&EFA
Septic Systems and
Ground-Water Protection
A Program Manager's Guide
and Reference Book
-------
Septic Systems and Ground-Water Protection
A Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Off ice of Water
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Washington, D.C.
July 1986
-------
ABSTRACT
The USEPA's Office of Groind-Water Protection has recently developed a publication for
local government officials thj
it addresses the problem of ground-water contamination caused
by many of the over 22 miHon commercial and residential septic systems in this country.
EPA has found that septic systems are a major contributor to ground-water contamination,
and the Agency believes that strengthening local control programs is the best way of
preventing future contamination. EPA's "Septic Systems and Ground-Water Protection: A
Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book" was written to assist local government
officials and their technical £taffs. The Reference Book describes the potential hazards to
public health and ground-rwater supplies from the improper use of malfunctioning,
improperly maintained, or pporly sited septic systems, and offers ideas for improving septic
system management programs.
A more brief overview document, entitled "Septic Systems and Ground-Water Protection:
An Executive's Guide" also is available. It provides a quick description of the relationship
between septic system use and ground-water contamination, and conveys the main points
discussed in the "Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book":
I
• Septic systems are Jan effective, low-cost alternative for domestic waste
management if properly sited, designed, installed and maintained;
• Individual property conditions have a substantial effect on septic system
performance;
• Integrating recent technological scientific developments and flexibility into
existing regulations is necessary to improve septic system control programs;
• Developing public education programs to encourage property owners and
contractors to be active participants will improve waste management
practices;
• Using water conservation techniques will improve system performance and
extend system life;
• Strong provisions for septic system operation and maintenance, proper
septage disposal, and enforcement techniques are important aspects of
comprehensive control programs; and
• Controlling the use of septic tank cleaning solutions and commercial and
industrial uses of septic systems is necessary to protect against ground-water
contamination.
The "Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book" contains detailed and technical
information concerning septic system management and control and provides program options
and regulatory language from existing septic system management programs.
The documents are available from the Government Printing Office. To obtain the
"Executive's Guide", request GPO Document No. 055-000-00257-6. To obtain the
"Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book", request GPO Document No.
055-000-00256-8.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) by ICF Incorporated. Mr. Lee Braem of OGWP served
as the Task Manager for this project. Ms. Marian Mlay, Director of OGWP, provided
additional guidance.
The approaches and recommendations described in this document reflect the views of a
Technical Panel on Septic System Management that was organized under the auspices of the
Office of Ground-Water Protection. The views of the Technical Panel do not necessarily
represent EPA policy. The Technical Panel included the following members:
William Boyle
Jerry Canfield
Frank Gargiulo
Carol Kocheisen
Jim Kreissl
Nancy Kuhn
Terry Langan
Jay Lehr
Ted Loudon
Ken Lustig
Michael Luzier
Randy May
Joseph McDade
Carl Myers
Elissa Parker
Marie Perez
David Rickert
Frank Sagona
Dick Scalf
Velma Smith
Mark Sobsey
Edith Tanenbaum
Bill Tenison
Mike Thomas
Carol Wood
Lloyd Woosley
Marylynn Yates
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Palm Beach County Health Department
National League of Cities
EPA Municipal Engineering Research Laboratory
Garden Club of America
Indian Health Service
National Water Well Association
Michigan State University
Idaho Panhandle Health District
National Association of Home Builders
Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection
Dow Chemical
EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Environmental Law Institute
EPA Office of Municipal Pollution Control
U.S. Geological Survey
Tennessee Valley Authority
EPA Office of Research and
Development, Kerr Lab
Environmental Policy Institute
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Long Island Regional Planning Board
National Association of Home Builders
EPA Office of Toxic Substances
EPA Region I, OGWP
EPA Region IV, OGWP
EPA Office of Research and
Development, Kerr Lab
The ICF Incorporated staff who were principally involved in drafting this document included:
Paul Bailey, Jan Edwards, and Bill Ward
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY
PROGRAMS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS 3
3. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OPTIONS 7
3.1 Requiring Site and Soil Evaluations 8
3.1.1 Regional Evaluations 10
3.1.2 Comprehensive Site-Specific Evaluations 13
3.1.3 Limited Site-Specific Evaluations 15
3.2 Making Regulatory Programs More Comprehensive 17
3.2.1 Accommodating Variations in Site Characteristics 19
3.2.2 Allowing Innovative and Alternative Technologies 23
3.3 Educational Programs 29
3.4 Promoting Water Conservation 34
3.5 Assuring Proper Operation and Maintenance 37
3.6 Controlling Septage Disposal 41
3.7 Keeping Hazardous Cleaning Solvents and Other
Dangerous Chemicals Out of Septic Systems 44
3.8 Managing Commercial, Industrial, and Large
Residential Systems 47
3.8.1 Commercial and Industrial Systems , 47
3.8.2 Large Residential Systems 50
3.9 Strengthening Compliance and Enforcement Programs 53
4. TECHNICAL INFORMATION 59
4.1 Comprehensive Technical Documents 59
4.2 References Pertaining to Specific Topics 61
4.2.1 Overview of Regulatory Programs 61
4.2.2 Requiring Site Evaluations 61
4.2.3 Making Regulatory Programs More Comprehensive 62
4.2.4 Allowing Innovative and Alternative Technologies 63
-------
4.2.5 Educational Programs: For General Audiences 65
4.2.6 Educational Programs: For Technical Audiences ......... 66
4.2.7 Promoting Water Conservation 66
4.2.8 Assuring Proper Operation and Maintenance 67
4.2.9 Controlling Septage Disposal 68
4.2.10 Banning Hazardous Cleaning Solvents 68
4.2.11 Managing Commercial, Industrial, and Large
Residential Systems 69
4.2.12 Strengthening Compliance and Enforcement Programs .... 70
4.3 Other Information Sources 71
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS A-l
APPENDIX B: REPRESENTATIVE REGULATORY LANGUAGE ..... B-l
IV
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Septic systems1 have long been an effective means of on-site domestic waste treatment and
disposal when designed, sited, installed, operated, and maintained properly. There are ap-
proximately 22 million septic systems operating in the United States today and more are
installed every year. Together, they introduce about one trillion gallons of effluent to the
environment every year. Under the appropriate environmental circumstances, and with
proper management, they provide a safe and effective means for domestic waste disposal,
especially in areas of low housing density, where public sewer systems are not available or
feasible. Without proper management, however, septic systems can contribute to ground-
water pollution and threaten private and public drinking water sources.
As the number of operating septic systems has grown and our ability to detect contamination
has improved, incidents of ground-water and drinking water contamination that can be
traced to septic systems have become increasingly common. Illnesses associated with drink-
ing ground water contaminated by untreated septic system effluent include gastroenteritis,
typhoid, and hepatitis. In addition, some effluent also may contain toxic and/or carcinogenic
chemicals. Site discovery activities under EPA's Superfund program have identified many
sites at which septic tanks containing toxic industrial or commercial waste are substantially
contributing to ground-water contamination. For example, contamination of the ground-
water supply for the Lakewood District near Bonder's Corner, Washington, was in part the
result of disposal of cleaning solvents in a septic system by a local dry cleaning establishment.
State and local government officials, therefore, are realizing that past efforts to regulate
septic systems have often proven to be inadequate. As a result, many are now considering or
actively taking steps to improve septic system management programs at the state, regional,
and local levels.
This document is designed to provide officials responsible for developing state or local codes
with information concerning effective septic system management. The following chapters
provide ideas, alternatives, and real-world examples for modifying existing codes or writing
new codes to address the most important issues affecting current state and local septic system
regulations.
This document will not serve as a "cookbook" for designing a septic system regulatory pro-
gram, nor does it restate the large body of technical information on septic systems that has
already been published. Several states and professional organizations have produced model
codes and ordinances. Unfortunately, many local governments have adopted the model
language without gaining an accompanying appreciation for the rationale behind the code
provisions and their potential inapplicability to local conditions. The result is inadequate
regulation.
This publication takes a different approach: We seek to give the reader a better understand-
ing of the workable options for managing septic systems. By providing a comprehensive
discussion concerning the design and implementation of a septic system management pro-
gram, the reasons for including certain regulatory requirements or non-regulatory incentives
should become clear to the reader.
1 Throughout this document, we refer to on-site waste water treatment systems as septic systems. ,Our use of
this term is intended to encompass conventional septic systems that consist of a tank and a soil absorption or
drain field, less conventional designs that are variations on the traditional system (such as mound systems),
and other alternatives (aerobic treatment systems, or waterless toilets, for example).
Page 1
-------
The approaches discussed in this document are based largely on recommendations provided
by a panel of nationally recognized experts; federal, state, and local government officials;
and special interest representatives. The members of this panel identified the critical prob-
lem areas encountered in septic system management and recommended approaches for im-
proving management programs. Their recommendations are not necessarily EPA policy.
The companion volume to this publication, "Septic Systems and Ground-Water Protection:
An Executive's Guide" provides a general overview of the need for septic system regulation
and an introduction to some of the improvements that can be made in septic system manage-
ment. The "Executive's Guide" is intended for mayors, county executives, and state officials
who have an interest in or executive responsibility for septic system management and
ground-water protection. This document, the "Program Manager's Guide and Reference
Book," presents a more in-depth discussion of management and control options. The dis-
cussion is organized into four chapters with two appendices.
Chapter 2 offers a brief overview of management and control programs for septic systems.
We identify and describe the basic components of septic system management. We also
discuss alternative approaches for modifying existing codes.
Chapter 3 outlines specific approaches for modifying management and control programs to
help protect ground water. These approaches address the following nine critical problems
affecting septic system programs:
1) Failure to adequately consider site-specific environmental conditions;
2) Codes that resist adaptation to local hydrogeologic conditions and are un-
able to accommodate effective innovative and alternative technologies;
3) Ineffective or non-existent education programs;
4) Failure to promote water conservation;
5) Ineffective controls on operation and maintenance of septic systems;
6) Lack of control over septage disposal;
7) Lack of control over the use of septic system cleaning solvents;
8) Failure to consider the special characteristics and requirements of commer-
cial, industrial, and large residential systems; and
9) Weak compliance and enforcement programs.
For each, we discuss resource requirements and practical implementation concerns. We also
present general perspectives on the benefits that can reasonably be expected from imple-
menting the different management and control options. Representative regulatory language
is either supplied or provided by reference.
Chapter 4 contains a listing of comprehensive general references and other sources of tech-
nical information on septic systems.
Appendix A provides a glossary of technical terms as well as references containing further
information concerning each of the nine issues addressed in Chapter 3.
Appendix B contains excerpts from several state codes that illustrate workable septic system
management programs.
Page 2
-------
2. OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS
There is no single approach to septic system regulation that will ensure protection of public
health and the environment in all circumstances. The type of program chosen by individual
governments depends upon local circumstances and traditional levels of regulatory authority.
However, there are several program components that should be considered if a septic system
management program is to be effective.
First, the jurisdiction and level of regulatory authority should be considered. For example,
should responsibility for implementing or developing septic system programs be focused at
the state or local level? If at the local level, are there any state requirements that override or
influence local codes?
Once the appropriate jurisdiction is established, it is important to consider the types of man-
agement tools that might be used. These can range from strict site inspection and mainte-
nance requirements to licensing the contractors who install and service septic systems. This
document describes the many program options that can be used. Finally, it is important to
consider the role that community involvement and public education can play in improving
septic system maintenance.
Effective management programs combine strong technical guidelines governing siting, design,
operation, and maintenance, with evaluation and implementation procedures that accommo-
date differing site conditions. Some states have also begun using performance standards or
allowable waste effluent concentrations to guide the choice and assessment of appropriate
treatment technologies for individual sites.
An effective regulatory program should establish procedures for ensuring compliance. Com-
pliance is typically addressed in a variety of ways from permitting and inspections to technical
training programs. Most jurisdictions use a combination of approaches. Effective permitting
programs require detailed permit application reviews and individual site inspections. At a
minimum, most areas require the granting of a construction permit prior to septic system
installation. The professionals involved in the siting, design, installation, and maintenance of
septic systems should be licensed to ensure their technical competence. Some jurisdictions
also issue operating permits and ground-water discharge permits to further manage system
operation and maintenance. Financial incentives also aid compliance and may vary from
small fines for poor system maintenance to preventing the sale of a house if its septic system
is not functioning properly.
The State of Maryland has recently enacted revised regulations for septic system
management. Many aspects of the new program have grown out of the experiences
of state and local government officials and their desire to assure that individual
decisions concerning septic system siting, design, and installation are made on the
basis of complete information and sound technical judgment. The new Maryland
program is comprehensive in scope and, in many respects, includes the concepts
advocated in this document. Exhibit 1 presents an outline of a comprehensive
code, which is based in part on the new Maryland State code; it can be used as a
generic "check list" by those developing new or improved programs.
Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT 1
SAMPLE REGULATORY CODE PROVISIONS AND ORGANIZATION
I. Introduction
A. Purpose and Authority
B. Jurisdiction and Policy
C. Definitions
II. General Standards, Requirements, and Procedures
A. Availability of Sewer Hook-Up
B. On-Site System Construction Permit
C. Permit Application Content
1. Site evaluation
a. Topography, geology, and hydrology
b. Soil borings, classification, and percolation tests
c. Drainage
d. Depth to ground water
2. Location
a. Site plans
b. Separation distances
c. Lot size
3. On-site system design
D. Permit Review and Approval/Denial
E. Appeal Procedures
F. Fees
G. Pre-Cover Inspections/Certificate of Completion
III. Conventional On-Site Septic System Design and Construction
A. Hook-Up to Home
B. Grease Traps
C. Septic Tank Size and Design Criteria/Materials
D. Absorption Area Size and Design Criteria/Materials
IV. Innovative and Alternative Systems
A. Limitations on Siting and Use
B. Types of Systems
C. Design and Construction Criteria
D. Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements
E. Experimental Systems
Page 4
-------
EXHIBIT 1 (Continued)
SAMPLE REGULATORY CODE PROVISIONS AND ORGANIZATION
V. Large Residential/Cluster Systems
A. Limitations on Siting and Use
B. Construction and Design Criteria
VI. Commercial and Industrial Systems
A. Limitations on Waste Types, Siting, and Use
B. Construction and Design Criteria
C. Monitoring Requirements
VII. Operation and Maintenance
A. Permissible Waste Types
B. Owner Inspection and Repair Responsibilities
C. Ban on Use of Septic System Cleaning Solvents
D. Regular Septic Tank Pumping
E. Procedures for Alteration or Repair of Systems
F. Procedures for Abandonment of Systems
VIII. Compliance and Enforcement
A. Permits
1. Construction
2. Operation
3. Septage Disposal
B. Licensing
1. Site Evaluators
2. System Designers
3. Installation Contractors
4. Septage Pumpers
C. Inspections
1. Pre-Cover
2. Operation
3. Pre-Sale
D. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
E. Penalties and Fines
IX. Special Provisions
A. Protection of Sensitive Recharge Areas
B. Set-Backs on Riparian Lots
C. Water Conservation
Page 5
-------
A state or local official responsible for developing a new septic system management program
may choose to scrap the existing code or to draft a new one. Starting from scratch creates an
opportunity to take a new approach to controlling on-site wastewater management. In many
areas, however, such a drastic step may not be necessary. Existing codes generally have
evolved over time to control perceived problems in the community and protect public health.
Therefore, the basic framework for most codes probably is sound. By modifying only se-
lected aspects of the existing sanitary code, specific problems can be corrected and the need
for ground-water protection can be addressed.
Whether a government chooses to draft an entirely new septic system code or to revise por-
tions of an existing program, the changes should be made as part of a community-wide land-
use and ground-water protection plan. Such a plan may rely upon public health, environ-
mental protection, and zoning authorities to regulate septic systems. For example, zoning
and minimum lot size requirements control septic system density, and special limits on septic
system design and placement can be used to protect sensitive ground-water recharge zones,
surface water bodies, or existing wells. Land-use controls may be needed to protect sensitive
land that could be opened for development if non-conventional systems are approved for
those sites. Most importantly, community-wide plans should account for all potential
sources of ground-water pollution and ground-water recharge; they should also consider all
present and projected water needs. Septic system management is just one part of this impor-
tant, comprehensive plan.
The planning process should use
• general regulatory authority,
• the sanitary code,
• zoning, and
• land-use controls
to limit ground-water degradation from septic systems and from other sources. Officials
should take into account local environmental conditions and current septic system use when
developing strategies for modifying existing codes. In addition, the planning process should
acknowledge that septic systems are an effective means of waste disposal when sited, de-
signed, installed, maintained, and operated properly, and that the systems can provide bene-
fits such as ground-water recharge in addition to domestic wastewater treatment and dis-
posal.
Page 6
-------
3. MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OPTIONS
Just as septic system performance depends upon many site-specific and user-related charac-
teristics, the elements of a successful septic system management and control program vary
depending upon many local factors. Programs that are successful in one region of the coun-
try may be inappropriate in others due to differences in economic constraints, the character-
istics and use of ground-water resources and other environmental factors, and community or
state ground-water protection objectives and concerns. Certain components of septic system
management programs, such as enforcement programs and septage disposal requirements,
have nearly universal applicability. Other components, such as educational programs and
water conservation efforts, may be of greater concern to some communities than to others.
This chapter has been designed to take into account the variety of community needs and
concerns related to septic system management. In the following sections, we examine nine
important aspects of septic system management and control programs to protect ground
water:
1) Site evaluations;
2) Making codes more comprehensive so that they account for a variety of
hydrogeologic conditions and accommodate innovative and alternative on-
site system designs;
3) Education and public outreach programs;
4) Water conservation programs;
5) Controls on operation and maintenance;
6) Controls on septage disposal;
7) Controls on the use of septic system cleaning solvents and other hazardous
chemicals that may be discharged to septic systems;
8) Special provisions for commercial, industrial, and large residential septic
systems; and
9) Compliance and enforcement programs.
For each, we provide information that will be useful to government officials who may need to
evaluate state regulations or local codes and consider options for improving existing septic
system management programs. Each section in this chapter addresses one of the nine as-
pects of management programs by discussing key issues, providing examples taken from ex-
isting codes and regulations that exemplify the range of possible control or management
practices, and by outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches.
We, therefore, take a "modular approach" to examining septic system management and
control programs. Information in this chapter can be applied to improve specific aspects of
existing programs or to develop the components of a new program. Chapter 4 provides
sources for further information on each of the program components discussed in this chap-
ter.
Page 7
-------
3.1 Requiring Site and Soil Evaluations
Septic systems are designed to work best under a specified set of environmental conditions
and may not function properly under other conditions. More specifically, because conven-
tional septic systems depend on the soil for wastewater treatment and disposal, consideration
of soil and site conditions is critical to designing and siting an effective septic system.
Ground-water contamination occurs when the hazardous constituents in septic system efflu-
ent enter the ground water without being adequately treated or retained by the soil. This
may be caused by soil or geologic characteristics such as highly permeable gravel layers,
creviced limestone, clay layers with major macropores caused by shrinking and swelling, or
other formations that allow partially treated effluent to bypass soil layers and enter the
ground water.
When designing and siting an on-site waste treatment and disposal system, two essential
pieces of information are needed:
1) the characteristics of the waste to be disposed, and
2) the soil and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site where the system will be
installed.
These factors work together to determine the choice of an appropriate septic system design.
Assessing the characteristics of the waste flow is straightforward. The type of structure con-
nected to the septic system (e.g., residential or commercial) and the number of individuals
using the system (e.g., number of family members or number of customers) will dictate the
anticipated waste constituents and volume. Evaluating the characteristics of the site of instal-
lation is a more complex process, typically involving some type of site and soil evaluation.
This section outlines a recommended approach for organizing and conducting these site and
soil evaluations to ensure that septic systems will operate properly and prevent ground-water
contamination.
Effective septic system management programs generally mandate the collection of informa-
tion to support site evaluations in two basic steps. First, state or county planning agencies
collect regional information, such as soil surveys, ground-water logs, and topographic maps,
to characterize those areas that are or are not suited for the installation of septic systems.
This regional information can guide region-wide planning and direct development toward
those areas that are best suited for the use of septic systems. Such regional evaluations also
provide valuable data to guide the initial choice of an appropriate septic system design for a
particular lot or parcel. Sound management programs do not stop there, however. Effective
programs require a further site-specific evaluation involving field measurements to guide the
final siting, design, and installation of the septic system. This site-specific information is
critical to the proper design of an individual septic system.
This section outlines the basic approaches that should be taken when conducting site evalu-
ations.2 The specific approach chosen by a given region will depend on the soil and
hydrogeologic conditions of that area. Several examples are provided to illustrate how site
evaluations are organized in different parts of the country. The discussion emphasizes that
regional evaluations are appropriate for planning and guiding an initial choice of a septic
system design for a site, while site-specific field measurements are needed to evaluate indi-
vidual septic system installations. Regional, comprehensive site-specific, and limited site-
specific evaluations are described in Exhibit 2.
2 This approach is discussed further in the "U.S. EPA On-Site Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Man-
ual." A reference to the manual is provided in Chapter 4.
Page 8
-------
EXHIBIT 2
HYDROGEOLOGIC EVALUATION PROGRAM
APPROACH
RELEVANT
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
RELATIVE
ADVANTAGES
RELATIVE
DISADVANTAGES
1. REGIONAL EVALUATION:
Set installation specifications
and design criteria based on
a region-wide evaluation of
hydrogeologic characteristics
that identifies zones where
particular systems will or
will not be allowed due to
site characterizations.
Region-wide review and evaluation of
hydrogeologic characteristics that
affect septic system performance.
Analysis of regional hydrogeologic
data to establish zones based on
soil types, topography, hydrology,
and/or other characteristics.
Guidelines establishing allowable
septic system designs for the
different zones.
Costs of data collection and
interpretation are incurred once,
at the time of program inception.
This option also preserves the
concept of linking system designs
to site characteristics. Useful for
initial regional planning.
Regional hydrogeologic evaluation
and guidelines development can be
costly. Establishing zones will require
making assumptions and
generalizations, reducing the overall
degree of confidence that individual
systems will perform well over the
long term. Must be supplemented
with a site-specific evaluation.
I
2. COMPREHENSIVE SITE-
SPECIFIC EVALUATION:
Require site-specific evaluation
of all hydrogeologic
characteristics that influence
septic system performance.
Technical guidelines for conducting
site evaluations and making field
measurements.
Training and/or certification
program for site evaluators.
Procedures for review and evaluation
of site information.
Technical guidelines for selecting
system designs and installation
specifications based on site
information.
Procedures for review/inspection of
system designs and installations
to assure that guidelines have been
followed.
Provides the greatest assurance
that septic system designs and
installations make the best possible
use of site characteristics. Cost of
training and certification program
is easily recovered through fees.
The most resource-intensive option:
property owners must bear the cost
of site evaluations; state or
community must fund guidelines
development and review process.
3. LIMITED SITE-
SPECIFIC EVALUATION:
Require a limited site
evaluation that involves collecting
data on a few of the most
important characteristics (e.g.,
soil properties, site dimensions,
topography, depth to water table).
Technical guidelines for conducting
site evaluations and making field
measurements.
Procedures for review and evaluation
of site information.
Technical guidelines for selecting
system designs and installation
specifications based on site
information.
Procedures for review/inspection of
system designs and installations to
assure the guidelines have been
followed.
Costs are relatively small. May
be used when resources do not allow
Approach 2. This option preserves
the concept of linking system designs
to site characteristics without the
expense of a detailed site evaluation
by a trained and certified engineer
or scientist. Review requirements
are also less detailed than for
Approach 2.
Reduced site-specific information
limits the designer's ability to take
advantage of site characteristics
and may lead to somewhat lower
degree of confidence in long-term
system performance.
-------
3.1.1 Regional Evaluations
Regional evaluations of environmental characteristics are conducted by a wide variety of
federal, state, and local health agencies, environmental agencies, and land-use planning
authorities throughout the country. These evaluations are used to support a variety of plan-
ning decisions, including septic system management. The data collected can be used to
assess the conditions of a given area to determine its overall suitability for waste treatment
and disposal by septic systems. This information should be used for general septic system
management and planning purposes.
Regional evaluations generally rely on readily available, existing information, such as local
annual rainfall, topography, and the location of ground and surface waters. Soil Conserva-
tion Service district offices and local agricultural extension services are good sources of soil
survey reports and other useful data. Because soil survey maps are based on units much
larger than the area of a typical soil absorption field, any extrapolation from a soil survey
report to a specific site should be made with caution. In all cases, the validity of such
extrapolation should be confirmed with field observation.
An example of a regional evaluation is outlined in the wastewater management
plan for the Cedar Creek Reservoir area developed by the Tennessee Valley Author-
ity (TVA) to prevent potential water quality degradation resulting from failing sep-
tic systems. The plan provides a tool for screening potential residential develop-
ment sites with regard to soil suitability for conventional septic systems.
TVA developed maps on two scales summarizing soil suitability to provide a rapid and
straightforward assessment of proposed development sites. The features of interest include:
• Depth of nonclay soil;
• Depth to water table;
• Soil percolation rate; and
• Flooding frequency.
Soil descriptions and properties were interpreted by a soil scientist and classified into one of
four suitability categories for on-site septic systems. The smaller-scale TVA maps delineate
these four categories. The larger-scale TVA map delineates seven suitability categories re-
flecting better resolution of restrictive soil and/or site limitations. The large-scale map is
intended for use as a working document by health department personnel. The soil ranges
used to interpret and categorize the physical soil properties are presented in Exhibits 3 and 4.
For a more detailed discussion of the soil ranges and of the methodology used in this analy-
sis, refer to the TVA booklet listed in Chapter 4.
TVA notes that within any given cell on the suitability maps, isolated areas may contain site
and soil characteristics that are not representative of the cell as a whole. Therefore, a field
evaluation is still recommended prior to final septic system design selection and installation to
verify on-site soil conditions.
Page 10
-------
EXHIBIT 3
RANGES OF SOIL PROPERTIES USED FOR SOIL INTERPRETATIONS
FOR CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR, ALABAMA
SOIL
DEPTH
DEPTH TO OF NONCLAY
M
o
•8
*•»*
k*.
SUITABILITY
CATEGORY
Suitable a
Preferred
Modified
Alternative - Level 1*
Alternative - Level 2
Unsuitable
BEDROCK
(Inches)
60
40
40
20
<20
SOIL
(Inches)
_
-
20-30
12-20
<12
PERCOLATION
RATE
(Minutes/Inch)
60
60
120
120
Slower than 120
DEPTH TO
WATER
TABLE
(Inches)
60
48
20
20
<20
SLOPE %
<25
<25
<25
<25
>25
FLOODING
FREQUENCY
None to rare
None to rare
None to occasional
None to rare
Frequent
a Interpretations for this suitability category include Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) regulation limits
(preferred) and limits which are often allowed (modified).
* TVA categorized soils suitable for alternative systems into two levels to reflect the severity of various soils or site
limitations. Generally, soils categorized as Alternative - Level 1 should require less system modification for sewage disposal
than would Level 2 soils.
Source: Adapted from TVA, 1985. Conceptual Onsite Wastewater Management Plan for Residential Developments
Along Cedar Creek Reservoir.
-------
EXHIBIT 4
RANGES OF SOIL PROPERTIES USED TO CATEGORIZE ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
SUITABILITY FOR CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR, ALABAMA
SOIL
DEPTH TO
SUITABILITY GENERAL DESCRIPTION BEDROCK
CATEGORY OF SOIL OR PROBLEM (Inches)
Suitable «
Alternative - Level \b
Alternative - Level 2
Alternative - Level 3
1
^ Alternative - Level 4
Alternative - Level 5C
Unsuitable
Deep, well-drained 40
Fairly permeable, 40
Fragipan soils
Flooding or high water 40
table
Slow permeability, clayey 40
subsoils
Shallow soils 20
Cuthbert and Ruston soil
mapping units
One or more severe soil <20
DEPTH DEPTH TO
OF NONCLAY PERCOLATION WATER
SOIL RATE TABLE SLOPE % FLOODING
(Inches) (Minutes/Inch) (Inches) FREQUENCY
60 48 <25 None or rare
20-30 60-75 24-36 <25 None or rare
60 18 <3 Occasional
60-120 48 <25 None
12-20 60-120 20-48
-------
3.1.2 Comprehensive Site-Specific Evaluations
While regional evaluations are useful for planning purposes and help guide the initial selec-
tion of a septic system design that is appropriate for a site, the data contained in these
regional evaluations generally are not of sufficient detail to support the assessment of a spe-
cific septic system installation. Therefore, additional site-specific information concerning
soil and hydrogeological characteristics is needed.
By first reviewing the existing data from a regional evaluation, assessors can gain a funda-
mental understanding of the site and focus their assessment on the parameters that may have
the greatest influence on the performance of the septic system. Once a review of existing
data is complete, a site evaluation should be conducted to (1) update and confirm the exist-
ing data, and (2) fill in any deficiencies and necessary details. Some questions that should
be addressed by a detailed site evaluation include:
• How will water behave upon entering the soil?
• What are the saturated (and unsaturated) hydraulic conductivities of the
various soil strata?
• Will the soil attenuate the transport of nutrients (phosphates and nitrates),
metals, pathogens, and toxic organics?
• ^To what extent will ground water be affected beyond the property boundary?
Other, more specific, questions may also be identified based on local conditions.
Parameters that should be considered in answering these questions include the soil classifica-
tion, structure, texture, depth, drainage, and permeability;3 ground and surface water loca-
tion and seasonal high elevation; and geology, topography, and climate. Each of these fac-
tors plays a role in the proper treatment of effluent from a septic system, and if not consid-
ered appropriately, can contribute to improper and incomplete sewage treatment. The evalu-
ation should also yield a measure of the ability of the site to transmit effluent. By assessing
the hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradient at the site, the evaluation can determine
whether the site will transmit the volume of water that will be discharged from the system. If
the evaluation finds that the anticipated volume of waste discharge will not be readily trans-
mitted, the drain field system eventually will fail.
Some sites, such as those underlain by karst terrain, require special attention. Approxi-
mately 10 percent of the nation is underlain by karstified carbonate rocks (limestones, dolo-
mites, and/or gypsum). Ground water in a karst area is susceptible to contamination due to
thin soil cover and/or the presence of sink holes which present a direct hydrologic connec-
tion for drain field waste leachate to enter ground water. Once contaminated, ground water
can show up quickly in a spring, well, or surface water supply, since travel time in a karst
aquifer can be very rapid (on the order of 30 to 300 feet/hour). Standard site evaluation
techniques are not always effective in karst terrain. Instead, special techniques such as
lineament analysis, penetration borings, rock corings, dye tracing, and surface geophysics
analyses are used to characterize karst sites.
3 Many existing sanitary codes require a percolation test to approximate soil permeability. While relatively
simple to perform, percolation tests are limited in their usefulness as indicators of septic system performance.
Results are highly variable and depend upon the season. For these reasons, this test is not considered ade-
quate for a site-specific evaluation, though it may be used for planning as part of a regional evaluation. Soil
borings provide a better indication of the ability of a site to treat and dispose of waste effluent. Percolation
tests do, however, yield a useful measure for sizing a soil absorption field.
Page 13
-------
Regulations generally specify the information to be obtained in the site evaluation as well as
how the data should be applied in locating, designing, and maintaining the system. However,
the site characteristics should still be assessed by a professional engineer, geologist, and/or
comprehensive site evaluator to assign the design and location requirements appropriate for
that site.
The Standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for Individual
Sewage Treatment Systems exemplify programs that include site evaluation require-
ments at sites proposed for sewage treatment systems (see Appendix B). These site
evaluations are required by the State for all installations treating more than 15,000
gallons per day or for collector systems that serve more than 1$ dwellings or treat
over 5,000 gallons per day. Local governments are also encouraged by the State to
use the Standards as guidelines in adopting local ordinances that require site
evaluations for smaller systems serving single-family dwellings. The Standards for
large systems are administered and enforced in conjunction with local governments
because Minnesota's experience has shown that sanitary ordinances can most ef-
fectively be administered at the local level.
Sites are evaluated under Minnesota's Standards to obtain data in six categories:
1) Depth to the highest known or calculated ground-water table or bedrock;
2) Soil structure and texture;
3) Slope;
4) Topographic anomalies such as lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock
outcrops;
5) All legal setback requirements; and
6) Surface water flooding probability.
The site evaluation consists of two parts: a preliminary investigation and a field investigation.
The preliminary investigation assesses the adequacy of existing data to characterize the site.
When the state is the permitting authority, the consulting team performing the evaluation
must meet with Agency staff to discuss the site evaluation upon completion of the preliminary
review. Where preliminary investigations do not provide enough information on the six
categories to locate and design a sewage treatment system, a field investigation is performed,
including soil borings and percolation tests. The consultant must demonstrate that the de-
tailed work being proposed will be sufficient to characterize the site.
The Minnesota regulations provide for the data gathered in these investigations to be used in
designing and constructing the system. Percolation tests and soil texturing must be used to
establish the necessary drain field area. The sizing and spacing of the drain field trenches
must take into consideration water movement into the soil. Design of a monitoring system
capable of evaluating the system's performance also must be based on data collected in the
site evaluation, if monitoring is deemed necessary.
Page 14
-------
In Mower County, Minnesota, site evaluations are most commonly performed by licensed
contractors. For individual family homes, the contractor or owner digs test holes according
to county health office specifications. Health officials go to the site, however, to assess the
water table level, general topography, and site layout.
Implementation of the site-specific evaluation program can be relatively expensive. Regula-
tory staff must work with contractors and review their recommendations. Implementing
agencies may encounter resistance to comprehensive site-evaluation requirements because of
the increased cost and complexity that they entail for both property owners and govern-
ments. For example, in Minnesota, policies for financing site evaluations vary from county
to county. While a few counties charge no fees for percolation tests and site evaluations and
finance the work with public funds (Mower County among them), other counties assess fees
of up to $120 (Saint Louis County) to perform an evaluation.
3.1.3 Limited Site-SpacSfic Evaluations
Where resources are not available to conduct detailed site evaluations, the cost of site-spe-
cific evaluations might be reduced by collecting only limited data on one or several critical
parameters. However, such limited evaluations are appropriate only in areas where the local
soil and hydrogeologic conditions are well known and homogeneous and where there is a
history of properly functioning septic system installations.
Of the many factors that determine on-site system performance, some soil characteristics are
among the more easily evaluated and provide very important information. Soil is the final
treatment medium for most private systems—filtering septic tank effluent, facilitating
biodegradation of the organic materials, and removing fine particles, bacteria, pathogens,
and nutrients. A complex community of bacteria and other microorganisms in the soil treats
the wastewater and purifies it before it reaches the saturated zone. For the soil to treat
wastewater effectively, the wastewater must pass through slowly enough to have adequate
contact time with soil particles and microorganisms.
To determine whether there will be adequate contact time at a given site, the soil should be
evaluated, at a minimum, for classification, texture, depth to creviced bedrock, depth to
seasonal high water table (saturated soil condition), depth to impermeable soil layer or rock,
drainage, and slope. In some areas, many of these parameters may be well characterized on
a region-wide scale. Therefore, the site evaluation could be limited to confirming the re-
gional data and collecting information on the remaining critical parameters that are un-
known.
In the past, percolation rate has been used to indicate a soil's suitability for accepting efflu-
ent, but in recent years the percolation rate has been shown to be only a marginal indicator
when used alone. Other information should, therefore, be used instead of or in addition to
percolation rate. For example, soil borings indicate the textural characteristics of soil and
how they change with depth. Depth to high water table is important because a prescribed
minimum depth must be maintained between the drain field and the ground water to ensure
adequate filtration and biological treatment of effluent before it reaches ground water. Im-
permeable bedrock and soil layers (hard pan or fragipan) can severely or completely restrict
the downward movement of water.
There are no definitive rules for applying the data gathered in either a comprehensive or a
limited site evaluation for selecting the appropriate septic system design. Numerous guide-
lines for applying these data are available (see references in Chapter 4). Although guidelines
should be carefully qualified so that engineers can consider data in the context of specific site
conditions, they can be helpful in suggesting particular design options. Exhibit 5 shows
guidelines published by the Midwest Plan Service, listing suitable site criteria for common
Page 15
-------
EXHIBIT 5
EXAMPLE CRITERIA FOR SELECTING BETWEEN
WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ON
THE BASIS OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS8
Site Criteria
Conventional
Trench
System
Mound
Treatment
with Surface
Discharge
Soil percolation rate
in minutes per inch
1-30
30-60
60-120
More than 120
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Depth to high water
table or creviced bedrock
More than 10 ft
5-10 ft
2-5 ft
Less than 2 ft
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Depth to impermeable
layer
More than 10 ft
5-10 ft
2-5 ft
Less than 2 ft
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site Slope
More than 15%
5-15%
Less than 5%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
& An "X" indicates that a system is suitable
Source: Midwest Plan Service. 1982. On-Site Domestic Sewage Disposal Handbook.
Page 16
-------
types of septic systems. By matching the characteristics of a given site with the criteria,
potential system types are identified. The more site characteristics a particular system
matches, the stronger its potential applicability. These guidelines, however, can only support
the choice of a general system design. It is up to the engineer's best professional judgment to
match a specific system to the peculiarities of a particular site. In the case of the limited site
evaluation, which results in less detailed on-site scrutiny by a trained engineer than does a
comprehensive site evaluation, it becomes necessary to rely upon standard guidelines, such
as those of the Midwest Plan Service, to a greater degree. This greater reliance on standard
guidelines reflects the compromise, and decreased expense, of the limited on-site evaluation.
3.2 Making Regulatory Programs More Comprehensive
State codes dealing with septic systems have, in general, undergone significant revisions in
the past three decades. Probably the most important revision has been a shift in emphasis
from unnecessarily rigid and simplistic design and location standards to more comprehensive
requirements that account for the capacity of the soil absorption system and other factors
that affect system performance. The acknowledgment that site characteristics can vary con-
siderably over a region and the development of new technologies has led to the replacement
of restrictive codes with more comprehensive and effective guidance and performance crite-
ria.
Sanitary codes have traditionally relied on two methods to ensure ground-water protection.
Originally, septic tank design standards were very specific. For example, earlier codes were
quite restrictive about the allowable shape of the septic tank. These restrictions are now
being modified as codes are revised. For example, state and local government officials have
found that shape restrictions are not as important as encouraging larger tanks overall.4
Land use provisions were also enacted to keep septic systems and drinking water sources
physically separated. These, too, were typically very rigid provisions and did not allow for
changes based on site-specific conditions. Because rigid, one-dimensional design and loca-
tion requirements failed to account for the complex set of factors that determine septic sys-
tem performance, many systems have been designed and installed under circumstances that
make failure a foregone conclusion. Accordingly, septic system management programs
should be designed to account for all potential factors that affect system performance.
Exhibit 6 illustrates the evolution of approaches to septic system regulations for six main
components of a septic system management program. The different levels of regulatory
control or oversight are categorized from least comprehensive and/or environmentally pro-
tective (Phase I) to most comprehensive and/or environmentally protective (Phase III).
Individual approaches vary, of course. The Exhibit, however, illustrates the general evolu-
tion of regulatory approaches for each of the program components.
The progression from Phase I to Phase II is a move toward a more comprehensive regulatory
approach under each of the management program components. For example, soil type
analysis and site modifications are acknowledged as important aspects of siting and construct-
ing drain fields, and the disposal of certain waste types is noted as a concern under Phase II.
The move to Phase III represents the adoption of improved technical approaches. In Phase
III, codes have evolved to take advantage of better site evaluation practices and increased
use of innovative and alternative technologies. Phase III approaches also acknowledge the
strong relationship between improper septic system control practices and ground-water con-
tamination, a type of system "failure" not accounted for in the earlier Phases.
4 Kreissl, J.F. 1982. Evolution of State Codes and Their Implications, in 4th Northwest On-Site Wastewater
Disposal Short Course Proceedings, Seattle, Washington.
Page 17
-------
EXHIBIT 6
EVOLUTION OF REGULATORY CONTROL APPROACHES FOR COMPONENTS OF A SEPTIC
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SITE
EVALUATION
SEPTIC SYSTEM
DESIGN
CONTROLLING
WASTE DISPOSAL
CONTROLLING
SYSTEM OPERATION
CONTROLLING
SYSTEM DENSITY
GOALS OF
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CA
w
• Analysis for:
o percolation rate
o depth to ground
water
• Only standard system
design (septic tank
soil absorption
system) permitted
• Certain rigid code
specification
standards for:
o tank dimensions
o soil absorption
* system sizing
o distance to property
boundary, wells,
and buildings
o allowable materials
• No definitive controls
on the types of waste
disposed in septic
systems
••No plan or design reviews • Reliance on zoning
controls, but septic
• No permitting
• System registration
required in some
jurisdictions
system density a
secondary concern
• Prevent surfacing of
effluent from septic
system to protect
public health
ffi
to
M
• Increased reliance on
soil classification
(local or regional)
to determine proper
soil types for
system installation,
and
• Percolation tests
• Some modifications
to standard septic
system design
o soil absorption
system modifications:
mounds, pressure
distribution
• Limited I/A tech-
nologies permitted
• Codes call for
"only domestic waste
disposal"
• Increased controls for
large systems (including
commercial and
industrial)
• Required design and
plan reviews
• Construction permits
• Pre-cover inspections
• Occupancy permits
• Licensing of designers,
contractors and
pumpers
• Setbacks for shoreline
lots
• Minimum lot sizes
• Stronger emphasis
on preventing drinking
water contamination
• Protecting surface
water quality
to
W
• Require detailed • Support for I/A
site soil charac- systems including
terization by testing new
trained inspector technologies
• Use percolation test •Allow experimental
oniv a« «iinnion>pntarv systems under con-
informal ^ trolled circumstances
• Controls on the sale
and /or use of tank
cleaning solvents
• Controls on commercial
and industrial systems
(apart from large
systems)
• Pre-sale inspections
and sanitary surveys
to assess condition of
existing systems
• Operating permits
and ground-water
discharge permits
• Linking density controls
to protection of public
health by assessing
pollutant loading rates
and use of models
• Stronger emphasis on
ground-water
protection and pre-
serving water quality
for differing uses
• Rely on performance
standards to deter-
mine appropriate
system designs
• System design more
closely tied to
site characteristics
• Public education efforts
to control the disposal
of toxic chemicals
• Establishment of
regional sanitary
management districts
to ensure proper
system maintenance
• Requiring ground-water
monitoring to assess
the operation of large
and commercial/industrial
systems
-------
The more comprehensive approaches shown in Exhibit 6 were adopted to make regulatory
programs more effective and better able to respond to different conditions. In so doing, the
evolution from Phase I to Phase III has generally made codes more comprehensive. One
additional benefit derived from more comprehensive septic system regulation is a decrease in
the lag time between the development of technological advances in waste disposal and their
widespread implementation.5 In states such as Oregon, North Carolina, and Maine, for
example, where the management of on-site systems has improved through a stronger reliance
on site evaluations and alternative technologies, changes in septic system management prac-
tices closely follow developments in the field. These changes are prompted by feedback
from the regulatory personnel who are closely involved with the evaluation and development
of specific design parameters and technical approaches.
The following sections address two of the most important mechanisms for making septic
system control programs more comprehensive. We first provide examples of existing pro-
grams that apply detailed site characterization information to aid in designing septic systems
that are compatible with their environments and have a high potential for many years of good
performance. We next describe programs that encourage the use of innovative and alterna-
tive technologies.
3.2.1 Accommodating Variations in Site Characteristics
Some existing codes control septic system location. Such codes generally rely on two types of
provisions:
1) Minimum lot sizes, which stipulate that residences with septic systems must
be built on lots no smaller than a specified size. Several states, for instance,
have minimum lot sizes of one-half acre for homes using on-site septic
systems.
2) Minimum distance requirements, which stipulate that septic systems must be
a specified distance from buildings, property lines, and drinking water
sources.
Although these provisions control system location and density and, therefore, provide some
environmental protection, such rigid location requirements have resulted in unanticipated
side effects. Minimum distance requirements can severely affect the location or type and
size of a structure that a property owner may build on his tract. Similarly, minimum lot sizes
may force homeowners to purchase larger lots, a practice which some believe has contributed
to local housing price increases and loss of prime agricultural land. These problems have led
jurisdictions to adopt more comprehensive practices that allow for varied siting while provid-
ing for public health and ground-water protection.
One good approach to accommodating special site conditions is to include in the regulations
varied siting requirements for a number of different settings. This is particularly effective for
dealing with lots next to surface waters. Because lakes and other surface waters are sensitive
to pollution by nitrogen and phosphorus, both of which may leach from absorption fields in
high concentrations, several states have special regulatory requirements for the installation of
septic systems on riparian lots. These limits are intended to ensure that a sufficient depth of
soil is available on the lot to remove nitrogen and phosphorus from the septic system effluent
before it reaches the surface water. This assurance must take into account the special hydro-
logic and soil conditions found in the area.
• Plews, G.D. 1977. The Adequacy and Uniformity of Regulations for On-Site Wastewater Disposal - A
State Viewpoint, in National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Communi-
ties, U.S. EPA
Page 19
-------
Minnesota has developed three classes of shorelands with different levels of protec-
tion under the Minnesota Shoreland Management Act: Natural Environment lakes
and streams; Recreational Development lakes and streams; and General Develop-
ment lakes and streams. The special controls established under the Act for ripar-
ian septic systems include adequate setback distances from the shoreline for ab-
sorption fields and minimum lot sizes. The Natural Environment class has the
most stringent controls (150 ft. setback; 40,000 ft2 minimum lot size), and the
General Development class has the least stringent controls of the three classes (SO
ft setback; 15,000 ft2 minimum lot size). Furthermore, where areas are defined as
shoreland under the Act, local units of government are required to adopt and en-
force the state's minimum standards for septic systems.
Where setbacks and minimum lot sizes still cannot adequately protect surface waters, many
areas are advocating the use of cluster systems. These systems link groups of homes together
through a central waste water collection system. The wastes are then pumped back to a
central treatment and disposal facility. Idaho is promoting the use of these systems for
developments on inland lakes. Cluster systems are discussed further in Section 3.8.2.
The use of variances has been a common approach for accommodating unique site condi-
tions within a standardized regulatory framework. Through variances, regulatory authorities
can grant waivers from specified provisions in a zoning or sanitary code. These variances are
granted on a case-by-case basis, when an authority such as a Board of Appeals determines
that a provision is causing undue hardship for a property owner by constraining the individual
from developing his property to its maximum potential, For example, Florida, Arkansas,
and Minnesota allow variances from system design and construction requirements if the pro-
posed design adequately protects human health and the environment.
Section 2.4 of the Arkansas Rules and Regulations pertaining to sewage disposal systems
reads as follows:
Variances. Requested variances from these Rules and Regulations will be
considered only in isolated locations and must be approved by the Arkansas
Department of Health, Division of Sanitarian Services or its authorized
agent. However, submission of alternate designs for underground or above-
ground individual sewage disposal systems for sites found not suitable for
standard systems is encouraged. Submission of an alternate design shall
include engineering data on the efficiency of operation of the proposed alter-
nate system. Submissions of proposed alternate systems may be approved,
approved on a trial basis for a specific period of time, or disapproved. Such
approval or disapproval shall be at the sole discretion of the Arkansas De-
partment of Health, Division of Sanitarian Services or its authorized agent.
Where alternate systems are approved such systems shall be included by
amendment, in these Rules and Regulations, as alternate systems approved
for use under specified conditions and subject to case by case approval or
disapproval by the Arkansas Department of Health, Division of Sanitarian
Services or its authorized agent.
Page 20
-------
In order for variance provisions to be effective as a means for improving ground-water pro-
tection, they must be administered with a high degree of commitment by government offi-
cials. Procedures and policies for thorough and consistent review of variance applications
must be established and implemented. Moreover, these procedures and policies must reflect
long-term community goals regarding ground-water protection.
In some areas, variances are granted too readily and variance decisions have compromised
ground-water protection goals for the sake of other short-term objectives. For example,
when reviewing a variance request, boards of appeals in some areas consider only the effects
of the provision on the individual parcel under review without considering how many other
septic systems in the area already have variances, and whether the total number of variances
might lead to ground-water contamination. This potential problem is best handled by
drafting a code that provides regulatory options for a wide variety of environmental condi-
tions, thereby reducing the need for variance requests. Thus, a broader and more compre-
hensive regulatory outlook is needed at both the state and local level. Accounting for vari-
ance requests in this way can also help to insulate local officials from charges that their
decisions are arbitrary.
The State of Maryland has adopted a more formal approach to variances that
incorporates long-range planning goals (see Appendix B for the relevant regulatory
language). In Maryland, the State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has
mandated that drain fields can be constructed only in areas that contain at least
four feet of unsaturated soil. However, the State allows counties to identity spe-
cific areas where the four-foot depth standard may be waived. The State requires
these counties to draft a Ground-Water Protection Report (GPR). These reports
are intended to address the impacts of siting on-site sewage disposal systems in
areas of high ground-water elevation. When drafting the reports, the counties
identify specific areas where the state-mandated design requirements for soil ab-
sorption system location and construction may be waived. The State has found
that allowing variances to the four-foot depth standard does not pose a threat to
public health so long as the counties adopting the variance also follow a sound
general ground-water protection plan.
Many other states also are using a variety of approaches to develop comprehensive and
environmentally protective septic system management programs. The best way to ensure that
controls imposed on septic system use are environmentally protective is to tie these controls
explicitly to the soil characteristics and hydrogeological conditions found at the site (see
Section 3.1).
Page 21
-------
Maine's Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules govern siting, design, construction,
and inspection of subsurface wastewater systems. The rules provide minimum
State design criteria for subsurface wastewater disposal systems and are intended
to complement municipal planning, zoning, and land use controls ("Subsurface
Waste Disposal Rules," 10-144A CMR 241, see Appendix B).
Provisions in the rules that make Maine's management process more comprehensive include:
Site evaluation. Before any septic system is installed, a site evaluation must be con-
ducted by a licensed Site Evaluator. The Site Evaluator examines the site and fills out an
application form, on which he or she indicates the suitability of the soil and the site
conditions for subsurface wastewater disposal. The Rules prohibit installation of new
disposal systems where limiting soil and site conditions exist. It is possible, however, to
obtain a variance from this restriction. In certain situations, a Site Evaluator may deter-
mine that a site has the "potential for an adequate disposal system." If this determination
is made, the installation may be permitted provided that special design features (such as
curtain drains) are added to improve the limiting soil and site conditions. The Rules also
give municipalities the option to waive the site evaluation for system replacements, pro-
vided that certain minimum requirements are met.
Minimum setback distances. The Rules establish minimum setback requirements from
water bodies, slopes, buildings, and property lines. Such setbacks are critical to water
quality preservation. If systems are being replaced or upgraded, it is possible to obtain a
variance to reduce the distance requirements a specific number of feet.
Washington State also allows for local variation to State-wide requirements. The Washington
On-Site Sewage Disposal System Regulations were established "as minimum requirements of
the State Board of Health."8 They provide a uniform set of guidelines for local boards of
health to use in establishing local regulations. Provisions in Washington's regulations that
incorporate flexibility into the planning process include:
Minimum land area requirements. The regulations have two methods for determining
minimum land area requirements for septic systems:
1) A table in the regulations notes minimum land area requirements per unit vol-
ume or single-family residence, based on soil type and type of water supply.
2) For Type 1 soils,7 the local health officer may allow a reduction in the above
requirements, provided that guidelines are in place for these allowances. The
regulations further provide that anyone seeking these reductions must submit a
justification report demonstrating that the on-site septic system "has a sufficient
amount of area with proper soils in which sewage can be retained and treated
properly on-site."
B "On-Sile Sewage Disposal Systems," Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health. Published by the
Office of Environmental Health Programs, Health Division, Olympia, Washington, July 1983. (see Appendix
B)
7 Defined in the Rules and Regulations as coarse sands and other soils or conditions where treatment potential
is ineffective in retaining or removing substances of public health significance to underground sources of
drinking water.
Page 22
-------
Providing two methods for determining minimum land area requirements gives a home-
owner or developer an opportunity to let design improvements compensate for small lots
or poor soil conditions.
Replacement of existing systems. The regulations make allowances for instances where
septic systems are extended, altered, or replaced due to system failure. In these in-
stances, the regulations would apply "to the maximum extent permitted by the site."
Designing a comprehensive septic system management program offers the advantage of pro-
viding maximum protection to ground-water resources, while allowing system owners an op-
portunity to make the best use of their property. For example, the site evaluations required
in Maine's Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules determine appropriate septic system capac-
ity for a site. Should the soil quality prove poor, the rules allow property owners to compen-
sate for these conditions with special design features. This provision helps to assure that
property owners will not be unnecessarily constrained from developing their property. How-
ever, even with the use of special design features and site modifications, many parcels will
still not be able to be developed due to extremely limiting soil and hydrogeologicl conditions.
The major disadvantage of a more comprehensive management approach is that more staff
and financial resources are required to implement the provisions. For example, in Washing-
ton State, an equivalent of 90 full-time employees in the State's 39 county health depart-
ments are committed to issuing permits for septic systems. Permits are issued for the installa-
tion, alteration, or repair of an on-site system. Over 18,000 septic system permits were
issued in Washington in 1985. There is also one full-time State employee who monitors new
guidelines developed for septic systems.
There are numerous ways to finance a comprehensive septic system management program in
addition to using a local government's general funds. Maine, for example, has approxi-
mately 250 licensed plumbing inspectors and over 100 site evaluators to help implement its
on-site disposal regulations. The plumbing inspectors are paid a small fee each time they
perform an inspection. This fee is paid by the applicant seeking to install a septic system.
This approach does not completely remove the financial burden from a local government,
however. The local health agency is responsible for administering the licensing program,
which includes developing and administering an exam and associated study materials, adver-
tising when the exam will be held, and issuing the licenses for those who pass the exam.
One additional disadvantage of requiring site-specific evaluations is the financial burden that
is placed on property owners to pay for the assessments. Washington State has attempted to
alleviate some of this burden by allowing homeowners to comply with minimum design and
location standards in place of conducting an extensive evaluation. However, a property
owner may choose to pay for a site evaluation and thereby be able to develop areas that
otherwise would not meet the minimum siting requirements.
3.2.2 Allowing Innovative and Alternative (I&A) Technologies
Throughout the country, local health and environmental officials have discovered that con-
ventional septic systems, composed of a septic tank and a subsurface soil absorption field, are
not appropriate for wastewater treatment in some soil types and under certain environmental
conditions. However, sanitary codes in these areas are often not suited for addressing this
problem because the codes are rigidly tied to conventional septic system designs and allow
only minor variances. The result is often poor septic system performance and ground-water
contamination. Several states have broken away from codes that allow only the use of con-
ventional septic system designs. These states, including Maine, Connecticut, Idaho, Mary-
land, and Washington, allow innovative and alternative technologies for on-site wastewater
treatment. In general, alternative systems provide improved wastewater treatment because
the technologies are chosen to respond to the unique needs of individual sites.
Page 23
-------
Both communities and individual property owners can benefit from the introduction of alter-
native technologies. A code that does not allow homeowners to use alternative systems and
prohibits soil absorption fields where soils are not suited for waste disposal can hamper devel-
opment and keep property values low, especially when sewers are not available or are eco-
nomically prohibitive. In addition, a code that allows installation of conventional systems
regardless of soil conditions may ultimately result in system failures and cause health hazards,
property damage, and ground-water contamination. Allowing property owners to take ad-
vantage of technological advances or new thinking in wastewater treatment can protect public
health, increase public welfare, and foster orderly community growth. Alternative systems
also provide additional options for replacing failing conventional systems.
Allowing the use of innovative and alternative technologies is not a panacea, however. Al-
though such technologies allow for improved wastewater management in problem soils, these
systems do not allow for development under all circumstances. Many sites are simply not
suited for on-site wastewater disposal. Further, in certain areas, alternative technologies
may be too expensive or their implementation may be beyond the management capabilities of
the local jurisdiction. Local officials must critically evaluate the available technological op-
tions and choose those best suited to their needs.
Non-conventional on-site waste management technologies, often referred to as innovative
and alternative (I&A) technologies, include:
• Mound or fill systems that use sand or other fill material to create an artifi-
cial drain field when the original soil at the site is inadequate;
• Curtain and drain systems that use drain tile or other materials to lower a
high water table under the drain field artificially;
• Pressure distribution systems that provide uniform distribution of effluent
over a drain field to maintain vertical unsaturated flow and retard clogging;
• Buried, intermittent, and re-circulating sand filters that may be used with a
conventional septic tank to treat effluent when natural soils are inadequate;
• Evapotranspiration systems that rely on excess evaporation from a soil sur-
face and the natural ability of plants to absorb effluent, retain water and
nutrients as needed, and release excess water to the air as vapor;
• Alternating bed systems that allow for dosing and resting cycles in the drain
field;
• Water conservation techniques, including low water-use toilets and waterless
toilets that use chemical or biological techniques to treat human sewage in
the home;
• Physical and chemical processes, normally used in large-scale wastewater
treatment, designed on a smaller scale to treat waste from a single home or
business or a cluster of homes or businesses; and
• Aerobic treatment devices that provide for aerobic degradation or decompo-
sition of wastewater by using mechanical means to bring the waste in contact
with air.
Page 24
-------
These techniques can be used, under appropriate circumstances, to replace and/or supple-
ment conventional systems and give developers, builders, and property owners new on-site
waste management alternatives. References containing detailed information concerning each
of the above technologies are listed in Chapter 4 of this document.
All of the above mentioned systems are not considered "new" in all areas. For example,
mound and fill systems are used commonly throughout the states of Minnesota and Wiscon-
sin. Pressure distribution devices also are gaining widespread acceptance throughout the
country. Therefore, some of these "I&A" systems may be considered conventional or stan-
dard practice in certain parts of the country.
For the most part, I&A technologies are designed to provide waste disposal alternatives for
properties that have unique soil, geologic, ground-water, climatic, or topographic conditions
(see Section 3.1 for a discussion of these conditions). As a result, it is very difficult to design
a code that anticipates each potential situation and specifies the best possible waste manage-
ment system design. Evaluating a proposed system often requires case-by-case considera-
tion by trained personnel. Other approaches are effective, however, especially where re-
sources and information are available to allow community-wide approval of specific alterna-
tive technologies. For example, communities located in regions where soils are marginally
impermeable (i.e., mostly clay) might adopt codes that allow mound systems.
Nevertheless, allowing the installation and operation of alternative systems does lead to some
additional regulatory cost. Most codes require that experienced engineers and sanitarians
review individual or community-wide applications of the systems. Some states share these
costs by providing technical assistance to local governments. Local costs also may be offset
by increasing permit fees for alternative systems. Such fees typically range from $50 to $200.
Because many alternative systems have not been fully tested under a wide range of environ-
mental conditions, their use should be carefully assessed and closely monitored. Before any '
alternative system is installed, the ranges of environmental and wasteflow conditions that are
suited to the operation of that system should be established. Some governments allow the
installation of untested alternative or experimental systems, but only with strict operating and
monitoring requirements. Installation of these experimental systems can provide valuable
operating information that may lead to expanded use of the systems. Currently available
information on the development and testing of alternative and innovative technologies is
available in the trade literature, from alternative system manufacturers, from USDA Coop-
erative Extension Service offices, and in the sources listed in Chapter 4 of this document.
Since most alternative on-site systems are more complex than conventional systems, there
are increased opportunities for error in their design, installation, and operation. As a result,
alternative system users should be made well aware of the special operation and maintenance
requirements for their systems. This awareness must also be passed along to future system
users, should the property change hands. Because the community has a strong interest in
preventing ground-water degradation and preserving public health, local regulators must take
an active role to ensure that both present and future users know how to operate and maintain
their alternative systems properly (see Section 3.3).
Many communities hesitate to allow I&A technologies due to concern about their liability in
the event of a system failure. Careful review before approval complemented by a program of
regular maintenance, routine inspections, and performance monitoring should protect against
possible failures. However, the costs involved in conducting such reviews also inhibit juris-
dictions with limited resources. Nonetheless, a well-designed and well-implemented pro-
gram that allows for controlled use of alternative technologies under carefully monitored
circumstances can serve a community well by providing options for the development of non-
sewered areas and by providing for selection of optimal waste management techniques based
on state-of-the-art technical knowledge and good judgment.
Page 25
-------
There is no best approach for establishing a regulatory program that allows alternative system
installation and use. However, there is one common and essential characteristic among the
programs currently in existence: a high degree of involvement from local officials. Only with
local involvement can proper evaluations be made concerning whether conditions are appro-
priate for specific system designs. State health officials can provide useful assistance and
guidelines, but local regulators must implement them. The level of local review may differ.
At one extreme, local officials may become part of a dynamic regulatory process and imple-
ment those aspects of state guidelines that best suit local conditions. At the other extreme,
local officials may rely more strongly on state guidelines and approve only those systems that
meet pre-determined conditions. The following two examples illustrate the differing ap-
proaches.
The State of Washington has developed a comprehensive regulatory program that
both evaluates and provides guidance for the installation and operation of alterna-
tive technologies and also allows for careful introduction and use of innovative or
experimental systems. Under Chapter 248-96 of the Washington Administrative
Code (see Appendix B), three different categories of on-site systems have been
established, including standard septic systems, alternative systems, and experimen-
tal systems. Different technical criteria and levels of administrative review are
associated with each system category.
The regulations leave the review of individual on-site system designs to the local health
officer and board of health. The State regulations and technical guidance are intended to
provide a uniform framework to aid local boards of health in establishing regulations that best
suit local conditions. The State framework establishes minimum design, installation, and
management requirements for on-site septic systems to accommodate long-term sewage
treatment and disposal. The regulations encourage local boards of health to adopt more
stringent regulations to account for local environmental conditions. Because of the highly
divergent conditions found in eastern and western Washington, local involvement in imple-
menting state regulations is critical. The State does retain final review authority over local
codes and enforcement programs, however.
The Washington State Board of Health created the above three regulatory categories for
septic systems because the State concluded that three different levels of technical criteria and
regulatory review were appropriate for each category. The first category encompasses a
standard design including a septic tank and subsurface soil absorption field. The State regu-
lations refer to the U.S. EPA "Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems" (or "the Purple Book"; see Chapter 4) for design criteria. Several more specific
criteria have been added by the State, but detailed amendments to the design standards are
left to local boards of health.
Page 26
-------
The State is far more involved in the development of technical criteria and design reviews for
the second category of systems. This category encompasses alternative systems, which are
defined as "any on-site sewage system consisting of treatment and/or disposal components
other than a septic tank and a subsurface soil absorption system" (Chapter 248-96 WAC
Section 046). The State publishes technical guidelines governing the design, construction,
operation, and monitoring procedures for a wide variety of alternative systems. To date, the
State has issued guidelines for the following types of systems: pressure distribution, aerobic
treatment, incineration toilets, composting toilets, vault and pit privies, sand filters, alternat-
ing and dosing systems, and fill and mound systems.
The State has assembled a Technical Review Committee composed of seven knowledgeable
professionals in the waste disposal field to write the guidelines. The committee reviews alter-
native technologies as they are developed. Their technical evaluation is based on a review of
available information and testing data. It involves the following criteria: life expectancy,
reliability, performance testing, installation requirements, operation and maintenance re-
quirements, possible applications, costs, energy requirements, and aesthetics. Once a tech-
nology has met the standards of the Technical Review Committee, guidelines are developed.
In addition to generic system reviews, the Committee also reviews the products of individual
alternative system manufacturers and publishes a device report certifying that the products
meet the Committee's technical guidelines.
The Washington regulations state that, "once guidelines for an alternative system have been
established by the technical review committee, that system can be permitted for use" (see
Chapter 248-96 WAC 046). In addition,
the health officer shall require monitoring of the performance of any alterna-
tive system installed for which guidelines have been developed. The fre-
quency and duration of monitoring shall be in accordance with guidelines
developed by the Technical Review Committee. Costs for monitoring and/or
reporting may be included as an addition to the permit fee (248-96 WAC
046).
Thus, the State provides the technical guidance, while the local health officer applies those
guidelines in a manner that best suits the local environmental conditions.
The third category of on-site systems established by the State encompasses the remaining
innovative technologies that have not yet been reviewed and approved by the Washington
Technical Review Committee. These remaining technologies are defined as experimental
systems. The State "allows the installation of a limited number of experimental on-site
treatment or disposal systems, provided supportive theory and/or applied research exists"
(248-96 WAC 047). Prior to the installation of such a system, an experimental system
permit must be obtained from the local health officer. The use of an experimental system is
considered when:
a) the proposed system is attempting to correct a failing system and other
conventional or alternative systems are not feasible, or b) the experimental
system is for new construction where it has been determined that a (conven-
tional) on-site sewage system could be installed in the event of failure of the
equipment (248-96 WAC 047).
Further guidelines have also been developed by the Technical Review Committee covering
the application, evaluation, and performance monitoring of experimental systems.
The flexible nature of the Washington program has encouraged the installation of alternative
technologies throughout the State. As of 1986, over 1,000 mound and fill systems, over 1,000
aeration systems, approximately 200 composting systems, and over 100 sand filters had been
constructed. The major expense to the State for the program involves funding the activities
of the Technical Panel. One staff position has been created to keep track of the guidelines
Page 27
-------
and the permitted systems operating in the State. Because the permitting process is focused
at the local level, most of the staff requirements are there. Thirty-two of Washington's 39
health districts or county-operated programs take full responsibility for local permitting. The
inspection and monitoring procedures involved in alternative system regulation has led to an
average staffing increase of approximately 1.5 man years in each local jurisdiction. Approxi-
mately 18,000 permits per year currently are issued in Washington for all types of septic
systems. Each permitted alternative system generally is inspected on a three-year cycle.
The State of Minnesota has also adopted an alternative system permitting program,
although this program is less comprehensive in its approach than the Washington
program. Under Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7080.0180, alternative systems are
allowed "where limiting soil characteristics exist." The systems may be employed
provided that:
I) Reasonable assurance of performance of the system is presented to the
permitting authority;
2) The engineering design of the system is first approved by the permitting
authority;
3) There is no discharge to the ground surface or to surface waters;
4) Treatment and disposal of wastes protects the public health and gen-
eral welfare; and
5) The system complies with all applicable requirements of (State) stan-
dards and with all local codes and ordinances.
The permitting authority is generally a local board of health.
The State of Minnesota provides guidance describing the soil conditions that require alterna-
tive systems to treat wastes (see Appendix B). The State standards also prescribe minimum
design criteria for a number of alternative systems. The State standards are not meant to
limit local discretion, however. The rule states,
local units of government may adopt (the standards), in whole or in part, as
part of a local code or ordinance. Nothing in M.R., Chapter 7080, however,
shall require the adoption of any part of (the standards). Further, nothing
in M.R., Chapter 7080, shall require local units of government to allow the
installation of any (alternative) system in (the standards) (M.R., Chapter
7080, Appendix A).
Although most counties in Minnesota have adopted the standards, some counties do not
have the staff to administer the program or do not allow alternative systems since they have
not adopted the rule's appendix for alternative systems. It should be noted, however, that
the State is currently revising the body of the rule to allow the use of some alternative sys-
tems. This should allow greater flexibility in the choice of the most appropriate system.
Crow Wing County, Minnesota, does permit the installation of alternative systems. Many
systems in the county are mound or fill systems and some also use pressure distribution of
Page 28
-------
effluent. Most of these systems were constructed on riparian lots to protect inland lakes.
Crow Wing County has approximately 15,000 operating septic systems, and 300 to 500 new
systems are constructed each year. County health officers oversee the installation of alterna-
tive systems by conducting pre-cover inspections to ensure that the minimum State construc-
tion standards have been met. County officials generally leave the design of the systems to
licensed contractors. The county health official will become involved in system design only if
special site circumstances are found and his assistance is requested by the homeowner or
system installer. Crow Wing County allots approximately 1.5 full-time professional staff
equivalents for overseeing all septic systems.
The local officials generally are not involved in the detailed site evaluation and system design
process. Their involvement is limited primarily to assuring that the State-mandated design
standards are fulfilled. Local officials can require modifications to account for site-specific
conditions; however, application of the State standards appears to be the main concern of
most county health agencies in Minnesota.
Both the Minnesota and the Washington programs will lead to improved ground-water pro-
tection by encouraging local governments to approve alternative systems where appropriate.
However, the Washington program goes one step further than the Minnesota program in
allowing experimental system installation and encouraging active local participation in devel-
oping site-specific guidelines for each alternative system installation.
Of course, allowing innovative and alternative systems will not solve on-site waste manage-
ment problems at all sites. Regulators must recognize that at some sites, on-site waste man-
agement is inappropriate. For example, the community of Crystal Lake, Illinois, has prohib-
ited the use of septic systems in its most sensitive watershed areas in order to achieve com-
munity water quality goals.8 Judicious application of innovative and alternative systems, how-
ever, can be an effective means of balancing ground-water protection concerns with commu-
nity development objectives.
3.3 Educational Programs
Educational and public relations programs are an important part of septic system manage-
ment. Septic system control programs are most effective when the public understands the
relationship between ground-water protection and proper septic system siting, design, instal-
lation, use, and maintenance. Monitoring compliance with operating and maintenance regu-
lations can be a difficult and expensive task. Responsible property owners who are educated
in proper waste disposal and maintenance practices and who are familiar with the conse-
quences of system failures can make positive contributions to ensuring compliance. Further,
as the technologies and processes used in on-site waste disposal become more complex and
the number of septic systems in use increases, it will become more important that those who
design, install, operate, maintain, and review septic systems have an adequate level of knowl-
edge. Education and outreach programs, therefore, play an important role in septic system
management and should be directed to a wide audience, including homeowners, commercial
and industrial establishments, builders, system installation contractors, inspectors, and those
who review and approve new systems. This section outlines the basic content of educational
programs and describes several examples of successful programs.
•DiNovo, F., and M. Jaffee. 1985. Local Groundwater Protection: Midwest Region. American Planning
Association, Washington, D.C.
Local officials and residents should have an inherent interest in proper wastewater manage-
ment and ground-water protection, because property values and drinking water supplies can
Page 29
-------
be damaged by poor waste control practices. Once citizens are aware of these relationships,
they can contribute to pollution control planning and prevention. An informed public can
also generate support for local and state programs. Technical contractors should also be
made aware of their important role and the need to cooperate effectively with regulatory
officials. By working together, property owners, contractors, and regulators can ensure that
septic systems function properly within the community.
The educational needs of these different groups vary, depending upon their prior level of
technical understanding and the purpose of the education. Different programs should thus
be geared to the different audiences. One type of program, designed for the general public,
should include basic information for owners and operators of residential, commercial, and
industrial septic systems. Septic system inspectors'and the personnel responsible for review-
ing conventional or innovative system designs comprise the audience for a second type of
program covering more technical and regulatory issues. A third program should focus on
site-specific concerns and provide technical information for septic system designers, builders,
and installers, who need information similar to the second group but whose education may
dictate a somewhat different approach. Because the technical needs for regulators and con-
tractors are similar, one program with a strong technical orientation can fulfill the general
requirements for both of these groups, if necessary.
In communities where innovative or alternative on-site systems are used, it is especially im-
portant that property owners be well educated. These systems generally require more main-
tenance and strict adherence to use restrictions. Because innovative and alternative systems
tend to be somewhat more sophisticated than conventional systems, their owners or users
must possess a more sophisticated understanding of the necessary operation and mainte-
nance practices.
Public relations programs are an integral part of any education effort. Through the use of
basic public relations techniques, a wide audience can be made aware of the need for septic
system management. Public relations programs should target individual system owners, com-
munity waste cooperatives, and commercial and industrial system operators. Most users of
on-site systems do not understand the basic principles governing system operation and main-
tenance. While it may not be necessary for users to understand all of the technical aspects of
septic systems, a rudimentary knowledge of the principles of on-site disposal is critical to
promote proper system operation and maintenance.
Homeowners and commercial and industrial operators may lack interest in proper septic
system operation and maintenance simply because they do not understand the consequences
of system failure. It is therefore important to first make the public aware of the importance
of proper septic system operation. Important messages to be conveyed may include:
• The potential liabilities for contamination of ground water;
• The potential harm to humans caused by even small quantities of certain
pollutants in drinking water;
• The harmful effects of septic tank additives and septic system cleaners and
of the disposal of other hazardous materials sometimes disposed in commer-
cial and industrial septic systems;
• The potential for declining property values if the underlying ground water is
contaminated;
Page 30
-------
• The importance of protecting both the quantity and the quality of water for
future needs; and
• The ethical need to protect ground-water resources.
Septic system owners will become more responsible users if they are given information about:
• Obtaining septic system and well permits;
• The septage disposal process;
• Proper maintenance of a sewage disposal system; and
• Proper use and disposal of the many consumer products (e.g., household
cleaners) often inappropriately disposed in septic systems, including the safe
disposal of unused containers of septic tank cleaners where such cleaners are
banned.
An effective public relations program should make this information as accessible to the pub-
lic as possible by presenting it in a catchy and non-technical format. Local health depart-
ments can serve as clearinghouses and resource centers for printed material (brochures and
pamphlets), slide shows, and other useful information. They can distribute information to
the public through a variety of means including (see Chapter 4 for several sources of infor-
mation) :
• Newspaper articles;
• Radio and TV programs;
• Speeches and presentations;
• Exhibits;
• School programs;
• Films;
• Newsletters;
• Reports;
• Letters; and
• Conferences or workshops.
In Idaho, where septic systems contaminated an important aquifer, officials have
begun educating system users through a public relations program in which repre-
sentatives travel to small gatherings of interested groups and give slide shows and
presentations. They have met with civic clubs, school groups, professional organi-
zations, such as realtor boards and building associations, and environmental or-
ganizations.
Page 31
-------
While basic information on aquifers and septic systems is presented to all groups, the Idaho
presentations are geared to the special interests of each audience. For example, presenta-
tions to builders, bankers, and insurers differ from presentations to schools and environ-
mental groups. Information concerning septic system installation and maintenance is pro-
vided when appropriate. Idaho officials have also broadcast television and radio spots on
public stations to reach a wider audience.
The Idaho program has reached a large number of people, and has been quite successful. In
the ten years since the program began, a number of towns have developed sewage manage-
ment plans and installed public sewers and treatment plants. Although the Idaho program
began in response to specific aquifer contamination problems, its impact has been more
general and widespread, increasing public awareness of the potential problems with septic
systems and highlighting alternative solutions to these problems.
Many communities have also adopted innovative educational programs. Fairfax County,
Virginia, supplements its septic system management program with public education to en-
courage homeowners to voluntarily maintain their septic systems; for example, the Fairfax
County Health Department reminds homeowners by mail to turn the diversion valves on their
alternating drain fields. In Stinson Beach, California, detailed drawings noting the location,
dimensions, and condition of all on-site systems are given to system owners to facilitate
maintenance and promote property owner awareness. In Florida, organizations engaged in
the manufacture, installation, repair, and maintenance of septic tanks have formed an or-
ganization, the Florida Septic Tank Association, which publishes and distributes a booklet
outlining proper septic system operation and potential problems for both homeowners and
commercial establishments. U.S. EPA Region V, in Chicago, Illinois, has developed a series
of five slide shows geared toward a wide audience covering such issues as: general was-
tewater management approaches and needs documentation for unsewered communities; on-
site system technologies and system failures; and the relationship between land-use planning
and small waste flows. Finally, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has prepared a stu-
dent activities book entitled "Groundwater: A Vital Resource." This publication, which
targets children in grades 3 through 12, is complemented with classroom demonstrations and
field visits and is part of TVA's overall program to increase public awareness of ground-water
quality in the TVA region.
Educational programs with a technical orientation enhance the effectiveness of rules for the
design, installation, and maintenance of systems. State or local health departments or agri-
cultural extension services can offer technical education in a variety of forms, including:
• One-to-one technical assistance;
• In-service training programs in local health departments;
• Workshops and seminars throughout the state;
• Soils evaluation and state-of-the-art technology conferences;
• Designer-installer workshops; and
• Regularly published newsletters on regulatory and technical developments
for the technical community.
Page 32
-------
An excellent example of an educational program with a technical orientation is the
Onsite Sewage Treatment Workshop co-sponsored by the Minnesota Pollution Con-
trol Agency and the University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service. In an
effort to promote the proper siting, design, installation, use, and maintenance of
individual sewage treatment systems, a number of Minnesota counties have
adopted installer certification requirements as part of their codes regulating septic
systems. The On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop is conducted throughout Min-
nesota each year to train and certify installers, site evaluators, designers, inspec-
tors, and septic tank pumpers.
The three-day Minnesota training session covers the following major topics:
• Sewage treatment by soils;
• Soil identification;
• Soil treatment system sizing;
• Drain field trench construction;
• Effluent distribution;
• Soil treatment systems design;
• Problem soil conditions;
• Mound design and construction;
• Preliminary site evaluations;
• Site evaluation field procedures;
• Sewage tanks;
• Pumping stations;
• Small collector systems; and
• Septic tank cleaning and septage disposal.
Although the program is designed for a technical audience, some of the information in the
program can also be used to explain the design and operation of on-site sewage systems to
homeowners. In addition, local regulators can benefit from the course. The course is ac-
companied by a very detailed technical manual (On-Site Sewage Treatment Manual, Univer-
sity of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
St. Paul, Minnesota, 1986) that includes codes, descriptions, instructions, technical criteria,
and several extension service bulletins.
Page 33
-------
Since the certification program began in 1980, 1,001 individuals have passed the four-hour
written examination given during the third day of the workshop. A total of 574 individuals
are presently certified as either inspectors, contractors, site evaluators, designers, or pum-
pers. Because certified designers and installers are more familiar with technical regulatory
criteria and therefore more likely to comply with the guidelines, State officials believe the
manual and educational workshops have made significant contributions to the effectiveness
of sewage treatment codes, and consequently to the health and welfare of the public in
Minnesota.
Education programs necessarily involve some expense. To some extent, these costs can be
offset by charging for educational materials and assessing fees for workshops and certification
courses. Nevertheless, the success of a septic system management program depends on the
public understanding the basic concepts involved. The costs of education are, therefore, a
sound investment in the protection of ground water and of the public health and welfare.
3.4 Promoting Water Conservation
Conserving water at its point of use is one method of reducing the potential for ground-water
contamination by pollutants from residential and commercial septic systems. Eliminating or
reducing waste flow and pollutant loads at the source will extend the life of soil absorption
systems, save money over the long run, and decrease the possibility of system failure. This
section provides examples of conservation practices and discusses their applications.
Household or commercial water-use patterns and waste characteristics are the two main
factors that affect the choice of a conservation practice. In general, laundry, bathing, and
toilet use are the greatest contributors to household wastewater flow, constituting approxi-
mately 70 percent of total wastewater generated on average.9 Thus, total water use will be
most affected by instituting conservation practices in those areas. Garbage disposal wastes,
toilet wastes, and basin, sink, and appliance wastewater produce the greatest pollutant loads
from a household (i.e., compounds that must be treated and removed by the septic system).
Eliminating or decreasing wastes from those sources will reduce the total amount of pollutants
entering the septic system, and thereby reduce the waste disposal load for the absorption
field.
Two strategies for conserving water and improving septic system performance overall are
waste flow reduction and waste load reduction.
Waste flow reduction is a decrease in the volume of wastewater produced. Three general
methods for reducing wastewater flow include:
1) Reducing non-functional water use by eliminating wasteful water-use hab-
its, keeping plumbing in good repair (eliminating leaks and drips), and
maintaining non-excessive water pressure in the house (i.e., adequate pres-
sure so that appliances function properly, but no more).
9 Otis, Richard, J., William C. Boyle, James C. Converse, and E. Jerry Tyler. 1977. On-Site Disposal of
Small Wastewater Flows. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer. University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
Page 34
-------
2) Installing low water-use toilets, composting toilets, reduced-flow shower-
heads and sink faucets, clothes and dishwashers with adjustable cycles, and
other water-saving devices and appliances in homes or commercial busi-
nesses. A water level selector on a clothes washer may reduce the volume
of water used for laundry by as much as 10 percent,10 but the greatest sav-
ings in water can be achieved by modifying or eliminating conventional toi-
lets, which may contribute as much as 35 percent of total household flow.11
3) Using wastewater recycle-reuse systems that use bath/laundry water ("grey-
water") for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing and lawn sprinkling.
These are also known as waste segregation techniques. Because grey water
has been found to contain potentially harmful bacteria and viruses, its use
as a water source should be carefully investigated and controlled.
Waste load reduction (usually used in concert with waste flow reduction techniques) involves
decreasing the mass of waste constituents going to the septic system. These waste constitu-
ents may include: phosphorus and other filler solids from detergents, wastes from toilets,
and garbage disposal wastes. Waste load reduction techniques include:
• Eliminating the use of garbage disposals (these wastes can be effectively han-
dled as solid wastes);
• Eliminating the use of detergents with phosphorus and other filler solids;
• Installing "suds-savers" in laundry machines; and
• Reducing or eliminating toilet discharges (by installing composting toilets).
Eliminating the use of a garbage disposal will reduce the total suspended solids entering the
wastewater flow by as much as 37 percent12; a "suds saver" will reduce organic liquid residu-
als by as much as 25 percent13; and eliminating toilet wastes will result in as much as a 61
percent reduction in total suspended solids, an 82 percent reduction in total nitrogen, and a
30 percent reduction in total phosphorus added to the wastestream.14
In general, the conservation practices that are most successful are independent of user hab-
its, such as wastewater recycling-reuse systems. Techniques involving choices by the user,
such as dish- or clothes-washers with variable cycles, are less successful.
Cities in the arid regions of the West and Southwest have been among the first to implement
water conservation programs. For example, Denver, Colorado, and Phoenix, Arizona, have
comprehensive water conservation programs.
10 Kuhner, Jochen, Daniel Lueke, and Ronald Sharpin. 1977. "Water Use and Wastewater and Residuals
Generation in Households: Potential for Conservation," in Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the
Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Publica-
tion 5-77, St. Joseph, Michigan.
11 Siegrist, Robert L. 1977. "Waste Segregation to Facilitate Onsite Wastewater Disposal Alternatives," in
Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium. Ameri-
can Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication 5-77, St. Joseph, Michigan.
«Ibid.
13 Kuhner, Jochen, Daniel Lueke, and Ronald Sharpin. 1977. Loc cit.
14 Siegrist, Robert L. 1977. Loc cit.
Page 35
-------
The Denver Water Board has recently announced its intention to fund the cost of
installing water meters for the 87,500 single-family residences currently not me-
tered. The Water Board anticipates that allowing homeowners to monitor their
water use and see how much it costs per unit per service period will serve as an
incentive for conserving water. Denver also currently operates a leak detection and
water pressure check program for municipal pipes and is examining the possibility
of expanding the program to include a "water audit" service for homeowners in
conjunction with the Public Service Company of Colorado. A water audit would
include checking for leaks in the home and evaluating household water use pat-
terns. Auditors would then offer suggestions for implementing water conservation
practices. Currently, the Water Board is working to educate the public concerning
the use of water-saving devices and is investigating the possibility of providing
funds to partially offset the cost of installing devices such as low-flow showerheads
and toilets in individual homes. In addition, Metropolitan Water Conservation,
Inc., a Denver area group composed of members of the seven city water districts
surrounding the Denver area and organizations such as the Home Builders Associa-
tion, landscapers' associations, and Denver's Metro Sewage Disposal, Inc., has
proposed designating water conserving homes as "gold medal homes," rewarding
gold medal homeowners with reduced tap fees.
The City of Phoenix's Water and Wastewater Department recently retrofitted
41,000 homes with low-flow showerheads and low water-use toilets at city expense
in response to an emergency sewage situation. Phoenix also operates an industrial
water conservation program which encourages businesses to develop a plan to re-
duce their water consumption by 10 percent over the next two years. In addition,
Phoenix has conducted a public awareness week, sponsored public awareness mes-
sages (i.e., radio, TV, and newspaper announcements) and youth education pro-
grams.
There are many benefits derived from these conservation strategies. Water conservation and
waste load reduction extends the life of existing and especially over-loaded septic systems,
protects water resources, and saves money.
Page 36
-------
3.5 Assuring Proper Operation and Maintenance
Providing proper operation and maintenance is a basic requirement in a management pro-
gram geared toward reducing the potential for ground-water contamination from septic sys-
tems. There are a variety of ways to ensure proper operation and maintenance; each method
has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some programs are more costly to implement
than others, but may offer greater protection against system failures and ground-water con-
tamination. Several approaches for controlling septic system operation and maintenance are
discussed in this section.
In general, septic systems are a very effective and trouble-free method for disposing of
household wastes. However, septic system users must follow sound operating procedures to
ensure that their systems continue to function properly. These procedures are simply a
matter of controlling the substances that enter the septic system. Every septic system is
designed to handle a certain volume of flow and is able to treat only certain types of wastes.
If a system user is not aware of these limitations or does not operate the system properly,
septic system failure and/or ground-water contamination can result.
Guidelines for proper septic system operation include the following:
1) Do not overload the septic system. Systems are designed for a specified
number of users and/or waste flow. If the number of users increases
over time, the volume of waste flow will also increase and the septic sys-
tem may eventually become overloaded and fail.
2) Dispose only domestic waste in a septic system. Standard septic systems
are designed to handle domestic wastewater from showers, washing ma-
chines, toilets, and sinks. These systems are not able to treat and dis-
pose of other wastes, such as pesticides and other synthetic chemicals
that will pass through the septic system and may contaminate ground
water. Even household cleaning chemicals can damage the bacteria that
treat and degrade wastes in the septic tank.
3) Do not dispose of grease or cooking fats in a septic system. Grease con-
geals and solidifies in the septic tank and inhibits the bacteria that
break-down the wastes in the tank. Over time, the grease also will ac-
cumulate and may eventually clog the inlet and outlet to the septic tank.
Following these procedures will help ensure that septic systems function properly. Unfortu-
nately, there is no way to guarantee that every system user will follow these operating prac-
tices. Nevertheless, homeowners have an interest in ensuring that their septic systems do not
fail. Therefore, once they are made aware of the need for these operating procedures and of
the potential consequences of improper operation, most system users will choose to adopt
good operating practices. Many communities are promoting sound operation through public
education. Several of these education programs are discussed in Section 3.3.
In addition to following sound operating practices, septic system users must also ensure that
their systems are maintained -properly. Even a well-designed and properly operated septic
system will eventually fail if it is not also maintained. Tank maintenance involves measuring,
pumping, and hauling sludge and scum from the septic tank to a disposal facility. Most tanks
require pumping every three to five years; however, some may need to be pumped as fre-
quently as every year, depending on tank size and how heavily the system is used. Regular
maintenance can prevent failures such as clogging of the soil absorption system and sewage
back-up into the home.
Page 37
-------
Clogging is often the result of an excess build-up of solids (scum and sludge) in the septic
tank, and the subsequent passage of incoming solids to the drain field. To ensure that the
layers of solids have not exceeded "safe" levels, the amounts of scum and sludge should be
measured annually. Septic tank servicing firms can conduct these inspections. In addition,
many communities have published pamphlets explaining how to measure scum and sludge
levels for the "do-it-yourself" homeowner. Layman-oriented publications are often distrib-
uted by public agencies that issue construction permits or by contractors who install systems.
Regular tank inspections allow for a quick check of the structural integrity of the septic tank
and will reveal whether tank pumping is necessary.
A tank generally needs to be pumped if:
• The scum layer (i.e., the layer of solids collecting on the surface of the
wastewater) is less than three inches away from the bottom of the tank outlet
or baffle; and/or
• The sludge line (i.e., the level of heavy solids collecting on the bottom of
the tank) is within 18 inches of the outlet fitting.
The septic tank and drain field will usually work satisfactorily until the sludge fills over 40
percent of the volume of the tank or the scum fills the available air space in the tank.
Solvents are sometimes used by homeowners and owners of commercial septic systems to
dissolve the scum layer accumulating at the top of the tank. However, such "scum-dissolv-
ing" products are typically ineffective and do not reduce the need for regular tank pumping.
Even if the solvents are effective at dissolving the scum layer, they may create more serious
problems in the drain fields. In some areas, the use or sale of these compounds has been
banned in order to protect ground water from contamination. Consequently, the use of these
cleaners should be discouraged or eliminated (see Section 3.7).
If the septic tank is not pumped regularly and the drain field becomes clogged, one simple
method of rejuvenating the field involves allowing the absorption field to rest. Resting the
absorption field allows the clogging materials to be broken down by physical and biochemical
processes thus restoring the treatment capacity of the soil. Resting may take several months
and prevents use of the septic system unless an alternate absorption field is available. Septic
systems may be designed with several beds to allow for alternate dosing and resting cycles in
the drain fields if clogging is anticipated as a problem. Trench systems that use serial loading
devices such as drop boxes can also continue to be used if the damage is caught before all
trenches have been clogged. The clogged trenches can be allowed to rest while continuing to
use the undamaged trenches and reducing water use.
Many homeowners are unaware of the proper procedures for and the importance of septic
tank maintenance. In some cases (e.g., new owners of older homes), residents are even
unaware that they have a septic system instead of a municipal hook-up. Therefore, sanitary
codes or city ordinances that rely on homeowners to handle maintenance of their septic
systems may not adequately address the problem.
One solution is to establish a program that involves periodic (e.g., yearly) inspection of all
septic tanks in a community. The community or municipality may conduct the inspections if
issues such as right of access, authority to inspect, and liability for repairs are covered by
ordinance or law. Communities also may contract for the services of a private maintenance
firm, thereby taking advantage of economies of scale. For example, a septic tank pumping
firm may agree to pump the tanks in a community at a reduced per tank fee if the firm is
Page 38
-------
guaranteed a consistent volume of business. The choice of firms may also be left to the
homeowner while the local government agency assures a certain level of competency by
licensing and certifying qualified inspectors and pumpers. The organizational and adminis-
trative costs of such programs may be high. However, these costs can be minimized by
requiring each homeowner to pay a fee for maintenance service.
The Stinson Beach County Water District (SBCWD) in California, provides for
design, installation, financing, and other support activities in addition to operation
and maintenance of septic systems. Every on-Site system -within SBCWD's author-
ity is inspected on a biennial basis to determine the need for pumping, to examine
the absorption field (for surfacing effluent), and to determine whether an odor
investigation is necessary.
A few communities subscribe to a concept of "total management." This involves organizing
special purpose agencies (e.g., a centralized management entity similar to a sewer utility) that
provide all major functions related to on-site wastewater management. Based in part on
SBCWD's program, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 430 (SB430) in 1977 which
enables public agencies that manage sewers to form "wastewater disposal zones" (i.e., boun-
daried areas within which on-site systems may be regulated) to provide for the collection and
treatment of effluents from private or community septic systems. Stinson Beach homeowners
remain responsible for all costs of repairs or periodic maintenance, such as pumping.
The State of Illinois has developed similar legislation (P.A. 80-1371 Chapter 24, Parts
1401-1422) allowing any "corporate authority" (e.g., the governing authority of a municipal-
ity) to develop wastewater disposal zones. This legislation allows governing authorities to
impose a tax upon all property owners located in the zone to pay for the costs of construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of septic systems and/or to impose a user charge to defray
the costs of routine operation and maintenance (see Appendix B).
Other possible approaches for ensuring septic system maintenance include:
• A permitting system which requires homeowners to certify periodically
that a licensed septic maintenance firm has inspected and, if necessary,
pumped their septic tanks.
• A program requiring certification that the septic system is functioning
properly prior to mortgage approvals.
• A program requiring pre-sale inspections.
• A permitting program requiring a guarantee of permanent maintenance
for community or multiple housing unit septic systems before an operating
permit is issued.
• A program involving periodic sanitary surveys in order to identify failing
or inadequately designed on-site systems.
Page 39
-------
In addition to making it unlawful to use a septic system not meeting pre-defined performance
standards, fines, liens, and injunctions are possible program enforcement tools. In Califor-
nia, Article 10 (beginning with Section 31145) of the California Water Code empowers the
Stinson Beach County Water District, as part of its total management program, to enter
private property to inspect and abate public nuisances resulting from septic system failures.
The District has the option of recovering abatement costs (i.e., costs of repairs or mainte-
nance) by imposing liens, filing a civil suit against the property owner, or discontinuing water
service to owners of failing systems. In addition, the District issues discharge permits and
charges an annual fee of $108.00 to cover program operating costs. In several communities,
fines, liens, and service charges serve as a valuable source of revenue for funding publicly
owned or operated systems or publicly managed maintenance programs (enforcement tech-
niques are discussed further in Section 3.9.).
Communities in the State of Idaho use a combination of techniques to regulate septic tank
maintenance (see Appendix B). First, lenders use a mortgage survey system requiring home-
owners applying for mortgages or mortgage renewals to provide the Regional Health District
with verification of a recent inspection of their systems and, if necessary, verification of
pumping or any improvements needed to bring the system up to standard. If information
provided by a homeowner satisfies the Health District's requirements, official verification is
then sent to appropriate lending institutions. Mortgages are not approved in the State with-
out verification that the septic system is functioning properly.
Second, the Idaho Panhandle Regional Health district employs a contract system which in-
volves the drafting of a "sewage management agreement" (or "SMA") between a municipal-
ity and the health district.16 The agreements state, generally, that in order for the health
district to continue issuing permits for septic systems in the area, a municipality must take
responsibility for all aspects of management outlined in the agreement.
For the City of Dalton Gardens, the Idaho Panhandle Health District negotiated
for a city ordinance setting the standards for septic system operation and mainte-
nance, as part of the terms of a Sewage Management Agreement (see Appendix B).
The ordinance requires that:
• Septic systems be pumped once every five years or when the sludge in a
tank equals one-third of the volume of the tank (whichever comes first);
and
• That verification be recorded with the city clerk's office.
The terms of this contract were the result of Dalton Garden's decision to rely on
septic systems as its permanent method of sewage treatment, whereas most other
communities in the Panhandle Health District are in the process of converting to
municipal sewage treatment plants.™
18 The shift away from on-site sewage treatment in the Panhandle region resulted from contamination of the
region's sole source aquifer from non-point sources, primarily septic systems.
19 Title 39-414 (8) of the Idaho Code enables the district boards of health "to enter into contracts with other
governmental agencies.. .as may be deemed necessary to fulfill the duties imposed upon the district in provid-
ing for the health of the citizens within the district."
Page 40
-------
The SMA system allows these cities such as Dalton Gardens to operate and maintain septic
systems — specifically community drain fields — until a municipal sewer system is installed.
It also permits residents to be charged a monthly fee for use of the community drain field
and service by the city sewage management system. All nine municipalities in the Panhandle
district have SMAs, each one tailored to meet specific needs.
The main advantage of Idaho's SMA system is that it allows for a more comprehensive and
adaptable approach to meeting environmental objectives. SMAs have been successful in
Idaho because they have involved municipalities in developing their own programs and have
enabled agreements to be tailored to the specific needs of a community. Under the SMA
agreements a community may choose a management program that best suits its resource and
planning needs. Larger communities may have a broader revenue base and therefore greater
financial resources with which to undertake management options directly, while smaller com-
munities may rely on county or regional authorities. Thus, SMAs provide a framework for
establishing a management approach that is best suited to the individual needs of a broad
range of communities.
3.6 Controlling Septage Disposal
Although septage disposal (i.e., disposal of the residual scum and sludge pumped from septic
systems) is usually addressed as an issue separate from other septic system management
practices in local codes, it should be viewed as one component of a comprehensive program
for septic systems. Septage (or "scavenger waste") is made up of an anaerobic slurry of
residual wastes and consists of solids (such as grit and grease), water, and organic wastes. It
is usually high in bacteria, viruses, ammonia, and organic nitrogen compounds. Hazardous
chemicals may also be found in septage originating from printing, photographic, and dry
cleaning businesses; restaurants, beauty shops, and service stations; commercial and educa-
tional laboratories, and other businesses (see Section 3.8 for more information on chemicals
originating from commercial sources). Thus, proper septage disposal is essential for the
protection of public health. EPA has addressed septage disposal both through regulations
(40 CFR Part 257) and by developing guidance (see Chapter 4). This section will outline
several local regulatory approaches for managing septage disposal practices.
Several factors may lead to improper septage disposal. First, lack of readily accessible,
approved disposal areas may encourage illegal dumping of septage by some haulers. In
addition, the fees charged by haulers that dump illegally are probably lower than those
charged by firms dumping legally (especially if they must travel long distances to an approved
site), which may result in more homeowners contracting with illegal dumpers. Second, with-
out public agencies having adequate manpower for inspecting and sampling septage delivered
to approved areas, hauling practices may go unobserved and haulers may attempt to mix
industrial wastes with septage in order to increase their profits. This practice can lead to
contamination of both approved and unapproved sites and can create a threat to ground
water. Finally, inadequate inspection and maintenance of equipment used in hauling septage
can result in leaks or spills during transportation, leading to direct exposure of people to
harmful pathogens or chemicals as well as endangering the potability of ground and surface
drinking water sources.
Page 41
-------
Because proper disposal of septage is important in assuring ground-water protection, the
following basic issues should be addressed in any comprehensive septic system program:
• Establishment of an adequate number of conveniently located septage dis-
posal or treatment sites.
• Licensing and certification of individuals or firms involved in pumping
septage, servicing tanks, or hauling septage.
• Establishment of standards for the tank trucks and equipment used to
pump and transport septage for disposal.
• Oversight of operation and maintenance of disposal facilities (including
inspections during construction as well as operation).
• Periodic inspection and certification of all vehicles used to transport sep-
tage.
Various components of a septage disposal program may be owned or operated by either
private or public parties, or a combination of both. Exclusive public ownership and manage-
ment of pumping operations and/or disposal sites may prove to be costly to a community, but
this arrangement provides for strict control over disposal practices, and therefore a greater
level of protection against ground-water contamination. One possible arrangement for man-
agement of disposal practices by public agencies would involve:
• State responsibility for setting all relevant performance standards and cri-
teria for licensing programs; local responsibility for the surveillance of
hauler activities and inspection of actual equipment and disposal facilities;
• State or local (e.g., regional or multiregional) ownership of a disposal fa-
cility, possibly in conjunction with a municipal wastewater treatment facil-
ity;
• Local government or private ownership of pumping and transporting serv-
ices (if privately owned, the local authority performs the function of li-
censing, certifying, and inspecting; if owned by local government, all re-
sponsibilities are assumed by the agency managing the program); and
• Homeowner or community responsibility for all charges related to pump-
ing and servicing and perhaps disposal fees based on the volume of waste.
The above represents a typical division of labor among relevant private and public entities.
Private ownership of disposal facilities (usually land disposal facilities), however, is common
in rural or semi-rural areas. Private ownership is also found in areas where the local munici-
pal treatment plant is unable to handle the additional septage from on-site systems. Septage
may be refused at treatment plants that are already operating at full capacity or that are
experiencing a temporary overload.
When municipal sewage treatment systems and disposal facilities are unavailable for septage
disposal, there may be adequate demand to encourage private ownership and operation of
new disposal sites. General Utilities Development (GUD) of South Florida is an example of
a private utility managing septage disposal. In addition to several wastewater treatment
plants, GUD also owns and operates vehicles for pumping and hauling septage as part of their
"septic tank effluent pump" (STEP) system. Special purpose agencies may also opt to in-
clude septage disposal as part of their total management system (see Section 3.5).
Page 42
-------
Counties and cities use a variety of programs and techniques for managing septage disposal.
For example:
• The City of Acton, Massachusetts, and Fairfax County, Virginia, operate
septage treatment facilities restricted to the use of private haulers servicing
individual or community septic systems within their regions. Acton re-
quires haulers to purchase a coupon from the City Clerk that is turned in
at the time of disposal. Fairfax County uses a system of color-coded de-
cals displayed on truck windshields as proof of payment of an annual li-
censing fee.
• In Seattle, Washington, METRO (a special purpose agency) has devised
an electronically controlled and monitored disposal site. Magnetic pass
cards issued to approved haulers record the amount of septage delivered,
when it was delivered, and by whom (using the hauler's license number).
• In Idaho, one of the conditions for acquiring a license to pump septic
tanks is that the hauler demonstrate that the septage will be disposed at
an approved site. With the approval of the State Board of Health or Re-
gional Health District, septage may be disposed of at a municipal waste-
water treatment plant (considered the most suitable and desirable method
by the Board of Health) or by land-spreading on public or private land
with the written permission of the landowner and only under certain cir-
cumstances. Septage generally may not be applied to floodplains, porous
soils, or land used for root crops.
Legal authority for programs such as these is usually found within state codes. For example,
Title 39, Chapter 1, of the Idaho code "grants authority to the Board of Health and Welfare
to adopt rules, regulations and standards to protect the environment and the health of the
State for issuance of pollution source permits." Title 1, Chapter 15, of "Regulations Govern-
ing the Cleaning of Septic Tanks" (see Appendix B) promulgated by the Board of Health
outlines the types of equipment that may be used for pumping and hauling septage, methods
of disposal, and permit requirements, including: information that must be included in permit
applications; permit fees; assigning a number for each vehicle with a permit to be displayed
on its side, and the terms of permit suspension and revocation.
The New York State Environmental Conservation Law (NYS-ECL), Article 27, Ti-
tle 3, authorizes the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to
regulate and require registration of all persons engaged in the business of pumping
septic tanks, cesspools, or marina sanitary wastes. New York's county departments
of health are responsible for administering and enforcing the State laws affecting
on-site systems. For example, Nassau County's Charter, Article XII, authorizes
the County Board of Supervisors to establish sewage disposal districts and prepare
a general sewage facility plan that includes septage disposal.
Regulating septage and sludge disposal does add to enforcement and administrative costs for
local governments. However, a program addressing only septic tank operation and mainte-
nance and not the accompanying disposal of the residual wastes neglects a serious potential
source of ground-water contamination.
Page 43
-------
3.7 Keeping Hazardous Cleaning Solvents and Other Dangerous
Chemicals Out of Septic Systems
Many hazardous chemicals, because they are resistant to biodegradation, pass through septic
systems and contaminate ground water. Such chemicals originate from many sources. They
may be added directly to septic tanks as cleaning solvents. They are contained in household
products used for cleaning, painting, or maintaining automobiles and appliances and may be
dumped down the drain. They are also discharged by commercial and industrial businesses
that use septic systems. Because toxic chemicals originate from so many sources and end up
in septic tanks as a result of normal daily activities, keeping them out of septic systems is
difficult. This section discusses several approaches to controlling discharges of toxic chemi-
cals to septic systems.
Many brands of septic system cleaning solvents are currently on the market. Makers of these
solvents, which often contain halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons,17 advertise that they
reduce odors, clean, unclog, and generally enhance septic system operation. Manufacturers
also advertise that cleaning solvents provide an alternative to periodic pumping of septage
from the septic tank. However, there is little evidence indicating that these cleaners perform
any of the advertised functions. In fact, their use may actually hinder effective septic system
operation by destroying useful bacteria that aid in the degradation of wastes. In addition, the
organic chemicals in the solvents are highly mobile in soils and toxic (and some solvents are
suspected carcinogens), thus they can easily contaminate ground water and threaten public
health.
Organic chemicals can enter ground water via septic systems not only through the use of
cleaning solvents, but also from the disposal of household wastes. Household cleaners, drain
cleaners, stain removers, paint thinners, and petroleum products pften are disposed by sim-
ply pouring them down the drain. Unfortunately, homeowners frequently may not be aware
that such products contain toxic chemicals, have the potential to contaminate drinking water,
and may damage their septic systems.
Many industrial facilities also discharge organic chemicals into their septic systems. Process
wastes from certain industrial facilities have been discharged to systems that are designed to
handle only non-industrial wastes.
Several major ground-water contamination incidents have occurred as a result of industrial
discharges to septic systems (see Section 3.8).
An option for controlling future ground-water contamination from septic tank cleaning sol-
vents and other dangerous chemicals is to prohibit the use of the solvents and the discharge
of toxic chemicals to septic systems. Cleaning solvent prohibition tactics may include ban-
ning their sale and/or use. A ban demonstrates to the public that these cleaners and other
organic chemicals have the potential to contaminate ground water. Such bans are more
strongly supported if the public is made aware that the cleaning solvents do not provide an
alternative to periodic maintenance and can harm public health.
17 The Environmental Protection Agency has demonstrated a concern over the detection and control of many
halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons in the environment by requiring testing for these compounds in the
ground water at some hazardous waste management facilities (for a list of the compounds see 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix VIII). Two of the more common compounds in septic tank cleaners, methylene chloride and
1,1,1-trichloroethane, are also listed on EPA's priority pollutant list and have had health advisories issued
for them by EPA's Office of Drinking Water.
Page 44
-------
Some governments are relying on public education programs to control the use of septic tank
cleaning solvents as an alternative to a direct ban on the sale of the products. Although these
programs do not carry the weight of an enforceable ban, they do aid in controlling the prob-
lem.
Providing alternative disposal options is an important aspect of controlling the dis-
posal of hazardous chemicals. The State of New Hampshire has sponsored collec-
tion efforts to encourage homeowners to dispose of toxic household products such
as cleaners and pesticides in approved facilities. Communities in Illinois and New
York have also sponsored such "collection days" to focus attention on the need to
dispose of hazardous compounds properly.
Although banning organic chemical discharges to septic systems and the use of septic system
cleaning solvents may sound like a simple method of controlling ground-water contamina-
tion, enforcing such a ban is difficult. The degree of control (state, county, or local) and the
public awareness of potential hazards associated with toxic chemicals and septic systems each
plays a critical role in determining the success of any ban.
State-wide bans are far more effective than regional or local controls. For example, if one
town places a ban on septic system cleaning solvents while surrounding towns do not, people
in the town with the ban will still have easy access to the solvents. If the boundaries of
control grow to the county or state level, it becomes more difficult for the septic system
owner to purchase cleaning solvents. For this reason, jurisdictions should cooperate to cre-
ate as large an area of control as possible.
Although a broadly based control program increases the effectiveness of a ban, the impor-
tance of informing the public of potential hazards associated with the chemicals should not
be overlooked. For example, even though septic system cleaning solvents may be difficult or
impossible to purchase, other types of solvents, such as industrial degreasers, may still be
available. Septic system owners might use these products as a substitute for the packaged
septic tank cleaning solvents unless they are made aware of the potential dangers.
Regulatory codes managing the discharge of toxic chemicals to septic systems have been
established and implemented by several communities and states. These codes are designed
to control the sale and use of septic system cleaning solvents, prohibit discharge of toxic
organic chemicals to ground water, and educate the public on potential ground-water con-
tamination problems.
Page 45
-------
In New York State, restrictions on the discharge of toxic chemicals to septic sys-
tems and the use of septic system cleaning solvents are part of a comprehensive set
of state and county laws. County health departments administer and enforce the
state laws (see Appendix B). The New York State legislation:
• Prohibits the sale of septic system cleaners and additives containing
halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons; and
• Prohibits the discharge of halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons to
ground and surface waters.
Long Island's Suffolk County has adopted codes for controlling the use of septic
system cleaning solvents, including:
• Prohibiting sales of organic chemicals or compounds for the purpose of
cleaning or unclogging on-site systems or sewer drains; and
• Prohibiting discharge of industrial, toxic, or hazardous materials into
on-site subsurface systems.
Many states and localities have adopted legislation prohibiting the use of septic system clean-
ing solvents, including the State of Maine, the State of Delaware, the New Jersey Pinelands
Regional Commission, and several local jurisdictions in Massachusetts. The State of Rhode
Island prohibits the disposal of acids or organic chemical solvents in septic systems and spe-
cifically discourages the use of septic tank cleaners. The State of Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection has taken the process one step further by not only banning the sale
and use of all cleaning solvents, but also implementing the new law through press releases,
state-wide surveys, direct manufacturer contact, and contact with the State retail merchants
association.
In general, controlling the disposal of toxic chemicals in septic systems can be a difficult task
to accomplish, primarily because violations cannot be easily detected. Homeowners can
circumvent the controls by simply going to the next jurisdiction to buy septic tank cleaning
solvents or by disposing of similarly formulated household cleaners down the drain. How-
ever, controlling discharges of toxic chemicals is made much easier if the public is aware of
the potential hazards associated with the chemicals. An effective program for controlling the
discharge of toxic chemicals to ground water, therefore, requires not only a wide scope of
control, but also efforts to inform the public of potential hazards.
Page 46
-------
3.8 Managing Commercial, Industrial, and Large Residential Systems
Several states now recognize that larger on-site waste disposal systems, especially those oper-
ated by commercial and industrial establishments, require special regulatory controls due to
both the larger volume and the types of waste they treat and dispose. Although the majority
of septic systems are installed for and used by single-family homes, a significant number of
larger systems are operated by commercial and industrial establishments and groups of sin-
gle-family residences. These systems have caused ground-water contamination due to im-
proper siting, construction, operation, maintenance, and waste disposal practices.
Ground-water degradation can, to a large extent, be prevented by acknowledging that com-
mercial, industrial, and large residential septic systems require different construction and
maintenance practices than than those used for smaller single-residence septic systems.
Regulators and septic system users must recognize that septic systems are designed to handle
only certain types of wastes, and most standard systems cannot adequately treat the constitu-
ents in many commercial and industrial waste flows. This section discusses construction and
operation practices for these systems and outlines regulatory programs that are designed to
protect ground water. Because the technical and management requirements differ for com-
mercial/industrial and large residential systems, we discuss the two general system types sepa-
rately.
3.8.1 Commerical and Industrial Septic Systems
In the past, very few jurisdictions made any distinction between domestic and commercial/in-
dustrial wastewaters or types of use when regulating septic system design and operation. As
incidents of ground-water contamination caused by the disposal of toxic commercial and
industrial wastes became more common, many states began to regulate the types of wastes
that could be introduced into septic systems. This has led to a number of regulatory initia-
tives, including limits on commercial and industrial waste flows. These controls identify and
limit the constituents that can be disposed in septic systems based on the hazardous charac-
teristics of those constituents. Adopting such measures reinforces the points that septic sys-
tems can treat only certain types of wastes, and that many inorganic and organic pollutants
that cannot be removed by soil absorption are introduced into the ground water by non-do-
mestic sources.
For example, on Long Island, New York, local health officials have closed private and public
water supply wells due to the presence of organic and inorganic chemicals at concentrations
exceeding guidelines for drinking water. Virtually all of the chemicals found in the wells are
associated with a wide range of commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments. This
problem is not limited to Long Island, but is widespread throughout the country. Printers
dispose of organic solvents and metal degreasers, and the photoprocessing industry disposes
of many organic and inorganic chemicals. Laundries and laundromats dispose of soil and
stain removers. Dry cleaners discard used solvents such as trichloroethylene and perchloro-
ethylene. Paint dealers and hardware stores discard many harmful solvents and cleaning
products. Restaurants must dispose of large volumes of grease and cleansers. Funeral homes
handle hazardous chemicals. Gasoline and service stations discard waste oils, degreasers,
and other automotive fluids. Laboratory wastes also contain many harmful chemicals. Even
beauty shops must throw away potentially harmful products such as dyes. All of these estab-
lishments may dispose of the hazardous substances they use in septic systems.
Page 47
-------
States with strong regulatory programs for commercial and industrial septic systems include
Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, and New Hampshire. Each of the states
designed the programs to help protect potentially vulnerable drinking water supplies. This
goal involves a number of different factors, including the characteristics of the regulated
waste flows, the vulnerability of the ground water in an area, and the proximity of popula-
tions using the ground water.
Massachusetts has imposed controls on commercial and industrial wastewater dis-
posal in septic systems as part of a general ground-\vater protection strategy (see
314 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 1.00-7.00; selected regulatory language is
provided in Appendix B). The protection program began in 1983 and has placed
under State regulation all commercial and industrial facilities that dispose of waste
water in subsurface systems. Commercial and industrial wastewaters are defined
by the chemicals or constituents contained in the waste flow. These chemicals
include organic pesticides such as Undone and toxaphene and metals such as lead
and mercury.
Any discharger who falls under waste characteristic control thresholds must obtain a State
ground-water discharge permit. Permit applications list the expected waste effluent volume
and composition and describe the proposed waste treatment process. The permits are issued
for a specified duration not to exceed five years and outline the restrictions on effluent
discharge to the ground water. The effluent limitations are designed to ensure attainment
and maintenance of ground-water quality standards. The quality standards list allowable
ground-water concentration levels for a variety of compounds. These allowable concentra-
tions are set at levels that will maintain existing ground-water quality for use as drinking
water or prevent degradation of the resource beyond usable; levels. The Massachusetts pro-
gram assumes a priori that all ground-water sources or aquifers should be protected as poten-
tial drinking water supplies. A potential discharger to the ground water may argue that the
existing quality of the underlying aquifer is poor and therefore cannot be used as a drinking
water source. In such a case, the regulations allow the controls on ground-water discharge to
be less strict. However, the burden for proving that an aquifer is a poor drinking water
source lies with the ground-water discharge permit applicant.
In order to ensure compliance with effluent limitations and ground-water quality goals, Mas-
sachusetts imposes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements upon all permit
holders. The monitoring requirements may include periodic sampling and analysis schedules
for the waste flow and the installation of ground-water monitoring wells to ensure that the
waste effluent is treated properly. The permitting agency outlines the number, location,
dimensions, method of construction, and method of sampling for the monitoring wells.
Monitoring and reporting requirements also include measurements of the mass of each pol-
lutant limited in the permit and the volume of effluent discharged from the facility. The
reporting frequency is specified in the permit.
Page 48
-------
This regulatory program has imposed additional costs on the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control. As of 1986, approximately 300 permits have been granted and permitting
is expected to continue at a rate of approximately 300 permits per year. Six full-time em-
ployees are devoted to the application review process. The average review time for a permit
application is four to five months. Regulatory enforcement generally is handled by the legal
staff within the Division of Water Pollution Control. However, the Massachusetts Attorney
General's Office has also been involved in prosecutions.
The State of New York has developed a regulatory program that requires high vol-
ume and industrial discharges to ground-water to be permitted by the State. This
program has been applied most effectively in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long
Island. Under the New York Ground-Water Classification/Quality Standards and/
or Limitations Title 6, Part 703, all dischargers of greater than 1,000 gpd and all
industrial dischargers must obtain a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit. Many types of commercial establishments exceed the 1,000 gpd
discharge threshold, including smaller restaurants and laundromats. Nassau and
Suffolk Counties assist in the administration and enforcement of the permit pro-
gram within their jurisdictions.
The New York permitting process is similar to the Massachusetts program. New York re-
quires discharge monitoring and treatment processes that ensure the preservation of ground-
water quality. In addition, the two counties have established other protective provisions:
• Nassau County monitors any changes in use at commercial and industrial
establishments. If a change causes an increase in waste flow volume or
results in the discharge of commercial or industrial wastes, the discharger
must obtain a permit.
• Suffolk County also regulates discharges of toxic and hazardous materials
under Article 12 of the County Sanitary Code (see Appendix B), and the
county prohibits the discharge of industrial, toxic, or hazardous wastes
into on-site sanitary systems.
Both Nassau and Suffolk counties have ground-water recharge areas or hydrogeologic zones
that are sensitive to contamination and require special regulatory protection. In these areas
in Suffolk County, the County Sanitary Code requires developers of new commercial estab-
lishments, shopping centers, and individual buildings to provide additional treatment for the
removal of nitrates from waste effluent if the density of these non-residential properties is
equivalent to or exceeds comparable allowable densities for single-residence systems. The
Long Island Regional Planning Board has recommended that the counties require commer-
cial and industrial establishments to sign an agreement and to post a bond guaranteeing
adequate pollution control. The Board also suggested that owners of such establishments
obtain pollution liability insurance.
Page 49
-------
Nassau County has allocated additional resources to its Department of Health as a result of
its ground-water protection programs. Since 1982, two new staff positions were created to
deal specifically with ground-water discharge permitting. As of 1985, 42 industrial facilities
were permitted.
By focusing on the constituents in the waste rather than simply the volume of the waste flows,
regulatory programs for commercial and industrial systems represent a relatively new and
more active approach to. managing waste disposal. These programs require two important
evaluations. First, the amount of each individual constituent of the waste flow is identified.
Second, the ability of the treatment process to remove the harmful waste constituents before
they enter the ground water is evaluated.
By focusing on the treatment and disposal process, many jurisdictions have effectively
banned the use of soil absorption systems for disposing of industrial wastes. Past experience
has shown that soils cannot adequately treat or bind many of the harmful organic and metal
compounds found in industrial waste flows. Subsurface soil absorption systems, therefore, do
not provide adequate waste disposal. These regulatory initiatives have thus led to widespread
changes in waste disposal practices. Although commercial and industrial establishments are
not yet generally banned from using on-site waste disposal systems (those in portions of Long
Island may be an exception), ground-water protection programs are forcing dischargers to
upgrade their waste handling practices.
Commercial and industrial responses to ground-water discharge controls may include any of
the following: First, many companies are choosing to hook up to public sewer systems.
Although most states require both residential and commercial/industrial establishments to use
public sewers when possible and economically feasible, on-site systems may be used if sewers
are not available. Nevertheless, some industries have chosen voluntarily to pay for sewer
hook-ups to avoid the burden of ground-water discharge permitting. Second, establishments
are adopting more advanced physical and chemical treatment processes. In Massachusetts,
system operators have opted to install more advanced wastewater pre-treatment technologies
ahead of the subsurface disposal system. Third, when possible, industries are altering their
manufacturing processes and their use of primary materials to remove or lower the concen-
trations of hazardous materials in the waste effluent. When deciding to make such process
changes, the company must weigh the cost of making the change against the expense of more
advanced waste treatment. Finally, under some limited circumstances, ground-water dis-
chargers have chosen to redirect their effluent to discharge into surface waters. This option
is feasible only for waste constituents that have less stringent effluent limitations for surface
water discharge due to the better ability of surface waters to assimilate and degrade the
constituents. The choice of an appropriate response depends on the circumstances of the
discharger and the local or state regulatory criteria.
3.8.2 Large Residential Septic Systems
Many areas rely on large, centralized septic systems to dispose of waste from clusters of
homes. These "cluster collection systems" receive the wastes from each home at a central
disposal facility, which may consist of a large septic tank and soil absorption field, for exam-
ple. Large systems also treat wastes from apartment complexes, motels, and other residential
institutions. One important advantage of these centralized treatment processes is the ability
Page SO
-------
to focus operation and maintenance and public management resources at one facility. The
systems must be designed, sited, installed, operated, and maintained properly, of course, and
their performance must be monitored to ensure sound operation. Proper regulatory manage-
ment is the key.
During the past several years, there has been a growing interest in the use of centralized or
cluster facilities to treat domestic waste water. The practice of pumping wastewater from
riparian lots to treatment facilities set back from the shoreland has been adopted as a sur'ace
water protection strategy in some areas. Many municipalities that have a high density of
failing single-family septic systems have also turned to the use of cluster systems as an effec-
tive remedial measure.
Because cluster systems have many "users," it is often difficult to assign individual responsi-
bility for repair of a failing system. Assigning responsibility is especially difficult when the
large system is managed by a Homeowners' Association. Such Associations are notoriously
poor managers of large septic systems, because no one individual has the permanent respon-
sibility for ensuring that the system is maintained properly. As a result, local government
authorities provide better managerial oversight for these systems. Therefore, once a large
system is installed, the developer or contractor should turn over daily management of the
system to the local government. The homeowners using the system can then support its
operation through taxes or special fees.
The regulatory definition of a "large" septic system is generally made in terms of the volume
of wastewater the system is designed to treat and dispose. In most states, the wastewater
volume threshold, above which the septic system is defined as "large," lies in the range
between 2,500 and 5,000 gpd. In contrast, the approximate wastewater flow volume from an
average single-family home is 150 to 200 gpd.
In the past, most areas regulated larger domestic systems by simply "enlarging" the criteria
used for the smaller, single-family septic systems. Recently, this practice has come into
question. In 1984, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency outlined five general areas of
concern:
1) The ability of soils to treat and dispose of large volumes of waste over a
long time period;
2) The creation of a ground-water mound under soil absorption fields due
to the disposal of large volumes of waste;
3) Absorption field failures caused by contact with a ground-water mound;
4) Ground-water contamination caused by incomplete effluent treatment;
and
5) Surface-water contamination caused by premature surfacing of waste ef-
fluent.
Minnesota has developed technical guidance to address these concerns, and the State works
with local authorities to closely monitor large system design and operation. Several other
states, including Connecticut, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and Maine have also
promulgated special design criteria for larger systems.
Page 51
-------
Oregon defines any treatment system that receives over 2,500 gpd of waste/low as
a large system (see Appendix B). Oregon requires the following special design
criteria for the systems:
• The use of pressure distribution;
• Effluent distribution to prevent any unit in the disposal field from receiv-
ing more than 1,300 gpd;
• Providing sufficient site area for locating replacement soil absorption dis-
posal areas next to the active units if necessary;
• Alternate dosing of waste flow distribution between soil absorption fields
to allow saturation and drying cycles for soil absorption disposal units;
and
• Providing a written assessment of the impact of the proposed system upon
the quality of drinking water and public health.
Oregon also requires that all large systems be designed by competent professionals
in the septic disposal field.
In Connecticut, the Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for
reviewing all systems that receive more than 5,000 gpd of wastewater. The major
focus of these reviews is the establishment of a proper size for the effluent absorp-
tion system, a characterization of the true hydraulic capacity of the site, and an
evaluation of the potential for contamination from the site.
The Minnesota guidance for large soil absorption systems (see reference in Chapter 4) em-
phasizes that the type of wastewater entering the system must be strictly controlled. This
guidance states that,
large soil absorption systems shall be constructed and operated to treat only
domestic waste. Connection to the system from any source that would allow
other than domestic waste to enter a soil treatment system shall not be per-
mitted unless the wastewater components and concentrations are determined
and submitted to the permitting authority for review. Approval/disapproval
is based on available information on the possible impacts that may result
from the proposed waste constituents.
Along with the changes in technical guidance and criteria, a number of states are also devel-
oping new regulatory strategies. Because of the need for more thorough technical review of
the systems, many states are retaining strict oversight over the permitting process. New
Hampshire reviews all large septic system site plans at the State level as part of a larger land
development and ground-water degradation control program. The permit review process is a
shared responsibility between the technical system experts within the Small Systems Division
and planners within the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission.
Page 52
-------
Under the provisions of Sections 323.1 through 323.13 of the Compiled Laws of
Michigan, Act 245, the Michigan Water Resources Commission has the authority to
permit and regulate large residential systems. The Commission may require large
systems to meet specific performance standards for certain characteristics (e.g.,
levels of BOD$, pH, and suspended solids) and require regular ground-water moni-
toring for levels of chloride, nitrate, phosphorous, and pH, for example. A permit
may also establish a construction and operations schedule, facility construction
standards, ground-water monitoring well installation standards, monthly reporting
requirements, management requirements, and any special conditions the Commis-
sion deems necessary for the proper operation of the system.
Other states tend to take a less direct role in large system review. In Washington, local
health departments are responsible for permitting all systems that dispose of between 3,500
and 14,500 gpd. The State health agency provides technical assistance for design reviews and
may take over the permitting process in place of the local health department. In Maryland
and Illinois, all large septic systems are regulated by county health departments with state
agencies offering technical assistance or project reviews on a request basis.
Those areas that have adopted strong management programs for large residential and com-
mercial/industrial septic systems share several common characteristics. The regulatory re-
quirements involve a high degree of individual review by the regulating authority. Each
system must be analyzed, and the review process can take several months. The ground-
water protection programs also require that allowable concentration levels in the ground
water be set for a wide range of potential contaminants. The regulator must evaluate the
contaminant removal capability for many treatment technologies. Clearly, this process in-
volves increased expense for all parties. Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements impose
additional costs. However, the process yields important benefits for the community. De-
tailed reviews encourage industries to use technologies that are most appropriate for the local
environmental conditions and the characteristics of the waste flows.
3.9 Strengthening Compliance and Enforcement Programs
A septic system management program will not be effective if measures for ensuring compli-
ance with the program's requirements or prohibitions are not established. Programs can be
implemented in a number of ways: by requiring direct permitting, inspections, education,
and training. In general, compliance with provisions of a management program is bolstered
by making the provisions enforceable and providing for direct and/or indirect financial incen-
tives or sanctions.
Enforceable standards are applied to the system user through permitting. Requiring permits
for the construction of septic systems is a very common regulatory practice and is followed
throughout the country. However, jurisdictions vary in the amount of information required
in the permits and in the level of effort put into permit review and individual site inspections.
Some jurisdictions also are relying on occupancy permits that prohibit the use of a septic
system until it is determined that the system is operating properly. Such permits must gener-
ally be renewed when homes change owners. Thus, the new owner is made aware of the
Page S3
-------
condition of the septic system. Finally, a few regions are turning to the use of discharge
permits to control the introduction of contaminants into the ground water. Direct financial
incentives also vary from imposing minor fines for poor system design or maintenance to
requiring replacement of a failing system. Indirect incentives include prohibiting the sale of a
home if its septic system is not functioning properly.
The type of regulatory program chosen by individual governments is dependent upon local
circumstances, the implementing authority, the make-up of the regulated community, the
use of conventional technology and techniques, and the stringency of an enforceable stan-
dard. While establishing a program focusing on strict enforceable standards may, in the
abstract, help ensure protection of human health and the environment, the program must not
be so strict as to promote non-compliance or overtax the capability of the implementing
authority. The crux of the matter is the need to ensure that system users will comply with the
standards that are established. The more a program relies on strict controls and prohibitions,
rather than on other management techniques, the more compliance needs to be ensured
through some form of enforcement activity. The importance of compliance cannot be over-
emphasized: a regulatory program without compliance is as ineffective as no program at all.
This section describes several approaches to foster compliance used by existing septic system
management programs.
State and local agencies include a variety of licensing and permitting requirements or controls
within their septic system regulations or ordinances. These requirements relate to virtually all
aspects of septic system use, including siting, design, installation, operation, and maintenance
by:
• Requiring qualified engineers or sanitarians to design the systems;
• Requiring site inspections by soil scientists and/or geologists as a condition
for issuance of an installation permit;
• Requiring licensed contractors to install or supervise installation of all sep-
tic systems;
• Requiring inspections before issuing occupancy permits that allow home-
owners to use the systems;
• Monitoring operation and maintenance of all systems through periodic
inspections;
• Making builders and/or installers responsible for the performance of new
systems for a specified period of time following installation;
• Requiring mail-in certifications to ensure that systems are regularly in-
spected and pumped by licensed septage handlers; and
• Requiring pre-sale or mortgage approval inspections.
The general sanctions that many governments use to ensure compliance with these septic
system controls include:
• Fines for non-compliance; and
• Ordering violators of septic system regulations to take corrective action.
Page 54
-------
A number of states, including Washington, Maine, and Idaho, already have enacted strong
compliance and enforcement provisions. In each case, local governments may choose to
implement more strict methods. Examples of these methods are discussed in earlier sections
of this publication (see sections 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8). Nevertheless, no matter how strict
the state or local methods for ensuring compliance may be, the effectiveness of any program
depends on the ability of local officials to implement the controls. Without the active in-
volvement of regulatory personnel in the enforcement process, code provisions will become
meaningless.
Maine has established an effective compliance and enforcement program through
the combination of sound regulatory requirements and strong local implementa-
tion. Enforcement provisions of the Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules
(10-144 Code of Maine Regulations, 7/1180) call for construction and installation
oversight. The site evaluator's permit application is referred to the local plumbing
inspector, who issues the permit if it is determined that the system complies with
the rules. The local plumbing inspector must also inspect the installed tank system
before it can be covered. The rules specify that "any system covered or concealed
before being inspected shall be required to be uncovered for inspection by the Local
Plumbing Inspector."
To successfully implement Maine's Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules, staff involvement
at both state and local levels is required. Key local staff include plumbing inspectors and site
evaluators. There are approximately 250 certified plumbing inspectors in Maine. To be-
come certified, an inspector must take written exams, but need not be a professional engi-
neer or plumber. Local governments may employ a plumbing inspector as a full-time staff
member, but the inspectors are more commonly retained as part-time consultants. They are
paid each time they perform an inspection. Usually, the municipality gives the plumbing
inspector a portion of the fee the applicant pays when submitting a permit request.
There are over 100 licensed site evaluators in Maine. To become licensed as a site evalua-
tor, the applicant must be a professional geologist, soil scientist, or engineer, and must suc-
cessfully complete a written and field exam. Site evaluators generally work as private con-
sultants, and are hired by homeowners, developers, or builders who want to install septic
systems.
Maine's Department of Human Services has five full-time engineers assigned to oversee and
implement the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules. One of the full-time positions is de-
voted to issuing variances and prosecuting Rule violators. Historically, Maine had used fines
to penalize violators of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules. In 1983, the Maine
Legislature enacted Chapter 796, which authorizes the District Courts to order violators of
Maine's land-use laws (which includes plumbing and subsurface wastewater disposal rules) to
both pay fines and to stop or correct violations.
Pagt 55
-------
The State of Washington has developed a program that combines strong regulatory
language at the State level with effective local enforcement.
Compliance provisions of Washington's On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems Rules and Regula-
tions include:
• Site Evaluation Oversight. All sites must be evaluated by, or under the
direct supervision of, a health officer, registered sanitarian, professional
engineer, registered soil scientist, or certified designer having knowledge
and experience in the areas of soil and wastewater treatment and dis-
posal.
• Performance Monitoring of Alternative Systems. The regulations require
performance monitoring of alternative systems. Costs of monitoring are
collected as pan of applicants' permit fees.
• Design of Septic Systems. The regulations require that all designs for on-
site sewage systems must be completed by or under the supervision of a
professional engineer, registered sanitarian, or certified designer. How-
ever, a health officer may permit a resident owner to design his or her
own system.
Local governments in Washington are responsible for enforcing the on-site sewage disposal
program. The State performs routine reviews of local health departments and recommends
ways of strengthening the programs. Approximately 90 full-time employees throughout
Washington's 39 county health departments implement the septic system management regu-
lations.
Several counties in Maryland, as well as other jurisdictions around the country, require the
issuance of an occupancy permit before a septic system can be used. These permits ensure
that the septic systems are inspected when the property is sold. The State of Rhode Island
requires that any "newly constructed, altered, or rebuilt individual sewage disposal system"
must receive a "Certificate of Conformance" from the State before the building serviced by
the system can be sold or occupied. The Certificate of Conformance also must be received
before local jurisdictions can grant a Certificate of Occupancy.
Page 56
-------
The State of Minnesota also has sought to ensure that the existing septic systems on
riparian lots are functioning properly. To accomplish this task, Minnesota pro-
moted a state-wide inspection of the existing systems. The inspections were con-
ducted primarily by local county officials. As a result of the survey 18,000 noncon-
forming systems in Minnesota were brought up to standard by 1983. However, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources estimates that this represents only
one-third to one-half of the total number of nonconforming systems.
Massachusetts and New York require that large septic systems or systems that treat
and dispose of potentially hazardous compounds must receive a ground-water dis-
charge permit. The conditions associated with these permits require that the per-
mit holder adhere to strict performance standards that limit the introduction of
contaminants into the ground water. In addition, commercial and industrial dis-
charges are generally required to monitor the effluent from the systems, institute
recordkeeping procedures, and report on system performance to the regulatory
authority (see Section 3.8.1).
Idaho uses a "mortgage survey" system to ensure that septic systems are ade-
quately maintained. Under this system, homeowners applying for mortgages or
mortgage renewals must provide the Regional Health District with verification that
their septic systems have been inspected. (This approach was discussed more fully
in Section 3.5.)
Each of these techniques has advantages and disadvantages. Using inspectors to oversee
siting, design, construction, installation, and use of septic systems can help to ensure that
systems will function properly. However, retaining inspectors may be a financial burden to
government agencies, especially local governments. Inspectors may either be hired as full-
time staff, or paid a stipend each time they perform an inspection (essentially, acting as
part-time staff). Some jurisdictions have chosen to pool their resources on a region-wide
basis and hire a consultant to work for several municipalities on a joint-use basis. Additional
expenses are involved in licensing inspectors. The community must establish a licensing
procedure that includes developing an exam, providing accompanying study materials, adver-
tising and holding the exam at regular intervals (e.g., once or twice a year), grading the
exams, and notifying the applicants of the outcomes. The costs of these activities can be
recovered through licensing, examination, and registration fees.
Areas that use sanctions to enforce their septic system management programs have found
that a combination of fines and corrective action requirements is most effective. Fines alone
are frequently not a strong enough sanction, because they generally only amount to a few
hundred dollars per violation. However, if property owners know ahead of time that they
will be required to correct any violations, they will be much more likely to comply with the
Page 57
-------
regulations. Officials in Maine, for instance, have found their new enforcement provisions,
which call for fines and require system repairs, are very effective. Marion County, Indiana,
also has incorporated language into its local code that allows health officials to serve notices
to property owners who own or operate septic systems that may damage the health of the
general public. These notices include schedules for the property owner to take remedial
action to upgrade or repair the septic system (see Appendix B). If the repair deadline in the
schedule is not met, the property owner may be fined up to $1,000.
All of the above-mentioned measures provide for a more effective septic system manage-
ment program by ensuring that appropriate control practices are followed.
Page 58
-------
4. TECHNICAL INFORMATION
This chapter provides a list of references that may be consulted for further information con-
cerning septic system design and operation and the management and control topics ad-
dressed in Chapter 3. The following sections provide a listing and brief description of numer-
ous comprehensive technical references on septic systems; references for the Chapter 3 sub-
jects; and information concerning other sources of reference material. Copies of the refer-
ence materials should be obtained from the listed sources. Fees may be charged for some of
these documents, which may be of limited availability.
4.1 Comprehensive Technical Documents
Various technical documents are available to aid in understanding how a septic system oper-
ates and how septic systems can lead to ground-water contamination. A few of these docu-
ments, and information on how to obtain copies, are listed below.
U.S. EPA. 1980. Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems. Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA
625/1-80-012.
This manual (known as "the Purple Book") provides information on various types of on-site
wastewater treatment and disposal systems. The publication is intended to be used by indi-
viduals involved in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of on-site systems.
The publication, in particular, discusses the on-site system and its relation to ground- and
surface-water contamination. Copies can be obtained by contacting the U.S. EPA, Center
for Environmental Research Information, 26 West St. Clair, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45268, (513)
569-7562.
Bicki, T.J., R.B. Brown, M.E. Collins, R.S. Mansell, and D.F. Rothwell. 1984.
Impact of On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems on Surface and Ground Water Quality.
Report to the Florida Department of Health by the Institute of Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.
This report is divided into sections that include a general description of on-site sewage dis-
posal systems, wastewater and effluent characterization, and how to site septic systems to
obtain maximum treatment. It is written in both a technical and non-technical way and
contains an excellent reference list, should any further information on septic systems be
desired. The report can be obtained through the Small Flows Clearinghouse (see section
4.3).
Cantor, L. and R.C. Knox. 1984. Septic Tank System Effects on Ground Water
Quality. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
This report provides a comprehensive literature survey on septic systems and their effects on
ground-water quality. It includes information on how a septic system works, how ground-
water contamination can occur from septic systems, and how to apply computer models to
evaluate septic systems. The report is available through Lewis Publishers, Inc., 121 South
Main Street, Chelsea, Michigan, 48118, (800) 525-7894.
Page 59
-------
Midwest Plan Service. 1982. On-Site Sewage Disposal Handbook. Midwest Plan
Service, Ames, Iowa.
The handbook contains detailed, technical information designed to help the homeowner
plan, design, install, and maintain a private sewage treatment and disposal system. Although
information in this handbook is highly technical in nature, it is written in a manner which
makes it easy and practical to use. It concentrates primarily on septic systems but also
contains information on other types of on-site sewage disposal. There is a $5.00 fee for the
document, and it may be obtained by contacting Deborah Geisert at the Midwest Plan Serv-
ice, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011. It can also be obtained by contacting the
Extension Agricultural Engineer at state universities in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1984. High Rate Soil Absorption System
(HRSA); Task Force Final Report.
This report was produced by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to address possible
ground-water quality problems that could result from "large" septic systems (multi-unit sys-
tems that receive up to 100,000 gallons per day). It contains information on technical analy-
ses done on large systems. This report is quite technical in nature and, although it looks at
only large systems, many of the techniques can be applied to septic systems of any size. This
document can be obtained by writing the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Division of
Water Quality, 1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, MN, 55113, (612) 296-7389.
Otis, R.J., W.C. Boyle, J.C. Converse, and E.J. Terry. 1977. On-Site Disposal of
Small Wastewater Flows.
This report provides information on how to locate a septic system in order to obtain maxi-
mum treatment from the soil. It presents test results on soil percolation rates and concentra-
tions of various contaminants associated with septic systems located in a variety of soil types.
Information from the report can be used to determine such things as septic system loading
rates and the size of the drain field required for a particular type of system in a particular soil
type. Copies can be obtained by contacting the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
240 Agriculture Hall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706, (608)262-6969.
There is a $2.50 fee for each copy of the report.
Scalf, M.R., W.J. Dunlap, and J.F. Kreissl. 1977. Environmental Effects of Septic
Tank Systems. Report by the Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Okla-
homa.
This document discusses, in general, possible impacts of septic systems on ground water and
other environmental media. It can be obtained through NTIS, 5825 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161. Report number PB-272 702/2ST (EPA 600/13-77/096).
Waltz, J.P. 1975. A System for Geologic Evaluation of Pollution Potential at
Mountain Dwelling Sites. Report by Colorado State University Department of Earth
Resources, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
This report addresses the significant problem of properly siting septic systems in areas with
thin or absent soils. It is available through NTIS (see above), Report number PB-240
810/2ST.
Pagt 60
-------
Thomson, M., et al. 1984. Characterization of Soil Disposal System Leachates
U.S. EPA Report No. EPA 600/2-84/101. NTIS Report No. PB84-196229.
This paper discusses 22 trace-level toxic organics that were traced from distribution trenches
of large soil absorption systems to underlying ground water at 10 sites around the U.S. It is
available from NTIS.
4.2 References Pertaining to Specific Topics
In this section, literature citations, publications, state regulations, and contacts are listed for
the topics discussed in Chapter 3.
4.2.1 Overview of Regulatory Programs
Olivieri, Adam W., Robert J. Roche, and Griffith L. Johnston. 1981. "Guidelines
for Control of Septic Tank Systems." /. Env. Eng. ASCE. 107(5) = 1025-1033.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. 1983. Managing Small and Alter-
native Wastewater Systems. Cambridge, Mass.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Planning Wastewater Management
Facilities for Small Communities. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/8-80-030.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Management of On-Site and Small
Community Wastewater Systems. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/8-82-009.
4.2.2 Requiring Site Evaluations
Alley, T. and K. Thompson. 1981. The Hydrogeologic Mapping of Unincorporated
Gunn County, Missouri to Identify Areas Where Sinkholes, Flooding and Serious
Ground-Water Contamination Could Result from Land Development. Section 208
Summary Report, 6/81.
Bauman, B.J. and W.M. Schafer. 1985. "Estimating Ground-Water Quality Im-
pacts from On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems," in Proceedings of the Fourth Na-
tional Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, American
Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication 07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
Chflds, K.E., S.B. Upchurch, and B. Ellis. 1974. "Sampling of Variable Waste-
. Migration Patterns in Ground Water," Ground Water 12(6).
Gardner, Walter H. 1979. "How Water Moves in the Soil," (Reprints available
from Crops and Soils Magazine, by the American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 677
S. Sigal Road, Madison, WI 53711).
Healy, K.A. and R. Laak. 1974. "Site Evaluation and-Design of Seepage Fields,"
/. Env. Eng., ASCE. 100(5).
Page 61
-------
Healy, K.A., and R. May. 1982. "Seepage and Pollutant Renovation Analysis for
Land Treatment, Sewage Disposal Systems," Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection.
Hensel, John E., ed. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1984. High Rate Soil
Absorption System: HRSA Tost Force Final Report. Roseville, MN.
Jaynes, D.B. and E.J. Tyler. 1985. "Two Simple Methods for Estimating the Un-
saturated Hydraulic Conductivity for Septic System Absorption Beds," in Proceed-
ings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems, American Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication 07-85, St. Joseph,
Michigan.
Magner, J.A., P.R. Book, and E.G. Alexander, Jr. 1986. "A Waste Treatment/
Disposal Site Evaluation Process for Areas Underlain by Carbonate Aquifers".
Ground Water Monitoring Review. Spring, 1986.
Nelson, J.D., and R.C. Ward. 1982. "Ground Water Monitoring Strategies for
On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems," in Proceedings of the Third National Symposium
on Individual and Small Community Sewerage Systems. American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers Publication 1-82, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Otis, Richard J., William C. Boyle, James C. Converse, and E. Jerry Tyler. 1977.
On-Site Disposal of Small Wastewater Flows. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Soil Survey Manual: Soil Survey Staff, May 1981 Edition. USDA Soil Conserva-
tion Service. St. Paul, MN 55101.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1985. Technical Report Series: Conceptual On-site
Wastewater Management Plan for Residential Developments Along Cedar Creek Res-
ervoir. TVA/ON RED/AWR-85/4.
Todd, O.K. 1978. Croundwater Hydrology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Management of Small Waste Flows.
Muncipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA-600/2-78-173.
Local soil and water conservation district offices are a good source for unpublished
soils information.
4.2.3 Making Regulatory Programs More Comprehensive
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut Cooperative Ex-
tension Service, Septic Systems Manual: A Guide to On-Site Subsurface Sewage
Disposal for Local Land-Use Officials, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Idaho Panhandle Health District I Board of Health. 1977. Rules and Regulations
Governing Sewage Disposal on the Rathdrum Prairie in Kootenai County, Idaho,
March 29.
Kreissl, J.F. 1982. "Evolution of State Codes and Their Implications," in Proceed-
ings of the Fourth Northwest On-Site Wastewater Disposal Short Course, Seattle,
Washington, September 1982.
Page 62
-------
Lash, James E., and Randy May. 1982. Community Sewerage Systems, A Primer
for Developers and Local Officials, prepared by the Connecticut Department of En-
vironmental Protection.
Lustig, Kenneth W., Larry M. Belmont, and David E. Burmaster. 1986. A Case
Study of Innovative Subsurface Sewage Management Over the Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer, Idaho, prepared under contract for Regulatory Reform Staff (PM-223),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
State of Maine, Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules, 10-144A-CMR-241, Pub-
lished by the Department of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering,
Augusta, Maine. July 1980.
State of Oregon, Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Divisions 71, 72, 73, Promul-
gated by the Department of Environmental Quality, May 29, 1984.
Stewart, David E., "Alternative Methods of Regulating Onsite Domestic Sewerage
Systems," presented at the Third National Conference on Individual Onsite Waste-
water Systems, November 16-18, 1976, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Part of the Small
Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin-Madison.)
*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Wastewater Management in Rural
Lake Areas: Final - Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Region V, Waste
Division, Chicago, Illinois.
State of Washington, On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems: Rules and Regulations of
the State Board of Health. Chapter 248-96 WAC, Department of Social and Health
Services, Office of Environmental Health Programs, Olympia, Washington. July
1983.
4.2.4 Allowing Innovative and Alternative Technologies
Bennett, E.R., and K.D. Linstedt, 1978. Sewage Disposal by Evaporation Transpi-
ration. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati. Ohio. EPA
600/2-78-163.
Converse, J.C., B.L. Carlisle, and G.W. Peterson. 1977- "Mounds for the Treat-
ment and Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent." in Home Sewage Disposal, Proceed-
ings of the 2nd National Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Pub. 5-77. St. Joseph, Michigan.
Converse, J.C. 1978. Design and Construction Manual for Wisconsin Mounds.
Small Scale Waste Management Project. 240 Ag. Hall, U. of Wisconsin Madison.
Dix, Stephen P. 1986. Case Studies of Innovative and Alternative Technologies for
Sewage Collection and Treatment. Case Study Number Four: Crystal Lakes Colo-
rado. EPA National Small Flows Clearinghouse. Morgantown, West VA.
Eastburn, R.P., and W.F. Ritter. 1985. "Denitrification in On-Site Wastewater
Treatment Systems - A Review." in Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium
on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. American Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers Publication 07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Effert, David, and Craig Beer. 1985. "An Extended Study of Absorption from
Two Electro-Osmosis Soil Absorption Fields." in Proceedings of the Fourth Na-
tional Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication 07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Page 63
-------
Laak, Rein. 1980. "Multichamber Septic Tanks." J. Env. Eng. Div., ASCE.
106(EE3):539-516.
Loudon, T.L., et al. 198S. "Cold Climate Performance of Recirculating Sand Fil-
ters." in Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication
07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Midwest Plan Service. 1982. On-site Domestic Sewage Disposal Manual. Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa.
State of Minnesota, Pollution Control Agency, "Individual Sewage Treatment Sys-
tems Standards," M.R. Chapter 7080.0180 and Appendix A.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1982. Final Report: Oregon On-
Site Experimental Systems Program.
Otis, R.J., W.C. Boyle, J.C. Converse, and EJ. Tyler. 1977. On-Site Disposal of
Small Wastewater Flows. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Otis, Richard J. 1982. "Pressure Distribution Design for Septic Tank Systems." /.
Env. Eng. Div., ASCE, 108(EE1): 123-140.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Innovative and Alternative Technol-
ogy Assessment Manual. Program Operations (WH-547), Washington, D.C. *
EPA-430/9-78-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Management of Small Waste Flows.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600/2-78-173. NTIS No. PB 286560/AS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Design Manual: On-Site Waste-
water Treatment and Disposal Systems. Office of Water Program Operations, Mu-
nicipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA 625/1-80-012.
State of Washington, "On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems: Rules and Regulations of
the State Board of Health," Chapter 248-96 WAC. Department of Social and
Health Services, Olympia, Washington. July, 1983.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Office of Environ-
mental Health Programs. Technical Review Committee Guidelines:
• Guidelines for Alternating and Dosing Systems, January 1985.
• Guidelines for the Use of Pressure Distribution Systems, September
1984.
• Guidelines Governing the Use of Experimental On-Site Sewage Sys-
tems, September 1984.
• Interim Guidelines Governing the Design, Application, and Operation
of Incineration Toilets, July 1984.
• Guidelines for the Use of Composting Toilets, July 1984.
• Guidelines Governing the Design, Application, and Operation of
Aerobic Treatment Devices, July 1984.
Past 64
-------
• Interim Guidelines for Sand Filters, October 1981.
• Guidelines Governing the Design, Application, and Operation of Fill
or Mound Systems, May 1980.
Contact: Washington State Department
of Social and Health Services
LD-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
4.2.5 Educational Programs: For General Audiences
Agricultural Extension Service Offices are an excellent source of educational mate-
rial for general audiences. Contact Extension personnel at their state offices.
The Health Departments of Acton, MA, and Fairfax County, VA, can provide in-
formation on the public education programs offered in conjunction with septic sys-
tem management programs.
Huang, Jerry Y.C. 1983. "Management of On-Site Disposal Systems: Case
Study," J. Env. Eng. 109(4):845-858.
Lustig, Kenneth W., Larry M. Belmont, and David E. Burmaster. 1986. A Case
Study, of Innovative Subsurface Sewage Management Over the Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer, Idaho, prepared under contract for Regulatory Reform Staff (PM-223),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Midwest Plan Service. 1982. On-site Domestic Sewage Disposal Handbook. Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Groundwater: A Vital Resource. Student Activities.
Cedar Creek Learning Center. Knoxville, Term.
U.S. EPA Region V. Introduction to Wastewater Management in Unsewered Com-
munities: A Slide Presentation. Environmental Impact Section, Chicago, Illinois,
60604.
U.S. EPA Region V. Needs Documentation in Unsewered Communities: A Slide
Presentation. Environmental Impact Section, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
U.S. EPA Region V- Small Waste Flows Technologies: A Slide Presentation. En-
vironmental Impact Section, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
U.S. EPA Region V. Small Waste Flows Management: A Slide Presentation. En-
vironmental Impact Section, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
U.S. EPA Region V. Land Use Planning and Small Waste Flows: A Slide Presen-
tation. Environmental Impact Section, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Municipal Wastewater Management:
Public Involvement Activities Guide. Office of Water Program Operations, U.S. EPA
Page 65
-------
4.2.6 Educational Programs: For Technical Audiences
Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota, and Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. 1986. On-Site Sewage Treatment Manual. Includes Workshop
Agenda, codes, and comprehensive technical background and guidance. For copies
and workshop registration, contact:
Office of Special Programs
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
612/625-2722
Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, Safety and Build-
ings Division. Private Sewage, Parts 1 and 2 and math volume; Plumbing Inspector,
Parts 1 and 2. These training manuals may be obtained from:
Bureau of Plumbing
P.O. Box 7969
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
There is a $10.00 charge for each volume.
4.2.7 Promoting Water Conservation
Bauer, David H., E.T. Conrad, and Donald G. Sherman. 1981. Evaluation of
On-Site Treatment and Disposal Options. Municipal Environmental Research Labo-
ratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA 600/52-81-178. NTIS No. PB 82-101635.
Hampton, Mark J., and Don D. Jones. 1985. "Water Conservation and Residential
Wastewater Quality." in Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individ-
ual and Small Community Sewage Systems. American Society of Agricultural Engi-
neers Publication 07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Kuhner, Jochen, Daniel Lueke, and Ronald Sharpin. 1977. "Water Use and
Wastewater and Residuals Generation in Households: Potential for Conservation."
in Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second National Home Sewage
Treatment Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication
5-77, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Otis, Richard J., William C. Boyle, James C. Converse, and E. Jerry Tyler. 1977.
On-Site Disposal of Small Wastewater Flows. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Siegrist, Robert L. 1977. "Waste Segregation to Facilitate Onsite Wastewater Dis-
posal Alternatives" in Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second National
Home Sewage Treatment Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Publication 5-77, St. Joseph, Michigan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Management of Small Waste Flows.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600/2-78-173. NTIS No. PB 286560/AS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Wastewater Management in Rural
Lake Areas: Final-Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Region V, Waste
Division, Chicago, Illinois.
Page 66
-------
4.2.8 Assuring Proper Operation and Maintenance
DeWalle, Foppe B. 1984. "Failure Analysis of Large Septic Tank Systems." J
Env. Eng., ASCE. 107(EE1):229-241.
Dix, Stephen P. 1986. Case Studies of Innovative and Alternative Technologies for
Sewage Collection and Treatment. Case Study Number Four: Crystal Lakes Colo-
rado. EPA National Small Flows Clearinghouse. Morgantown, West VA.
Gross, Mark, and David Thrasher. 1985. "Causes, Correction and Prevention of
Septic Tank Soil Absorption System Malfunctions." in Proceedings of the Fourth
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. Ameri-
can Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication 07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Huang, Jerry Y.C. 1983. "Management of On-site Disposal Systems: Case Study."
J. Env. Eng., ASCE. 109(4):845-858.
Koppelman, L.E., E. Tanenbaum, and C. Swick (eds.). 1984. Non-Point Source
Management Handbook. Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New
York. 22-139. 10/84.
Contact: Lee Koppelman
Long Island Regional Planning Board
H. Lee Dennison Executive Office Building
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
(516) 360-5189
Lustig, Kenneth W., Larry M. Belmont, and David E. Burmaster. 1986. A Case
Study of Innovative Subsurface Sewage Management Over the Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer, Idaho, prepared under contract for Regulatory Reform Staff (PM-223),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Michigan State University Cooperative Extension Service. 1981. Maintaining Your
Septic System. E-1521 File 28.2812.
Contact: Michigan State University Bulletin Office
Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 6640
East Lansing, MI 48823-6640
Olivieri, Adam W., Robert J. Roche, and Griffith L. Johnson. 1981. "Guidelines
for Control of Septic Tank Systems." /. Env. Eng. Div., ASCE. 107(EE5):
1025-1033.
Otis, Richard J., William C. Boyle, James C. Converse, and E. Jerry Tyler. 1977.
On-site Disposal of Small Wastewater Flows. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Pate, P. 1977. "Adequacy and Uniformity of Regulations for On-Site Wastewater
Disposal, Local Concerns." in Individual On-Site Wastewater Water Systems, Pro-
ceedings of the Second National Conference. American Society of Agricultural En-
gineers Publication 5-77, St. Joseph, Michigan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Wastewater Treatment in Rural Lake
Areas: Final-Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Region V, Waste Division,
Chicago, Illinois.
Page 67
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Management of On-site and Small
Community Wastewater Systems. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/8-82-009.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. 1983. Managing Small and Alter-
native Wastewater Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
4.2.9 Controlling Septage Disposal
Clanton, C.J., J.L. Anderson, R.E. Machmeier, and M.L. Hansel. 1982. "Maxi-
mum Loading Rates for Septage to Soils — Progress Report" in Proceedings of the
Third National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Treatment.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers Publication 01-82, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Clanton, C.J., J.L. Anderson, R.E. Machmeier, and M.J. Hansel. 1985. "Land
Treatment of Septage" in Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Indi-
vidual and Small Community Sewage Systems. American Society of Engineers Publi-
cation 07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Hill, Malcolm E., and Robert E. Graves. 1982. "Application of Septage to Agricul-
tural Land," in Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Treatment. American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Publication 01-82, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Kolega, John, Bruce L. Morton, Warren Heizig, Brian Curtis, and Elizabeth A.
Cunningham. 1982. "Groundwater Quality Studies at Connecticut Land Septage
Disposal Facilities," in Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual
and Small Community Sewage Treatment. American Society of Agricultural Engi-
neers Publication 01-82, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Koppelman, L.E., E. Tanenbaum, and C. Swick (eds.). 1984. Non-Point Source
Management Handbook. Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New
York. 22-139. 10/84.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Management of On-site and Small
Community Wastewater Systems. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/8-82-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Handbook: Septage Treatment
and Disposal. Technology Transfer, Municipal Environment Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-625/6-84-009.
4.2.10 Banning Hazardous Cleaning Solvents
Chem. Week. 1979. "New York Seeks to Curb Solvents in Ground Water."
Chemical Week. 124(14):24. ,
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 1982. "An Act Concerning
the Regulation of Substances or Compounds Used for Subsurface Sewage Disposal
System Cleaning." Public Act 82-117. Substitute Senate Bill No. 267.
Page 68
-------
Contact: Randy May
Water Compliance Unit
Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-7139
Koppelman, L.E., E. Tanenbaum, and C. Swick (eds.) 1984. Nonpoint Source
Management Handbook: On-Site Systems. Long Island Regional Planning Board,
Hauppauge, NY. 22-139. 10/84.
Noss, Richard R., and Robert J. Drake. 1986. Ground-water Contamination by
Septic Tank Cleaners, in Proceedings of the Society of Soil Scientists of Southern
New England, Symposium on On-Site Sewage Disposal. Storrs, CT.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1980. Cesspool Cleaner Study:
Interim Report.
Contact: Aldo Andreoli, Director of Environmental Health
Department of Health Services
Suffolk County
225 Rabro Drive East
Hauppauge, NY 11788
4.2.11 Managing Commercial, Industrial, and Large Residential Systems
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control, "Massachu-
setts Ground-Water Discharge Permit Program." 314 CMR 5.00.
DeWalle, Foppe, B. 1981. "Failure Analysis of Large Septic Tank Systems." J.
Env. Eng. Div., ASCE, 107(EE1):229-241.
Dix, Stephen P. 1986. Case Studies of Innovative and Alternative Technologies for
Sewage Collection and Treatment. Case Study Number Four: Crystal Lakes Colo-
rado. EPA National Small Flows Clearinghouse, Morgantown, West VA.
Hathaway, Steven W. 1980. Sources of Toxic Compounds in Household Waste-
water. USEPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600/20-80-128.
Hensel, John E.f ed. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1984. High Rate Soil
Absorption: Task Force Final Report. Roseville, MN.
Koppelman, L.E., E. Tanenbaum, and C. Swick (eds.). 1984. Non-Point Source
Management Handbook. Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New
York. 22-139.
Lustig, Kenneth W., Larry M. Belmont, and David E. Burmaster. 1986. A Case
Study of Innovative Subsurface Sewage Management Over the Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer, Idaho, prepared under contract for Regulatory Reform Staff (PM-223),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Nelson, J.D., and R.C. Ward. 1982. "Ground Water Monitoring Strategies for
On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems." in Proceedings of the Third National Symposium
on Individual and Small Community Sewage Treatment. American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers Publication 1-82, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Page 69
-------
Nettles, D.L., and R.C. Ward. 1985. "Design Methodology for a Large Scale Soil
Absorption Bed for Septic Tank Effluent," in Proceedings of the Fourth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers Publication 07-85, St. Joseph, Michigan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Alternatives for Small 'Waste-water
Treatment Systems. Technology Transfer, EPA-625/4-77-011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Management of Small Waste Flows.
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
EPA-600/2-78-173. NTIS No. PB 286560/AS.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Management of On-Site and Small
Community Wastewater Systems. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/8-82-009.
4.2.12 Strengthening Compliance and Enforcement Programs
Lash, James E., and Randy May. 1982. Community Sewerage Systems. A Primer
for Developers and Local Officials, prepared by the Connecticut Department of En-
vironmental Protection.
State of Maine, "Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules," 10-144A-CMR-241, De-
partment of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering, Augusta, Maine. July
1980.
State of Washington, " On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems: Rules and Regulations of
the State Board of Health," Chapter 248-96 WAC. Department of Social and
Health Services, Olympia, Washington. July 1983.
Stewart, David E., "Alternative Methods of Regulating Onsite Domestic Sewerage
Systems," presented at the Third National Conference on Individual Onsite Waste-
water Systems, Nov. 16-18, 1976, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
U.S. General Accounting Office, "Community-Managed Septic Systems—A Viable
Alternative to Sewage Treatment Plants," a report by the Comptroller General to
the Congress of the United States, CED-78-168, November 3, 1978. (pp. 22-24)
Warren Sul, Rebecca. 1985. Rule 80K Enforcement Handbook, Maine Municipal
Association.
Contact: Julie Shepard
Maine Municipal Association
Community Drive
Augusta, Maine 04330
Phone: (207) 623-8428
Page 70
-------
4.3 Other Information Sources
In addition to various publications and reports which provide information on septic systems,
other groups, organizations, and institutions are able to provide useful information on septic
systems and on ground-water quality in general.
Probably the best and most easily accessible sources of information are state agricultural
extension services which are usually associated with state colleges and universities. State
extension services are not only able to provide information on septic systems in general, but
also information on area soil types, including their permeabilities, which is critical to the
proper siting of septic systems..
The Small Flows Clearinghouse provides an up-to-date data base containing bibliographic
citations to all types of literature on on-site disposal systems. Information which can be
obtained ranges from how to site your septic system to what diseases can be caused by septic
systems. Access to the data base can be obtained by contacting:
Small Flows Clearinghouse
258 Stewart Street
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
(308) 293-4191
The National Water Well Association (NWWA) is a major national organization devoted to
the study and use of ground water. Among services available from NWWA are a computer
data base with up-to-date state ground-water legislation and trade publications provided for
well drillers and septic system installers. Contact the NWWA at:
National Water Well Association
6375 Riverside Drive
Dublin, Ohio 43017
(614) 761-1711
The American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) periodically sponsors national con-
ferences on on-site sewage disposal. Proceedings have been published from these confer-
ences which contain excellent papers on topics-ranging from economic considerations when
using septic systems to determining proper septic system loading rates. Contact ASAE at:
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
2950 Niles Road
St. Joseph, Michigan 49085
(616) 983-6521
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains libraries at its Washington, D.C.,
Headquarters and at Regional Offices. These libraries maintain various types of data and
publications related to septic systems and ground water in general. Addresses and phone
numbers of EPA libraries are listed below:
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
(formerly MERL)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7703
Headquarters
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-5922
Page 71
-------
Region I
JFK Federal Building
Room 2100-B
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617) 223-5791
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(212) 264-2881
Region III
Curtis Building
3PM24
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
(215) 597-0580
Region IV
345 Courtland NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-4216
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Room 1420
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-2022
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
First International Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
(214) 767-7341
Region VII
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816) 374-3497
Region VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
(303) 327-2560
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 454-8255
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 399-1289
Page 72
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS
Adsorption - The adhesion of a compound (e.g., waste constituents, such as metals or
synthetic organics) to the surface of a solid body (e.g., a soil particle).
Aeration - The process by which wastewater is exposed to air or by which air is caused to
circulate through wastewater. Aeration may be passive (as when waste is exposed to air) or
active (as when a mixing or bubbling device is used to introduce air).
Aerobic Treatment - Process by which microorganisms decompose complex organic
compounds in the presence of oxygen and use the liberated energy for reproduction and
growth. Process types include extended aeration, trickling filtration, and rotating biological
contactors.
Alternating and Dosing System - An on-site disposal system that uses tanks, automatic
siphons, pumps, or other mechanisms to control the passage of waste effluent from the septic
tank to the drain field. The system allows for dose and rest cycles that improve waste
assimilation in the drain field.
Alternative System - Any septic system design that modifies the conventional treatment and
disposal pratices, which include a septic tank and a subsurface soil absorption field.
Examples of alternative systems include mound systems and sand filtration.
Anaerobic Treatment - Process by which microorganisms decompose complex organic
compounds in the absence of oxygen and use the liberated energy for reproduction and
growth.
Aquifer - A geologic formation that contains sufficient saturated, permeable material to
yield significant amounts of water to wells or springs.
Attenuation - The process by which a compound is reduced in concentration over time,
through adsorption, degradation, dilution, and/or transformation.
Bacteria - Single-celled microorganisms that feed upon and consequently degrade organic
matter in wastewater. Pathogenic bacteria are capable of causing diseases in humans or
animals.
Biodegrade - To decompose as a result of the action of microorganisms.
Blackwater - Wastewater containing human body waste, apart from other waste sources
from a household.
Closed-Loop Recycling - Reclaiming or reusing wastewater for non-potable purposes in an
enclosed process.
Cluster System - A collection process in which wastes from numerous homes or other
sources are conveyed to a central treatment and disposal facility. Systems generally consist
of small collection pipes attached to individual homes that transfer the wastes to the central
treatment facility.
Commercial Waste - Any waste that is generated and disposed by a commercial
establishment such as a gas station, restaurant, or dry cleaner. These wastes often contain
hazardous constituents which may require special treatment.
A-1
-------
Composting Toilet - Any device that is designed to store and decompose human waste by
aerobic digestion. These usually require special venting, plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical components, and regular, periodic maintenance.
Conventional System - On-site waste disposal system that uses septic tanks for treatment
and subsurface soil absorption for final disposal.
Domestic Waste - Waste that is generated by a residence. These wastes generally consist of
human wastes and wastewater from washing machines, toilets, showers, and dishwashers.
Effluent - Treated wastewater that flows from a septic system or any other treatment
process.
Evapotranspiration System - An on-site treatment system in which waste flow from a septic
tank or other device is disposed of through evaporation from the soil surface or transpiration
from plants. This process is most useful in areas with year-round high evaporation rates
which exceed rainfall rates.
Experimental System - An on-site waste disposal system that does not rely on conventional
septic system design concepts and has not been tested, installed, and operated by a
significant number of users. These systems use new, largely untried designs.
Filtration - The physical removal of suspended particles from effluent by soil or sand
particles.
gpd - Gallons per day. A measure of water or effluent flow rate.
Geology - The structure of the earth in a given region or area, including soil, rocks, and
water.
Greywater - Wastewater generated by fixtures such as washing machines, dishwashers, and
showers. Greywater does not contain any significant amount of human waste (as
differentiated from blackwater).
Ground Water - Water found in cracks, fissures, and pore spaces in the subsurface below
the water table.
Ground-Water Recharge - Water which flows from the surface, through soil, and into the
subsurface saturated zone to replenish ground-water sources.
Hydraulic Conductivity - The ability of soil to transmit liquids through pore spaces in a
specified direction, e.g., horizontally or vertically.
Hydraulic Potential - Also called hydraulic capacity or long-term acceptance rate. The
ability of a soil to accept and dispose of a volume of waste effluent over time. It is used as a
measure of the proper size for a soil absorption field.
Hydrogeologic Characteristics - Characteristics that describe the hydrology (the
distribution of water on the surface and below the ground) and the geology (the structure and
content of the earth) at a site. Hydrogeologic characteristics include soil type, depth to
ground water, soil permeability, and ground-water recharge rate. These properties control
the entrance of water to the subsurface and the capacity to hold, transmit, and deliver water.
Hydrology - Surface- and ground- water conditions at a site.
Homogeneous hydrogeology - Condition in which hydrogeologic characteristics are
relatively continuous over an area or region.
A-2
-------
I&A - "Innovative and Alternative" on-site disposal systems; see "Alternative System."
Industrial Wastes - Any waste that results from manufacturing or other industrial processes.
These wastes often contain hazardous chemicals which require special treatment processes.
Innovative System - See "Experimental System."
Licensed Professional Engineer - An engineer who has been certified or approved by a
state or local authority.
Lineament Analysis - An analytical technique that uses aerial photographs to detect linear
features in the landscape that are indicative of solution zones in karst terrain.
Long-term Acceptance Rate - See "Hydraulic Potential."
Monitoring Well - Wells used to collect ground-water samples for the purpose of physical,
chemical, or biological analysis. They are generally installed where ground-water
contamination exists or has a potential to exist.
Mound System - Also called a fill system. An alternative system design in which fill
material, generally sand, is laid on top of plowed soils that are unsuitable for waste treatment.
These systems are generally used where there is an inadequate thickness of acceptable soil to
support a conventional soil absorption system. The soil absorption system is placed within
the fill material.
Nitrate (NO3) - The most oxidized form of inorganic nitrogen and a contaminant commonly
associated with septic systems. High concentrations of nitrate and nitrite (NO2) in drinking
water are known to cause methemoglobinemia (a poisoning similar to that caused by
cyanide) in infants.
Non-Functional Water Use - Excessive water use that is a result of malfunctioning or
poorly maintained plumbing, high water pressure, or wasteful water-use habits.
Pathogens - Microorganisms potentially harmful to humans or animals, including parasites,
bacteria, and viruses.
Perched Water-Table - A discontinuous, saturated area of soil which exists in the
unsaturated zone (above the normal water table) as a result of a low permeability layer.
Often occurs after heavy rain.
Percolation - The movement of water downward and radially through the interstitial spaces
(or pores) between the particles in soil.
Percolation Test - A test used to estimate the percolation rates of water through soils. It is
required by many states in conjunction with other measurements of site suitability when
installing septic systems.
Performance Standard - A standard is used to judge whether predetermined requirements
have been met, such as the necessary level of treatment for a waste stream, after the
completion or initiation of operation. Performance standards generally are in the form of a
pre-determined level or concentration of a particular compound or constituent that is
allowed in a waste effluent.
Permeability - The rate at which liquids pass through soil in a specified direction.
Physical and Chemical Treatment - Processes generally used in large-scale wastewater
treatment facilities. Physical processes may involve air-stripping or filtration. Chemical
treatment includes coagulation, chlorination, or ozone addition.
A-3
-------
Ponding - The accumulation of septic tank discharge in soil absorption drainfields (See
"Surfacing").
Pressure Distribution - A system that uses a pump and special piping to evenly distribute
waste flow from a septic tank over a drain field. The system can improve upon gravity flow
by distributing the effluent over a wider area and by permitting resting cycles.
Rotating Biological Contactor - A device used in an aerobic process which encourages the
growth of organisms that aerobically decompose wastes. The organisms are grown on
surfaces of the contactors, often constructed as large disks, which are rotated to come in
contact with the waste flow and with air. The process seeks to optimize organism growth by
exposing them to an ideal combination of wastes and oxygen.
Sand Filters - A biological and physical treatment process consisting of a bed of sand to
which pretreated waste from the septic tank is discharged. Liquid passing through the filter
may be discharged to a soil absorption system or to surface water (after disinfection).
Saturated Zone - The area below the water table where the soil pores are fully saturated
with water.
Scum - A layer of light solids (such as hair, grease, and soap) which accumulates at the
surface of the wastewater in a septic tank.
Septage - An anaerobic slurry of solid wastes, including the scum, sludge, and liquid
contents of a septic tank at the time of pumping. The septage must be periodically pumped
from the septic tank. Also called scavenger waste or septic tank pumpings.
Septic System - An on-site waste disposal system. Septic systems are constructed using
conventional, alternative, or experimental, system designs.
Septic Tank - A treatment receptacle that receives wastewater and is designed and
constructed to separate the liquid and solids in the waste. In addition, organisms in the tank
anaerobically treat and digest organic matter prior to discharge, generally to a subsurface
disposal system.
Sludge - A layer of heavy solids that settles from septic tank influent or raw wastes to the
bottom of the septic tank.
Soil Absorption System - A system consisting of trenches (although beds and pits have been
historically used as well), together with piping or gravel, installed in appropriate soils for the
purpose of receiving waste flow from a septic tank or other treatment device and transmitting
it into soil for final treatment and disposal.
Soil Borings - Soil samples taken where the septic tank or soil absorption system is to be
located. Samples may be tested for various soil characteristics (see below).
Soil Characteristics - Relevant properties of soil, including its clay content, texture, particle
size, classification, structure, permeability, and other relevant properties.
Soil Texture - A relative description of the soil in terms of various soil components,
including sands, silts, and clays, that make up the soil layers at a site. Soil textural analysis
can be used to determine a soil's ability to treat and dispose of septic tank effluent and in
sizing the soil absorption system.
Sole-Source Aquifer - A ground-water aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water
source for an area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public
health.
A-4
-------
Sorption - Process by which suspended and colloidal particles in waste effluent become
attached to soil particles. In general, soils high in clay or organic content have high sorptive
capacities.
Surfacing - Excess ponding resulting in introduction of partially treated effluent to the soil
surface above a soil absorption system. There is potential for disease transmission through
contact with the surfaced effluent (See "Ponding").
Synthetic Organic Chemicals - Man-made organic chemicals often found in industrial and,
to a lesser extent, domestic wastes. These chemicals include pesticides and solvents. Many
chemicals are dangerous to human health and may require special treatment methods.
Topography - The general shape of the ground surface at a site (i.e., hilly, rolling, level).
Trickling Filter - A filter used in wastewater treatment that consists of an artificial bed of
coarse material, usually broken stone or slate. Wastewater is applied evenly to the bed as
droplets, film, or spray, and trickles through the bed to underdrains. As the waste trickles
through the filter, the bacterial slime that coats the bed material biodegrades the organic
material in the wastewater.
Unsaturated Zone - The area above the water table where the soil pores are not fully
saturated, although some water may be present. Also called the vadose zone.
Water Table - The dividing line between the soil's saturated and unsaturated zones.
Waterless Toilets - Any one of a number of types of toilets that do not use water, including
composting toilets.
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
REPRESENTATIVE REGULATORY LANGUAGE
1) State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 6 MCAR 4.8040, Section D.
• guidelines for site evaluations.
2) State of Washington, Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health: On-Site
Sewage Disposal Systems, Chapter 248-96 WAC-080, -090, and -094.
• rules for permit review, land area requirements, and site characteristic
evaluation
3) State of Maine, Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules, 10-144A CMR 241, Section 3.
• rules for permit application, evaluation, and issuance.
4) State of Maryland, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 10.17.02 Sewage Dis-
posal Systems for Homes and Other Establishments in the Counties of Maryland where a
Public Sewage System is not Available, Section C.
• standards for conventional on-site sewage disposal
• provisions for county ground-water protection reports
5) State of Washington, Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health: On-Site
Sewage Disposal Systems, Chapter 248-96 WAC-046 and -047.
• rules and guidelines for designing alternative and experimental septic sys-
tems.
6) State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 6 MCAR §4.8040, Appendix A.
* standards for design, location, installation, use, and maintenance of alter-
native sewage treatment systems.
7) State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Regulations for Individual Subsurface
Sewage Disposal Systems, Title I, Chapter IS.
• regulations governing the cleaning of septic tanks.
8) State of Connecticut Public Health Code, Section 19-13-B103d, e, and f.
• septic tank maintenance and sludge disposal guidelines.
9) Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control, 314 CMR 5.0
and 6.0
• ground-water discharge permit program.
• ground-water quality standards.
B-l
-------
10) Suffolk County, NY, Sanitary Code, Article 7, Sections 703P. 70S, and 706.
• restrictions on the disposal of toxic or hazardous substances.
• protection of sensitive ground-water recharge areas.
11) State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Administrative Rules,
Chapter 340, Division 71-520.
• rules for the design and construction of large septic systems.
12) Nassau County, NY Department of Health, Manual of On-Site Sewage Disposal, Section
4.
• specific requirements for commercial, industrial, and food service establish-
ments.
13) State of Illinois, P.A. 80-1371, Section 1401-1404,
• statutory authority for creation of municipal wastewater disposal zones.
14) Idaho Panhandle Health District I, Board of Health, Sewage Management Agreement
with Dalton Gardens, Idaho.
• negotiated contract to implement regulations through comprehensive man-
agement plan tailored to community needs.
15) Marion County, Indiana, Private Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 14, Articles 11
and 12.
• powers for inspections, enforcement, service of notices and orders, and
hearings
• appeal procedures.
B-2
-------
State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, M.R., Chapter 7080,
D. Site evaluation.
* - »,
1. All proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems shall be
evaluated as to:
a. Depth to the highest known or calculated pound water table or
bedrock;
b. Soil conditions, properties and permeability;
c. Slope;
d. The existence of lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock
outcrops;
e. All legal setback requirements from: existing and proposed build-
ings; property lines; sewage tanks; soil treatment systems; water supply wells;
buried water pipes and utility lines; the ordinary high water mark of lakes,
rivers, streams, flowages; and the location of all soil treatment systems and
water supply wells on adjoining tots within ISO feet of the proposed soil
treatment system, sewage tank and water supply well;
f. Surface water flooding probability.
2. A preliminary evaluation shall be made of publicly available, existing
data. If this evaluation, in the opinion of the permitting authority, yields
enough information that the site is suitable, approval may be given for the
installation of a standard system as specified in section H. 2. If a preliminary
evaluation does not produce sufficient information, a field .evaluation shall be
made to determine the necessary information as specified in section D. 1.
3. Procedures for soil borings and percolation tests.
a. Soil borings. Where soil borings are required, they shall be made
as follows:
(1) Each boring or excavation shall be made to a depth at least
three feet deeper than the bottom of the proposed system or until bedrock
or a water table is encountered, whichever is less.
(2) A soil texture description shall be recorded by depth and
notations made where texture changes occur.
(3) Particular effort shall be made to determine the highest
known water table by recording the first occurrence of mottling observed in
the hole, or if mottling is not encountered, the open holes in clay or loam
soils shall be observed after standing undisturbed a minimum of 16 noun, and
depth to standing water, if present, shall be measured.
-------
Pollution Control Agency 6 MCAR § 4.8040
b. Percolation tests. Where percolation tests are required, they shall
be made as follows:
(1) Test hole dimensions and locations:
(a) Each test hole shall be six to eight inches in diameter,
have vertical sides, and be bored or dug to the depth of the bottom of the
proposed individual sewage treatment system.
(b) Soil texture descriptions shall be recorded noting depths
where texture changes occur.
(2) Preparation of the test hole:
(a) The bottom and sides of the hole shall be carefully
scraichvd to remove any smearing and to provide a natural soil surface into
winch water may penetrate.
(b) All loose material shall be removed from the bottom of
the test hole and two inches of one-fourth to three-fourths inch gravel shall
be added to protect the bottom from scouring.
(3) Soil saturation and swelling:
(a) The hole shall be carefully filled with dear water to a
minimum depth of 12 inches over the soil at the bottom of the test hole and
maintained for no less than four hours.
(b) The soil shall then be allowed to swell for at least 16,
but no more than 30 hours. In sandy soils, the saturation and swelling pro-
cedure shall not be required and the test may proceed if one filling of the
hole has seeped away in less than ten minutes.
(4) Percolation rate measurement:
' (a) In sandy soils adjust the water depth to eight inches over
the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop
in water level shall be measured in inches to the nearest one-eighth inch at
approximately ten minute intervals. A measurement can also be made by de-
termining the time it takes for the water level to drop one inch from an eight-
inch reference point. If eight inches of water seeps away in less than ten min-
utes, a shorter interval between measurements shall be used, but in no case
shall the water depth exceed eight inches. The test shall continue until three
consecutive percolation rate measurements vary by a range of no more than
ten percent.
(b) In other soils, adjust the water depth to eight inches over
the soil at the bottom of the test hole. From a fixed reference point, the drop
in water level shall be measured in inches to the nearest one-eighth inch at
approximately 30 minute intervals, refilling between measurements to main-
-------
* MCAR § 4 -8040 Pollution Control Agency
tain an eight-inch starting head. The test shall continue until three consecu-
tive percolation rate measurements vary by a range of no more than ten per-
cent. The percolation rate can also be made by observing the time it takes the
water level to drop one inch from an eight-inch reference point if a constant
water depth of at least eight inches has been maintained for at least four
hours prior to the measurement.
(5) Calculating the percolation rate:
(a) Divide the time interval by the drop in water level to ob-
tain the percolation rate in minutes per inch.
(b) Percolation rates determined for each test hole shall be
averaged to determine the final soil treatment system design.
(6) For reporting the percolation rate, worksheets showing all
calculations and measurements shall be submitted.
(7) A percolation test shall not be run where frost exists below
the depth of the proposed soil treatment system.
E. Building sewers. The design, construction, and location of, and the ma-
terials for use in building sewers are presently governed by the Minnesota
Building Code which, in Minn. Reg. SBC 8701, incorporates by reference the
Minnesota Plumbing Code, Minn. Reg. MHD 120-135, and by specific pro-
visions of the Minnesota Water Well Construction Code, Minn. Reg. MHD 217
(cX 1 Xdd), (ee) and (ff)- Relevant portions of the Minnesota Plumbing Code,
as of the date of enactment of this rule, are reproduced in Appendix C. Minn.
Reg. MHD 217(cKlXdd), (ee) and (ff). as of the date of enactment of this
rule, is reproduced in Appendix D.
F. Sewage tanks.
1. General.
a. All tanks, regardless of material or method of construction shall
be:
(1) Watertight.
(2) So designed and constructed as to withstand all lateral earth
pressures under saturated soil conditions with the tank empty.
(3) So designed and constructed as to withstand a minimum of
seven feet of saturated earth cover above the tank top.
(4) Not subject to excessive corrosion or decay.
b. Any tank not having an integrally cast bottom shall not be in-
stalled when the water table is closer than three inches to the bottom of the
excavation at the time of construction.
-------
State of Washington/ Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health:
On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems, Chapter 248-96 WAC -080,-090, and -094.
248-96-080 Permit.
(1) No person shall install or cause to be installed a new on-site sewage
system, nor perform any alterations, extensions or relocations or
connections to an existing system without a valid permit issued by
the health officer. Larger on-site sewage systems approved by the
.department are exempt from permit:requiremejrus. Perrm^ for
alterations or repairs shall be sq identified. Application for siich
permit shall be made in writing in a manner prescribed by the
health officer. Each permit application shall include a reminder of
On-Site Sewage Disposal 248-96-090
the applicant's right of appeal. The authority to issue permits shall
not be delegated by the health officer.
(2) When applying for a permit to install an on-site sewage system, a
construction plan of the proposed system is required- The construc-
tion plan shall contain information as required by the health officer
in sufficient detail and to a scale which will permit a proper evalu-
ation of the application. Such information shall contain the follow-
ing as a minimum:
(a) Name of applicant and legal description of site.
(b) Soil evaluation as required by the health officer.
(c) Percolation test data where required or if obtained.
(d) Maximum seasonal ground water table.
(e) General topography of the site and site drainage
" ' characteristics. •-v ••' '»•' --
(0 Distances of proposed system to water supply distribution
lines and sources, surface water, banks or cuts, boundaries of
property and structures or other improvements.
(g) Distance to public sewer system.
(h) Source of potable water supply. • *•"*"•
(i) Known encumbrances affecting system placement and/or
operation. .'•''•" ••• • • " •'•" >.- . *•'•' •< -"
(3) For any on-site sewage system proposed to serve a structure
requiring a flood control zone permit under the provisions of chap*
ter 86.16 RCW and chapter 508-60 WAC, the installation permit
shall not be issued until a flood control zone permit has been issued.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 43.20.050. 83-13-014 (Order 259). §
248-96-080, filed 6/3/83. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.20.050.
80-04-038 (Order 196), § 248-96-080, filed 3/20/80; Order 101.
§ 248-96-080, filed 6/10/74.J
' - - "" - .1 . ; ' ' • .;_. V -'' f- •
248-96-090 Minimum land area requirement.
(1) For any development approved after June 30, 1984, including but
not limited to subdivisions, mobile home parks, multifamily hous-
ing, and commercial establishments, where an on-site sewage sys-
tem is proposed, one of the following methods for determining
minimum gross land area requirements shall be used. The minimum
gross land area shall exist for each unit volume of sewage (450
gallons per day) or for each single family residence.
-------
24S-H-090 Oil-Site Sewage Disposal
(») METHOD I, Table I notes the minimum gross land area
required per unit volume or single family residence based upon
""type and the type of water supply.
TABLE I
MINIMUM MOSS LAND AREA REQUIRED PER UNIT VOLUME OF SEWAGE
OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
SOIL TYPE'
TYPI or
WATER
SUPPLY 1 2 3456
Public 1 12,500 15,000 18,000 20,000 22.000
acre sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft. sq.ft.
Individ-
ual-
Each 2 1 1 12 2
Lot acres acre acre acre acres acres
1 Soil typ« art defined in WAC 24*46-094 (Determination of site characteristics).
(b) METHOD II.
(i) On-site sewage systems shall be installed on lots, par*
eels, or tracts that have a sufficient amount of area
with proper soils in which sewage can be retained and
treated properly on-site. Justification demonstrating
the development has sufficient area with proper soils to
adequately retain and treat sewage on-site shall be
provided in a report. The report shall fully support the
conclusions reached by the proper analysis of all needed
data. All such data shall be contained or referenced.
This justification shall be sufficient to enable the health
officer to establish minimum gross land area require-
ments. The minimum gross land area requirement for
each unit volume of sewage or for each single family
residence shall be twelve thousand five hundred square
feet. Application of this will result in a maximum single
family residence density of 3.5 units per acre or for
other development a maximum flow density of one
thousand five hundred seventy gallons of sewage per
acre per day. Factors that must be considered in the
report shall include but not be limited to the following:
(A) Soil type and depth.
(B) Area drainage, development and/or lot drainage.
-------
On-Site Sewage Disposal 248-96-094
(C) Public health impact on ground and surface
water quality.
(D) Setbacks from property lines, water supplies, etc.
(E) Source of domestic water.
(F) Topography, geology, and ground cover.
(G) Climatic conditions.
(H) Availability of public sewers.
(I) Activity or land use, present, and anticipated.
(J) Growth patterns.
(K) Reserve areas for additional subsurface disposal.
(L) Anticipated sewage volume.
(M) Compliance with zoning and other requirements.
(N) Possible use of alternative systems or designs.
(O) Other justification submitted by the developer.
(ii) If the report required in section (l)(b)(i) of this sub-
section identifies type 1 soils, the health officer may
allow a reduction below the requirements noted in
Table 1. The health officers and the department shall
develop guidelines to be applied when such reductions
are considered by July 1, 1984. Until guidelines have
been developed, the health officer may permit such
reductions only when an alternative system will be
used. The alternative system shall provide a degree of
treatment to the sewage, before the sewage enters the
original, undisturbed soil, equal to or greater than the
treatment provided by a mound or sand filter. Mounds
and sand filters are defined and the design criteria
specified in the appropriate technical review committee
guidelines. Until the guidelines have been developed,
the resulting gross land area per unit volume of sewage
or single family residence shall not be less than one-
half acre.
(2) The health officer may reduce land area requirements in this sec-
tion if the proposed on-site sewage systems are to be located within
the boundaries of a recognized sewer utility and where the assess-
ment roll has been finalized. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.20-
.050. 83-13-014 (Order 259), § 248-96-090, filed 6/3/83; Order
101, § 248-96-090, filed 6/10/74.]
248-96-094 Determination of site characteristics.
(1) Site characteristics shall be determined in accordance with chapter
3 and Appendix A of Design Manual: On-site Wastewater Treat-
ment and Disposal Systems, United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Report No. EPA-625/1-80-012. October, 1980,
except where modified or in conflict with these regulations.
-------
248-96-094 On-Site Sewage Disposal
(2) The textural classification of a soil shall be determined by using
normal laboratory and/or field procedures such as particle size
analyses and percolation tests. Following are the specific soil
textural classifications and soil type designations. The soil textures
in Table 7-2 of the design manual referenced in subsection (1) of
this section are amended as follows:
Soil Type Soil Textural Classifications'
I1 Coarse sands or coarser
2 Medium sand
3 Fine sand, loamy sand
4 Sandy loam, loam
5 Porous, well-developed structure in
silt and silt loams
6 Other silt loams, silty clay loams, and
clay loams.
According to the United States Department or Agriculture, soil conservation service's soil
classification system.
2 Includes other soils and/or conditions where the treatment potential is ineffective in retain-
ing and/or removing substances of public health significance to underground sources of
drinking water.
(3) All site evaluations shall be performed by or under the direct
supervision of the health officer, a registered sanitarian, profes-
sional engineer, registered soil scientist (American registry of certi-
fied professionals in agronomy, crops and soils), or certified
designer having knowledge and experience in the areas of soil and
wastewater treatment and disposal.
(4) All soil tests shall be conducted using uniform procedures and ter-
minology as set forth in chapter 3 and Appendix A of the manual
referred to in WAC 248-96-094(1).
(5) If sufficient information is not available concerning water table
conditions, the health officer or department may require that the
soils analysis be performed during the months of suspected high-
water table conditions. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.20.050. 83-
13-014 (Order 259), § 248-96-094, filed 6/3/83.]
248-96-095 Subdivision and individual site review.
(1) Subdivisions - preliminary tests for subdivisions utilizing individual
on-site sewage systems shall include at least one representative soil
log per acre or tract or more as required by the health officer. A
reduced number of soil logs may be allowed if adequate soils infor-
mation is available.
(2) Individual sites - at least one soil log shall be performed at the site
of each disposal area. This requirement may be waived by the
health officer if adequate soils information is available. Additional
soil logs may be required where the soil characteristics vary.
-------
State of Maine, Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules, 10-144 A CMR 241
Section 3.
3. PERMIT FOR SYSTEM
A. Permit Required.
A permit shall be required prior to
construction/installation of a system or those
components of a system listed in Table 3-1.
B. Permit Not Required.
A permit shall not ' be required for the
maintenance of a -pump, siphon or accessory
equipment, the clearance of a stoppage, or the
sealing of a leak in a treatment tank, building
sewer or effluent line.
C. Application for Permit Required.
An Application shall be completed by a Site
Evaluator, except as otherwise authorized in
Section 6.E.
D. Application for Permit Not Required.
An Application is not required for a
replacement treatment tank or the installation
of an alternative toilet with the exception of a
pit privy.
E. Issuance of Permit.
The LPI shall issue a permit if it has been
determined that the system is in compliance with
the .Rules, and has received payment of the
required permit fee.
F. Permit Fee.
Permit fees for the construction of systems
are listed in Table 3-1.
-------
TABLE 3-1 PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE
Complete Systems
Non-engineered System . . $ 40.00
Primitive Disposal System $ 40.00
Engineered System. $ 150.00
System Components [installed separately]
Treatment Tank $ 20.00
Holding Tank $ 40.00
Alternative Toilet $ 20.00
Disposal Area $ 30.00
Engineered Disposal Area $ 80.00
Separated Laundry Disposal System .... $ 20.00
Other
Seasonal Conversion Permit $ 20.00
G. Late Permit Fee.
A person who starts construction without first
obtaining a permit shall pay double the permit
fee indicated in Table 3-1.
H. Restrictions.
[1] A permit is valid only for the named
applicant and is non-transferrable.
[2] A permit shall become void if construction
has not been started within six [6] months from
the date of issue.
[3] The issuance of a permit shall not be
construed to give authority to violate the
provisions of the Rules and shall not prevent
the LPI from requiring a correction of an error
in the Application or from stopping construction
when it is in violation of the Rules.
-------
I. Denial and Revocation of Permit.
[1] A request for a permit shall be denied, or
a previously issued permit shall be revoked by
the LPI when one or more of the following
conditions exist:
[a] The proposed system is in noncompliance
with the Rules.
[b] The Application has not been properly
completed.
[c] The Application is unclear.
[d] The site fails to meet the requirements of:
[i] Minimum Lot Size Law [12 MRSA 54807]
[ii] Local Mandatory Shoreland Zoning
wastewater disposal requirements.
[iii] Land Use Regulation Commission building
permit requirements [12 MRSA S 685], where
applicable.
[2] The reasons for denial or revocation of a
permit shall be indicated on the Application and
forwarded to the property owner or applicant.
J. Records.
All completed Applications, Permits,
Certificates of Approval, Variances and other
applicable records shall be 'sent to the
Department by the Municipality. The
Municipality shall retain copies for their
record and the LPI shall furnish a copy to the
applicant.
K. Connection to private/public system.
[1] When a Plumbing permit has been obtained to
connect an existing building or existing work to
a new disposal facility, back filling of
wastewater disposal facilities abandoned
subsequent to such connection is included in the
Permit.
CM
00
I
vo
10-144A CMR 241 Page 3.3 7/80 Rev. 6/82
-------
State of Maryland, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 10.17.02 Sewage
Disposal Systems ..., Section C.
C. Conventional On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems
(1) Conventional on-site sewage disposal systems may not be approved
•here there is less than 4 feet unsaturated* uneonsolidated material
sufficient to attenuate effluent below the bottom of the en-site sewage
disposal system.
(2) In the coastal plain province where 4 feet of unsaturated*
uneonsolidated material sufficient to attenuate effluent below the bottom
of the on-site sewage disposal system is not available* the Approving
Authority may identify areas where on-site sewage disposal systems using
less than 4 feet of unsaturated soil may be allowed* if*
The aquifer had been designated as Type ZZZ (other than Type I or
Type XZ>* pursuant to COMAR 10.90.011 or
The aquifer has limited potential to serve as a drinking water
source. These aquifers shall meet one or more of the following conditions*
(i) Insufficient potable water to serve as a year-round supply due
to seasonally fluctuating water tables.
Interconnection with tidewater such that if pumped for water
supply* brackish water or saltwater intrusion into the aquifer has-or would
occur.
(iii) Evidence the aquifer has already been polluted by, or is in
imminent danger of being polluted by* 'activities in the area.
(3) The following conditions are required for all areas in which
aquifers have been designated* pursuant to Subsection C<1) or C(2)« for
installation of on-site sewage disposal systems using less than 4 feet of
unsaturated soil below the bottom of the sewage disposal field or Pitt
(a) These areas shall be delineated in a ground water protection
report prepared by the County Government or their representative and
approved by the county health department and the report snail be included
in the appropriate county -water and sewer plan and approved by the Office
of Environmental Programs of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
The report shall set density* design* and construction requirements to
Minimize degradation of aquifers designated for discharge. The report will
be submitted to the Office of Environmental Programs within six months of
the effective date of this regulation. Requests for disposal systems using
less than 4 feet of unsaturated soil will not be approved until the
County's .report is submitted and approved by OSP. Until the reports are
approved* the Approving Authority may issue permits for' on-site disposal
systems using less than 4 feet unsaturated soil for lots in Talbot*
Dorchester* Wicomico* Worcester and Somerset which were previously approved
by the Approving Authority and meet all other requirements of this
regulation.
A quantitatively and qualitatively superior potable water supply
is available from one or more deeper confined aquifers which are separated
from the disposal aquifer by a confining aquielude.
Steps are taken by the county health department to ensure that
the aquifer designated for waste disposal is not currently and will not be
used for a potable water supply.
Discharge to a surficial aquifer will not contaminate a deeper
aquifer of Type X or XX• pursuant to COMAR 10.30.01. or any aquifer used
for water supply.
(e) Water supply wells tapping confined aquifers beneath the disposal
Aquifer shall be grouted through the disposal aquifer.
(f) The on-site sewage disposal system and recovery area is located
180 feet from any well in a confined aquifer.
(g) Unimproved lots served by these en-site sewage disposal- systems
•hall be not lees than 2 acres in size.
-------
Sta*6 ?5 Wahington, Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health:
Chapter 248 - 9(
(1) The health officer may issue permits for alternative systems only
after the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) of this section
have been completed.
(2) The department shall establish and maintain a technical review
committee. The committee shall be composed of a maximum of
seven members and consist of qualified representatives. Represen-
tatives may be selected from local health departments; consumer
organizations; engineering firms; the department of ecology; a pub-
lic sewer utility; land sales, subdivision and building industries; and
other interested organizations. The functions of the committee are
to review and evaluate alternative systems and establish guidelines
for use. Such guidelines may include national standards including,
but not limited to, guidelines of the national sanitation foundation.
(3) Once guidelines for an alternative system have been established by
the technical review committee, that system can be permitted for
use. However, before a proprietary device or method can be per-
mitted, certification in a manner prescribed by the department must
be provided to the department that all criteria in the appropriate
guidelines have been satisfied.
(4) The health officer shall require monitoring of the performance of
any alternative system installed for which guidelines have been
developed. The frequency and duration of monitoring shall be in
accordance with guidelines developed by the technical review corn*
mittee. Costs for monitoring and/or reporting may be included as
an addition, to the permit fee. Procedures for monitoring and
reporting shall be developed by the technical review committee.
Copies of any records of such performance evaluation shall be sub-
mitted to the department. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.20.050.
83-13-014 (Order 259), § 248-96-046, filed 6/3/83; Order 101, §
248-96-046, filed 6/10/74.]
248-96-047 Experimental systems.
(1) If supportive theory and/or applied research exists, a limited num-
ber of specific experimental systems may be permitted. Prior to the
installation of such a system, an experimental system permit shall
be obtained from the local health officer. Costs for monitoring and
reporting may be included as part of the experimental system per-
mit fee.
(2) The use of an experimental system may be considered when:
(a) The experimental system proposed is attempting to correct a
failing system and other conventional or alternative systems
are not feasible.
(b) The experimental system proposed is for new construction
where it has been determined that an on-site sewage system
meeting the requirements of these rules and regulations could
be installed in the event of failure of the experiment. A
recorded agreement shall exist stating that, in the event of
unsatisfactory performance or a failure to adequately monitor
the system and submit the records to the health officer, the
health officer may direct that use of the experimental system
be discontinued and a new system meeting the requirements
of these regulations be installed.
(3) General guidelines for the use of experimental systems shall be
developed by the technical review committee.
(4) The health officer shall require monitoring of the performance of
experimental systems in a manner and with a frequency as estab-
lished by the technical review committee guideline. [Statutory
Authority: RCW 43.20.050. 83-13-014 (Order 259), § 248-96-
047. filed 6/3/83; 248-96-047, filed 6/3/83.)
-------
Appendix A
Alternative Systems
A. General. The intent of this appendix is to provide standards for the de-
sign, location, installation, use and maintenance of alternative sewage treat-
ment systems in areas of limiting soil characteristics, or where a standard sys-
tem cannot be installed or is not the most suitable treatment. Where such
systems are employed, they shall comply with all local codes and ordinances,
and be subject to timely inspections to assure adherance to specifications.
B. Adoption and use.
I. Where 6 MCAR § 4.8040 is administered by a local unit of govern-
ment, those local units of government may adopt this appendix, in whose or
in part, as part of a local code or ordinance. Nothin in 6 MCAR § 4.8040 or
this appendix, however, shall require the adoption of any part of this appen-
dix as a local ordinance or code. Further, nothing in 6 MCAR § 4.8040 or
this appendix shall require local units of government to allow the installation
of any system in this appendix.
2. This appendix defines the minimum requirements for alternative sys-
tems serving establishments or facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the
State of Minnesota or this Agency pursuant to section C. I. a.
C. Class I alternatives-modified standard systems.
I. Extreme caution and careful planning shall be employed wherever
limiting characteristics including, but not limited to water table or bedrock,
exist within two feet of the original ground surface.
2. Fluctuating ground water.
a. Where natural drainage will not provide three feet of separation
between the bottom of the soil treatment area and the highest known or
calculated level of the water table, agricultural drain lUe may be used to inter-
cept or lower the seasonal high water table, except within shorelands of pub-
lic waters. There shall be at least ten feet of undisturbed soil between the
sidewall of the soil treatment unit and the agricultural drain tile.
b. Within shorelands of public waters, agricultural drain Ifle may be
used to intercept the seasonal high water table provided the ground water
table has a slope of at least two feet per hundred feet toward the public water
and provided the drain tile are installed upslope of the soil treatment system.
There shall be at least 20 feet of undisturbed soil between the sidewall of the
soil treatment unit and the agricultural drain tile.
c. In all cases the greatest practicable vertical separation distance
from the water table shall be provided.
3. Bedrock proximity. In no case shall filter material of the toil treat-
ment system be placed closer than three feet to creviced bedrock or to con-
solidated permeable bedrock. When all horizons of the original soil profile
have percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch, filter material of the
•oil treatment system shall be placed no closer than seven feet to consolidated
impermeable bedrock. A maximum depth of 24 inches of sand may be used
under the filter material. Where additional fill is required to achieve the re-
quired separation distance, a soil having a percolation rate between five and
45 minutes per inch (loamy sand to sill loam) 12 months after placement
shall be used. If it is not possible to allow the soil to settle for 12 months
after placement, mechanical methods may be used to settle the fill to within
ten percent of its "in situ" density.
4. Slowly permeable soils.
a. In no case shall excavation for the purpose of constructing a soil
treatment system be made in any soil layer having a percolation rate slower
than 120 minutes per inch.
b. In no case shall excavation for the purpose of constructing a soil
treatment system be made in a soil layer having a percolation rate slower than
60 minutes per inch unless the moisture content is lower than the plastic limit
of the soil.
c. In no case shall filter material be placed In contact with original
soil having a percolation rale slower than 60 minutes per inch.
d. Where the percolation rale of the original soil is slower than 60
minutes per inch, at least six inches but no more than 12 inches of fill ma-
terial having a percolation rate of between five and 30 minutes per inchj
(loamy sands and loams) after placement shall be placed between the filter
material and the original soil along the excavation bottom and sidewalls.
e. In no case shall construction equipment, wheels or tracks be
placed in contact with the bottom of the excavation during the construction
of a soil treatment system in soils having a percolation rate slower than IS
minutes per inch.
f. The size of soil treatment system shall be based on the required
treatment area for a soil having a percolation rate of 60 minutes per inch as
specified in Table III set forth in section H. 2. a. (4).
S. Rapidly permeable soils.
I*
a. Filler material for a soil treatment unit shall not be placed in con-
tact with original soO having a percolation rate faster than one-tenth minute
per inch.
b. For coarse soils having a percolation rate faster than one-tenth
minute per inch, at least six inches of sandy loam textured soil having a per-
cn
sr
o
Ml
A
I
(0
O
c
ft
r
8
ft
(Q
S
o
^
3
•
50
J?
-J
O
00
o
Q>
27
28
-------
eolation rate between five and IS minutes per inch after placement (loamy
sand to nitdy loam) shall be placed between the filter material and the coarse
•oil along the excavation bottom and sidewalls.
c. For soils with percolation rates between one-tenth and five min-
utes per inch at least one of the following treatment techniques shall be used:
(I) Provide at least six inches of sandy loam textured soil with a
percolation rate between five and IS minutes per inch after placement be-
tween the filler material and the coarse soil.
(2) Distribution of sewage tank effluent by pressure flow over
the treatment area as specified in section G. I. b.
(3) Divide the total soil treatment area into at least four equal
parts connected serially.
6. Flood plain areas.
a. The soil treatment area shall be a trench system with at least 12
inches of filter material below the distribution pipe. There shall be no pipe or
other installed opening between the filter material and the soil surface.
b. The trench system shall be located on the highest feasible area of
the lot and shall have location preference over all other improvements except
the water supply well. The bottom of the trench shall be at least as high as
the elevation of the ten year flood. The sewage tank may be located so as to
provide gravity flow to the sofl treatment area.
c. If a pumping station is used to move effluent from the sewage
tank to the drainfield. provisions shall be made to prevent the pump from
operating when inundated with flood waters.
d. When fill Is needed to raise the elevation of the soil treatment
area, a mound system may be used with the following additional require-
ment: The elevation of the mound shall be such that the elevation of the bot-
tom of the rock layer shall be at least one-half foot above the ten year flood
elevation. Inspection wells shall not be installed unless the top of the mound
is above the elevation of the regional flood.
e. When the top of the sewage tank is inundated, the dwelling must
cease discharging sewage into it. This may be accomplished by either tem-
porarily evacuating the structure until the system again becomes functional,
or by diverting the sewage into a holding tank sized and installed according to
the requirements below.
f. The building sewer shall be designed to prevent backflow of
liquid into the building when the system is inundated. If a holding tank is
utilized, the building sewer shall be designed to permit rapid diversion of
sewage into the holding tank when the system is inundated.
29
g. If a holding tank is utilized for a dwelling, its liquid capacity shall
be equal to 100 gallons times the number of bedrooms times the number of
days between the ten year stage on the rising limb of the regional flood hy-
drograph and the ten year stage on the falling limb of the hydrograph. or
1,000 gallons, whichever is greater. For other establishments see Appendix A,
section F.
h. Whenever the water level has reached a stage above the top of the
sewage tank, the tank shall be pumped to remove all solids and liquids after
the flood has receded before use of the system is resumed.
D. Class II alternatives-reduced area systems.
1. Aerobic tanks. No additional reduction in soil treatment area shall
be allowed with the use of an aerobic treatment tank.
2. Separate toilet waste and grey water systems.
a. General.
(I) A toilet waste treatment device shall be used in conjunction
with a greywater system.
(2) In all cases, only toilet wastes shall be discharged to toilet
waste treatment devices. Greywater or garbage shall not be discharged to the
device except as specifically recommended by a manufacturer.
b. Toilet waste treatment devices.
(I) Toilet waste treatment devices shall be considered as one of
two types: I-privies; and II-other devices, including, but not limited to, in-
cinerating, composting^ biological, chemical, recircuiating or holding toilets.
(2) Type I-privies.
(a) Pit privies shall not be installed where the bottom of the
pit is less than three feet above the water table. A vault privy shall be used in
areas of high ground water. The vault of a vault privy shall be constructed in
the same manner as a septic tank. See section F. I.
(b) Privies shall be set back from surface waters the same
distance as required for buildings and from property lines and water supply
wells the same distance as required for soil treatment areas.
(c) Pits or vaults shall be of sufficient capacity for the resi-
dence they serve, but shall have at least SO cubic feet of capacity.
(d) The sides of the pit shall be curbed to prevent cave-in.
(e) The superstructure shall be constructed so as to be easily
cleaned, and it shall be insect proof. The door and seat shall be self closing.
All openings including vent openings, shall be screened.
30*
-------
(f) Privies shall be Adequately vented.
(g) When the pit is filled to within one foot of the top the
•olid* shall be removed or a new pit shall be constructed. The abandoned pit
shall be filled with clean earth and slightly mounded to allow for settling. Re-
moved solids shall be disposed of by land application in accordance with
Agency guidelines for septage disposal and all local ordinances and codes.
(h) All liquids and solids removed from a vault privy shall be
treated and disposed of by application in accordance with the Agency's sept-
age disposal guidelines.
(3) Type ll-other devices.
(a) Other devices may be used where reasonable assurance
of performance is provided.
(b) All Type II devices shall be vented.
(c) All electric, gas and water connections to a Type II de-
vice shall conform to all local ordinances and codes.
(d) Operation and maintenance of all Type II devices shall
follow the manufacturer's recommendations.
(4) All materials removed from a Type I or II toilet waste treat-
ment device, Including but not limited to ashes, compost and all solids and
liquids shall be disposed of in a public sewage system or by land application
in accordance with the Agency's seplage disposal guidelines and all local ordi-
nances and codes.
c. Grey water system.
(I) Plumbing.
(a) The drainage system in new systems shall be based on a
pipe diameter of two inches to prevent installation of a water flush toilet.
There shall be no openings or connections to the drainage system, including
floor drains, larger than two inches in diameter. For repair or replacement of
an existing system, the existing drainage system may be used.
(b) Toilets or urinals of any kind shall not be connected to
the drainage system. Toilet waste or garbage shall not be discharged to the
drainage system.
(c) Garbage grinders shall not be connected to the drainage
system.
(2) Building sewer. The building sewer shall meet all require-
ments of section E. except that the building sewer for a greywater system
shall be at least two inches in diameter.
(3) Sewage tank.
(a) Greywater septic tanks shall meet all requirements of
section F. I., except that the liquid capacity of a greywater septic tank serv-
ing a dwelling shall be based on the number of bedrooms contemplated in the
dwelling served and shall be at least as large as the capacities given below (see
sections B. 6. and C. 2. e.):
TABLE A-l
Number of Bedrooms
2 or less or hand pump
3or4
5 or 6
7.8 or 9
Tank Liquid Capacity (gallons)
300
500
750
1,000
(b) For ten or more bedrooms or other establishments, the
greywater septic tank shall be sized as for an other establishment (see section
F. 2. 6. (2)) except that the minimum liquid capacity shall be at least 300
gallons.
section F. 3.
(c) Greywater aerobic tanks shall meet all requirements of
(4) Distribution and dosing. Distribution and dosing of grey-
water shall meet all requirements of section G.
(5) Final treatment and disposal.
(a) Standard system. A standard greywater system shall
meet all requirements of sections II. I. and 2.
(b) Alternative system. A greywater mound system shall
meet all requirements of Appendix A, section E. I.
3. Seasonal use.
a. Where a commercial establishment is occupied or used for less
than ISO days per year and less than 120 days consecutively, the maximum
daily sewage flow shall be determined and the average daily sewage flow shall
be computed by dividing the total annual estimated or measured sewage flow
by 365 days. The size of the soil treatment system shall be based on the aver-
age daily sewage flow and the areas specified in Table HI set forth in section
II. 2. a. (4). All other requirements of toil treatment system construction
shall be followed.
b. The maximum daily sewage flow shall be used to determine sew-
age lank size for other establishments. There shall be no reduction in the size
of sewage tanks for seasonal use.
31
32
-------
c. In no case ihall a seasonal use establishment be converted to full-
time use until the soil treatment system meets the size requirements of Table
III set forth in section II. 2. a. (4).
E. Class Ill-alternatives-advanced alternative system.
I. Mounds.
a. Mounds may be constructed on soils having the site or soil condi-
tions specified in Appendix A, section C.
b. The toil percolation rate in all layers of the natural or fill soil to a
depth of at least 24 inches below the sand, as specified in Appendix A, sec-
lion E. I. I., shall be faster than 120 minutes per inch.
c. Below the sand layer there shall be at least one layer of soil,
either natural or fill, at least 12 inches thick, which has a percolation rale
slower than five minutes per inch (loamy sand).
d. Wherever possible, mounds shall be located on flat areas or crests
of slopes. Mounds shall not be located on natural slopes of more than three
percent if the percolation rate is slower than 60 minutes per inch to a depth
of at least 24 inches below the sand layer.
e. Mounds shall not be located on slopes exceeding six percent if the
soil percolation rale is slower than 30 minutes per inch to a depth of at least
24 inches below the sand layer.
f. Mounds shall not be located on natural slopes exceeding 12 per-
cent under any soil percolation rate conditions.
g. The bottom area of the filter material shall be sized on the basis
of 0.83 square feet per gallon of waste per day.
h. In no case shall the width of the filler material in a single bed ex-
ceed len feet. :•
_•-,-:
i. A rubber tired tractor may be used for plowing or discing but in
no case shall a rubber tired tractor be used after the surface preparation is
completed where the soil is slower than IS minutes per inch. A crawler or
track type tractor shall be used for mound construction where the soil is
slower than 15 minutes per inch.
j. The discharge pipe from the pump to the mound area shall be in-
stalled prior to soil surface preparation. The trench shall be carefully back-
filled and compacted to prevent seepage of effluent.
. k. Soil surface preparation. -
(I) The total area selected for the mound, including the dikes
33
shall be plowed to a depth of at least eight inches or the sod layer broken and
roughened by backhoe teeth. Furrows shall be thrown uphill and there shall
be no deadfurrow under the mound. The soil shall be plowed only when the
moisture content of a fragment eight inches below the surface is below the
plastic limit.
(2) In soils having percolation rates faster than IS minutes per
inch (sandy loam) in the lop eight-inch depth, disking may be used for sur-
face preparation as a substitute for plowing.
(3) Mound construction shall proceed immediately after surface
preparation is completed.
l
I. A minimum of twelve inches of soil defined as sand shall be
placed where the filler material is to be located. A crawler tractor with a
blade shall be used to move the sand into place. At least six inches of sand
shall be kept beneath equipment to minimize compaction of the plowed
layer. The sand layer upon which the filter material is placed shall be level.
m. A depth of at least nine inches of filter material shall be placed
over the bed area below the distribution pipe.
n. Distribution of effluent over the filter material shall be either by
four-inch distribution pipes with gravity flow from a distribution box or by
perforated pipe under pressure from a manifold.
o. Gravity distribution. .-.-,.;•• - rvs «
(I) The four-inch distribution pipes shall be rigid plastic with
holes at least one-half inch diameter spaced no further than 36 inches. One
row of holes shall be laid at the bottom of the pipe.
(2) The distribution pipe shall slope downward two inches per
100 feet away from the distribution box. ,
(3) The far ends of the distribution pipe shall be connected.
(4) The distribution pipes shall be spaced no further than five
feet apart and no further than 30 inches from the edge of the filter material.
(S) The distribution pipes shall connect to the outlets of a dis-
tribution box.
(6) The quantity of effluent per pump dose shall be at least 25
percent of the estimated or measured daily sewage flow.
p. Pressure distribution.
(I) Perforation holes shall be as set forth in Table I set forth in
34
-------
section C. 1. b. (4). Holes shall be drilled straight into the pipe and not at an
angle.
(2) The perforated pipe laterals shall be connected to • two-inch
diameter manifold pipe with the ends capped. The laterals shall be spaced no
further than 40 inches on center and no further than 20 inches from the edge
of the filter material.
(3) The perforated pipe laterals shall be installed level with the
perforations downward.
(4) The manifold pipe shall be connected to the supply pipe
from the pump. The manifold shall be sloped toward the supply pipe from
the pump.
q. At least two inches of filter material shall be placed over the lat-
eral or distribution pipes.
r. Straw or marsh hay to an uncompacted depth of three to four
Inches shall be placed over the filter material.
s. Construction vehicles shall not be allowed on the filter material
until backfill is placed.
t. Sandy loam sofl shall be placed on the filler material to a depth
of one foot in the center of the mound and to a depth of six inches at the
sides.
u. A maximum of two t^n-foot wide beds may be installed side by
side in a single mound if the soil percolation rale Is between five and 60 min-
utes per inch to a depth of at least 24 inches below the sand layer. The beds
shall be separated by four feet of sand.
v. When two beds are installed side by side the sandy loam fill at the
center of the mound shall be 18 inches deep and six inches deep at the sides.
w. Six inches of topsol shall be placed on the fill material over the
entire area of the mound.
mound.
x. A grass cover shall be established over the entire area of the
y. No shrubs shall be planted on the top of the mound. Shrubs may
be placed at the foot and side slopes of the mound.
x. The side slopes on the mound shall, be no steeper than three to
aa. Whenever mounds are located on slopes, a diversion shall be con-
structed immediately upslope from the mound to intercept and direct runoff.
35
bb. A pump shall be used as specified in section G. 2. c.
2. Collector systems.
a. General.
(I) Where site or sofl conditions do not allow for final treatment
and disposal on an individual lot. a system whereby a soB treatment system
is located on another lot or lots may be employed, where approved by the
local unit of government.
(2) Plans and specifications shall comply with local ordinances
on such issues as zoning, joint ownership of land, joint maintenance responsi-
bilities, easements, and other considerations and shall be approved by the
local unit of government.
b. Design.
(I) Common sofl treatment system. The size of common sofl
treatment systems shall be based on the sum of the areas required for each
residence.
(2) Sewage tanks. The system shall be designed with each resi-
dence having a sewage tank or with a common sewage tank. In the case of a
common tank, the capacity of the tank shall be sized according to section
F. 2. b. (2) except that the minimum capacity shall be at feast 3.000 gallons.
and shall be comparlmented if in a single tank.
(3) Sewers.
(s) Sewer systems shall be designed on an estimated average
daily flow for dwellings based on Table II. set forth in section H. 2. a. (2),
plus estimated flows from other establishments.
(b) The sewer for systems with common sewage tanks shsll
be so constructed to give mean velocities, when flowing full, of not less than
two feet per second. The sewer for systems with Individual sewage tanks shall
be so constructed and designed to hydraulically conduct the flow for which
they were designed. In no case shall a gravity sewer be less than four inches
in diameter.
(c) Infiltration or ex filtration shal not exceed 200 gallons
per inch of pipe diameter per mile per day.
(d) Cleanouts. brought flush with or above finished grade.
shall be provided wherever a common sewer joins an individual building sewer
or piping from an individual sewage tank, or every 100 feet, whichever is less,
unless manhole access is provided.
(e) There shall be no physical connection between sewers
36
-------
Mid water supply systems. Sewers shall be set back from water supply systems
and piping as required for building sewers. See section E. 3. Where it is not
possible to obtain proper separation distances, the sewer connections shall be
watertight and pressure tested as in section E. 3.
(4) Pumps and pump stations.
(a) Pump stations shall be watertight.
(b) Pump stations shall have manholes flush with or above
finished grade for cleaning and maintenance.
(c) Manhole covers shall be so constructed as to prevent un-
authorized entry.
flows.
(d) Pumps and pump stations shall be sized to handle peak
(e) An alarm system shall be provided for all pumping sta-
tions to warn of pump failure, overflow or other malfunction.
c. Maintenance. All persons using a common drainfield system shall
assure, by contract with maintenance personnel or other equivalent means,
that the system will be adequately maintained throughout its useful life. The
system so maintained includes, but is not limited to, common drainfields,
common sewage tanks, common pumps, common pump stations, common
sewers and all individual tanks connected to the common system.
3. Sewage osmosis.
a. The Electroosmosis System (a proprietary installation process
under U. S. and Canadian patents) may be permitted as an alternative system
in clay soils having percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch.
b. Standards and criteria for approval.
(1) Installation shall comply with all applicable requirements for
standard systems contained in these regulations as pertain to system location,
water table and bedrock separation distances, septic tanks, pumping stations,
distribution or drop boxes, and materials.
(2) Conditions for Installation and reporting of performance
shall be subject to the provisions in Appendix A, section E. S.
4. Seepage pits.
a. Seepage pits may be used for disposal of sewage tank effluent
.only .when it can be clearly demonstrated that a standard drainfield system or
mound system is not feasible on the particular site in question and when such
use is indicated by favorable conditions of soil, ground water level or topog-
raphy and where such use does not reduce the safety of surrounding pound
water supplies. In areas where limestone or any geological formation charac-
terized by similar fault patterns is covered by less than SO feet of earth, seep-
age pits shall not be installed. The pit excavation shall terminate at least three
feet above the highest known or calculated ground water table. The depth of
the excavation shall not exceed 50 percent of the depth of any well casing in
the area or ten feet, whichever U least.
b. When two or more seepage pits are used, a distribution box con-
structed in accordance with section G. 1. a. (2) (b) shall be used if the inlet
inverts of the seepage pits have no more than one foot difference in elevation.
If the difference in elevation between the inlet inverts is greater than one
fool, the seepage pits shall be connected in series.
c. Seepage pits, in addition to the general provisions specified in
Table IV following section II. 2. d. (3) shall be set back not less than the
stated minimum distances from the following:
(I) Wells less than SO feet in depth and not encountering at least
10 feet of impervious material ISO ft.
(2) Any water supply well or buried water suction pipe. . 75 ft.
(3) Buildings 20 ft.
sure
(4) Property lines and buried pipe distributing water under pres-
10 ft.
. three times the diameter of the
(5) Other seepage pits
largest pit (edge to edge).
d. Effective soil treatment area of a seepage pit shall be calculated
as the sidewaU area below the inlet, exclusive of any hardpan, rock or clay
formations. The sidewall area shall be based on the outer diameter of the pit
lining plus 12 inches of rock in the annular space.
(I) Required treatment area shall be determined by the percola-
tion test described in section D. and from Tables II and HI, set forth in sec-
tions H. 2. a. (2) and (4), with no reduction for increased filter material be-
low or around the pit. In no case shall a seepage pit be installed in soils where
the percolation rate of any stratum is faster than one-tenth minute per inch
(coarse sand). A percolation test shall.be made in each vertical stratum pene-
trated by the seepage pit, and the weighted average of the results, exclusive of
results from soil strata in which the percolation rate is slower than 30 minutes
per inch, shall be computed and applied to the seepage bed column of Table
III as indicated.
(2) A minimum of four feel composite depth of porous forma-
tion for each installation shall be provided in one or more pits.
37
38
-------
(3) All pile shall have an inside diameter of at lean five feet.
e. Construction of all seepage pits shall conform to the following re
quiremenls:
(I) To prevent cave-in, the pit shall be precast concrete or lined
with brick, stone or block at least four inches thick, laid in a radial arch to
support the pit walls.
(2) The brick, stone or block shall be laid watertight above the
inlet and with open joints below the inlet to provide adequate passage of
liquids.
(3) A minimum annular space of 12 inches between the pit lining
and excavation wall shall be filled with crushed rock or gravel.
(4) The seepage pit shall be so constructed at the top as to be
capable of supporting the overburden of earth and any reasonable toad to
which it is subjected. Access to the pit shall be provided by means of a man-
hole or inspection hole equipped with a watertight cover. The seepage pit
may terminate in a conventional manhole top, frame and cover to a point
within 12 inches, but no closer than six inches below finished grade. The
manhole cover shall be covered with at least six inches of earth. The top of
the seepage pit shall be not less than 12 niches below the ground surface. The
top shall be provided with an inspection pipe of not less than four-inch diam-
eter extending through the cover to a point flush with finished ground level.
The top of the inspection pipe shall be provided with a readily removable
watertight cap.
5. Other systems. Where unusual conditions exist, special systems of
treatment and disposal other than those specifically mentioned in Appendix
A, sections E. I. to E. 4. above, may be employed provided:
a. reasonable assurance of performance of such system is presented
to the permitting authority;
b. the engineering design of such system is first approved by the per-
mitting authority;
c. there is no discharge to the ground surface or to surface waters;
d. treatment and disposal of wastes is in such a manner so as to pro-
tect the public health and general welfare;
e. such systems comply with all applicable requirements of these
standards and with all local codes and ordinances.
F. Class IV alternatives-holding tanks.
I. General. Holding tanks may be allowed only as replacements for
39
existing non-conforming systems or on existing parcels or lots as of the date
of the enactment of these standards and only where it can conclusively be
shown that a standard. Class I, Class II or mound system cannot be feasibly
installed.
2. Construction. A holding tank shall be constructed of the same ma-
terials and by the same procedures as those specified for watertight septic
tanks.
3. Access. A cleanout pipe of at least six inches diameter shall extend
to the ground surface and be provided with seals to prevent odor and to ex-
clude insects and vermin. A manhole of af least 20 inches least dimension
shall extend through the cover to a point within 12 inches, but no closer than
six inches below finished grade. The manhole cover shall be covered with at
least six inches of earth.
4. Depth of bury. The tank shall be protected against flotation under
high water table conditions. This shall be achieved by weight of tank, earth
anchors or shallow bury depths.
5. Capacity.
a. For a dwelling the size shall be 1,000 gallons, or 400 gallons times
the number of bedrooms, whichever is greater.
b. For permanent structures oth'er'than dwellings, the capacity shall
be based on measured flow rates or estimated flow rates. The tank capacity
shall be at least five times the daily flow rate.
6. Location. Holding tanks shall be located:
a. In an area readily accessible to the pump truck under all weather
conditions.
b. As specified for septic tanks in Table IV, set forth following sec-
lion II. 2. d. (3).
c. Where accidental spillage during pumping will not create a nui-
sance.
7. Contract. A contract for disposal and treatment of the sewage wastes
shall be maintained by the owner with a pumper, municipality, agency or
firm established for that purpose.
8. Accidental overflow. Holding tanks shall be monitored to minimize
the chance of accidental sewage overflows. Techniques such as visual observa-
tion, warning lights or bells, or regularly scheduled pumping shall be used.
For other establishments, a positive warning system shall be installed which
allows 25 percent reserve capacity after actuation.
40
-------
FIGURE 1
VERTICAL SIDEWALL SEPTIC TANK
WISHED GRADE
V *-
"9
Ml
N
N
MM
4
•»
C
t
4
x
1
1
J__
M
N»
^-AT LEAST ^
4" DIA.
fAT LEAST 1"
1 «
n
.1
_ AT 1 CTACT*
3"
i, .X
S
J-
*- v " i • v
6" TO \f SOIL i
* ' '
• .•« .
•i
Ax j
COVER ^ AT4J
AT LEAS'
' -4 ..
DIMENSIONS FOR TANKS WITH VERTICAL SIDES
WIDTH,
W
LENGTH. L
DIAMETER
DEPTH.
D
A
B
C
DTES:
1. SANITARY TEES AT LEAST 4 INCH
MAY BE USED IN PLACE OP BAFFL
2. THERE SHALL BE ONE OR MORE MA
LEAST DIMENSION AND LOCATED W
OP ALL TANK WALLS.
3. AN INSPECTION PIPE OP AT LEAS
DIAMETER OR A MANHOLE SHALL B
OVER BOTH THE INLET AND OUTLE
THE CENTER LINE OF THE INSPEC
SHALL BE THE SAME AS THE CENT
THE BAFFLE OPENINGS OR SANITA
••..-i*r-
• - . .'T . '
• L
ES It
ES.
KHOU
ITHIt
T 4 1
E UK
T DEI
TION
ER LI
RY Tl
24* MINIMUM
2 TO 3 TIMES THE WIDTH
60" MINIMUM
30" MINIMUM, 78"
MAXIMUM
0.2 D
6* MINIMUM; 0.2
D
MAXIMUM
0.4 D
EAST 4 FEET
1 DIAMETER 4. MAI
12
!S. 20" BE1
1 6 FEET LL
S. SB
INCHES PI1
:ATED NO
riCES. INI
PIPES 6. POI
[NE OF A
EES.
••••• •
•
»• Jt
-EAST ^
r r^
1
1
/
C
mm
r
{
m
•HHHHK
6"
WOLE COVERS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN
INCHES BUT NO CLOSER THAN 6 INCHES
LOW FINISHED GRADE AND COVERED WITH AT
1ST 6 INCHES OF EARTU.
PARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN END OF INLET
n AND NEAREST POINT ON BAFFLE SHALL BE
LESS THAN 6 INCHES OR NO MORE THAN 12
:HES.
1 HORIZONTAL CYLINDRICAL TANKS DIMENSION
IS 0.1SD AND DIMENSION C IS 0.35D.
••-••••* .
**'
— ^
•
4
i
1
FIGURE 2
CLOSED OR CONTINUOUS TRENCH
SYSTEM FOR LEVEL GROUND
DISTRIBUTION PIF€S CAN
BE 4" PERFORATED PLASTIC
OR SPECIAL QUALITY
AGRICULTURAL DRAIN TILE
IN I - FOOT LENGTHS
-------
FIGURE 3
-12" EARTH
COVER
GROUND SURFACE AT LOWEST
TRENCH AT LEAST \Y HIGHER
THAN OUTLETS Of DISTRI-
BUTION BOX i
E SEPTIC _
TANK °
^- DISTRIBUTION
\ BOX
] ^4^ i
\\
ii
i i
U.-J
f
r
III
4* WATER-TIGHT-
RPES
V,
DISTRIBUTION
PIPES
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH DISTRIBUTION BOX
FIGURE
DISTRIBUTION BOX
REMOVABLE COVER
BOTTOM OF INLET
PIPE SHOULD BE A
MIN I" HIGHER THAN
BOTTOM OF OUTLET
PIPE.
EACH TILE FIELD LATERAL SHALL
BE CONNECTED SEPARATELY AND
NOT SUBDIVIDED. INVERTS SHALL
BE AT THE SAME ELEVATION.
OUTLET PIPES SHOULD
HAVE EQUAL SLOPES
FOR 5 FEET AFTER
LEAVING BOX.
90' OR 45s ELBOWS TO OBTAIN
DESIRED LATERAL TILE LINE
SEPARATION.
BAFFLE TO BE USED WHEN EFFLUENT IS DELIVERED BY
PUMP OR SIPHON, OR THE SLOPE OF THE INLET UNE IS SUCH
THAT UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION COULD OCCUR. TOP OF THE
BAFFLE AT LEAST LEVEL WITH THE CROWN OF THE INLET PIPE
-------
FIGURE 5
-12" EARTH
CRASS COVER
.CAN BE
ADDED IP
NECESSARY
4" WATER - TIGHT\ Jf
*^
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM WITH DROP BOXES
INLET FROM
SEPTIC TANK
OR PREVIOUS
DROP BOX
OUTLET TO
TRENCH
FIGURE 6
NOTES
SUPPLY LINE
TO NEXT
kDROP BOX
I. ALL PIPES SHOULD BE AT LEAST
4-INCH DIAMETER
t ELEVATION OP INLET AND SUPPLY
LINE TO NEXT DROP BOX MAY BE
ADJUSTED UP OR DOWN POR DESIRED
EPPLUENT LEVEL IN TRENCH
3. SUGGESTED TRENCH LIQUID LEVEL
IS 2* ABOVE TOP OP OUTLET PIP6
4. INVERT OF INLET MUST BE AT LEAST
ONE MCH HIGHER THAN INVERT OP
SUPPLY PIPE TO NEXT DROP BOX
TRENCHES MAY OUTLET ONE SIDE OR
BOTH SIDES OF DROP SOX
INLET
OUTLET TO
TRENCH
DROP BOX
-------
H6URE 7
LAYOUT OF PERFORATED PIPE LATERALS FOR
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
PERFORATED PLASTIC PIPE
PERFORATIONS SPACED 36
, ON CENTER. PERFORATION
VIEW SIZE MAY BE 3/16; 7/22",
OR 1/4".
2" PLASTIC
MANIFOLD
PIPE
PERFORATIONS ON
BOTTOM OF
I 1/2' PIPE FROM
PUMPING CHAMBER
PIPE TO NEXT
DROP BOX
LPIKC.
DROf
FIGURE 8
TRENCH CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
u _ ^ 4. _L
TT INSPt
XWITH
-^ 'X ^
INSPECTION WELL
CAP
-DROP BOX |
EARTH BACKFILL AT LEAST
•SlABOVE TOP OF ROCK..
-PERMEABLE LAYER SUCH AS
RED ROSIN PAPER. HAY. STRAW;
ETC. " * "
4' DfSTRIBUTIQN
AT LEAST 12' DEPTH OF
CLEAN ROCK 3/4'TO Z'/z'OlA.
MAXIMUM LENGTH* 100 FEET
OVERFILL
•4 TO 6 INCHES
INSPECTION
•/-WELL
NOTE : I. BOTTOM OF TRENCH MUST BE FLAT ALONG
LENGTH
-------
LAYER OP STRAW OR
MARSH HAY
PERFORA1
LATERALS
iTEO
SANOY LOAM SOIL
1/2* OR 2" "IP? FROM
.*'
.
•
SEWAGE TREATMENT MOUND (PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION)
-------
State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Regulations for Individual
Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, Title I, Chapter 15.
1-15003 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. All persons, firms or corporations
operating any tank truck or any other device or equip-
ment used or intended to be used for the purpose of
pumping or cleaning septic tanks and/or transporting or
disposing of human excrement, shall conform with the
following requirements. (3-1-60)
.01 Equipment to be Watertight. The tank or transport-
ing equipment shall be watertight and so con-
structed as to prevent spilling or leaking while
being loaded, transported and/or unloaded. (3-1-60)
.02 Equipment to be Cleanable. The tank or transporting
equipment shall be constructed in such a manner
that every portion of the interior and exterior-can
be easily cleaned and maintained in a clean condi-
.tion at all times while not in actual use. (3-1-60)
.03 Disposal Methods. Disposal of excrement from septic
tanks shall be by the following methods only:
(3-1-60)
(a) Discharging to a public sewer; (3-1-60)
(b) Discharging to a sewage treatment plant;
(3-1-60)'
-------
State of Connecticut Public Health Code, Section 19-13-B103 d,e,f.
(d) All material removed from any septic tank, privy, sewer,
subsurface sewage disposal system, sewage holding tank, toilet or
sewage plumbing system shall be transported in water-tight vehicles
or containers in such a manner that no nuisance or public health
hazard is presented. All vehicles used for the transportation of such
material shall bear the name of the company or licensee and shall be
maintained in a clean exterior condition at all time. No defective or
leaking equipment shall be used in cleaning operations. All vehicles or
equipment shall be stored in a clean condition when not in use. Water
used for rinsing such vehicles or equipment shall be considered sew-
age and shall be disposed of in a sanitary manner approved by the local
director of health.
(e) Septic tanks shall be cleaned by first lowering the liquid level
sufficiently below the outlet to prevent sludge or scum from overflow-
ing to the leaching system where it could cause clogging and otherwise
damage the system. Substantially all of the sludge anoscum accumu-
lation shall be removed whenever possible, ana the inlet and outlet
baffles shall be inspected for damage or clogging. Cleaners shall use
all reasonable precaution to prevent damaging the sewage disposal
system with their vehicle or equipment Accidental spillages of sew-
age, sludge or scum shall be promptly removed or otherwise abated so
as to prevent a-nuisance or public health hazard.
(f) No sewage shall be allowed to discharge or flow into any
storm drain, gutter, street, roadway or public place, nor shall such
material discharge onto any private property so as to create a nuisance
or condition detrimental to health, whenever it is brought to the
attention of the local director of health that such a condition exists on
any property, he shall investigate and cause the abatement of this
condition.
-------
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control,
314 CMR 5.03 - 5.10 and 6.06 - 6.10.
5.03: Discharges Requiring a Permit
(1) No person shall discharge pollutants to ground waters of the
Commonwealth without a currently valid permit from the Director pur-
suant to M.G.L. c. 21, s. 43 and 314 CMR 5.00, unless exempted in
314 CMR S.05. No person shall construct, install, modify, operate or
maintain an outlet for such a discharge or any treatment works re-
quired to treat such discharge without having first obtained a dis-
charge permit in accordance with 314 CMR 5.03(1) and written appro-
val from the Department for such activity. Any person who dis-
charges or proposes to discharge to ground waters of the Common-
wealth' may obtain a permit by filing the appropriate application forms
in accordance with 314 CMR 5.00 and 2.00.
(2) Activities which constitute discharges of pollutants requiring a
permit under 314 CMR 5.03 (1) include, but are not limited to:
(a) Any facility which discharges a liquid effluent onto or below
the land surface;
(b) Any facility which discharges a liquid effluent to a percolation
pit, pond, or lagoon;
(c) Any facility which discharges a liquid effluent via subsurface
leaching facilities including but not. limited to: leaching pits,
galleries, chambers, trendies, fields and pipes;
(d) Any facility which discharges a liquid effluent into a Class V
injection well as defined in 310 CMR 27.00; or
(e) Any facility with an associated unlined pit, pond, lagoon, or
surface impoundment in which wastewaters or sludges are collected.
-------
5.03: continued ,'•
stored, treated, or disposed and from which a liquid portion seeps
into the ground.
5.04: Other Activities Requiring a Permit -
(1) No person shall engage in any other activity, other than those
described in 314 CMR 5.03, which may reasonably result, directly or
indirectly, in the discharge of pollutants into .ground waters of the
Commonwealth, without a currently valid permit from the Director,
pursuant to 314 CMR 5.00 and 2.00, unless exempted in 314 CMR 5.05.
Any person who engages or proposes to engage in such activities may
obtain a permit by filing the appropriate application forms in accord-
ance with 314 CMR 5.00 and 2.00,
(2) Such other activities shall specifically include, but not be limited
to:
(a) Storm Water Discharges to the ground as defined herein.
"Storm water discharges" means a conveyance or system of
conveyances (including pipes, conduits, ditches and channels)
primarily used for collecting and conveying storm water runoff, but
not including combined municipal sewer systems, and which:
1. Discharges storm water runoff contaminated by contact with
process wastes, raw materials, toxic pollutants, hazardous sub-
stances, or oil and' grease to a leaching facility, or percolation
pit, pond, or lagoon; or
2. Is designated under 314 CMR 5.04(2)(b).
Such discharges shall include, but not be limited to, any
"storm water discharge" which is located in an industrial plant
or in plant associated areas, if there is a potential for signifi-
cant discharge of storm water contaminated by contact with
process wastes, raw materials, toxic pollutants or hazardous
substances. "Plant associated areas" means industrial plant
yards, immediate access roads, drainage ponds, refuse piles,
storage piles or areas, and material or product loading and
unloading areas. The term excludes areas located on plant lands
separated from the plant's industrial activities, such as office
buildings and accompanying parking lots.
(b) Case-by ease designation of storm water discharges to the
grouncT The Director may designate a conveyance or system of
conveyances primarily used for collecting and conveying storm water
runoff as a storm water discharge to the ground. This designation
may be made when the Director determines that a storm water
discharge is or may be a significant contributor of pollution to the
ground waters of the Commonwealth. In making this determination,
the Director shall consider the following factors:
1. The location of the discharge with respect to ground waters
of the Commonwealth.
2. The size of the discharge.
3. The quantity, and nature of the pollutants reaching ground
waters of the Commonwealth and the Massachusetts water quality
standards applicable to such waters; and .
4. Other relevant factors.
(3) Any person owning, operating or maintaining a "storm water
discharge" is subject to the requirements of 314 CMR 5.04(1).
(4) Any person owning, operating or maintaining a conveyance or
system of conveyances operated primarily for the purpose of collecting
and conveying storm water runoff which does not constitute a "storm
water discharge" is subject to the provisions of 314 CMR 5.05(8).
-------
The following activities are exempt from the need to obtain a permit
pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21, s. 43 and 314 CMR 5.00:
(1) Any facility which discharges a liquid effluent as a result of the
treatment of sewage at a treatment works which is designed to receive
and receives 15,000 gallons per day or less provided that such facility
was designed, apprivea, constructed ana is maintained in accordance
with 310 CMR 15.00, "The State Environmental .Code, Title 5. Minimum
Requirements for the Subsurface Disposal of Sanitary Sewage".
(2) Any recharge well used exclusively to replenish the water in an
aquifer with uncontaminated water.
(3) Any discharge in compliance with the written instructions of an
On-Scene Coordinator pursuant to 40 CFR Pan 1510 (The National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Plan) or 33 CFR 153.10(e) (Pollu-
tion by Oil and Hazardous Substances) or if approved in writing by
the Director, the Commissioner, or their designees, as necessary to
abate an imminent hazard to the public health or safety.
(4) Any salt water intrusion barrier well used to inject uncontamin-
ated water into a fresh water aquifer to prevent the intrusion of salt
water into the fresh water.
(5) Any facility used to return to the ground the waters used for
heating or cooling energy in a heat exchanger provided the flow does
not exceed 15,000 gallons per day.
(6) Any facility used. to discharge non-contact cooling waters pro-
vided the flow does not exceed 2,000 gallons per day and the tempera-*
ture of the wastewater does not exceed 40 degrees Celsius.
(7) Any facility that recirculates sanitary landfill leachate on top of
the sanitary landfill over an area that has been specifically designed
with a liner and collection system for the purpose of recycling the
leachate.
(8) Any conveyance or system of conveyances operated primarily for
the purpose of collecting and conveying storm water runoff which does
not constitute a "storm water discharge".
(9) Any introduction of pollutants from non point source agricultural,
silvicuitural, land management or right-of-way maintenance activities
including runoff from orchards, cultivated crops, pastures, range
lands, forest lands and rights-of-way, but not including point source
discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations, discharges of
silvicuitural process water or any "storm water discharges [as defined
in 314 CMR 5.04(2)].
(10) Any landfill approved by the Department pursuant to 310 CMR
19.00 provided that, such facility is not a point source and does not
result in a discharge which causes a violation of applicable water
quality standards or result in a threat to public health, safety or
welfare.
(11) Any land application of sewage sludge provided it is performed in
accordance with a plan approved by the Department.
(12) Any treatment works and discharge therefrom with interim permit
status pursuant to 314 CMR 5.17(3).
Any exemption in accordance with the provisions of 314 CMR 5.05
does not relieve- the discharger of his responsibilities under other state
regulations including, but not limited to 310 CMR 27.00 "Under-ground
Water Source Protection".
-------
5.06: Restrictions on the Issuance of a Permit
The Director shall not issue a permit pursuant to 314 CMR 5.00:
(1) When the discharge will cause or contribute to a condition in
contravention of standards for classified waters of the Commonwealth,
pursuant to 314 CMR 4.00 and 6.00;
(2) For 'the discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste; or
(3) Where a sewer system is reasonably accessible in the opinion of
the Director and where permission to enter such a sewer system can
be obtained from the authority having jurisdiction over it, in accorance
with 310 CMR 15.02(12) and M.G.L. c. 83, s. 11.
5.07: Effect of a Permit
Issuance of a permit under 314 CMR 5.00 and 2.00 shall be deemed
to allow, to the extent specified in the permit and 314 CMR 5.07, the
permittee to discharge pollutants to ground waters of the Common-
wealth, to construct, install, modify, operate and maintain an outlet
for such discharge, together with any treatment works required to
meet effluent limitations specified in the permit for such discharge in
accordance with plans and specifications approved in writing by the
Department. Issuance of a permit under 314 CMR 5.00 and 2.00
shall not relieve the discharger of any responsibilities under 310 CMR
27.00 (the Massachusetts U.I.C. program).
5.08: Continuation of an Expiring Permit
(1). The conditions of a permit continue in force under M.G.L.
e. 30A, s. 13 beyond the expiration date if:
(a) the permittee has made timely application for renewal of a new
permit pursuant to 314 CMR 5.09(3) which is a complete application
under 314 CMR 5.09(4); and
(b) the Director does not renew or issue a new permit with an
effective date under 314 CMR 2.08 oh or before the expiration date
of the previous permit.
(2) Permits continued under 314 CMR 5.08 remain fully effective and
enforceable.
5.09: Application for a Permit
(1) Duty to apply. Any person required to obtain a permit pursuant
to 314 CMR 5.03 or 5.04 shall complete and submit the application form
contained in 314 CMR 5.20, and, if applicable, the appropriate applica-
tion form contained in 314 CMR 5.22, 5.24, 5.26 and 8.20.
(2) Who must apply. The owner of the treatment works or activity
resulting in a discharge of pollutants shall apply for a permit.
(3) Time to apply.
(a)~Any~persoh reo^iired to obtain a permit pursuant to 314 CMR
L ,, or 5..04, and who does not have a currently effective permit
shall submit an application at least one hundred and eighty (180)
days before the date on which the discharge is to commence unless
permission for a later date has been granted by the Director
Persons proposing a new discharge are encouraged to submit their
applications well in advance of the one hundred and eighty (ISO)
day requirement to avoid delay.
(b) Any person with a currently effective permit shall submit a new
application at least one hundred and eighty (180) days before the
expiration date of the existing permit, unless permission for a later
date has been granted by the Director.
-------
5.09: continued
(4) Completeness. The Director shall not issue a permit before re-
ceiving a complete application as required under 314 CMR 2.03(2).
5.10; Permit Conditions
(1) General Conditions. The conditions in 314 CMR 5.19 apply to
every permit issued under 314 CMR 5.00. whether or not expressly
incorporated into the permit.
(2) Special Conditions.
(a)in addition to conditions applicable to all permits [314 CMR
5.10(1) and 5.19], the Director shall establish special conditions, as
required on a case-by-case basis, to provide for and assure com-
pliance with all applicable requirements of the State Act and regula-
tions adopted thereunder. These conditions shall establish effluent
limitations, and applicable requirements [314 CMR 5.10(3). and
(4)]; the duration of the permit [314 CMR 5.10(5)]; monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements [314 CMR 5.10(6)]; and,
where applicable, schedules of compliance [314 CMR 5.10(7)] and
other conditions [314 CMR 5.10(8)]. An applicable requirement is a
state statutory or regulatory requirement which takes effect prior
to issuance of the permit. These requirements will be identified in
the fact sheet or statement of basis prepared under 314 CMR 2.05.
(b) Effuluent Limitations. In establishing effluent limitations, the
Director shall apply the more-stringent of the following:
1. Water quality based effluent limitations under- 314 CMR
5.10(3); or
2. Technology based effluent limitations under 314 CMR 5.10(4).
(3)
Water epiality based effluent limitations.
tations wnicn
All permits contain limi-
are adequate to assure the attainment and maintenance of
the water quality standards of the receiving waters as assigned in the
Massachusetts Ground Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 6.00). To-
ward this end, the following effluent limitations shall apply to any dis-
charge from a point source or outlet:
(a) Primary effluent limitations for Class I and Class II ground
waters^ The effluent limitations listed beiow apply to any discharge
from a point source or outlet which enters the saturated zone of,
or the unsaturated zone above, Class I and Class II ground waters.
Parameter
1. Coliform
Bacteria
2. Arsenic
3. Barium
4. Cadmium
5. Chromium
6. Fluoride
7. Lead
8. Mercury
9. Total Trihaiome thanes
10. Selenium
11. SOver
12. Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,
10-hexachloro-l, 7-epoxy-l,
4,4a,5,6,7,8,9a-octahydro-l,
4-endo, endo-5,8-dimethano
naphthalene)
Limit
Shall not be discharged in
amounts sufficient to render
ground waters detrimental
to public health, safety or
welfare, or impair the ground
water for use as a source of
potable water.
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 1.0 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.01 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 2.4 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.002 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.1 rag/1
Shall not exceed 0.01 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.0002 mg/1
-------
S.10: continued
Parameter
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,
6-hexachlorocyclohexane,
gamma isomer)
Methoxychlor [1,1,1-
Trichloro-2, 2-bis
(p-methoxyphenyl) ethane]
Toxaphene (CinH,nClft,
Technical Chldnjiited8
Camphene, 67-69 percent
chlorine)
Chlorophenoxys:
2,4-D,(2,4-Dichloro-
fhenoxyacetic add)
,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,
5-Trichlorophenoxy-
propionic acid)
Radioactivity
Limit
Shall not exceed 0.004 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.1 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.005 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.1 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.01 mg/1
18.
Toxic pollutants
(other than those
listed above)
Shall not exceed the maximum
radionuclide contaminant levels
as stated in the National
Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards.
Shall not exceed "Health
Advisories" which have been
adopted by the Department
and/or EPA. A toxic pollu-
tant for which there is no
available "Health Advisory"
and for which there is not
sufficient data available to
the Department for the
establishment of a "Health
Advisory" will be prohibited
from discharge.
(b) Secondary effluent imitations for Class I and Class II ground
waters^ In addition to the effluent limitations In 314 CMR
5.10(3)(a), the following limitations shall also apply to any dis-
charge from a point source or outlet which enters the saturated
zone of, or the unsaturated zone above. Class I and Class II
ground waters.
Parameter
1. Copper
2. Foaming Agents
3. Iron
4. Manganese
5. Oil and Grease
6. pH
7. Sulfate
8. Zinc
9. All other pollutants
Limit
Shall not exceed 1.0 mg/1
Shall not exceed 1.0 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.3 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 15 mg/1
Shall be in the range of 6.5
to 8.5 standard units
Shall not exceed 250 mg/1
Shall not exceed 5.0 mg/1
None in such concentrations
which in the opinion of the
Director would impair the
ground water for use as a
source of potable water or
cause or contribute to a
condition in contravention of
standards for other classified
waters of the Commonwealth.
-------
5.10: continued
(c) Additional effluent limitations for Class I and Class II ground
water?. In addition to the effluent limitations listed in 314 CMR
5.10(3)(a) and (b), the following limitations shall apply to treatment
works designed to treat wastewater at flows in excess of 150,000
gallons per day:
Parameter Limit
1. Nitrate Nitrogen Shall not exceed 10.0 mg/1
(as Nitrogen)
2. Total Nitrogen Shall not exceed 10.0 mg/1
(as Nitrogen)
(d) Additional effluent limitations for Class I ground waters. In
addition to the effluent limitations in 314 CMR 5.10(3)(a)(b) and (c)
the following limitations shall apply to treatment works discharging
to Class I ground waters:
Parameter Limit
1. Chlorides Shall not exceed 250 mg/1
2. Total Dissolved Solids Shall not exceed 1000 mg/1
(e) Effluent limitations for Class III ground waters. The effluent
limitations listed below apply to any discharge from a point source
or outlet which enters the saturated zone of, or the unsaturated
zone above. Class III ground waters.
Parameter Limit
1. Radioactivity Shall not exceed the maximum
radionudide contaminant levels
as stated in the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water
Standards.
2. All Other Pollutants None in concentrations or
combinations which upon
exposure to humans will cause
death, disease, behavioral
abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological mal-
functions or physical defor-
mations or cause any signi-
ficant adverse effects to
the environment, or which
would exceed the recommended
limits on the most sensitive
ground water use.
(4) Technology based effluent limitations.
(a} Technology based effluent limitations for POTW's. Except as
provided in 314 CMR 5.10(9) technology based limitations for dis-
charges from POTW's with design flows greater than 15,000 gallons
per day shall be as follows:
1. For discharges to Class I and Class II ground waters the
technology based limitations shall be secondary treatment, which
is defined as that process or group of processes capable of
removing from untreated wastewater a minimum of 85% of the five
(5) day biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids, and
virtually aU floating and settleable solids, followed by disinfec-
tion. Disinfection of treated effluent may be discontinued at the
discretion of the Director. Limitations defining secondary treat-
ment may be expressed in terms of concentration as well as
mass.
-------
5.10: continued
2. For discharges to Class II! ground waters the technology
based limitations shall be primary treatment, which is defined as
that process or group of processes capable of removing from
untreated wastewater a minimum of 25% of the five (5) day bio-
chemical oxygen demand, 55% of the suspended solids, and 85% of
the floating and settleable solids.
(b) Technology based effluent limitations for non-POTW's. Tech-
nology based limitations for discharges from non-POTWs shall be the
most stringent of the following:
1. Limitations and standards for the applicable industrial cate-
gory promulgated by EPA pursuant to Sections 304, 306, 307,
316, and 405 of the Federal Act to comply with the requirements
of Section 301 of that Act.
2. Limitations developed on a case-by-case basis which, in the
Director's best professional judgment, define the appropriate
level of control set forth in the Federal Act for the category of
discharger or class of pollutants discharged. In defining the
appropriate level of. control hereunder, the Director will consider
any draft or promulgated EPA effluent limitation guidelines, draft
or proposed EPA development documents or guidance, any avail-
able state guidance, or any technology or process which has
been demonstrated to be achievable in the experience of the
Division for the class or category of discharger.
3. In the case of reissued permits, limitations which are at least
as stringent as those of the previous permit, unless the effluent
limitations imposed by the previously issued permit are more
stringent than subsequently promulgated effluent .guidelines and
one or more of the following conditions applies:
a. The discharger has installed the treatment facilities re-
quired to meet the effluent limitations in the previous permit
and has properly operated and maintained the facilities but
has nevertheless been unable to achieve the previous effluent
limitations. In this case the limitations in the renewed or
reissued permit may reflect the level of pollutant control
actually achieved (but shall not be less stringent than re-
quired 'by the subsequently promulgated effluent limitation
guidelines).
b. The circumstances on which the previous permit was
based have materially and substantially changed since the time
the permit was issued and would constitute cause for permit
modification or revocation and reissuance under 314 CMR
5.12.
(5) Duration of permits. Permits shall be effective for a fixed term
not to exceed five (5) years. The Director may issue any permit for a
lesser duration.
(6) Monitoring, recordkeepino and reporting requirements.
(a) Each permit shall contain monitoring requirements to assure
compliance with permit limitations and conditions, including the
installation of monitoring wells. The number, location, dimensions,
method of construction, and method of sampling of monitoring wells
shall be approved by the Division in accordance with 314 CMR 6.08.
The type, intervals, and frequency of monitoring shall be sufficient
to yield data which are representative of the monitored activity
including, when appropriate, continuous monitoring. Monitoring
requirements may include the mass (or other measurement specified
in the permit) for each pollutant limited in the permit, the volume
of effluent discharged from each facility, and other measurements as
appropriate (including biological monitoring methods when appro-
priate). Monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with the nro-
visions of 314 CMR 5.19(10) and 6.08. Permittees shall maintain
monitoring activities in accordance with 314 CMR
-------
5.10: continued
(b) Each permit shall contain requirements to report monitoring
results with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the
discharge, but in no case less than once a year. Pollutants for
which the permittee must report violations of maximum daily dis-
charge limitations under 314 CMR 5.19(20)(e) shall be listed in the
permit.
(7) Schedule of Compliance.
(a) A permit may. when appropriate, specify a schedule leading to
compliance with the State Act and regulations adopted thereunder.
Any such schedule shall require compliance as soon as possible.
Each schedule shall set forth dates to accomplish interim require-
ments leading toward compliance. Beginning with the date of permit
issuance, the time between interim dates shall not exceed one (1)
year. If the time necessary for completion of any interim require-
ment is more than one (1) year and is not readily divisible into
stages for completion, the permit shall specify interim dates for the
submission of reports of progress toward completion of the interim
requirements and indicate a projected completion date.
(b) The first permit issued for a discharge which commences after
the effective date of 314 CMR 5.00 shall not contain a schedule
of compliance. No new or recommencing discharge shall commence
operations or discharge prior to installation and operation of all
treatment works necessary to comply with the effluent limitations
established in the permit..
(8) Other Conditions. In addition to the conditions established under
314 CMR 5.10(1) through (7), a permit may include special conditions
as follows:
(a) Requirements for POTWs to comply with pretreatment provi-
sions under 314 CMR 12.00; including:
1. The identification, in terms of character and volume of
pollutants, of any significant indirect discharge into the POTW
subject to the prohibitions and standards of 314 CMR 12.08;
2. The establishment of a POTW pretreatment program in ac-
cordance with 314 CMR 12.09, including any necessary schedule
of compliance for adoption of the program;
3. The incorporation of an approved POTW pretreatment pro-
gram in the permit; and
4. The submittal by a POTW of the reports required by
314 CMR 12.09(3).
(b) Requirements applicable to the management of hazardous wastes
for treatment works subject to the provisions of 314 CMR 8.00.
(c) Requirements to control or abate the discharge of pollutants
through the application of best management practices when:
1. Authorized under Section 304(e) of the Federal Act for the
control of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances from an-
cillary and industrial activities;
2. Numerical effluent limitations are infeasible; or
3. The practices are reasonably necessary to achieve effluent
limitations and standards or to carry out the purposes and intent
of State Act.
(d) Requirements to monitor, record, and report the quality of
water at upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells to determine
that the discharge does not result in a violation of the Massachu-
setts Ground Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 6.00).
(e) Requirements to prepare and submit monthly operating reports
under 314 CMR 12.07.
(f) Requirements imposed in grants made by EPA or the Director to
POTW's under Section 201 and 204 of the Federal .Act or Section 30A
of the State Act which are reasonably necessary for the achievement
of effluent limitations.
(g) Requirements governing the disposal of sludge from treatment
works.
-------
6.06: Minimum Ground Water Quality Criteria
(1) Class 1 and Class II Ground Waters. The following minimum cri-
teria are applicable to all Class I and Class II ground waters:
Parameter
(a) Pathogenic Organisms
(b) Coliform
Bacteria
(c) Arsenic
(d) Barium
(e) Cadmium
(f) Chromium ,
(g) Copper
(h) Fluoride
(1) Foaming Agents
(j) Iron
(k) Lead
(1) Manganese
(m) Mercury
(n) Nitrate Nitrogen
(as Nitrogen)
(o) Total Trihalomethanes
(p) Selenium
(q) Silver
(r) Sulfate
(s) Zinc
(t) Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,
10-hexachloro-l, 7-epoxy-l,
4, 4a, 5,6,7,8, 9a-octahy dro-
1,4-endo, endo-5,8-dimethano
naphthalene)
(u) Undane (1.2,3.4,5.
6-hexachlorocyclohexane,
gamma isomer)
(v) Methoxychior (1.1.1-
Trichloro-2, 2-bis
(p-methoxyphenyl) ethane)
(w) Toxaphene (C.JLQCL,,
Technical Chlo¥lntted 8
Camphene, 67-69 percent
chlorine)
(x) Chlorophenoxys:
2,4-D,(2,4-Dichloro-
phenoxyacetic acid)
2.4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,
5-Trichlorophenoxy-
propionic acid)
(y) Radioactivity
1.0 mg/1
2.4 mg/1
5 mg/1
3 mg/1
Criteria
Shall not be in amounts
sufficient to render the
gro'und waters detrimental
to public health and welfare
or impair the ground water
for use as source of potable
water.
Shall not exceed the maxi-
mum contaminant level as
stated in the National
Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards.
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 1.0 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.01 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed
Shall not exceed
Shall not exceed
Shall not exceed
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.002 mg/1
Shall not exceed 10.0 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.1 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.01 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.05 mg/1
Shall not exceed 250 mg/1
Shall not exceed 5.0 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.0002 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.004 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.1 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.005 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.1 mg/1
Shall not exceed 0.01 mg/1
Shall not exceed the maximum
radionuclide contaminant
levels as stated in the
National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards.
-------
6.06: continued
Parameter
(2) pH
(aa) All Other
Pollutants
Criteria
Shall be in the range of
6.5-8.5 standard units or
not more than 0.2 units
outside of the naturally
occurring range.
None in such concentrations
which in the opinion of the
Director would impair the
Waters for use as a source
of potable water or to cause
or contribute to a condition
in contravention of stan-
dards for other classified
waters of the Commonwealth.
(2) Class III Ground Waters. The following
applicable to all Class HI ground waters:
minimum criteria are
Parameter
(a) Pathogenic Organisms
(b) Radioactivity
(c) All Other
Pollutants
Criteria
Shall not be in amounts
sufficient to render the
ground waters detrimental
to public health, safety or
welfare.
Shall not exceed the maxi-
mum radionuclide contami-
nant levels as stated in the
National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards.
None in concentrations or '
combinations which upon
exposure to humans will
cause death, disease,-
behavioral abnormalities,
cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions or
physical deformations or
cause any significant ad-
verse effects to the envi-
ronment, or which would
exceed the recommended
limits on the most sensitive
ground water use.
6.07; Application of Standards
(1) Ground Water Discharge Permits. No person shall make or permit
an outlet for the discharge of sewage or industrial waste or other
wastes or the effluent therefrom, into any ground water of the Com-
monwealth without first obtaining a permit from the Director of the
Division of Water Pollution Control pursuant to 314 CMR 5.00. Said
permit shall be issued subject to such conditions as the Director may
deem necessary to insure .compliance with the standards established in
314 CMR 6.06. Applications for ground water discharge permits shall
be submitted within times and on forms prescribed by the Director and
shall contain such information as he may require.
(2) Establishment of Discharge Limits. In regulating discharges of
pollutants to ground -waters of the Commonwealth, the Division shall
limit or prohibit such discharges to insure that the quality standards
of the receiving waters will be maintained or attained. The determine-
-------
6.07: continued
tion by the Division of the applicable level of treatment for an indivi-
dual discharger will be made in the establishment of discharge limits in
the individual ground water discharge permit. In establishing effluent
limitations in the individual permits, the Division must consider natural
background conditions, must protect existing adjacent and downgra-
dient uses and must not interfere with the maintenance and attainment
of beneficial uses in adjacent and downgradient waters. Toward this
end, the Division may provide a reasonable margin of safety to account
for any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between the
pollutants being discharged and their impact on the quality of the
ground waters.
(3) For purposes of determining compliance with 314 CMR 6.06(l)(aa)
for toxic pollutants in Class I and Class II ground waters, the Division
shall use Health Advisories which have been adopted by the Depart-
ment or EPA. Generally, the level of a toxic pollutant which may
result in one -additional incident of cancer in 100,000 given a lifetime
exposure (10 Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk) will be used in deter-
mining compliance with that section of the regulations.
(4) Coordination with Federal Criteria. The Division may use avail-
able published water quality criteria documents as guidance in esta-
blishing case-by-case discharge limits on specific pollutants to ground
waters including but not limited to EPA guidance published in accord-
ance with Section 304(b) of the Federal Act.
6.06: Monitoring
(1) Collection of Samples. The determination of compliance or non-
compliance 01. sewage, industrial waste or other waste discharges with
the requirements of 314 CMR 6.00 shall be made through tests or
analytical determinations of ground water or effluent samples collected,
transported and stored in such manner as is approved by the Division.
The location at which ground water samples are collected .shall be
determined by the Division. In selecting or approving such locations,
the Division shall consider all relevant facts including, but not limited
to:
(a) The mobility of pollutants in the unsaturated zone and the
pollutant attenuation mechanisms in this zone.
(b) Attenuation mechanisms which may remove potential pollutants
in passage through the soil.
(c) The relative thickness of the unsaturated zone.
(d) Attenuation of pollutant concentrations with distance which may
occur in the saturated zone, as a result of attenuation processes
occurring below the water table.
The location at which effluent samples are collected shall be at a
point where the effluent emerges from a treatment works, disposal
system, outlet or point source and prior to being discharged to the
ground.
(2) Number of Monitoring WeUs. The Division shall determine the
number of observation and and monitoring wells necessary for the
determination of compliance with 314 CMR 6.00.
(3) Tests or Analytical Determinations. Test or analytical determina-
tions lodeteraSnTcoTnpIialicT^FTJon^compliance with standards shall be
made in accordance with:
(a) the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater prepared by the Ammerican Public Health
Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution
Control Federation;
(b) the latest edition of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency;
-------
6.08: continued
(c) the latest edition of Water Standards of The American Society
for Testing and Materials: or
HEother methods approved by the Director as giving results
equal to or superior to methods listed above.
(314 CMR 6.09: Reserved)
6.10: Interim Provisions
(1) Ground water classifications will be assigned state-wide by the
Division on or after June 1, 1985. Any person desiring an initial
assignment of a specific classification for particular ground waters as
part of the state-wide classifications should submit the information
specified in 314 CMR 6.04 to the Division prior to January 1, 1985.
All ground waters for which no petition for consideration of a specific
classification is filed with the Division prior to January 1, 1985 will be
proposed by the Division for assignment as Class I. The Division may
consider individual petitions for Class III assignment on a case-by-case
basis at any time, such petitions shall comply with the provisions of
314 CMR 6.04.
(2) In the absence of a classification all ground waters will be pro-
tected for the most sensitive of the uses designated in 314 CMR 6.03,
that is as a source of potable water supply. All ground water dis-
charge permits issued after October 1, 1983, but prior to the classifi-
cation of the ground waters receiving the discharge, shall contain such
special conditions necessary to protect the ground waters for use as a
source of potable water supply, including but not limited to the applic-
able Class I effluent limitations contained in 314 CMR 5.10(3).
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
314 CMR 6.00: M.G.L. c. 21, ss. 27(5) and 28(12).
-------
Suffolk County, NY Sanitary Code, Article 7, Sections 703 P, 705, and 706.
Section 705. General Restrictions and Prohibitions
A. Construction of a Disposal System
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct,
reconstruct, install or substantially modify any disposal
system without first having obtained a permit therefor
issued by or acceptable to the commissioner.
2. Section 705.A.I does not apply to stormwater
disposal systems unless there is an actual or potential
discharge into the system of industrial wastes, toxic or
hazardous materials, or sewage.
B. Discharge
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge
sewage, industrial wastes* offensive materials, toxic or
hazardous materials or other wastes to any surface waters or
groundwaters, to the surface of the ground or to a disposal
system unless such discharge is specifically in accordance
with a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
Permit or other permit issued by or acceptable to the
commissioner for that purpose.
2. No permits, as stipulated in Section 705.B.I, are
required for the following types of discharges:
-------
m, discharge of sewage from an *xrif£ing
residential structure to a private or individual sewage
disposal system, or from any residential structure,
houseboat or housebarge to a communal sewage system or
municipal sewage system that does not. contravene
standards or result in a public health nuisance;
b. discharge of sewage from a commercial or
industrial facility to a communal sewage system or
municipal sewage system;
c. discharge of stormwater to a disposal system
unless there is an actual or potential discharge into
the system of industrial wastes or toxic or hazardous
materials or sewage.
3. For existing discharges not prohibited-by law prior
to the effective date of this article, a permit shall be
obtained within the time limits provided in Section 707.
C. Construction or Operation of a Treatment System
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct,
modify or operate a treatment system without first obtaining
a permit therefor issued by or acceptable to the
commissioner.
D. Commingling
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to commingle
stormwater runoff, cooling water, sewage or industrial
wastes in any disposal system not approved for that purpose
pursuant to this article.
E. Stormwater Discharges
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to develop
or use land in such a manner as to cause stormwater runoff
from that land to become contaminated and discharged in
contravention of the other provisions of this article.
Section 706. Deep Recharge Areas and
Water Supply Sensitive Areas
The following additional restrictions and prohibitions shall
apply in deep recharge areas and water supply sensitive areas.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any
restricted toxic or hazardous materials or-to discharge industrial
wastes from processes containing restricted toxic or hazardous
materials to the groundwaters, to the surface of the ground,
beneath the surface of the ground, to a municipal or communal
sewage system, or to a disposal system except as follows:
-------
1. application of fertilizers, pesticides or other
agricultural chemicals approved for that purpose by the
appropriate state and federal agencies; or
2. application of road surfacing or road construction
materials or deicing salts to roadways, walkways, and
parking areas; or
3. discharge from an establishment to a municipal or
communal sewage system with effluent disposal to marine
surface waters or recharge outside of the deep recharge
areas and water supply sensitive areas, and the following
minimum requirements are satisfied pursuant to a' permit
issued by or acceptable to the commissioner!
a. Dual plumbing systems shall be installed, one
for the sanitary wastes and one for industrial wastes.
b. Sampling access approved by the administrative
head of the municipal or communal sewage system and the
Department shall be provided for both the sanitary and
industrial waste systems.
c. The administrative head of the municipal or
communal sewage system, with approval of the Department,
shall determine which industrial wastes are acceptable
to "hold and haul" and which require pretreatment prior
to discharge to the collection system in order to assure
compliance with the applicable sewer use ordinance.
d. Personnel authorized by the administrative head
of the municipal or communal sewage system or other
individual(s) acceptable to the commissioner, shall
operate at each establishment its pretreatment facility
for industrial wastes prior to discharge to the
collection system.
e. Only batch pretreatment of industrial wastes
will be permitted. Batch facilities and facilities for
storage of drums containing toxic or hazardous wastes
shall be located in an area accessible at all times by
district personnel, in or adjacent to the industrial
building, with heat and power provided by the owner.
f. Personnel authorized by the administrative head
of the municipal or communal sewage system or other
individual(s) acceptable to the commissioner, will be
responsible for collection and disposal of pretreatment
sludges, and other "hold and haul" materials.
g. The owner shall allow the personnel authorized
by the administrative head of the municipal or communal
sewage system or other individual(s) acceptable to the
commiss.ioner, access, from time to time, to wet process
areas to perform their duties and inspections.
-------
h. Industrial process-area floors shall be provided
with adequate means to contain any -spill of restricted
toxic or hazardous materials. The,design of containment
facilities shall be subject to the approval of the
commissioner.
i. A minimum of four (4) groundwater monitoring
wells shall be installed at the owner's expense.
f- .,_ >, £*'"
j. Financial assurance shall be provided to pay
for cleanup of spills. This cost shall be entered as a
judgment upon notice against the owner, occupant,
tenant, or lessee responsible for such spill or spills.
,- t, ' •• ~
B. It shall be unlawful to use or store any restricted
toxic or hazardous materials on any premises except as follows:
-*
1_. a. the intended use of the product stored is solely
for on-site heating, or intermittent stationary power
production such as stand-by electricity generation or
irrigation pump power; and
b. the facility for such storage is intended solely
for the storage of kerosene, number 2 fuel oil, number 4
fuel oil, number 6 fuel oil, diesel oil or lubricating
oil; and
c. the facility for such storage is constructed
in accordance with the construction standards of Article
12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for non-petroleum
hazardous materials; and
d. the materials so stored are not industrial
wastes from processes containing restricted toxic or
hazardous materials; and
e. the materials stored are not intended for
resale; or
2. af the materials so stored are in containers where
the 'total liquid capacity stored at any time does not
exceed 250 gallons and where the dry storage in bags,
bulk or small containers does not exceed 2,000 pounds;
or
3. a. the materials so stored are intended solely for
for treatment or disinfection of water or sewage in
treatment processes located at the site; or
4. a. the materials are stored solely incident to
retail sales on premises and are not processed, pumped,
packaged, or repackaged at the site; or
-------
5. a. the materials are stored at a service station or
similar installation solely incident to the distribution
of gasoline, kerosene, diesel oil or other petroleum
products for motor vehicular uses and repair; and
b. the facility for such storage is constructed in
accordance with construction and monitoring standards of
Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code for non-
petroleum hazardous materials; or
6. a. the materials are stored at an establishment for
which a permit has been secured in accordance with
Section 706.A.3, and a permit for such storage has been
granted by the Department.
7. a. the materials are stored on a farm site solely
incident to on-premises use, and consist of fertilizers,
pesticides, or other agricultural chemicals to be
applied in accordance with the provisions of Section
706.A.I.
C. The provisions of Sections 706.A and 706.B of this
article shall be applicable:
1. immediately for all non-residential facilities which
have not been approved, constructed, or put into operation
prior to the effective date of this article; and
2. immediately for all non-residential facilities which
were approved, constructed, or put into operation prior to
the effective date of this article upon:
\
a. any change in use or process which results in an
increase of mass loading in the discharge of restricted
toxic or hazardous materials, or introduces a toxic or
hazardous material not previously discharged; or
b. any change in use or process which results in an
increase of the storage or change of type of restricted
toxic or hazardous materials.
D. When upgraded in accordance with the time schedule
specified in Article 12, existing facilities, including those for
petroleum products, not otherwise covered by items 706.A, 706.B
or 706.C, above, shall conform to the standards of Article 12 for
non-petroleum hazardous materials. These requirements do not
apply to facilities upgraded in accordance with Article 12 prior
to the effective date of this article.
-------
P. Restricted Toxic or Hazardous Materials shall mean the
following toxic or hazardous chemicals that have been or could be
expected to be detected in the groundwater, or in discharges to
the groundwater, of Suffolk County. This definition applies to
these substances alone or in combination, solution or mixture
with other substances, or chemically compounded with other
elements or compounds.
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
Chlorotoluene
Chromium
Cis 1,2 Dichloroethylene
Creosotes
Cyanide
DiChlorobenzene
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,2 Dichloroethane
1,1 Dichloroethylene
1,2 Dichloropropane
p-Diethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
p-Ethyltoluene
Fluoride
Freon 113
Lead
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Nickel
Pesticides
Petroleum Distillates
Phenols
Phthalates
Roadway Deicing Salt
Silver
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,2,4,5 Tetramethylbenzene
Toluene
1,2,3 Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
1,1,2 Trichloroethylene
1,2,3 Trichloropropane
1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
All other halogenated hydrocarbon compounds.
-------
State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Administrative
Rules, Chapter 340, Division 71 - 520.
340-71-520 IARGZ S7JST2MS.
(1) For the purpose of these rules "large system* means any system
with a projected daily sewage flow greater than two thousand
. five hundred (2,500) gallons.
(2) Special Design acquirements. Unless otherwise authorized
by the Department, large systems shall comply with the
following requirements: , i
I
(a) Large system absorption facilities shall be designed with
pressure distribution.
(b) The disposal area shall be divided into! relatively equal
units. Each unit shall receive no more than thirteen hundred
(1300) gallons of effluent per day.
i
(e) The replacement (repair) disposal area shall be divided into
relatively equal units, with a replacement disposal area unit
located adjacent to an initial disposal area unit.
(d) Effluent distribution shall alternate between the disposal
units.
(e) Each system shall have at least two (2) pumps or siphons.
p.
(f) The applicant shall provide a written assessment of the
impact of the proposed system upon the quality of public
waters and public health.
(3) Plans and specifications for large systems shall be prepared by any
competent professional with education or experience in the specific
technical field involved. The professional may accept an assignment
requiring education or experience outside of his/her own field of
competence provided he/she retains competent and legally qualified
services to perf oan that part of the assignment outside his/her own
field of competence* his/her client or employer approves this
procedure, and he/she retains responsibility ta his/her client or
employer for the competent performance of the whole assignment.
(4) Construction Requirements:
(a) Construction shall be in substantial conformance with
approved plans and specifications and any teats of the
permit issued by the Agent.
(b) After completion of the system the professional shall
certify that the system was installed ia accordance with
approved plans and specifications.
-------
Nassau County, NY Department of Health, Manual of On-Site Sewage Disposal,
Section 4. *^
SECTION 4 - MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirements of Food Serving Establishments
If a food serving facility is to be located in an existing building,
it must have adequate and satisfactory sewage disposal facilities.
If the existing structure was formerly a "dry" store (one which does
not utilize large quantities of water), or contained a smaller food
serving establishment, it is required that a new or modified sewage
disposal system be installed to serve the new occupancy. If the
owner (or operator) feels the existing sewage disposal system, is
adequate, he must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Nassau
County Department of Health, that the existing sewage disposal system
can accommodate the projected design flow of the new establishment.
In general, any leaching pool with 75% or more of the effective pool
depth filled with sewage is considered to have failed and shall not
be considered in assessing the apparent leaching capacity of an
existing sanitary system.
It should b'e noted that in addition to the above-referenced approval,
other permits may be needed in order to operate a food- serving
establishment. The 'Bureau of Food and Beverage Control of the Nassau
County Department of Health should be contacted for further information,
II. Commercial or Industrial Projects
It is required that the owner of a commercial or industrial building
operation which could contain manufacturing, warehousing, packaging
operations, submit as part of the project's SPDES application, the
following statement on the company's letterhead:
"I, , hereby certify that
(name of applicant)
there will not be any industrial or other non-sanitary
waste discharged from the facility for which this permit
is applied. This facility ____
(fully describe the name, locat ion
and proposed function of the business
at the facility)
Should any changes be contemplated in the waste to be discharged
from this facility, all required permits will be obtained before
any such waste is discharged."
Signature
Title
-------
State of Illinois, P.A. 80-1371, Chapter 24, Parts 14Q1-1404.
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL ZONES
PIT.
1401. Definitions.
1402. On-site wastewater disposal tones—Formation.
1403. Purposes of formation.
1404. Powers and duties.
1405. Ordinances—Wastewater disposal cones.
1406. Bonds—Tax levy—Hearings.
1407. Petition—Formation of wastewater disposal
1408. Hearing on petition.
1409. Notice—Hearings.
1410. Time of hearing—Interested parties—Receipt of ob-
jections and written protests.
1411. Findings and declaration by ordinance.
1412. Post-hearing protests—Petition.
1413. Subsequent proposals—Time.
1414. Zoning and land use restrictions.
1415. Inspections—Right of entry.
1416. Modification of systems—Access for inspection and
maintenance.
1417. Routine inspeetioiu-^Periodie removal and disposal
of wastes.
1418. Notice of routine inspections or maintenance.
1419. Notice—Nonroutine inspections or maintenance.
1420. Emergency conditions—Entry onto private proper-
ty-
1421. Records.
1422, Taxation—Ordinances.
AN ACT to provide for the creation of municipal wastewa-
ter disposal cones. PA. 80-1371, approved and eff. Aug.
14,1978.
1401. Definitions
f 1. When used in this Act,
"Corporate authorities" means the governing authority
of a municipality.
"On-«ite wastewater disposal system" means any of sev-
eral works, facilities, devices, or other mechanisms used to
collect, treat, reclaim, or dispose of wastewater on, or
immediately adjacent to, the property from which the
wastewater is disposed.
"Zone" means an on-cite wastewater disposal tone
formed pursuant to this Act
"Real property" means both land and improvements to
land which if located within the zone
"Wastewater" means sewage, industrial waste or other
waste, or any combination of these, whether treated or
untreated plus any admixed land run-off.
"Municipality" means the city, village or incorporated
town forming a zone.
140L Oil-site wastewater disposal .ones—Formation
§ 2. The corporate authorities of any city, village or
incorporated town may form on-eite wastewater disposal
zones to protect the public health, to prevent and abate
nuisances, to protect existing and future beneficial water
use, to achieve compliance with regulations of the Pollution
Control Board and to achieve compliance with any other
statutes or requirements regarding public health or envi-
ronmental protection. Whenever an OB-aite wastewater
disposal tone has been formed pursuant to this Act, the
municipality shall have the powers set forth in this Act,
which powers shall be in addition U anf other powers
provided by law.
1403. Pmpuets of formation
f 3. An on-cite wastewater disposal tone may be
formed for the following purposes:
(a) to collect, treat, reclaim, or dispose of wastewmter;
(b) to acquire, design, own, construct, install, operate.
monitor, regulate, inspect, rehabilitate, modify and main-
tain existing and new on-site wastewater disposal systems,
within the tone in a manner which will promote environ-
mental quality, prevent the pollution, waste, and contami-
nation of water, abate nuisances, and protect public health;
(c) to conduct investigations, make analyses, and monitor
conditions with regard to water quality within the tone;
(d) to apply for. obtain and utilize federal and Sute
funds for any of the purposes specified in this Act; (
(e) to adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations
necessary to implement the purposes of the sone. Such
rules and regulations may be adopted only after the corpo*
rate sutnonues conduct a puMic hearing alter giving p«fc.
lie notice in a newspaper of general circulation within the
municipality;
(0 to contract for the exercise of any of the aforemen-
tioned powers even if any such contract shall extend for
longer than one year; and
(g) to impose a tax upon all real property located in tht
tone for the purpose of retiring bonds issued pursuant to
Section 3 of this Act,1 paying the costs of construction.
operation and maintenance of the waitewater disposal sy»'
tern, ana to impose a user charge to defray the easts of
routine operation and maintenance.
1 Pvaanph 1406 of (his chapter.
1404. Powers and duties
§ 4. The corporate authorities shall have the following
powers and duties:
(a) to exclude any territory proposed to be indudH ,n ,
sone if it finds that the territory will not be benefited by
becoming s part of the tone; and
(b) to include any additional territory in a proposed tone
if it finds that the territory will be benefited by becoming
a part of the tone.
1405. Ordinances—Wastewater disposal tones
f 5. Whenever the corporate authorities deem it nee**.
sary to form an on-«iu wastewater disposal tone in all of t
portion of the municipality, it shall by ordinance declare
that it intends to form such a tone. The ordinance shall
include:
(a) a description of the boundaries of the territory pro-
posed to be included within the zone, which description
may be accompanied by a map describing the boundaries:
(b) the public benefit to be derived from the establish-
ment of such a zone; '
(c) a description of the proposed types of on-site wist*
water disposal systems and a proposed plan for wastewaur
disposal;
(d) the number of residential units and commercial usen
in the proposed zone which the municipality proposes to
(e) the proposed means of financing the operations of
the zone;
(f) the time and place for a public hearing on the que»
tion of the formation and extent of the proposed tone* sMt
on the question of the number and type of the residential
units and commercial units that are to be served in tht
proposed zone; and
(g) a statement that at such time and place any interest*
ed persons will be heard.
-------
Reproduction of Sewage Waste Management Agreement (SMA) for Dalton Gardens,
Idaho.
This AGREEMENT made this I5 day of K^ 1986,
between the City of Dalton Gardens, a municipal corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Idaho and situated in
the County of Kootenai, State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to
as "MUNICIPALITY" and Panhandle Health District I, a health
district organized under Title 39, Chapter 4, Idaho Code, with
its principal office in the City of Coeur d'Alene, County of
Kootenai, State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "HEALTH
DISTRICT."
WHEREAS, the Health District has legal responsibility for
the protection and preservation of the public health under
Idaho Code 39-414 and the protection of the Rathdrum Prairie
Aquifer from contamination;
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to maintain orderly
population growth in such a manner as to prevent possible
contamination to the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer from septic tank
effluent;
WHEREAS, the Municipality has the responsibility to protect
the health and welfare of its citizens. The Municipality is
obligated to meet all applicable local, State of Idaho, and
federal laws, rules, regulations, and standards to realize this
responsibility.
WHEREAS, the Panhandle Health District has adopted effective
October 11, 1977, Rules and Regulations governing Sewage
Disposal on the Rathdrum Prairie;
WHEREAS, Section 41.1.10 (iii) of the Rules and Regulations
Governing Sewage Disposal on the Rathdrum Prairie provides for
adoption of a "sewage management plan";
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the
mutual covenants and undertaking herein set forth, the parties
covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Municipality shall assume responsibility
for the aggregate effect of all the
subsurface sewage disposal systems within its
legal boundaries. In particular, the
Municipality agrees to fulfill this
responsibility in accordance with the
provisions of APPENDIX A.
-------
AGREEMENT
2. The Municipality agrees to report to the
Health District all failed subsurface systems
within the Municipality's legal boundaries.
3. The Municipality shall not issue any building
permit to an applicant until such application
is first submitted to the Health District for
its approval and is so approved by the Health
District. The approval shall be given by the
Health District when the application complies
with the Rules and Regulations for Individual
and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems.
4- In consideration of the foregoing, the Health
District agrees to refrain from taking any
action in law or equity against the
Municipality to enforce Section 41.1.4a of
the Environmental Health Code. In the event
the Municipality fails to perform any of its
obligations under this AGREEMENT, the
Health District may proceed promptly in any
court of jurisdiction to seek enforcement
against the Municipality.
5. The Parties agree to meet at least every
third year and upon written request of either
party, through duly authorized
representatives to reexamine this
AGREEMENT and made recommendations to the
governing board of each party as to any
modification in the AGREEMENT which would
be in the public interest.
6. Each of the Parties heretofore mentioned
recognizes its governmental agencies are
regulated by the statutes of the State of
Idaho. None of the sections are designed to
exceed the powers intended; nor shall any
particular section be binding if the same is
determined to be invalid.
7. This instrument, including APPENDIX A,
contains the entire AGREEMENT between the
Parties, and no statement, promise, or
inducement made by either Party or Agent of
either Party that is not contained in this
written contract, including APPENDIX A,
shall be valid or binding; this contract may
-2-
-------
AGREEMENT
not be enlarged, modified, or altered except
in writing signed by the parties and endorsed
hereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this
AGREEMENT the day and year first above written.
MAYOR
City of Dalton Gardens, Idaho
CHAIRPERSON
Panhandle Health District I
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
-------
APPENDIX A
The City of Dalton Gardens shall maintain, in effect, an
ordinance concerning the operation and maintenance of
subsurface sewage disposal systems within its legal boundaries.
The ordinance shall include, but is not limited to the
following:
1. No subsurface sewage system (residential,
commercial, or industrial) shall be installed
or allowed to continue in operation if the
effluent loading exceeds that of the
equivalent of one house to the acre.
2. All new subsurface systems must have the
following:
a. Septic tanks with manhole risers to
within six inches of the ground surface
and an inspection riser to ground surface.
b. Date of installation, location, size, and
type of all components in system recorded
at the City Hall with lot size.
3. An annual notice should be sent to all
property owners reminding them to pump their
sewage systems every five years.
4. When an existing system is pumped, a manhole
riser to within six inches of the surface and
an inspection riser to the surface should be
installed.
5. All septic pumpers doing business in Dalton
Gardens should report to the City the
condition, location, size, and type of tank
and disposal system, and date of pumping.
6. The City shall annually report the number of
systems installed or repaired to the Health
District.
-------
Marion County, Indiana, Private Sewage Disposal Ordinance, Chapter 14,
Articles 11 and 12.
11; KMSRS FOR DSPBCIXON-afORaMKr-SBIVICE OF N7I1CES AM)
ORHRS-HEAEINS
Sec. 14-1101 The Health Officer or his agent bearing proper
credentials and identification stall be permitted to
enter upon all properties at the proper tine for the
purposes of inspection, observation, measurenent,
sanpllng, and testing necessary to carry out the
provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 14-1102 Whenever the Health Officer determines that there are
rpaannahle grounds to believe that there has been a
violation of any provision of this ordinance uhich
affects the health of the occupants of any dwellix^,
duelling unit or rooming unit or the health of the
general public, the Health Officer shall give notice of
such alleged violation to the person or persons
responsible therefore, and to any knout agent of such
person, as -hereinafter provided. Such notice shall:
(a) Be put in writing.
(b) Include a statement of the reasons why it is
being issued.
(c) Allow a reasonable time for the performance of
any act it requires.
(d) Be served upon the owner or his agent, or the
occupant, as the case may require; provided
that such notice shall be deemed to be
properly served upon such outer or agent, or
upon such occupant, if a copy thereof is
served upon him personally, or if a copy is
sent by registered mail to his last known
address, or if a copy thereof is posted in a
conspicicus place in or about the dwelling
affected by the notice, or if he is served
with such notice by any other method
authorized or required under the laws of this
state.
(e) Such notice must contain an outline of
reuedial action uhich, if taken, will effect
compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance.
Sec. 14-1103 Any person affected by any such notice issued by the
Health Officer may request and shall be granted a
hearing on the matter before the Health Officer,
provided that such person shall file in the office of
the Health. Of fleer, within ten (10) days after service
of the notice, a written petition requesting such
hearing and setting forth a brief statement of the
grounds therefor. Upon receipt of such petition, the
Health Officer shall arrange a time and place for such
hearing and shall give the petitioner written notice
thereof. Such hearing shall be held as soon as
practicable after the receipt of request therefor. At
such hearing the petitioner shall be given an
opportunity to be heard and to show cause why such
notice should not be conplied with.
-------
Sec. 14-1104 After such hearing the respective Board shall sustain,
modify, or withdraw the notice, depending upon its
findings as to whether the provisions of this ordinance
have been complied with. If the Board shall sustain or
modify such notice, it shall be deemed to be an order.
Any notice served pursuant to Article 1102 of this
ordinance shall automatically become an order if a
written petition for a hearing is not filed in the
office of the Health Officer within ten (10) days after
such notice is served. After a hearing in the case of
any notice suspending any permit required by this
ordinance, when such notice has been sustained by the
Board, the permit shall be deemed to have been revoked.
Any such permit which has been suspended by a notice
shall be deaoed to be automatically revoked if a
petition for hearing is not filed in the office of the
Health Officer within ten (10) days after such notice is
served.
Sec. 14-1105 The proceeding at such hearing, including the findings
and decision of the Health Officer or in his absence die
Chief of the Bun'aii of Environmental Health, shall be
suamarized, reduced to writing, and entered as a matter
of public record in the offices of the Board. Such
record shall also include A copy of every notice or
order issued in connection with the matter. Any person
aggrieved by the decision of the Board may seek relief
therefrom in any court of competent jurisdiction, as
provided by the laws of this state.
Sec. 14-1106 Whenever the Health Officer finds that an emergency
exists which requires imnediate action to protect the
public health he may, without notice or hearing, issue
an order citing the existence of such an eaergency and
requiring that such action be taken as lie deems
necessary to meet tic emergency, to twi discarding UE
other provisions of this ordinance, such order shall be
effective immediately. Any person to whom such an ordcu
is directed shall comply therewith iimediately, but upon
petition to the Health Officer shall be afforded a
hearing as soon as possible, in tie manner provided in
Article 1103. After such hearing, depending upon tic
finding as the whether the provisions of this ordinance
have been complied with, the Board shall continue such
order in effect, or modify it, or revoke it.
Sac. 14-1107 Any person found to be violating any provision of this
ordinance except Article 1001, shall be served by die
Health Officer with a written order stating the nature
of the violation and providing a tine limit for
satisfactory correction thereof. Any person found to be
violating Article 1001 immediately shall be subject to
prosecution therefor and, upon conviction, shall be
subject to the penalties set forth in Article 1103.
-------
Sec. 14-1106 Any person who shall continue any violation of this
ordinance beyond the tine limit provided for in Article
1001 of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdeKanor.
On conviction the violator shall be punished for the
first offense by a. fine of not more than Five Hundred
Dollars (S500.00); for the second offense by a fine of
no acre than One Thousand Dollar (31000.00); and for the
third and each subsequent offense by a fine of rut more
than One Thousand Dollars Dollars (S1000.00), and each
day after the expiration cf the tine limit Cor abating
insanitary conditions and conpleting iniprovenents to
abate such conditions as ordered by the Director of
Public Health shall constitute a distinct and separate
offense.
Sec. 14-1109 Any person violating -any of the provisions of Uiis
ordinance shall become liable to The Health and Hospital
Corporation of Marion County, Indiana, for any expense,
loss, or daaage occasioned such corporation by reason of
such violation.
ARTICLE 12; AHEAL HCODURES.
Sec. 14-1201 If an applicant is refused a permit, the Health Officer
shall, upon request, afford the applicants a fair
hearing.
Sec. 14-1202 The Health Officer nay, after reasonable opportunity for
fair hearii«, revoke a permit authorizing the
destruction of a sewge disposal system if it finds
that the holder of the permit has failed to conply with
any provision of this regulation.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:
.1990 -725-76V
------- |