SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Case Studies of Individual and
Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater
Management Programs
State and Community Management Approaches
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
June 2012
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Acknowledgements
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the many state and local officials who helped
develop this report, especially those who shared information about their programs and provided photographs.
EPA commends the case study sponsors highlighted in this report for developing site-specific approaches that
enhance the management of individual and clustered (decentralized) wastewater treatment systems.
For more information on decentralized wastewater systems or how to start a management program, visit EPA's
Decentralized Wastewater Management website at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic. The website
contains information on treatment system technologies, links to partner organizations, a discussion forum on
wastewater management issues, publications for homeowners, and guidance manuals, including additional
resources that supplement this report. Electronic copies of this report can also be downloaded from the EPA
Decentralized Wastewater Management website.
Cover photos courtesy of:
Training system owners: Deschutes County Environmental Health Department, Oregon
Installing a treatment system: Florida Department of Health
Keuka Lake: Keuka Watershed Improvement District, New York
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 3
What is in This Report 3
Who Can Use This Report 4
Community Management Programs 5
Management Models 6
Case Study Structure 9
Management Model 1: Homeowner Awareness 10
Jamestown, Rhode Island 12
Fairfax County, Virginia 13
Management Model 2: Maintenance Contract 14
Albemarle Region, North Carolina 15
Keuka Lake Watershed, New York 16
Lake Panorama, Iowa 17
Management Model 3: Operating Permits 18
Hamilton County, Ohio 19
Monroe County, Florida 20
The Sea Ranch, California 21
Auburn Lake Trails, California 23
Management Model 4: Responsible Management Entity (RME) Operation and Maintenance 25
Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota 26
Pena Blanca, New Mexico 27
Management Model 5: RME Ownership 28
Blacksburg, Virginia 30
Phelps County, Missouri 31
Shannon City, Iowa 32
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms 33
Appendix B: Management Program Elements and Activities 36
Tables
Table 1: Community Wastewater Issues 6
Table 2: Decentralized Wastewater System Management Models for Use by Local Communities 7
Table 3: Wastewater System Management Program Activities Supported by the Case Studies 10
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Executive Summary
More than one in five homes in the United States are served by individual or small, clustered wastewater
systems, which collectively treat more than four billion gallons of sewage every day. Proper management of that
vast, decentralized wastewater treatment infrastructure helps to protect drinking water sources and helps to keep
our waters clean so that people can swim and fish in our streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans.
EPA intends this document to serve as a resource for decision makers in rural, exurban, and suburban
communities across the country who want to provide effective, efficient wastewater treatment. Local decision
makers know the wastewater management challenges they face: 1) in existing developed areas with old,
undersized, or malfunctioning septic systems; and 2) in newer developments that need high-performance
treatment facilities to protect groundwater and nearby lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal waters.
This compendium of case studies illustrates how a few communities met—and bested—those challenges.
Although the approaches varied considerably, the communities featured in this document assessed existing
system performance, created new development requirements, and instituted management measures to ensure
that all systems were operated and maintained appropriately. The communities considered a wide variety of
treatment technologies, from simple septic systems to advanced treatment clustered units, as noted in the
examples in the following sections.
The communities used a mix of public and private sector resources to identify which existing systems needed
attention, what type of repair or replacement service was required, and how new development would be served.
Local leaders also used new treatment technologies, such as high-performance, clustered treatment facilities for
areas with small lots and challenging site conditions (e.g., poor soils, steep slopes, high groundwater table). An
added benefit for many communities was the opportunity to create green jobs while improving treatment system
management and performance.
The communities highlighted in this document differ in many ways, but they all followed a fairly simple process in
crafting and implementing their wastewater management programs. This process, which any community can
appropriately adopt, includes the following steps:
• Conduct initial scoping and outreach—find out what and where the problems are, who is affected and
interested, and what some of the potential solutions might be.
• Analyze existing information and resources—identify existing and potential funding sources, collect data on
water quality, identify existing treatment system locations and their operating condition, and project future
development patterns; use this information to further refine treatment options given the local climate, soils,
slopes, hydrology, water quality, and available resources.
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
• Enhance the existing management program or develop a new one—sometimes improvements can be made by
fine-tuning local regulatory practices and ordinances. Other cases may require new management entities.
• Implement the management program—keep in mind that adopting new ordinances, instituting user fees to pay
for services, and starting a system inspection program require a great deal of support.
EPA has provided additional detail on how to develop management programs for individual and clustered
systems in the Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems,
which can be found at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic. The website also provides other resources
and tools.
Non-gravel systems, like this one on a slope, account for half of the onsite systems installed in North Carolina.
Photo: Department of Natural Resources, North Carolina.
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Introduction
What do Otter Tail County, Minnesota, and Fairfax
County, Virginia, have in common? These two
communities, like many others across the country, are
working at the local level to better manage some of
the nation's 26 million individual wastewater systems.
Elected officials and agency staff in these
communities reviewed the problems posed by
existing, malfunctioning systems, as well as the
opportunities presented by proposed new
developments outside the currently sewered area,
and decided that action to protect water quality and
public health required a different approach to
wastewater management.
Although each community—and each community
wastewater management program—differs, certain
commonalities exist which are illustrated in this report.
In each case, communities identified problems and
took deliberate action to deal with them. Both
individuals and organizations collected assessment
information on system types and locations, water
quality conditions, soils and slopes, the future and
direction of growth, and other factors. Technicians
inspected existing systems and organized the
requisite repair/replacement work, and wastewater
I Community Program
I State Program
State and Local Decentralized Wastewater Case Studies
professionals partnered with planners to identify ways
to serve new development.
Elected officials and public agency staff can learn
from the experiences of Fairfax County, Otter Tail
County, and other communities highlighted in this
document. The case study examples on the following
pages briefly describe the approaches taken by each
community and contain contact information and
resources for more details.
What is in This Report
This report builds on EPA's Voluntary National
Management Guidelines for Onsite and Clustered
(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems (see
green box on page 4), and demonstrates how
management programs can be crafted with existing
resources. The case studies are grouped under Five
Management Models (see page 6) as outlined in the
guidelines. Note that management intensity or level of
activity increases proportionally with increases in risks
posed to public health and the environment, as well
as system numbers/densities, and treatment system
complexity (i.e., use of pumps, timers, float valves).
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
This document includes 14 community case studies.
The case studies range from very basic to more
advanced, reflecting the specific management needs
of the community. The exact configuration of each
management program varies based on available
resources, the nature of the public health and water
resource threat(s), and the creativity and involvement
of the regulatory agencies and stakeholders. A
glossary of terms used in this document and
throughout the decentralized wastewater field of
practice is also included as an appendix (See
Appendix A).
EPA's Voluntary National Guidelines for
Management of Onsite and Clustered
(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment
Systems (EPA 832-B-03-001, published in
2003) was developed to provide guidance
on improving the performance of individual
and clustered wastewater systems. The
guidelines contain Five Management
Models (see section on Community
Management Programs, and Table 2) that
can be combined and tailored to meet
specific program needs.
You can view the document at EPA's
Decentralized Wastewater website at
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/
septic.
Table 2 summarizes the management
models and describes how local agencies
might apply them in areas with varying
environmental sensitivities (e.g., high-risk
potential for water contamination).
Who Can Use This Report
Community planners, elected officials, health
department staff, state officials, and interested
citizens can use this document to explore what other
communities are doing and can find examples that fit
their own unique needs. No two communities are the
same, but program managers can learn what works
from each other, who is available to help, and where
to find the necessary tools. In many cases, local
communities have significant flexibility in developing
and implementing wastewater management
programs. The case studies contain examples of how
some local programs responded to the need for
system inspections, pump-outs, and repairs/
replacements, among other services. In all the
presented cases, people made the difference.
Local Officials
The case studies in this report highlight the wide
range of management choices available to
communities with wastewater issues. The case
studies show how communities can modify EPA's
Five Management Models to meet local management
needs. Additionally, the case studies provide an
opportunity for peer-to-peer interaction and support
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
among local health and environmental officials via the
contact information listed for each community. Each
case study lists a point of contact that can answer
questions and provide additional information about
that particular community's program.
Community Members
Community members, including elected officials,
planners, citizens, service providers, and
practitioners, are important stakeholders in
developing a wastewater management program.
The many different system management approaches
presented in this report can help community members
solve local problems.
State Officials
State and tribal health and environmental agency
officials can also use this report to enhance local
capacity to manage or regulate individual and
clustered wastewater systems. State Revolving Fund
(SRF) program managers can also use this report to
Photo: University of Rhode Island.
educate loan applicants on the types of decentralized
wastewater management options used around the
country and encourage better management of
decentralized systems.
Community Management Programs
The case studies highlight approaches used by
communities across the nation to manage individual
and clustered wastewater systems. They are grouped
under EPA's Five Management Models (see page 6)
and describe how communities have crafted
management programs using mostly existing staff,
funding, and other resources. Readers may recognize
elements of their own local situations in these case
studies, which include examples from a variety of
community types, locations, and environmental
settings.
Community Wastewater Issues
While the management programs presented in this
report differ, many common issues motivated each
one. Table 1 (see page 6) lists some of the
wastewater issues that prompted local action in the
14 communities. This chart can be used as a starting
point to help pinpoint case studies of interest.
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Table 1: Community Wastewater Issues*
_ .. Inadequate, Poor soils, Population Risks to the Real/potential Real/potential
Community , ... .... ..... - ,., r ,. . A
. . ' poor, or no slopes, site growth in the environment/ surface water groundwater
case s u y treatment conditions project area public health contamination contamination
Fairfax County
Jamestown
Albemarle Region
Keuka Lake
Lake Panorama
Hamilton County
Monroe County
The Sea Ranch
Auburn Trails
Otter Tail Lake
Pena Blanca
Blacksburg
Phelps County
Shannon City
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
* As identified by the 14 case study communities, 2009.
Management Models
The Five Management Models developed by EPA
describe system management approaches (see page
7). In general, the approaches are flexible and range
from local regulatory agency support for homeowner
operation/maintenance (e.g., through inventories and
service reminders) to more rigorous programs that
involve maintenance contracts, operating permits, and
system operation by trained professionals hired by a
responsible management entity.
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Table 2: Decentralized Wastewater System Management Models for Use by Local Communities
Typical applications Program description Benefits Limitations
1. Homeowner Awareness: Local agency service reminders, educational information, and inventory
• Areas of low
environmental risk
• Systems sited and
constructed according to
prescribed criteria
• Maintenance reminders
• Inventory of all systems
• Ease of implementation
• Inventory of systems that is
useful for tracking and area-
wide planning
• No compliance tracking or
monitoring mechanism
• Limitations on advanced
treatment systems due to
operation and
maintenance (O&M)
requirements
2. Maintenance Contract: State/local requirements that certain systems be professionally managed
• Areas of low to moderate
environmental risk where
sites are marginally
suitable for individual
systems
• Small clustered systems
• Use of advanced treatment
options and clustered
systems
• Service contracts for
system O&M
• Tracking system for
services provided
• Inventory of all systems
• Previously unbuildable lots
can be served
• Prompt attention to
treatment system problems
• Lower risk of treatment
system malfunctions
• Higher level of expertise
and resources needed by
regulatory agencies and
system service providers
• Requires compliance
assurance mechanism
3. Operating Permit: Revocable/renewable state/local permit specifying operation/maintenance requirements
• Areas of moderate to high
environmental risk
• Systems treating high-
strength wastes, or cluster
systems
• Renewable, revocable
system operating permits
• Performance and
monitoring requirements
• Regulatory agency directly
checks system operation
and performance through
permit issuance program
• Agency resource
requirements are
significant
• Effluent monitoring can be
expensive
4. Responsible Management Entity (RME) Operation & Maintenance (O&M): Professional, third-party O&M
• Areas of moderate to high
environmental risk
• Clustered systems
• System operation,
performance monitoring,
and repair/replacement is
handled by a third party
• RME holds operating or
NPDES permit;
homeowner retains
ownership
• Same as #2 above, but
removes homeowner from
responsibility role
• Regulatory agency tracks
fewer system managers
• May require code changes
to allow RME to hold
operating or NPDES
permit
• RME financial and
payment assurance
requirements
5. Responsible Management Entity (RME) Ownership: Ownership and O&M by third party entity
• Areas of greatest
environmental risk
• Same as #4 above, but
RME also owns system
infrastructure/property
• RME has full access to
system and all components
• Same as #4 above
Table 2 describes the approaches used in the
Management Models, including various methods for
addressing the component parts of a management
program structure. EPA's Guidelines for Management
of Individual and Clustered (Decentralized)
Wastewater Treatment Systems identify 13 key
program elements (see Appendix B) that can
compose a management program (see http://
water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic).
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
How to Ensure the Success of Your
Management Program
The case studies in the following sections offer
examples of planning, implementing, and maintaining
a wastewater management program. As stated
previously, while the programs differ in their
management approaches, each example addresses
some common themes:
1. Spend time at the outset with stakeholders to
understand the issues.
In each of the case studies, community leaders took
the time to understand their communities' wastewater
issues. Local officials worked closely with state
agencies, service providers, planners, homeowners,
and other stakeholders to collect data and information
in order to identify issues and management options.
An important part of the process of setting up a
management program is to understand key issues
and provide stakeholders—citizens, system owners,
service providers, and staff from sister agencies—with
an opportunity to participate.
2. Research the applicable regulatory framework
and legal authority to determine how to
support a management program.
Effective decentralized wastewater management
programs derive their structure from appropriate legal
authorities. In these case studies, local health
departments and local governments used existing
authorities or newly adopted powers to address
wastewater management challenges posed by
existing and new development. In some of the case
studies, local health departments, authorized under
state law, used their powers to implement
management program measures. Other communities
adopted new local ordinances to ensure authority for
management in the face of public health or water
Installation of an advanced treatment system.
resource threats. Communities can determine the
type of program allowed under existing statutes and
evaluate whether they need additional authority to
implement their desired program.
3. Adopt a process that targets environmental
risk and supports sustainable technologies.
A key action in each case study is matching the
wastewater treatment system(s) to site conditions,
such as soil, slopes, geology, and hydrology. For
example, clustered facilities that collect wastewater
from dozens—or even hundreds—of septic tanks can
be used to provide advanced treatment in areas with
small residential lots and environmentally sensitive
receiving waters. The case studies describe methods
used to sustain more complex technologies (e.g.,
those with timers, pumps, float switches), such as
more frequent inspections and greater attention from
better-trained service professionals.
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
4. Design a sustainable program.
A long-term strategic plan to monitor and continually
assess the performance of wastewater treatment
systems will enable a community to more effectively
meet its public health, resource protection, and other
water quality goals. Water quality and performance
monitoring are common tools for determining the
effectiveness of a management program and
identifying additional issues and needs. Securing a
sustainable source of program funding is critical to the
success of a program. Communities may collect user
fees or secure loans and grants to create and sustain
management programs (see http://water.epa.gov/
infrastructure/septic for more information on funding
resources).
Case Study Structure
The 14 case studies reflect each community's efforts
to identify relevant public health or environmental
threats, assess the local situation, set goals for
system management, and craft an appropriate
wastewater management program. Each of the
case studies includes the following:
• An overview of the problem(s) facing the
community
• The proposed system management solution
• A general description of the program and its key
features
• Funding sources
• Results
• Resources and contacts
The program summaries offer a synopsis of the
Five Management Models reviewed in the previous
section. Each program generally follows the
Management Model descriptions provided in Table 2,
on page 7. Table 3 (see page 10) identifies some of
the common program activities featured in the case
studies.
Installing a treatment system.
Photo: Florida Department of Health.
Office of Wastewater Management
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Table 3: Wastewater System Management Program Activities Supported by the Case Studies
Fairfax County
Jamestown
Albemarle Region
Keuka Lake
Lake Panorama
Hamilton County
Monroe County
The Sea Ranch
Auburn Trails
Otter Tail Lake
Pena Blanca
Blacksburg
Phelps County
Shannon City
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Office of Wastewater Management 10
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Management Model 1: Homeowner Awareness
Management Model 1: Homeowner Awareness
targets the maintenance of individual wastewater
systems in jurisdictions with limited resources.
Communities may want to select this model where
systems pose a relatively low risk to public health and
water resources—such as low-density development in
upland areas away from surface waters, where soil
moisture is low to moderate, groundwater tables are
low, and slopes do not exceed 15-25%.
Elements of Management Model 1
Management Model 1 includes three principal
elements:
• A system inventory and database to identify the
location, type, and condition of systems
• Training and certification of design, installation,
and operation/maintenance professionals
• Regular maintenance and service attention
reminders to encourage system management
Focus on System Maintenance
Management Model 1 programs promote appropriate
system maintenance through requirements,
reminders, or provisions for periodic inspections
by trained and certified maintenance providers.
Management Model 1 programs typically consist of:
• Local public agency permits for construction of
new systems and system repair/replacement
• A database containing system locations, types, and
owners
• Inspection of systems, based on type and/or
location
• A tracking system for residuals treatment, reuse, or
disposal
• Permit compliance schedules issued by the
regulatory agency to ensure remediation of
identified problems
• Maintenance reminders for inspections, pump-outs,
and other maintenance activities
Program Characteristics
• Easy to implement, low administrative
requirements
• Wastewater data and information available
for use in local and regional planning
• No additional compliance mechanisms
beyond conventional public health and
nuisance powers
• Limited ability to review, inspect, and
regulate complex advanced treatment
system
• Largely dependent on homeowners
for operation and maintenance (O&M)
of systems
Two Case Studies
Many homeowner awareness programs are operating
across the country. The most successful ones not only
involve homeowners, but also support the homeowner in
conducting maintenance (e.g., checking septic tank sludge
levels). This section reviews two such programs:
• Jamestown, Rhode Island
• Fairfax County, Virginia
Fairfax, Virginia
requires all new
and repaired
individual
wastewater
systems to install a
flow diversion
valve, like this one
pictured, to allow
the drainfield to
dry out and avoid
saturation
problems.
Office of Wastewater Management
11
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
JAMESTOWN, RHODE ISLAND
PROBLEM
Jamestown is a small, island town dependent on private drinking water wells and
individual wastewater systems. Poorly maintained onsite wastewater systems on
undersized lots with high seasonal water tables were affecting groundwater quality.
Studies revealed that 32% of the wastewater treatment systems in the area were
contributing to nutrient and pathogen problems in private water wells (Legislative
Press and Public Information Bureau, 2006).
SOLUTION
Jamestown adopted an ordinance requiring routine inspections of individual
wastewater systems. A High Groundwater Table District also guides future
development to protect drinking water quality.
Town of Jamestown
44 Southwest Avenue
Jamestown, Rl 02835
www.jamestownri.net
CONTACT
Justin Jobin
p: (401)423-7193
e: justin@justinjobin.com
Est. Population: 5,400
OVERVIEW
Jamestown is located
on a small island
situated in the middle
of Narragansett Bay
in Rhode Island. It is
approximately nine
miles long and one mile
wide. In 2001, Jamestown passed an
ordinance to better accommodate growth
and manage individual wastewater systems
to protect its fresh water supplies. The
program consists of:
• Routine inspections
• Maintenance reminders
• Web-based system database
• Siting and installation rules
• Designation of a High Groundwater
Table District
MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS AND WEB
-BASED TRACKING
Jamestown's program provides a framework
for the inspection, maintenance, and repair
of individual wastewater systems. The town
conducted an initial round of inspections in
2003 aimed at identifying and evaluating the
condition of 1,608 individual systems.
Jamestown then began a routine
maintenance inspection program in 2006
under which systems are inspected every
three or five years based on size, type of
system, and water use. Inspectors record
the inspection information in the town's
web-based database. The town has the
authority to pump tanks at the owner's
expense and, if necessary, can place liens
on property for failure to reimburse the
town for the pump-out.
HIGH GROUNDWATER OVERLAY ZONE
AND IMPERVIOUS LAYER DISTRICT
Jamestown adopted a High Groundwater
Overlay Zone and Impervious Layer District
Ordinance in 2003. The ordinance applies to
designated areas in the town that have
substandard-sized lots served by private
wells. Provisions of the ordinance include a
total impervious surface area limit of 15%
(calculated for individual lots and excluding
wetlands), a requirement to control runoff
volume—using low-impact techniques—to
maintain predevelopment infiltration for a 25
-year storm, and a mandate to use
advanced wastewater treatment
technologies capable of 50% nitrogen
removal.
FUNDING SOURCES
Jamestown's program is funded through an
annual user fee of $30 paid by system
owners. The fee funds the town's part-time
wastewater management specialist.
RESULTS
• To date, 94% of all septic systems
have had an initial maintenance
inspection.
• Of the systems inspected:
- 35 failed (2%)
- 85 (5%) were found to be
substandard systems (e.g.,
cesspools, systems with steel
tanks)
-1,488 passed (93%)
• Since 2003, 50 systems have been
subject to repair/replacement
actions initiated by the town.
Property owners are responsible for
ensuring that their system is operating
properly and that it is maintained in
good repair. Systems that do not meet
applicable performance requirements can
be subject to a repair or replacement order.
Addressing malfunctioning systems helps
to reduce nitrogen and pathogen pollution
that pose threats to Jamestown's drinking
water sources.
References and Resources
Jamestown Source Water Assessment and Wastewater Needs Analysis. University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension. http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/RESOURCES/dwater/Assessments/PDFs/
James_Chapters%203,4.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2010.
Legislative Press and Public Information Bureau. 2006. Senate passes Paiva Weed bill stemming from Jamestown well contamination. State of Rhode Island, General Assembly. Providence, Rl.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 2008. Rules Establishing Minimum Standards Relating to Location, Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Town of Jamestown. High Groundwater Ordinance, www.jamestownri.net plan/hgwt.html. Accessed March 31, 2010.
Population data—Town of Jamestown, Rhode Island, http://www.jamestownri.net/
Office of Wastewater Management
12
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PROBLEM
During the past three decades, the population of Fairfax County has grown to more
than one million people. With sanitary sewers at or near capacity, the number of
individual wastewater systems began to multiply, eventually rising to more than
24,000. Inappropriately sited, improperly designed, and/or poorly managed
individual systems have the potential to contribute to the pollution and degradation
of the county's 900 miles of perennial and intermittent streams and a number of
freshwater lakes and ponds.
SOLUTION
Fairfax County adopted an ordinance requiring routine pumping of septic tanks
every five years and alternating drainfields and drainfield reserve areas to ensure
system performance.
Onsite Sewage and Water
Division of Environmental Health
Fairfax County Health Department
10777 Main Street
Fairfax, VA 22030
CONTACT
John Milgrim
p: (703) 246-8457
e: hdonsite@fairfaxcounty.gov
Est. Population: 1,101,000
OVERVIEW
Fairfax County's
decentralized
wastewater
management
program has
evolved since the first measures to improve
onsite treatment were enacted in 1928. The
program now includes:
• A treatment system inventory
and database
• Requirements for alternating
drainfields and reserve areas
• Tank pump-outs at least once
every five years, and pump-out
manifests provided to the county
health department
ALTERNATING DRAINFIELDS AND
RESERVE AREA
The Fairfax County Health Department
issues permits and provides inspections and
evaluations for new and existing individual
wastewater system repairs and expansions.
All new and repaired systems are designed
with a flow diversion valve to allow portions
of the drainfield to dry out; this improves
treatment and avoids soil saturation
problems. A suitable reserve area is
required in the event that the system needs
to be repaired or replaced.
FIVE-YEAR PUMP-OUT AND
MANIFEST SYSTEM
An ordinance specifies that septic tanks
must be pumped every five years. The
service provider and the system owner
both provide copies of the pump-out
manifests to the county health department
which tracks maintenance. The information
is maintained in a database and is used to
track compliance with the local ordinance.
The database generates five-year pump-out
reminder notices that the Health Department
mails to system owners. The health
department also offers $200 individual
system inspections if required by a
mortgage lender at the time of property
transfer.
FUNDING SOURCES
Fairfax County sustains its annual $1.5
million onsite program through user fees
and dedicated funds. The fees cover
approximately 30% of the program costs.
The remainder is financed through
dedicated state and local funds.
RESULTS
A recent study found that the average
malfunction rate for systems in the county
was only 2.1% of the 15,401 systems
reviewed. In addition, many systems thought
to have outlived their life expectancy are still
functioning satisfactorily.
The creation of a database for system
inventory has allowed the county to track
septic tank pump-outs and categorize all
systems according to system type, greatly
assisting the enforcement of existing codes
and regulations. The use of alternating
drainfields has increased the average
lifespan of sewage disposal systems.
The five-year pump-out requirement has
resulted in better maintained systems and
the identification of system malfunctions that
would otherwise go undetected. As a result
of these measures, fewer owners are facing
costly major repairs or system
replacements.
Through its program, Fairfax County now
better understands and manages its many
onsite systems even in light of a fast-
growing population.
References and Resources
Fairfax County Stream Quality Assessment Program, www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/stormwater/streams/assessment.htm.
Fairfax County, Virginia. 2008. Environmental Improvement Program (El P) Section E: Fact Sheets. Fiscal Year 2010. www.fairfaxcounty.gov/living/environment/eip/2010eip/factsheets.pdf.
Hill, D. 1999. Onsite Waste Management—A Case Study, Fairfax, Virginia, www.nesc.wvu.edu/nodp/pdf/ffva.pdf.
The National Onsite Demonstration Program (NODP). Phase 4 Final Report, www.nesc.wvu.edu/nodp/nodp_index.htm.
Population data—Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Fairfax County, 2011. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51059.html
Office of Wastewater Management
13
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Management Model 2: Maintenance Contract
Management Model 2: Maintenance Contract
targets areas at higher risk of environmental
degradation due to higher system densities, more
complex treatment technology maintenance, or other
factors. Local authorities establish site evaluation
criteria, identify appropriate treatment technologies,
and require that certain systems (e.g., electro-
mechanical, advanced treatment, disinfection) submit
to ongoing and regularly scheduled operation and
maintenance efforts via contracts with approved
service professionals.
Elements of Management Model 2
Management Model 2 includes three key elements:
• Minimum performance criteria for all approved
systems and components
• Maintenance contracts for clustered systems and
advanced individual systems
• Responsibility for system maintenance with service
professionals trained and certified by the
appropriate regulatory agency, and in accordance
with relevant O&M procedures, standards, or
practices
Focus on Maintenance Contracts
Management Model 2 promotes proper performance
of advanced and clustered systems through the use
of required maintenance contracts. Management
Model 2 programs typically consist of:
• A certified and licensed contractor inspects and
maintains the system as appropriate given the type,
size, and location
• System owners must submit a copy of the system
O&M manual or standards of practice after
installation to the regulatory authority, enter into an
ongoing maintenance contract with a certified
service provider, and submit a signed report
directly to the regulatory agency after each
inspection or service event
Program Characteristics
• Problems identified quickly in order to
lower risk of malfunctions
• Systems have longer life spans and better
overall performance
• Homeowner or service provider maintains
contract and reports issues to regulatory
agency
• Regulatory agency develops a procedure
to track current and delinquent contracts
• Regulatory agency may have limited
authority to remedy problems and assure
compliance
The program uses databases to track maintenance
contract status, services provided, and overall
system compliance
Case Studies
The most effective Management Model 2 programs
employ mechanisms to ensure that maintenance
contracts are kept current and implemented properly.
This section reviews three of these programs:
• Albemarle, North Carolina
• Keuka Lake, New York
• Lake Panorama, Iowa
Office of Wastewater Management
14
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
ALBEMARLE REGION, NORTH CAROLINA
PROBLEM
Rivers and streams of the Albemarle Region of North Carolina are nutrient-
sensitive and require nutrient input controls such as upgrades for wastewater
treatment plants and septic systems. Both strategies are being pursued by state
and local officials. Much of the area is unsuitable for conventional gravity-flow
individual systems due to low-permeability clay soils and high water tables.
In past decades, these limitations prompted the extensive use of sand-lined
trench leaching systems in the region. A 1991 study found that 30% of
those systems were malfunctioning and posing risks to groundwater and
surface water quality.
SOLUTION
Local governments authorized a regional management entity to inventory and
monitor individual wastewater systems, improve system management, and
develop site-specific design criteria for new and replacement systems
incorporating advanced treatment technologies.
Albemarle Environmental Health
Department
P.O. Box 1899
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
CONTACT
Ralph Hollowell, Director
p: (252) 338-4490
e: rhollowell@arhs-nc.org
OVERVIEW
Individual
wastewater
system
malfunctions,
water quality risks, and the explosive growth
experienced in the Albemarle Region
prompted 11 North Carolina counties to form
the Albemarle Septic Management Entity
(ASME) in 1993. ASME has instituted a
management program that consists of:
• Routine inspections
• Use of advanced treatment system
designs for difficult site conditions
• Maintenance contract requirements
and reminders
• Operating permit requirements
for advanced units
• Alternating drainfields and
reserve areas
MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION
AGREEMENTS
ASME oversees individual and clustered
systems in an 11-county area. ASME
requires owners of all advanced and
innovative systems to enter into inspection
and maintenance agreements with the
program. In addition, ASME requires that all
repaired or replaced systems be included in
the system management service area.
ASME works with low-income system
owners to identify grant and low-interest
loan funding to address repairs and
replacements for problem systems using
a combination of Community Development
Block Grants, the North Carolina Clean
Water Trust, and other sources.
ASME inspects systems in its jurisdiction
at least annually. The system owner must
complete all repair and maintenance
activities. If an owner fails to make repairs,
ASME is authorized to make the needed
repairs and bill the owner and, if needed,
place a lien on the property until payment
is secured.
OPERATING PERMITS FOR ADVANCED
SYSTEMS
ASME allows the use of advanced pressure-
dosed systems, which incorporate fixed
aerobic film and/or suspended growth
pretreatment followed by soil absorption.
Advanced systems require an operating
permit. The local health department issues
operating permits in accordance with state
and local rules.
FUNDING SOURCES
The annual budget for the ASME
wastewater program is $290,000. The
program is sustained through its $300 per
home permit fees, annual $50 system
inspection fees, and county funds.
RESULTS
Local officials note that the management
entity has prevented system malfunctions
through more rigorous design, inspection,
and operation/maintenance requirements. In
the early 1990s, estimates of system
malfunctions ranged as high as 30%. During
2007-2008, the program inspected 2,153 of
the 4,240 systems under its management
purview, and fewer than five of the newly
installed systems were found to be
malfunctioning.
New system installations and increasing the
number of properly functioning systems
through inspections will help to reduce
nutrient pollution in the Albemarle
watershed.
References and Resources
Hollowell, R. 2001. The Public Management Entity Program: Albemarle Regional Health Service. 2001 National Onsite Wastewater Recyclers Association Meeting,
Preconference Workshop; Virginia Beach, VA.
Hughes J., and Simonson, A. 2005. Government Financing for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Facilities in North Carolina, www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pg/pgfal05/article4.pdf.
Office of Wastewater Management
15
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
KEUKA LAKE WATERSHED, NEW YORK
PROBLEM
Approximately 20,000 residents in the Keuka Lake watershed rely on groundwater
and the lake for their drinking water. Nearly all of the residents in the watershed
also depend on individual wastewater systems that are densely positioned and that
discharge to the soil for treatment. However, testing revealed that poorly
maintained individual onsite systems were contributing excessive levels of bacteria
to the lake and contaminating drinking water wells.
SOLUTION
Eight municipalities formed a regional watershed cooperative that implemented a
uniform permitting and inspection program to identify and repair or replace
malfunctioning treatment systems. As a result, Keuka Lake's water quality ranks
among the highest of the water bodies in the Finger Lakes region.
Keuka Watershed Improvement
Cooperative
1 Keuka Business Park
Penn Yan, NY 14527
www.keukawatershed.com
CONTACT
Paul Bauter, KWIC Manager
p: (315) 536-0917
e: bauterp@gmail.com
OVERVIEW
In 1994, eight
municipalities—
Barrington,
Jerusalem,
Hammondsport,
Milo, Penn Yan,
Pulteney, Urbana,
and Wayne—
bordering Keuka Lake formed the Keuka
Watershed Improvement Cooperative
(KWIC) to better manage individual and
decentralized wastewater systems in the
region. KWIC has instituted a management
program that consists of:
• Uniform regional ordinances
• System inspection requirements
based on health and environmental
risk factors
• Maintenance contract requirements
for mechanized units
• Operating permit requirements for
new or modified systems
ROUTINE INSPECTIONS AND
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
Municipalities participating in the KWIC
program must adopt a uniform wastewater
management ordinance and hire a
coordinator to inspect treatment systems in
their communities. All 3,000 wastewater
systems within 200 feet of Keuka Lake or its
tributaries are inspected at least once every
five years. Inspection reports are filed with
KWIC. Aerobic and advanced treatment
systems are inspected annually, at which
time the system owner must show evidence
of an active maintenance contract. Systems
are also inspected when property is sold.
The regional ordinances require a KWIC
operating permit for all new or modified
individual wastewater systems. A system
that is malfunctioning must be repaired to
meet specific performance requirements.
Additionally, KWIC could require the system
owner to upgrade or replace the
malfunctioning system using the best
available technology.
KWIC utilizes a computerized database to
track inspections and system compliance.
KWIC reviews lake water quality information
and evaluates the performance of advanced
systems. KWIC's enforcement authority
includes fines and compliance timetables in
addition to corrective actions.
FUNDING SOURCES
The KWIC program is financed by permit
fees and dedicated funds from each
municipality's budget. The program's annual
budget is $70,000.
RESULTS
Water quality monitoring results indicate
very good lake conditions, though runoff
from stormwater and agricultural sources
after storm events can result in high bacteria
levels. The relatively clear water in the lake
contains low nutrient levels and supports
excellent fisheries. Monitoring results from
2005-2009 show lake water quality
improving or holding steady for nearly all
parameters. The local lake association
attributes this progress, in part, to the septic
system inspection program.
References and Resources
Keuka Lake Association. 2001. Phase II, Keuka Lake Sewage Study, www.keukalakeassoc.org.
Landre, P. 1995. The creation of Keuka Lake's Cooperative Watershed Program. Clearwaters Magazine, Summer 1995, 28-30.
Smith, J.C. 1995. Protecting and Improving the Waters of Keuka Lake. Clearwaters Magazine, Summer 1995, 32-33.
Population data—Keuka Lake Association, http://www.keukalakeassoc.org/
Office of Wastewater Management
16
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
LAKE PANORAMA, IOWA
PROBLEM
Residential growth is a challenge in unsewered resort communities like Lake
Panorama, Iowa, due to the need to protect lake water quality from septic system
impacts. Lake Panorama is one of the largest private lake resort communities in
Iowa. Installing conventional, soil-discharging wastewater systems is difficult in this
community because of steep slopes, ravines, low-permeability soils, and small and
oddly shaped lots.
SOLUTION
The community created a management district to accommodate growth and protect
water resources through the use of advanced, clustered, and innovative onsite
wastewater treatment systems.
Guthrie County Health Department
200 North 5th Street
Guthrie Center, IA50115
www.guthriecounty.org
CONTACT
Stephen Patterson
p: (641) 747-8320
e: envhlth(S)netins.net
OVERVIEW
In 1980, the Lake
Panorama Association
and the Guthrie County
Board of Health worked
together to create the
Lake Panorama Onsite
Wastewater Management District. A county
ordinance authorized the district's formation,
which operates under the supervision of the
Guthrie County Health Department. The
program consists of:
• Routine inspection requirements
for treatment systems
• Maintenance contract requirements
and service reminders sent from
the management district
• Licensing requirements for system
inspectors and septic tank
pumpers
• System inventories to track
installations, repairs, and
replacements
ROUTINE INSPECTIONS AND
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
The Lake Panorama Onsite Wastewater
Management District manages six clustered
systems, 17 sand filter facilities, 25 aeration
units, 25 aeration/drip dispersal systems,
one mound unit, and one gray water
collection/treatment system.
Inspections are authorized through the
homeowners' association and performed by
the county sanitarian. Individual systems are
inspected every three years for full-time
residents and every six years for part-time
residents.
Maintenance contracts with manufacturer-
certified technicians are required for
mechanical aerobic systems. Inspections
are conducted quarterly for those systems,
and reports are filed with the county.
Owners are responsible for system
maintenance, including pumping and
repairs. The district has the authority to
request that the homeowners' association
terminate water service for owners with
noncompliant systems.
FUNDING SOURCES
Guthrie County Health Department funds
the program through the collection of annual
fees. The annual fee for conventional
system owners ranges from $5 to $10, plus
any repair or pumping costs. The fee for
permitting a system is $225, and the
inspection fee is $30. Tank pumping
averages $225. Cluster system users are
billed at a rate of $50 a year.
RESULTS
The management programs for Lake
Panorama have likely provided ongoing
protection for Lake Panorama as indicated
by water quality monitoring results. Bacteria
concentrations at the Lake Panorama outlet
are lower than that of other reaches of the
Raccoon River system. Over the past few
years, the district has logged only one
aeration treatment unit malfunction annually,
out of more than 1,000 homes on line.
Additionally, system costs—though a bit
higher initially—are lower than previous
totals overall, as costs focus more on
routine maintenance than replacement of
malfunctioning systems.
The communities of Lake Panorama now
better understand their onsite systems and
can manage these systems appropriately to
accommodate growth in the area.
References and Resources
Mancl, K. 2000. National Onsite Demonstration Program Case Study Report: Lake Panorama, Panorama, Iowa. Prepared for the National Onsite Demonstration Program,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Mancl, K. 2001. Onsite Wastewater Management: A Model for Success. In Proceedings of the 9th National Symposium for Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems,
American Association of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Ml. March 11-14, Fort Worth, TX.
Mancl, K., and Patterson, S. 2001. Twenty Years of Success in Septic System Management. In Proceedings of the 9th National Symposium for Individual and Small Community
Sewage Systems, American Association of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Ml. March 11-14, Forth Worth TX.
Population data—Lake Panorama Association, http://www.lakepanorama.org/home.asp
Office of Wastewater Management
17
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Management Model 3: Operating Permits
Management Model 3: Operating Permits is
recommended for situations in which the ability to
verify system performance is critical to protect public
health and water quality. Management Model 3
includes regular review of system operation and
performance by a regulatory agency and is
appropriate for areas of moderate to high
environmental risk.
Program Characteristics
• Design based on performance objectives
rather than standard system types
• Sustained resources and technical ex-
pertise needed to implement an effective
permitting program
Elements of Management Model 3
Management Model 3 includes three key elements:
• Renewable or revocable operating permits issued
to the system owner
• Specific and measurable performance criteria and
regular submission of compliance reports
• An inventory and tracking system for system
permits and inspection/compliance reports
Focus on System Performance and
Licensed Inspectors
Because of the focus on performance criteria, this
management model allows the use of individual or
clustered systems at sites with a greater range of site
characteristics. Systems must meet performance
criteria established to protect public health and water
quality resources for the receiving waters (i.e.,
groundwater or surface waters).
Management Model 3 programs typically consist of:
• Operating permits for continuous oversight of
system performance
• Inspections by licensed inspectors usually required
before permit renewal
• Permits that are valid for a specified period (e.g.,
three to five years), as determined by the regulatory
entity based on performance (determined via
effluent samples), surface water quality, or
compliance with specific operational parameters
Case Studies
Effective Management Model 3 programs often
reward good system performance with extended
permit renewal terms while requiring shorter permits
and more frequent inspections for owners with poorly
performing systems. This section reviews four such
programs:
• Hamilton County, Ohio
• Monroe County, Florida
• The Sea Ranch, California
• Auburn Lake Trails, California
Sand filter systems, like this one being installed
in Hamilton County, use sand to treat effluent.
The effluent from the sand filter is then discharged,
in pressurized doses, to a soil absorption bed.
Office of Wastewater Management
18
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
PROBLEM
Potential public health threats posed by bacteria and viruses in surface waters
prompted the Hamilton County Board of Health to investigate some 10,000
mechanized onsite wastewater systems. The inspections revealed that 3,400
(34%) of the systems—mostly serving individual homes—were substandard or
malfunctioning.
SOLUTION
The Hamilton County General Health District upgraded its onsite wastewater
program to include operating permits and routine inspection requirements to
maintain system performance.
Hamilton County General
Health District
250 William Howard Taft
Cincinnati, OH 45219
www.hamiltoncountyhealth.org
CONTACT
Christopher Griffith,
Director Water Quality
p: (513)946-7866
e: Christopher.Griffith@hamilton-co.org
OVERVIEW
In 1993, the Hamilton
County Board of Health
adopted more stringent
rules to better manage
an estimated 20,000
individual wastewater
systems, half of which were aeration units
discharging to soil absorption fields or
surface waters. The board has since
adopted additional changes to its program,
which now consists of the following:
• Routine inspections for treatment
systems
• Renewable operating permit
requirements
• Maintenance contract requirements
• An integrated database and
geographic information system
(GIS) used to track system location
and condition
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS AND
INSPECTIONS
The Hamilton County General Health District
approves plans, issues permits, and
conducts inspections for all individual and
small flow treatment systems (with the
exception of the cities of Cincinnati,
Norwood, Springdale, and Sharonville).
Individual systems are inspected every five
years, while mechanical systems, such as
mounds, dosed leach lines, and aerobic
treatment units, are inspected once per
year. The Health District issues one-year or
five-year renewable operating permits based
on the system's complexity. The county is
authorized to revoke permits for
noncompliance; penalties include injunction,
criminal prosecution, or other measures if
required corrective actions are not taken.
Owners of mechanical systems are required
to have annual maintenance, monitoring,
and service contracts. Maintenance
providers must be registered, bonded, and
must meet specific training requirements.
INTEGRATED GIS DATABASE
Hamilton County developed an integrated
GIS database to track the location and
condition of individual and clustered
systems. The county also uses the database
to compare any waterborne disease
outbreaks with the latest system inspection
surveys and collector line sampling results.
FUNDING SOURCES
The county's 2008 decentralized wastewater
program budget was $1.24 million, funded
by $850,000 in user fees and $390,000 from
the Hamilton County Storm Water District.
Fees include $40 for inspecting mechanical
systems and $85 for inspecting
conventional, gravity-flow, individual
systems. Legislation authorizing property
liens has helped to eliminate delinquent
inspection fees.
Results
The program has identified and required the
repair/replacement of thousands of
noncompliant systems, many of which were
discharging poorly treated sewage to area
streams or directly to the ground surface.
Since its inception, more than 2,300
malfunctioning systems have been replaced
and over 32,000 system repairs have been
completed.
Studies conducted in 2000 and 2001 found
a 54% improvement in suspended solids, a
36% improvement in biochemical oxygen
demand, and a 60% improvement in fecal
coliform over baseline data collected five
years earlier.
In addition, mechanical system malfunctions
dropped from a high of 44% to a consistent
and predictable rate of around 18%. Non-
mechanical system malfunctions were over
23% in 2003 and have currently dropped to
2.6%. Onsite sewage treatment system
nuisance complaints dropped from 371 in
2003 to 258 in 2009.
References and Resources
McKenzie, M.C. Hamilton County Ohio: An Onsite Wastewater Management Success Story. Small Flows, Vol. 12, No. 4, Fall 1998.
Ingram, T. 1999. Onsite Wastewater Management - An Integrated Approach to Improving Water Quality and Preventing Disease. Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 62, 1999.
Sweeney, M., Quinn, T., Quinn, B., and Allen, R. 1998. GIS Involving the Community: The Hamilton County Environmental Priorities Project. ESRI Annual Conference, 1998. http://proceedings.esri.com/
Nbrary/userconf/proc98/proceed/TO550/PAP510/P510.HTM. Accessed March 31, 2010.
Population data—Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Hamilton County, 2011. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/39/39061.html
Office of Wastewater Management
19
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROBLEM
Monroe County, Florida, is home to the Florida Keys and a complex and dynamic
marine ecosystem—including the world's third-largest coral reef. The county is also
home to 30,000 individual wastewater systems that may contribute to excessive
nutrients in near shore and offshore waters, leading to the deterioration of the reef
and marine resources. Additionally, more stringent wastewater treatment standards
adopted by the state also created challenges for conventional onsite systems.
SOLUTION
A state wastewater treatment standards law targeting Monroe County now requires
the countywide use of advanced nutrient reduction systems, renewable operating
permits, maintenance contracts, and annual inspections.
Monroe County Health Department
333 Oversees Highway
Marathon, FL 33050
CONTACT
Bobbi Sleighter, Administrator
p: (305) 289-2724
e: Bobbi_Sleighter@doh.state.fl.us
OVERVIEW
Protecting the
^ health of coastal
waters and
marine habitats is
\ paramount to the
region's
Monroe County
economy, health,
Est. Population: 74,000 3 n d q U 31 ity Of I if 6.
In 1999, Florida
adopted more stringent treatment standards
for wastewater systems in Monroe County
including:
• Renewable operating permit
requirements
• Routine treatment system
inspection requirements
• Homeowner requirement to enter
into a contract with an O&M entity
• System inventory, maintenance
contract requirements, and delivery
of service reminders
RENEWABLE OPERATING PERMITS
Regulations enacted by the Florida
Department of Health's Bureau of Onsite
Sewage Programs and implemented by the
county health department set effluent
standards, dispersal requirements, and
associated compliance schedules for
existing and new individual/clustered
systems in Monroe County. All systems are
now required to use advanced treatment
technologies to meet stricter wastewater
treatment standards for nutrients. New
systems in the Florida Keys must be
designed to achieve an effluent limit of 10
milligrams per liter (mg/L) or less for
nitrogen. Systems are regulated by the
county through the use of renewable
operating permits, required maintenance
contracts, and annual inspections.
System owners must renew a one-year
operating permit annually at a cost of $100.
The health department also issues
construction permits for new systems and
repair permits for existing systems.
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS AND
INSPECTIONS
Individual treatment system owners must
enter into contracts with a maintenance
entity to oversee the system's operation.
System owners must renew the
maintenance contract each year for the life
of the system. Maintenance entities are
registered contractors certified by the
product manufacturer to conduct
maintenance services. The maintenance
entity submits inspection reports and
sampling results to the state as specified in
the operating permit.
Maintenance contractors inspect permitted
systems at least semiannually, and the
county health department inspects the
systems annually. The county health
department maintains system data in a
statewide, web-based database that tracks
all permits and inspections.
FUNDING SOURCES
The Monroe County program has eight full-
time employees and an annual budget of
$330,000. The program is funded through a
statewide trust fund supported by fees
collected from permits and contractor
licensing. Since 1999, the local
governments in Monroe County have
received nearly $50 million in federal and
state funds to improve wastewater treatment
at the nearly 50,000 residences in the
Florida Keys region.
RESULTS
Currently, 3,065 individual wastewater
treatment systems have been permitted,
including 327 advanced treatment units.
Florida Department of Health effluent limits
for new systems discharging less than
100,000 gallons per day to the soil-
including individual and clustered systems—
include 10 mg/L for biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, and total
nitrogen, and 1 mg/L for total phosphorus,
representing greater than 75% reductions
over conventional septic systems. Effluent is
sampled prior to soil discharge.
References and Resources
Sherman, K.M., Chase, P.K., and Ebelherr, D. 2003. Implementation of Model Programs 3 and 4 of the USEPA Voluntary Management Guidelines in the state of Florida.
National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association Annual Conference, Franklin, TN.
Population data—Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Monroe County, 2011. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12087.html
Office of Wastewater Management
20
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
THE SEA RANCH, CALIFORNIA
PROBLEM
Just a two-hour drive from San Francisco, The Sea Ranch community extends 10
miles along the northern California coastline. Built in the 1960s and 1970s, many of
the homes relied on individual wastewater systems. Half of the homes were built in
areas susceptible to high groundwater, with coastal meadows and terrace soils
causing wastewater system malfunctions. Aging infrastructure, challenging
conditions, and poor system maintenance in the upscale resort community posed a
threat to local and coastal waterways. As a result, a moratorium was placed on
future development in the community.
SOLUTION
Sonoma County, the California Water Resources Control Board, and The Sea
Ranch community reached an agreement to improve performance and track
compliance of new and existing wastewater systems by forming a wastewater
management zone. The moratorium was lifted after the solutions were
implemented.
n
The Sea Ranch
OVERVIEW
The residents of The
Sea Ranch are served
by a combination of
\ clustered and individual
wastewater systems.
Of the 2,300 platted lots,
Est. population: 1,300 ! approximately 1,500
have homes with
individual systems and about 600 are on two
large clustered systems. Treated effluent
from the clustered systems is used to
irrigate golf courses and other areas. In
1987, Sonoma County authorized The Sea
Ranch Association Onsite Wastewater
Disposal Zone (the Zone) to operate the
individual and clustered system
management program. The program
consists of:
• Operating permit requirements and
performance standards
• Routine inspection requirements
• Maintenance contract requirements
• Establishment of an enforcement
authority
• Maintenance of inventory and
record keeping
• Surface and groundwater quality
monitoring
PERFORMANCE-BASED PERMITS
The Zone inspects conventional and
advanced systems to ensure compliance
with permits and performance standards.
The Zone conducts inspections of
conventional septic systems every three
years. Inspections of advanced designs—
including mounds, sand filters, and pressure
distribution dispersal units—are conducted
annually and include monitoring for nitrates,
ammonia, and fecal/total coliform. The Zone
sends system owners an inspection notice
one month before the inspection date.
Homeowners are responsible for obtaining
permits from the Zone and installing and
repairing systems as required under county
regulations. Inspectors from the Zone
conduct regular system inspections using an
online template tailored for this use. The
Zone issues a renewable operating permit
for advanced systems and holds the system
owner accountable for proper operation and
performance. If the system is operating
properly and does not require preventive
maintenance or repairs, the Zone issues a
renewable, three-year operating permit. If
the system functions but is not operating
optimally, the Zone issues a one-year
operating permit and monitors the system
performance. Performance indicators
The Sea Ranch
P.O. Box 16
Sea Ranch, CA 95497
www.tsra.org
CONTACT
Randy Burke, Director of Works
p: (707)785-2411
e: rburke@tsra.org
Photo: Sea Ranch Water Company.
include standard hydraulic parameters (no
backups, no sewage surfacing), as well as
wet and dry weather groundwater and
surface water monitoring in the vicinity of
some drainfields. Monitoring parameters
include biochemical oxygen demand,
bacteria, some metals, and total suspended
solids. If the system has structural integrity
problems or leachfield malfunctions, the
owner must obtain a sewage disposal repair
permit from the Zone. If the owner does not
repair the system in a timely manner, the
county can attach a notice to the land
records or revoke the building's certificate of
occupancy. Moreover, the Zone is
authorized to revoke an operating permit at
any time for noncompliance. In these cases,
Office of Wastewater Management
21
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
the Zone can compel the repair or
replacement of a wastewater system under
county rules. The Zone also operates the
potable water supply system and can
suspend water service if its requirements
are not met.
FUNDING SOURCES
The annual budget of the wastewater
management program is $250,000 as
approved by the Sonoma County Board of
Supervisors. The budget is funded through
an annual, per-system fee of $180.
RESULTS
Surface and groundwater monitoring results
have found no evidence of groundwater
pollution associated with the hundreds of
individual systems and two clustered
wastewater systems in The Sea Ranch
community. System malfunctions, such as
the sewage surfacing and groundwater
contamination that spurred the creation of
the program no longer pose a significant
threat due to routine operation,
maintenance, and management
procedures.
References and Resources
Hantzsche, N., Moore, R.A., and Smiell, J. No date. Data Management System for Onsite Wastewater Inspection Program at The Sea Ranch, California. National Onsite Demonstration Program,
West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
The Sea Ranch Association. 2004. Onsite Wastewater Disposal Zone Homeowner's Guide. www.tsra.org/Zone.htm. The Sea Ranch Association, Sea Ranch, CA.
Population data—derived from Census Bureau, The Sea Ranch, 2010. http://www.census.gov/ and http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
Office of Wastewater Management
22
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
AUBURN LAKE TRAILS, CALIFORNIA
PROBLEM
The Auburn Lake Trails Subdivision in California was developed during the 1970s
and 1980s as a recreational community near Auburn Lake, with more than a 1,000
relatively small lots in an area with shallow, low-permeability soils and steep
topography. When developers discovered that local soils could not treat the waste
adequately to protect water resources upon full build-out, they proposed building a
centralized sewage collection and treatment system. However, it was opposed by
residents as too costly.
SOLUTION
The community authorized the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (PUD) to
design and manage conventional and advanced treatment individual and clustered
wastewater systems. The PUD developed an approach that links the required
performance levels for treatment systems to health and environmental risk and
where maintenance and monitoring schedules depend on the system type.
Georgetown Divide Public
Utility District
P.O. Box 4240
Georgetown, CA 95634
CONTACT
Becky Siren, Operations Manager
p: (530) 333-4356
e: hnwhite@gd-pud.org
Est. Population: 3,000
OVERVIEW
The Auburn Lake Trails
Subdivision lies between
the Middle and South
Forks of the American
River in El Dorado
County. In 1985, the
Auburn Lake Trails
Onsite Wastewater
Disposal Zone (the Zone) was formed to
support the management of individual and
small community systems in the subdivision
in lieu of a centralized sewage system. The
Georgetown Divide PUD has jurisdiction
over the Zone. The program consists of:
• Operating permit requirements
with performance standards
• Routine inspection and
maintenance agreement
requirements
• System inventory
• Groundwater and surface water
monitoring data collection
MANAGEMENT UNITS CLASSIFIED BY
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
The subdivision's hydrology and geology
was mapped and classified in order to divide
the area into five management units based
on environmental risk. Wastewater systems
in each unit were designed to achieve
certain water quality performance levels.
The technologies included mounds,
intermittent media filters, and pressure-
dosing, soil-dispersal systems. One
clustered system serves 134 homes using a
gravity sewer collection line and a series of
dispersal fields.
EMPHASIS ON INSPECTIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
The PUD has the authority to investigate,
design, inspect, monitor, operate, maintain,
and repair treatment systems. Because of
liability concerns and costs, the district no
longer maintains the systems. Homeowners
or contractors are required to make any
necessary repairs under the oversight of the
PUD. If repairs are not made, the PUD can
pump or repair the system and place a lien
on the property for noncompliance. The
district conducts annual inspections of all
systems.
FUNDING SOURCES
The 2008/2009 annual budget for the
program was $365,000, funded through
monthly user fees that range from $14.63-
$22.51 for individual onsite systems, to
$50.87 for septic tank effluent pump/septic
tank effluent gravity (STEP/STEG) systems.
Property taxes also contribute to program
support. A loan program was established to
help residents repair or replace their tanks.
Typical management services include an
annual system inspection, issuance of
permits, performance of repairs, and
collection and analysis of monitoring data.
"It is critical that septic tank and
pump tanks be watertight and
constructed with a level of uniformity
to facilitate pump installation,
operation, and maintenance. This
requires watertight testing on all
new construction.
In addition, the Georgetown Divide
PUD has initiated watertight testing
on all septic tanks that are connected
to the STEP (septic tank effluent
pump) clustered system that are 20
years or older and/or prior to property
transfer.
We have found an 80% failure rate
on all tanks 20 years or older.
These leaking tanks have contributed
significant inflow/infiltration into this
STEP system, which can result in
sanitary sewer overflows and can
hydraulically overload the dispersal
leachfields."
Becky Siren, Operations Manager,
Georgetown PUD
Office of Wastewater Management
23
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
RESULTS
Of the 134 septic tanks inspected in 2009,
five were found to be defective and were
replaced. The inspection and management
program has prevented onsite system
malfunctions and has been an effective
alternative to costly centralized sewers.
The annual inspection of all systems
provides for early detection of problems
that could lead to a malfunction. Water
quality sampling since 1985 has found no
degradation of groundwater or surface
water.
Of the 999 systems in the subdivision, most
of them (63%) are more than 20 years old,
and 36% are more than 30 years old. Only
10 systems have malfunctioned in the last
25 years; malfunctions were mostly due to
tree roots, hydraulic overloading and other
problems such as improper grading,
construction activities, etc.
By identifying the location of systems and
ensuring their proper operation, the
community can make smart decisions to
accommodate residential development.
Photo: Florida Department of Health.
References and Resources
Georgetown Divide Public Utility District. Website www.gd-pud.org.
Mancl, K. 2001. Onsite Wastewater Management: A Model for Success. In Proceedings of the 9th National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Fort Worth, TX.
Population data—Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association.
Office of Wastewater Management
24
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Management Model 4: Responsible
Management Entity (RME) Operation and
Maintenance
Management Model 4: Responsible Management
Entity (RME) Operation and Maintenance is best used
in areas with high environmental risk and a need for
professional oversight to ensure consistent system
operation and maintenance. The model applies to
situations where site, soil, or other environmental
conditions present a need for complex treatment units
and customized system designs (e.g., high-strength
wastes, advanced treatment clustered systems).
Communities typically use Management Model 4
where the density of systems (e.g., more than two per
acre) can pose a threat to water resources and/or
public health.
Elements of Management Model 4
Management Model 4 includes two key elements:
• Professional operation and maintenance services
provided through an RME (public or private)
• Regulatory agency oversight provided through
operating permits issued directly to the RME
Focus on RME Operation and Maintenance
Management Model 4 programs use an RME to
operate and maintain individual and clustered
treatment systems. The RME can be a private or a
public utility, a private company, or other
governmental or nongovernmental organization. Rural
electric cooperatives, sanitation districts, and other
special districts can all serve as RMEs under
Management Model 4. Many RMEs contract out
certain tasks, such as maintenance and septic tank
pumping, to service providers.
Program Characteristics
• RME responsible for long-term system
performance and accountability
• RMEs, not homeowners, conduct
operation and maintenance
• Local authority adopts legislation enabling
the RME to conduct O&M and ensure
performance
• Homeowner/local jurisdiction grants
easement/right of entry approval
Management Model 4 programs typically involve:
• The RME has responsibility and legal authority to
operate the systems in order to meet regulatory
and performance requirements
• The regulatory agency oversees and issues permits
to the RME in order to ensure compliance
• The RME inspects systems and conducts routine
operation and maintenance
• System owners pay for new construction, repairs,
upgrades, and system replacement that the RME
implements
Case Studies
Effective Management Model 4 programs ensure that
the RME has sufficient authority to conduct operation
and maintenance activities that assure system
performance. This section reviews two such
programs:
• Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota
• Pefia Blanca, New Mexico
Office of Wastewater Management
25
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
OTTER TAIL LAKE, MINNESOTA
PROBLEM
The community around Otter Tail Lake in western Minnesota saw a decline in lake
water quality. An environmental assessment revealed that substandard wastewater
systems, untreated sewage discharges to surface waters, and intensive shoreline
development contributed to high levels of phosphorus in the lake, causing elevated
algae growth and an overall decline in water quality.
SOLUTION
The community formed a management district to identify and repair/replace
malfunctioning systems and manage the wastewater treatment systems of four
townships situated on six area lakes.
Otter Tail Water Management
District
27234 368th Avenue
Battle Lake, MN 56515
CONTACT
Roland Mann, Executive Director
p: (218)864-5533
e: ottwmd@prtel.com
Est. Population: 4,200
OVERVIEW
Otter Tail Lake—a
popular fishing and
recreational lake—
lies in the heart of
Otter Tail County.
Residential and
commercial
development surrounds the majority of the
lake. In 1984, the Otter Tail Water
Management District (OTWMD) was formed
under the authority of the Minnesota statute
which governs the formation of subordinate
sanitary sewer districts. The OTWMD
assumed responsibility for maintaining 1,640
individual wastewater systems and 13
clustered systems. The program consists of:
• Operating permit requirements
• Routine inspection and
maintenance contract requirements
• Maintenance of a system inventory
• Collection of groundwater and
surface water monitoring data
ACTIVE OR PASSIVE MANAGEMENT
The district's authority includes planning,
design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of wastewater treatment
systems. The district maintains systems for
active (permanent) customers. Permanent
systems are inspected every two years.
System owners maintain passive (seasonal
use) systems, with oversight by the district
and inspections every three years. The
OTWMD contracts with independent, state-
licensed, service providers in order to
provide management services. The district
also maintains a list of accepted installers
and pumpers that homeowners can hire.
The preventive maintenance program
includes inspecting tanks and checking lift
stations to ensure proper functioning. The
OTWMD has the authority to issue
compliance orders and to assign repair
costs and penalties to customers' property
tax statements.
Monitoring wells around clustered drainfields
sample groundwater quality. The OTWMD
also conducts surface water monitoring.
FUNDING SOURCES
The annual operating budget for the
OTWMD is $200,000, funded by user fees
ranging from $43 for seasonal residences to
$151 for permanent residences. The district
has one full-time and two part-time
employees.
RESULTS
After the program's inception in 1984, the
OTWMD upgraded 850 treatment systems.
The district installed 16 clustered systems
for 260 connections and repaired or
replaced 590 other treatment systems. The
district also serviced a total of 350 other
systems, including full inspections, septic
tank pumping, and installation of new tank
risers and covers. In the past decade, the
district has replaced or repaired only 17
systems (out of nearly 1,500).
The district's actions resulted in documented
water quality improvements. For example,
surface water monitoring of the lake has
revealed declining phosphorus and algae
concentrations and overall improved water
quality. Nitrate concentrations have dropped
from 1 mg/L to approximately 0.2 mg/L;
Secchi depth has increased from 2.4 feet to
about 4 feet.
References and Resources
Christopherson, S. and Anderson, J.. 2004. Twenty Years of Successful Onsite Wastewater Management, The Otter Tail, Minnesota Water Management District. National Onsite
Wastewater Recyclers Association Conference, Albuquerque NM.
National Onsite Demonstration Program. No date. Phase IV Case Study. www.nesc.wvu.edu/NODP.
Population data—Otter Tail County Coalition of Lake Associations.
Office of Wastewater Management
26
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
PENA BLANCA, NEW MEXICO
PROBLEM
Outdated, neglected, or nonexistent wastewater systems posed a public health risk
to the 800 citizens of Pefia Blanca, New Mexico. Open cesspools and seepage pits
emptied into yards and irrigation canals. Surveys revealed that 86% of the
individual wastewater systems needed repair or replacement. Residents rejected a
proposed centralized sewer system that would have cost $3.1 million.
SOLUTION
The community opted to repairer replace 133 of the existing 185 treatment
systems with the water and sanitation district serving as the operator/manager
of the upgraded and new facilities.
Construction Programs
New Mexico Environment
Department
P.O. Box 5469
Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469
CONTACT
Richard Rose, Chief
p: (505) 827-9691
e: richard.roseOstate.nm.us
Est. Population: 800
OVERVIEW
Local officials worked
closely with federal and
state agencies to
establish the Pena
Blanca Water and
Sanitation District (WSD)
and to develop a
wastewater management program with an
emphasis on maintenance. This
Management Model 4 program features:
• Operating permit and maintenance
contract requirements
• Requirement to pump tanks every
two years
• Maintenance of system records
and reporting requirements
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
SERVES AS THERME
The Pena Blanca community received an
EPA Clean Water Construction Grant of
about $760,000 to repair and replace
individual wastewater systems and develop
new clustered systems. The WSD was
formed in 1990, under the authority of a
New Mexico statute, to manage the
systems. The WSD adopted an ordinance
that provided for the operation,
maintenance, and repair of wastewater
treatment systems. The district maintains an
inventory of the systems, collects user fees,
requires pumping of all tanks at least once
every two years, contracts pumping
services, maintains all active systems, and
coordinates with the City of Albuquerque to
accept septage pumped from the tanks.
ORDINANCE SERVES AS
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
The WSD ordinance essentially serves as a
maintenance contract and authorizes the
district to pump septic tanks every two
years. Homeowners retain the option of
hiring their own pumpers but must maintain
documentation of the service and pay a
base fee of $4 per month. Residents
installing new individual wastewater systems
must sign an easement allowing for
maintenance. All systems must also obtain
an operating permit from the New Mexico
Environment Department. The WSD is
responsible for maintaining pumping
records. Systems are inspected in response
to citizen complaints.
FUNDING SOURCES
According to septic tank size, WSD charges
a monthly service fee, which ranges from $9
to $20 per month. The 2008-2009 operating
budget was $27,000.
Pena Blanca Water and Sanitation
District
Karman Kleinschmidt
p: (505)465-1208
e: pbwaterco1208@aol.com
RESULTS
The decentralized wastewater option was
less than half of the projected cost of central
sewage treatment for the 133 homes served
by repaired or replaced systems. Sewage
surfacing and cesspool discharges
throughout the community no longer occur.
Post-construction groundwater monitoring
found nitrate levels at 1 mg/L or less in the
project area, far below the 10 mg/L standard
for groundwater used as drinking water.
References and Resources
FalveyC. 2001. Cleanup at Pena Blanca. Small Flows Quarterly 2(1):30-32. www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/ww/publications/smallflows/magazine/SFQ_WI01.pdf.
New Mexico Environmental Finance Center. 2006. How to Form a Water and Sanitation District in New Mexico. www.nmenv.state.nm.us/cpb/Final%20Report%20-%20July%202006.pdf.
Office of Wastewater Management
27
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Management Model 5: RME Ownership
Management Model 5: Responsible Management
Entity (RME) Ownership takes decentralized
wastewater management to a high level of
accountability. Under the model, the RME serves as
owner and manager of the onsite wastewater
systems, in a manner similar to centralized systems.
Instead of the homeowner, the management entity
takes responsibility for operation and maintenance
and for scheduling needed repairs or service.
Communities experiencing high-density growth in
areas with close proximity to sensitive or high-quality
water resources (e.g., recreational waters, cold water
aquatic habitat, drinking water sources) may want to
consider utilizing Management Model 5. Additionally,
communities with excessive compliance problems
may be interested in adopting this approach.
Elements of a Management Model 5
Management Model 5 includes these key elements:
• RME ownership and management of treatment
systems
• Risk evaluation and prioritization when planning
and designing systems
• Permit requirements with performance criteria for
system operation
• Procedures for conducting compliance monitoring
and tracking
• Certification program requirements for service
providers
• Oversight of rate structure and financial
management
Focus on Accountability through
Professional Management
This management model provides a high level of
accountability through professional management and
ownership of the wastewater treatment systems.
States or other regulatory authorities may need to
Program Characteristics
• RME provides a high level of system
oversight
• RME owns systems, thus reducing entry/
access concerns
• RME ensures O&M instead of homeowner
• RME may need legal authorization to form
a management entity
• Community makes a significant financial
investment, including higher homeowner
fees
• Community achieves economies of scale
for multiple system O&M and financial
management
establish a legal basis for oversight through statute
or regulation and develop procedures for
implementation.
Management Model 5 programs typically consist of:
• Operating permits, regular inspections, and
monitoring of both treatment systems and water
resources to better ensure achievement of
performance criteria
• Regulators oversee the RME to ensure compliance
• Similar to centralized wastewater treatment
systems, user fees sustain system operation and
administration
• Regulatory authority reviews rate structures,
ensures independent financial oversight, and
executes performance audits
Case Studies
Effective Management Model 5 programs have RMEs
that respond to community needs, resource issues,
and market opportunities. For example, in Tennessee
and New Jersey, privately owned RMEs are serving
Office of Wastewater Management
28
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
local communities and expanding into other states.
(see http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/Articles/SFQ/
SFQ_sp04_PDF/Brothers.pdf and http://
www.state.nj.us/pinelands/landuse/waste/
WWMgtSummary_web.pdf). Iowa has taken
advantage of its network of independent rural water
districts to serve as RMEs. The districts are well
suited as RMEs because they have the capability to
issue financial bonds, secure bonding for services
and infrastructure components, receive state and
federal grant and loan dollars, and provide services
across municipal and county borders. This section
reviews three Management Model 5 programs:
• Blacksburg, Virginia
• Phelps County, Missouri
• Shannon City, Iowa
The Water Supply District serves as the RME in Phelps County, Missouri. The district owns and
operates eight recirculating sand filters.
Office of Wastewater Management
29
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA
PROBLEM
Blacksburg, Virginia, like many growing communities, faced the challenge of
meeting development needs with a decentralized system or extending the existing
centralized sewer system. The town considered factors such as cost, construction-
related traffic disruptions, floodplain and creek impacts due to centralized sewer
main construction, collection system infiltration/inflow and leakage, treatment
effectiveness, and other factors.
SOLUTION
The town established a workgroup to evaluate wastewater treatment system
alternatives. After careful review, Blacksburg chose to conduct a pilot project to
test the feasibility of a decentralized, clustered system.
Town of Blacksburg
2700 Prosperity Road
Blacksburg, VA 24060
CONTACT
Kelly Mattingly, LEED AP, CRM,
Director of Public Works
p: (540)961-1825
e: kmattingly@blacksburg.gov
Est. Population: 42,600
OVERVIEW
When Blacksburg,
Virginia, began
investigating
wastewater
alternatives in
2000, it recognized that management was
the key to the success of the system
(Mattingly and Tremel 2002). The town
selected Management Model 5 as a pilot
approach for the Tom's Creek community.
The program consists of:
• Operating permit requirements
• RME with enforcement authority
• Requirement for the use of trained
personnel
• Remote monitoring and routine
inspections conducted by RME
• System database maintenance
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SERVES
AS RME
Blacksburg chose to have its existing public
works department assume the role of
wastewater utility—or RME—for the
community of Tom's Creek. The town's
public works department both owns and
manages the clustered system as it does
other wastewater infrastructure. The RME
chose a hybrid collection system including a
Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) pressure
system combined with a Septic Tank
Effluent Gravity (STEG) system. Users of
the clustered system pay the same
residential water and wastewater rates as
customers served by centralized sewers in
the area.
Approximately 200 homes in the Village of
Tom's Creek are served by the STEP/STEG
system. Trained RME personnel inspect
each tank every two years. Each house
must have an individual septic tank for
which residents have maintenance
responsibilities, including avoiding practices
such as dumping large quantities of fats,
oils, grease, chemicals, or solid waste down
drains or toilets. When inspections reveal
recurring problems, the RME notifies the
resident and takes corrective action.
REMOTE MONITORING RELAYS
OPERATING PROBLEMS
Blacksburg uses internet-based, remote
monitoring to relay system operating
problems. The system sends emails or page
alerts to designated maintenance personnel
when it detects problems.
RESULTS
Selection of the STEP/STEG system has
saved the community more than $1 million
in construction, with operation and
maintenance costs similar to that of
conventional centralized systems. The
town's public works department conducts
annual inspections of each STEP/STEG
system and pumps the 200 septic tanks
as needed. The program estimates that
pumping should occur every seven years
and estimates an average cost of $150
per tank.
One of the town's concerns was centralized
sewer collection system leakage. During
heavy rains, the STEP/STEG system, by
design, shows no infiltration/inflow or
leakage and maintains a stable level of
treatment. Also, the town is using septic
tank effluent gravity collection systems for
new developments, where possible, rather
than the pump (STEP) approach, in order
to minimize costs for maintaining and
operating pumps and other equipment.
References and Resources
Mattingly K., and Tremel, M. 2002. A Unique Public Management Entity in the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia. http://corralesnm.net/wasteWater/resources/21917152844.pdf.
Accessed March 29, 2010.
Toms Creek Sewage Options Working Group. 2001. Recommended Decentralized System. http://www.tcbsewer.org/MAIN/STEP.htm.
Accessed March 31, 2010.
Population data—Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Blacksburg(Town), 2010. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/5107784.html
Office of Wastewater Management
30
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
PHELPS COUNTY, MISSOURI
PROBLEM
In 1995, Missouri adopted more stringent public health regulations for individual
systems on lots of three acres or less. To comply with those regulations, property
owners in Phelps County needed to upgrade their individual systems. The need to
upgrade systems was underscored by the fact that local lenders would not make
loans on houses that were not in compliance with state rules.
SOLUTION
County leaders and the local water supply district expanded services to allow the
water district to own and operate decentralized systems that provide affordable
and sustainable wastewater treatment.
Public Water Supply District #2
P.O. Box 160
Rolla, MO 65402
CONTACT
Jim lanke
p: (573) 364-8790
e: jianke@alliancewater.com
OVERVIEW
Public Water Supply
District #2 (PWSD2)
provides wastewater
management service
for residences within
its jurisdiction. The
program consists of:
• Discharge authority under an
individual National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit
• District holds bonding authority to
fund program
• Routine inspection requirement
• Financial incentive and low-interest
loan opportunities
NPDES PERMITS FOR CLUSTERED
SYSTEM
In PWSD2's first decentralized wastewater
project, a developer agreed to donate land
and finance a treatment facility if PWSD2
would own, design, construct, and operate
the treatment facility. The system consists of
a septic tank effluent pump (STEP)
collection system and recirculating sand
filter (RSF) wastewater treatment system.
The system operates under a surface water
discharge (NPDES) permit issued by the
state of Missouri. The STEP/RSF system
serves the new subdivision and other homes
in a nearby community. For subsequent
projects, the district modified the approach,
partnering with developers to construct new
RSFs so that both new and existing homes
could be served. In return, the district
agreed to own and manage the systems.
USER AGREEMENTS AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS
Residents in new developments must sign a
user agreement, connect to the system, and
grant a utility easement to the water district.
Owners of existing homes with
malfunctioning individual systems may
voluntarily connect to the decentralized
system at the homeowner's expense.
PWSD2 offers incentives (e.g., connection
fee waivers) in order for homeowners to
connect to the system.
FUNDING SOURCES
PWSD2 issued revenue bonds and
borrowed money to finance the start of the
decentralized wastewater management
program. PWSD2 charges a flat rate of
$46.50 per month to fund the program. The
district has the power to terminate potable
water service for nonpayment of fees.
RESULTS
The county now manages eight clustered
systems with septic tank effluent pumps that
serve 415 residential units, rather than 450
individual septic systems. The clustered
systems serve as upgraded systems for the
homes that previously had malfunctioning
systems. Actual effluent quality for the
clustered systems ranges from 4 to 9 mg/L
for biochemical oxygen demand and 1 to 8
mg/L for total suspended solids. Fecal
coliform levels have been in the range of
10 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters
of effluent.
In addition, local officials believe that the
elimination of hundreds of old septic system
leachfields has improved groundwater
quality, based on the higher quality effluent
being discharged from the new systems.
References and Resources
Dietzmann, E.M., and Gross, M.A 2003. Phelps County Update: Case Study of a Public Water Supply District Providing Centralized Management of Decentralized Wastewater.
Small Flows Quarterly 4(3):25-34. http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/old_website/nsfc/sfq_sum03/p25.html. Accessed March 31, 2010.
Population data—Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, Phelps County, 2011. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/29161.html
Office of Wastewater Management
31
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
SHANNON CITY, IOWA
PROBLEM
Small communities like Shannon City face significant challenges in managing
individual wastewater systems. The small, rural community had neither the
technical nor financial resources to support upgrades of substandard systems and
remove straight pipe discharges draining untreated sewage into city ditches.
SOLUTION
City officials partnered with the Southern Iowa Rural Water Association (SIRWA)
authority to design, build, own, and operate individual and clustered wastewater
systems for the community.
USDA Rural Development
210 Walnut Street, Room 873
Des Moines, IA 50309
www.usda.gov/rus
CONTACT
Jim Carroll, State Engineer
p: (515) 284-4136
e: jim.carroll@ia.usda.gov
Southern Iowa Rural Water
OVERVIEW
The majority of
individual systems that
served Shannon City,
a small town with a
population of 76, did
not meet state code requirements. As a
result, untreated sewage entered city
ditches and receiving streams of the Grand
River Basin. The town commissioned a
study of wastewater alternatives after the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
(IDNR) required the town to upgrade its
systems. The study's authors concluded that
a decentralized wastewater treatment
system was a viable option for
the town. Shannon City partnered with the
SIRWA and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development
Program to design, finance, and construct
a new wastewater system owned and
operated by SIRWA. The wastewater
program consists of:
• Operating permit and routine
inspection requirements
• Use of site-specific evaluations and
plans to select and design systems
• Maintenance program, reporting,
and record keeping administration
• Collection of water quality
sampling data
• Grant of property easements
• Authority to enforce requirements
RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION
SERVES AS RME
SIRWA, which provides drinking water to
10,000 customers, assumed the RME role
in Shannon City. SIRWA has experience
with operating wastewater systems in nine
small Iowa communities, mostly consisting
of gravity collection with treatment by
facultative lagoons.
SIRWA designed a project composed of a
variety of treatment systems so as to
provide affordable and effective wastewater
service for the community. Each property
owner in Shannon City signs an easement
allowing SIRWA to design, finance, install,
own, operate, and maintain a wastewater
treatment system on his/her land.
OPERATING PERMITS
SIRWA operates the systems under Iowa
Department of Natural Resources operating
permits which specify operating and yearly
sampling requirements. A citywide
ordinance prescribes enforcement
provisions. SIRWA reports annual
inspection and monitoring results to state
and county health officials.
FUNDING SOURCES
The Shannon City project cost $468,000—
about $10,400 per home served. A
significant portion of the cost was covered
Association
1391 90th Street
Creston, IA 50801
www.sirwa.org
CONTACT
Dan Mclntosh, System Manager
p: (641) 782-5744
e: dmc@sirwa.org
by a USDA Rural Development Program
grant and loans from other sources. The
O&M user fee is a flat rate of $18 per month.
RESULTS
In 2003 and 2004, SIRWA placed 34 peat
filters, eight lateral line absorption systems,
and one existing gravity-fed, single-pass
sand filter into operation. SIRWA chose the
peat filter system because of its small
footprint and ease of media replacement
compared with a sand filter. The installed
systems replaced non-functioning septic
systems with appropriate wastewater
treatment units and eliminated straight pipe
sewage discharges into roadsides, other
ditches, and surface waters. The new
systems comply with IDNR operating permit
requirements and function properly with
centralized management.
References and Resources
Carroll, J.A. 2005. Lessons Learned from a Model 5 EPA Management Program for Onsite Wastewater Systems. In Proceedings of 2005 National Onsite
Wastewater Recyclers Association Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH.
Population data—City data - Shannon city, 2010. http://www.city-data.com/city/Shannon-City-lowa.html
Office of Wastewater Management
32
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Aerobic Treatment Unit (AID): A mechanized unit that provides secondary wastewater treatment for single
homes, clusters of homes, or commercial establishments by mixing air (oxygen) and aerobic and facultative
microbes with the wastewater. ATUs typically use either a suspended growth process (such as activated sludge,
extended aeration, and batch reactors), fixed-film process (similar to a trickling filter), or a combination of the two
treatment processes.
Advanced Treatment System: A wastewater treatment system that includes an additional treatment process
unit or step between the septic tank and final effluent dispersal location. Advanced treatment units are intended
to improve treatment by increasing aeration, treatment time, and biological decomposition, reducing nutrient
concentrations in the effluent, or through disinfection. Examples of components that can be used in advanced
systems include sand filters, aerobic treatment units, disinfection devices, and advanced subsurface infiltration
designs (e.g., mounds, gravelless trenches, and pressure and drip distribution).
Centralized Wastewater System: A network of sewers designed to collect wastewater from multiple sources in
a service area for treatment at a single wastewater facility that typically discharges to a surface water body.
Traditionally, such a system has been called a publicly owned treatment works as defined in Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 122.2.
Cesspool: A well that receives untreated sanitary waste (i.e., without a septic tank) containing human excreta,
which can have an open bottom or perforated sides (40 CFR 144.3). Cesspools with the capacity to serve 20 or
more persons per day (i.e., large-capacity cesspools) were banned by federal regulations promulgated on
December 7, 1999. The construction of new cesspools was immediately banned and existing large-capacity
cesspools must be replaced with sewer connections or individual wastewater treatment systems.
Clustered System: A wastewater collection and treatment system under some form of common ownership that
collects wastewater from two or more dwellings or buildings and conveys it to a treatment and dispersal facility
near the dwellings or buildings.
Decentralized System: Individual or clustered system(s) used to collect, treat, and disperse or reclaim
wastewater from a small community or service area.
Dispersal System: A system that receives and releases pretreated wastewater into the air (i.e.,
evapotranspiration), the soil (below or onto the surface), or surface waters. A subsurface wastewater infiltration
system is an example of a dispersal system.
Environmental Risk: The relative susceptibility of surface orgroundwaterto degradation due to chemical,
physical, or biological inputs from treated, untreated, or poorly treated wastewater or other stressors. The
impacts can be low, acute (i.e., immediate and significantly disruptive), or chronic (i.e., long-term, with gradual
but serious disruptions).
Individual Wastewater Treatment System: A system relying on natural processes and/or mechanical
components to collect, treat, and disperse or reclaim wastewater from a single dwelling or building. See also
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System.
Office of Wastewater Management 33
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Maintenance: Routine or periodic actions taken to ensure proper wastewater treatment system performance,
extend system longevity, or ensure the system meets performance requirements.
Management Model: An integrated, coordinated program of policies, procedures, processes, and activities
designed to achieve specified objectives.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A national program under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act that regulates pollutant discharges from point sources into waters of the United States. The
Clean Water Act requires authorization for such discharges under an NPDES permit.
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System: A system relying on natural processes or mechanical components to
collect, treat, and disperse or reclaim wastewater from a single dwelling or building. See also Individual
Wastewater Treatment System.
Performance Requirement: An effluent concentration standard, treatment system management practice, or
other requirement established by a public health, environmental, natural resource, or other public agency to
address health, environmental, or other risks. Performance requirements can be expressed as numeric limits
(e.g., pollutant concentrations, mass loads), narrative descriptions of desired conditions or requirements (e.g., no
visible scum, sludge, sheen, odors, cracks, or leaks), or specific management practices (e.g., service disinfection
units weekly or monthly).
Permit: An authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by a public agency or other regulatory
body that authorizes that specified activities may occur in a manner described and limited by the permit, such as
a septic system installation permit or NPDES discharge permit.
Prescriptive Requirements: Mandated specifications for installing a limited set of wastewater treatment system
types (e.g., septic tank/drainfield systems, mound systems, aerobic units) on sites that meet stipulated criteria
(e.g., certain soil types, maximum slope steepness, minimum setbacks from property lines). Proposed deviations
from the stipulated system types or site criteria require formal approval from the regulatory authority.
Regulatory Authority: The unit of government that establishes and enforces codes related to the permitting,
design, placement, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and performance of individual and clustered
wastewater systems.
Residuals: The solids generated or retained during the treatment of wastewater, including trash, rags, grit,
sediment, sludge, biosolids, septage, scum, grease, and treatment system media that have served their useful
life and require disposal, such as the sand or peat from a media filter.
Responsible Management Entity (RME): A legal entity responsible for providing various management services
with the requisite managerial, financial, and technical capacity to ensure the long-term, cost-effective operation of
wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with applicable regulations and performance criteria.
Secondary Treatment: The second step in most publicly owned waste treatment systems in which bacteria
consume the organic parts of the waste. It is accomplished by bringing together waste, bacteria, and oxygen in
trickling filters or in the activated sludge process. This treatment removes floating and settleable solids and about
90% of the oxygen-demanding substances and suspended solids. Disinfection is the final stage of secondary
treatment.
Office of Wastewater Management 34
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Septage: The liquid and solid materials pumped from a septic tank during inspection or maintenance service.
Septic Tank: A buried, watertight vessel designed and constructed to receive and partially treat raw wastewater
prior to soil dispersal or further treatment. The tank separates and retains settleable and floatable constituents in
the wastewater—such as solids, fats, oils, and grease—and discharges the partially clarified wastewater for
further treatment or dispersal to the soil.
Septic Tank Effluent Gravity (STEG): A collection system that uses septic tanks and moves the resulting
effluent to a treatment facility via gravity flow.
Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP): A collection system that uses septic tanks and moves the resulting effluent
to a pump vault to convey effluent under pressure to a subsequent treatment system component.
Photo: Hamilton County General Health District, Ohio
Office of Wastewater Management
35
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Appendix B: Management Program Elements
and Activities
The table below summarizes the program elements and identifies a range of basic and advanced activities that
local management programs can adopt. Management programs address each program element as appropriate,
given their technical, managerial, financial, and other resources and the nature of the public health and
environmental risks posed by the wastewater treatment facilities in their jurisdictions.
Table B1: Program Elements and Activities
Elements
i ministration
Purpose
Basic activities
Advanced activities
Performance
requirements
Link treatment standards to
relative risk and health and
water resource goals.
Prescribe acceptable
site characteristics and
system types allowed.
Stipulate that system performance must meet
defined standards that consider public health,
water resource values, vulnerabilities, and risks.
Planning
Consider site and regional
conditions, development
patterns, and effects on
long-term watershed and
public health.
Identify minimum lot
sizes, surface water/
groundwater separation
distances, and critical
areas requiring
protection.
Monitor and model regional pollutant loads, tailor
development patterns based on environmental
and physical limitations, require clustering for
large developments.
Record-
keeping,
inventory,
and reporting
Create inventory of
systems, operation and
maintenance (O&M) logs,
and produce regular
reports for oversight
agencies.
Provide inventory
information on all
systems. Submit
performance reports to
health agency.
Provide Geographic Information System-based
comprehensive inventories, including web-based
monitoring and O&M data input for administrative
reporting and watershed assessment studies.
Financial
assistance
and funding
Provide financial and legal
support for management
program.
Implement basic powers
to apply for/accept funds
or other revenue-
generation fees; identify
legal authority for a
sustainable program.
Initiate monthly or quarterly service fees, cost-
share or other repair/replacement program, full
financial and legal support for management
program, equitable revenue base and assistance
programs, and regular reviews and modifications.
Public
education
and
participation
Consider public input and
solicit public involvement
while developing a
management program.
Sponsor public
meetings, forums,
updates, and education
programs.
Maintain public advisory groups, review groups,
and other involvement opportunities in the
program.
Distribute educational and other materials.
Installation
Site
evaluation
Assess system site and
relationship to other
features (groundwater and
surface water).
Characterize landscape,
soils, groundwater and
surface water location,
lot size, and other
conditions.
Assess site and cumulative watershed impacts,
consider groundwater mounding potential and
long-term specific pollutant trends; accommodate
cluster system development.
Office of Wastewater Management
36
-------
Decentralized Wastewater Management Case Studies
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic
Elements
Installation
Purpose
Basic activities
Advanced activities
Construction
Ensure installation as
designed.
Record as-built drawings.
Inspect installation prior
to covering with soil and
enter as-built
information into the file
record.
Provide supplemental training, certification, and
licensing programs for installers.
Provide more comprehensive inspection of
installations. Verify and enter as-built information
into the record.
Operation and Compliance
Operation
and
maintenance
Ensure that systems
perform as designed.
Initiate homeowner
education and reminder
programs that promote
O&M.
Require service contracts or renewable,
revocable operating permits with periodic
reporting. Log service reports into master
database.
Ensure responsibility for O&M.
Inspections
and
monitoring
Document provider
performance, functioning of
systems, and impacts.
Perform inspection prior
to soil cover-up and
property title transfer.
Provide complaint
response.
Conduct regional surface water and groundwater
monitoring, web-based inspection reporting, and
system operational monitoring.
Require installation and periodic operational
inspections.
Residuals
management
Remove and treat
residuals.
Minimize health or
environmental risks from
residuals handling, use,
and dispersal.
Ensure compliance with
federal and state codes
for residuals dispersal.
Conduct analysis and oversight of residuals
program. Provide web-based reporting and
inspection of pumping and dispersal facility
activities. Provide assistance in locating or
developing residuals handling facilities.
Training and
certification/
licensing
Promote excellence in site
evaluation, design,
installation, O&M, and
other service provider
functions.
Recommend use of only
state-licensed/certified
service providers.
Provide supplemental training and certification/
licensing programs, offer continuing education
opportunities, and monitor performance through
inspections.
Sponsor mentoring programs.
Corrective
actions and
enforcement
Ensure timely compliance
with applicable codes and
performance requirements.
Provide for complaint
reporting under
nuisance laws.
Provide inspection and
prompt response
procedures and
penalties.
Deny or revoke operating permit until compliance
measures are satisfied.
Set violation response protocol and legal
response actions, including correction and liens
against property by RME.
Adapted from Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized)
Wastewater Treatment Systems (EPA, 2005)
Case Studies of Individual and
Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater
Management Programs
EPA-832-R-12-002
June 2012
Office of Wastewater Management
37
------- |