3. To prepare and adopt rules and regulations to carry out
Act 250 requirements.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT > '
Vermont's on-site wastewater management program can be characterized as
"confusing," "lacking comprehensiveness," and "inflexible" (as pointed
out by one Vermont 208 report). The program appears to have several
major shortcomings since the program is shared by several agencies at
both the State and local governmental levels, with 1ittle coordination
among their respective activities.
The small community systems program, with the multilot subdivision review
and 201 Facility Planning programs, has had considerable experience in
encouraging noncentral wastewater management solutions to sewage disposal
problems. With initiation of the Federal Construction Grants Program
(PL 92-500), it has been AEC policy to encourage the use of septic tanks/
drainfield systems and other noncentral systems in small communities.
The Vermont AEC, Division of Environmental Engineering, studied (in 1976)
user costs for wastewater treatment facilities in smal1 communities,,
which recommended that alternatives such as community septic tank/leach-
field systems, lagoons, and other types of land treatment systems be
considered in facility planning. This attitude toward investigating
all feasible alternatives In small community situations still prevails
in AEC construction grants program policy.
The Vermont 208 Program, along with AEC officials, the''Vermont Health
Department, the NRCD, and the State legislature, is reevaluating the
responsibilities and functions of various agencies in the noncentral
wastewater management program in an effort to overcome the shortcomings
identified. This group has recently completed a draft "Regulation of
the Subdivision of Land and Individual On-Site Treatment and Disposal
-177-
-------
Systems," which modifies some of the current State institutional
arrangements. The draft regulations contain the following significant
proposals:
1. The responsibility for promulgating regulations governing
on-site systems should be transferred from the State
Health Department to the AEC.
2. The AEC would review and approve local municipal health
ordinances governing individual on-site systems (now
done by the Health Department).
3. The AEC would set standards for on-site systems, which
municipalities can adopt as minimum regulations.
> \
4. Municipalities can (at their discretion) administer the
present State subdivision program.
5. A sewage disposal advisory committee will be established
to investigate innovative and alternative systems.
The Vermont 208 Program recommendations (currently in draft form) add
the following program changes:
1. The on-site program regulations should be rewritten in a
straightforward style.
2. The regulations should be more flexible to include alter-
native on-site systems.
3. The regulations should identify specific procedures for
design, installation, and maintenance of on-site systems.
4. The regulations should be applicable Statewide.
5. Vermont communities should adopt sewage disposal plans
prior to or during Step 1 201 Facility Plan preparation.
6. Towns need technical assistance in rural planning. This
should be coordinated with local sewage disposal planning.
7. Institutional arrangements for management of on-site
systems should be formulated.
8. A Statewide septage management strategy should be for-
mulated.
As implied by the Vermont 208 Program recommendations and the draft
regulations for on-site systems, local governments should continue to
-178-
-------
have a major role in on-site wastewater management. Therefore, the
involvement of the NRCD Program in local and State government activities
in noncentral wastewater management will likely increase in the future,
as local officials continue to utilize their professional technical
services. Initiation of the steps previously outlined should help to
overcome some of the confusing aspects of current noncentral system
legislation in Vermont.
-179-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
William Brierly, P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Public Facilities Engineering
Environmental Engineering Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Edward Leonard, P.E.
Environmental Engineering Supervisor (Design)
Public Facilities Engineering (Water Pollution Control)
Environmental Engineering Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
William Siok
Sanitary Engineer
Public Facilities Engineering (Advanced and Alternative Methods)
Environmental Engineering Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Richard Czaplinski
Chief of Water Resources Planning
Department of Water Resources
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Stephan Syz
Water Resources Planner, 208 Program
Department of Water Resources
Agency of Environmental Conservation
John Ponsetto
Assistant Secretary
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Environmental Protection Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
P. Howard Flanders
Plans Review Section
Environmental Protection Division
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Elmer L. Faris
Chief Water Resources Investigator
Investigations Section
Department of Water Resources
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Kenneth Stone
Sanitary Engineering Section
Division of Environmental Health
Agency of Human Services (Vermont Health Department)
-180-
-------
Bernard Johnson
Vermont State Planning Office
Michele Frome
Vermont Natural ResourcesCounci1
Montpelier, Vermont
Arthur Gibb
State Senator
Add!son Senatorial District
Vermont State Senate
Henry Carse
District Representative
Vermont House of Representatives
REFERENCES
Vermont Annual User Costs for Municipal
Pol1ut|orr Control Facilities,
Division of Environmental
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation,
Engineering, December 1976.
"Sewage Treatment Laws and Programs in Vermont," Michele Frome, Vermont
Natural Resources Council, 1978. .
On-Site Wastewater Disposal and Institutional.Relationships,,W?11 jam Si ok,
Vermont Agency of Environmental
Engineering, 1978.
Conservation, Division of Environmental
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Stephan Syz
Water Resources Planner
Department of Water Resources
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
-181-
-------
MINNESOTA NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Minnesota Noncentral Wastewater Management Program is motivated pri-
marily by local concern for environmental protection, especially pro-
tection of lakes which are the key to the State's recreational industry.
Maintenance of these lake environments has been recognized as an impor-
tant objective for an effective State and local program.
Noncentral wastewater management programs in Minnesota are characterized
as follows:
1. Established through the Minnesota Shoreline Management
Act by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
2. Guided by advisory Inputs (WPC-40) from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (PCA).
3. Administered' and enforced fay county and local ordinances.
4. Dependent on voluntary, loosely-structured private insti-
tutional arrangements.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
The heart of the program is the Minnesota Shoreline Management Program,
created In 1971. This program Is carried out by the counties and incor-
porated municipalities that implement land regulations (zoning ordi-
nances, subdivision regulations and sanitary codes). The program
Involves State guidance and local implementation which is an effective
solution for an area with strong local home rule Interests,
The State Shoreline Management Program reflects the importance of
Minnesota lakes. The law required each county to adopt by 1 July 1972,
a shoreline management ordinance to limit uses of private property which
are detrimental to the public interest through local planning and zoning.
-182-
-------
Although the scope of this legislation is li-mited (shoreline areas),
approximately one-third of the State's 8? counties have, at their dis-
cretion, adopted countywide ordinances for on-site systems.
In 1978, WPC-40 was developed by the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and
adopted by the PCA. These standards set minimum parameters for the
»i ,_,' - --.. . , . . - y-:- ' . -' _,
proper design, location, installation, use, and maintenance of indivi-
dual sewage treatment systems. Individual sewage treatment systems reg-
ulated include:
1. Single facilities generating more than 15,000 gallons per
day.
2. Collector systems which serve 15 dwel1 ings or 5,000 gallons
per day.
3. Facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the State of
Minnesota.
WPC-40 was piggy-backed onto the Shoreline Management Act for implement-
ing authority within shorel Ine areas jto provide specifications for all
wastewater disposal systems, including:
1. S i te eva1ua 11 on.
.2. Sewage tanks (septic tanks).
3. Distribution and dosing of effluent.
4. Final treatment and disposal.
5. Alternative systems.
A county may adopt these minimum (or more stringent), standards for appli
cation to their shoreline management areas or other outside areas.
Adoption is not required unless a county decides to modify or amend a
portion of an existing shoreline management ordinance. At such time,
WPC-40 provides a minimum standard that can be adopted.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Two State agencies have key roles in on-site wastewater management
the Department of Natural Resources, and the Pollution Control Agency.
-183-
-------
The Division of Waters (DOW) Is an operating unit of the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that administers programs regu-
lating the use of public waters and land use activities in flood plain
and shoreline areas. The major DOW program related to on-site waste-
water management is the Shoreline Management Program. Minimum develop-
ment standards for natural environment, recreational development, and
general development lakes Include:
1. Minimum lot areas.
2. Minimum lot water frontage.
3. Building setback from high water mark.
k. Building setback from roads and highways.
5. Building height limitation.
6. Maximum lot impervious surface cover.
7. Sewage system setback from ordinary high water mark.
8. Sewage system elevation above highest groundwater level or bedrock.
Regarding on-site systems, the last two standards are important. Minimum
sewage system setback Is 150 feet from a natural environment lake, 75
feet from a recreation development lake, and 50 feet from a general devel-
opment lake. On-site systems must be at least k feet above the highest
groundwater level or bedrock.
The program requires counties and municipalities to adopt.and administer
shoreline management ordinances according to the-guidelines, standards,
and criteria developed by DOW. If the county or municipality fails to
adopt an ordinance, or adopts one which falls to comply with the DOW
standards and criteria, the DNR can impose a model shoreline management
ordinance on the county or municipality. The DNR assists county and
municipal programs on a day-to-day basis through eight professionals
In six DNR regions.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) was created In 1967, and
encompasses five regional offices. The PCA addresses problems relating
to water, air, and land pollution. The Division of Water Quality (DWOj
Is an operating division of the PCA, and administers the PCA water
quality programs, such as 208 and 201 Programs.
-184-
-------
The OWQ, is concerned with establishing minimum standards for design;
location, installation, use, and maintenance of individual sewage
treatment systems (WPC-AO); reviewing facility studies which consider
on-site alternatives; and educating (with the University of Minnesota)
local officials and system Installers.
'- ' '.-.-
State and Federal funds for noncentral wastewater management are con-
trolled by the State's priority system. Following Identification of
"needs," communities are ranked on a single priority list for eligibility
of Step 1 planning grants. These grants are distributed either from
Section 201 allocations, or from k% set-aside funds according to the
potential for using conventional wastewater collection and treatment
technology or noncentral techniques.
There are 87 counties In Minnesota, most of which are rural and oriented
to farming and lake recreation. With the exception of the Metro area
(seven-county area around Minneapolis and St. Paul), county government
Is the unit of local power and authority, although municipalities have
the authority to plan and zone. Every county has adopted a shoreline
management program, and is enforcing a program to control detrimental
impacts on lakes and streams in the unincorporated municipalities. In-
corporated municipalities have the same authority, and can implement
their own programs.
Typically, a county's noncentral system management program involves
notifying residents that their on-site systems are not In conformance
with the county's shoreline management ordinance. For example, the
Pope County Planning and Zoning Office recently announced that it would
issue 1?4 notices to owners of nonconforming Individual sewage systems
(i.e., setback, elevation of wastewater system above lake level, straight
pipes to lakes, etc.). These notices (sometimes referred to as "red
tags") are specific to four priority lakes which are being emphasized
in the Polk County program.
-185-
-------
Generally, these nonconforming systems are identified by siting elevations
of the nearby lake surface (an estimate of highest groundwater level)
and the on-site system location. These elevations can be used to deter-
mine if the existing system complies with the minimum development standard
which requires a four-foot clearance between the system and high ground-
water level. Large stretches of lake-shore property are inspected in
this manner, and red tags are distributed to each owner of a nonconforming
system.
Similar approaches are used in other counties. Where individuals fail
to comply with county notices to correct pollution hazards, enforcement
by county officials may be initiated through local courts.
The University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service has an impor-
tant role in formulating some of the important program concepts and
procedures: educating the program officials, designers, installers,
and system service people; and providing a level of Intellectualism
which has been helpful in program acceptability. The University of
Minnesota works with the PCA in conducting workshops around the State.
These home sewage treatment workshops have been conducted since 1972.
In 1979, nine three-day workshops were conducted.
The workshop program is popular and provides a good vehicle for bringing
the State's on-site wastewater disposal programs to local government
and the public.
The Metropolitan Council Is an agency with responsibilities and powers
specified under the Metropolitan Reorganization Act for the seven-
county area around Minneapolis and St. Paul which contains more than 50
percent of the State's population. The Council is unusually strong
and exceeds the responsibilities of typical regional planning commissions.
-186-
-------
The Council is required to prepare policy plans related to the long-
range development of the area. Unless development programs are consis-
tent with these policy plans, they will be disapproved by the Council.
The objective is to identify areas that will be served by conventional
sewerage, and other areas that will rely on on-site systems. By proper
planning, siting, and management (utilizing WPC-40), these systems will
provide a long-term wastewater disposal solution, and will preclude
future capital outlays to extend and expand conventional systems for
these areas. "
The Metro Council provides the planning basis for developing the area.
These plans are implemented through the Metropo1itan Waste Control
Commission, which was also created under the Metropolitan Reorganization
Act.
'-'*-' ' : -
In some cases, the Metro area appears to be a testing ground for new
State policies, and helps establish programs that eventually are imple-
mented Statewide. For example, the Council has adopted WPC-40 for the
seven-county region, and w?11 require certification of on-site system
administrators, inspectors, site evaluaters, and Installers, which is
a Statewide objective of PCA.
f
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
Generally, the Minnesota On-Site Wastewater Management Program can be con-
sidered effective. The voluntary aspects of the program (i.e., adoption
of WPC-to'by counties and by the application of the Shoreline Management
Act countywide) are key factors in establishing the program. The volun-
tary approach allows the introduction of a state regulation that can be
initially perceived as authoritative by county and local governments
and local individuals, which might be defeated if introducted as mandatory
-187-
-------
State regulations. It also encourages more variation in the implementation
procedures especially in the development of very informal institutional
arrangements for solution of localized wastewater disposal problems.
Because action on the program is not mandatory, it requires individuals
who are motivated to initiate local programs, and guide their implemen-
tation. In almost every instance, an individual or a few individuals
can be identified as the reason for a successful program. Although they
are assisted by enabling legislation, regulations, and procedures, these
individuals are the major reason for the acceptance and success of a
program in local areas.
The State itself has responsibility for on-site and small community
systems overlapping the Pollution Control Agency and the Department of
Natural Resources. Because of the reluctance of the State legislature
to create a single "powerful" agency, the program is somewhat fragmented.
This structure reflects the local control interests of the people in the
State, and their interest in minimizing State powers. For this reason,
the counties remain influential in terms of regulating noncentral systems.
All counties under the Shoreline Management Act are required to adopt
a county ordinance to achieve the objectives specified by the State
legislature. This requirement has been initiated by all counties. The
willingness to enforce these county ordinances, and the degree to which
they are enforced, however, is not uniform. Even within counties, in-
corporated municipalities in some areas are dragging their feet.
The Shoreline Management Act has limited geographical jurisdiction.
Unless a county voluntarily adopts an ordinance to address the remain-
ing portions of the county, failing on-site systems outside the regu-
latory coverage of the ordinance may not be addressed. Uniformity of
program enforcement is also fragmented within a county if incorporated
municipalities decide to develop individual land use controls and zoning
ordinances.
-188-
-------
Aside from regulating on-site systems and requiring system upgrading,.
the State program provides no financial incentives for correcting
on-site systems failures, other than the apparent cost savings of
installing a community collector system and common disposal field as '
an alternative to individual systems for each residence. In addition,
the program is deficient in identifying maintenance needs and respon-
sibilities of small community systems where individual homeowners volun-
tarily establish a collective solution to their wastewater disposal
problems. Complications in such arrangements (i.e., feuds and possible
lawsuits over poorly-specified individual responsibilities, maintenance,
and repair costs) could lead to problems. Administrative guidelines
or procedures for structuring on-site and small community institutional
arrangements are necessary.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is in a position where It has to
prove Itself to county and local governments. As a result of poor coor-
dination with local government in the early stages of developing WPC-40,
the Agency has developed a reputation where local governments resist PCA
programs.
Despite the apparent drawbacks and problems with the State'programs for
noncentral wastewater management, the State appears to have recognized
its limitations and potential for implementing comprehensive programs.
It has established Statewide priorities that recognize these limitations,
while at the same time support local initiatives and needs. For example,
the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (I.e., forcing the up-
grading of existing nonconforming on-site systems) is rather unique.
Many State and local programs toward on-site management have omitted
existing systems in favor of addressing only new system,installations.
Perhaps the evolutionary nature of the political process is the major
asset of the State's approach to noncentral system management.
-189-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Michael Hansel
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Charles Frick
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Debbie Thurston
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Duane Anderson
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Paul Davis
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Michael Robinson
Department of Natural Resources
John Herringt&n
Metropolitan Council
St. Paul, Minnesota
Roger Machmeier, Ph.D.
Agricultural Extension Service
University of Minnesota
Richard Clark
Minnesota Department of Health
C.B. Schneider
Minnesota Department of Health
John Schnickel
Minnesota Department of Health
Steve RIckers
Minnesota State Planning Office
-190-
-------
KEY REFERENCES
"Home Sewage Treatment Workshop," Agricultural Extension Service, Univer-
sity of Minnesota and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Michael Hansel
Staff Engineer, Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West Country Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
-191-
-------
MARYLAND MONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
t, - " * ; - - *,.:.--.. .'i - -- ' - . r
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
In Maryland, the State's program for on-site and small community waste-
water management represents a multiagency approach. Most technical and
support activities are vested in the Environmental Health Administration
(EHA) of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH). However,
management and implementation of on-site and alternative disposal systems
programs are delegated to county governments, which have a wide range of
powers. The EHA relies on the county governments to carry out review
and permit functions for all innovative and on-s?te programs through
county health departments, public works departments, or local sanitary
districts.
At the county level, local health officers work out of county offices
solely for the benefit of county residents, but are State employees
governed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Liaison between county health departments and EHA is on an as-needed
basis. Mo direct, regular reporting process between the counties and
EHA has been established; however, EHA does have overall review authority
with regard to county actions.
At the State level, two other agencies have a role in smal1 community
wastewater management: the Water Resources Administration (WRA), and
the Maryland Environmental Service (MES). Both of these agencies are
under the direction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The
WRA has broad planning responsibilities for the State, being involved
in the administration of PL 92-500 (Sections 208 and 303e) programs.
MES is unique among State agencies. It is a corporate agency which
functions as a waste management utility. MES provides direct management
of State-owned wastewater facilities, and is authorized to provide
similar services to local governments, private businesses, and to other
state (Maryland and non-Maryland) agencies as needed.
-192-
-------
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH), through the EHA, has
developed specific guidelines concerning the construction and usage of
on-site and smal1 community systems. DHMH Regulation 10.03.27 (revised
in 1978) defines acceptable practices for on-site sewage disposal pertain-
ing to site suitability and system design.
ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY
In 1972, the Maryland Environmental Service Law created MES under the
Department of Natural Resources, and gave this nonprofit corporate ,
utility a broad range of powers for dealing with and resolving wastewater
problems. The intent of this legislation was "to provide for dependable,
effective, and efficient water supply...and disposal of 1Iquid and sol id
wastes...with safeguards to protect the autonomy of the political sub-
divisions and the rights of the private entities it serves."
Few substantive changes are currently planned concerning Maryland's
practices relative to on-slte and small community systems. The recently
completed legislative session (1978-1979), however, produced two bills which
will affect project financing using alternative systems. Both bills
(House Bills Nos. 1^97 and 1498) were enacted as amendments to existing
acts. Both acts concern state financial assistance to various "Innovative
or alternative projects."
Under this legislation, the State will provide a grant for one-half the
remaining costs of a project for which a Federal grant offer is made.
For "innovative or alternative projects," the State will fund up to
three-fourths of the remaining costs if the Federal grant Is greater
than 75 percent. Other parts of these bills will provide for State
grants up to 87-1/2 percent for a project having immediate need, but
for which timely and sufficient funds are not available. These actions
(effective 1 July 1979) will help Maryland promote the objectives of
Federal PL 95-217, as well as boost consideration of innovative projects.
-193-
-------
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
EHA Is the major State agency involved in the on-site management programs.
EHA administers the construction grant program, as well as all regulations
relating to the sanitary disposal of wastes. State policies are formulated
by EHA and implemented by the county governments. The county governments
exercise a great deal of' discretion in implementing these regulations.
The on-site wastewater management program is a descendant of the public
health program. Consequently, the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene's Environmental Health Administration manages the program with
a distinct orientation towards the protection of public health. EHA
has responsibility for administering the development of county Ten-Year
Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plans as required by the State Code.
This plan must contain the facility location, size, and characteristics
before a permit can be issued for any community system. The counties,
with input from the State, use this plan as the means for regulating
the use of innovative methods. Proposed wastewater facilities must
satisfy the requirements of county/State health department sanitary
disposal permits and be consistent with the Ten-Year Water Supply and
Sewerage Systems Plans.
EHA relies on the counties to offer an initial decision regarding
alternative system applications. This occurs through the application
for sanitary disposal permits, and Ten-Year Water Supply and Sewerage
System Plan amendments. The county Health Departments must approve and
issue a permit for any application to install sanitary facilities in
that county. This permit is reviewed by EHA. EHA rarely makes a
decision to award a permit if the county recommends that the permit be
denied. On the other hand, EHA, during its review, can choose to over-
ride an affirmative permitting action by the county if there Is doubt
about the proposed system's reliability or capability.
-194-
-------
The county Ten-Year Water Supply and Sewerage System Plan provides the
other mechanism for regulating the application of alternative systems.
No sanitary facility can be permitted in a county unless the county's
legislative body amends the plan to expressly authorize it. The EHA
has review and approval/disapproval authority with regard to the county
plans, but cannot itself amend the plan without county action. Obviously,
by these arrangements the counties greatly influence the degree to which
alternative wastewater management systems are applied. The actual
operation of public wastewater facilities is administered by county
public works departments, or local sanitary districts which may include
all, or part of a county.
Long-range planning programs, such as 208 areawide wastewater management
planning and 303e basin planning, are executed at the State level by WRA.
WRA solicits and receives EHA review of these plans. Similarly, EHA
incorporates WRA review of Ten-Year Water Supply and Sewerage Systems
Plans and construction grants priority lists. WRA Issues NPDES permits
for the State in coordination with the EHA.
The Maryland Environmental Service provides direct management of the
State-owned facilities for waste management, and is also authorized to
operate facilities for local governments when requested. The service
to local governments can extend over county boundaries, or be limited
to a portion of a county. The application of these aspects of MES1
charter has been secondary to the primary emphasis of operating all
State waste facilities. MES can issue bonds to construct necessary
waste facilities. , ,
The unique aspects of MES, as a State-sponsored organization, are note-
worthy. Although under the direction of DNR, the MES functions as a
private nonprofit corporation. MES provides Its service to a broad range
of clients on a competitive, actual cost basis. Any public agency,
private concern, or individual can utilize MES, but only through a
specific request can MES become involved in operating facilities not
owned by the State. : .
-195-
-------
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
The State of Maryland adequately provides for the regulation of individual
on-slte wastewater systems, although the enforcement of these regulations
Is delegated to the county level of government. Since this authority is
delegated to the counties, the effectiveness of this regulatory program
varies from one county to another. Most of the counties presently
administer programs effective In assuring proper on-site system applica-
tions. Nonetheless, more direct State (EHA) involvement in county
on-slte system regulatory programs would assure more uniform enforcement
of State regulations.
The counties also play a major role In determining the extent to which
on-site and alternative systems are applied in lieu of conventional,
centralized sewerage facilities in the State. Although EHA must review
and approve sanitary disposal permits and county Ten-Year Water Supply
and Sewerage System Plans, the State will generally follow the direction
of a county in approving or denying an application to install alternative
wastewater systems. Alternative systems are generally approved only when
conventional methods are clearly shown to be ineffective or too costly.
This approach Is reinforced by EHA's inherent reluctance to accept non-
proven wastewater treatment methods because of the concern for public
health. EHA requires verification of system performance, preferably by
example of similar systems in the State, before approving innovative
methods.
As a result of prevailing State and county attitudes toward on-site and
alternative systems, few such applications have been considered in facility
planning studies unless specifically requested by USEPA in relation to
Federally-funded projects. To date no large-scale alternative wastewater
systems have been approved In the State. Such alternatives, however, are
receiving more attention In current facility planning efforts. One reason
for this is related to the specific provision for considering alternative
systems In the evaluation of collector sewer proposals as stated in the
Delegation Agreement between the State of Maryland and USEPA Region HI
(dated 10 January 1979).
-196-
-------
From a systems operation standpoint, MES offers unique potent fai as a
management entity for alternative wastewater systems. Although "ft has
not actually provided such services to a co'mmun 5 ty, its charter specifi-
cally allows MES to offer these services to any local government (county
or incorporated area) or private entity, -to date, MES has not actively
pursued opportunities for operating a 1ternative systems, but is very *
much interested in becoming involved in such programs.
In order to accomplish this, it would be necessary for local communities
and/or private entities (e.g., developers, homeowner associations, etc;;}
to specifically express interest in having MES manage their wastewater
systems. It would also be necessary for MES to develop a working
relationship with individual counties to avoid any potential conflict
in service area jurisdiction. In the past, counties have inherently been
reluctant to have a State agency become involved in wastewater management,
in any form, within their jurisdictions. Nonetheless, it could easily
be demonstrated that an agency such as MES offers a service to nonsewered
areas that complements county wastewater programs, and as such does not
conflict with county jurisdiction. If MES is to become more active in
planning and operating alternative systems, they must demonstrate their
capabilities to the counties as well as to the local communities they
hope to serve.
In summary, fragmented State programs (i.e., the division of responsibili-
ties between Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, and
MES) and strong county-level programs have tended to inhibit the applica-
tion of on-site and alternative systems in place of conventional sewerage
facilities in Maryland. The State, through EHA, has the authority to
encourage alternative systems, but in the past has generally supported
the counties, which have been reluctant to accept such systems.
The MES has the authority and capability to manage on-site and alternative
systems, but has not had county support, or the interest of local communi-
ties. As a result, MES does not currently provide these services to any
community, and has no specific plans to implement such a program.
-197-
-------
The regulatory and construction grant programs of EHA and the operation
services program of MES give the State of Maryland ample authority and
capability to encourage and implement alternative approaches to wastewater
management. The predominant role of county-level programs, however,
Inhibits the implementation of such programs. To date, the State has
not fully asserted its authority and administrative capability in these
areas through either EHA or MES. Current Federal policies (under the
USEPA construction grants program), and public interest related to
alternative systems are causing both agencies to consider more assertive
programs in this area.
-198-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Harry Sandburg
Division of General Sanitation
Environmental Health Administration
Jack Holthaus, R.S.
Environmental Health Administration
Morris Hennesey
Division of General Services
Environmental Health Administration
George Forbes
Construction Grants Administrator
Environmental Health Administration
MI ke Long
Chief of Administrative Services
Maryland Environmental Service
Frank Hamons
208 Program Director
Water Resources Administration
Eric Hjertberg
Planner
Office of Environmental Planning
Montgomery County (Maryland) Planning Commission
Mike Shephard
Planner
Maryland Department of State Planning
KEY REFERENCES
"Proceedings of a Seminar on Financing and Operating Facilities for
Wastewater and Solid Wastes," Henry, Edgar, P.E., Water Development
Authority, State of West Virginia (Seminar co-sponsored fay Maryland
MES - Mr. Mike Long).
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Harry Sandburg
Division of General Sanitation
Environmental Health Administration
201 West Preston St.
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
-199-
-------
CALIFORNIA NONCENTRAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
California's approach to noncentral wastewater management involves
agencies at State, regional, county, and local governmental levels.
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) administers the
Federal sewage treatment facilities construction grants program, and
parallel State wastewater facility construction grants program. Along
with nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards), the
State Board has the primary responsibility for water quality-related
environmental protection. The Regional Boards and counties share
responsibility for regulating noncentral systems. All Regional Boards
have delegated regulatory control over individual disposal systems,
for developments of five or less units, to the counties. The counties
must have on-site disposal ordinances acceptable to the appropriate
Regional Board. The Regional Board, however, may retain jurisdiction
over any waste treatment and disposal system which may, in its judge-
ment, result in water pollution, nuisance, and/or health hazard.
In addition, several special districts have been formed throughout the
State to provide local management'of individual on-site and small
community systems. The enactment of enabling legislation (effective
1 January 1978) makes it possible for public agencies to manage on-site
wastewater systems. The legislation (SB430, the Behr Bill) enables
public agencies that manage conventional sewer systems, to form on-site
wastewater management zones for collection, treatment, and disposal of
wastewater without using conventional sewerage systems. Formation of
local community noncentral wastewater management programs in California
is a major feature of this State's approach to wastewater management.
-200-
-------
ORGAN IZATIONAL HI STORY
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, effective 1 January 1970,
completely revised the State's water pollution and water quality control
law. The Act enabled the State Water Resources Control Board to
implement water resource protection programs in a comprehensive manner.
Prior to this Act, lack of enforcement was the most frequently cited
criticism of California's water quality law. The Porter-Cologne Act
helped initiate major changes in State environmental policy and en-
forcement capability, resulting in formulation and implementation of
comprehensive regional water quality control plans (i.e., basin plans).
Under 'the Act, the State Board was to adopt broader State policy for
water quality control". This policy must be complied with by all other
government entities, including the Regional Boards. The State Board
is also responsible for developing a public education program, deter-
mining needs for research, and conducting State water quality research
programs.
Interest in on-site management in California began in the late 1960's
in response to the potential water quality problems in rapidly developing
rural areas. The Georgetown Divide Public Utility District on-site
management program at a rural recreational subdivision was one of the
first State attempts at on-site management. More recently, the Federal
Construction Grants Program, and recognition of the prohibitive costs
of conventional sewerage treatment in small communities 1ed to considera-
tion of on-site management for existing unsewered communities.
In November 1976, the State Board issued its first Clean Water Grant
Program policy statement on noncentral wastewater systems, which required:
1. Evaluation of noncentral wastewater systems and management
programs in rural facility planning.
2. State Board review and approval of any facility plan showing
high user costs for conventional sewerage approaches.
3. An "alternative systems advocate" within the grants program
to assure proper consideration of noncentral wastewater
systems in facility plans, and to identify research needs
for small flow systems.
-201-
-------
An alternative systems unit (two full-time engineers) has been
established to perform the duties specified by the State Board, and
has:
1. Compiled an extensive library on alternative systems.
2. Prepared newsletters and reports explaining State and
Federal policy toward these systems.
3. Supported demonstration projects and literature reviews
on specific alternative wastewater system technologies
(e.g., pressure and vacuum sewers, small diameter gravity
sewers, and waterless toilets).
The State's policies and alternative systems program objectives are
outlined in an action plan adopted by the Board in March 1978. The
action plan outlines the following major elements:
1. Testing and certification of alternative systems
performance, and evaluation criteria for system design.
(This activity has been postponed since local agencies
would probably not be able to fund the effort with the
financial restrictions imposed by Proposition 13.)
2. Research demonstration projects for on-site management
districts and small community systems, including the
promotion of SB430.
3. Deve 1 opment of gu_j_deji_nes_ for systems design, construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance.
4. Public information and education through the State Board's
Off i ce of Public Affa i rs. "-"
5. Po1i cy d eve1opmen t concerning research and demonstration
needs.
DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the State to regulate wastewater
discharges through the State Water Resources Control Board (State
Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards).
The Division of Water Quality which administers the California Clean
Water Gra/t Program is situated at the State's central offices and
reports to the State Board. This division maintains the State's waste-
water facility grant priority list, and helps coordinate Regional Board
-202-
-------
activities in reviewing facility plans. The'Al ternat ive Systems Unit,
also within this Division, assists in facility plan review for small
communities, and acts as an alternative systems advocate in rural
applicat ions.
The Planning and Research Division is a parallel group within the State
Water Resources Control Board. This division is currently providing
funds to partially finance the on-site management program at Stinson
Beach, and has prepared a comprehensive alternative systems guidance
manual. The Division now has a full-time engineer working on alterna-
tive systems research and demonstration projects.
The California 208 water quality management program is also administered
through the Planning and Research Division. Four 208-sponsored studies,
the Monterey Area Water Quality Management (208) Plan, the Amador County
208 Plan, the North Coastal Region 208 Plan, and the Si skiyou County 208
Plan, have directly addressed noncentral wastewater systems management.
The Monterey 208 Program developed a septic tank manual, and list of
criteria for forming an on-site management district. The North Coastal
Region 208 Plan revised various on-site disposal system design
criteria applied by counties within its jurisdiction. The Amador
County Plan conducted facility plan-type case studies for two selected
areas within the county to serve as model wastewater management
approaches for the county as a whole. The Si skiyou County Plan
addressed septage management strategies on a county level.
The State Board, through the Alternative System Unit and the Planning
and Research Division, is sponsoring several noncentral wastewater
system demonstration projects in small communities. The projects
will serve as models for low-density communities interested in alter-
native approaches to wastewater management. These projects include:
-203-
-------
1. Low pressure sewers STEP systems (Manila, Humboldt
Co.) A community of 350 residences has received 201
construction grants, and is scheduled to begin operation
in late 1979. The two-year demonstration project is
being funded by the State Board (which is financing most
of the study period operation and maintenance costs) to
obtain data on operation and maintenance practices,
costs, etc. for the STEP system.
2. On-site wastewater management district (Stinson Beach,
Mar in County) A community of 500 residences where
the State Board is financing partial operation and main-
tenance costs for the first two years of operation. (An
on-site management program for another community, Three
Rivers, is also applying for construction funds through
the 201 grants program.)
3. Overland flow (University of California, Davis) Designed
to test the results of this type of treatment alternative.
k. Vacuum sewer (Big Bear, San Bernardino County) To test
this type of collection system currently under construc-
tion, a Step III construction grant has been awarded.
5. Small diameter gfavjty sewers (Miranda, Humboldt County)
May become a demonstration project in the near future.
There are about 20 additional small community facility plans that con-
sider alternative systems, which are being reviewed by the Alternative
System Unit.
There are also many examples of various on-site management programs
that are operating in the State, primarily through local initiatives.
These communities include Santa Cruz, Kern, Mendocino, Marin, and El
Dorado Counties, which mostly administer on-site management programs
in developing areas.
The Regional Boards which are fairly autonomous, having their own
boards of directors (appointed by the governor) and staff, play an
important enforcement role in noncentral wastewater systems management.
-20k-
-------
The Boards are responsible for a wide variety of water pollution control
functions, including:
1. Formulating and adopting water qua!ity control plans.
2. Establishing waste discharge requirements consistent
with objectives of the regional water quality control
plans.
3. Enforcing waste discharge requirements.
Regional water quality control plans and other water quality control
requirements are subject to State Board review and approval.
The cease and desist order which prohibits further use of on-site
systems is a frequently-used enforcement tool of the Regional Board.
It is applied in cases where a serious pollution threat exists.
(Case study summaries for Georgetown Divide PUD and Stinson Beach
County Water District refer to such orders issued by the Regional
Boards.) A major problem in applying an on-site system prohibition
is the difficulty of accurately documenting and demonstrating the
relationship between subsurface disposal systems and surface- and
groundwater contamination. Some Regional. Boards have initiated studies
of "cumulative impact" for county and subcounty areas to determine the
carrying capacity of soils to accept effluent from subsurface systems,
and to recommend lot-sizing guidelines for future development. The
cumulative impact studies are also being used to identify feasible
treatment methods in water quality problem areas.
Each Regional Board must review and approve on-site disposal ordinances
for counties within its jurisdiction. The regional basin plan specifies
minimum requirements for design of individual systems with which counties
must comply. These requirements vary among the Regional Boards, as wel1
as among counties within a particular region. A survey of county health
-205-
-------
departments conducted in February 1977, Indicated that of 55 county
health departments contacted, seven counties followed the Uniform
Plumbing Code; 18 followed the Plumbing Code with their own modifica-
tions; 29 counties followed a mixture of the Plumbing Code, the U.S.
Public Health Service Manual of Septic Tank Practice^ and their own
modifications; and one county followed the manual and its own modifica-
tions. The variation in design requirements among counties and regions
reflects the State policy of establishing regulations according to unique
local conditions.
Local county health departments work with the State Health Department
on some matters concerning on-site disposal. The State Health Department
acts in an advisory capacity to those counties having a health de-
partment (*»6 out of California's 58 counties). For the 12 counties
without health departments (rural counties with relatively low popula-
tions), the counties contract with the State Health Department to im-
plement county-adopted on-site disposal ordinances. Ten State district
health offices have environmental health units which provide technical
support to counties on request or by contract.
In conjunction with county health department and Regional Board in-
volvement in on-site systems regulation, the State Coastal Zone
Commission has permit review and approval authority over construction
of systems within the coastal zone. The Coastal Zone Commission staff
works closely with county health departments in conducting these re-
views. The Commission is also involved in mapping and identifying
sensitive areas within the coastal zone, and has authority to revoke
locally-approved permits if water quality problems result due to
placement and operation of on-site disposal systems. The Office of
Appropriate Technology (OAT) and Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) are also involved in California's noncentral manage-
ment program. OAT was established in 1976 by State Executive Order,
-206-
-------
and is located in the Planning and Research D'ivision of the Governor's
office. OAT is charged to "assist and advise the Governor and all State
agencies in developing and implementing less costly and less energy-
intensive technologies." OAT was responsible for preparing reports on
wastewater disposal alternatives, and was instrumental in encouraging
the State Board to look more closely at alternative wastewater systems.
OAT is currently involved in a demonstration-research project with the
SWRCB, State Health Department, and EPA on performance and health effects
of alternative on-site systems (including waterless toilets).
The State HCD writes and administers State housing codes which address
sanitary facilities (i.e., alternative rural sanitation systems) in
rural construction.
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT '
California became involved in noncentral management long before many
other states, prompted by a combination of complex issues, including:
1. The environmental movement of the past decade.
2. Increasing costs of conventional sewerage projects.
3. The prohibitive costs of central sewer systems in small
communities.
4. Limited financial resources of local governments (Proposition
13).
5. Concern over the drinking water supply (i.e., the threat of
groundwater contamination).
6. The initiative and performance of on-site wastewater
management programs in several communities within the
State.
-207-
-------
The Impetus behind the State's involvement was complex, but serves
as an excellent example of the administrative needs, legal and fi-
nancial requirements, and research efforts necessary to implement
noncentral wastewater management programs at State and local levels.
Creation of the Alternative Systems Unit by the State Board and for-
mation of on-site management programs (through local efforts) in rural
subdivisions a decade before, were probably the key factors in California's
active involvement in this program. It is important to note that this
program requires the full-time efforts of two people in the Alternative
Systems Unit. Most of their efforts are devoted to working with local
communities and their engineers to acquaint them with the benefits to
be gained by applying alternative systems. By requiring a special
review of any facility plan projecting user costs greater than $150 per
year, the SWRCB at least insures that the communities are made aware
of more cost-effective alternatives. Nonetheless, many times communities
refuse lower cost alternatives in favor of conventional methods with
which they are more familiar.
The research and demonstration programs being sponsored through SWRCB,
OAT, and various other State institutions contribute greatly to the
gradually-spreading acceptance of noncentral wastewater treatment methods
throughout the State (and nation). The State's initiative in research
and demonstration has put the State in a much better position to administer
regulatory programs affecting alternative systems (e.g., construction
grants program). The fact that the State legislature passed specific
enabling legislation, providing for the management of such systems,
illustrates how the State has responded to implementation needs identified
through research and demonstration efforts.
-208-
-------
As a result of initiatives by various State agencies, particularly
SWRCB and OAT, many new wastewater management ideas and concepts are
being tested, and actually implemented in California. Thus, California
appears to represent one of the most progressive State programs for
alternative systems.
-209-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gil Wheeler
Water Resources Engineer
Division of Water Quality
Alternative Systems Unit
California State Water Resources Control Board
Jim Bennett
Water Resources Control Engineer
Division of Water Quality
Alternative Systems Unit
California State Water Resources Control Board
Alan T. Ingham, P.E.
Water Resources Control Engineer
Division of Planning and Research
California State Water Resources Control Board
Malcolm Walker
Water and Wastewater Specialist
Office of Appropriate Technology
California State Office of Planning and Research
L. Wade Rose
Deputy Assistant for
California Office of
Issues and Planning
the Governor
Jim Giannopolous
208 Program Di rector
Division of Planning and Research
California State Water Resources Control Board
Adam W. Olivieri
Sanitary Engineer
California Regional Water Quality Control
San Francisco Bay Region
Karol M. Enferadi
Sanitary Engineer
Sanitary Engineering Section
California Department of Health Services
Doug Catey, P.E.
Water Quality Engineer
Association of Bay Area Governments
Monterey, California
Board
-210-
-------
Ray Talley, R.S.
Environmental Health Director
Santa Cruz County Health Director
L. Robinson
Uti 1ity Manager
Bolinas Community Public Utility District
Bo Unas, California
REFERENCES
"On-Site Wastewater Management Districts in California," Wheeler,
GiJ, and Bennett, Jim, Division of Water Quality, Alternative Systems
Unit, California State Water Resources Control Board. Presented at
Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems Workshop, Champaign, Illinois
June 1979.
Rural Wastewater Disposal Alternatives. Final Report - Phase I, California
Office of Appropriate Technology, September 1977.
PRINCIPAL CONTACT
Gil Wheeler
Water Resources Engineer
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, California 95801
-211-
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 -657-146/5604 .
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |