EPA thanks the many organizations, public agency officials, and others who assisted in the development of this guide. 

Participating organizations include: 

National Environmental Health Association (NEHA) 

National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA) 

National Environmental Services Center (NESC) 

National Association of City and County Health Officials (NACCHO) 

Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) 

Water Environment Federation (WEF) 

Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT) 

National Association of Wastewater Transporters (NAWT) 

National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT) 

National Association of Counties (NACO) 

For more information visit www.epa.gov/owm/onsite 

Visit U.S. EPA’s Onsite Wastewater Systems web site for more information 

on onsite and cluster systems or how to start a management program. The 

web site also provides design information for onsite and cluster system 

technologies, information on management programs, links to partner 

organizations useful in community education and outreach, publications 

for homeowners, and guidance manuals, including additional documents 

that supplement this Handbook. 

Electronic copies of this Handbook can be downloaded from the 

U.S. EPA Onsite Wastewater Systems web site at: www.epa.gov/owm/onsite 

Printed copies can be obtained from: 

U.S. EPA National Service Center for Environmental Publications 

PO Box 42419 

Cincinnati, OH 45242 

Telephone: (800) 490-9198 
Handbook for Managing Onsite 

and Clustered (Decentralized) 

Wastewater Treatment Systems 

An Introduction to Management Tools and Information 

for Implementing EPA’s Management Guidelines 

Office of Water 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Recycled/Recylable 

Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that contains a minimum of 50 percent 

post-consumer fiber content processed chlorine free. 
contents 

Foreword. Why do I need this handbook?....................................................................................1 

What’s inside..................................................................................................................................2 

Introduction. What is management and why is it needed?...........................................................3 

Benefits of decentralized systems ......................................................................................................3 

Building effective onsite programs .....................................................................................................4 

How to use this handbook ................................................................................................................5 

Chapter 1. How do we get started?..............................................................................................7 

Initial scoping and outreach ..............................................................................................................7 

Assessing the situation.....................................................................................................................7 

Getting the ball rolling......................................................................................................................8 

Chapter 2. Where are we going?..................................................................................................9 

Setting goals and objectives..............................................................................................................9 

Identifying stakeholders and their roles...............................................................................................9 

Establishing goals and objectives.....................................................................................................10 

Convening a stakeholder group........................................................................................................10 

Key questions to consider...............................................................................................................11 

Chapter 3. What is our current situation? ..................................................................................12 

Assessing and analyzing existing conditions ......................................................................................12 

Developing a community profile.......................................................................................................12 

Reviewing regulatory powers and management..................................................................................14 

Assessing public health and environment risks ..................................................................................15 

Analyzing growth, development and future risk ..................................................................................16 

Chapter 4. What is best for our community? .............................................................................18 

Developing or enhancing your management program ..........................................................................18 

Selecting a management approach ..................................................................................................18 

A management framework to address gaps .......................................................................................21 

Implementing the selected management program ..............................................................................22 

Integrating wastewater system management .....................................................................................24 

Conducting a reality check..............................................................................................................25 

Dealing with opposition to management ...........................................................................................25 

Chapter 5. How do we make our plan a reality? ........................................................................26 

Program implementation ................................................................................................................26 

Consideration of program authority ..................................................................................................26 

Funding management activities .......................................................................................................27 

Selecting a management entity........................................................................................................31 

Evaluating the program ..................................................................................................................33 

Additional Information and resources ...............................................................................................33 
contents

Appendix A. Management program elements fact sheets ..........................................................35 

Public education and participation ...................................................................................................36 

Planning.......................................................................................................................................37 

Performance requirements..............................................................................................................38 

Recordkeeping, inventories, and reporting.........................................................................................39 

Financial assistance.......................................................................................................................40 

Site evaluation ..............................................................................................................................41 

System design ..............................................................................................................................42 

Construction and installation...........................................................................................................43 

Operation and maintenance ............................................................................................................44 

Residuals management ..................................................................................................................45 

Training and certification/licensing ...................................................................................................46 

Inspections and monitoring .............................................................................................................47 

Corrective action and enforcement...................................................................................................48 

Appendix B. References and additional resources......................................................................49 

Management resources ..................................................................................................................49 

Informational databases and websites ..............................................................................................49 

Guidance and policy documents ......................................................................................................49 

Financial assistance/funding documents ...........................................................................................50 

Planning/decision-making resources.................................................................................................50 

Homeowner guides........................................................................................................................51 

Technical resources .......................................................................................................................52 

Technical assistance resources........................................................................................................52 

System design ..............................................................................................................................52 

Alternative systems........................................................................................................................52 

State onsite fact sheets ..................................................................................................................53 

Risk assessment ...........................................................................................................................54 

Operation and maintenance ............................................................................................................54 

Training........................................................................................................................................54 

Inspection, monitoring, compliance..................................................................................................54 

EPA cooperating partners ...............................................................................................................55 

Appendix C. Glossary of terms ...................................................................................................56 

 

 

 

 

foreword

Why do I need this handbook?
�

One in every four households in the United States relies on an individual 

onsite or small cluster system to treat wastewater. In far too many cases, 

these systems are installed and largely forgotten – until problems arise. 

On the other hand, EPA concluded in its 1997 Report to Congress that 

“adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long-term option for meeting public health and water quality 

goals, particularly in less densely populated areas.” 

The difference between failure and success is the implementation of 

an effective wastewater management program. Such a program, if 

properly executed, can protect public health, preserve valuable water 

resources, and maintain economic vitality in a community. To facilitate 

proper management, EPA published Voluntary National Guidelines for 

Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment 

Systems. This handbook assists with implementing the guidelines and 

is intended as a guide for communities that have evaluated a full range 

of wastewater options and determined that decentralized wastewater 

treatment is the most cost-effective and appropriate long-term option. 

The handbook will help you to address some of the many challenges 

faced by communitites. Here are some common scenarios: 

 Waterfront seasonal recreational communities have 

transformed into year-round bedroom communities whose 

residents find their onsite systems overwhelmed and their 

water quality threatened. 

 Growing numbers of retirees are creating a demand for 

development in relatively remote rural areas, which lack 

significant wastewater infrastructure or management capacity. 

 Scattered rural populations, often with limited incomes, suffer 

nuisances and public health hazards due to poorly-built, 

inadequately maintained, aging septic systems. 

 Increasing growth pressure is occurring in the fringe areas just 

outside established metropolitan areas, where it is not feasible 

to extend sewer lines from existing treatment plants. 

If you are facing similar wastewater challenges and are interested in finding solutions for your community, this handbook is for you. It provides: 

 A basic overview of the elements essential for the sound 

management of decentralized wastewater systems. 

“This handbook is a great resource 

for communities looking for 

creative and affordable ways 

to address their wastewater 

management needs. It serves as a 

gateway to a wealth of practical 

tools and resources. Those who 

will benefit from this handbook 

include sanitarians, regulators, 

other wastewater professionals, 

community leaders, planners, and 

utility managers.” 

Benjamin H. Grumbles 

U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

Expanded online 

version now available 

An expanded version of this 

handbook is available online, 

which includes links to more 

specific information on topics 

of interest. A series of case 

studies is also being published to 

provide examples of successful 

management programs. Please 

visit the EPA Web site 

www.epa.gov/owm/onsite for 

more information.
�

 A step-by-step process for developing a management program specifically suited to your 

community. 

 Links to extensive resources (articles, publications, web sites, databases, software, government 

programs) for more thorough investigation of particular topics or management program elements. 

Why do I need this handbook? 1 
foreword

What’s inside 

This handbook provides an overview of key considerations for developing or enhancing 

management programs for decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Here’s an Look for

this icon overview of what you’ll find inside... throughout 

the handbook to 

Introduction. What is management and why is it needed? Provides information on reference additional 

what a decentralized management program entails. A flow chart details the manage- sources of useful 

information. 

ment development process. 

Chapter 1. How do we get started? Outlines some of the driving forces behind a decentralized wastewater 

treatment management program. Information-gathering and public outreach are reviewed as critical factors 

in this phase to help communities identify management options that are technically feasible, cost-effective, 

and protective of public health and the environment. 

Chapter 2. Where are we going? Discusses the important role of formal leadership in the program development process. During this phase, key stakeholders are identified, convened, and tasked with setting program 

goals. Various leadership options are reviewed. 

Chapter 3. What is our current situation? Reviews necessary risk assessment and analytical work that 

must be undertaken to characterize the current situation and identify existing gaps in wastewater system 

management. 

Chapter 4. What program is best for our community? Considers the authority needed to implement various 

program elements, such as operation and maintenance, enforcement, and permitting. 

Chapter 5. How do we make our plan a reality? Offers options for implementing a management program, 

including the adoption of the model programs developed by EPA. Integrated wastewater planning, linkages 

between wastewater management activities, and compliance with state, tribal, and federal water resource 

protection programs are also reviewed. 

Appendix A. EPA decentralized wastewater treatment fact sheets. Informative Fact Sheets summarizing 

each of the 13 program elements that make up an onsite management program. These one-page fact sheets 

describe various levels of management based on community needs along with real life examples to help 

guide decision-makers. 

Appendix B. References and resources. Offers readers additional sources of information to further develop 

and enhance an onsite management program. These resources include links to information and offer many 

examples of onsite management programs across the country. 

Appendix C. Glossary of terms. Provides common definitions used in the decentralized wastewater field. 

 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems 
introduction

Decentralized systems can provide 

appropriate treatment if they are 

managed properly. 

What is management and why is it needed? 

Onsite and clustered wastewater systems (commonly called “septic 

systems) serve nearly 25 percent of U.S. households and up to 33 

percent of new development. More than half of these systems are over 

30 years old and surveys indicate at least 10 percent might not be 

functioning properly. 

Malfunctioning septic systems can cause bacterial contamination of 

groundwater and recreational waters as well as algae growth and other 

problems in lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and coastal waters. The 

high cost of sewers and centralized wastewater treatment plants have 

greatly limited communities in their efforts to address their wastewater treatment needs. State and local governments are now looking to 

innovative treatment systems and management options to help reduce 

or eliminate problem systems. Some communities have built advanced 

sewage treatment systems and 

created management entities as What is a decentralized wastewater system? a long-term, reliable solution for 

unsewered areas. Others are focus- Decentralized wastewater systems include a wide range of onsite and 

ing on enhancing existing programs cluster treatment systems that process household and commercial sewage. 

Most discharge treated septic tank wastewater to the soil, but some to help homeowners better man- discharge to ditches, streams, lakes ,and other waterbodies and need 

age their septic systems. special federal or state permits. Some systems in arid regions promote 

evaporation or wastewater uptake by plants. Onsite and clustered 

The key to achieving effective per- wastewater treatment systems are known by many names, such as 

formance of decentralized sewage  Septic systems 

treatment systems—from the sim-  Onsite sewage systems 

plest “box and rocks” septic tank  On-lot sewage systems 

and drainfield system to the most  Private sewage systems 

complex treatment and dispersal  Individual sewage systems 

unit—is an effective management  Cluster, neighborhood or community systems 

strategy. This strategy must con- This handbook refers to all of these as decentralized wastewater 

sider a number of critical elements treatment systems. 

such as planning, site conditions, 

risk factors, system design, and operation and maintenance, all of which comprise a management program. 

Benefits of managed decentralized systems 

An estimated 60 million people in the United States rely on decentralized systems to treat their wastewater. 

These systems will play an even greater role in the future because they are often more affordable than conventional centralized sewage treatment plants and can be designed to perform under a variety of specific site 

conditions. A decentralized approach to wastewater treatment offers other benefits, including: 

 Protection of property values. Well-managed, properly designed onsite or cluster systems can 

provide sewage treatment equivalent to a centralized plant, often at a lower cost. 

What is management and why is it needed?  
introduction

 Water conservation. Decentralized systems can help recharge 

groundwater aquifers and maintain dry season flow in 

streams. 

 Preservation of the tax base. Decentralized systems can be 

installed on an as-needed basis, thus avoiding the large upfront capital costs of centralized sewage treatment plants. 

 Life-cycle cost savings. Proper management can result in 

lower replacement and repair costs, increased property values, 

enhanced economic development, and improved quality of life. 

 Effective planning. Decentralized systems provide flexible 

wastewater options and help achieve land use objectives. 

Although decentralized systems offer many benefits, they are not without problems and critics. Each communitiy must carefully evaluate its 

situation and management needs to develop a program that is supported 

by residents, protects public health and the environment, and allows the 

community to grow and prosper in a sustainable manner consistent with 

land use plans and needs. 

Underground leaching chamber 

installation on an onsite wastewater 

system. Photo: State Conservation 

Service Kansas 

Barnstable County, 

Massachusetts Department Building effective management programs 

It’s important to better understand why management programs have not of Health and the 

been effective in the past. A review of current state and local onsite regu- Environment Alternative Septic 

System Information Center. This latory and management approaches reveals that many programs rely on Web site contains information on 

homeowners to assume full responsibility for the operation and mainte- alternative onsite technologies. 

nance of individual treatment systems. Many of these programs, how- See page 52, reference 36. 

ever, do not provide the information and trained service providers that 

homeowners need to accomplish this job. Local regulators often lack the legal authority to hold homeowners 

accountable for properly maintaining their systems. This is compounded by the fact that few homeowners are 

trained to check their systems. Without proper training, they can actually risk injury or death from exposure to 

hydrogen sulfide and other gases generated in the tank. As communities 

grow, many new rural and suburban residents move to unsewered areas Benefits of effective unaware of their system location and the need for periodic mainte- decentralized nance. In this “unmanaged” condition, septic systems will not perform wastewater 

management include... adequately and many will ultimately have problems. 

 Reduced costs for In order to enhance management of decentralized wastewater treatrepairs, operation, ment systems, state and local governments should develop a wellmaintenance and thought-out strategy that considers a number of factors, including 

replacement design options, site conditions, operation and maintenance require-

 Longer system life ments, periodic inspections, monitoring, and financial support. Central 

 Improved system to this strategy is ensuring that the legal authority is in place to carry performance out program requirements. Legal authority can be granted at the  Increased reliability 

and overall satisfaction state or local level. For example, some local health departments are 

 Higher property values authorized by state statute to adopt regulatory powers as necessary to 

carry out program functions such as issuing operating permits, requiring maintenance contracts, setting system pumping/repair/replace-

 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems 
introduction

ment schedules, and promoting 

What is decentralized wastewater management? compliance through inspections 

Decentralized wastewater management is not just about septic systems. and fines. Other communities 

It is about how much your community will grow, what your community have adopted local ordinances will look like, how clean your local stream or estuary will be, and even 

the layout of your streets and subdivision. Finding answers to these to provide the necessary legal 

questions means understanding: powers to support management 

 Community wastewater needs and their effects on public efforts and to take appropriate 

health and the environment action when public health or 

 Your local setting and technical options and solutions water resources are threatened. 

 The relationship between the technical solution and the 

shape and form of your community In some cases, communities have 

elected to give legal authority to 

a public and/or private responsible management entity (RME). Depending on state, tribal, and local codes, 

revised enabling legislation or special ordinances or agreements might be needed for a third-party entity to 

assume responsibility for certain services, such as system operation, inspection, monitoring, and ownership. 

Oversight of the management entity by the state or local regulatory authority is usally needed, regardless of 

the management approach selected. 

Integrating decentralized wastewater treatment considerations into other 

programs also offers opportunities to manage systems more effectively. EPA’s Voluntary National For example, planning agencies typically develop land use plans and Guidelines for Managing 

zoning designations for various tracts of residential, commercial, and Onsite and Clustered 

industrial land. However, they rarely consider clustering wastewater (Decentralized) Wastewater 

Treatment Systems provides 

treatment facilities in unsewered areas or consult with water resource information on the impacts of 

professionals on ways to accommodate soil-based or other treatment decentralized wastewater systems, 

the need for management, and in rapidly developing locations. Integrating wastewater treatment into five management program models 

other programs can spur the development of creative and cost-saving that can be used by states and 

approaches to wastewater management. communities. See page 49, 

reference #4.

How to use this handbook 

The process of finding solutions to wastewater problems must be driven by local needs consistent with 

community sentiment and state and federal requirements. This handbook offers guidance on ways to tailor 

a management approach to the specific needs of a community. It recommends the basic format for developing an effective onsite sewage management program based on the principles in EPA’s Voluntary National 

Guidlelines for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. This handbook is not a regulation, and readers remain free to use approaches other than those suggested here. 

Figure 1 summarizes the five major steps outlined in this handbook 

for developing or enhancing a decentralized wastewater management 

program. You can find additional resources in the appendices of this 

handbook. Fact sheets describing the 13 program elements of a 

decentralized wastewater management program appear in Appendix A. 

The management program elements provide a good basis for reviewing 

and evaluating existing programs and developing new ones. Resources 

and references are listed in Appendix B, and a glossary of terms used 

in this handbook appears in Appendix C. 

Management involves technology, 

engineering, and regulatory issues. 

Planners, health environmentalists, 

installers, elected officials, and citizens 

also play important roles. 

What is management and why is it needed? 

 
introduction

Figure . Process for developing a decentralized wastewater management program 

STEPS 

Conduct initial 

scoping and 

outreach. 

 

 

Convene interested 

stakeholders to 

investigate system 

performance and set 

goals. 

 

Analyze existing 

information to assess 

the community and 

evaluate current and 

future risks. 

 

Enhance existing 

management program 

or develop new 

management 

entities. 

 

Implement selected 

elements of the 

management program, 

monitor and adapt as 

necessary. 

KEY ACTIVITIES 

Chapter 1 

 Conduct informal surveys of existing system performance. 

 Review potential problems. 

 Identify organizations involved in system planning, permitting, 

operation, and maintenance. 

 Conduct initial outreach and education and convene interested 

parties to define problems and how to address them. 

Chapter 2 

 Identify key stakeholders (community leaders, regulators) and 

other potential partners (planning departments, developers, 

service providers, existing management entities, and watershed 

groups). 

 Develop a formal or informal group of key stakeholders to 

evaluate current activities, assess existing information, define 

problems, determine the feasibility of establishing or enhancing 

a management program, and develop goals. 

Chapter 3 

 Develop a community profile to assess socioeconomic and other 

community factors. 

 Review existing statutory and regulatory authority. 

 Determine the current management approach of the existing 

regulatory authorities. 

 Inventory or otherwise collect information on existing systems 

and impacts, analyze risks posed by existing systems, and 

assign potential of risk to systems and groups of systems. 

 Assess growth and development trends and create risk scenarios 

under various management approaches to determine wastewater 

planning and management needs for newly served areas. 

Chapter 4 

 Synthesize information to identify and prioritize risks and 

management gaps. 

 Select program management approach. 

 Partner with stakeholder organizations (planning/zoning, water 

resource, service providers, and other entities) to determine 

implementation feasibility. 

 Conduct a reality check to determine the availability of 

management, technical, financial, and other resources. 

Chapter 5 

 Investigate resources needed to implement the program. 

 Establish management requirements for existing and new 

treatment systems based on health and water resource risks. 

 Evaluate approaches and powers needed for implementing 

management programs. 

 Coordinate with other wastewater and water programs. 

 Solicit support and resources from stakeholders. 

 Develop indicators to determine progress. 

 Implement and adapt management program as necessary. 

 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems 
chapter 1

Scoping is a relatively quick process of 

gathering information, discussing its 

importance, and deciding how to proceed. 

Detailed analysis is usually undertaken at 

a later stage (see Chapter 3). 

How do we get started? 

Initial scoping and outreach 

Developing an effective decentralized wastewater management program 

is complex and often challenging, but it is essential to the future environmental and economic health of a community. The process can be 

broken down into several manageable tasks. This chapter offers some 

general guidelines for getting started. 

Assessing the situation 

Communities across the nation—big and small, rural and urban—will all 

face wastewater management issues at some point. One of the greatest 

challenges facing many small or rural communities today is the set of problems associated with poorly operating small-scale wastewater treatment systems. These problems include: 

 Threats to public health from malfunctioning septic systems, resulting in bacterial contamination of 

well water and swimming areas, or sewage surfacing on the ground 

 Inadequate treatment that contributes to nutrient-induced algae growth or other problems in 

recreational and coastal waters 

 Aesthetic concerns including odors, noises from aerators or other system components, or 

inadequately treated discharges of sewage to neighborhood ditches or streams 

 High costs, lowered water tables, and construction-related disruptions associated with replacing 

onsite systems with sewer lines that transport wastewater to a distant centralized sewage 

treatment plant 

These concerns often prompt residents and public officials to demand action from state and local officials. 

The question community officials most often face is “Do we stay with onsite systems and try to fix the problems, or do we move in another direction to a community-based or centralized system?” 

During this early stage of decision-making, it is important to fully investigate wastewater issues and needs 

and review potential solutions. Key to a successful scoping process is ensuring that it is done in an open 

manner—one that supports 

education and outreach to the 

community. Figure 2 shows the Figure . Initial scoping and outreach 

actions that occur during the 

scoping process. Adequate scoping and initial outreach is critical 

in setting the stage for an open, 

honest process that focuses on 

the needs of the community. 

Cost, technical feasibility 

and 

public acceptance issues 

Public health and water 

quality issues (groundwater 

and surface water) 

Conduct initial scoping, 

outreach, and education 

How do we get started?  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Getting the ball rolling 

Public awareness of wastewater issues brought about by news stories 

or complaints can provide a real opportunity to involve a number of 

stakeholders in the decision-making process and begin a communitywide dialogue regarding wastewater treatment needs. Local agencies 

can capitalize on the energy and resources of various interested parties, 

which can lead to innovative and effective management programs. It’s 

Choices for 

Communities: 

Wastewater Management 

Options for Rural Areas. This 

document helps communities 

explore their wastewater 

treatment options. See page 

51, reference #17. 

not unusual for a developer, neighborhood association, citizen group, or sanitation district to kick off the 

effort to develop a decentralized wastewater management program. But local decision-makers and regulators 

must be actively involved and help to drive the process at the earliest opportunity. 

The scoping process typically involves: 

 Collecting data and information on water quality 

 Identifying the number and types of onsite systems in an area 

 Reviewing complaints and system malfunctions 

 Assessing the types of system problems that have been 

reported to pumpers and other service providers 

 Considering where new systems are likely to be needed 

The use of a data management system and innovative mapping tools 

can greatly assist in reviewing this information. 

Maryland partnership develops septic system impact study 

The Department of Environmental Resources and Health 

Department in Maryland’s Prince George’s County worked 

together to develop geographic information system (GIS) tools to 

quantify and mitigate nonpoint source nutrient loadings to the 

lower Patuxent River, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The 

agencies developed a database of information on existing onsite 

systems, including system age, type, and location, with additional 

data layers for depth to ground water and soils. The resulting GIS 

framework allows users to quantify nitrogen loadings and visualize 

likely impacts under a range of management scenarios. Information 

from GIS outputs is provided to decision makers for use in planning 

development and devising management strategies. For more 

information see page 51, reference #25.
�

Scoping is an informal 

activity to... 

 Identify driving 

forces such as system 

malfunctions and 

health and water risks 

 Gather information 

from regulatory 

authorities, water 

resource agencies, 

planning departments, 

and other interested 

parties 

 Contact system 

installers and service 

providers to see what 

sorts of problems they 

have encountered in 

the field 

 See if a discussion of 

identified issues can 

be “piggybacked” onto 

an existing activity or 

program (health board, 

planning commission, 

water quality meeting) 

 Convene an informal 

discussion of 

interested parties 

at a time and place 

convenient for them 

8 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems 
chapter 2

Where are we going? 

Setting goals and objectives 

Stakeholders need to be involved at every stage of the program development process. If scoping indicates 

that problems exist and management solutions are needed, a formal (steering committee) or informal 

(advisory committee) stakeholder group can be formed to assess the situation and recommend options. The 

problems, goals, and strategies that the stakeholder group generates will help to define what is desirable and 

ultimately what is achievable. This effort will require a committed group of people who can work together to 

assess the problems uncovered during the scoping phase outlined in Chapter 1. 

Identifying stakeholders and their roles 

Selecting members of a stake- Figure . Establishing a stakeholder group 

holder group requires carefully 

considering a wide range of 

participants. For example, people 

with technical understanding, 

community outreach skills, 

fiscal/financial training, legal 

backgrounds, and community 

organization experience should 

be strongly considered. Elected 

officials and senior staff from 

regulatory agencies such as local 

and state health and environmental agencies, are almost always 

key stakeholders and should be 

involved in the program development process. Figure 3 provides some examples of key stakeholders. An 

effective stakeholder group will: 

Regulatory Authority 

•Local health agency 

•State health agency 

System Owners 

•Individual onsite 

•Cluster systems 

•Discharging systems 

Other Public 

Agencies 

•Planning/zoning 

•Water/wastewater 

Private Groups 

•Service providers 

•Resource protection 

•Lending/finance 

Set 

Program Goals 

Establish 

Stakeholder 

Group 

(Steering/ 

 Understand the problems clearly before seeking solutions 

 Take responsibility for and ownership of the problems 

 Exercise strong leadership, coordination, and communication 

 Help to develop a clearly defined vision, mission, and goals 

 Gather information from as many sources as possible 

 Take the time to identify and examine all options before making decisions 

 Identify and use appropriate decision-making processes 

 Keep all affected parties informed and involved 

 Develop criteria for hiring and working with consultants 

Where are we going?  
chapter 2

Establishing goals and objectives 

As the process unfolds, it’s likely that some organization—usually one 

of the stakeholder entities—will assume leadership for the process. 

This organization could be a local health department, sanitation district, 

private or public corporation, or homeowner association. The sponsoring organization and several of the stakeholder groups might have their 

own perceived outcomes and objectives. It is important, however, to 

go through a process to identify the group’s common objectives and 

interests, such as: 

 Characterizing and addressing existing problems such as 

health or water quality threats 

 Identifying and minimizing impacts from future commercial or 

residential development

 Protecting public health, economic vitality, and important 

recreational or water resources

 Generating public awareness and interest in resolving 

problems 

 Building trust between the sponsoring organization and 

partners 

 Creating support for funding and implementing selected 

management actions 

Remember that these objectives are only a subset of those which will 

be pursued during the program development process. Stakeholders 

will bring to the table their own goals and objectives, which need to be 

considered when developing the management program. 

Convening a stakeholder group 

The members of the stakeholder group must clearly understand their 

roles and responsibilities (see the Public Education and Participation 

Fact Sheet on page 36). Will the group develop an issues and needs 

assessment, or will it be charged with actually designing the program? 

Will it have decision-making authority or play an advisory role? It is 

important that the framework of the group be clearly defined to avoid 

any confusion. Establishing ground rules and time frames will also be 

necessary to keep the group on task. If you choose to hire a wastewater planning consultant, look for someone who is knowledgeable about 

both centralized and decentralized treatment options. Staged development of wastewater facilities through both centralized and decentralized systems, selected through an objective process, should be the 

focus of a wastewater planning consultant. 

Involving key stakeholders in the 

management program helps to build 

trust, communication, and support for 

whatever options appear to best address 

community needs. Stakeholders often 

bring additional resources to the table for 

assessment and program development. 

When developing a 

stakeholder group 

answer these questions: 

 How will the group 

be structured—will it 

be a fully empowered 

decision-making entity, 

steering committee, 

advisory body, or ad hoc 

group? 

 How will decisions be 

made—by majority vote, 

consensus, input received 

but decisions made by a 

responsible party? 

 What is the membership 

of the group—is there 

one representative from 

each locality or interest 

group, or a cross-section 

of stakeholder groups? 

 What are the roles and 

responsibilities of the 

stakeholders—will they 

include outreach, analysis 

and assessment, selection 

of management options, 

preparation of reports? 

0 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems 
11

Key questions to 

consider

The following questions might 

help to guide the stakeholder 

group as they begin the program 

development process.

1. Where are we now, and where 

do we want to go? Asking this 

question will help the group to 

focus on problems and desired 

outcomes. It is also helpful for 

stakeholders to consider the 

consequences of not taking 

some kind of action. 

2. How do we get there? 

Identifying common goals and 

preliminary objectives during 

initial meetings helps to keep 

the group focused. Goals are 

generally broad expressions of 

a future vision of the group. 

For example, a goal might be 

to “improve the operation and 

maintenance of existing onsite 

systems.” Objectives are then 

linked to the goals and provide 

a yardstick against which 

progress can be measured. 

For example, the group might 

identify a specific objective such 

as: “within 2 years, all systems 

having electrical or mechanical 

parts will be inspected annually, 

and those that discharge to 

ditches or the ground surface 

will be replaced with soil 

infiltration systems.”

3. Do we always need consensus? Who has decision-making authority? Stakeholder consensus is not 

needed for every decision. In some cases, it might be more appropriate to simply gather information from 

the stakeholders. The factors to consider when selecting a decision-making protocol include the time 

frame, the importance of the decision, the information needed to make the decision, and the capability and 

authority of the group to make the decision. For a decision to be generally accepted by the public, people 

must be informed of an impending decision or action, be heard before the decision is made, and have the 

opportunity to influence the decision.

Gaining public support for wastewater management in Idaho

Because of accelerated development in the Idaho panhandle and a 

rapid rise in nitrate concentrations in the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, 

the Panhandle Health District (PHD), which covers the state’s five 

northernmost counties, developed a plan to implement an interim 

moratorium on new development served by conventional septic tank 

soil-absorption systems. The high nitrate problem had been traced 

through groundwater monitoring to wastewater systems in densely 

developed subdivisions. To gain support for the plan, the PHD made 

presentations that documented the problem and proposed solutions to 

school, civic, and professional groups. The agency also used radio and 

television ads. In all cases, the PHD attempted to craft the presentation 

contents and supporting materials specifically for the audience being 

addressed. All public presentations were conducted in a cooperative, 

rather than confrontational manner. 

The PHD then formed an ad hoc citizens’ committee to develop 

and present suggested changes to the preliminary policy developed 

by the PHD. This committee included representatives from the home 

builders, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, and two other affected federal agencies, farmers, 

planning boards, the state legislature, the League of Women Voters, 

and conservation/environmental organizations. The committee 

members not only reached out to their respective constituencies 

but also solicited feedback from other interested parties. For more 

information see the Public Education Fact Sheet on page 36.

Stakeholder involvement tasks

n Summarize and review the driving forces for better 

system management

n Determine the level of stakeholder involvement 

expected

n Decide which stakeholders are needed and invite them 

to participate

n Provide background information and general goals to 

the stakeholder group

n Convene the stakeholders to discuss their interest and 

desire to participate

n Develop a framework for stakeholder meetings, 

decision-making, and actions

n Conduct outreach to build awareness and interest.

chapter 2

Where are we going?
12 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

chapter 3

What is our current situation?

Assessing and 

analyzing existing 

conditions

During this step, stakeholders 

will continue to build on their 

knowledge of community and 

resource conditions. This chapter 

focuses on developing a community profile, reviewing legal

authorities, assessing current 

management practices, preparing 

a risk assessment, and considering future community growth and 

development (Figure 4).

Developing a community profile

A sense of community conditions is needed to provide context for stakeholder discussions. Therfore, it is 

beneficial for the stakeholder group to create a profile of their community which has three parts:

1. Socioeconomic conditions. A review of social and economic conditions provides perspective on the 

types of management actions that are likely to be acceptable and affordable for a community. For 

example, dealing with system malfunctions in densely populated low-income areas with small lots served 

by inadequate older treatment units might require cost-share assistance as opposed to stepped-up 

enforcement. 

2. Land and water resource conditions. Information on a wide 

range of land and water resources that can assist in developing a 

community profile is readily available from a number of sources 

including:

 Aerial photographs from property valuation and tax agencies, 

the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and local utilities

 Population and housing census data (www.census.gov)

 Wastewater, drinking water, and other data from local utilities 

 Soil data from the Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(www.soils.usda.gov/)

 Topographic data from the U.S. Geological Survey (www.

usgs.gov/)

 Land-use and mapping data from planning agencies.

 Water quality and watershed data from state water agencies 

and EPA websites (see page 45, reference #1 and #2)

Figure 4. Assessing and analyzing existing conditions

Information and 

planning

Collecting information should 

not become burdensome. Focus 

on collecting information that 

is needed and available. For 

example, if the objective is to 

improve wastewater treatment 

systems in a specific area, 

target data collection efforts to 

assess the status of the existing 

systems, groundwater and 

surface water quality, and where 

infill development might occur. 

Denote potential areas where 

cluster systems might replace 

malfunctioning systems to 

capitalize on performance and 

cost efficiencies. 

Community 

profile/ 

assessment

Current health 

and environmental 

risk

Existing powers 

and management 

practices

Growth, 

development and 

future risk

Assess 

and Analyze
13

chapter 3

A geographic information system (GIS) can be used to store 

information and generate maps. These maps can familiarize 

stakeholders and the public with community conditions. Stakeholder 

groups are strongly encouraged to partner with planning agencies or 

data managers to develop or share GIS capabilities.

3. Onsite and cluster system inventories. An important step in 

developing a community profile is to estimate the number and 

types of onsite/cluster systems, along with their location and where 

they disperse treated wastewater. Information can be accessed by 

contacting a number of agencies including:

 County or city health departments

 Planning/zoning agencies

 Regional wastewater treatment plants 

 Economic development offices, county/city housing, and 

property valuation agencies

Water quality information sources include:

 Source water assessment and protection plans from local drinking water utilities

 Watershed studies from local water/wastewater utilities and 

state water quality agencies

 Data from local or regional water quality monitoring 

organizations or volunteer groups

Service providers are also a good source of information, and 

include:

 Onsite service providers such as septic tank pumpers, 

designers, and installers

 Well drillers and other water-related professionals 

Wastewater professionals can be a valuable source of information 

regarding the types of systems being installed, malfunctioning 

systems, and homeowner compliance with recommended service 

schedules.

An assessment of 

resource conditions can 

be used to...

n Identify and prioritize 

problem systems

n Identify the causes for 

inadequate performance 

of existing systems

n Collect soil data and 

other information needed 

for system design

n Evaluate the trends 

and likely impacts of 

future residential and 

commercial growth

n Examine technologies 

and system 

configurations that might 

accommodate growth

n Estimate costs and 

environmental and 

public health impacts of 

alternative solutions

n Define the desired 

character of the 

community

Inventories and assessments of system 

performance provide vital information for risk 

analyses. These can begin as broad screening 

characterizations of service or geographical 

areas, with more refined analysis conducted 

in potential problem areas.

Using GIS maps to assign risks

GIS maps can assist with developing a framework for assigning risk 

tiers to groups of systems. Several tools exist to aid in this process. One 

such tool is the “susceptibility determinations” that drinking water 

utilities make as part of their source water assessments. These assessments 

determine which potential sources of pollution, including onsite 

wastewater systems, pose the greatest threats to potable water systems.

What is our current situation?
14 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

Reviewing current regulatory powers and 

management

As part of the assessment and analysis phase, a review of the statutory 

and regulatory authority in place to carry out a decentralized wastewater treatment management program should be conducted, including:

 Authority to enter private property for inspection or health 

nuisance abatement

 Authority to require repair or replacement of malfunctioning 

systems

 Authority that allows private entities to manage systems, 

charge fees, or apply for funding

Existing management practices should also be reviewed, including:

 Site evaluation procedures

 Educational, training, or other requirements for service 

providers

 The permitting process

 Design requirements

 Installation/construction requirements

 Operational and maintenance requirements

 Inspection, complaint, and compliance assurance procedures

 Program funding, including fees for permitting, inspection, or other management activities, and 

whether they cover costs

A review of existing statutory, regulatory, and management approaches will help to identify program gaps, 

barriers to new technology, and other shortcomings that might need to be addressed to enhance existing 

activities or develop a new management program.

Using GIS tools to characterize water quality threats in Colorado

Summit County, Colorado, in partnership with the Colorado School of Mines and other organizations, 

developed a GIS to identify the adverse effects of nitrate from septic systems on water quality in the upper 

Blue River watershed. The GIS database included geologic maps, soil survey maps, topographic features, land 

parcel maps, domestic well sampling data, onsite system permitting data, well logs, and tax assessor data. The 

database can be updated with new water quality information, system maintenance records, property records, 

and onsite system construction permit and repair information. The database is linked to the DRASTIC 

groundwater vulnerability rating model and is being used to identify areas that have a potential for excessive 

contamination by nitrate-nitrogen, which helps in prioritizing water quality improvement projects. See page 

54, reference #56 for more information.

Onsite wastewater treatment systems in 

Prince George’s County. Source: Prince 

George’s County OSDS Database

chapter 3
15

Assessing public health and environmental risks

One of the most important goals of the management program should be to target actions in direct proportion to the risks posed by malfunctioning treatment systems. The importance of this concept cannot be 

overstated. In practice, this means that some systems need only minimal management, while others must be 

managed much more intensively. 

Developing integrated risk assessments for wastewater systems is 

a demanding task, but the benefits can be significant. Examples of 

parameters to consider in assessing public health and environmental 

risks for existing systems are soil permeability, depth to groundwater, 

aquifer type, groundwater and surface water use, proximity to sensitive

surface waters, topography, geology, density of development, and 

system types. In developing risk assessments, the objective is not to 

produce an expensive, time-consuming, lengthy and complicated study, 

but rather to quickly assimilate available data and identify classes 

or groups of systems posing similar risks so they can be managed 

in a similar manner. For example, widely scattered older systems 

sited in deep, well-drained soils far away from surface waters need 

not be managed as intensively as newer, electromechanical treatment units serving beach-front properties. Densely packed systems 

installed during the 1950s near a downtown area bisected by a 

trout stream might be targeted for replacement with a new clustered 

facility featuring neighborhood collection lines, a biofiltration unit, and 

pressure distribution to soils. 

The development of a database and GIS mapping capabilities, or even 

hand-drawn maps, can help to inform risk assignment decisions. 

Inspections of individual systems in areas targeted for more intensive 

management can confirm risk decisions and bolster homeowners’ confidence in the process and its outcomes. Table 1 summarizes some of 

the risk factors that indicate more intensive system management might 

be needed.

Potential problem indicators 

Untreated or partially treated sewage pooling on ground surfaces and 

in ditches, sewage backup in household plumbing fixtures, and sewage 

breakouts on slopes

High nitrate or bacteria levels in downgradient drinking water wells, 

presence of toxic substances in well water, and taste or odor problems in 

well water caused by untreated or poorly treated wastewater

Shellfish bed and recreational beach closures due to bacterial or viral 

contamination

Algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen concentrations in nearby surface 

waters

General approach 

for conducting risk 

assessments

Many researchers have used 

the following general approach 

to identify onsite and cluster 

systems that might be impairing 

or threatening water resources:

Identify pollutants such 

as pathogens, nitrogen, or 

phosphorus that are impairing 

or threatening waterways.

List likely sources of the 

pollutants of concern.

Estimate the total load of 

pollutants to the receiving water 

from each source. Estimating 

the total load of pollutants from 

onsite/cluster systems requires 

modeling system flows, pollutant 

output, transport and rate, and 

assimilation by the receiving 

waters. An alternative approach 

is to conduct lot-level analysis 

of system type, age, proximity 

to receiving water, repair 

and service records, and site 

conditions. 

Create a matrix that ranks lotlevel system risk by assigning 

ratings or risk level values and 

applying them to each lot or 

parcel. This approach is useful 

for areas where onsite/cluster 

systems are collectively judged 

to be a significant source of 

the pollutant or pollutants of 

concern.

chapter 3

What is our current situation?
16 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

Analyzing growth, development, and future risk

Analyzing growth, development, and future risk is similar to the process of assessing risks posed by existing 

systems. Projecting residential and commercial build-out and estimating likely system numbers and types 

can be challenging if there is no comprehensive land use plan or wastewater management plan. Consultation 

with the local planning agency and developers can yield significant information regarding planned buildout. The assessment can also be used to project risks posed by systems that might be installed in the 

future. Getting “ahead of the curve” by forecasting future risk is useful in developing design requirements

(performance targets) and management needs for wastewater systems that will serve new subdivisions 

and commercial areas. Combining or coordinating treatment service planning for both centralized and 

decentralized wastewater treatment 

facilities is highly recommended.

Developing a seamless approach to 

treatment planning by integrating 

individual, cluster, and sewage plant 

services builds efficiency, promotes 

effectiveness, and contributes to a 

sense that all wastewater treatment 

services are community assets that 

should be managed appropriately for 

public benefit.

In practice, this means that local communities should examine future goals 

for growth, development, resource 

protection, and community character 

prior to evaluating wastewater treatment options, because the type of 

treatment selected – centralized, decentralized, or a combination of 

the two – can have a significant impact on these goals. For example, 

appropriately designed individual systems and cluster systems serving 

targeted areas can promote a “pay as you go” approach and ensure 

that extension of centralized sewer service does not promote unwanted 

growth or overload treatment plants already at capacity or experiencing 

overflow problems. Information from consultants or engineers familiar 

with the full range of treatment options, the planning guides cited in 

this chapter, and EPA’s Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual

(see page 52, reference #34) are all useful in analyzing the range 

of options available. This handbook is intended to aid in developing 

appropriate management programs for areas that select individual or 

clustered decentralized systems.

Risk category Risk factors 

Environmental 

sensitivity

uImpermeable soils such as heavy clay

uShallow depths to groundwater

uRock layers near the surface

uHilly terrain with thin soils and steep slopes

uHigh densities of system installations

uSensitive waterbodies nearby

Public health uDrinking water wells nearby

uRecreational waters nearby

uEffluent surfacing or plumbing backups

uPotential for rapid groundwater movement

uSystems more than 25 years old not maintained

uIllegal system discharges

Treatment 

complexity

uElectrical and mechanical system components

uHeavy sewage loads (high-strength wastewaters)

uHigh fat, oil, and grease content in wastewater

uIndustrial and certain commercial wastewaters

Table 1. Onsite system risk factors 

chapter 3

Watershed planning

Local government land use 

planning programs should be 

integrated with the selected 

wastewater management 

program. Planning can 

include performance targets

for wastewater treatment 

and promote integration 

of wastewater/stormwater/

watershed management 

programs and policies. For 

more information on integrated 

wastewater planning, see page

51, reference #25 and page 52, 

reference #35.
17

chapter 3

Assessing onsite system risks in Malibu

Malibu, California, relies on residential onsite wastewater treatment systems to protect valuable inland and 

coastal waters. A team of consultants and city staff conducted a three-year risk management study to develop 

recommendations to protect these resources and to meet state water quality standards. Many stakeholders, 

including regulators and environmental advocacy groups, were involved throughout and were essential to the 

study’s success. The study area was defined by groundwater recharge zones in the alluvial aquifers around 

Malibu Creek and Lagoon, Winter Canyon and the surf zone of the Pacific Ocean near Surfrider Beach. The 

groundwater aquifer was the focus of the study because it receives the treated effluent from onsite systems and 

transmits groundwater to local surface waters.

The study integrated data from a network of new and existing monitoring wells into a centralized, webbased information management system. Using this information, a three-dimensional groundwater model was 

developed to evaluate impacts of onsite systems on groundwater quality and to determine the directions and 

rates of groundwater flow. The risk assessment approach used six steps: 

1. Define receiving waters and objectives for key water quality constituents

2. Identify, locate, and quantify contamination contributed by onsite systems.

3. Evaluate hydrological conditions to determine groundwater flow directions and travel times

4. Estimate the assimilative capacity of unsaturated and saturated zones to account for the reduction or 

assimilation of pathogens and nitrogen during groundwater transport

5. Delineate specific areas that might pose pathogen and nitrogen risks to the receiving waters

6. Identify and evaluate alternative strategies to reduce risks to acceptable levels

The results indicated that portions of the study area might be contributing pathogens or nitrogen to 

either Malibu Creek and Lagoon or the surf zone. The recommendations focused on the desired water 

quality outcomes—specifically, meeting Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for pathogens and nitrogen. 

Suggested actions included initiating a point-of-sale onsite system inspection program, requiring inspections 

for systems within the six-month pollutant travel time zones, evaluating a proposed clustered wastewater 

collection/treatment/dispersal system, and requiring disinfection or nitrogen removal for systems in the 

contributing areas. The City of Malibu is incorporating the action items into its Wastewater Management 

Plan. For more information see page 54, reference #49 and #50.

What is our current situation?

All management 

programs should...

n Have sufficient local 

support and legal 

authority

n Be flexible in adapting 

to changing demands

n Ensure reasonable 

homeowner costs

n Be able to achieve 

public health and 

environmental 

objectives
18 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

What is best for our community?

Developing or enhancing your program

This chapter discusses the development or enhancement of your decentralized wastewater management 

program based on 13 principal program elements (Figure 5 and Table 3; also see Appendix A for fact 

sheets on each of these elements.) 

Management programs typically 

support the twin goals of protecting 

human health and environmental 

resources. They might also influence future growth and community 

character, promote water recycling 

and reuse, protect and enhance 

private property values, and protect 

against water resource diversions. 

Developing management approaches 

for specific groups of onsite systems—which can be classified 

as having high, moderate, or low 

risk—will constitute much of the 

work in devising the overall management program.

Selecting a management approach

The EPA Voluntary Management Guidelines (see page 49, reference #4) detail five management approaches 

that respond to varying levels of risk posed by decentralized wastewater treatment systems (see Table 2 and 

www.epa.gov/owm/onsite). These conceptual models represent a range of possible programmatic responses to 

water quality and public health concerns or local wastewater infrastructure needs (Figure 6). Management models 2 through 5 are recommended 

for electromechanical systems and 

moderate- to high-risk site conditions. Each management approach 

consists of a “package” of management activities. The mix of institutions, procedures, and arrangements 

involved in a management program 

varies depending on enabling legislation, environmental conditions, 

resources, and other factors. Because 

of this diversity, the outcomes of 

management efforts will be different 

across the country depending on local 

conditions and needs. 

chapter 4

Figure 6. Using risk inputs to select a management model

Figure 5. Decentralized wastewater management program elements

Develop or 

enhance management program 

Installation

•Site 

evaluation

•System 

design

•Construction, 

installation

Operation and 

Compliance

•Operation, 

maintenance

•Residuals management

•Training, certification/

licensing

•Inspections, monitoring

•Corrective actions and 

enforcement

Administration

•Public 

education 

•Planning

•Performance 

requirements

•Recordkeeping, 

reporting

•Financial 

assistance

Increasing Risks

Risk Factors Management Models

environmental sensitivitypublic healthwastewater characteristicstreatment complexity

5. RME Ownership

4. RME Operation 

and Maintenance

3. Operating Permits

2. Maintenance 

Contracts

1. Homeowner 

Awareness
19

Table 2. EPA management models for decentralized wastewater treatment systems

Typical applications Program description Benefits Limitations

1. Homeowner Awareness Model

uAreas of low environmental 

sensitivity where sites are 

suitable for conventional 

onsite systems

uSystems sited and 

constructed based on 

prescribed criteria

uMaintenance reminders

uInventory of all systems

uCode-compliant system

uEase of implementation

uInventory of systems that 

is useful for tracking and 

areawide planning

uNo compliance ID 

mechanism

uSites must meet siting 

requirements

uCost to maintain database

2. Maintenance Contract Model

uAreas of low to moderate 

environmental sensitivity 

where sites are marginally 

suitable for conventional 

onsite systems due to 

small lots, shallow soils or 

low-permeability soils

uSmall cluster systems

uSystems properly sited and 

constructed

uMore complex treatment 

options (mechanical, clusters 

of homes)

uService contracts must be 

maintained

uInventory of all systems

uContract tracking system

uLower risk of treatment 

system malfunctions

uHomeowner’s investment 

protected

uDifficulty tracking and 

enforcing compliance due 

to reliance on the owner or 

contractor to report a lapse 

in services

uNo mechanism provided to 

assess the effectiveness of 

the maintenance program

3. Operating Permit Model

uAreas of moderate 

environmental sensitivity 

such as wellhead or source 

water protection zones, 

shellfish-growing waters, 

or bathing/water contact 

recreation areas

uSystems treating highstrength wastes, or largecapacity systems

uPerformance and monitoring 

requirements

uEngineered designs allowed 

but may provide prescriptive 

designs for specific sites

uRegulatory oversight by 

issuing renewable operating 

permits that may be revoked 

for noncompliance

uInventory of all systems

uTracking of operating permit 

and compliance monitoring

uMinimum for large-capacity 

systems

uSystems can be located in 

more environmentally sensitive areas

uRegular compliance monitoring reports

uNoncompliant systems 

identified and corrective 

actions required

uLess need for regulation of 

large systems

uHigher level of expertise 

and resources for regulatory 

authority to implement

uRequires permit tracking 

system

uRegulatory authority needs 

enforcement powers

4. Responsible Management Entity (RME) Operation

uAreas of moderate to high 

environmental sensitivity 

where reliable and sustainable system operation and 

maintenance is required 

(sole-source aquifers, 

wellhead or source water 

protection zones, critical 

aquatic habitats, and 

outstanding value resource 

waters)

uCluster systems

uSystem performance and 

monitoring requirements

uProfessional O&M services 

through RME (public or 

private)

uRegulatory oversight by 

issuing operating or NPDES 

permits directly to RME 

(system ownership remains 

with property owner)

uInventory of all systems

uTracking system for operating 

permit and compliance 

monitoring

uO&M responsibility 

transferred from the system 

owner to a professional 

RME that holds the operating permit

uProblems identified before 

malfunctions occur

uOnsite treatment in more 

environmentally sensitive 

areas or for treatment of 

high-strength wastes

uOne permit for a group of 

systems

uEnabling legislation might 

be necessary to allow RME 

to hold the operating permit 

for an individual system 

owner

uRME must have owner’s 

approval for repairs; might 

be conflict if performance 

problems are identified and 

not corrected

uNeed for easement/right of 

entry

uNeed for oversight of RME 

by the regulatory authority

5. Responsible Management Entity (RME) Ownership Model

uAreas of greatest environmental sensitivity, where 

reliable management is 

required. Includes sole 

source aquifers, wellhead 

or source water protection 

zones, critical aquatic 

habitats, and outstanding 

value resource waters

uPreferred management 

program for cluster 

systems serving multiple 

properties under different 

ownership

uEstablishes system performance and monitoring 

requirements

uProfessional management of 

all aspects of decentralized 

systems

uRMEs own or manage 

individual systems

uTrained and licensed professional owners/operators

uRegulatory oversight through 

NPDES or other permit

uInventory of all systems

uTracking of operating permit 

and compliance monitoring

uHigh level of oversight if 

system problems occur

uModel of central sewerage 

that reduces the risk of 

noncompliance

uOnsite treatment in environmentally sensitive areas

uEffective planning and 

watershed management

uPotential conflicts between 

the user and RME removed

uGreatest protection of 

environmental resources 

and homeowner investment 

uEnabling legislation or 

formation of special district 

might be required

uMight require significant 

financial investment by 

RME for installation or purchase of existing systems or 

components

uNeed for oversight of RME 

by the regulatory authority; 

might limit competition

uHomeowner associations 

may not have adequate 

authority

chapter 4

What is best for our community?
20 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

Table 3. Decentralized wastewater management program elements

Elements Purpose Basic activities Advanced activities

Administration

Performance 

requirements

Link treatment standards 

and relative risk to health 

and water resource goals.

Prescribe acceptable site 

characteristics and system 

types allowed.

Stipulate that system 

performance must meet defined 

standards that consider water 

resource values, vulnerabilities 

and risks.

Planning Consider site and regional 

conditions 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 

and O&M logs, planning 

and reporting to oversight 

agencies.

Provide inventory 

information on all systems; 

submit performance 

reports to health agency.

Provide GIS-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, 

revenue-generation fees, 

and legal backup 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; regular 

reviews and modifications.

Public education and 

participation

Maximize 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, ground and surface 

water location, lot size, and 

other conditions.

Assess site and cumulative 

watershed impacts, 

groundwater mounding 

potential, long-term specific 

pollutant trends, and cluster 

system needs.

System design Ensure that system is 

appropriate for site, 

watershed and wastewater 

characteristics.

Prescribe a limited number 

of acceptable designs for 

specific site conditions.

Implement codes for developing 

designs that meet performance 

requirements for each site; 

address wastewater, reuse and 

dispersal options. 

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; provide more 

comprehensive inspection of 

installations; verify and enter 

as-built information into the 

record.

chapter 4
21

chapter 4

What is best for our community?

A management framework to address gaps

The management program elements summarized in Table 3 and 

detailed in the Decentralized Management Program Elements Fact 

Sheets (see Appendix A) provide a useful framework for identifying 

and addressing potential gaps in the current management approach. It 

should be noted that Table 3 covers only broad programmatic management activities. The level or intensity of management activities applied 

to specific systems or groups of systems should be commensurate with 

the relative risks identified. 

For example, implementing only the basic management activities for 

each program element might be appropriate for systems posing a low 

risk to public health or water resources, such as new gravity-flow soil 

infiltration systems installed at low densities on sites with suitable soils. 

However, advanced management activities would be more appropriate for higher-risk systems such as older systems or those installed at 

high densities on sites with poor soils, greater slopes and proximity 

to groundwater or surface waters. The intent is to manage groups of 

similar systems under a fairly uniform approach. For example, dozens 

of septic tank and leach field systems installed over two to three years 

Table 3. (continued) Decentralized wastewater management program elements

Elements Purpose Basic activities Advanced activities

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 

in database; ensure responsibility for 

O&M activities.

Inspections 

and monitoring 

Document provider 

performance, functioning 

of systems, and impacts.

Perform inspection prior to 

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; web-based reporting 

and inspection of pumping and 

dispersal facility activities; 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 

areas.

Recommend use of only 

state-licensed/certified 

service providers.

Provide supplemental training and 

certification/licensing programs; offer 

continuing education opportunities; 

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; 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.

Training of service 

providers

Service providers should 

be professionally trained, 

licensed, or certified in 

system design, installation, 

inspection, operation, and 

maintenance. The use of 

certified professionals is 

endorsed by most wastewater 

industry organizations, 

such as the National Onsite 

Wastewater Recycling 

Association, the National 

Environmental Health 

Association and the National 

Association of Wastewater 

Transporters. For more 

information see the Training 

and Certification/Licensing 

Fact Sheet on page 46 and 

reference #53 on page 54.
22 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

in a residential development would be managed in the same manner 

if site conditions warrant. This concept allows management programs 

to be tailored to the setting, whether it is a small rural town or a large 

jurisdiction such as a township or county. The key is to characterize 

systems according to their similarities, so that management approaches 

can be tailored to address the systems specific needs (see the System 

Design Fact Sheet on page 42). Grouping systems by the risks they 

pose based on location, technology type, and other attributes will help 

create a useful framework for screening out low-risk systems and focusing on those needing more intensive management. 

Implementing the management program

The mix of institutions, procedures, and arrangements involved in a 

management program varies depending on a host of factors, including 

enabling legislation, environmental conditions and resources available. 

Because of this diversity, the outcomes of management efforts are 

likely to be different across the country. Table 4 provides a framework 

you can use to explore management issues. 

Management programs can range from an informal network of private 

service providers, public agency staffs, and other partners operating 

under a coordinated framework, to a highly structured RME (responsible management entity) that owns or maintains a set of treatment 

systems. The key objective in developing the program is to ensure that 

it reflects the community’s best effort to deal with public health and 

water resource threats. Developing a viable management program is a 

case-specific process, highly dependent on the commitment, creativity, 

and cooperation of the community and the stakeholders.

Many management programs are developed and overseen by local 

health departments. These programs may include performance-based 

requirements for design, construction, and operation and maintenance

performed by outside contractors or other entities. State and local 

codes, memoranda of agreement, conditional permits, and maintenance contract requirements should clearly identify how the management program will be executed. 

The most intensive management programs are those which rely on 

RMEs to manage designated systems. An RME is defined as a legal 

organization with the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to 

operate and maintain viable decentralized wastewater systems within 

the RME’s jurisdiction. Sanitation and water districts, public/private 

corporations, public agencies or authorities, and special districts can 

all function as RMEs. Homeowner associations have proven to be less 

effective as RMEs because of their large scope of interests, lack of 

Addressing water 

pollution

Managing water pollution risks 

posed by onsite systems is a 

process that includes:

n Identifying pollutants of 

concern in the drainage 

area surface waters or 

aquifer

n Identifying pollutant 

sources and estimating 

relative contributions 

from each source

n Determining methods 

and costs of reducing 

pollutant contributions

n Sharing information 

and involving the public

n Defining what’s 

economically feasible 

and technically 

achievable

n Determining the 

pollutant reductions 

necessary from each 

identified source or area

n Establishing authority 

to regulate the target 

sources

n Implementing a 

pollutant reduction 

strategy

Use of NPDES permits 

for onsite systems

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits have been used by 

some states to regulate onsite 

sewage discharges, and are 

required for all systems that 

discharge to ditches or surface 

waters. The Clean Water Act 

authorizes NPDES permits for 

individual or group dischargers. 

A state may implement a 

general NPDES permit 

program to cover the general 

class of individual or clustered 

wastewater systems that 

discharge to surface waters.

chapter 4
23

technical expertise, and lack of 

managerial/staffing support for 

providing wastewater services. 

Oversight by the local regulatory 

authority is needed to ensure that 

the RME complies with federal, 

state, and local rules regarding 

system permitting, operation, and 

maintenance requirements.

In addition to the necessary legal authority, RMEs should have the 

technical, managerial and financial expertise needed to ensure system 

performance over the long term. RMEs can be formed in a variety 

of ways, which include modifying the missions of existing sanitation 

districts, public agencies, other public/private service providers, and 

profit or nonprofit corporations or by creating special districts. The early 

planning efforts should sort out what type of management entity can 

be created under specific state laws and determine whether additional 

enabling ordinances or legislation is necessary.

Consideration of 

residuals management

Community decentralized 

wastewater management 

programs will need an 

ordinance to specify the 

frequency of residuals removal, 

approved service providers, 

and reporting requirements. 

The ordinance can require a 

specific frequency for pumping 

or inspection to determine if 

pumping is necessary. Existing 

management programs use 

both techniques. For more 

information see the Residuals 

Management Fact Sheet on 

page 45.

Table 4. A framework for exploring management issues

Issue Questions to be addressed

Time frame uAt what point will the planned management program structure be sustainable?

uIf the program is sequentially implemented, when will each sequence be completed?

uWhen will the management program be fully operational?

Service area uWhat areas or which systems will the management program serve?

uAre these areas compatible with a local public jurisdiction that would have the necessary 

powers to make the program effective and sustainable?

uDo specific subareas need different management approaches (system designs, 

staffing, regulatory controls)?

Purpose uWhat public health and water resource problems will be addressed?

uWhat measurements should be made (monitoring) to verify success?

Structure uCan existing entities be modified or be included in a partnership to provide management 

services or will a new entity be needed?

uShould the management program be limited to decentralized wastewater treatment, or should other water, stormwater, or wastewater infrastructure be included?

uHow will the program elements of the management program be staffed and administered?

uWill formal agreements, ordinances, or other legal mechanisms (articles of 

incorporation, public charter) be needed to create the structural elements of the program?

Authority and 

liability

uWhich systems will be under the jurisdiction of the management program?

uWill the onsite treatment systems be privately or publicly owned?

uHow will future wastewater systems be planned, designed, installed, operated, 

maintained, inspected, and repaired or replaced?

uWhat is the relationship between the management program and the regulatory authority?

uWhat formal agreements, ordinances or other legal mechanisms (e.g., with system or 

property owners) are necessary to implement each element of the program?

uHow will the program be funded (planning, construction and operational phases)?

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Onsite Wastewater 

Treatment Systems Manual.

This comprehensive reference 

manual is designed to provide 

engineers and regulators with 

guidance on the planning, 

design, and operation of onsite 

systems. See page 52, reference 

#34.

chapter 4

What is best for our community?
24 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

Integrating wastewater system management

Integrating wastewater planning and management for individual onsite, 

cluster, and centralized sewage treatment is highly recommended (see 

the Planning Fact Sheet on page 37). The federal Clean Water Act 

requires areawide wastewater management plans for many urban areas 

and other areas with water quality problems. It further requires that 

states conduct an ongoing planning process to ensure that wastewater 

treatment plans and other water quality control efforts are integrated 

and updated. Some states have adopted this approach to ensure that 

centralized and decentralized wastewater services are provided in the 

most effective manner possible.

Partnerships are helpful to promote wastewater management in your community. Have the stakeholder group explore opportunities to partner with 

other organizations and agencies. Cooperation and communication can 

often lead to wastewater improvements. For example, working cooperatively with neighboring communities to address residuals can help the 

community identify land application sites, wastewater treatment facilities, 

or other alternatives that can help manage wastewater treatment byproducts. Because of environmental impacts linked to onsite and cluster 

system malfunctions, federal, state and local water resource protection 

agencies are often interested in partnering with decentralized wastewater 

programs to ensure that management efforts are locally and regionally 

coordinated. Consider partnering with:

 Planning/zoning and economic development agencies

 Local water, wastewater, and other public utilities

 State surface water and groundwater bureaus

 State wastewater discharge permitting agencies

 Volunteer water quality monitoring groups

 Onsite system service provider groups

Likewise, you can integrate other programs into your decentralized wastewater management program such as the following:

 Watershed Management

 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

 Biosolids and Residuals Management

 Stormwater Management, Water Quality Management (including 

Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs)

 Water Quality Standards

 Source Water Assessment and Protection

 Underground Injection Control

 Coastal Zone Management

 Nonpoint Source Control

 Technology Transfer

Regulatory 

considerations for 

onsite programs

All treatment systems that 

discharge effluent to surface 

waters through a pipe, swale, 

drain, tile, or other man-made 

conveyance must comply with 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits and 

the antidegradation provisions of 

the federal Clean Water Act.

Treatment systems that discharge 

effluent below the ground 

surface and serve 20 or more 

persons per day – or those that 

receive commercial or industrial 

wastes – are regulated as Class 

V injection wells under the 

Underground Injection Control 

Program of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. Class V injection 

wells are authorized by rule, 

i.e., a permit is not required as 

long as the system is constructed 

and operated in a manner that 

protects underground sources of 

drinking water and the owner or 

operator submits basic information 

about the system to EPA or the 

state groundwater agency. States 

can be more stringent and may 

require additional information 

or a permit in order to ensure 

that groundwater is adequately 

protected.

Treatment systems that cause or 

contribute to a violation of state 

or federal water quality standards 

may be subject to the Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

program under section 303 of 

the Clean Water Act. State or 

local implementation of TMDLs 

may require the use of betterperforming treatment technologies 

or more stringent system 

management to ensure long-term 

protection of the designated uses 

of surface waters.

chapter 4
25

Conducting a reality check

Specifying wastewater system management requirements can be challenging, particularly for existing systems. In general, acceptance of new 

management activities like inspections, operating permits, and maintenance contracts is greater if:

 Negative health or environmental impacts have been 

demonstrated

 The impacts have been linked to onsite systems

 The management program will address the impacts

Before launching new program requirements, it helps to conduct a reality check by reviewing data collected during the assessment/analysis 

phase and sharing it with system owners. Involving the management 

program stakeholder group is also vital during this phase because the 

stakeholders’ constituencies can help to provide information, explain 

technical and socioeconomic issues, and tap into community and other 

organizations that can build support for program implementation. If 

stakeholders have been directly involved in assessing current conditions, analyzing risk and developing the management program and if 

they have communicated with their constituents during this process, 

it is likely that program requirements will be known and generally 

understood. 

Dealing with opposition to management

Some resistance to a new or enhanced management program might 

emerge because of citizens’ reluctance to pay for a service that previously was “free.” Past experience indicates that most residents will 

begin to comply once they recognize that the program is needed to 

address real community problems. In some cases, delaying (or phasing 

in) necessary technological upgrades and management services until 

after a substantial portion of the service population has accepted the 

program rules can help to create momentum and support. 

Working through the underlying concerns such as maintenance costs 

or private property inspections can be addressed through a number 

of options, such as providing access to cost-share funds or notifying 

homeowners in advance of inspections. The best approach in most 

cases is to proceed with program implementation if there is general 

public support for the program. Remember to keep communication 

lines open and honest and express the desire to work with residents to 

address their concerns. Balancing mandatory compliance with persistent persuasion requires a person-to-person approach and patience, 

and provides the best guarantee of eventual success.

Prescriptive versus 

performance onsite 

system requirements

Most state and local health 

departments rely on prescriptive 

codes when issuing permits for 

onsite systems. 

These prescriptive codes typically 

establish minimum setback 

distances between treatment 

system components and property 

lines, structures, and water 

resources; establish minimum 

square footage requirements for 

infiltration fields; and restrict the 

type of onsite systems that can be 

used. 

Performance-based codes focus 

on treatment outcomes rather 

than system components or 

their location. The codes do 

not specify the type of system 

permitted but rather allow the 

design of a treatment system to 

meet the standards. 

Performance-based codes 

are related to environmental 

sensitivity and are often 

created in concert with state 

environmental agencies. A 

performance-based code might 

specify pollutant concentration 

standards for the effluent at some 

specific point in the treatment 

process. 

RME management is typically 

needed to ensure compliance 

with performance-based codes. 

For more information see the 

System Design Fact Sheet on 

page 42.

chapter 4

What is best for our community?
26 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

chapter 5

How do we make our plan a reality?

Program implementation

Decentralized wastewater management programs will be as varied as 

the communities they serve. Each community has different issues and 

needs, but by targeting planning, design, performance, installation, 

operation, and maintenance requirements to those areas or system 

types that pose the most significant threats, the program should 

achieve its goals (see Figure 5).

Consideration of program authority

Legal authority is necessary to carry out an effective management program. In most cases broad legal mandates 

for onsite programs are vested under state law (see the Corrective Actions and Enforcement Fact Sheet on page

48). But when it comes to who can actually manage a wastewater program and under what circumstances 

special districts or private management entities may be formed, state laws are typically much more specific. For 

example, West Virginia law specifies three entities that can manage onsite 

systems, while California statutes authorize more than a dozen entities 

with the power to manage community wastewater systems. 

The authority to carry out an onsite management program can be 

granted to local entity such as a township or county by local ordinance. 

Table 5 and Table 6 review the levels of authority required to carry out a 

management program based on the jurisdiction of the agency.

Inspecting a septic system. 

Photo: Kentucky Department of Health

Figure 7. Key outcomes 

of a management plan and 

implementation strategy

Onsite management authorities in Missouri

In Missouri the Department of Health regulates all single-familyresidence wastewater systems and other sources of domestic sewage 

with flows less than 3,000 gallons per day that discharge to soil or 

holding tanks. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates 

systems with flows of 3,000 or more gallons per day, systems treating 

industrial facilities, and systems that discharge to surface waters 

except single-family systems discharging to lagoons. This “split” 

responsibility is typical for most states.

The DNR permits clustered systems. The agency requires the 

designation of a “continuing authority” defined by state rules 

before an operating permit is issued. The continuing authority is a 

permanent organization responsible for the operation, maintenance, 

and upgrading of the cluster system. The hierarchy of acceptable 

continuing authorities is listed in preferential order in the Missouri 

regulation. In recent years the legislature created an option of forming 

a nonprofit sewer company and establishing management guidelines 

on a watershed basis. For more information see page 49, reference #7

for a link to the Missouri law. 
27

chapter 5

How do we make our plan a reality?

Funding Decentralized 

Wastewater Systems 

Using the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund. A fact 

sheet that explains the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund and 

activities that can be funded. 

See page 50, reference #8. 

Funding management activities

Financial support for management programs is available through grant 

programs, low-interest loans, or service contracts (see the Financial 

Assistance/Funding Fact Sheet on page 38). A review of funding options 

reveals that user fees or service charges typically cover operational 

expenses for management programs (see Tables 7 and 8). If construction is required to install cluster systems or replace significant numbers 

of existing septic systems, loans, grants or both will likely be needed. 

Public-private partnerships are also a good source of funding support. 

Private partners include commercial wastewater sources, because these generators have the most to gain 

from a successful wastewater management program. The federal government is another source of funding. 

For example, a public or privately owned/operated RME is eligible under federal guidelines to receive EPA 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans. However, many states have not yet implemented the rules 

needed to authorize these loans for decentralized wastewater programs. 

Table 5. Public institutions as onsite management entities

Program

considerations

State agency County Municipality Sanitation or 

special district

Improvement 

district

Public 

authority

Authority Enforcement 

of state 

laws and 

regulations.

Enforcement 

of state 

codes, county 

ordinances.

Enforcement 

of municipal 

ordinances 

and state/ 

county codes.

Powers 

defined; may 

include code 

enforcement.

State statutes 

define extent 

of authority.

Duties 

specified 

in enabling 

instrument.

 Financing

 capabilities

Usually funded 

through 

appropriations 

and grants.

Able to charge 

fees, assess 

property, 

levy taxes, 

issue bonds, 

appropriate 

general funds.

Able to charge 

fees, assess 

property 

taxes, issue 

bonds, 

appropriate 

general funds.

Able to charge 

fees, assess 

property taxes, 

issue bonds.

Can apply 

special 

property 

assessments, 

user charges, 

other fees; can 

sell bonds.

Can issue 

revenue 

bonds, 

charge user 

and other 

fees.

Advantages Authority level 

and code 

enforceability 

high; programs 

can be 

standardized; 

scale 

efficiencies.

Authority level 

and code 

enforceability 

are high; 

programs can 

be tailored 

to local 

conditions.

Authority level 

and code 

enforceability 

are high; 

programs can 

be tailored 

to local 

conditions.

Flexible, renders 

equitable 

service (only 

those receiving 

services pay); 

simple and 

independent 

approach.

Can extend 

public services 

without major 

expenditures; 

service 

recipients 

usually 

supportive.

Can provide 

service when 

government 

is unable 

to do so; 

autonomous, 

flexible.

Disadvantages Sometimes 

not sensitive 

to local needs 

and issues; 

often leaves 

enforcement 

up to local 

entities.

Sometimes 

unable to 

provide 

service, 

conduct 

enforcement; 

debt limits 

could be 

restrictive.

Might 

lack legal, 

financial, 

or other 

resources, 

thus needing 

special 

ordinances.

Could promote 

duplication/ 

fragmentation of 

public services.

Could 

contribute to 

fragmentation 

of government 

services; can 

result in initial 

administrative 

delays.

Financing 

ability 

limted to 

revenue 

bonds; local 

government 

must cover 

debt.
28 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

The following entities have provided support for decentralized programs and facilities in the past. Use the 

information links below to contact these agencies regarding your program needs:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is a low- or no-interest loan program that has 

financed sewage treatment plants across the nation. 

Web site: www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf Phone: 202-564-0752

 The Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection is a searchable database 

of financial assistance sources (grants, loans, cost-sharing) available to fund watershed 

protection projects. 

Web site: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/

 The Environmental Finance Program provides financial technical assistance to the regulated 

community and advice and recommendations on issues, trends and options. 

Web site: www.epa.gov/efinpage/ Phone: (202) 564-4994

 The Nonpoint Source Pollution Program can support a wide range of nonpoint pollution abatement 

projects including onsite wastewater system projects. 

Web site: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/319hfunds.html Phone: (202) 566-1163

Table 6. Public/private corporations as management entities

Management 

considerations

Public nonprofit 

corporation

Private nonprofit 

corporation

Private nonprofit 

corporation

Authority Powers are specified in 

articles of incorporation.

Powers specified in articles 

of incorporation (homeowner 

association).

Powers specified in articles of 

incorporation.

Financing

capabilities

Can charge fees; sell stock;

issue bonds; accept 

grants and loans.

Can charge user fees; accept 

grants and loans.

Can charge fees; sell stock; 

accept some grants and loans.

Advantages Can provide service when 

government is unable to do 

so; autonomous, flexible.

Can provide service when 

government is unable to do 

so; autonomous, flexible.

Can provide service when 

government is unable to do so; 

autonomous, flexible.

Disadvantages Building support for this 

concept may be challenging.

Range of powers and services 

likely limited; must partner 

with empowered entity.

Company might not be fiscally 

viable; not eligible for some 

major grant or loan programs.

Financing onsite systems in Pennsylvania

State financing programs for onsite systems often merge various funding streams to provide an accessible, 

easy-to-use support mechanism for individual system owners. The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment 

Authority (PENNVEST) provides low-cost financing for systems on individual lots or within entire 

communities. Teaming with the Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Environmental Protection, 

PENNVEST created a low-interest loan program for low- to moderate-income homeowners. The $65 

application fee is refundable if the project is approved. The program can save system owners $3,000 to $6,000 

in interest payments on a 15-year loan of $10,000. Since 1999 PENNVEST has approved 230 loans totaling 

$3.5 million. The program is financed by revenue bonds, special statewide referenda, the state general fund, 

and the State Revolving Fund. For more information see page 50, reference #12.

chapter 5
How do we make our plan a reality? 29

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 The Rural Housing 

Service makes funding 

available to low- and 

moderate-income rural 

Americans to acquire 

homes through several 

loan and grant guarantee 

programs. 

Web site: http://www.

rurdev.usda.gov/in/

loansandgrants.htm 

 The Home Repair Loan 

and Grant Program is 

for low-income families 

that own homes in need 

of repair and offers loans and grants for renovation. Loans are for up to 20 years at one percent 

interest. 

Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/sfh/brief_repairloan.htm

 The Rural Utilities Service loans assist public or nonprofit entities developing water and waste 

dispersal systems in rural areas and towns with populations of no more than 10,000.

Web site: www.usda.gov/rus/water/programs.htm

 The Rural Business-Cooperative Service provides guaranteed loans to help create jobs and 

stimulate rural economies. This program provides guarantees for up to 90 percent of a loan made 

by a commercial lender. 

Web site: www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/b&i_gar.htm

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

 Community Development Block Grants provide annual grants for community development to 

smaller cities and counties for rehabilitating residential and nonresidential structures, constructing 

public facilities, and improving water and sewer facilities, including onsite systems. 

Web site: www.hud.gov/cpd/cdbg.html Phone: (202) 708-1112

 The Appalachian Regional Commission helps communities to fund the development of 

onsite programs. 

Web site: www.arc.gov Phone: (202) 884-7799

Tribal Sources

 The EPA Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Program administers grants in cooperation with the Indian 

Health Service to address tribal sanitation needs. 

Website: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mab/indian/cwisa.htm Phone: (202) 564-0621

 The Indian Health Service–Sanitation Facilities Construction Program administers the Sanitation 

Facilities Construction Program to deliver environmental engineering and sanitation facilities to 

Native Americans. 

Web site: www.dsfc.ihs.gov Phone: (301) 443-1046

 RCAP Native American Program services include onsite technical assistance to address drinking 

water supply and wastewater treatment needs, including decentralized wastewater training, 

construction and repair, operator certification, income, and rate surveys. 

Web site: www.rcap.org Phone: (202) 408-1273

Funding onsite systems and management in Massachusetts

Massachusetts has developed three onsite management funding 

programs. The first program provides low-interest loans to 

homeowners to address onsite system problems. Another program 

provides tax credits of up to $6,000 ($1,500 per year) to defray 

the cost of system repairs for a primary residence. Finally, the 

Comprehensive Community Septic Management Program, sponsored 

by environmental, finance and housing agencies, provides low-interest 

loans for long-term community, regional, or watershed-based solutions 

to system malfunctions in sensitive environmental areas. Loans of up 

to $200,000 (and more, in some cases) are available and are repaid by 

the communities and homeowners that participate in the program. 

Funds for these programs include the State Revolving Fund loan 

program, state general funds, and loans from area banks. For more 

information see page 50, reference #13 and #14. 

chapter 5
30 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

Table 7. Advantages and disadvantages of various funding sources

Source Description Advantages Disadvantages

Loans Money lent with interest; 

can be obtained from 

federal, state and 

commercial lending 

institutions.

State and federal agencies 

can often issue lowinterest loans with a long 

repayment period. Loans 

can be used for short-term 

financing while waiting for 

grants or bonds.

Loans must be repaid with 

interest. Lending agency might 

require certain provisions to 

ensure repayment of the debt. 

Commercial loans typically are 

available at high interest rates 

and might be difficult to obtain 

without adequate collateral.

Grants Funds awarded to pay for 

some or all of a community 

project.

Funds do not need to be 

repaid. Small communities 

might be eligible for many 

different grants to build or 

upgrade their wastewater 

facilities.

Requires time and money to 

manage. Wage standards may 

apply increasing project expense. 

Might require use of material/

design requirements that exceed 

local standards resulting in 

higher costs. 

General obligation 

bonds

Bonds backed by the full 

faith and credit of the 

issuing entity. Secured by 

the taxing powers of the 

issuing entity. Used by 

local governments.

Interest rates are usually 

lower than those of other 

bonds. Offers considerable 

flexibility to local 

governments.

Community debt limitations 

might restrict use. Voters often 

must approve of using these 

bonds. Usually used for facilities 

that do not generate revenues.

Revenue bonds Bonds repaid by the 

revenue of the facility.

Can be used to circumvent 

local debt limitation.

Do not have full faith and credit 

of the local government. Interest 

rates may be higher than those 

of general obligation bonds.

Special assessment 

bonds

Bonds payable only from 

collection of special 

assessments. 

Removes financial burden 

from local government. 

Useful when direct benefits 

can be identified.

Might be costly to some 

landowners and inappropriate in 

areas with nonuniform lot sizes. 

Interest rate may be high.

Bondbank monies States use taxing power to 

secure a large-issue bond 

that can be divided among 

communities.

States can secure bond 

at a lower interest rate. 

The state may issue the 

bond in anticipation of 

community need.

Many communities compete for 

limited amount of bond bank 

funds.

Certificates of participation 

(COPs)

Certificate that may be 

issued by a community 

to several lenders that 

participate in the same 

loan.

Costs and risks spread 

out over several lenders. 

In some cases COPs 

may beissued when 

bonds would exceed debt 

limitations.

Involve complicated agreements 

among participating lenders.

Note A written promise to pay a 

debt. 

Method of short-term 

financing while a 

community is waiting for a 

grant or bond.

Community must be certain 

of receipt of the grant money. 

Notes are risky because voters 

must approve general obligation 

bonds before they are issued.

Property Assessment Direct fees or taxes on 

property. May include 

grant and bond anticipation 

notes. Sometimes referred 

to as an improvement fee.

Useful when benefits from 

capital improvements are 

identifiable. May be used 

to reduce local-share debt 

requirements for financing. 

May be used to establish 

a fund for future capital 

investments.

Initial lump sum payment 

of assessment might be a 

significant burden on individual 

property owners. Some states 

and localities restrict the 

allowable burden on individuals.

Connection fees Charges assessed for 

connection to existing 

system.

Connection funded by 

beneficiary. All connection 

costs might be paid.

Might discourage development. 

Can be restricted by state and 

local laws.

Impact fees Fees charged to 

developers.

Paid for by only those who 

profit. Funds may be used 

to offset costs.

Might reduce potential for 

development. Can be restricted 

by state and local laws.

chapter 5
31

Selecting a management entity

In some cases a community might choose to adopt a basic management approach by selecting management actions to target problem 

systems, track compliance, and respond to noncompliant owners 

through a stepwise approach such as (1) notification and persuasion, 

(2) technical/financial assistance, and (3) enforcement action. In other 

cases, a community might opt for a more advanced management 

approach through a Responsible Management Entity (RME). RME management has been the preferred option for areas with very intensive 

management needs, and it is best suited to areas that include cluster 

systems (see the Operation and Maintenance Fact Sheet on page 44). 

The common ownership of collection lines and larger treatment and 

dispersal systems typical of cluster facilities make a “single manager” 

RME approach preferable. These management entities can also handle 

individual onsite systems within their jurisdiction and seek to maximize 

the number of dwellings served in order to be financially sustainable.

Creating a centralized management 

entity will be a new undertaking 

for many localities. States and 

communities can consider several 

options. In some cases, a management partnership—coordinated 

by the regulatory authority and 

supported by local planning agenTable 8. Fee-for-service management agency examples

Services provided Service providers Typical costs to owner

Maintenance reminders.

Complaint response.

County health department staff.

Owner pays for maintenance services 

needed.

Negligible

Inspection upon title transfer. County health department staff.

Contracted licensed inspector.

~ $75 to $150 at the time of sale

Inspection every 2 to 5 years.

Tank pumped out at time of 

inspection. Effluent screen cleaned 

or replaced annually.

County health department staff.

Contracted operation and 

maintenance service providers.

~ $25 quarterly

Inspection of system every year.

Effluent screen cleaned or replaced 

annually. Tank pumped out every 5 

years.

County health department staff.

Contracted operation and 

maintenance service providers.

~ $30 to $40 quarterly

Inspection of system every six 

months. Effluent screen cleaned & 

replaced annually. Tank pumped out 

every 5 years.

County health department staff.

Contracted operation and 

maintenance service providers.

~ $15 per month

System inspections as needed.

On-call service for problems.

Repair of faulty system components.

Replacement of system if needed.

Responsible management entity.

Contracted service providers.

~ $30 to $35 per month; other 

charges for repairs or replacement

A Responsible 

Management Entity 

(RME) may...

n Purchase, lease and 

rent real and personal 

property

n Access and inspect the 

systems it manages by 

covenant ordinance or 

other instrument

n Apply for and receive 

loans and grants 

for construction of 

facilities

n Enter into contracts, 

undertake debt 

obligations, borrow 

funds, and issue stock 

or bonds

n Establish and collect 

charges for system 

usage or oversight

n Make rules and 

regulations regarding 

the use of systems

n Ensure the repair 

or replacement of 

malfunctioning systems

A Guide to the 

Public Management of 

Private Septic Systems. 

Communities can use this 

handbook to examine their 

wastewater treatment options 

and design a unique program 

that meets their needs. See page 

51, reference #20.

chapter 5

How do we make our plan a reality?
32 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

cies, service providers, and public agencies—might provide the best 

option to oversee and implement a program. Another option is to enlist 

an existing sanitation or other special district to provide a solid base of 

support for management functions like planning, installation, operation 

and maintenance, inspection, enforcement, and financing. For example, 

a sanitation district could be responsible for regional planning, inspecting systems, and ensuring system maintenance such as tank pumping 

and residuals reuse/dispersal, while the health department would retain 

authority over approving system designs, issuing permits, and overseeing construction. 

Public service providers such as 

utility districts can also serve as 

a management entity. Private or 

public RMEs have been created 

to manage the full range of decentralized system management 

activities—from regional planning

and system permitting to inspection and enforcement. RMEs can 

relieve the strain on the regulatory 

authority by engaging in fee-forservice activities with only occasional compliance support from 

or intervention by the regulatory 

authority. The approach selected 

will be unique and based on each 

community’s situation.

Creation of an onsite management district in Colorado

In 1969 the Crystal Lakes Development Company began building a residential community 40 miles 

northwest of Fort Collins, Colorado. Three years later the company sponsored the creation of the Crystal 

Lakes Water and Sewer Association to provide drinking water and sewage treatment services to the growing 

community. Membership in the Association is required of all lot owners, who must also obtain an onsite 

system permit from the Larimer County Health Department. The Association enforces county health 

covenants, assists in system design and installation, monitors surface water and groundwater, and has 

developed guidelines for inspections, which are conducted at the time of property transfer. The Association 

conducts preliminary site evaluations for proposed treatment systems.

The county health department has also authorized the Association to design systems. The Association 

manages wastewater treatment for more than 100 permanent dwellings and 600 seasonal residences. 

Management services are provided for all systems in the development, including 300 holding tanks, seven 

community vault toilets, recreational vehicle dump stations, a lodge, offices, a restaurant, and a cluster system 

that serves 25 homes on small lots. The Association is financed by annual property owner dues of $90 to $180, 

and a $25 property transfer fee, which covers inspections. For more information see page 53, reference #38. 

Enforcement Authority 

and Tools

Enforcement authority can be 

granted through

n State enabling 

legislation

n Municipal ordinances/

codes 

n Local health board 

powers to abate 

nuisances and provide 

public health services. 

Onsite management programs 

use a variety of enforcement 

tools to compel compliance, from 

citations and property liens to 

turning off water service. 

Septic System Checkup: 

The Rhode Island 

Handbook 

for Inspection. A Handbook 

with instructions for gathering 

septic system records, locating 

components, diagnosing minor 

in-home plumbing problems, 

conducting flow trials, dye 

tracing, and maintenance 

scheduling. See page 54, 

reference #56.

System inspections are a key component 

of management programs, Clogged septic 

tank effluent filters (above) can trigger 

calls for needed service, but regular 

inspections tailored to system type, 

setting, and use profile provide a better 

approach for ensuring long-term system 

performance.

chapter 5
33

Evaluating the 

program

Monitoring of program performance 

is key to effective decentralized 

wastewater management. The 

management authority should 

regularly review inspection reports, 

water quality monitoring data, 

customer complaints, and fee structures to track the progress of the 

management program in achieving goals and objectives. Although an 

annual management program review is recommended, the management 

program should be able to make interim adjustments in response to 

unanticipated problems that arise during the course of normal operations.

The 13 program elements listed in Appendix A provide a framework 

for reviewing and adapting management approaches. The evaluation 

method you choose for each program, like the program itself, will 

depend on local circumstances, the types and number of stakeholders 

involved, and the level of support by management agencies.

Additional information and resources

This handbook should be used in tandem with the EPA National 

Voluntary Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered 

(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems (see reference #4) as 

a starting point for developing and implementing an effective decentralized wastewater treatment management program. EPA has also 

developed information on decentralized wastewater treatment management to supplement this handbook. The information is available on the 

EPA web site at www.epa.gov/owm/onsite. Information is also

available from the EPA cooperating partners listed on page 55.

There is no “cookie-cutter” approach for improving decentralized 

wastewater system management. By following the steps outlined in this 

handbook and using the resources listed in appendices A and B along 

with supplemental materials on EPA’s web site, you can develop the 

program that best fits the needs and resources of your community.

A formal program 

evaluation includes:

n An evaluation 

team composed of 

stakeholders

n A review of goals, 

objectives, and 

operational 

components of the 

various management 

program elements 

using a checklist to 

identify which program 

elements already exist 

and evaluate whether 

they are meeting their 

objectives

n A review of the program 

elements and feedback 

collected from staff 

and stakeholders to 

determine the level of 

progress toward goals 

and objectives and to 

assess current status, 

trends, administrative 

processes, and 

cooperative 

arrangements with 

other entities.

n Identifying program 

elements in need of 

improvement, as well 

as actions or amounts 

and types of resources 

needed to address 

deficient program areas

n Identifying sources of 

additional support or 

assistance to improve 

program performance

n Communicating 

suggested 

improvements to 

program managers 

for consideration in 

program structure and 

function 

Septic System Checkup: 

The Rhode Island Handbook 

for Inspection. A Handbook 

with instructions for gathering septic 

system records, locating components, 

diagnosing minor in-home plumbing 

problems, conducting flow trials, dye 

tracing, and maintenance scheduling. 

See page 54, reference #56.

chapter 5

How do we make our plan a reality?
34 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems
35

appendix A

Administration

1. Public education

2. Planning

3. Performance 

requirements

4. Recordkeeping 

and reporting

5. Financial 

assistance

EPA FACT SHEETS

Decentralized Wastewater Management Program Elements

Program Management Elements

Operation and Compliance

9. Operation and 

maintenance

10. Residuals 

management

11. Training and 

certification/

licensing

12. Inspections and 

monitoring

13. Corrective actions 

and enforcement

Installation

6. Site Evaluation

7. System design

8. Construction and 

installation

Develop 

or enhance decentralized 

wastewater treatment management 

program

EPA Fact Sheets
36 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix A

Decentralized wastewater management programs require public support. The 

success of these programs will depend on how well homeowners, system service 

providers, and other stakeholders are involved in the development process. Unless 

people understand the need for a management program, there is little chance 

it will be adopted. Once in operation, the program must keep the community 

involved and informed to perform at its best.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Involving and educating homeowners, service providers, and the public will set 

the groundwork for how well a management program is received and ultimately how well it performs. Public 

awareness is particularly crucial when it comes to initiating several management program elements including 

planning, inspections/monitoring, operation/maintenance, corrective actions, and financial assistance.

Options

Public education and participation can be implemented by regulatory agencies or through cooperative 

actions supported by program partners. The figure below shows the varying approaches to public education 

and participation.

Examples

In south Deschutes County, Oregon, a decentralized wastewater project determined that education was the 

key to public support of the maintenance program. The project team involved and educated homeowners, 

real estate professionals, and building contractors through a one-hour training session that provided 

continuing education unit credits for real estate professionals.

Key Evaluation Questions

 What are your outreach objectives, messages, target audiences, and communication venues?

 Which activities would benefit from public or partner involvement, and how can we implement them?

Public Education and Participation

Public Education and Participation Approaches

Basic 	Promote public awareness of management program development and rule revisions.

	Distribute multimedia materials on basic system operation and maintenance needs.

	Reminders sent to owners when operation and maintenance should be scheduled.

Intermediate 	Public involvement in program development and annual program reviews.

	Develop locally specific educational materials including information on watershed impacts. 

	Provide users with lists of approved service providers.

	Provide information through workshops, fairs, schools, and other events to educate system owners on 

them on operation and maintenance, health and environmental impacts, causes of malfunction, and 

program procedures.

Advanced 	Involve public in program development, annual program reviews, and public education and outreach 

efforts.

	Educate homeowners about management program advisory boards, variance and complaint review 

panels.

	Work with homeowners in system design phase and during inspections to optimize management 

program performance and acceptability.

	Conduct outreach programs at civic, school, and other events to answer questions and obtain feedback 

from citizens.

FACT

SHEET

1
37

Planning can be used to integrate management strategies for areas served by 

both centralized and decentralized wastewater treatment facilities. Integrating 

wastewater planning functions provides better long-term management of facilities 

and can help local officials deal with a number of needs such as sewer overflows, 

NPDES effluent limitations, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and antidegradation 

requirements. Variables to consider during the planning process include wastewater 

flows, proximity and uses of nearby water resources, landscape topography, 

hydrology, hydrogeology, soils, environmentally sensitive areas, system options and 

locations, population densities, and need/potential for clustering treatment/reuse 

facilities.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Planning is the foundation for many program elements including the establishment of local performance

requirements and criteria used for site evaluation, system design, construction, inspections, operation and 

maintenance, and residuals management . 

Options

Planning can be implemented by enhancing existing planning and zoning programs or through integrated 

wastewater facility planning. The figure below shows the varying approaches to planning.

Example

In Prince George’s County, Maryland, the Department of Environmental Resources and the Health 

Department worked together to develop geographic information system (GIS) tools to quantify and mitigate 

nonpoint source nutrient loadings to the lower Patuxent River, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay. The 

agencies developed a database of information on existing onsite systems, including system age, type, and 

location, with additional data layers for depth to ground water and soils. The resulting GIS framework allows 

users to quantify nitrogen loadings and visualize likely impacts under a range of management scenarios to be 

used to manage wastewater in new developments.

Key Evaluation Questions

 Do current land use planning and zoning approaches consider the full range of wastewater treatment 

options?

 Are centralized and decentralized wastewater planning and management approaches integrated?

Planning Approaches

Basic 	Work with local and regional planning agencies to access and utilize information such as soils data and 

planning requirements.

Intermediate 	Assess vulnerabilities of receiving waters. 

	Identify treatment standards based on health and water resource risks.

Advanced 	Establish overlay treatment zones based on environmental sensitivity and potential health impacts. 

	Identify cluster system opportunities for existing and new developments.

appendix A

EPA Fact Sheets

Planning

FACT

SHEET

2
38 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix A

Performance requirements for systems are derived by characterizing the risks 

they pose to health and water resources and by setting pollutant loading limits 

based on limiting those risks to specific levels. Performance requirements specify 

objectives for each wastewater management system, which may include physical, 

chemical, and biological process components. Performance compliance is based on 

cumulative, extrapolated pollutant removals for the various system components 

(e.g., septic tank, suspended growth or fixed film reactors, lagoons, wetlands, soil, 

disinfection). Performance can be measured via numeric or narrative criteria. 

Numeric criteria reflect time-based mass loadings or pollutant concentration limits 

designed to protect sensitive water resources. Pollutants commonly targeted in performance requirements 

include nutrients, bacteria, oxygen demand, and solids. 

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Performance requirements are derived from planning goals and projected system impacts, site evaluations, 

system design, inspections/monitoring, and operation/maintenance.

Options

Performance requirements can be implemented through regional analysis, planning, statutes, ordinances, 

and actions by the regulatory authority. The figure below shows the varying approaches to performance 

requirements.

Examples

Massachusetts’ onsite regulations designate several specific areas as “nitrogen-sensitive.” Onsite systems in 

those areas must remove at least 40 percent of the influent nitrogen loading. Restrictive maximum discharge 

flows are specified per acre/day unless the treatment systems can meet certain specific requirements for 

nitrogen reduction. 

Key Evaluation Questions

 Which water resources receive treated effluent and what are their uses and protection criteria?

 What loading limits should apply to which systems, given the cumulative and mass pollutant loads 

expected?

 How can we implement or apply these loading or concentration limits to treatment systems

 (e.g., through permits)?

Performance Requirements Approaches

Basic 	Prevent direct and indirect contact with wastewater through prescribed site requirements, hydraulic 

loading restrictions, and separation distances.

	Designate specific and acceptable system designs.

Intermediate 	Specify alternative technologies for certain sites or conditions that do not meet prescribed requirements.

	Establish inspection and maintenance reporting requirements based on system type and performance 

desired.

Advanced 	Identify water resource uses and characterize surface and groundwater quality.

	Evaluate cumulative impacts/allotments for all sources of critical pollutants.

	Establish numeric and narrative performance requirements for onsite/decentralized systems based on 

water quality criteria and assimilative capacity of land and water resource(s).

	Develop protocols and frequencies for measuring (monitoring/ inspections) compliance.

Performance Requirements

FACT

SHEET

3
39

System inventories provide the nuts and bolts for onsite management. Basic system 

information—GIS location, type, design capacity, owner, installation, and servicing 

dates—is essential to an effective program. The best recordkeeping programs 

feature integrated electronic databases with field unit data entry (i.e. using a handheld PDA), save-to-file CAD drawings, and user-specified reporting formats. 

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Data collection and inventories provide information for planning and support 

establishment of performance requirements for critical areas. All program elements 

rely on system inventories, reports, and similar data—particularly planning, inspections/monitoring, 

operation/maintenance, and compliance/enforcement. 

Options

Recordkeeping, inventories, and reporting are implemented by management agencies and RMEs. The 

figure below shows the varying approaches to recordkeeping, inventory and reporting.

Examples

Cuyahoga County, Ohio developed a Microsoft Access Database to enter, access, and track permits, system 

drawings, evaluation results, and other information on each onsite system. The database allows the county to 

respond to homeowner and service provider questions and send out tank pumping reminders as needed.

Key Evaluation Questions

 Does our tracking system for new permits contain GIS location, system size and type, installation date, 

design capacity, and other key data (system components, site evaluation report, facility type)?

 How do we report, track, and manage data on inspections, repairs, pumpouts, and other services?

 Can our data be used for new development planning and generating service reminders?

 Are we coordinating our inventory and reporting systems with those of our partners (e.g., planning 

office)?

 Can we use our data to track service provider performance, training needs, and identify other 

management needs?

Recordkeeping, Inventories, and Reporting Approaches

Basic 	Maintain system inventory, site evaluation, construction permit, and inspection files.

	Conduct maintenance reminder and public education programs.

Intermediate 	Develop reporting approaches to collect operation and maintenance information from service providers 

and from inspections, in addition to system inventory.

	Institute electronic reporting and database system for operating permit program actions.

Advanced 	Provide system inventory and tracking system as an intermediate approach with watershed characterization information and data to assist staff and state agency.

	Develop interactive, real-time information tracking programs to maximize productivity. 

	Track watershed and groundwater trends.

	Facilitate reporting to oversight agencies and maximize public education/involvement.

appendix A

EPA Fact Sheets

Recordkeeping, Inventories, and 

Reporting

FACT

SHEET

4
40 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix A

Financial assistance is needed to: 

1) Develop or enhance a management program.

2) Provide support for the construction and modification of wastewater facilities. 

3) Support operation of the program. 

Funding for program development and operation is often available from public 

and private loan or grant sources, supplemented by local matching funds. It can also 

be derived from some form of resource sharing among management program partner 

organizations such as planning departments or health and water resource agencies. 

Developing a responsible management entity (RME) and financing for the construction and operation of 

facilities require larger investments which might come from grants and loans. Long-term operating costs are 

usually borne by system users through payment of fees and tax assessments.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Program funding and other financial support is essential to develop, implement, and maintain a 

management program. All program elements depend on cash or in-kind support.

Options

Funding support can be acquired through grants, loans, user fees, and other assessments. The figure below 

shows the varying levels of financial assistance approaches. 

Examples

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has developed three programs that help finance onsite systems and 

management programs. The loan program provides loans at below-market rates. Another program provides a 

tax credit of up to $4,500 over three years to defray the cost of system repairs for a primary residence. Finally, 

the Comprehensive Community Septic Management Program provides funding for long term community, 

regional, or watershed-based solutions to system malfunctions in sensitive environmental areas. Low interest 

management program loans of up to $100,000 are available.

Key Evaluation Questions

 What management activities and infrastructure needs require funding, financing, or other support?

 Are some essential management activities or infrastructure needs underfunded? By how much?

 Where can funding for these activities or facility components come from? 

Financial Assistance and Funding Approaches

Basic 	State/local governments provide necessary legal and administrative support to conduct all aspects of 

the management program.

Intermediate 	State/local funds support basic administrative and other costs.

	Work with state, tribal, or local governments and local lending institutions to develop low interest loan 

programs.

	Provide guidance to help owners seek funding for system upgrades or replacement.

Advanced 	State/local funds support basic administrative and other costs.

	Grants, cost-share funds, low-interest loans, or other programs help low income owners pay for system 

repairs or replacement.

	User fees cover inspections, repair, replacement, operation and maintenance costs, and a sinking fund 

to cover future infrastructure needs.

Financial Assistance and Funding

FACT

SHEET

5
41

Evaluating a proposed site in terms of its environmental conditions, physical 

features, and characteristics provides the information needed to size, select, and 

locate the appropriate wastewater treatment system. Regulatory authorities issue 

installation permits based on the information collected and analyses performed 

during the site evaluation. Prescriptive site evaluation, design, and construction

requirements are based on experience with conventional septic tank/soil absorption 

systems and empirical relationships that have evolved over the years. A soil analysis 

using core sampling to a depth of 4-6 feet or a backhoe pit, rather than a simple 

percolation test, provides the best approach for assessing soils, seasonal water table 

fluctuations, and other subsurface site features. Performance-based approaches require a more comprehensive 

site evaluation. Site evaluation protocols may include presently employed empirical tests, specific soil 

properties tests and soil pits to characterize soil horizons, mottling, and a variety of other properties.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Site evaluations that consider soils, slopes, water tables, surface hydrology, overall system densities, and 

other features provide the basis for system design and help to focus on planning and the establishment of 

performance requirements.

Options

Site evaluation protocols are adopted by the regulatory authority and implemented through training, 

outreach, and certification/licensing programs. The figure below shows the varying approaches to site 

evaluation.

Examples

In 1997, Texas eliminated percolation test requirements for onsite systems and instituted new performance 

requirements for alternative systems such as drip systems, intermittent sand filters, and leaching chambers. 

Site evaluations in Texas are now based on soil and site analyses. Service providers must also be certified. 

State officials took these actions after onsite system installations nearly tripled between 1990 and 1997.

Key Evaluation Questions

 What are the current site evaluation procedures and how are they linked to various system design 

options?

 Who is authorized to conduct site evaluations and what are the education, training, or certification 

requirements?

Site Evaluation Approaches

Basic 	Require assessment of site hydraulic acceptance and other physical features, including slope and vertical and horizontal setbacks for soil-based systems to determine compliance with prescriptive rules.

	Require licensed/certified site evaluators.

Intermediate 	Prescribe a broader set of site conditions to permit prescribed alternative technologies.

	Require third-party licensed/ certified site evaluators.

	Designate alternative systems for sites not meeting conditions prescribed for conventional systems.

Advanced 	Provide supplemental protocols for assessing site assimilative and treatment capacity keyed to local 

hydrogeology and critical pollutants.

	Characterize critical design and performance requirements and system boundaries.

	Provide supplemental certification/licensing training for site evaluators to meet local needs.

appendix A

EPA Fact Sheets

Site Evaluation

FACT

SHEET

6
42 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix A

Decentralized wastewater treatment system design requirements focus on 

protection of public health and water resources. However, systems should also be 

affordable and aesthetically acceptable. Prescriptive codes that specify standard 

designs for sites meeting minimum criteria simplify design reviews but limit 

development options and the potential for meeting performance requirements. 

Where management programs rely on the state code for design, there may not be 

any need for special design protocols. However, in sensitive environments where 

performance codes are employed, there is a need to include a design protocol even 

if it only expands the number of prescriptive system choices and site parameters for 

sites that do not meet the conditions for conventional systems. Design protocols should address the potential 

implications of water conservation fixtures, impacts of different pretreatment levels on hydraulic and 

treatment performance of soil-based systems, and the operation and maintenance requirements of different 

pretreatment and soil dispersal technologies.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

System designs are based on the program elements of performance requirements, site evaluations, and 

planning-level considerations. System design will also affect the inspection/monitoring elements of a 

management program as well as operation/maintenance requirements.

Options

System designs are developed by certified professionals or the regulatory authority. The figure below shows 

the varying approaches to system design. 

Examples

The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission adopted a regional, interstate process 

for reviewing proposed wastewater treatment technologies. A technical review committee evaluates innovative 

and alternative technologies as well as system components that replace part of a conventional system, modify 

conventional operation or performance, or provide a higher level of treatment than conventional onsite 

systems.

Key Evaluation Questions

 What sort of system designs are allowed on which type of sites and who develops the system design?

 Is there a need to adopt a performance design approach or to expand the type of systems and sites 

allowed?

 If more complex designs are permitted, how can we assure that they are competently reviewed?

System Design Approaches

Basic 	Design only conventional septic tank/gravity-flow soil treatment systems on sites meeting codedescribed prescriptive criteria.

	Require state certified/ licensed designers.

Intermediate 	Allow limited number of alternative designs on certain code-specified non-compliant sites.

	Require state certified designers; provide potential for engineered alternative designs for larger and 

cluster systems.

Advanced 	Institute protocols for use of risk-based designs based on site evaluation results, specific wastewater 

sources, planning considerations, and receiving water uses

	Provide supplemental training and licensing/certification for designers based on specific needs of local 

water resources.

System Design

FACT

SHEET

7
43

Poor installation can adversely affect performance of both conventional and 

advanced systems that rely on soil dispersion and treatment. Most jurisdictions 

allow installation or construction to begin after issuance of a construction permit, 

which occurs after the design and site evaluation reports have been reviewed and 

approved. Performance problems linked to installation/construction are typically 

related to soil moisture conditions during construction, operation of heavy 

equipment on soil infiltration areas, use of unapproved construction materials 

(e.g. unwashed aggregate containing clay or other fines), and overall construction 

practices (e.g. altering trench depth, slope, length, location). The impacts of 

improper installation of soil-based systems generally occur within the first year of operation in the form of 

wastewater backups. Some improper construction practices may not be as evident, and may take years to 

manifest themselves in the form of degraded groundwater or surface water. Inspections by the regulatory 

authority or other approved professional should be conducted at several stages during the system installation 

process to ensure compliance with design and regulatory requirements.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

The primary program element linked to installation of the system is training, certification and licensing of 

installers. 

Options

Construction and installation of systems is typically coordinated by the regulatory authority through 

the permitting, inspection, and oversight process. The figure below shows the varying approaches to 

construction/installation. 

Examples

The Responsible Management Entity (RME) for Shannon City, Iowa uses its trained and certified staff or 

USDA Rural Development staff to provide construction oversight. Final pre-cover inspection and permitting 

are also performed by the Union County Sanitarian. 

Key Evaluation Questions

 Are installers trained and certified/licensed to build or install the type of systems they are working with?

 Do inspectors visit the site before, during, and after installation to verify that design directives were 

followed?

 Are records of system design, location, installer, owner, and as-built drawings kept in permanent files?

 Is advanced training available for installers who work with new technologies, difficult sites, and other 

challenges?

Construction/Installation Approaches

Basic 	Construction permit based on code-compliant site evaluation and system design.

	Installation by trained professionals.

	Inspection of system prior to backfilling to confirm installation complies with design.

Intermediate 	Use of more proactive measures such as pre-construction meeting at site with owner, installer during all 

phases of construction.

	Maintain certification/licensing and training requirements for installers.

Advanced 	Provide extensive construction oversight for all critical steps such as field verification and staking of 

system components; inspections after backfilling and installation are complete.

	Supplemental training for installers on difficult sites and new technologies.

	Verification and database entry of as-built drawings and other installation information.

appendix A

EPA Fact Sheets

Construction/Installation

FACT

SHEET

8
44 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix A

O&M for most systems includes some user awareness of inputs that might impact 

treatment processes, such as strong cleaners, lye, acids, biocides, paint wastes, oil 

and grease, etc. Gravity flow soil-infiltration systems require little O&M beyond 

limiting inputs to normal residential wastes, cleaning effluent screens/filters, 

and periodic (e.g. every 3–7 years) tank pumping. Systems employing advanced 

treatment technologies and electromechanical components require more intensive 

O&M attention, e.g., checking switches and pumps, measuring and managing sludge 

levels, monitoring and adjusting treatment process and system timers, checking 

effluent filters, monitoring effluent quality, and maintaining disinfection equipment. 

Operators and service technicians should be trained and certified for the types of systems they will be 

servicing; services should be logged and reported to the management program so that long-term performance 

can be tracked. The use of a dial-up modem or Internet-based monitoring equipment can improve operator 

efficiency and performance tracking when large numbers of systems are involved.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

O&M is linked most closely to system design, inspection and monitoring, residuals management, 

performance requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting. O&M also relates to training and certification 

for service providers.

Options

O&M can be implemented through homeowner education (for simple gravity-driven, soil-based systems), 

trained service providers (for more complex systems), or RMEs (for systems owned/operated by a responsible 

management entity). The table below summarizes basic, intermediate, and advanced approaches. 

Examples

Fairfax County, Virginia requires septic tank pumping every five years. System owners must provide the 

county health department with a written notification within 10 days of the pump-out. A receipt from the 

pump-out contractor, who must be licensed to handle septic tank residuals, must supplement the notification.

Key Evaluation Questions

 Do we have clearly defined O&M requirements based on system type and performance requirements or 

risk factors?

 Are operators and service personnel trained and certified before servicing systems?

 How are O&M services reported to the management program? Is the data easily entered and retrieved?

 Are system owners aware of waste restrictions, their system type, and how to access O&M services?

Operation and Maintenance Approaches

Basic 	O&M educational materials and service reminders circulated to system owners

	Complaint response protocols published

	Only certified/licensed O&M providers can be used

Intermediate 	Maintenance contracts and reporting required for electro-mechanical systems

	Operating permits renewable upon reported completion of required O&M tasks and inspections

	Prescriptive requirements for surface risers and inspection ports

Advanced 	Trained, certified service providers handle O&M tasks for all systems in accordance with established 

protocols

	Supplemental training and certification programs provided or supported by RME through training 

centers or other means

	Electronic access to O&M records by field personnel

	O&M provider performance reviews frequently updated and local approval list disseminated

Operation and Maintenance

FACT

SHEET

9
45

The primary objective for septage management is to establish procedures for handling and dispersing the material in a manner that protects public health and water resources and complies with applicable laws. Approximately 67 percent of the estimated 

12.4 billion gallons of septage produced annually in the U.S. is hauled to POTWs or 

other facilities for treatment, while the remaining 33 percent is land applied. Federal 

regulations (under 40 CFR Part 503) and state/local codes strive to minimize exposure 

of humans, animals, and the environment to chemical contaminants and pathogens 

that may be present in septage. Residuals management programs include tracking or 

manifest systems that identify sources, pumpers, transport equipment, final destination, and treatment or management techniques.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Residuals management is closely linked to planning, operation/maintenance, inspection/monitoring, and 

training/certification of service providers. Public education is also a key factor when new residual facilities are 

proposed.

Options

Residuals can be land-applied after proper treatment, discharged to a septage or wastewater treatment 

plant, or delivered to an approved dispersal site. The figure below shows the varying approaches to residual 

management.

Examples

Hollis Warren Incorporated has operated a dedicated land application site for septage in Kent County, 

Delaware for more than 10 years. The operation processes 4 million gallons of septage annually by screening, 

grit removal, and lime stabilization. The decanted liquid is then land applied to irrigate reed canary grass, corn, 

and soybeans. Solids removed during decanting are applied at agronomic rates to farmland for beneficial reuse 

as a soil amendment.

Key Evaluation Questions

 Where are pumpers currently hauling septage removed from tanks, and how is it treated, used, or dispersed?

 Do we have adequate capacity to handle current and future septage loads?

 What are the barriers to expanding existing land application and septage facilities or establishing new ones?

 Can the management program provide support (e.g., public education, financing) to overcome these 

barriers?

Residuals Management Approaches

Basic 	Assure that residuals are being reused or managed in compliance with applicable federal, state, and 

local requirements

	Educate and remind owners of the need to inspect and/or pump tanks.

	Require only state-certified/ licensed O/M residuals handlers using approved sites and management 

practices.

Intermediate 	Require homeowners and licensed/certified service providers to report when tanks are inspected, 

residuals are removed, and how the residuals are managed in order to renew operating permit.

	Maintain and disseminate list of acceptable O&M service providers.

Advanced 	Create and administer tracking, inspection, and monitoring plan for all aspects of tank inspections, 

residuals removal, hauling, treatment, and reuse/disposal.

	Provide any necessary supplemental training and registration/licensing programs for local O&M providers or arrange it with training centers and universities.

	Develop contingency plans for alternative management practices or disposal sites.

	Employ only approved service providers.

appendix A

EPA Fact Sheets

Residuals Management

FACT

SHEET

10
46 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix A

A variety of professionals and technicians including planners, regulators, 

designers, installers, operators, pumpers, and inspectors, are all involved in some 

aspect of a decentralized wastewater management program. Training, along with 

certification or registration, provides system owners and users with competent 

service providers and “raises the bar” in promoting professionalism among the 

industry. Service providers need to have a solid working knowledge of treatment 

processes, system components, performance options, operation/maintenance 

requirements, and laws/regulations. This training can be provided by universities, 

colleges, technical schools, agency-sponsored training programs, regional/local 

workshops, or formal/informal apprenticeship programs. Service providers should have extensive and 

detailed knowledge of their particular service area and a general grasp of other related activities (e.g. 

planning or site evaluation). Opportunities for cross-training, joint accreditation/certification, and sharing of 

training resources should be pursued wherever possible.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Training and certification are linked primarily to site evaluation, design, construction, residuals

management, inspections/monitoring, and operation/maintenance. 

Options

 Training and certification programs can be implemented by the regulatory authority, RME, or other 

regional/national trade organizations. The figure below shows the varying approaches to training, 

certification and licensing.

Examples

A number of states and national trade groups such as NSF International, the National Association of 

Wastewater Transporters, National Environmental Health Association, and the National Environmental 

Service Center have developed training and accreditation programs to verify the proficiency of persons 

performing system inspections and other services. Training and certification programs include written 

and field tests and have continuing education requirements. Providers that past tests are often included on 

vendor lists which help to support quality services.

Key Evaluation Questions

 What state or regional training and certification programs are available, and for which service areas?

 Can we approve joint accreditation or common recognition for regional, state, or multi-state training/

certification? 

 Are apprenticeships available for providers-in-training opting for experienced-based competency 

approaches?

Training and Certification/Licensing Approaches

Basic 	Require homeowners to use only state or tribal certified/licensed service providers.

	Track and investigate system owner complaints.

Intermediate 	Support more comprehensive state/tribal training requirements for certificate or license.

	Create and disseminate lists of acceptable service providers contingent on their accuracy of reporting 

and service complaint investigations.

Advanced 	Develop an inspection program and performance reviews for approval of service providers in district.

	Implement supplemental training programs for service providers seeking to perform services based on 

local protocols, system variations, and other specifications.

Training and Certification/Licensing

FACT

SHEET

11
47

Perhaps the most significant shortcoming in existing management programs is 

the lack of regular inspections and performance monitoring. Area-wide monitoring 

regimes include testing groundwater and surface waters for indicators of poor 

treatment, such as the presence of human fecal bacteria and excess nutrients. All 

systems need to be inspected, at an interval defined by the technological complexity 

of system components, the receiving environment, and the relative risk posed to 

public health and valued water resources. The best approach is to establish an 

inspection regime and schedule based on the consideration of the system’s relative 

reliance on electromechanical components combined with health and environmental 

risk. Less effective surrogate approaches include, in order of descending effectiveness: 

1) Requiring comprehensive inspections at regular intervals.

2) Third party inspections at the time of property transfer.

3) Inspections only as part of complaint investigations. 

Relationship to Other Program Elements

Inspection and monitoring are defined by source characterization, site evaluation, and system design, and 

are influenced by planning objectives and residuals management and performance requirements.

Options

Inspections and monitoring can be implemented by regulatory authority personnel, RME staff, or thirdparty inspectors. The figure below shows the varying approaches to inspections and monitoring.

Examples

Wisconsin requires management plans with maintenance or service contracts stipulating inspection/ 

monitoring schedules for certain systems with electromechanical components. Property deeds must note that 

management plans are in effect. Inspection/monitoring services must be provided by a licensed, certified, or 

registered provider.

Key Evaluation Questions

 Are system inspections required? 

 Is the inspection schedule based on system type and relative risk factors?

 Who is authorized to conduct inspections or monitoring, and how are they trained and certified?

 How are inspection/monitoring results reported and it is required to be provided to regulators?

Inspection and Monitoring Approaches

Basic 	Educate homeowners on how and when to conduct basic walkover inspections.

	Require comprehensive inspections by licensed/certified persons at time of property transfer, change in 

system use, and complaint investigation.

	Require only trained inspectors. 

Intermediate 	Specify regular operating inspections of all systems as part of operating permits

	Develop inspection reporting program with O&M provider/homeowner inputs

	Permit only licensed/certified inspectors to perform comprehensive inspections.

Advanced 	Conduct aquifer or watershed and pretreatment system effluent monitoring.

	Regularly evaluate monitoring data and permit requirements to determine if any program adjustments 

are needed.

	Develop supplemental training programs specific to local needs for approved inspectors.

	Formalize comprehensive system construction inspections.

appendix A

EPA Fact Sheets

Inspection and Monitoring

FACT

SHEET

12
48 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix A 

A decentralized wastewater management program should be enforceable in order 

to assure compliance with laws and to protect public health and the environment. 

Management agencies should have the legal authority to adopt rules and assure 

compliance by levying fines, fees, assessments, or by requiring service providers 

to respond to system malfunctions. Emphasis should be placed on those tools that 

encourage compliance, rather than punishment. It also helps to have the support 

of the courts to implement an effective enforcement program. In order to assure 

compliance, management agencies typically need authority to:

 Respond promptly to complaints.  Issue civil and criminal actions or injunctions.

 Provide meaningful performance inspections.  Condemn systems and/or property.

 Issue notices of violation (NOVs).  Correct system malfunctions.

 Implement consent orders and court orders.  Restrict real estate transactions.

 Hold formal and informal hearings.  Issue fines and penalties.

Relationship to Other Program Elements

The enforcement program provides backup and support for planning, site evaluation, construction, 

certification/ licensing, residuals management, inspections/monitoring, and operation/maintenance.

Options

The enforcement component of the management program is typically a function of the powers granted to 

it. The figure below shows the varying approaches to corrective actions and enforcement.

Examples

Cranberry Lake, New Jersey passed an ordinance which requires owners/operators of onsite systems to 

operate and maintain their systems, pump out tanks as needed, perform repairs, maintain service records and 

issue reports. Those failing to comply can face fines up to $1,000 per day, up to 90 days of community service, 

and court proceedings.

Key Evaluation Questions

 Does a complaint response system exist, and do residents know how to use it?

 Are there local ordinances and legal procedures in place to enforce codes and health/environmental 

rules?

 Do inspectors have the right to enter private property to inspect systems and assess needed repairs?

 Is there a public outreach and involvement program to engage and educate people on the benefits of 

compliance?

Corrective Actions and Enforcement Approaches

Basic 	Issue Notice of Violation (NOV) and negotiate compliance schedules for problems.

	Administer enforcement program with fines or penalties for malfunctions 

	Comply with requirements in a timely manner.

Intermediate 	Develop revocable operating permit program to assure corrective actions through required inspections 

and enforcement.

	Create electronic reporting system to track corrective measures with real-time input from staff and 

service providers.

Advanced 	Implement public education and involvement programs that promote the economic and health/environmental protection benefits of code compliance.

	RME implements corrective actions with power to compel compliance by imposing property liens or 

other enforcement instruments.

Corrective Actions and Enforcement

FACT

SHEET

13
References and resources 49

appendix B

References and resources

These resources are offered to provide additional information on 

decentralized wastewater treatment management. Many of these sources are 

referred to in the Handbook and correspond to the reference number below. 

Management Resources

Informational Databases and Websites

1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Surf Your Watershed 

Gathers environmental information available by geographic units by state, watershed (Surf’s primary focus), 

county, metro area, and tribe. Visit Website http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2002 National Assessment Database. 

Summarizes electronic information submitted by the states to EPA in the 2002 water quality reporting 

cycle. This information should not be used to compare water quality conditions between states or to identify 

statewide or national trends because of differences in state assessment methods and changes to EPA guidance. This represents the most recent electronically available state water quality information. We are currently assembling information for the 2004 reporting cycle. To access this information visit http://www.epa.

gov/waters/305b/index.html

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Site for Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater 

Treatment Systems. 

Website provides tools for communities investigating and implementing decentralized management programs 

and contains fact sheets, program summaries, case studies, links to design manuals and other materials, 

and a list of state health department contacts. Visit http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/septic/index.cfm for more information.

Guidance and Policy Documents

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Voluntary Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered 

(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems. 

This guide provides information on the impacts of decentralized wastewater systems, the need for management, and five management program models that can be used by states and communities. Visit the EPA 

Website to view this document at http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/septic/septic.cfm?page_id=268

5. Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems.

This EPA document describes the benefits and barriers to implementing an onsite wastewater management 

program. It can be downloaded from http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/septic/index.cfm

6. Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources. 

This web site includes model ordinances to serve as a template for those charged with making decisions 

concerning growth and environmental protection. For each model ordinance listed, there are several real -life 

examples of ordinances used by local and state governments around the nation (onsite sewage is included 

under the illicit discharges category). Visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/index.htm

7. Missouri Onsite Regulatory Authority 

is specified in: 10 CSR 20-6.010, Construction and Operating Permits, Continuing Authority http://www.

sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10c20-6a.pdf and Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 398.825,

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutesearch/
50 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

Financial Assistance/Funding Documents

8. Funding Decentralized Wastewater Systems Using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

This fact sheet explains the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and the types of activities that can be funded. 

It can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/factsheets.htm#Decentralized

9. Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies A Catalog of Benefits, Costs, and Economic Analysis 

Techniques.

Presents a “catalog” of the economic advantages and disadvantages of decentralized wastewater systems 

relative to larger scale, centralized solutions. It also discusses techniques that can be used to place economic 

values on positive and negative impacts brought about by a community’s choice of a wastewater system. 

Visit http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Water/W04-21_ValuingDecentralizedWastewater to download the report.

10. National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project Case Studies of Economic 

Analysis and Community Decision Making for Decentralized Wastewater Systems.

This report examines how communities consider and value the benefits and costs of different scale wastewater facility options (onsite, cluster, and centralized options) in monetary or other terms, and examines the 

driving issues, motivations, thought processes, and decision-making methods of stakeholders relative to 

choices of wastewater system scale. Case study communities are included. Visit http://www.rmi.org/rmi/

Library/W04-20_EconomicAnalysisCommunityDecisionMaking to download the report.

11. Rural Empowerment Zone and Economic Community Program. 

The road to economic opportunity and community development starts with broad participation by all segments of the community. This Website provides information on how to involve the community and develop a 

strategic plan. Visit http://www.ezec.gov/index.html

12. PENNVEST Onlot Sewage Disposal Funds

PENNVEST was established in 1988 to help provide more than $2.5 billion for improvements in 

Pennsylvania’s drinking water, sewer and stormwater systems. PENNVEST provides Low-cost financing for 

wastewater systems across the Commonwealth. See the PENNVEST Website http://www.pennvest.state.

pa.us/ or go directly to http://www.pennvest.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/programs/9322

13. Community Onsite System Management Program.

Provides tools to help communities regulate and manage on-site systems. See Website http://www.mass.

gov/dep/water/wastewater/onsite.htm

14. Potential Roles for Clean Water State Revolving Fund Programs in Smart Growth Initiatives. 

The CWSRF is a widely available financing source used to fund municipal wastewater treatment projects 

as well as nonpoint source pollution control and estuary protection projects. See Website http://www.epa.

gov/owmitnet/cwfinance/cwsrf/smartgro.pdf

15. Onsite Wastewater Management: Cost and Financing

Several approaches are being used to collect the funds necessary to maintain an onsite wastewater management system. Visit http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0751.html to view this fact sheet.

Planning/Decision-Making Resources

16. Building Our Future: A Handbook to Community Visioning. 

This manual provides community residents with a process for planning for their mutual future. It can be 

downloaded from http://dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/landuse/data_wkshp/future.pdf

appendix B
51

17. Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management Options for Rural Areas. 

This 17-page document helps communities explore their wastewater treatment options. It can be downloaded from http://www.ncswastewater.com/images/Symposium09/01MHooverChoices.pdf

18. City of Vancouver Citizen Handbook on Building Community. 

The handbook is meant to encourage more active citizens—people motivated by an interest in public issues 

and a desire to make a difference. See http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/

19. Community Visioning: Planning for the Future in Oregon’s Local Communities. 

This report describes how new approaches to anticipate and plan for change are needed—approaches that 

actively engage citizens in thinking about the future at the local level. The report can be downloaded from 

http://www.design.asu.edu/apa/proceedings97/ames.html

20. A Guide to the Public Management of Private Septic Systems. 

Communities can use this handbook to examine their wastewater treatment options and design a unique 

program that meets their needs. This document can be downloaded from http://devsoc.cals.cornell.edu/cals/

devsoc/outreach/cardi/publications/resources/index.cfm

21. The Neighborhood Charrette Handbook: Visioning and Visualizing Your Neighborhood’s Future. 

The Charrette workshop is designed to stimulate ideas and involve the public in the community planning and

design process. This handbook can be downloaded from www.michigantownships.org/downloads/charrette_handbook.pdf

22. National Environmental Services Center (NESC). 

NESC’s NODP (National Onsite Demonstration Program) has produced two videos and a series of CD ROMs 

that can be used to communicate wastewater options to citizens. Order from http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/

23. A Quick Handbook to Small Community Wastewater Treatment Decisions. 

This document guides communities through choosing an effective and reasonably priced wastewater treatment system. See http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7735.html

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Community-Based Environmental Protection. 

Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) integrates environmental management with human 

needs, considers long-term ecosystem health, and highlights the positive correlations between economic 

prosperity and environmental well-being. For more information, visit http://www.epa.gov/care/library/howto.pdf

25. Wastewater Planning Handbook Mapping Onsite Treatment Needs, Pollution Risks, and Management 

Options Using GIS.

This handbook is a guide to wastewater management planning for small communities using geographic 

information systems. See Website http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/WUHT0117_post.pdf

Homeowner Guides

26. Environmental Protection Agency Homeowner Septic System Checklist.

Worksheet that allows homeowners to keep track of septic system inspections and maintenance. See 

http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_sticker.pdf

27. The Easy Septic Guide. 

This handbook describes everything homeowners need to know about their onsite systems. It has chapters 

on checking, understanding, and maintaining a system. The handbook can be downloaded from 

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/Files/Information/ssguide.pdf

appendix B

References and resources
52 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

28. Homeowner’s Handbook to On-Site Wastewater Disposal Zone. 

The Sea Ranch Association, an onsite management entity, developed this handbook for new homeowners. 

The handbook explains a septic system and explains a typical inspection. To learn more, call 707-785-2444.

29. The Septic Education Kit. 

The Department of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service distributes this toolbox that contains 

everything needed to organize an education program on the care and maintenance of onsite systems. The kit 

can be ordered from http://www.ntis.gov. Enter AVA20666KK00 into the technical reports search.

30. Septic Yellow Pages. 

This Website provides useful information concerning onsite systems for homeowners. To view see http://www.

septicyellowpages.com/homeowner.html

Technical Resources

Technical Assistance Resources

31. National Environmental Services Center. 

National Environmental Services Center provides technical assistance and information about drinking water, 

wastewater, environmental training, and solid waste management to communities serving fewer than 10,000 

people. Visit http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ 

32. National Small Flows Clearinghouse. 

The National Environmental Service Center at NSFC has produced a technology overview CD ROM. Visit 

http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/wastewater.cfm or call 800-624-8301.

33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Municipal Technologies Branch Fact Sheets. 

These fact sheets cover difference treatment technologies. See http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/mtbfact.htm

System Design

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. 

This comprehensive reference manual is designed to provide state and local governments with guidance 

on the planning, design, and oversight of onsite systems. It can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/

Pubs/625R00008/html/62500008.htm

35. Creative Community Design and Wastewater Management. 

A guidance manual for local officials to demonstrate the use of alternative on-site wastewater treatment 

technologies to support zoning for compact and sustainable land use patterns. See http://www.ndwrcdp.org/user

files/WUHT0030_post.pdf

Alternative Systems

36. Barnstable County, Massachusetts Department of Health and the Environment Alternative Septic 

System Information Center. 

This Web site contains information on alternative onsite technologies. View the site at http://www.barnstablecounty

health.org/AlternativeWebpage/index1.htm

37. City of Austin, Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Fact Sheets. 

The set of fact sheets covers many onsite topics from conventional systems to alternative systems. The fact 

sheets can be downloaded from http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/wri/fact.htm

appendix B
53

38. Are Cluster Treatment Systems the Key to Implementing Effective Decentralized Wastewater 

Management?

Given a choice of managing hundreds of onsite systems versus systems that serve several hundred homes, 

management professionals will favor the cluster scale. To access this article see Website http://www.infiltra

torsystems.com/word/NOWRA_Cluster_S%C9n8-24-01_1.doc

39. A Simpler, Cheaper Alternative to Sewer Systems. 

This handbook describes a wastewater project in Willard, a village in New Mexico, where the sole supply of 

drinking water is threatened by wastewater. Visit http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:4_NHGbJP-SoJ:

www.nmenv.state.nm.us/cpb/Jan%252003%2520Willard%2520Case%2520Study.pdf+Willard,+a+villag

e+in+New+Mexico+septic+system&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 and http://www.forester.net/ow_0507_

large.html 

40. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. 

This document describes constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and has numerous case studies. It 

can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/ConstructedWetlands-Complete.pdf

41. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assessment. 

This report verifies that a subsurface-flow constructed wetland can be a viable and cost-effective wastewater 

treatment option. This document can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/sub.pdf

42. Washington Sea Grant Septic Manuals. 

Five homeowner manuals Pressure Distribution, Gravity, Mound, Sand Filter, and Proprietary Device can be 

viewed at http://www.wsg.washington.edu/mas/ecohealth/waterquality.html

State Onsite Fact Sheets

43. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 

These fact sheets describe different wastewater disposal systems. Visit http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/

dnrec2000/P2/Septic.htm

44. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Publications. 

This Web page contains links to many publications concerning septic systems and alternative technologies. 

For more information, visit http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/septicsy.htm

45. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheets. 

This series of fact sheets cover topics from septic system maintenance to costs and financing. They can be 

downloaded from http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/

46. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality On-Site Fact Sheets. 

These fact sheets provide information on septic system installation and maintenance. They can be downloaded from http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/onsite.htm 

47. University of Minnesota Fact Sheets. 

This set of fact sheets covers topics from homeowner education to alternative technologies and can be 

downloaded from http://www.extension.umn.edu/topics.html?topic=2&subtopic=110

appendix B

References and resources
54 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

48. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Wastewater Management Fact Sheets. 

These fact sheets cover topics from sewage planning to sewage disposal systems. The fact sheets can be 

downloaded from http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqp_wm/Pubs-c.htm

Risk Assessment

49. Risk Assessment of Decentralized Wastewater Management in High Priority Areas of the City of 

Malibu, California. 

Powerpoint presentation can be viewed at http://www.coastalconference.org/h20_2005/pdf/wednesday_

2004/1C/Georgeetal-Risk_Assessment_of_Decentralized_Wastewater_Trea.pdf

50. Integrated Risk Assessment for Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems 

The primary objective of this project was to develop an approach to risk-based decision making for individual 

onsite wastewater treatment (OWT) systems. To view this report see http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/

WUHT0118_ORNL_Electronic.pdf

Operation and Maintenance

51. Septic Tank Maintenance 

These three publications explain the relationship between septic systems and water quality, and provide 

recommendations for septic system maintenance (e.g. tank pumping schedules). They can be downloaded 

from http://www.aces.edu/pubs/speng/sepmaint.pdf, http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/C/CRD-0081/, and 

http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/homeowner_guide_long.pdf.

52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Decentralized Onsite Management for Treatment of 

Domestic Wastes. 

This program provides operation and maintenance information for on-site wastewater treatment systems and 

can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/seahome/decent.html

Training

53. Model Decentralized Wastewater Practitioner Curriculum 

A model decentralized wastewater field practitioners training curriculum for use throughout North America. 

Visit http://www.ndwrcdp.org/userfiles/WUHT0105.pdf

Inspection, Monitoring, Compliance

54. University of Rhode Island Fact Sheets. 

This set of fact sheets covers topics such as what you should know about inspectors, how to hire a contractor, and how to order and buy a distribution box. The fact sheets can be downloaded from http://www.uri.

edu/ce/wq/RESOURCES/wastewater/Onsite_Systems/index.htm

55. Septic System Checkup: The Rhode Island Handbook for Inspection 

This handbook includes instructions for gathering septic system records, locating components, diagnosing minor in-home plumbing problems, conducting flow trials, dye tracing, and maintenance scheduling. 

Website: http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/water/isdsbook.pdf

56. Summit County Water Quality: Septic Systems and Potential Nitrate Pollution Analysis 

This study demonstrates the use of a geographic information system (GIS) for modeling septic system nitrate 

impacts to water quality in the upper Blue River watershed, Summit County, Colorado. See Website: 

http://ehasl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/projects/water.summit.county.html

appendix B 
55

EPA Cooperating Partners

EPA and eight partner organizations signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2005 to address environmental problems resulting from failures of decentralized wastewater treatment systems (often called 

septic systems) when they occur. The agreement formalizes the collaboration between EPA and its partners 

to help community governments improve their wastewater programs. The agreement focuses on better 

planning, septic system design, and long-term operation and maintenance of septic systems. To view the 

Memorandum of Understanding visit the EPA Website: http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/septic/index.cfm

The partners joining EPA in this effort are:

National Association of Towns and Townships (NATaT). The purpose of NATaT is to strengthen the effectiveness of town and township government. NATaT does this by educating lawmakers and public policy officials about how small town governments operate and by advocating policies on their behalf in Washington, 

D.C. Website: http://www.natat.org/

National Association of Wastewater Transporters, Inc. (NAWT). NAWT is dedicated to serving the interests 

of the liquid waste pumping and drain cleaning industries. The association works with EPA to promote training and certification of the pumping industry. Website: http://www.nawt.org/

National Environmental Health Association (NEHA). NEHA fosters more cooperation and understanding 

between and among environmental health professionals, contributing to the resolution of environmental 

health issues, and by working with other national professional societies to advance the cause, the image, 

and the professional standing of the environmental health profession. Website: http://www.neha.org/

National Environmental Services Center (NESC). NESC provides information about drinking water, wastewater, environmental training, and solid waste management in communities serving fewer than 10,000 

individuals. Website: http://www.nesc.org/

National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Inc. (NOWRA). NOWRA is the largest organization 

within the U.S. dedicated solely to educating and representing members within the onsite and decentralized 

industry. Website: http://www.nowra.org/

Rural Community Assistance Partnership, Inc. (RCAP). RCAP operates as a national service delivery 

network of six regional partners and a national office in Washington, D.C. Every year, more than 200 RCAP 

specialists provide technical assistance, training, and financial resources to more than 2,000 small rural 

communities in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Website: http://www.rcap.org/

Water Environment Federation (WEF). WEF is a not-for-profit technical and educational organization with 

members from varied disciplines who work toward the preservation and enhancement of the global water 

environment. Website: http://www.wef.org/

Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT). CIDWT often referred to as 

“The Onsite Consortium”, is a group of Educational Institutions cooperating on decentralized wastewater 

training and research efforts. The Consortium also includes people from educational institutions, citizens 

groups, regulatory agencies and private industry. Website: http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/

appendix B

References and resources
56 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

appendix C 

Glossary of terms

Aerobic Treatment Unit (ATU): A mechanical wastewater treatment unit that provides secondary wastewater treatment for single home, cluster of homes, or commercial establishments by mixing air (oxygen) and 

aerobic and facultative microbes with the wastewater. ATUs typically use either a suspended growth process 

(such as activated sludge, extended aeration and batch reactors), fixed film process (similar to a trickling 

filter), or a combination of the two treatment processes. 

Alternative Onsite Treatment System: A wastewater treatment system that includes different components 

than typically used in a conventional septic tank and subsurface wastewater infiltration system (SWIS). An 

alternative system is used to achieve acceptable treatment and dispersal of wastewater where conventional 

systems either may not be capable of protecting public health and water quality, or are inappropriate for 

properties with shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock or soils with low permeability. Examples of components that may be used in alternative systems include sand filters, aerobic treatment units, disinfection 

devices, and alternative subsurface infiltration designs such as mounds, gravelless trenches, and pressure 

and drip distribution.

Centralized Wastewater System: A managed system consisting of collection sewers and a single treatment 

plant used to collect and treat wastewater from an entire service area. Traditionally, such a system has been 

called a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.

Cesspool: A drywell that receives untreated sanitary waste containing human excreta, which sometimes has 

an open bottom and/or perforated sides (40 CFR 144.3). Cesspools with the capacity to serve 20 or more 

persons per day were banned in federal regulations promulgated on December 7, 1999. The construction of 

new cesspools was immediately banned and existing large-capacity cesspools must be replaced with sewer 

connections or onsite wastewater treatment systems by 2005.

Cluster System: A wastewater collection and treatment system under some form of common ownership 

which collects wastewater from two or more dwellings or buildings and conveys it to a treatment and dispersal system located on a suitable site near the dwellings or buildings. 

Construction Permit: A permit issued by the designated local regulatory authority that allows the installation of a wastewater treatment system in accordance with approved plans and applicable codes.

Conventional Onsite Treatment System: A wastewater treatment system consisting of a septic tank and a 

typical trench or bed subsurface wastewater infiltration system.

Decentralized System: Managed onsite and/or cluster system(s) used to collect, treat, and disperse or 

reclaim wastewater from a small community or service area.

Dispersal System: A system which receives pretreated wastewater and releases it into the air, surface or 

ground water, or onto or under the land surface. A subsurface wastewater infiltration system is an example of 

a dispersal system.

Engineered Design: An onsite or cluster wastewater system that is designed and certified by a licensed/certified designer to meet specific performance requirements for a particular wastewater on a particular site. 
57

appendix C

Environmental Sensitivity: The relative susceptibility to adverse impacts of a water resource or other receiving environment from dispersal of wastewater and/or its constituents. The impacts may be low, acute (i.e. 

immediate and significantly disruptive), or chronic (i.e. long-term, with gradual but serious disruptions).

Large Capacity Septic System: A soil dispersal treatment system having the capacity to serve 20 or more 

persons-per-day subject to EPA’s Underground Injection Control regulations.

Management Model: A program consisting of thirteen elements that is designed to protect and sustain public health and water quality through the use of appropriate policies and administrative procedures that define 

and integrate the roles and responsibilities of the regulatory authority, system owner, service providers and 

management entity, to ensure that onsite and cluster wastewater treatment systems are appropriately managed throughout their life cycle. The program elements include public education and participation, planning, 

performance requirements, training and certification/licensing, site evaluation, design, construction, operation 

and maintenance, residuals management, compliance inspections/monitoring, corrective actions and enforcement, record keeping, inventory, and reporting, and financial assistance and funding. Management services 

should be provided by properly trained and certified personnel and tracked via a comprehensive management information system.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: A national program under Section 402 

of the Clean Water Act for regulation of discharges of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United 

States. Discharges are illegal, unless authorized by an NPDES permit.

Onsite Service Provider: A person who provides onsite system services. They include but are not limited 

to designers, engineers, soil scientists, site evaluators, installers, contractors, operators, managers, maintenance service providers, pumpers, and others who provide services to system owners or other service 

providers.

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS): A system relying on natural processes and/or mechanical 

components to collect, treat, and disperse or reclaim wastewater from a single dwelling or building. 

Operating Permit: A renewable and revocable permit to operate and maintain an onsite or cluster treatment 

system in compliance with specific operational or performance requirements stipulated by the regulatory 

authority.

Performance-Based Management Program: A program designed to protect public health and water quality 

by seeking to ensure sustained achievement of specific, measurable performance requirements based on site 

and risk assessments.

Performance Requirement: Any requirement established by the regulatory authority to assure future compliance with the public health and water quality goals of the community, the state or tribe, and the federal 

government. Performance requirements can be expressed as numeric limits (e.g., pollutant concentrations, 

mass loads, wet weather flow, structural strength) or narrative descriptions of desired conditions or requirements (e.g., no visible scum, sludge, sheen, odors, cracks, or leaks).

Permitting Authority: The state, tribal, or local unit of government with the statutory or delegated authority 

to issue permits to build and operate onsite wastewater systems. 

Prescription-Based Management Program: A program designed to preserve and protect public health and 

water quality through specification of pre-engineered system designs for specific sets of site conditions, 

Glossary of terms
58 Handbook for Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems

which if sited, designed, and constructed properly, are deemed to meet public health and water quality 

standards. 

Prescriptive Requirements: Specifications for design, installation and other procedures and practices for 

onsite or cluster wastewater systems on sites that meet stipulated criteria. Proposed deviations from the 

stipulated criteria, specifications, procedures, and/or practices require formal approval from the regulatory 

authority. 

Regulatory Authority (RA): The unit of government that establishes and enforces codes related to the 

permitting, design, placement, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and performance of onsite 

and cluster wastewater systems. 

Residuals: The solids generated and/or retained during the treatment of wastewater. They include trash, 

rags, grit, sediment, sludge, biosolids, septage, scum, grease, as well as those portions of treatment systems 

that have served their useful life and require disposal such as the sand or peat from a filter. Because of 

their different characteristics, management requirements can differ as stipulated by the appropriate Federal 

Regulations. 

Responsible Management Entity (RME): A legal entity responsible for providing various management 

services with the requisite managerial, financial, and technical capacity to ensure the long-term, cost-effective management of decentralized onsite and/or cluster wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with 

applicable regulations and performance requirements. 

Septage: The liquid and solid materials pumped from a septic tank during cleaning operations. 

Septic Tank: A buried, watertight tank designed and constructed to receive and partially treat raw wastewater. The tank separates and retains settleable and floatable solids suspended in the wastewater and 

discharges the settled wastewater for further treatment and dispersal to the environment. 

Source Water Assessment: A study and report required by the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act addressing the capability of a given public water system to protect water 

quality that includes delineation of the source water area, identification of potential sources of contamination 

in the delineated area, determination of susceptibility to those sources, and public notice of the completed 

assessment. 

Underground Injection Well: A constructed system designed to place waste fluids above, into, or below aquifers classified as underground sources of drinking water. As regulated under the Underground Injection Control 

(UIC) Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Parts 144 & 146), injection wells are grouped into five 

classes. Class 5 includes shallow systems such as cesspools and subsurface wastewater infiltration systems. 

Subsurface wastewater infiltration systems with the capacity to serve 20 or more people per day, or similar 

systems receiving non-sanitary wastes, are subject to federal regulation. Class V motor vehicle waste injection 

wells and large-capacity cesspools are specifically prohibited under the UIC regulations.

appendix C
59