RESPONSE TO CONGRESS ON 

EPA 832-R-97-00lb 

April 1997 

USE OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER 

TREATMENT SYSTEMS 

U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF WATER 

OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 

WASHINGTON, DC 

April 1997 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Chapter 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter2 

ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS 

Chapter 3 

CONTENTS 

POTENTIAL SAVINGS AND COSTS 

Chapter4 

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION 

Chapter 5 

EPA'S ABILITY AND PLANS TO IMPLEMENT 

References 

Appendix A Defimtion of Terms and Descnptlons of Wastewater Systems 

Appendix B The Wastewater Planmng Process 

Appendix C Types of Management Structures for Decentrahzed 

Wastewater Systems 

Appendix D Cost Estlmat10n Methodology 

Appendix E Case Studies 

Appendix F The Role of Rural Electnc Cooperatives 

m Upgradmg Facilities 

1 

1 

5 

8 

16 

27 

33 

A-1 

B-1 

C-1 

D-1 

E-1 

F-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems are a cost-effective and long-term 

option for meetmg pubhc health and water quality goals, particularly m less densely populated 

areas Small commumt1es' wastewater needs are currently 10 percent of total wastewater 

demands Decentralized systems serve approximately 25 percent of the US population, and 

approximately 37 percent of new development Tlus document addresses the Congressional 

House Appropnations Committee's request that EPA report on 

(1) the Agency's analysis of the benefits of decentrahzed wastewater system 

alternatives compared to current (i e , centralized) systems, 

(2) the potential savmgs and/or costs associated with the use of these alternatives, 

(3) the abihty of the Agency to Implement these alternatives withm the current , 

statutory and regulatory structure, and 

(4) the plans of the Agency, if any, to Implement any such alternative measures usmg 

funds appropnated m fiscal year 1997 1 

Also addressed m this response is the Committee's mquiry on the role of Rural Electric 

Cooperatives m upgradmg rural dnnkmg water and wastewater facilities 

BACKGROUND 

Well through the first half of this century, wastewater management entailed either 

centralized collection sewers with some type of treatment facility for the highly populated areas, 

or conventional onslte systems (or sometimes cesspools) for small towns, suburban and rural 

areas With the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PL 92-500 m October 1972, wlnch 

contamed a national pohcy to provide fundmg for publicly owned treatment works and a goal to 

restore our lakes and streams, most commumtles selected centralized systems wlnch were 

eligible for fundmg by the federal government The 1977 amendments to the CW A reqmred 

commumties to examme pr consider alternatives to conventional systems, and provided a 

fmanc1al set-aside for such treatment systems to be bmlt ApproXImately 2, 700 facilities 

utihzmg mnovative and/or alternative technologies were constructed through this grant program 

wlnch ended m 1990 Incentive set-aside fundmg was not contmued under the Clean Water State 

Revolvmg Fund (SRF) program Given the billions of dollars m remammg needs for upgraded 

and new wastewater facilities (EPA, 1993), commumt1es must look even closer at alternative 

technologies for meeting their needs 

One area of concern is failmg or obsolete wastewater systems m less densely populated 

areas When these systems were first bmlt, common practice was to mstall the least costly 

solution, wlnch was not necessanly the most appropnate solution for the cond1t1ons For a 

1 
vanety of reasons, these systems are failing Both centralized and decentralized system 

alternatives need to be considered m upgradmg failmg systems to provide the most appropnate 

and cost-effective solution to wastewat€•r treatment problems Th.ls document addresses the 

issues raised when cons1denng decentrahzed treatment options 

BENEFITS OF DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS 

Decentralized systems are appropnate for many types of commumtles and conditions 

Cost-effectiveness is a pnmary cons1deirat1on for selectmg these systems and is summanzed 

below A list of some of the benefits of usmg decentralized systems follows 

o Protects Pubhc Health and the Environment Properly managed decentralized wastewater 

• systems can provide the treatment necessary to protect public health and meet water 

quality standards, Just as well as centralized systems Decentralized systems can be sited, 

designed, lilStalled and operated to meet all federal and state required effluent standards 

Effective advanced treatment umts are available for add1t1onal nutnent removal and 

d1smfection requirements Also, these systems can help to promote better watershed 

management by avo1dmg the potentially large transfers of water from one watershed to 

another that can occur with centiral1zed treatment 

o Appropnate for Low Densrty Commumt1es. In small commumties with low population 

densities, the most cost-effect1v~· option 1s often a decentralized system 

o Appropnate for V azymg Site Cond1t1ons Decentralized systems are smtable for a variety 

of site conditions, mcludmg shallow water tables or bedrock, low-permeability soils, and 

small lot sizes 

o Add1t1onal Benefits. DecentralL~ed systems are smtable for ecologically sensitive areas 

(where advanced treatment, such as nutnent removal or d1smfection is necessary) Smee 

centralized systems require collection of wastewater for an entire commumty at 

substantial cost, decentralized systems, when properly mstalled, operated and mamtamed, 

can achleve s1gruficant cost savmgs whlle rechargmg local aqmfers and prov1dmg other 

water reuse opportumties close to pomts of wastewater generation 

POTENTIAL COSTS AND SA VIN GS 

Decentralized ons1te and cluster wastewater systems can be the most cost-effective option 

m areas where developmg or extendmg centralized treatment is too expensive ( e g , rural areas, 

hllly terram) Cost estimates on a national basis for all decentralized systems are difficult to 

develop due to the varymg conditions of each commumty The compansons presented m thls 

document suggest that decentralized systems are typically cost-effective m rural areas For small 

commumt1es and areas on the frmges of urban areas, both decentralized and centralized systems 

11 
(or combinations) can be cost-effective, depending on the site conditions and distance to existing 

sewers 

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS 

Several bamers, listed below, mlub1t the expanded use of decentralized wastewater 

systems Suggested ways to overcome the bamers are also provided The bamers and 

suggestions address a wide range of issues and apply to the vanous orgamzat1ons associated with 

implementing decentralized systems 

o Lack of Knowledge and Pubhc M1sperception The perception of some homeowners, 

realtors, and developers that centralized systems are better for property values and are 

more acceptable than decentralized systems, even if they are far more costly,. makes it 

difficult to demonstrate that properly designed and managed decentralized systems can 

provide equal or more cost-effective service Also, many regulators and wastewater 

engineers are not comfortable with decentralized systems due to a lack of knowledge 

Decentralized systems, particularly the non-conventional types, are not included in most 

college and techmcal Instructional programs 

Overcommg the Barner Professional traming and certification programs should include 

decentralized treatment systems Educational matenals for homeowners should explam 

proper operation and maintenance practices and the consequences of failures 

o Legislative and Regulatory Constramts State enabling leg1slat1on that provides the 

necessary legal powers for carrying out nnportant management functions may be absent, 

vague, or not clearly apphcable to decentralized systems Most nnportantly, in almost all 

states, leg1slat1ve authonty for centralized and decentralized wastewater systems is spht 

between at least two state agencies It is also common for leg1slat1ve authonty for 

decentralized systems to be spht between state and local governments, resultmg in further 

confusion regarding accountab1hty and program coordination Under these cond1t1ons, 

decentralized wastewater systems have not gamed equal stature with centralized fac1ht1es 

for pubhc health and envrronmental protection 

Many states and local1t1es also rely on mflex1ble and prescnptive regulatory codes for 

decentralized systems, and often allow only the use of conventional septic systems 

Where alternative systems are approved, approval often involves a lengthy process As a 

result, an ons1te system that may be inadequate (because the system could not operate 

under the special site cond1t10ns) or a needlessly expensive centralized system or 

expansion may be selected 

Overcomm2 the Barner States should be encouraged to develop or improve enabling 

legislation that allows the creation of management agencies and empowers new or 

111 
existmg orgamzations to carry out management functions for decentralized wastewater 

systems Also, states should consider consohdatmg legal authonty for centralized and 

decentralized wastewater systems under a smgle state agency so that all wastewater 

management options are review(•d more equitably 

State and local regulatory codes should be revised to allow the selection of decentralized 

systems based on their abihty to meet pubhc health and environmental protection 

performance standards, just as C( ntralized systems are now The development and use of 

model codes can facihtate this p1 ocess 

o Lack of Management Pro~ams Few commumtles have developed the necessary 

orgamzational structures to effectively manage decentralized wastewater systems, 

although such management programs are considered commonplace for centralized 

wastewater facilities and for oth(•r services (e g, electnc, telephone, water) Without 

such management, decentralized systems may not provide adequate treatment of 

wastewater 

Overcommg the Barner. Management programs should be developed on state, regional, 

or local levels, as appropnate, to ensure that decentralized wastewater systems are sited, 

designed, mstalled, operated, and mamtamed properly and that they contmue to meet 

pubhc health and water quality performance standards Examples of possible 

management structures (see App1endix C) should be provided to municipalities (e g, 

public ownership/pnvate mamteuance) Examples of successful attempts of 

implementing management progi ams should be highlighted (see Appendix E for case 

studies) 

o Ltab1hfy and En~meenn~ Fees Homeowners and developers are often un\villmg to 

accept the respons1bihty and pot(•ntial hability associated with unfamiliar systems such as 

those prov1dmg decentralized treatment Also, engmeers' fees are often based on a 

percentage of project cost and have little mcent1ve for designmg low cost systems 

Qvercommg the Barner Liability can be addressed withm the context of a management 

plan which will prevent failures and develop mechamsms to cover failures Engmeenng 

fees should not be based on project cost for depentrabzed systems t 

o Fmanc1al Barners. EPA's Construction Grants program, and now the Clean Water SRF 

program, have been the major source of wastewater treatment facility fundmg These 

programs are generally available only to public entitles Difficulties exist for pnvatelyowned systems m obtrunmg public funds under current federal and state grant and loan 

programs 

iv 
Overcoming the Barner _!here are a number of other federal sources of funding for 

pnvate entitles The US Department of Agnculture's Rural Utility Service provides 

fundmg through its Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant program to pubhc entities, 

Indian tnbes, and organizations operated on a not-for-profit basis, such as an association,. 

cooperative, or pnvate corporations Tw~ EPA programs, the Clean Water SRF program 

for nonpomt source control and the CW A section 319 program, are also available to 

pnvate entities Pubhc grant and loan funds for wastewater management should be 

utilized to a greater extent to manage decentralized wastewater systems where ehgible 

Educauon for commumty officials should be provided on the these ehgibihties 

EPA'S ABILITY AND PLANS TO IMPLEMENT 

Over the past 20 years, EPA has put considerable resources mto helpmg small 

commumties·meet their wastewater needs This has been accomplished m many ways --

financmg, pubhc education, techmcal assistance, technology transfer, research, demonstrations, 

and assistance with program development Most of the outreach, which mcludes techmcal 

assistance and education has been grouped under the umbrella of EPA' s Small Commumty 

Outreach and Education Program (SCORE) Assistance has also been provided mdirectly 

through federal fundmg of the many associations that have come together to support small 

commumty needs Many of these efforts contmue today and will contmue mto the future 

Descnbed below are ongomg and planned activities and programs conducted by EPA or with 

EPA assistance, which provide a framework for implementmg alternatives such as decentralized 

treatment systems 

Fundmg 

o Technologies funded under the Innovative and Alternative Technology provisions of the 

Construction Grants program are bemg assessed under a technology assessment program 

which will produce techmcal documents and fact sheets on vanous technologies 

o The Clean Water State Revolvmg Fund program has funded decentralized systems m 

several states smce the expiration of the Construction Grants Program Loans are also 

available for nonpomt source activ1ties, mcludmg planning, design and construction 

activities associated with correctmg ons1te system problems 

o EPA is workmg with USDA's Rural Utility Service and HUD to provide fundmg to 

commumttes m a more efficient and less burdensome manner Improved coordmat1on 

and cooperation between the Agencies is outlmed m a memorandum that is m the process 

ofbemg signed by the three Agencies Follow-up actions to implement improvements 

will be undertaken m fiscal years 1997 and 1998 

v 
o EPA has recently announced a Hardship Grants Program for Rural Commumties which 

will fund wastewater treatment m commumties not served by centralized wastewater ' 

collection or treatments systems Decentralized systems may be the option of ch01ce for 

these rural, dispersed commumtiies The program can also fund trammg programs that, 

among other things, can assist m the development of mlmagement districts 

Outreach and Education 

o EPA provides yearly fundmg for the Nat10nal Small Flows Clearinghouse to provide a 

wide range of techmcal assistance 

o The Small Towns EnvrronmentaJ Program (STEP) encourages the use of small alternative 

systems through a grass-roots, self-help program 

o The National Environmental Trammg Center for Small Commumties (NETCSC) 

supports environmental tramers through development and delivery of trammg cumcula 

and trammg of tramers 

o The Rural Commumty Assistancie Program provides techmcal assistance to rural 

commumtles 

Technology and Demonstrations 

EPA' s technology and demonstration programs, m collaboration with other stakeholders, 

provide techmcal guidance through the followmg projects 

o National Onsite Demonstration Project 

o Updates of EPA design manuals on Onsite Systems, Small Commumty Technologies and 

Constructed Wetlands, and a guidance document for Large Capacity Septic Systems 

o Grants under the Environmental Technology Imtiative to demonstrate onsite technologies 

o A grant to develop a research agenda for onsite treatment 

o A small commumty wastewater t1estmg and venfication center under EPA's 

Environmental Technology Venfication (ETV) program (discussions are underway) 

Program Development 

o EPA plans to collaborate with other federal agencies to develop gmdance to assist 

commumties m rmplementmg management systems based on performance goals 

o EPA 1s also encouragmg planmng and implementation on a watershed basis to meet water 

quality goals Improved decentralized treatment is an important component of many of 

these plans 

Vl 
THE ROLE OF RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES IN UPGRADING FACILITIES 

Rural electnc cooperatives are pnvate entitles that bwld and manage extensive rural 

utlhty systems These cooperatives have the capab1hty to addtess a full range of techmcal, 

financial, adm1rustratlve, and regulatory issues related to the supply and management of electric 

power In the Fiscal Year 1997 House Appropnat1ons Committee report, the Committee 

acknowledged the s1gruficant mterest of the cooperatives "to expand their current role of 

dehvenng electnc1ty to the delivery to rural commumtles of clean water and safe dnnkmg water 

improvement technologies as well " The Committee "is uncertam whether expansion mto this 

new field 1s an appropnate means of upgradmg rura! dnnkmg and wastewater fac1hties to meet 

federal reqwrements " EPA was asked to review this matter and report on its fmdmgs pnor to 

the Committee's fiscal year 1998 budget hearmgs for EPA The review 1s presented as an 

appendix to this response (Appendix F) 

In summary, dnnkmg water and wastewater treatment fac1ht1es can be upgraded and 

managed by rural electnc cooperatives, although 13 states would reqwre enablmg leg1slat1on for 

them to own and/or operate dnnkmg water and wastewater fac1ht1es Cooperatives could be a 

good solution m rural areas because cooperatives are non-poht1cal, known entities to the 

homeowners, that bnng expenenced management and staff to solve the O&M challenge, as well 

as options for obtammg capital The ab1hty to provide management services, mcludmg O&M, 

can be the cooperatives' most valua!>le asset 

From the dnnkmg water perspective, cooperatives offer great prormse as management 

entitles for small water systems which lack mst1tutlonal strength However, for many reasons, 1t 

1s unlikely that more cooperatives will make s1gmficant movements mto the dnnkmg water and 

wastewater busmess qmckly These reasons mvolve the mterest on the part of md1v1dual owners 

to pay for ons1te system management, the techmcal ab1hty of the cooperative to manage dnnkmg 

water and wastewater fac1ht1es, hm1ted expenence with low energy ons1te technologies, and the 

ab1hty to obtam capital Once these issues are resolved, the commumty and cooperative may be 

able to work together to efficiently provide the needed wastewater services 

vu 

Chapter 1 

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

Tlns document addresses the Congressional House Appropnat1ons Comnuttee's request 

that EPA report on 

(1) the Agency's analysis of the benefits 0f decentralized wastewater system 

alternatives compared to current (1 e, centralized) systems, 

(2) the potential savmgs and/or costs associated with the use of these alternatives, 

(3) the ab1hty of the Agency to rmplement these alternatives withm the current 

statutory and regulatory structure, and 

(4) the plans of the Agency, if any, to rmplement any such alternative measures usmg 

funds appropnated m fiscal year 1997 

Appendix F addresses the Comnuttee's request to analyze the ab1hty of rural electnc 

cooperatives to upgrade fac1hties m rural areas A separate response addresses pnvatlzat1on of 

mumc1pal wastewater fac1ht1es, also requested by the Comnuttee 

Responses to areas 1 through 4 are presented below F ollowmg this Introduct10n is an 

analysis of the benefits ofrmplementmg decentralized treatment options (#1 above) It focuses 

on the factors that mfluence the selection of a wastewater system m a commumty and the 

conditions under which a decentralized or centralized system would be the best option Tlns is 

followed by an analysis of the potential costs and savmgs (#2 above) which exammes 

comparative costs for centralized and decentralized wastewater systems usmg two hypothetical 

scenanos Next, the document highhghts barners that mhibit the expanded use of decentralized 

systems and suggestions for overcommg the barners A section follows descnbmg EPA' s ab1hty 

and plans to implement the fmdmgs (questions #3 and #4 above), with appendices supplementing 

the text 

The House Appropnat1ons Comnuttee request highlighted several alternative approaches 

for managmg wastewater, mcludmg 

o Targeted upgrades of treatment systems failmg at md1v1dual homes 

o Innovative, high-performance technologies for pretreatment on lots charactenzed 

by shallow soils or other adverse condit10ns 

o Small satellite treatment plants or leachmg fields m high-density areas 

o Detailed watershed plannmg to specify precise standards for sensitive versus 

non-sensitive zones 

1 
o Mamtenance, mspect10n, and water quality momtormg programs to detect failures 

m ons1te systems 

These approaches are discussed 1hroughout this document, particularly m the "Analysis 

of Benefits" section Targeted upgrades of failmg ons1te systems are discussed ma vanety of 

contexts, mcludmg the section on "Lower Capital Costs for Low Density Commumt1es", which 

discusses why decentralized systems are most applicable for upgradmg failmg systems m small, 

rural commumt1es and m ecologically sensitive areas Examples of mnovat1ve or alternative 

technologies that provide add1t1onal treatment for sites with shallow soils and a variety of other 

hydro geological conditions are given m the section "Adaptable to Varymg Site Conditions" and 

many such systems are descnbed m Appendix A, "Defimtions and Descnpt1ons of Wastewater 

Systems 11 Small satellite treatment pla11ts or leach fields which have low cost collector sewers 

are referred to as "cluster systems" or "package plants" throughout this report Watershed 

planning and standards for targeting ecologically sens1t1ve areas are discussed m the section on 

"Additional Benefits" and m Appendix B under "Comprehensive Planning " Maintenance, 

mspection, and momtormg programs are descnbed m several sections related to management 

systems and Appendix C on "Managem( nt Systems " 

SELECTED DEFINITIONS 

Appendix A provides detailed defimtions of many terms used m this document There 

are several terms which are used extens1 vely throughout this document and are defmed here as 

well as m Appendix A 

o A decentralized system LS an ons1te or cluster wastewater system that is used to 

treat and dispose of relatively small volumes of wastewater, generally from 

md1v1dual or groups of dwellmgs and busmesses that are located relatively close 

together Ons1te and cluster systems are also commonly used m combmation 

o An onsde system is a natural system or mechamcal device used to collect, treat, 

and discharge or reclaim wastewater from an md1v1dual dwellmg without the use 

of commumty-wide sewers or a centrahzed treatment fac1hty A conventional 

ons1te system mcludes a ~.eptic tank and a leach field Other alternative types of 

ons1te systems mclude at grade systems, mound systems, sand filters and small 

aerobic umts 

o A cluster system is a wru.tewater collection and treatment system where two or 

more dwellmgs, but less than an entire commumty, are served The wastewater 

from several homes may foe pretreated ons1te by md1v1dual septic tanks or package 

plants before bemg transported through low cost, alternative technology sewers to 

a treatment umt that is relatively small compared to centrahzed systems 

2 
HISTORY OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 

Ons1te wastewater systems have been used smce the rmd-1800s, wtth technological 

advances improvmg the systems from srmple outhouses to cesspools, to-septic tanks, to some of 

the more advanced treatment uruts available today In the 1970s and 1980s, large Federal 

mvestments m the construction of wastewater fac1hties focused prrmarily on large, centralized 

collection and treatment systems rather than on decentralized systems Federal funds for 

wastewater systems mcreased s1gmficantly m 1972, as authonzed m the Federal Water Pollut10n 

Control Act (later called the Clean Water Act) Muruc1pal1ties used funds from the new 

Construction Grants program to bwld sewers and centralized treatment fac1httes to meet national 

standards for discharged pollutants (GAO, 1994) Between 1972 and 1990, the federal 

government spent more than $62 bilhon m this program for constructmg or upgradmg treatment 

fac1ht1es (Lewts, 1986) 

The llllttal dec1s1on to mstall a particular system (1 e, hookup to a centralized system or 

use ons1te systems) was pnmarily made m the pnvate sector by the developer of a property, 

based on affordability or profitability In small commurut1es, developers often chose more 

affordable onstte systems which could be easily mstalled for each dwellmg Once installed, the 

ons1te system was usually not exarmned again unless an emergency situation arose, wtth 

wastewater either backmg up mto backyards or streets even though m many cases, they were 

contnbutmg to pollution of ground water and nearby surface waters In most small commuruties, 

outdated state and local regulatory codes still promote the contmued use of poorly maintained 

conventional ons1te systems (a septic tank and leach field) In many of these commurut1es, these 

systems are prov1dmg adequate public health and envuonmental protection, but m many cases, 

they are not 

The 1990 Census md1cates that 25 rmlhon households use conventional ons1te systems or 

cesspools Data on the failure rate associated wtth these systems is hm1ted, a national estimate is 

not available However, durmg 1993 alone, a total of 90,632 failures were reported, accordmg to 

a National Small Flows Clearmghouse survey of health departments across the country Failure 

rates as high as 72 percent have been documented, such as m the Rouge River National 

Demonstration Project Nationwtde data show that failures of ons1te wastewater systems are 

pnmarily due to improper s1tmg ( e g , m low-permeab1hty sotls ), rmproper design, poor 

mstallat1on practices, msuffic1ent operation and maintenance of the systems, and lack of 

enforcement of codes Some commurut1es, such as Stmson Beach, CA (see Appendix E) and 

Warwick, RI, explored ways to prevent future failures, meludmg managmg decentralized 

systems to ensure that they were operated and mruntamed appropnately, and usmg alternative 

types of systems where site conditions made conventional ons1te systems margmally applicable 

Durmg the 1970's, a number of state and local governments, mcludmg Gardmer, NY and Wood 

County, WV, wtth the support of the US EPA Research and Development programs, 

expenmented wtth different types of decentralized systems that could accommodate a variety of 

site and commuruty conditions and meet envuonmental protection goals if properly operated and 

3 
mamtamed Subsequently, m the 1980's, the Innovative and Alternative (I&A) Technology and 

Small Commumty set-asides of the Construction Grants program resulted m the construction of 

hundreds of small commumty technologies usmg centralized and decentralized approaches Both 

programs provided some mformatlon on performance and costs of newer decentralized systems 

Crrcumstances changed m 1990, when the federal Construction Grants and l&A programs 

I 

were ehmmated These programs were replaced by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

program, which provides commumtles with low mterest loans These programs have only been 

able to meet a small portion of the total needs EPA's 1992 Needs Survey estimated the nation's 

documented wastewater needs to be $1 :17 bilhon, with an mcrease of 39 percent from 1990 to 

1992 (EPA, 1993) Small commumty needs compnsed approxnnately 10 percent (over $13 

billion) of total unmet needs m 1992 Furthermore, EPA estimated that replacmg frulmg septic 

systems with new centralized system sewers and treatment facilities accounted for 40 percent of 

the small commumty needs (EPA, 1993) 

Managed decentralized wastewater systems are viable, long-term alternatives to 

centralized wastewater facilities where < ost-effectlve, particularly m small and rural 

commurutles Decentralized systems already serve one-quarter of the population nationwide, and 

50% of the population m some states These systems ment senous consideration many 

evaluation of wastewater management options for small and rmd-sized commumties and new 

development In some cases, combmatlons of decentrahzed and centralized arrangements will be 

useful to solve diverse cond1t10ns 

4 
Chapter2 

ANALYSIS OF BENEFITS 

WASTEWATER SYSTEM GOALS 

Wastewater systems have two fundamental goals 

o Protection of pubhc health ( e g , from waterborne d1sease-causmg orgarusms such 

as bactena, from high mtrate levels m ground water) 

o Protection of the environment ( e g , protection of surface waters from 

eutrophicat1on caused by excess phosphorus and mtrogen) 

If properly sited, designed, mstalled and managed over their service hves, decentralized 

wastewater systems can, and do, meet both public health and environmental protection goals m 

areas where centralized treatment is impractical or not cost-effective This section discusses why 

a decentralized system is often the most feasible choice for small commun1t1es 

The Clean Water Act, as amended, identifies federal reqmrements for wastewater 

treatment facilities d1schargmg to waters of the U S , 1 e , a mlillffium of secondary treatment and 

water quality standards Decentralized systems which discharge to a surface water must, and 

can,- meet these reqwrements Convent10nal ons1te systems discharge effluent through the s01ls 

to the groundwater Groundwater can be protected with properly mamtamed ons1te systems or 

with additional treatment to control nutnents 

In addition, the Safe Dnnkmg Water Act addresses the nsk to groundwater quality posed 

by the large capacity septic systems (systems with the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per 

day) EPA mcludes large capacity septic systems as a type of Class V well which are regulated 

within the Underground lDJection Control program to protect ground waters 

BENEFITS OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER SYSTEMS 

For certam commumties and site conditions, managed decentralized wastewater systems 

are the most techmcally appropnate and economical means for treatmg wastewater when 

compared to centralized treatment systems The pnmary benefits of usmg decentralized systems 

are 

o Protects pubhc health and the environment 

o Lower capital and mamtenance costs for low density commumt1es 

o Adaptable to varymg site conditions 

o Additional benefits 

5 
How these factors affect the sel( ction of wastewater systems is discussed below For a 

more detailed discussion of cost-effect! veness, see the "Potential Costs and Savmgs" section of 

this document 

Protects Public Health and the Environment 

Properly managed decentralized wastewater systems can provide the treatment necessary 

to protect pubhc health and the envrronment mcludmg groundwater and surface waters, JUSt as 

well as centralized systems Decentralized systems can usually be sited, designed, mstalled and 

operated to meet all federal and state requrred effluent standards for biological oxygen demand 

(BOD), total suspended sohds (TSS) and fecal cohfOrm Effective advanced treatment umts are 

avru.lable for additional nutnent removal and dtsmfection requrrements for both types of systems, 

as well 

Centralized systems frequently 1 esult m large watershed transfers of waters, whereas 

decentralized systems when used effectllvely promote the return of treated wastewater within the 

watershed of ongm Managed decentralized systems can effectively mirumize the impacts of 

these mterbasm water transfers 

Lower Capital and Mamtenance Cos1ts for Low Density Commumties 

In areas with low population densities (approxrmately one dwellmg or less per acre), 

decentralized onsite wastewater system•, often are the most cost-effective option for upgradmg 

fru.lmg septic systems or servmg new development Constructmg new centralized systems m 

rural areas 1s often econormcally unfeasible because of the distances between homes, the 

sigruficant pipmg requrred to tie-m all the connections, and the mability to achleve economies of 

scale (i e, a certain number of users to mpport system costs) 

In urban and suburban areas with hlgh population densities (more than three to four 

dwellings per acre), large-scale, centralized collection and treatment of wastewater 1s usually 

most cost-effective 

For areas with moderate population densities (one dwellmg per one-half to one acre) 

located at moderate distances from a centralized treatment facility, the choice of a centralized or 

decentralized wastewater system may v.iry by neighborhood based on local conditions 

Moderately populated areas may effectively use decentralized cluster wastewater systems that 

serve two or more (up to several hundred 1s possible) homes and are located close to the 

dwellings they serve These cluster sys1ems are cost-effective m many cases because they use 

smaller, less expensive collection pipes that travel relatively short distances to smaller, less 

mru.ntenance mtens1ve treatment umts (often with soil disposal or reuse of effluent) As long as 

homes are relatively close together, cluster systems may be cost-competitive with numerous 

mdtv1dual ons1te systems 

6 
Adaptable to Varymg Site Conditions 

In the past, when fewer types of decentralized wastewater systems were available, certam 

site conditions, such as high ground-water tables, impervious soils, shallow bedrock or limestone 

formations, were considered lirmtmg factors that precluded decentralized systems In many 

cases, septic tank/leach field systems were nonetheless used at many such sites, with madequate 

subsequent protection of surface and ground water Today, however, decentralized systems can 

usually be designed for a specific site and its hydrogeolog1cal cond1t10ns For example, sand 

mounds systems are designed specifically for sites with high ground water Decentralized 

wastewater systems now allow greater flex1b1hty and are often combmed mto treatment trains to 

meet a range of treatment goals and site cond1t1ons A treatment train might mclude a septic tank 

and recirculatmg sand filter (or other types of technologies) to greatly reduce BOD, TSS, 

rutrogen, and bactena levels, a relatively small leach field (a larger leach field becomes 

unnecessary with the additional treatment provided by a sand filter or other treatment uruts), and 

multiple dosmg of effluent to the leach field on sites with excessively permeable soils 

Add1tional Benefits 

Decentralized systems can be advantageous m ecologically sens1t1ve areas, where 

treatment must be specifically targeted to local environmental concerns ( e g , ground water 

protect10n and protection of off-shore shellfish beds or where construct10n of centralized 

collection systems may disrupt the ecosystem) Also, most decentralized ons1te systems 

mherently mclude on-lot water reuse and ground-water recharge The wastewater can be treated 

by decentrahzed systems to a specified level and then retained for reuse near (usually outdoors) 

the home or facility ( e g , outside for rrngatmg the landscape) Sue.fl reuse is most common m 

mdustnal settmgs and 1s begmrung to occur m commercial settmgs ( e g , office parks, golf 

courses), however, certain types of mdustnal fac1ht1es may reqwre pretreatment if wastes are 

toxic In certain water-short states (e g, Anzona, Cahforrua, Flonda, Texas), such reuse is even 

practiced m residential settmgs 

CONCLUSION 

Commumt1es Can Use Combmations of Decentralized Wastewater Systems 

For commuruties with a d1vers1ty of locales, the best option might be to use a 

combmat10n of wastewater systems For example, m more densely populated areas, hookup to a 

centralized fac1hty might be most cost-effective Decentralized cluster systems could be chosen 

for less densely populated fnnge areas currently under development and for use m ecologically 

sensitive areas Onsite systems could be used m the more rural areas Cons1denng all possible 

options and their combmations 1s the best approach to managmg wastewater needs to achieve the 

most cost-effective solution for a vanety of site cond1t1ons and commuruty goals 

7 
Chapter3 

POTENTIAL COSTS AND SAVINGS 

Cost is a key factor that affects the selection of wastewater management options for a 

commuruty The cost of these options vanes dependmg on specific commumty charactenst1cs, 

mcludmg population size and density, topography, distance to an ex1stmg treatment fac1hty, and 

local performance requrrements These vanables make 1t difficult to present a vahd national 

companson of costs for decentrahzed and centrahzed systems To illustrate the differences m the 

cost-effectiveness of vanous technology options, co~ estrmates were developed for two 

hypothetical commumt1es Several components of the cost estimates presented may vary 

considerably from commumty to commumty, and may rmpact the cost-effectiveness of one 

technology option over another option For example, land costs vary regionally and may be 

prolub1tive m some commumt1es for construction of large treatment fac1ht1es 

Descnptions of the two hypothetical commuruties on wluch cost estrmates were based are 

presented below, followed by a summary of the technology options considered for different areas 

m the commuruties with different populc1tion and site charactenstics, and a comparative summary 

of costs for different types of wastewater management options 

Costs are based on a vanety of sources, mcludmg cost equations for centrahzed collection 

developed by Dames and Moore (based on Srmth, 1978), centralized treatment costs presented m 

the WA WTTAR computer model developed at Humboldt State Umvers1ty (Gearheart et al , 

1994), costs for small diameter gravity sewers presented m EPA documents (EPA, 1991, EPA 

Region IV, n d) and m Abney, 1976, cluster treatment costs presented m Abney, 1976 and Otts, 

1996, ons1te system treatment and operation and mamtenance costs used m the COSMO 

computer model, developed at North Cai olma State Umvers1ty (Renkow and Hoover, 1996), 

average land purchase costs, based on data for North Carolma, and eqmpment and labor costs 

based on data from W1sconsm A detrufod descnpt1on of the cost estrmat1on methodologies used 

for each type of wastewater collection artd treatment technology 1s presented m Appendix D 

COMMUNITY PROFILES 

Costs are presented for (1) a hypothetical small, rural commumty, and (2) a hypothetical 

commuruty located on the frmges of a metropohtan center (referred to as the "fnnge" 

commuruty) The profiles of both types of commurut1es are descnbed below 

Rural Commumty- The rural commuruty has a population of 450 people hvmg m 135 

homes These homes are located on 1-ac re lots or larger lots. and are serviced by conventional 

ons1te wastewater systems cons1stmg of septic tanks and leach fields, wastewater 1s transported 

from the tanks to the leach fields through gravity d1stnbut1on About 50 percent of the ons1te 

8 
• I 

systems ( 67 systems) are currently failmg due to madequate sizmg, mappropnate site conditions, 

or lack ofmamtenance As shown m Figure la, these 67 failmg systems are located m the 

northeastern sectmn of the commumty near a nver where there is a high water table and a 

prevalence of soils with low permeability 

Fnnge Commumty-The fnnge commumty, located 10 rmles from the nearest city, has 

a current population of 770 people m 220 homes, but is expected to grow to a total population of 

1,550 people m 443 homes located on 1/2-acre lots The ex1stmg homes are serviced by 

conventional onsite wastewater systems consisting of septic tanks and leach fields, wastewater is 

transported from the tanks to the leach fields through gravity distnbut1on As shown m Figure 

lb, about 50 percent of the existmg onsite systems (flO systems) are currently failmg due to 

mappropnate site conditions, mcludmg a high water table and soils with low permeability, and 

lack of mamtenance The metropolitan area is serviced by a centralized collection and treatment 

facility with unused capacity (10 rmles away) 

For comparative purposes, costs for centralized, cluster, and decentralized onsite systems 

are provided for both the rural and fnnge commumtles, as descnbed below 

TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS AND PERFORMANCE GOALS 

The technology options considered for the rural and fnnge commumties are summanzed 

below All of the options considered are assumed to be capable of achievmg the secondary 

treatment standard of 30 mg/L for BOD and TSS, as well as dismfectmn goals for sigmficant 

bactena reductmn, dismfection of cluster and ons1te system effluent is provided by physical and 

biological processes as the effluent moves through the soil 

Appendix D ("Cost Estimation Methodology") proVIdes a detailed descnptron of each 

technology, the methodologies and assumptions used m developmg the cost estimates, and the 

capital costs and annual operating and mamtenance (O&M) costs for each technology Appendix 

D also mcludes a discussion of how costs were mdexed to 1995 dollars 

Rural Community - Wastewater options considered for the rural commumty mclude 

o Centralzzed system - New conventional gravity collection servicmg the entire rural 

commumty and construction of a new centralized treatment facility, with 

treatment consistmg of a facultative oxidation pond and dismfection This has 

been the most frequently used option to address the small commumty problems 

descnbed m this report 

o Cluster systems - New alternative collection (small diameter gravity sewers 

[SDGS]) and construction of new small cluster treatment systems, each consistmg 

of a sand filter and a central leach field (cluster systems would be mstalled only 

9 
DJrection of ground-water flow 

0 D 0 ~ • • 

0 0 • • 

0 • 

0 • 

0 Each square represents 1 OJ rural homes with properly functorung ons1te systems 

• Each sq_uare represents 1 Cl rural homes Wlth failing ons1te systetns 

All homes on 1-acre orlarger lots 

Figure la - Base l\[ap of Hypothencal Rural CommUJUty 

10 
-. . ~ -

·-

' lOmlles 

I , L j 

,-

.... J 

Metropohtan 

Center 

O Each square represents 20 fnnge commUtllty homes With properly functtonmg onslte systems 

• Each square represents 20 fnnge commuruty homes W1th fatlmg ons1te systems 

.-_ Each s.:i_uare represents 20 fnnge commurufy homes~ expected new development 

All homes on 1/2-acre or smaller lots 

Figure lb - Base Map of Hypothetical Fnnge Conmturuf,Y 

11 
where ons1te systems are currently fruhng, properly funct10rung ons1te systems 

would contmue m use) 

o Onszte systems - Replacement offruhng conventional ons1te systems (septic tanks 

and leach fields) with new ons1te systems cons1stmg of septic tanks, mterm1ttent 

sand filters where necessary, and leach fields, low pressure pipe (LPP) 

distnbut1on would be usrd to transport the wastewater from the septic tanks up to, 

and through the leach fields The sand filters and LPP d1stnbution address the 

issues of a lngh ground-water table and low-permeab1hty soils 

Fnnge Commumty - Wastewater options considered for the frmge commumty mclude 

o Centralized system (two options considered) - A new conventional gravity 

collection system connected to an existing centralized treatment fac1hty that 

currently serves the main mumc1pal1ty In option 1, the fac1hty has sufficient 

collection and treatment capacity, and m option 2, the facility has sufficient 

capacity to handle the added load to the sewers, but reqmres add1t1onal treatment 

capacity Treatment for both centralized options is provided by a sequencmg 

batch reactor (SBR) with gnt removal, screenmg, d1smfect1on, and sludge 

disposal 

o Cluster systems - New al1emat1ve collect10n (small diameter gravity sewers 

[SDGS]) and construction of new small cluster treatment systems, each consistmg 

of a central sand filter and a central leach field, for new homes, the mstallat1on of 

new ons1te septlc tanks winch connect to the SDGS 

o Onszte systems - For exis1mg homes, replacement offailmg ons1te systems with 

new ons1te systems cons1·~tmg of septic tanks, mterm1ttent sand filters where 

necessary, and leach fields, with wastewater transported up to, and through the 

leach fields with low pressure pipe (LPP) d1stnbut1on, for new homes, mstallation 

of new ons1te systems cons1stmg of septic tanks and leach fields, with wastewater 

transported to the leach fields with low pressure pipe d1stnbut1on (LPP) 

SUMMARY OF COSTS 

Cost summanes and compansoru. for each technology option considered are presented 

below Costs mclude the capital costs necessary to mstall the system(s) and the annual costs to 

operate and mamtam the system(s) Capital costs were annualized over 30 years (the hfe of the 

system) for each technology option usmg a discount rate of 7 percent (OMB, 1996) All costs 

are presented m 1995 dollars Table l presents a summary of the estimated costs for the rural 

commumty Similarly, Table 2 presents the costs for the frmge commumty 

12 
Table 1 Summary of Rural Commumty Technology Costs 

Total Annual ... AbnualO&M Cost (Annuab.zed 

Total CapJ.tal C-OSt ·Cost2 Capital Plus 

Teehnology Optron.1 (1995 $) {1995$) O&M .. 1995$) 

• 

Centrahzed systems3 $2,321,840 - $3,750,530 $29,740 - $40,260 $216,850 - $342,500 

- Alternative SDGS collection and $598,100 $7,2906 $55,500 

small cluster systems4 

Ons1te systems5 $510,000 $13,4006 $54,500 -

Note The rural commumtv consists of 450 neonle m 135 homes 

1

All technology options presented are assumed to have a 30-year hfe span 

2

0&M costs mclude centrahzed system - treatment chemicals such as chlorme and sulfur d10xide, energy to run 

equipment such as mixers, pumps and aerators and labor cluster system - yearly inspections of onsite components 

mcludmg sand filter, quarterly inspections of the central leach field 10-year pumpouts of mdiv1dual septic tanks 

replacement of distribution pump every 10 years, ons1te systems - quarterly mspecuons of systems, mcludmg septic tanks, 

leach fields and sand filters pumpouts of septic tanks and replacement Qf dtstribut10n pumps every 10 years, the 

establishment of an organization to provide wastewater management assumes that mamtenance of all exisung and future 

onsite systems will be performed therefore the annual O&M cost estimates mclude costs for new systems as well as 

exisung onsrte systems that are stlll functionmg effectively 

3

Represents conventional gravity collection and construction of a new centralized treatment plant w1thm the rural area 

consisung of a facultative oxidat10n pond and dtsmfection the conventional gravity collection system costed for the rural 

commumty was evaluated for two populat10n densities (1 home per acre and 1 home per 5 acres) and therefore a range of 

costs are presented for thts technology option 

4

Includes mterm1ttent sand filters and gravity d1stnbut10n to leach fields where ons1te systems are fatlmg 

5

Includes replacement of fatlmg ons1te systems with (1) ons1te systems consisting of septic tanks with LPP d1stnbut10n to 

leach fields where sotls have poor drainage and (2) ons1te systems constsung of septic tanks and sand ftlters with LPP 

d1str1but1on to leach fields where water table 1s high 

6

0&M costs for cluster systems are lower than O&M costs for ons1te systems because of the lower labor requrrements for 

operatmg and mamtammg a smgle centralized sand ftlter and leach field m a cluster system than for opertmg and 

mamtammg up to 135 mdiv1dual ons1te sand ftlters and leach fields 

13 
Table2 Summary of Fnnge Commuruty Technology Costs 

Total Annual 

AnnualO&M Cost (Annualized 

'I'otaf Capilal Cost . Cosf. Caprtal Plus 

Technology Option1 (1995$) • (1995 $) O&M-1995$) 

Centrahzed systems3 -

System type #1 

at 1 .mtle from eXIStmg sewer $3,322,900 $83,800 $351,600 

at 5 .mtles from existmg sewer $5,377,800 $95,900 $529,300 

System type #2 

at 1 .mtle from eXIStmg sewer $3,786,900 $83,800 $389 ,000 

at 5 .mtles from existmg sewer $5,841,800 $95,900 $566,700 

Alternanve SDGS collecnon and small $3,783,700 $18,0006 $322,900 

cluster systems4 

Ons1te systems5 $2,117,100 $59,2406 $229,900 

I Note The frtnl!e commumtv cons1st.s of 1.550 neonle m 443 homes (Includes future growth) 

1

All technology options presented are assumed to have a 30-year hfe span 

2

0&M costs mclude centralized system - treatment chemicals such as chlorme and sulfur d1ox1de energy to run equipment 

such as mixers, pumps, and aerators, and labor clu•,ter system - yearly mspectmns of ons1te components mcludmg sand 

filter quarterly mspectlons of the central leach field 10-year pumpouts of md1V1dual septic tanks, replacement of d1str1but1on 

pump every 10 years ons1te systems - quarterly mspectlons of systems mcludmg septic tanks leach fields and sand filters, 

pumpouts of septic tanks and replacement of dtstnbu1t1on pumps every 10 years the establtshment of an organization to 

provide v.astewater management assumes that mamtl"nance of all ex1stmg and future ons1te systems wtll be performed 

therefore the annual O&M cost estimates mclude costs for new systems as well as existmg onsite systems that are still 

funcuonmg effectively 

3

System type #1 represents conventional gravity colkictmn connected to an extstmg sewer and treatment system that already 

has adequate capacity to handle the add1t10nal load ')ystem type #2 represents conventional gravity collection connected to an 

existing sewer system that already has adequate sewt r capacity but requires expanded treatment capc1ty to handle the 

add1t1onal load For both systems, treatment constst• of an SBR and dismfectmn 

4

lncludes central mterm1ttent sand filters and gravity d1stribut10n to central leach fields 

'Represents ons1te systems conststmg of septic tanks with LPP dtstr1but10n to leach fields for new homes replacement of 

failing ons1te systems with (1) onstte systems conststmg of septic tanks with LPP d1str1but1on to leach fields where soils have 

poor dramage and (2) ons1te systems cons1stmg of septic tanks and sand filters with LPP d1stnbut1on to leach fields where 

water table ts high 

60&M costs for cluster systems are lower than O&M costs for ons1te systems because of the lower labor requirements for 

operatmg and mamtammg a smgle centralized sand fdter and leach field m a cluster system than for opertmg and mamtammg 

up to 443 md1v1dual ons1te sand filters and leach fields 

14 
Rural Commumty Costs - As shown m Table 1, for the rural commumty, the most 

cost-effective option for meetmg performance goals 1s usmg new ons1te systems to replace the 

old ons1te systems that are failmg The newer ons1te systems will mclude low pressure pipe 

d1stnbut1on (LPP) to acrueve effective operation m areas with poor soil dramage, and sand filter 

and LPP m areas with a rugh water table to provide add1t1onal treatment before the effluent 

reaches the water table The use of cluster systems with alternative collection for the frulmg 

ons1te systems 1s not s1gmficantly more expensive, 1f soils were unsuitable for ons1te systems, 

the cluster alternative would be the best choice As the distance between homes m the rural area 

mcreases, however, cluster system collection costs would mcrease Compared to the onslte or 

cluster system options, centralized collection and treatment 1s not cost-effective 

Frmge Commumty Costs - A summary of the estimated costs for the frmge commumty 

1s presented m Table 2, mcludmg total capital costs, annual O&M costs, and the total annual cost 

(1 e , annualized capital plus annual O&M) for each option 

Table 2 shows that for the frmge commumty, m this instance, mstallmg new ons1te 

systems to replace the old ons1te systems that are frulmg and new ons1te systems for new homes 

would be the most cost-effective option However, construction of cluster systems with 

alternative collection might be the preferred option m this type of growing commumty where 

space may be limited for md1vidual ons1te systems In cases where a frmge commumty is 

relatively close to a sewer mterceptor ( e g , 1 mile), and the existmg centralized collection and 

treatment fac1hty can accept the additional wastewater loadmgs, 1t might be cost-effective If a 

frmge commumty 1s located relatively far from a sewer mterceptor ( e g , 5 miles), centralized 

collection and treatment may not be cost-effective, especially if treatment and collection facilities 

require upgradmg to handle add1t10nal flows These results are typical of frmge commumties, 

wruch are often "gray" areas regardmg costs, that 1s, dependmg on their proximity to ex1stmg 

centralized fac1hties and therr population densities, the most cost-effective option for frmge 

commumties often vanes dependmg on site-specific conditions Long term growth also may be 

a factor m deterrmnmg the most appropnate solution Add1t10nally, the ass1milat1ve capacity of 

the rece1vmg environment may hmit the ut1hty of centralized systems that discharge to surface 

waters 

CONCLUSIONS 

Results of the cost analysis md1cate decentralized systems, whether ons1te or cluster 

systems, are generally cost effective means of managmg wastewater m rural commumtles due to 

the distance between homes and labd availability In small commumtles and frmge areas of 

metropolitan cities, the most cost effective solution depends on population density, distance to 

the sewer mterceptor, and availability of land The centralized alternative can be competitive 

with decentralized options m frmge areas, where the distance to the mterceptmg sewer 1s less 

than 5 miles and the rece1vmg water body can accommodate the additional waste load Although 

excluded from this analysis, the relative costs of failure for centralized systems can be far greater, 

grven that all wastewater 1s concentrated at a central location (pomt source) 

15 
Chapter4 

OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING' 

DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT OPTIONS 

Several nnportant bamers currently mlubit the expanded use of decentralized wastewater 

systems, mcludmg 

o Lack of knowledge and 1msperceptio:ti of decentralized systems 

o Statutory and regulatory bamers at the state and local level, mcludmg 

Lack of enablmg legislation 

Legislative authonty that 1s spht between agencies 

Prescnptive regulatory codes 

o Lack of adequate manag1~ment programs for decentralized systems m many 

regions 

o Liabihty and engmeenng~ fee issues 

o Fmancial hmltations 

These bamers, and steps that have or can be taken to overcome them, are discussed 

below 

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND MISPERCEPTION OF DECENTRALIZED SYSTEMS 

Pubhc health officials, engmeers, regulators, system designers, inspectors and developers 

often possess only hmited knowledge of the broad range of decentralized wastewater systems 

because these technologies are not adequately covered m umversity engmeenng cumcula 

Decentralized systems are perceived to be madequate for meetmg specified pubhc health and 

water quality goals Centralized wastewater treatment facilities meet these goals by complymg 

with regulatory and pernut standards ( e g , secondary treatment standards of 30 mg/L TSS and 

BOD) Appropnately sited and adequat1~ly designed and mamtamed, decentrahzed wastewater 

systems can meet pubhc health and water quality goals, as well 

Typically, onsite systems are perceived as the standard septic tank and leach field 

(referred to as conventional onsite systems m this document) However, alternative onsite 

systems mclude other types of decentralrzed systems, such as mound systems or sand filters 

Conventional ons1te systems can pose a threat to ground water, however, these systems can be 

16 
designed to alleviate the threat through retrofittmg existmg treatment trams or with new systems 

that mclude the appropnate umt processes (Anderson et al, 1985, Ayres, 1991, Ball, 1995, 

Boyle, 1995, Cagle and Johnson, 1994, Hmes and Favreau, 19751 Jenssen and S1egnst, 1990, 

Laak, 1986, Piluk and Peters, 1994, Soltman, 1989, Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991) 

Recogruzmg that performance standards should apply to any type of wastewater system, a few 

states, mcludmg Flonda, North Carolma, Washmgton and W1sconsm, have recently begun the 

process of settmg performance standards for decentralized systems 

Homeowners are frequently unmformed about how their convenhonal ons1te systems 

work, how to mamtam them, and about the potential for human health and ecosystem nsks from 

poorly funct1onmg systems The prevailmg public perceptmn of conventional ons1te systems is 

they are mamtenance free Regulators and techrucal professionals may have httle expenence 

with alternative systems because these technologies are not mcluded m their educational 

cumcula and httle effective trallllllg is available 

Another factor blockmg acceptance of decentralized systems is the lack of comprehensive 

performance and cost data, or where data is available, l:Jil evaluation of the results is needed 

EPA' s Innovative and Alternative Technology program yielded a hm1ted number of technology 

evaluations before the program and efforts to conduct assessments ended In 1995, EPA began 

to fund the assessment effort agam EPA-funded assessments and fact sheets on these 

technologies will be published m the near future, but these efforts will mostly cover surface .. water discharge technologies 

Overcommg the Lack of Knowledge Bamer Education is cntical to effective efforts 

to encourage the acceptance and use of decentralized systems Those who choose, design, and 

use these systems need to know that they perform well if properly managed Information on 

what proper management entails should be readily available and widely d1stnbuted Professional 

trallllllg and certification programs should cover regulatory code requirements, system s1tmg, 

s01ls fieldwork, design, construction, morutonng and mamtenance. Federal, state, local, or 

pnvate agencies can provide classroom and m-field trallllllg Six states, Anzona, Missoun, 

North Carolma, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washmgton, currently have trairung programs for 

sarutanans and lllStallers Smee the advent of these programs, state regulatory officials (m North 

Carolina, for example) have allowed the utilization of a much broader array of advanced onsite 

technologies under the condition that these systems are managed by professional, certified 

operators Slmllar trallllllg and certification programs m other states are a necessary precursor to 

broad scale use of decentralized technologies With the participation of nationally recogruzed 

authonties and product manufacturers and the issuance of certificates of competency, these 

programs could produce a well-trained field of regulators and service providers 

In addition, educational matenals for homeowners should explam proper wastewater 

disposal and mamtenance practices and the consequences of system failures Informed, 

responsible homeowners would help ensure that their systems are operated and mamtamed 

17 
properly and they will be more likely to support new management programs Trammg and 

education to mcrease awareness about decentralized wastewater systems should help reduce both 

the number of frulmg systems and adverse rmpacts on ground and surface water 

Establishment of testmg centers for venficat1on of decentralized wastewater treatment 

technologies is expected m the future and can enhance the confidence that these systems will 

perform as designed States would need to agree to accept the testmg results from these centers 

STATE/LOCAL STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BARRIERS 

Decentralized wastewater systems are pnmanly governed by state and local 1unsd1ct1ons 

Only three states do not have specific regulations govemmg decentralized systems (m Cal1forma, 

Georgia, and Michigan, decentralized systems are governed at the local level) (NSFC, 1995 

This reference also provides a matnx of the components of all existmg state regulations for 

decentralized wastewater systems) However, existmg laws and regulations can be barners to 

1mplementmg decentralized systems In many cases, states and/or local1ties· 

o Lack adequate enablmg l~;,g1slation to support proper management of 

decentralized systems 

o Divide the leg1slat1ve autlnonty for public health and water quality protection 

between two or more branches of government, resultmg m mequ1table 

cons1derat1on of centralized and decentralized wastewater options and m 

madequate management of decentralized systems 

o Enact prescnptlve regula1ory codes that narrowly define the types of wastewater 

systems allowed, regardlf ss of the fact that other types of systems can meet 

performance and regulatory standards 

. These regulatory barners as well as recommended changes are discussed below 

Lack of Enablmg Legislation - Agencies responsible for decentralized wastewater 

systems must be vested with the powers necessary to effectively manage them, such as the nght 

to access pnvate property to mspect systiems and correct system malfunctions But state enablmg 

legislation may not refer to decentralized wastewater systems or it may be vague or uncertain 

regardmg legal powers to perform rmportant management functions Llmited or unclear 

authonty can prevent an agency from establishmg a successful management program, which is a 

vital factor m ensunng that decentralized systems do not fail m the future 

Leg1slat1ve Authonty Spht Between Agencies -Typically, state statutes divide legal 

authonty for wastewater systems between state departments of health which are responsible for 

18 
state samtary codes for decentralized wastewater systems, and state departments of 

environmental protection winch are responsible for regulations govermng surface-water 

discharges, issuance ofNPDES permits, mcludmg those for centrahzed wastewater fac1hties, and 

vanous water quahty programs In some states , some aspects of ons1te system regulat10n resides 

with state planmng authont1es or housmg development agencies Thus, legal authonty for the 

two types of systems fall under separate, and confusmg, legal 3unsd1ctlons at a fundamental 

level Regulatory officials responsible for water quality programs lnstoncally have not 

considered decentralized wastewater systems as an acceptable option, and certamly not an option 

of equal stature with centralized facilities for protection of water quality 

Legal authonty often is spbt between state and local governments County governments 

are often delegated the task of developmg and managmg on-site disposal programs Delegation 

of tasks to local entities from state government can and does work for wastewater management 

Wastewater and water quality guidance commg from a smgle, centralized legal authonty winch 

clanfies responsibilities and facilitates selection and management of a centralized and/or 

decentralized system, whichever IS most appropnate for the local circumstances 

Overcommg the Legal Barners Several steps can be taken to develop the reqwsite 

state enablmg legislation and related legal authonty Existmg legislative authonty and 

mstitutional structures should be reviewed and be used, if possible, to rmmrmze costs and 

s1mphfy the regulatory process For example, a simple local code enacted by a mumcipal or 

county health department for regular mspection and pumpmg rmght be adequate to sigmficantly 

reduce onsite system failures m an area Another example is that existmg provisions for 

ground-water, septage, or general rmprovement d1stncts could be used to establish a complete 

management program (Shephard, 1996) 

If, however, existmg legal authonty is msuffic1ent for rmplementmg management 

responsibilities, state laws could be modified to extend the powers of relevant orgamzat1ons ( e g , 

those that already manage centralized wastewater systems or other ut1ht1es) to cover the 

management of decentralized systems, to allow access to pnvate property, or to create new 

management structures with necessary powers 

Some states or commumties have developed or adopted model ordmances or legal 

agreements, such as the state oflowa and the commumty of Kueka Lake, NY (see Appendix E) 

Examples mclude entenng mto service agreements with homeowners for system mamtenance 

(conducted by either a local agency or a pnvat~ contractor), obtammg property easements for 

mspections of decentralized systems, and estabhslnng clear pubbc/pnvate ownership, mspection, 

operation, mamtenance, and financial assurance respons1b1hties for cluster systems Some cases 

may reqwre special legislation that authonzes the creation of new entities (such as management 

d1stncts) with explicit respons1bibt1es for managmg decentralized systems (see "Structure of the 

Management Program" below) Other states should use the model leg1slat1on to measure their 

current leg1slat1on agamst and make ad3ustments as needed 

19 
The best way to clanfy leg1slat1 ve authonty is to consolidate programs for centralized and 

decentrahzed wastewater systems ( e g , m the state environmental protection agency or state 

health agency) Authonty for specific management functions could then be delegated as 

appropnate to regional and local agencies Such consolidation would allow for a comprehensive 

analysis and eqwtable appraisal of wastewater needs and how water quality goals could be best 

met In addition, consolidatmg programs on the state and local levels fosters accountability and 

management program coordmation for decentralized systems, which have heretofore not enjoyed 

much of either 

State and Local Codes Stifle Cons1derat1on of Decentrahzed Systems - State and local 

regulatory codes often prohibit or restnct the use of alternative ons1te systems These codes 

reqwre the presence of a certam type of sotl m order to build Several factors mfluence the 

development of these codes, mcludmg inadequate performance data on alternatives, system 

complexity, and (most of all) lack oftrauned staff 

In addition, some commumt1es have restncted decentralized wastewater systems to 

conventional ons1te systems with large lot requrrements ( e g , 2 to 5 acres) as a way to control 

mcreasmg development densities and "mamtam the character" of a commumty These two 

subjects (ons1te system requrrements and land use) should be kept separate, land use control 

should be performed by zonmg agencies, not public health agencies Without the techmcal or 

fmanc1al resources to evaluate alternatives or provide necessary management, state and local 

governments rely on conventional septic tank/leach field systems and codify 111flex1ble, overly 

conservative spec1ficat1ons that allow only passive, seemmgly "mamtenance-free" designs 

(Shephard, 1996) This approach contmues to delay the need to address the real problem, which 

is the lack of a comprehensive management program for both conventional and alternative 

systems that would ensure therr proper '31tmg, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and 

morutonng With such management, systems could be assessed and selected accordmg to therr 

ab1hty to meet regional and local performance standards and therr smtab1hty for s1te-spec1fic 

conditions 

Obtrunmg case-by-case variances from these restnct1ve regulatory codes 1s usually a 

cumbersome and expensive process When a failmg ons1te septic system needs to be retrofitted 

or replaced quickly to protect public he.ilth and the environment, timely approval for an 

alternative system is unlikely The resuJt is contmued use of an meffective septic tank/leach field 

system or an expensive expansion of a c entrahzed system 

Overcommg the Regulatory Barners The prescnpt1ve regulatory approach (1 e , with 

state or local regulations prescnbmg sp<•c1fic types of systems and design parameters for sites 

meeting m1rumurn conditions) current!)' followed m most states generally works only for sites 

with "ideal" soil and water cond1t1ons In reality, however, most sites have less-than-ideal 

conditions 

20 
To address varymg site condit10ns, a few commuruties have established a combmation of 

prescnptive- and performance-based approaches They allow prescnptive designs for sites where 

conventional septic-tank/leach field systems can function properly Performance standards are 

used for sites with limitmg soil and water conditions ( e g , high ground-water tables, 

low-permeability s01ls, madequate soil depth), for environmentally sensitive areas ( e g , coastal 

bays), m locations expenencmg rapid development, and m areas where regional pollution 

problems already exist 

Some changes m the regulatory approval process that facilitate the use of decentralized 

systems have occurred or are underway For example, a few state or local codes ( e g , m 

Kentucky, North Carolma and West Virglilla) now mclude provisions allowing specific types of 

alternative systems, such as mounds or sand filters (although their use may be allowed only 

under certain conditions) A few states are also settmg performance standards that would allow 

designers to select any type of system, as long as it is proven to meet the standards These 

standards should specify the quality of the effluent discharged to the groundwater for all types of 

decentralized systems 

It should be noted, however, that some states attempting to set performance standards 

have been sued by mvolved parties who view the performance standards (which are equivalent to 

discharge standards) for new decentralized systems as too strmgent State officials and the 

regulated commurut1es are currently re-evaluating specific standards The problem has ansen 

because performance standards are not necessanly eqmvalent to effluent standards In the case 

of surface discharge, where a centralized wastewater system discharges directly to surface water, 

the performance standards set for the facility are the same as the effluent quality standards For 

decentralized systems that discharge to ground water, however, performance standards will be 

different from fmal effluent standards The standard must account for the soil providmg 

additional treatment before the wastewater reaches the ground water, the ground water quality 

and use, and the pomt of momtonng 

LACK bF ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 

Few commuruties have developed orgamzational structures for managmg decentralized 

wastewater systems, although such programs are required for centralized wastewater facilities 

and for other services ( e g , electnc, telephone, water, etc ) Instead, state regulations prescnbe 

the specifications and design of decentralized systems, and enforcement of these regulations falls 

to local agencies, often with limited authonty, expertise, and staff Inconsistent laws and pohc1es 

have resulted m large, urban centralized wastewater fac1ht1es bemg effectively managed, while 

small, rural decentralized wastewater systems are frequently unmanaged 

The expenence of many commuruties has shown, however, that to protect ground and 

surface water, decentralized systems, whether for mdiv1dual or multiple dwellmgs, must be 

1managed from site evaluation and design, through the hfe of the system For md1v1dual 

21 
dwellings, homeowners are respons1bl€• for managmg their systems Inadequate operation and a 

lack of routme mamtenance for these systems have led to system failures and the resultmg 

perception that decentralized systems ru e less reliable than centralized fac1ht1es 

An unportant objective of a management program for decentralized wastewater systems 

is to ensure that the systems perform sat1sfactonly over their service lives In the past decade, 

some government officials and pnvate <.1tizens have begun to address the problem of fa1hng 

septic systems m the context of water quality protection, rather than merely as part of pnvate real 

estate transactions Tlns smft m perspective remforces the need for commumties to develop 

comprehensive management programs for decentralized systems 

The mcentives for estabhshing proactive management programs for decentralized 

wastewater systems mclude better ons1te system performance and environmental protection, 

extended hfe of the system, s1gmficant 1:ost savmgs, plannmg flex1b1hty, assistance for md1v1dual 

homeowners and developers m meeting requirements, and economic benefits accrumg from the 

use of local contractors (Shephard, 1996) 

Figure 2 depicts the typical functions of a wastewater management program, which 

mclude system plannmg, legal and financial needs and respons1b1htles, program coordmation, 

superv1s1on, of lllStallatlon, operation and mamtenance requirements, public part1c1patlon and 

education, mspectlon schedules and morntonng programs The planning process for wastewater 

management is descnbed m Appendix B 

Generally, operation and mamtenance requirements for decentralized systems are less 

complex, and less costly, than operation and mamtenance requirements for centralized systems 

Overcommg the Lack of Mam1gement Barners - Management programs should be 

developed on state, regional, or local levels, as appropnate, to ensure that decentralized 

wastewater systems are sited, designed, lllStalled, operated, and mamtamed properly and that 

they continue to meet public health and water quality performance standards 

Structure of the Management Program Selectmg a Management Agency - The structure 

of a management program depends on the functions to be performed and the resources of the 

commuruty The 1nst1tutlonal structure should mclude mecharnsms for proposmg and enforcmg 

regulations, performmg system lllSpectmns and mamtenance, and momtonng program 

performance 

Many small commumties have unpaid or part-tune officials with no techmcal knowledge 

m wastewater management and IDimmal expenence workmg with other levels of government 

Therefore, the success or failure of a management program for decentralized wastewater systems 

may depend s1gmficantly on the ch01ce of a management agency Once a commuruty defines 

specific functions needed to support system operation, 1t has to determme whether ex1stmg 

22 
Identify ap9Cf!lc mena99ment e119ncy I• e soecral dlsrnc:t municroal 

aulhonty 

S1a1e 399 

and .ndic 

munoc1oa1 qovemmenr cou111y aiqe11<:,.s regoonal a99ncies 

11<:195 Fe'.l11<a1 a<;enc1e5 l)rNale or9a111za1ro11s and ofl\er grouosl 

aret resoons•Od hes Of each agency 

~ 

P!annln~ Admlnlatrlltlon 

Pan oreoararron 

?•an <>view coorc1nar1on 

Hesearc., anc ceveiooment 

Qtl1ce ana statt management 

Site Evaluation 

Gu1Cehnes ana Cfl!erra 

::: _,a1uar1on cenrticauon 

:;,1te su11ao1111y ana1ys1s 

System Design 

Srancarcs and cnter•a 

iJesioner certrtrcatron 

::>vs em ces1on 

Oes•on review 

~~ ,..,,, ssuarice 

Installation 

Construction suoervrsron 

1nsta11er cert1rrca11on 

'1ecora Keeorno 

r-<>rm1t issuance 

Operation and ... lnt8mlnce 

Proceaures anc reou1a11ons 

Ooer ator/tnsoecror cert111ca11on 

Houune rnsoectrons 

~.,,eroencv rnsoectrons 

::>vstem reoair1reo1acement 

Heoarr suoerv1s1on 

r-ertormance cemt1cat1on 

System ownersn10 

Rnlduals Disposal 

D1soosal reoulat1ons 

Hauler certu1cat1on 

Aecora keeo1nq 

Eou1oment 1nsoec11ons 

Facrhtv 1nsoec11ons 

Facility operation 

Financing 

Secure tundmo 

Ser cnarces 

Collect cnarges 

Monltortng 

Aeoortrno svstem 

::;amoung 

Public Educsdon 

Develoo metnods 

Drssemrnate 1nrorma1Jon 

Respond to rompta1nts 

~ 

-

Figure 2 Management Program Functions for Decentralized Wastewater Systems 

23 
orgaruzatJ.ons have the statutory authonty and resources to carry out these functJ.ons If existmg 

mstJ.tutJ.ons lack certam legal powers, leg1slat1ve mod1ficatJ.ons may be necessary (see 

"Regulatory Barners" above) 

Several types of management aJTangements are possible, which may mvolve existmg 

local agencies, pnvate orgaruzatJ.ons, oir a combmatJ.on of agencies and orgaruzatJ.ons, as 

descnbed m Appendix C In some cas( s, such as where wastewater management crosses 

JunsdictJ.onal boundanes, coordmated plannmg and sharmg of natural, financial, and human 

resources may be necessary, possibly through mter-Junsd1ctJ.onal agreements Ex1stmg or 

planned water protection programs may be a logical place to mcorporate wastewater 

management programs Different types of entJ.tJ.es can provide management services mcludmg 

local government, pnvate mdustry, and m some rural areas, management by rural electnc 

cooperatJ.ves is bemg considered (see Appendix F) 

Fmancmg the Management Pro1~am - Effective management will mcrease the cost of 

decentralized wastewater systems, which currently have httle, madequate, or no management m 

many areas A vanety offinancmg opttons commonly used by ut1htJ.es and other service 

providers may be adapted to decentralued systems, however, not all management entJ.tJ.es have 

the legal authonty to rmplement each optJ.on The management entJ.ty selected may determme 

the type offinancmg available (1 e, wh1ether the program will be ehg1ble for federal or state 

grants, whether taxing 1s an option, or whether user fees can be collected) 

Commonly used financmg mechanisms apphcable to wastewater management systems 

mclude 

0 User fees 0 Connection fees 

0 Service fees 0 Special tax assessments 

0 Property taxes 0 Federal, state, or pnvate grants or loans 

0 PumtJ.ve fees 0 License fees 

0 Permit fees 

Some states and commumt1es are also usmg creative fundmg mechanisms for water 

quality protectJ.on such as tobacco taxes, lottery revenues or license plate programs that could be 

used to partially fund ons1te programs, c~spec1ally retrofittmg ex1stJ.ng systems 

The issue of ehg1b1hty for pubh1~ fundmg 1s discussed below m 11Fmanc1al Barners " 

Management programs for decentralized wastewater systems should, 1f possible, mclude a 

reserve fund to cover management functions and to alleviate some of the hab1hty issues 

discussed below 

24 
LIABILITY AND ENGINEERING FEE ISSUES 

One of the factors that has impeded the acceptance and use of mnovative and alternative 

ons1te systems 1s the potential nsk of mstallmg systems that do not perfurm as anticipated Due 

to this nsk, regulators have, m many cases, not proVIded an envrronment that 1s conducive to 

trymg out new systems In some cases, the requrrements to mstall and operate such systems are 

so admrmstrat1vely or economically burdensome (e g, redundant systems) that they mhib1t new 

or expenmental solutions As a result, homeowners or developers are often unw1llmg to accept 

the hab1hty mcurred with alternative systems In the 1970s and 1980s, EP A's Innovative and 

Alternative (l&A) Technology Program provided grants of up to 100 percent of the cost for 

mod1fymg or replacmg I/ A systems that failed to perform accordmg to their design standards 

The l&A program was termmated m 1990, and the current Clean Water State Revolvmg Fund 

program contams no similar "modification and replacement" prov1s1on Thus this type of nsk 

msurance no longer exists for the use of decentralized wastewater systems (GAO, 1994) In 

addition, the issue of hab1hty has been raised m vanous commumt1es where the use of 

decentralized cluster systems appears appropnate Small commumtles are thus hesitant to 

choose these systems, despite therr apparent advantages 

Engmeers also face fmanc1al d1smcent1ves m des1gnmg lower cost decentralized systems 

smce engmeers' fees are sometimes based on a percentage of the project cost 

Overcommg the L1ab1bty and Fee Barrier Liab1hty can be addressed within the 

context of a management program, which can establish ongomg operat10n and mamtenance 

programs to prevent system failures and mechanisms for covenng failures should they occur 

( e g , through federal or commercial msurance programs or escrow of a designated portion of 

system fees) Engmeers can also obtam hab1hty msurance Engmeenng fees should be based on 

cost-plus-fixed-fee or lump-sum approaches 

FINANCIAL BARRIERS PUBLIC GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAMS 

Traditionally, EPA grants and loans for the construction of wastewater treatment fac1hties 

are available only to public entities In such cases, if a commumty wishes to seek such fundmg, 

the management agency for decentralized wastewater systems must be a pubhc agency Pnvate 

entities such as pnvate contractors, mdividual homeowners, and homeowners' associations would 

not be ehg1ble, except under certam provisions of the Clean Water Act that allow federal funds to 

be used for specific non-pomt source pollution management programs Also, states have 

typically given fundmg pnonty to larger commumties with more costly wastewater needs over 

smaller commumties with lower-cost needs Thus smaller commurutles typically are the last 

ones to receive wastewater fundmg assistance and often do not receive these types of funds In 

addition, costs for planmng purposes and for state review may be higher with alternative systems 

25 
than for conventional systems As a res.ult, financially strapped small commwntles are not able 

or are reluctant to mcur additional costs without financial assistance At the same time, most 

small commumties are not informed of how to pursue outside fundmg sources 

Overcommg the Fmanc1al Bai riers There are other federal sources of fundmg for 

pubhc as well as pnvate entitles The US Department of Agriculture's Rural Utility Service 

provides fundmg through the Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant program to pubhc 

entities, Indian tnbes, and orgamzat10ns operated on a not-for-profit basis, such as an 

association, cooperative, or pnvate corporation 

Public grant and loan funds for wastewater management should be ut1hzed to a greater 

extent to manage decentralized wastewcLter systems where ehg1ble (1 e, the Rural Utilities 

Service's fundmg program, EPA's Harclslnp Grants program, the Clean Water SRF program for 

nonpomt source control and the CW A section 319 program) Commumty officials should be 

educated on the these ehg1b1ht1es 

26 
Chapters 

EPA'S ABILITY AND PLANS TO IMPLEMENT 

DECENTRALIZED TREATMENT SYSTEMS 

BACKGROUND 

Over the past 20 years, EPA has put considerable resources mto helpmg small 

commumties meet their wastewater needs Th.ts has been accomplished m many ways -- public 

education, techmcal assistance, technology transfer, research, demonstrat!ons, and financmg It 

has been accomplished directly by EPA and state staff, and mdirectly through federal fundmg of 

the many associations that have come together to support small commumty needs Most of the 

outreach, which mcludes techmcal assistance and educat10n has been grouped under the umbrella 

of EP A's Small Commumty Outreach and Education Program (SCORE) While EPA personnel 

have provided some direct techmcal assistance to small commumties, EPA has pnmanly 

leveraged state outreach programs through grants and other assistance activities In addition, 

assistance to other techmcal service provtders foster activities such as development and 

distnbution of educational matenals, telephone consultation, classroom trammg and field 

~s1stance and trammg In recent years, EPA' s outreach program has been expanded to mclude 

special populations such as Native Amencan Tnbes and low mcome ''colomas" along the U S -

Mexico border 

This section responds to both areas raised by the House Appropnations Committee 

concermng EPA' s ability to implement the· alternatives withm the current statutory and 

regulatory structure, and EPA's plans for implementation usmg fiscal year 1997 funds 

Descnbed below are ongomg and planned activities and programs conducted by EPA or with 

EPA assistance, which provide a framework for rmplementmg alternatives such as decentralized 

treatment systems 

FUNDING 

The Construction Grants Program reqmred all but 4 or 5 states to set aside 4 percent of 

their annual allotments for commumties with populations of 3,500 or less to be used only for 

alternatives to conventional sewage treatments works (Sec 205(h)) Many of these commumties 

have treatment facilities which serve as demonstrations of decentralized technology Last year, 

EPA 1mtiated a program to conduct assessments of many lllllovative technologies funded under 

the Construction Grants program, and any other new technologies which have been put mto use 

more recently These assessments will contmue over the next several years As the assessments 

are completed, the mformation will be provided to our customers m vanous formats from 

techmcal reports to fact sheets to pamphlets 

27 
Although there is no specific se1 aside for small commumt1es or alternative systems m the 

Clean Water State Revolvmg Fund program (SRF), decentralized technologies are ehg1ble for 

fundmg EPA staff are aware of decentralized systems funded by the SRF around the country 

In Pennsylvania, local banks process SRF loans for homeowners which fund ons1te systems 

Minnesota has developed the Clean Water Partnership Program that has provided funds to 

Brown, Nicollet and Cottonwood counties to re-loan to homeowners for conventional ons1te 

system replacements SRF fundmg has also provided assistance to the Osala.s Lake Project to 

replace fruhng systems around Osala.s Lake The state ofWashmgton provides SRF loans to 

local loan funds These funds m tum provide loans to homeowners and small busmesses for the 

rehab1htat1on or reconstruction of ons1t~· systems Ohio, Virgrma and West Virg1ma are 

developmg SlIDllar programs 

In an effort to expand the types of projects funded by the SRF, EPA issued the "Clean 

Water State Revolvmg Fund Fundmg Framework" m October 1996 This document was 

developed m conjunction with state SRF partners to clanfy the ehg1ble uses of SRF funds and 

provide tools to establish relative pnon11es among water quality projects States are encouraged 

to assess water quality problems on a wa.tershed basis and develop mtegrated pnonty settmg 

processes With the expansion of the SRF to cover activities mcluded m EPA approved nonpomt 

source management plans, onsite treatment projects have a much greater potential for fundmg by 

the SRF EPA plans to sponsor trrumng workshops to further educate the nonpomt source 

commumty about the SRF as a potential source of fundmg for nonpomt source projects 

(mcludmg ons1te systems) and fac1htate coordmation with the state SRF programs 

Demonstration grants have also been issued to six states to develop mtegrated pnonty settmg 

systems that can be used as models by states 

Recogmzmg that several federal agencies provide funds for wastewater collection and 

treatment, EPA is part1c1patmg man effort with USDA's Rural Utility Service and HUD to 

provide fundmg to commumti~s m a more efficient and less burdensome manner Improved 

coordmat1on and cooperation between the Agencies will mclude 

o Coordmatmg fundmg cycles and selection systems on a State-by-State basis, 

o Promotmg the use of a lead agency for JOmtly fmanced projects, where smtable, to 

receive and review environmental review documents and ensure compliance with Federal 

cross-cuttmg legislation, and 

o Encouragmg the use of a smgle aLpphcatlon on a State-by-State basis to address similar 

data requirements 

A memorandum outlrmng this effort, to be signed by the three Agencies, 1s bemg prepared 

Follow-up act10ns to implement these improvements will be undertaken m fiscal years 1997 and 

1998 

28 
Most recently, EPA issued guidelmes for a new $50 nulhon Hardslup Grants Program for 

Rural Commumt1es To qualify for hardslup assistance a grantee must be a rural commumty 

with a population of 3 ,000 or fewer, lack centralized wastewater collection or treatment, have a 

per capita mcome less than 80% of the national average, and have an unemployment rate of one 

percent or more above the national rate Tins program is designed to be managed m conJunct1on 

with the SRF program to make wastewater treatment more affordable to rural, economically 

disadvantaged commumtles The Hardslup Grant funds can be used to plan, design and construct 

publicly-owned wastewater treatment works and/or provide trammg programs for sanitarians 

related to the operation and mamtenance of such systems Although no grants have yet been 

made to commumt1es, 1t is expected that many commumt1es rece1vmg hardslup grants will have 

fa1lmg septic tanks Decentralized systems may be viewed as the most economical treatment 

option for- dispersed, rural commumt1es Examples of techmcal assistance that may be provided 

to commumtles are over-the-shoulder trammg, educational semmars, and assistance with 

development of local management d1stncts States that take advantage of tlus program can make 

strides toward elinunatmg the barners identified earlier m tlus response Fmanc1al assistance 

under tlus program will be provided to qualtfymg commurut1es durmg fiscal years 1997 and 

1998 

CW A Section 319 program grants are also available to assist States m implementing 

approved nonpomt source management programs Section 319 grants have been used to support 

numerous projects that relate to decentralized system program 1mplementat1on and technology 

demonstrat10ns Examples of projects that have been funded through Sect10n 319 mclude 

Demonstration of Alternative Ons1te Systems, Mamtenance of Ons1te Constructed Wetlands, 

Analysis ofOns1te Sewage System Impacts on Groundwater Quality, Ons1te Septic System 

Demonstration and Trammg, Septic System Survey, Septic System Inventory and Inspection 

Education Program, and Evaluat10n and Upgrades of Ons1te Systems 

OUTREACH, TRAINING AND EDUCATION 

In addition to the ongomg outreach efforts conducted by EPA staff, several s1gruficant 

efforts, descnbed below, are underway and will contmue, wluch provide techmcal assistance to 

small commumt1es 

Smee 1979, EPA has funded the National Small Flows Clearinghouse, at West V1rgrma 

Uruvers1ty m Morgantown The Clearmghouse 1s the national repository and referral service for 

the transfer of mformat1on on decentralized, onsite, alternative collection and small treatment 

technologies and serves as a model for several other countnes wluch are mterested m 

estabhslung s1m1lar programs The Clearinghouse services mclude (1) a toll-free techmcal 

assistance hot hne which answers over 3,000 assistance calls per month, (2) product d1stnbut10n, 

wluch mvolves fillmg over 1,000 orders monthly for 10,000 pubhcat10ns, articles, reports, and 

videotapes, (3) pubhcat1on of two newsletters and a professional Journal reaclung over 7,000 

subscnbers, (4) several national computer data bases on small commuruty wastewater technology 

29 
and regulations, and (5) a site on the World Wide Web The Cleannghouse has a wealth of 

mformation available that can provide state and local regulators with the means to change laws 

and make techmcal decisions Example•s include (a) maintaimng a database and summary of all 

state regulations relating to onsite systems, (b) a recent survey of all health departments m the 

nation, identifying such information as the number of households served by conventional onsite 

systems, how many are failmg, and wh,1t local regulations apply, (c) establishing a database on 

the testing of vanous onsite technologies conducted by six states in New England, and will also 

facihtatmg commumcation among the states regardmg the testing results The Cleannghouse 

services are being used more and more each year 

The Small Towns Environment Program (STEP) was funded several years ago through a 

grant to Rensselaerville Institute as a grass-roots, self-help program STEP encourages the use of 

small alternative wastewater systems and calls for citizens to perform many functions the 

commumty would otherwise pay outsiders to do 

EPA also funds an orgamzation based at West Virgima Umversity, the National 

Environmental Traimng Center for Small Commumties (NETCSC) This center supports 

environmental tramers nationwide through development and delivery of traimng cumcula and 

traimng oftramers Services also include a toll-free telephone line, quarterly news letter, and a 

traimng resource center with computer databases Several courses have been developed on 

wastewater topics, mcludmg onsite and decentralized treatment Examples include "Assessing 

Wastewater Options for Small Commwuties", "Basics of Environmental Systems Management", 

"Onsite Wastewater System Operation and Maintenance", and "Operation of Sand Filters" 

Some state organizations have already taken responsibility for onsite traimng Presently 

at least six states have an orgamzation with a center for traimng personnel associated with 

1nstalhng and regulatmg onsite wastew,1ter systems (Anzona, Missoun, North Carolina, Rhode 

Island, Texas and Washington) EPA rc::cently awarded a grant to the NSFC for establishment of 

a new ons1te traimng center in Vermont 

TECHNOLOGY AND DEMONSTRATIONS 

EP A's technology and demonstration programs have fostered and collaborated with 

others over the past 25 years to provide many of the techmcal guidance matenals available today 

Listed below is a summary of work that is currently underway 

o The National Onsite Demonstration Project is a three-phased, $3 5 million program to 

demonstrate alternative onsite wastewater systems Funded by EPA through the NSFC, 

this program mcludes construction and momtonng of demonstration facilities, 

commumty education programs, technology transfer and bmldmg the capacity of states to 

rmplement appropnate systems This project started in 1993 and is expected to be 

30 
completed m the year 2000 Demonstration projects have been started m 12 commurut1es m 10 

states 

o EPA 1s m the process of updatmg two of its design manuals "Design Manual for Ons1te 

Systems" and "Design Manual for Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment 

Systems" The Design Manual for Ons1te Wastewater Systems 1s currently under 

development and 1s expected to be published m 1998 The manual on constructed 

wetlands wdl be completed withm the next year A manual on Small Commuruty 

Technologies was recently updated 

o Several grants have been awarded, m the past two years, under the Environmental 

Technology Imtiative, to design and demonstrate ons1te technologies These projects will 

be gettmg underway this year and the results will be made available within a couple of 

years, when demonstrations are completed 

o A grant to develop a research agenda for the field of ons1te wastewater treatment and to 

begm some targeted research efforts 1s currently bemg prepared for award sometrme later 

this year This grant should help to coordmate research and uncover s1gmficant needs 

that are currently bemg rmssed 

o W1thm EPA, d1scuss1ons are bemg held to establish a small commuruty wastewater 

technology testmg and venfication program under the Environmental Technology 

Venficat1on (ETV) program ETV is a new program to venfy the performance of 

mnovative techmcal solutions to problems that threaten human health or the environment 

This would allow manufacturers of ons1te system technologies to obtam mdependent 

testmg of their technologies It would also allow state and local authonties to know that 

the technologies will meet acceptable standards 

o EP A's ground water program m cooperation with the wastewater program 1s currently 

developmg a gwdance manual for large septic systems, a type of decentralized treatment 

This guidance is also under fmal quality review at this trme and will be published by the 

end of the year 

o Outside EPA, and without EPA funds several demonstrations of technologies are also 

bemg conducted Five ons1te demonstration projects are bemg 1mtiated this year by the 

Pennsylvama State Rural Electnc Cooperative Association The State of North Carolma 

has numerous demonstration act1v1ties focused on decentralized and ons1te treatment 

EPA will utilize these demonstrations m assessmg new technologies Also the NSFC 1s 

estabhshmg a database which will serve as a repository of mformat1on on all projects 

demonstratmg ons1te wastewater technology 

31 
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 

EPA plans to collaborate with oiher federal agencies to develop gm.dance to assist 

commurutles to implement management systems One such gmdance document has been 

developed titled, "On-site Wastewater Management and Protection of Sensitive Receivmg Water 

Systems Plannmg for Opporturut1es " EPA also plans to promote the development of 

decentralized management programs winch are based on performance goals Under this effort~ 

EPA plans to provide analytical tools and guidance to assist state and local governments m 

rev1smg and updatmg decentralized sys1 em programs 

The Office of Water has promoted the watershed concept over the past several years to 

move toward the place-dnven approach which will give holistic attention to ecosystems This 

approach places the focus of watershed pollution abatement needs on the clean-up act1v1tles 

which will allow watersheds to meet the: rr designated uses Some watershed analyses have 

identified ons1te systems as sources of pollution 

EPA is collaboratmg with other federal,, state and local agencies as well as private 

partners, to achieve the ultrmate goal of a healthy ecosystem m these watersheds Many of the 

tools needed to accomplish this work already exist, although additional tools will be developed 

They will have to be applied by the stat~· and local authorities to solve the pollution problems that 

rem am 

Once completed, the Office of Water will transrmt this response to EPA Regional offices, 

State agencies, the National Rural Electnc Cooperative Association, and other stakeholders and 

encourage them to take follow-up actions, as appropriate, to promote improved management and 

operat10n of decentralized wastewater treatment systems 

32 
REFERENCES 

Abney, J 1976 Fountam Run, Kentucky (C&Se Study) Parrot, Ely, & Hurt March 1976 

Anderson, D , R Siegrist, a,nd R Otis 1985 Technology Assessment of Intermittent Sand 

Ftlters EPA/832/R-85/100 

Ayres & Associates, Inc 1991 Onsite Nitrogen Removal Systems Research/Demonstrat10n 

Pro3ect Phase I Report Prepared for the Wisconsm Department of Industry, Labor and 

Human Relat10ns, Madison, WI 

Arenovski, A and F Shephard 1996 A Massachusetts Guide to Needs Assessment and 

Evaluation of Decentrahzed Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Ad Hoc Task Force for 

Decentrahzed Wastewater Management 

Ball, H 1995 Nitrogen Reduct10n man Onsite Tricklmg Fllter/Upflow Filter System In 

Proc 8th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition 

Uruversity of Washmgton, Seattle, WA, pp 259-268 

Boyle, W 1995 Nitrogen Removal from Domestic Wastewater m Unsewered Areas In 

Proc 8th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Eqmpment Exh.J.bition 

Uruversity of Washmgton, Seattle, WA, pp 237-258 

Cagle, W and Johnson, L 1994 On-Site Intermittent Sand Fiiter Systems, A 

Regulatory/Scientific Approach to their Study m Placer County, Cahforma In Proc 7th Nat 

Symp on Individual and Small Commuruty Sewage Systems American Society of 

Agricultural Engmeers, St Joseph, MI, pp 283-291 

C1otoh, P and K Wiswall 1982 Management of On-site and Small Commuruty Wastewater 

Systems Roy Weston, Inc , for U S EPA, Murucipal Environmental Research Laboratory, 

Cmcmnati, OH 

Gearheart, RA, Flililey, B , and McKee, M 1994 Water and Wastewater Treatment 

Technologies Appropriate for Reuse (WATTAR) Humboldt State Uruversity, Arcata 

Cahforma, October 1994 

Hmes, J and R Favreau 1975 Recirculatmg Sand Filter An Alternative to Traditional 

Sewage Absorption Systems In Proc Nat Home Sewage Disposal Symp , Chicago, IL 

American Society of Agricultural Engmeers 

Hoover, MT and MA Renkow 1997 (In review) Techmcal Specifications for the COSMO 

33 
onsite System Cost Estimat10n Tool College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North 

Carolma State Umvers1ty, Raleigh, NC 27695 

Jenssen, P and R S1egnst 1990 Technology Assessment of Wastewater Treatment by Soll 

Infiltrat10n Systems In Wat Sci Tech, Vol 22 (3/4) 83-92 

Laalc, R 1986 The RUCK System In Proc Workshop on Appropriate Envrronmental 

Engmeermg TEchnolog1es for Rural Areas Under Adverse Cond1t1ons, CWRS TEchmcal 

Umvers1ty of Nova Scotia 

Lewis, J 1986 EPA's Construction Grants Program A History In EPA Journal, Vol 12, 

No 9, November 

NSFC 1995 A Guide to State-Level Ons1te Regulat10ns NSFC-WWBKRGOl National 

Small Flows Clearmghouse, Morgantown, WV 

Otis, D 1996 Memorandum "Cluster System Costs", December 1996 

Ptluk, R and E Peters 1994 Small Recrrculatmg Sand Filters for lnd1v1dual Homes In 

Proc 7th Nat Symp on lnd1v1dual and Small Commumty Sewage Systems Amencan 

Society of Agncultural Engmeers, St Joseph, Ml, pp 310-318 

Renkow, M and Hoover, M 1996 Costs of Ons1te Management Opt10ns (COSMO) Model 

North Carolma State Umversity, Raleigh, North Carolina 

Shephard, F 1996 Managmg Wastewater Prospects m Massachusetts for a Decentrahzed 

Approach Ad hoc Task Force for De1::entralized Wastewater Management 

Smith, Robert 1978 Memorandum "Cost of Convent10nal Gravity Sewers and Centrahzed 

Treatment m Small Commumties", Robert Smith, Chlef, Systems and Economic Analysis 

Branch, U S EPA, June 21,_1978 

Soltman, J 1989 Sand Ftlter Performance An Overview of Sand Filter Performance m 

Washmgton and Oregon In Proc 6th Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment Short 

Course and Eqmpment Exhlbit10n, Umvers1ty of Washmgton, Seattle, WA, pp 271-287 

Tchobanoglous, G and F Burton 1991 Wastewater Engmeermg Treatment, Disposal, and 

Reuse Metcalf & Eddy, Inc McGraw-Hill, Inc 

U S EPA n d A Survey of Alternative Collection Systems m EPA Region IV Region IV 

Water Management D1v1sion, Technology Transfer Umt 

34 
US EPA 1991 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems Manual EPA/625/1-91/024, 

U S Envrronmental Protectmn Agency, Office of Research and Development, Cmcmnati, 

Omo 1 

U S EPA 1993 1992 Needs Survey Report to Congress Office of Water, Washmgton, 

DC EPA 832-R-93-002 

US GAO 1994 Water Pollutmn Information on the Use of Alternative Wastewater 

Treatment Systems Report to the Subcommittee on Investigatmns and Oversight General 

Accountmg Office, Washmgton, DC 

U S OMB (Office of Management and Budget) 1996 Economic Analysis of Federal 

Regulatmns, Executive Order 12866, January 11, 1996 

35 

Appendl.XA 

Defimtmn of Terms and Descnpt10ns of Wastewater Systems 

DEFINITIONS 

Activated Sludge A wastewater treatment process that uses suspended microorgamsms to digest the 

orgamc contents of wastewater (see "Suspended Growth Systems' m the Description of Wastewater 

Systems" section below) 

Alternative onszte system An onsit treatment system other than a conventional septic tank and leach field 

design Alternative systems are used to accommodate a variety of site conditions (e g, high ground water, 

low-permeability soil) and/or to provide additional treatment Examples of alternative systems mclude 

alternative collect10n sewers, sand mounds, sand filters, anaerobic filters, dISmfect1on systems, and cluster 

systems, among others, as described m "Descnpt1ons of Wastewater Systems" 

Alternative Sewers Low-cost wastewater collection systems for small commun1t1es and/or areas with 

difficult topography or high ground water or bedrock Alternative sewers are smaller m size than 

conventional sewers and are mstalled at shallower depth, prov1dmg a more cost-effective method of 

wastewater collection The three mam classes of alternative sewers are pressure sewers, small diameter 

gravity sewers, and vacuum sewers 

Black Water Wastewater from the toilet, which contams most of the mtrogen m sewage 

BOD B1ochem1cal Oxygen Demand (BOD) ts the measure of the amount of oxygen required by bactena 

for stabdlZlllg matenal that can be decomposed under aerobic cond1t10ns BOD is a commonly used 

determmant of the orgamc strength of a waste 

Centralized System A collect1on and treatment system contammg collection sewers and a centralized 

treatment facility Centralized systems are used to collect and treat large volumes of wastewater The 

collection system typically requires large-ruameter deep pipes, major excavat10n, and frequent manhole 

access At the treatment facility, the wastewater ts treated to standards required for discharge to a surface 

water body The large amounts ofb•osolids (sludge) generated m treatment are treated and either land 

applied, placed on a surface disposal site, or mcmerated 

Class V Well A shallow waste disposal well, stormwater and agnculture dramage system, or other device, 

mcludmg a large domestic ons1te wastewater system, that ts used to release flmds above or mto 

underground sources of drtnkmg water EPA permits these wells to IDJect wastes provided they meet 

certam requirements and do not endanger underground sources of drtnkmg water 

Cluster System A decentralized wastewater collection and treatment system where two or more dwellmgs, 

but less than an entire community, is served The wastewater from several homes often ts pretreated ons1te 

by md1v1dual septic tanks before bemg transported through alternative sewers to an off-site nearby 

treatment umt that ts relatively stmple to operate and mamtam than centralized systems 

Conventional Onszte System A conventional ons1te system mcludes a septic tank and a leach field 

Decentralzzed System An onsite or cluster wastewater system that is used to treat and dispose ofrelat1vely 

small volumes of wastewater, generally from dwellmgs and busmesses that are located relatively close 

together Ons1te and cluster systems are also commonly used m combmat1on 

Ejjluent Partially or fully treated wastewater flowmg from a treatment unit or facihty 

Eutrophzcatzon A process by which nutnent-nch surface water or ground water contributes to stagnant, 

oxygen-poor surface-water environments which may be detnmental to aquatic hfe 

A-1 
Facultatzve Pond A lagoon that 1s sufficiently deep (1 e , 5 to 6 feet) where organic sohds settle to the 

bottom as sludge and decay anaerobically, a hqmd layer forms above the sludge where facultat1ve and 

aerobic bactena ox1d1ze the incoming organics and products of anaerobic sludge decompos1t1on 

Fecal Coliform Bacterza Common, harmless forms ofbactena that are normal ~onstltuents of human 

intestines and found in human waste and rn wastewater Fecal cohfonh bacteria counts are used as an 

indicator of presence ofpathogemc microbes 

Gray Water Non-tmlethousehold wastewater (e g, from smks, showers, etc) 

Leachmg Field See "Subsurface Sod Absorptmn Field" 

Management of Decentralized Systems The centralized management and momtonng of ons1te or cluster 

wastewater systems, including, but not I1m1ted to, planning, construction, operatmn, mamtenance, and 

financing programs 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimmatwn System (NPDES) A regulatory system that requires wastewater 

treatment systems discharging into surface waters to obtain a permit from the EPA which specifies effluent 

quality 

Nonpomt Source Discharges Relatively diffuse contammat1on onginating from many small sources 

whose locations may be poorly defined Ons1te wastewater systems are one type ofNonpoint source 

discharge 

Onsite System A natural system or mechamcal device used to collect, treat, and discharge or recla1m 

wastewater from an ind1v1dual dwelling w11hout the use of commumty-w1de sewers or a centrahzed 

treatment facility A conventmnal ons1te system mcludes a septic tank and a leach field Other alternative 

types of ons1te systems mclude at-grade sy•.tems, mound systems, sand filters and small aerobic umts 

These and other types of ons1te systems are descnbed m the "Descnptmn of Wastewater Systems" section 

Package Planr Prefabncated treatment umlts that can serve apartment buddings, condominiums, office 

complexes, and up to a few hundred homes Package plants generally are used as cluster systems, but can 

also be used man ons1te wastewater treatmi~nt tram They are usually of the activated sludge or tackling 

filter type, and require skilled mamtenance programs 

Po mt Source Discharges Contaminatmn :fi om discrete locatmns, such as a centralized wastewater 

treatment fac1hty or a factory 

Pressure Sewers An alternative wastewater collection system m which household wastewater is pretreated 

by a septic tank or grmder and pumped through small plastic sewer pipes buned at shallow depths to either 

a conventional gravity sewer or a treatment system Pressure sewers are used m areas with high 

groundwater or bedrock, low population density, or unfavorable terram for gravity sewer collectmn They 

require smaller pipes and less excavatmn than conventional sewers Two types of pressure sewers include 

Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) A submersible pump located either in a separate chamber 

within a septic tank or in a pumping chambc r outside the tank pumps the settled hqmd through the 

collector mam Because the wastewater is treated m a septic tank, the treatment fac1hty may be smaller 

and simpler than would otherwise be needed 

A-2 
Grmder Pump Household wastes flow by gravity drrectly mto a prefabncated chamber located 

either m the basement of a house or outside the foundation wall The chamber contams a pumpmg unit 

with gnnder blades that shred the sohds m the wastewater to a size that can pass through the smalldiameter pressure sewers 

Pumpmg Statwns A pumpmg fac1hty is used to hft wastewater where topograpliy is too flat or hilly to 

permit natural gravity flow to treatment fac1hty 

Receivmg Water Streams (i e, surface water bodies) mto which treated wastewater is discharged 

1 I 

Residuals The by-products of wastewater treatment processes, mcludmg sludge and septage 

Secondary Treatment Typical effluent quality achieved by a conventional centralized treatment fac1bty, 

typically defined as 85% reduction of mfluent BOD and TSS or 30 mg/I or both, which ever is least 

Septage The sohd and semi-sohd matenal resultmg from onsite wastewater pretreatment m a septic tank, 

which llUlSt be pumped, hauled, treated, and disposed of properly 

Sludge The pnmanly organic sohd or semi-sohd product of wastewater treatment processes The term 

sewage sludge 1s generally used to descnbe residuals from centralized wastewater treatment, while the term 

septage is used to descnbe the residuals from septic tanks 

Small-Diameter Gravity Sewers An alternative wastewater collect1on system cons1stmg of small-diameter 

collect1on pipes ( e g , between three and six mches) that transport hqmd from a septic tank to a treatment 

unit, utlhzmg differences m elevation between upstream connections and the downstream termmus to 

achieve gravity flow 

Subsurface Sozl Absorptwn Field A subsurface land area with relatively permeable sod designed to 

receive pretreated wastewater from a septic tank or mtermed1ate treatment umt (e g, sand filter) The sod 

further treats the wastewater by filtration, sorpt1on, and m1crob1olog1cal degradation before the water is 

discharged to ground water 

Trick/mg Filter A fixed-film (see "Fixed Growth Systems" m "Descnpt1on" section below) biological 

wastewater treatment process used for aerobic treatment and mtr1ficat1on 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) A measure of the amount of suspended sohds found m wastewater effluent 

Vacuum Sewers An alternative wastewater collection system that uses vacuum to convey household 

wastewater from each connection to a vacuum station which mcludes a collection tank and vaccum pumps 

Wastewater 1s then pumped to a treatment fac1hty or convent10nal sewer mterceptor 

A-3 
Appendix A (continued) 

DESCRIPTIONS OF WASTEWATER SYSTEMS 

Anaerobic Fiiters Anaerobic filters are used as part of a treatment tram designed to mmnmze mtrate 

concentration m areas where discharge of mtrates to surface water or ground water 1s a concern Anaerobic 

filters convert mtrate (N03) to gaseous fonns ofmtrogen (N2, N20, NO) The key design cons1derat1on for 

anaerobic filters 1s to ensure that the carbon-to-mtrogen ratio 1s sufficient for demtnficatxon Good 

performance can be obtamed by treatmg •.ept1c tank effluent with a mtnfymg (usually sand) filter before 

the anaerobic filter 

At-Grade Sod Absorption Systems At-grade sod 

absorpt10n systems are snmlar to the subsurface sod 

absorption systems, but beddmg material (usually gravel) 1s 

placed at the ground surface rather than be low ground and 

1s covered with soil fill material At-grade systems are used 

m areas with relatively high ground-water tables or shallow 

bedrock 

Cluster Systems Decentrahzed wastewat1er collect1on and 

treatment systems servmg two or more dwellmgs, but less 

than an entrre community Sometimes, thf wastewater 

from several homes 1s pretreated ons1te by mdIVIdual septic 

tanks before bemg transported through altf mat1ve sewers to 

an off-site, nearby treatment unit that 1s relatively small 

compared to centrahzed systems 

Constructed Wetlands Constructed wetlands are 

engmeered systems designed to optimxze the physical, 

chemical, and b1olog1cal processes ofnatwal wetlands for 

reducmg BOD and TSS concentrat10ns m wastewater 

Wastewater from a septic tank flows through a pipe mto the 

wetland, where the wastewater 1s evenly d1stnbuted across 

the wetland mlet Sedimentation of sohds with the media 

substrate occurs Constructed wetlands are rehable for 

BOD and TSS removal, and may contnbutc• to nutnent 

removal when used after a mtnfymg unit p1 ocess 

A-4 

At Grade 

UmU>Q Condlcn 

Pump 

VegetahOn 

(Opuonal) 
D1smfect10n Systems D1smfect10n refers to the destruction of disease-causmg orgarusms called pathogens 

( e g , bactena, vrruses) by the apphcation of chermcal or physical agents D1stnfection may be necessary 

where other types of treatment are madequate to reduce pathogen levels to the requrred regulatory 

standards for surface discharge The most common types of dtstnfection for decentrahzed systems are 

Chlormatzon Systems Chlonnation occurs by nuxmg/dtffusmg hqmd or sohd chlonne forms with 

wastewater Chlonnation 1s considered to be the most practical dtstnfection method for ons1te wastewater 

treatment because 1t ts rehable, mexpens1ve, and easy to use, however, dechlonnation may be needed to 

prevent the dispersal of residuals that may be harmful to aquatic hfe 

Ultraviolet Dzsmfectzon In an ultraviolet treatment system, high mtens1ty lamps are submerged m 

wastewater or the lamps surround tubes that carry wastewater D1stnfection occurs when the ultraviolet 

hght damages the genetic matenal of the bactenal or vrral cell walls so that rephcation can no longer occur 

Care must be taken to keep the surface of the lamps clean because surface deposits can shield the bactena 

from the radiation, thus reducmg the performance of the system Ultraviolet radiation is a highly effective 

techmque especially attractive m cluster systems where the effluent cannot mclude any residuals or where 

there are ovemdmg concerns with safety 

Effluent D1stribution Systems Effluent dtstnbution systems are essential components of subsurface 

wastewater treatment systems These systems dehver wastewater to sod mfiltrative surfaces either by 

gravity or by pressure dtstnbution 

Pressure dzstrzbutzon Pressure dosmg systems dtstnbute water over more mfiltrative surface and 

provide a resting penod between doses that mcreases the hfe and performance of the leach field Dosmg 

siphous or pumps provide the pressure, the latter requrres additional mamtenance demands 

Fixed Growth Systems In fixed growth systems, aerobic rmcroorgarusms attach and grow on an mert 

media Wastewater flows across a shme layer created by the attached rmcroorgarusms, which extract 

soluble orgaruc matter from the wastewater as a source of carbon and energy 

Holdmg Tank A large storage tank for 

wastewater or septage An alarm on the tank 

signals when the tank is full and the contents need 

to be pumped and properly disposed 

A-5 

/ 

Visible 

Alann 

Watertight Tank 
Intermittent Sand Filters (ISF) An mtenmttent 

sand filter consists of sand media with a re lat1vely 

umfonn particle-size d1stnbut1on above a gravel 

layer An ISP reduces BOD and TSS 

concentrations to IO mg/Lor less Wastewater 

passes through the filter and drams from the gravel 

to the collector Umfonn d1stnbut10n of mfluent 1s 

very unportant to filter performance Influent is 

dosed to the surface 4 to 24 tunes per day, with 

best performance from higher numbers of smaller 

doeses The sand filter matenal may be left 

exposed or covered with removable cover•, A 

septic tank (or other pretreatment system) 1s 

reqmred to remove settleable sobds and grease, 

which can clog the sand Covers are used ID cold 

clunates If sand filter matenal 1s left exposed, it 

must be checked regularly for btter, vegetation 

growmg on the surface It may requrre rakmg 

perodically An uncovered system also is 

susceptible to potential odor problems Less 

frequently, the sand may requrre removal and 

replacement of the top layer 

Nitrogen Removal Systems Several types of treatment processes are capable ofremovmg mtrogen m 

wastewater Nitrogen removal systems are used ID onsite treatment trams to ensure protection of ground 

water as well as coastal waters recharged by ground water Biological mtrogen removal 1equrres aerobic 

condit10ns to first mtr1fy the wastewater, then anaerobic cond1t1ons to demtnfy mtrate-mtrogen to mtrogen 

gas The successful removal of mtrogen from wastewater requrres that envrronments conducive to 

mtnficat1on and demtnficat10n be mduced and pos1t1oned properly Three types of mtrogen removal 

systems are descnbed below ' 

Separatzon of Black Water and G1ay Water Black water (totlet water) can be segregated from 

other sources ofhousehold wastewater (gray water) for separate treatment and disposal A separate 

plumbmg system w1th1D a house 1s requrrecl Black water, which conta1Ds 80% or more of the mtrogen m 

household wastewater, can be discharged drrectly to a holdmg tank, the remammg gray water is discharged 

to a septic tank/sod absorption system 

Nztrificatzon/Demtrificatzon Trzcklmg Fzlter Plant Septic tank effluent 1s recycled by a pump toa 

low-loaded, plast1c-med1a tncklmg filter for aerobic treatment, and mtr1ficat1on can occw Fiitrate from 

the tncklmg filter returns to the lower anae1 ob1c septic tank effluent, prov1d1Dg an envrronment conducive 

to biological demtnficatton 

Reczrculatmg Sand Filters Reem ulat1Dg sand filters also can provide consistent mtrogen 

removal (See "Recrrculating Sand Fiiter'' bPlow) 

A-6 
Non-Sand Filters Non-sand filters 

function sumlarly to sand filters but use 

matenals other than sand as the filter 

medmm, mcludmg natural media such as 

peat and bottom ash, and synthetic media 

such as expanded polyurethane foam and 

honeycombed plastic to reduce levels of 

TSS, BOD, and fecal cohforms Most nonsand filter media are packaged m umts or 

placed m enclosures and use pressure dosmg 

to d1stnbute the effluent m the filter 

Rec1rculatmg Sand Filters (RSF) 

A recrrculatmg sand filter uses relatively 

coarse sand or gravel media for filtrat10n of 

wastewater The wastewater is dosed from a 

recrrculatmg tank, which receives septic 

tank effluent and retllrned filtrate A portion 

of the filtrate is diverted for disposal durmg 

each dose RSFs are smtable m areas too 

small for conventional soil absorption 

systems or with shallow depths to 

groundwater or bedrock RSFs can be used 

for reducmg TSS, BOD, fecal cohform, and 

mtrogen RSFs are rebable, requlflllg little 

mamtenance m companson to activated 

sludge systems 

Sand Mounds Sand mounds are used when 

soil depth is too shallow for a conventional 

septic tank and leach field system The sand 

mound filters septic tank effluent before it 

reaches the natural sod Sand fill is placed 

above the ground surface, and a pipe 

d1stnbutlon system and pressure dosmg is 

used to d1stnbute the effluent A septic tank 

or other pretreatment is requrred to remove 

settleable sohds and grease 

I 

~ I 

B 

r 

Peat Filter 

R&wWu1c 

~~ I Urut 

ToOuclwi• 

float Valve 

L-~~~~~T~~ 

Roc:ucuiauoa 

r- Effluent 

Pump 

Vegetation 

Pressure D1stnbutton Top, Soll j 

Cross-Section 

Diagram 

Rocky or Tight Sod or High Groundwater 

A-7 

Free Ac..cs:s S.u:d Fiha 
Septic Tank A buned tank designed and 

constructed to receive and pretreat wastewater from 

md1v1dual homes by separatmg settleable and 

floatable sohds from the wsteater Greasf and other 

hght matenals, collectively called scum, float to the 

top Gases are normally vented through the 

buddmg' s sewer pipe An outlet blocked off from 

the scum layer feeds effluent to a subsurface sod 

absorption area or an mtermediate treatmf nt umt 

; ,, 

I 1!. 

L. 

I I 

~J I 

Subsurface Sod Absorption Systems A typical sod 

absorption system consists of perforated p1pmg and 

gravel m a field or trench, although gravelless systems 

can also be used Sod absorption systems are normally 

placed at relatively shallow depths (e g, <2 ft) 

Excellent TSS, BOD, phosphorus, and pathogen 

removal is provided m the unsaturated s01ll which 

surrounds the mfiltrat1ve surfaces If properly sited, 

designed, constructed, and mamtamed, subsurface sod 

absorption systems are very reliable and c.m be 

expected to function for many years 

Absorption Field 

Suspended Growth Systems Suspended growth treatment systems are vanat1ons of the activated sludge 

process m which m1croorgan1sms are susp1~nded m an aerated reactor by mixmg Oxygen is supphed to 

oxidize organic carbon and, possibly, mtrogen compounds Effluent is discharged either to surface water 

or subsurface systems Suspended growth systems can be engmeered as package plants to serve clustered 

residential housmg, commercial estabhshments, or small commumt1es with relatively small flows 

Tr1cklmg Fiiters Used to reduce BOD, p.1thogens, and 

mtrogen levels, tncklmg filters are compo• ed of a bed of 

porous matenal (rocks, slag, plastic media, or any other 

medium with a high surface area and high on permeabthty) 

Wastewater is first d1stnbuted over the surface of the media 

where it flows downward as a thm film ovc r the media 

surface for aerobic treatment and ts then collected at the 

bottom through an underdram system Tht effluent is then 

settled by gravity to remove b1olog1cal sohds pnor to bemg 

discharged 

A-8 

·. 

Fixed 

Media 

f::::::U::"::c::•r=O=r=a:::" =::::?r- -Elfluert ta C arif1er or Septic - _,..k 
Append1xB 

The Wastewater Planmng Process 

Appendix B The Wastewater Plannmg Process 

The wastewater planmng process mvolves coorchnatmg a vanety of techrucal and 

mstitutional factors, mcludmg engineenng, environmental, legislative, public education, 

socioeconomic, and admm1strauve considerations, as shown m Figure B 1 The goal of the 

wastewater planning process is to develop a comprehensive plan to gtude the commuruty m the 

selection, s1tmg, construction, operation, mamtenance, and financmg of wastewater systems that 

address the wastewater needs of the commumty A key part of the planning process is a 

systematic evaluation of the financial and regulatory feasibtlity of all practical centralized and 

decentralized engmeenng alternatives The steps ma wastewater planning process typically 

mclude (Arenovskl and Shephard, 1996) 

• Needs assessment-estabhshmg an overall commuruty profile, mcludmg current 

and future needs and issues, and ident1fymg areas of concern where existmg 

wastewater facihues are madequate or problems might occur m the future 

• Development and screemng of alternat1ves-exammmg which technology, or 

combination of technologies, will best address the concerns the commuruty faces 

The alternatives to consider mclude expandmg or upgradmg existmg systems or 

improving their operation and mamtenance, as well as mstallmg new systems 

• Evaluation of commumty-wide plans-companng the feasibtl1ty and costeffectiveness of a small number of viable plans, and companng each to a "baselme 

alternative" of maximizing the use of existmg factl1t1es 

In many commumties, results of wastewater planrung efforts will mdtcate that the best 

option is choosmg several alternatives-that is, decentrahzed ons1te wastew~ter systems m one 

part of the commumty, decentrahzed cluster systems m other sections, and a centrahzed factlity 

m another part of town This type of integrated approach remforces land use planning; it also 

emphasizes the need for adequate management of decentrahzed systems, and for centrahzed and 

decentrahzed systems to be managed together by a central oversight agency (Shephard, 1996) 

Comprehensrve Plannmg 

Wastewater system options are best selected m conjunction with broader, comprehensive 

commumty planning efforts to ensure that overall commuruty goals are bemg met, such as 

environmental protection and land use goals The planmng process mcludes an analysts of the 

physical, social, economic, cultural, and environmental charactenst1cs of the planning area. For 

example, if a watershed protection program already exists m a region to protect sensitive 

environmental areas, more advanced wastewater treatment ( e g , dtsmfectton or nutnent removal) 

might be mcluded as part of the watershed program, whether as part of a cen,trahzed or 

decentrahzed wastewater system (note that a decentrahzed system would allow the flexib1hty of 

mstallmg advanced treatment only for those dwellmgs m close pro:mmty to the sens1tive areas) 

S1mtlarly, if local land-use plannmg efforts mclude mamtammg open space and 

conservation/woodland areas, wastewater management choices can complement such efforts ( e g , 

by encouragmg cluster developments serviced by cluster wastewater systems) 

Bl 
t;::j 

N 

Engineering Concerns 

Environmental .Concerns 

• Physical Cond1llons 

• Chmahc Cond1llons 

Water Quality 

Adequacy of Treatment 

Legislative Concerns 

• Adequacy of Ex1sllng 

lnst1luhonal Arrangements 

• Legal Reqwremenls 

(FederaVState) 

Relat1onsh1ps Among 

Affected Agencies 

Planmng/EnlorcemenV 

Operahng Capab1hhes 

• Suitable Design 

•Appropriate Technology • Operating Condition I ..., I 

Performance/Rel•ah•l••y 

Residuals Volume/ 

Characteristics 

Maintenance Requirements ' • I Improvements/Repairs I ' 

Surveillance Needs 

Ownership Status 

Operational Procedures 

Regulatory Prov1s1ons 

Financial Planning 

Economic Concerns 

Fiscal Equity 

Ab1hty to Pay Ab1hly to Generate 

Revenue 

GranVLoan Avallab1

Accounlab1hty 

Borrowing Capacity 

Future Growth Pote

Administrative Conc

Record keeping Prac

Dec1s1on making Pro

Staffing Capab1hty 

Regulatory Requirem

Formal and Informal 

lnteragency Relahon

Social Concerns 

Willingness lo Assu

Respons1b1hly 

Public Support Educahonal Program 

Figure B -1. Tecbn1cal and mshtuhonal factors m decentralized wastewater systems management plannmg 
Append1xC 

Types of Management Structures for Decentrabzed Wastewater Systems 

('") 

I 

I-' 

Appendu: c Types of Management Structures for Decentrahzed Wastewater Systems 

Table c.1 Management Structures 

Management Improvement 

Entity State Agency County Municipality Special Dlstnct District 

Description EnVIJ'Orunental Most baste polttical Cities, towns, Perfonns funct- Dcvtce used by 

protection subd1vts1on m a vtllages, and tons prescnbcd by counties/ mumc to 

agencies, health state Compnsed of townships state-enabling provtde semces to departments, and incorp mumc and legtslatton local gov 

public utiltties unmcorp areas Provtdes single or JUnsd1c1Jons 

multiple services 

Service Area Program Provtdes service Provtdes scrvtcc Flextble One or more as 

enforcement can throughout its JUns throughout its part of a smgle 

be handled on a and to defined areas JUns and to JUnsd1c1ton 

regional basis vta improvement defined areas 

d1stncts vta improvement dtslncts 

. Governing Body State legislature Includes elected Mayor-counctl, Board of directors Governing body of 

Agencies report to (pnnc legislative comm1ss10n, (elected, the crcaltng umt of 

the governor, branch) county and council- appomtcd, or government 

legtslature, or to a board com-m1ss1on, manager extsttng agency 

board of directors council- members) 

admm1strator, 

council-elected 

executive 

Responsibilities Code enforcement Coordmates mumc Provtdes a wide All wastewater State statutes 

of wastewater m its JUns , provtdes range of management define extent of 

design, mstall- special scrnccs on scrvtces funclJons, similar authonty Usually 

allon, and contract basis, to local applied to finance operation serves as a fiscal government State pubhc scrvtcc 

standards, and agent for other local defines funclton improvements 

technical and umtsof and scope 

financial government 

assistance 

Public P

Nonprofit Corp N

Public Authonty 

Authonzcd to Provides water or E

admtmster a revenue- wastewater th

producing public SCrvtCCS on fa

enterpnse Stmtlar to behalf of local faa spcctal dtslnct governments a

Flextble Flextble (smgle C

commumty, s

group of s

commumltes, or c

statewide) r

Board of directors Usually B

(elected or members mumctpal or state d

of local government) ollic1als b

oo

a

Used pnmanly for Serves as P

financing capabtliites financmg f

mechamsm Can 

- o

provide technical f

assistance to 

small 

commumttes 
(") 

I 

N 

Management 

Entity State Agency 

Financing Provides financial 

Capabilities support through 

federal grants and 

state revenues 

Advantages Regulatory and 

financial 

advantages over 

local government 

State enforcc-ment 

can msulate from 

local political 

pressure Can 

adnumster 

trammg/ccrt 

programs 

Disadvantages Program 

organazations 

differ (Difficult to 

implement 

methods from one 

state m another 

Can become 

distanced from 

local governments 

Source C1otoh and Wtswall, 1982 

County Charges for 

sewerage sources 

and finance construchon 

through taxation, 

general funds, 

special assessments, bonds, and 

penmtfccs 

Can mteract with 

states and local 

governments on 

many assues Often 

seen as 

admmastrative arms 

of the state 

Provide efficient 

resource base for 

providmg pubhc 

scrnces 

Sometimes not 

willing to provide 

specaahzcd pubhc 

scrnccs to a defined scrnce area 

Commumty debt 

hm1ts could be 

restnctive 

Table C-1 (contmued) 

Improvement 

Municipality Special DI.strict District 

Hasa broad Local taxat10n, Can apply special 

range offiscal serncc charges, property 

powers (similar special assess- assessments, user 

to counties) ments, grants, charges, other 

loans, bonds, and fees Can sell 

penmtfees bonds 

. 

Can better react FleXJble Renders Can extend pubhc 

to local equatable scrnccs sernces without 

perception and (only those maJOr 

attitude rcccaving scrnces expenditures 

pay for them) Peoplemthe 

Sample, benefitted area 

mdependent forms usually favor the 

of government improvement 

Maghtlack Can promote Contnbutes to 

adman capa- prohferataon of fragmentation of 

b1hties, staff, or local govern ment local government 

willmgness to and duphcataon sernces Can 

design, mstall, and fragmentation result m 

operate, and/or ofpubhc services admamstrative 

regutatea Fiscal problem delays 

facahty could result from 

Fmancaal overuse 

capabahttcs 

maghtbe 

hmated 

Public P

Nonprofit Corp N

Public Authority 

Can use revenue User charges and E

bonds, user charges, sernccs fees and F

and connection fees sales of stocks an

and tax-exempt 

bonds Can 

accept .some 

Federal grants 

and loans 

Good when local Offers fleXJbdaty P

governments are not tn l'!S!.ftbltsh1ng s

able to provide pubhc management lo

serncc because of facahties and m

financial, financmg u

admamstrative, or facahtles by state u

political problems and local 

Has a certam degree governments 

of autonomy Fmancmg 

method doc not 

affect local debt 

hm1tat1ons 

Fmancmg abahty as Local S

lnmted to revenue governments o

bonds Thus, local maghtbe c

government must reluctant to apply t

support the debt this concept 

mcurred by the 

pubhc authonty 
Appendn: C (cont ) 

In addttion to the types of management structures descnbed above, two addttional approaches to 

managmg decentrahzed wastewater systems include pubhc/pnvate partnerslups and management dtstncts, as 

descnbe below 

Publzc/Pnvate Partnerships It 1s sometimes dtfficult to determme wluch parties are responsible for 

the vanous decentrahzed system management functions because of the split respons1btl1ty between the public 

and pnvate sector Several options exist for public/pnvate partnerslups m the management of decentralized 

systems Systems can be pnvately owned and managed under a permtt system, pnvately owned and publicly 

managed, or publicly owned and managed. In the first option, the resident must comply with the regulations 

and pays all costs for maintenance, pumping, and If necessmy, rehabthtation In the second option, the 

resident pays user charges to the local dtstnct wluch performs the necessary maintenance (tlus does not cover 

rehabilitation) The final option involves the public orgamzation providing wastewater serv1ces for all 

households and collecting u8er charges to pay for the servtce, all construction, operation, and maintenance 

tasks are performed by the pubhc agency, or firms under contract to 1t 

Wastewater Management Distnct. When a government agency or public authonty 1s unable or 

unwtlhng to assume the hfe-cycle management of decentrahzed wastewater systems, a special management 

entity, such as a management dtstnct, can be formed where state statutes permit This management optton 

involves incorporating decentrahzed systems into a local or regional wastewater management dtstnct, with 

dtstnct personnel responsible for system operation and maintenance Decentrahzed wastewater management 

dtstncts have been m existence smce 1972, when Georgetown, CalJ.fonua ID1plemented a commumty-wide 

ons1te wastewater system management program m the Lajce Auburn Trails subdivision (Shephard, 1996) 

Table c-2 summanzes a number of decentraltzed wastewater management programs that have been 

implemented as management dtstncts throughout the country For a further dtscuss10n of management 

systems for decentrahzed wastewater treatment systems, see Shephard (1996) 
C".l 

I 

.i::-

TableC-2 Management Districts: Summary of Case Study Characteristics 

Waterbody 

Case Study Funding Source Size of Area Protected 

Crystal Lakes, CO Annual dues ($60 per lot, $100 per lot 1f served 4,000lots Crystal Lakes 

! by central water and sewer, $180 per lot 1f 

I connected to seasonal central water and sewer) 

I 

Crystal Lake, MI Not Reported 1,100 homes Crystal Lake 

Georgetown D1V1dc, CA Annual dues ($12 75 to $22 75), design costs 3,000acrcs Amcncan River 

($540 per system), and hook up fees ($875 DCr 

system) 

Kucka Lake, NY $300 per year per parcel fee Not Reported KuekaLakc 

\ 

Stinson Beach, CA Funds obtained from tax revenues, semiannual 700ons1te Groundwater/ 

fee of$53, and charges for special inspections systems Coastal waters 

and mspectton for compliance 

Program Components 

Developer establishes and manages dcccntrah

fac1bbes m the subd1v1S1on Management 1s fu

includes, maintenance, removal of sewage fro

dnnkmg water to cisterns 

Estabhshment of new ordinances 

(1) inspection/upgrade required pnor to sale, 

report on all systems, (3) health department re

(4) systems must be upgraded w1thm 120 day

(5) non-comphancc meets with tough conseq

Management entity rs responsible for operetm

a.nd •nspecttcn, 8)s•e-- des g" of 1nsta

ofbmlding process Inspection and maintenacontrolled 

Management cnllty responsible for evaluating

standards Ordinances cstabhshed include (1) 

authonty, (2) a mix of system designs was all

were rcqmrcd for highly tcchmcal systems, (4

the lake must be inspected every 5 years, (6) 

pnor to property transfer, and (7) enforcemen

The D1stnct's management act1V11les include 

mstallat1on and routme system operation, and 

d1stnct's rules and regulations specify the cnt

permits for new ons1te systems, as well as for 

of existing systems Most of the systems m t

least once a year; the systems that have been 

arc inspected two or three times a year D1stn

regulatory authonty to peifonn ons11e manag
("') 

I 

l.J1 

Case Study 

Guysborough, Nova ScotJa 

Cass County, MN 

I 

Funding 

Imha) Funds $2,500 fee per cqmv umt or 

property, funds from Capital Assist c Program 

(50% of total), and funds from the Council of the 

Mumc1pahty ofGuysborough (26% of total) 

funds for Management Program Connection fee 

of $3,500 Annual property tax equal to the 

expected annual mB1ntenance fee plus an amount 

to be set aside for future capital 

$3,800 per resident initial cost; annual fee ofS12 

toS15 

Table C-2(contmued) 

Waterbody 

SJ.Zeof Area Protected 

700 residents Guysborough harbor 

110 mdcs, 85 numerous lakes, 

towns streams 

' 

Program Components Built a Rotahng B1olog1cal Contactor type sew

service the mam core of the community Seco

was connected by sewer Imes to an aerated lag

propcrhcs withm the D1stnct have been service

systems The mumc1pahty hued one employee 

general maintenance of the treatment plant and 

preventative maintenance was cstabhshed for 

In 1994, the county developed an "EnVIronme

D1stnct," whereby a township, as the local um

effectively proVIdc, finance, and administrate g

subsets of its residents Establishment of such 

authonzed under MN Statute 365A The purp

proVIdc a self sufficient, effective, and consist

tool, chiefly for neighborhood alternative (STE

leach fields This mnovatlve model stays at the 

affected property owners and township arc inv

techntcaJ and support assistance when 

The partncnng with the townships and the co

shanng, improved commumcatlon, and thus h

other cooperative ventures such as land-use p

andGIS use 

Once a Subordmatc Semce D1stnct 1s created 

residents needing the specific service, a Coun

signed The County then determines the syst

construction oversight, gives final approval fo

commits to yearly inspections, and assures reg

leach fields arc located away from lakes, well

Cass County will allow systems to he on coun

to defray residents' costs, or to enable optima

Appent:bx D 

Cost Estunatlon Methodology 

COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY 

The cost estnnatmn methodologies for conventional gravity and alternative collection systems, 

as well as centralized treatment, cluster treatment, ~d onsite treatment systems, are presented m this 

appendix The cost esttmates mclude the capital cost necessary to lilStall the system(s) and the annual 

cost to reparr and mamtam the system(s) Capital costs are annualized over 30 years (the life of the 

system) usmg a discount rate of 7 percent (OMB, 1996) All costs are presented m 1995 dollars Cost 

data for the different technologies have been obtamed from various sources, as documented m each 

sectmn Because the data reflect costs from different years, they have been mdexed to 1995 dollars 

usmg the Means Historical Cost Indexes, as prmted m the "Engmeermg News-Record (ENR)"(Means 

Heavy Construction Cost Data, 1996) Costs are mdexed usmg the followmg equation 

1995 Cost 

1995 Index 

= 1987 Cost x -----

1987 Index 

Indexes apphcable to the costs presented m this appendix are 

Table D-1. Cost Indexes 

Year Index 

1976 46 9 

1978 53 5 

1987 87 7 

1991 96 8 

1992 994 

1995 107 6 

COLLECTION SYSTEMS 

Conventional Gravity CollectJ,on 

A conventmnal gravity collectmn sewer collects and transports sewage to a centralized 

treatment fac1hty via gravity The system mcludes lateral pipes, collectmn sewers, mterceptor sewers, 

manholes, and pump statmns Laterals are the pipes that transport wastewater from homes to the 

collectmn mam sewers Collection sewers are the pipes which carry the wastewater to mterceptor 

sewers, which carry wastewater to the treatment system with the help of pump stations 1f needed 

Manholes are mcluded along the collection sewer to allow access for cleanmg 

D-1 
Because the pipes m a gravity collection system must contmually slope downward, pump 

stations may be required to avmd excessive excavation for pipes or to reach a particular elevat10n at the 

system outfall Pump statmns (or hft stat10ns) mclude pumps, valves, and a well to hold mcommg 

sewage 

Cost Data 

Cost estimates were developed for a conventional gravity collect10n system usmg cost equations 

developed by Dames and Moore These equat10ns were derived from actual IIlStallat10n and annual 

operatmg and mamtenance (O&M) costs (Smith, 1978) The cost estimatmg procedure calculates costs 

m 1978 dollars because these were the bes1t data available, the costs were then mdexed to 1995 dollars 

Pipe Diameter - Dames and Moore provide an equat10n for estimatmg the capital costs of the 

lateral, collect10n mam, and mterceptor sewer pipes on a dollar per foot basis This equation relates 

the cost of the pipe to the diameter of pipe required 

$ --(1978 dollars) = 3 2 x (pipe diameter) 11661 x 1 03 

foot 

Dames and Moore also provide an equat10n to determme the diameter of pipe required1for the 

collect10n and mterceptor sewer, based on the flow of wastewater through the pipe 

Pipe diameter = 17 74 x Flow (mgd) 0 3756 

A mmunum pipe diameter of 8 mches was used for the collection and mterceptor sewers (Fact Sheet, 

n d ), unless a large~ pipe size was required for the design flow A pipe diameter of 4 mches was used 

for on-lot lateral pipes 

Pipe Length - The length of collect10n sewer required is dependent on the population density 

Dames and Moore provide an equation for estimatmg this length 

fi t ,./' -0 65 

ee oJ sewer = 54 x (persons) 

capita acre 

The length of mterceptor pipe needed to transport the wastewater to a newly constructed treatment 

fac1hty m the rural commuruty 1s estimated to be about one mile The length of mte1 ceptor pipe for the 

frmge commuruty needed to transport wastf water to an ex1stmg fac1hty m the metropohtan center was 

estimated between one and five mlles On-lot lateral pipes are estimated to be about 50 feet per home 

m the rural commuruty, and 25 feet per home m the frmge commuruty 

D-2 
Lift/Pump StatJ.ons - The number of pump stations reqmred m a system is dependent on the 

site topography Dames and Moore estimate the number of pump statlons to be one for every 18,000 

feet of collection and mterceptor length, however, add1t1onal pump stations are necessary if the 

topography is hilly or steep The cost to mstall pump stations IS dependent on the flow of wastewater 

and is estimated by the followmg equatmn 

Cost per station (1978 $) = 0 168 x (flow, mgd) 1 08 x 1 03 

A mm1mum cost of $50,000 (1995$) was used for constructmn of pump stations 

Annual costs to repair and mamtam gravity collection sewers were also estimated from Dames 

and Moore data, average operating and mamtenance costs for sewers IS $1,502 per mtle of sewer lme 

(1978 dollars) 

System Design and Cost 

The followmg conventmnal gravity collection systems were designed and costed for the fnnge 

and rural commumties usmg the methodology presented above 

1) lnstallatmn of a conventional gravity sewer m the frmge commumty, with an additional 

1-5 rmles of pipe to connect this system to the existmg sewer system m the metropohtan 

center 

2) Installatmn of a convent10nal gravity sewer m the rural commumty to be connected to a 

new rural commumty treatment plant located withm one mlle of the commumty 

Fnnge Community Costs (1995 $) 

The collection system for the frmge commumty is estimated to reqmre about 25,000 feet of 10-

mch diameter collection pipe, between 5,280 and 26,400 feet of 10-mch mterceptor pipe, 11,000 feet 

of 4-mch lateral pipe, and three pump stat10ns The capital cost to mstall this system ranges from 

$3,322,900 to $5,377 ,800, dependmg on the distance of mterceptor pipe reqmred The annual O&M 

costs are estimated to range between $23,000 and $35,000 

Rural, Community Costs (1995 $) 

Populat10n density has a sigmficant Impact on the cost of collect10n, and ultimately makes up a 

large percentage of the cost to connect an area to centrabzed treatment For this reason the cost of 

collectmn for the rural commumty was calculated usmg two population densities a moderate density of r1 home per 1 5 acres and a low density of 1 home per 5 acres 

D-3 
The collectmn system for the rural area when the population density is moderate is estimated to 

reqmre about 15,500 feet of 8-mch diameter collection pipe, 5,280 feet of 8-mch diameter mterceptor 

pipe, 6,800 feet of 4-mch diameter lateral pipe, and two pump stations The capital cost to install thIS 

system is estimated to be $1,882,800 and the annual O&M costs are estimated to be about $15,750 

The collection system for the rural area when the populatmn density is low is estimated to 

reqmre about 34,000 feet of 8-mch d1ame1ter collect10n pipe, 5,280 feet of 8-mch diameter mterceptor 

pipe, 6,800 feet of 4-mch lateral pipe, and three pump stat10ns The capital cost to lilStall this system is 

estimated at $3,311,500 and the estimated annual O&M costs are about $26,300 ' 

Alternanve SDGS Collection 

Alternative collect10n sewers are used m place of, or m conJunct10n with, conventional gravity 

collection sewers to collect and transport wastewater to a central treatment fac1hty Small diameter 

gravity sewers (SDGS) are a system of mterceptor pipes and tanks and small diameter PVC collect10n 

malilS Ons1te tanks are used to remove grease and settleable sohds, allowmg for the smaller diameter 

collection pipe to be used The settled wastewater is discharged from the septic tank via gravity mto 

the collector malilS (EPA, 1991) The collector malilS then transport the wastewater to a local cluster 

system, a centrahzed treatment fac1hty, or a conventional collect10n system The mam components of 

an SDGS are 3-mch to 8-mch PVC malilS, cleanouts or manholes, vents, and septic tanks 

Cost Data 

Several sources were reviewed to obtam cost data on SDGS systems These sources mclude 

• EPA Manual on Alternative Collection (EPA, 1991) 

• Fountam Run Case Study (Abney, 1976) 

• Regron IV Survey (EPA, n d ) 

The EPA alternative collection manual provides umt cost data (mid-1991) for mterceptor tanks 

and 4-mch malilS The manual also contarns design data and SDGS systems for several small 

commumt1es, these commumties were located m areas with steep and hilly topography These systems 

were also designed to feed mto central treatment fac1htles, instead of local cluster treatment systems 

These differences are the reason why the sewer designs for these commumties were not apphed to the 

hypothetical commumties 

The Fountam Run case study prov[des design mformat1on for a commuruty d1v1ded mto clusters 

rangmg from 3 homes to 34 homes The study did not md1cate any prevallmg topographic conditions 

which would hmder the construct10n of a S:DGS The study also provided umt cost data (1976) for the 

SDGS components, but these were not used smce more recent umt cost mformatlon is avadable from 

the EPA alternative collect10n manual 

D-4 
The Region IV survey contams design and project cost mformat10n on alternative collection 

systems The SDGS projects were all designed to feed mto centrahzed treatment facihties, therefore, 

these projects are not apphed to the hypothetical commurutles 

System Design and Cost 

The SDGS system was chosen to collect and transport wastewater to a local cluster treatment 

system The homes m the frmge and rural commurutles were divided mto smaller groupmgs, or 

clusters, based on their proximity to each other Homes located m areas with poorly dramed soils or 

high water table were also clustered together 

Design mformat10n for cluster systems of 3 to 34 homes was obtamed from the Fountam Run 

Case Study This mformation was combmed with urut costs obtamed from the EPA alternative 

collect10n manual Homes with existmg onsite septic tanks m good workmg order were not costed for 

replacement Cost estimates for the mstallat10n of SDGS m the frmge and rural areas are provided 

below 

Fnnge Community 

The frmge area was grouped mto 20 clusters Table D-2 presents a summary of the capital cost 

and the length of sewer reqmred for each cluster As an example, the calculat10n of the capital costs 

for the 34-home SDGS cluster is presented below 

Table D-2 Fnnge Area Clusters 

Capital Cost Feet of Sewer 

Number of Number of per per 

Clusters Connectmns ConnectJ.on Connection 

1 7 $2,633 174 

6 10 $2,271 147 

3 12 $1,723 83 

10 34 $2,372 148 

Total 383 $827,631 63,440 

Septic Tank Capital Cost This cluster contams 34 tanks The EPA manual estimates the 

average mstalled septic tank cost to be $800 (1991 dollars) This yields a capital cost of $27,200 m 

1991 dollars or $30,235 m 1995 dollars for the septic tanks m this cluster 

D-5 
Sewer Mam Capital Cost The 34-home cluster reqmres 5,040 feet of 4-mch mam The EPA 

alternative collection manual estimates the cost per foot to mstall 4-mch pipe to be ~,9 per foot (1991) 

This yields a capital cost of $45,360 m 1991 dollars or $50,421 m 1995 dollars for the collection mam 

m this cluster 

Total Capital Cost for Collection The capital cost for collect10n is the sum of the capital cost 

for the uruts m the system mcremented to 1995 dollars For the 34-home cluster system the capital cost 

is $80,818, or a cost of $2,372 per home Two hundred twenty homes m the frmge commuruty have 

ex1stmg tanks which will be ut1hzed by these cluster systems, therefore, the cost to replace these tanks 

($195,636) has been subtracted from the total collection cost The capital cost for collect10n m the 

frmge area is $827,631, as shown m Table D-2 

Operation and Mamtenance Cos1ts The operat10n and mamtenance cost for the SDGS system 

1s mcluded m the descnpt10n of treatment for cluster systems, descnbed later m this appendix 

Rural CommunrJy 

For estimatmg the cost of cluster systems, the fa1lmg systems m the rural commuruty were 

grouped mto 4 clusters Table D-3 presernts a summary of the capital cost and the length of sewer 

reqmred for each cluster The capital cost of the SDGS clusters m the rural area were calculated usmg 

the same process as the frmge area 

Table I>-3 Rural Area Clusters 

Number of Number of Caprtal Cost per Feet of Sewer 

Clusters ConnectiiDns Conneetion1 per Connection 

2 10 $2,271 147 

1 12 $1,723 83 

1 35 $2,372 148 

Total 67 $149,122 9,116 

Capital Cost The capital cost for collection m the rural area is $149,122, as shown m 

Table D-3 

Operation and Mamtenance Thie operation and mamtenance cost for the SDGS system is 

mcluded m the treatment part of the cluste1 system 

D-6 
TREATMENT SYSTEMS 

Centrahzed Wastewater Treatment 

Many treatment technology options are available to connnumt1es that wish to employ 

centrahzed wastewater treatment Commumty-spec1fic charactenst1cs, such as land cost and 

avallab1hty, wastewater charactenst1cs and flow rates, desired treated wastewater effluent 

concentration, and sohds disposal costs affect whether a particular treatment tram may be the most 

cost-effective and rellable system for a particular commumty For the hypothetical frmge and rural 

commumt1es, different treatment trams are costed based on therr expected commumty characteristics 

For the rural commumty, due to the very small wastewater flow and the relatively large amount of land 

avallable, the treatment tram costed mcludes a facultat1ve ox1dat10n pond, which reqmres a large 

amount of land but is economical and requrres relatively httle mamtenance, and a 

chlormat1on/dechlormat1on d1smfect10n umt For the frmge commumty, the treatment tram consists of 

a gnt chamber, comffililutor, sequencmg batch reactor (SBR), and chlormat1on/dechlormation 

d1smfect1on umt The SBR was selected for the frmge commumty because it is capable of handlmg 

small wastewater flows and requrres only a small amount of land, which may not be readlly available m 

a frmge area If removal of add1t10nal mtrogen is requrred, the facultat1ve oxidation pond m the rural 

commumty is replaced by a SBR that provides mtnficat1on and demtr1ficat10n, and the SBR m the 

frmge commumty is modified to provide such treatment Waste sohds from the SBR umt is costed for 

disposal of via land apphcation 

Cost Data 

The costs for treatment of wastewater at centrahzed wastewater treatment factlities were 

estunated usmg the computer cost model Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies Appropriate 

for Reuse (WAWTTAR) (Gearheart et al, 1994) WAWTTAR was developed to estunate the 

feas1bll1ty and cost of water supply, wastewater collectmn, and wastewater treatment The 

WA WIT AR cost model estunates costs m 1992 dollars, which are then mdexed to 1995 dollars Inputs 

to the WA WTT AR cost model mclude the commumty wastewater volume and characteristic data, 

treatment trams, and land costs, as well as target treatment performance standards 

The cost of land for constructmn of treatment factl1t1es vanes s1gmficantly from locatmn to 

location In some areas, the local government may already own the land necessary for construction of 

treatment fac1ht1es In these mstances, the land cost for treatment fac1ht1es wlll be mlilllllal However, 

many commumt1es may need to purchase add1t1onal land to construct treatment factlittes The cost of 

the land wlll vary greatly from location to location In the state of North Carolma, for example, land 

costs may range from $5,000 per acre m rural commumt1es to $50,000 per acre m more developed 

areas (Hoover, 1996) Land costs for this report are based on an approxunate average cost of $25,000 

per acre 

The basic SBR and d1smfect1on treatment system for the fnnge commumty and the facultat1ve 

ox1dat1on pond and d1smfect1on for the rural commumty are expected to reduce the b10log1cal oxygen 

demand (BOD) of the wastewater, as well as reduce suspended sohds and fecal cohform bactena 

D-7 
These are parameters that would be mcludt•d m most NPDES permits for mumcipal wastewater 

treatment facihties The followmg treatment standards were mput to the WA WTT AR cost model 

BOD 

Suspended sohds 

Fecal Cohform 

~JO mg/L, 

~ 50 mg/L, and 

~ 200/100 ml 

The SBR modified to provide mtnfication .md demtnfication, which was used for both the frmge and 

rural commumtles to remove mtrogen would meet the above standards and also reduce total mtrogen m 

the wastewater to 6 mg/L 

System Design and Cost 

The cost estimates for centrahzed treatment of the wastewater from the rural commumty 

mcludes construction of a new treatment system dedicated to the commumty's wastewater The cost 

estimates for centralized treatment of the wastewater from the frmge commumty mcludes expansion of 

the existmg metropohtan center treatment plant to accomodate the additional flow The centralized 

treatment costs discussed m this section do not mclude collection costs to transport the wastewater to 

the treatment factl1ty, which were presented ear her m this appendix Capital costs mclude the cost to 

purchase land on which to construct the fa< ihty, design, construction materials and eqmpment, and 

labor costs Operatmg and mamtenance costs mclude treatment chemicals such as chlorme and sulfur 

dioxide, energy to run eqmpment such as rwxers, pumps, and aerators, and labor 

In some commumt1es, ex1stmg wastewater treatment fac1ht1es may have sufficient capacity to 

treat additional wastewater from nearby commumty developments, such as the frmge commumty 

Other commumt1es may be capable of upg1 admg or expandmg their ex1stmg wastewater treatment 

fac1ht1es, such mod1ficat1ons :may range from mmor operational changes to extensive upgrades and/or 

construction of additional factl1t1es The e ttent to which ex1stmg factl1ties must be modified to 

accommodate add1t10nal wastewater is highly dependent on s1te-spec1fic factors, such as the ex1stmg 

capacity of the sewer and hft stations and treatment plant, and the effluent standards that must be met 

by the factl1ty Due to these highly s1te-sp1ec1fic factors, httle or no capital mvestment would be 

necessary m some commumt1es to enable an exIStmg factl1ty to treat additional wastewater, whtle m 

others upgradmg the existmg factlity would be more expensive than construction of a completely new 

factlity Where ex1stmg factl1t1es are used to treat additional wastewater, add1t10nal operatmg and 

mamtenance expenses would be mcurred tirom the use of additional oxygen and treatment chemicals, 

disposal of additional sludge, possible penmt mod1ficat1ons, and other costs that are primanly and 

secondartly related to the volume of wastewater treated 

Fnnge Community Costs (1995 $) 

The capital cost to expand the exIStmg metropohtan centrahzed wastewater treatment system 

cons1stmg of a gnt chamber, commmutor, SBR, and chlonnation/dechlormatmn umt to accomodate the 

flow from the frmge commumty is estimatt~d to be $464,000 Annual O&M costs are estimated to be 

$61,000 

D-8 
Rural Community Costs (1995$) 

The capital cost to InStall a centrahzed wastewater treatment system cons1stmg of a facultatlve 

ox1dat1on pond and a chlorinat10n/dechlorinat10n umt to service the rural commumty is estimated to be 

$439,000, while annual O&M costs are estimated to be $14,000 

Cluster Systems 

A cluster system treats wastewater from a locahzed group of homes and 1s often used m 

conjunction with an alternative collection system Cluster systems may mclude a central leach field for 

subsurface discharge, or may discharge to surface waters The cluster systems evaluated for the rural 

and frmge commumt1es consists of ons1te septic tanks, and central sand filters and leach fields The 

mam components of a central leach field are dosmg siphons/tanks, pumps, adsorpt10n trenches, and 

land The mam components of a sand filter are pumps, dosmg tanks, and the filter 

Cost Data 

Cost estimates were developed for a central leach field to serve a cluster of homes The 

Fountam Run case study (Abney, 1976), which was used to develop alternative collect10n costs, also t provides design mformatlon on leach field treatment The case study provides capital cost data for a 

commumty d1v1ded mto clusters rangmg from 3 to 34 homes The study mcludes umt cost data (1976) 

for leach field treatment, mcludmg construct10n of the adsorption trenches More recent cost data were 

used for sand filter treatment for cluster systems (Otis, 1996) and for land As with centrahzed 

treatment, the cost for land IS based on the approximate average cost of $25,000 per acre for North 

Carolma (Hoover, 1996) 

Operatmg and mamtenance costs mclude pumpout of the md1v1dual septic tanks and 

replacement of d1stribut10n pump every 10 years, and quarterly InSpections of the cluster systems Cost 

data were obtamed from the COSMO cost model (Renkow and Hoover, 1996) developed at North 

Carolma State Umvers1ty and are described m detatl m the ons1te system section, described later m this 

appendix 

System Design and Cost 

The homes m the frmge and rural commumt1es were d1v1ded mto smaller groupmgs , or 

clusters, based on therr proximity to each other Homes located m areas with poorly dramed soils or 

higher water table were also clustered together 

Design mformation on leach fields for cluster systems of 3 to 34 homes was obtamed from the 

Fountam Run case study, and was comb med with the average cost per acre of land to comprise the 

capital cost for the leach field system The capital cost for sand filter treatment is based on wastewater 

flow, and is estimated to be $15 per gallon (Otis, 1996) Operatmg and mamtenance costs were 

obtamed from the COSMO cost model Cost estimates for the InStallat10n of treatment systems m the 

frmge and rural areas are provided below 

D-9 
FnngeArea 

To correspond with alternative co1llect1on costs, the fnnge commumty was broken mto 20 

clusters In the frmge commumty, cluster systems were costed for sand filter treatment followed by a 

leach field Table D-4 presents a summary of the capital cost for cluster systems m the frmge 

commumty 

Table D-4 Fnnge Area Clusters 

Number of Number of Capital Cost 

Clusters Connecbons per Connecnon 

1 7 $6,598 

6 10 $6,914 

3 12 $6,529 

10 34 $6,639 

Total 383 $2,953,421 

\ 

Capital Cost The cost for the leach field treatment follows the methodology outlmed m the 

alternative collection section The sand filter treatment cost was estnnated as $15 per gallon of 

wastewater treated Usmg the basis of 175 gallons of wastewater produced per home, a sand filter 

treatment system is estIInated to cost $2,6 ~5 per home The capital cost for treatment m the frmge area 

is $2,953,421, as shown m Table D-4 

Operabon and Mamtenance Co~;t The operation and mamtenance (O&M) cost for the 

combmed collection and treatment cluster was obtamed from the COSMO cost model Mamtenance of 

the ons1te systems, mcludmg yearly inspertmns and purnpouts every 10 years cost $32 per year 

Quarterly 1nspect10ns of the central leach field cost $100 per year, add1t10nal inspection tIIne for the 

sand filter is expected to cost an additional $25 per year Pump replacements are expected to occur 

three tIInes over the hfe of the system and cost a total of $1, 800 

Rural Community 

To correspond with alternative collection costs, the fa1lmg systems m the rural commumty were 

broken mto 4 clusters Table D-5 presents a summary of the capital cost for each cluster 

D-10 
Table D-5 Rural Area Clusters 

Number of Number of Ca}Jltal Cost 

Clusters <:;onnections per Connection 

2 10 $6,914 

1 12 $6,529 

1 35 $6,639 

Total 67 $448,992 

Capital Cost The cost for the leach field treatment follows the methodology outlrned rn the 

alternative collect10n sect10n The sand filter treatment cost was estimated as $15 per gallon of 

wastewater treated Usrng the basis of 175 gallons of wastewater produced per home, a sand filter 

treatment system is estimated to cost $2,625 per home Sand filter costs are added to the costs for the 4 

cluster systems (servrng 67 homes) located rn areas with poor soll conditions The capital cost for 

cluster treatment rn the rural commumty is $448,992, as shown rn Table D-5 

Operation and Mamtenance The operation and marntenance (O&M) cost for the combrned 

collection and treatment cluster was obtarned from the COSMO cost model Marntellll!ce of the onsite 

systems, rncludrng yearly lilSpect10ns and pumpouts every 10 years cost $32 per year Quarterly 

lilSpect10ns of the central leach field cost $100 per year, add1t10nal lilSpect10n time for the sand filter is 

expected to cost an additional $25 per year Pump replacements are expected to occur three times over 

the hfe of the system and cost a total of $1,800 

Ons1te Treatment 

Onsite systems treat wastewater from rnd1vidual homes, thereby elimrnatrng the need for a 

centralized collect10n and treatment system A conventional ons1te system consists of a septic tank, 

gravity d1stnbution leach field, and the soll beneath the leach field (Hoover and Renkow, 1997) Sohds 

from the wastewater deposit rn the septic tank where anaerobic decompos1t10n occurs The effluent is 

dispersed throughout the leach field where It rnflltrates the soll Add1t10nal treatment, such as aerobic 

decompos1t1on, occurs rn the soll 

Because of s1te-spec1fic cond1t10ns, some ons1te systems requrre additional treatment umts or 

use different methods of d1str1butrng the wastewater to the leach field Two system mod1ficat1ons 

evaluated for the hypothetical commumty were low pressure pipe (LPP) d1stnbut10n and sand filter 

treatment Systems that utllize LPP d1stnbut10n rnclude a pump, pump tank, floats and controls, and a 

pressure d1stnbut1on system, rncludrng small diameter (1 25-rnch) PVC lateral pipes with small 

perforations 

D-11 
Cost Data 

Ons1te treatment costs were estllllcLted usmg the COSMO cost model (Renkow and Hoover, 

1996) Eqmpment and labor costs (1995 dollars) reflectmg the W1sconsm area were obtamed and 

entered mto COSMO to develop cost estimates However, it shauld be noted that ons1te treatment costs 

vary by region and may m fact be more oir less cost-effective depeadmg on s1te-spec1fic cond1t1ons and 

costs 

Ons1te capital costs mclude upgrades (i e , replacement systems) for fallmg systems m the rural 

and frmge commumt1es, as well as new systems for the future development m the frmge commumty 

Operatmg and mamtenance costs mclude quarterly mspect1ons of the onsite systems, mcludmg septic 

tanks, leach fields, and sand filters O&M costs also mclude pumpouts of the septic tanks and 

replacement of the d1stnbut10n pumps every 10 years The estabhshment of one diistnct to provide 

wastewater management to the frmge and rural commumt1es assumes the d1stnct wdl take over 

mamtenance of all ex1stmg and future onsrte systems, therefore, the annual O&M cost estllllates mclude 

costs for the ex1stmg ons1te systems that aire stlll funct10nmg eff ect1vely 

System Design and Cost 

Two ons1te treatment systems werie evaluated for the hypothetical commumty 

• Septic tank with low pressure pipe (LPP) d1stnbution to a leach field 

• Septic tank with sand filter treatment and LPP d1stnbut10n to a leach field 

LPP systems were chosen because they provide dosmg and restmg cycles m the leach field and 

d1str1bute the wastewater more effectively throughout the system LPP d1stnbut10n is effective m areas 

with poor dramage, such as some of the homes m the hypothetical rural and frmge commumt1es Sand 

filters provide add1t10nal treatment to meet performance goals m systems located m ecologically 

sens1t1ve areas and/or areas with high wat1~r tables, such as the homes located near the nver m the rural 

commumty 

Rural. Community 

About half (67) of the 135 onsite ~.ystems currently m operat10n m the rural commumty are 

fallmg Twenty of the 67 fa1lmg systems are located m an area near the nver with a high water table 

These systems need to achieve better quahty discharge, therefore, the cost estllllates mclude mstallmg a 

new ons1te systm eqmpped with a septic tank, a pressure-dosed smgle pass sand filter and a low 

pressure pipe d1stnbut1on system to a leach field Forty-seven of the 67 fa1lmg systems are located m 

areas with poor sods, the cost estllllates mclude mstallmg a new septic tank with a low pressure pipe 

d1Stnbut1on system to replace these systems Capital costs for the rural area are estllllated to be 

$510,000 

Annual O&M costs mclude mamtrnance of the 67 newly upgraded systems, as well as 

rnamtenance of the 68 current systems that still function eff ectlvely These ex1stmg systems consist of a 

D-12 
septic tank and gravity d1stnbut1on system to a leach field Annual O&M for the rural area is estimated 

to be $13,400 

Fnnge Community 

About half (110) of the 220 ons1te systems currently m operation m the rural commumty are 

failmg Thirty-three of these fallmg systems are located m an area near the nver with a high water 

table These systems need to achieve better quahty dIScharge, therefore, the cost estimates mclude 

1nstallmg a new ons1te system eqmpped with a septic tank, a pressure-dosed smgle pass sand filter and a 

low pressure pipe d1stnbut1on system to a leach field Seventy-seven of these failmg systems are 

located m areas with poor soils, the cost estimates mclude Installmg a new septic tank with a low 

pressure pipe d1stnbut1on system to replace these systems The cost estimates for ons1te treatment m 

new frmge commumty homes also mclude Installmg new septic tanks with low pressure pipe 

d1stnbut10n to a leach field for all future homes (223 systems) Capital costs for the frmge commumty 

is estimated to be $2,117,095, O&M costs are estimated to be $59,240 

D-13 

Append1xE 

Case Stu'd1es 

(Excerpted from "Managmg Wastewater Prospects m Massachusetts 

for a Decentraltzed Approach") 

Nova Scotia, Canada 

The noncontiguous d1str1ct 

A law passed m 1982 allows Nova ~cot1a towns and mumc1paht1es to create Wastewater Management D1str1cts The idea IS to provide umform "flush 

and forget" services to buildmg owners, regardless of the mix of technologies 

and regardless of who owns the systems All property owners m the d1str1ct 

are obliged to part1c1pate m the fundmg, paymg an annual charge that covers 

capital recovery as well as operation and mamtenance costs Boundanes of 

the d1str1ct need not comc1de with the extstmg town boundanes, and would 

typically be smaller 

In fact, the d1str1ct may be "noncontiguous," cons1stmg of md1v1dual 

properties or groups of properties that reqmre special cons1derat1on for environmental or h1stoncal reasons The admm1Stratlve Institution is either a 

sewer or pubhc works committee of the mumc1pal counctl It is vested with 

all the necessary author1t1es and duties It can own or lease land, make contracts, and fix and collect charges It ts held responsible for overall planmng, 

upgrades, and design, construction, inspection, operation and mamtenance of 

all types of systems Fmally, it can enter private property to Inspect, repair, or 

replace malfunct1onmg systems 

In Port Maitland (population 360), a prehmmary study estimated a per 

household cost of $6000 to $10,000 to mstall a conventional plant The town 

opted instead for a mix of md1v1dual ons1te systems and four cluster systems 

fed by gravity sewers to central septic tanks, siphon chambers, and contour 

subsoil trenches Installation costs were approximately $2400 per umt Mamtenance, repair, and pumpmg are provided by,pnvate contractors with the District Annual fees per household were $65 m 1994 Recent studies have shown 

that despite seasonally high groundwater, the systems are funct1onmg well 

Guysborough, with a s1mtlar population, adopted a plan that mcludes a 

small convent1onal treatment plant for part of the town, an aerated lagoon for 

another part, and md1v1dual ons1te systems for a third part All owners were 

assessed $2100 m1t1ally, and were charged annual fees of $125 m 1994 

Voter approval of those m the district is reqmred, lt must be presented to 

them as a complete plan that has considered sites, boundaries, servicmg options, prehmmary designs, and cost estimates However, districts have often 

been voted down Only three Nova Scotia towns had adopted such d1str1cts 

by the sprmg of 1994 Of sixteen others that considered it, decentrahzed 

management was actually recommended m fourteen cases But six had 

E-1 
chosen to centrahze, and five were still m nebulous d1scuss1on Five others 

were actively cons1dermg OWMD programs Eqmty of either service or cost 

has been an issue m towns cons1dermg a mixed approach Furthermore, 

central sewermg is often regairded by the pubhc as more desirable and less mterfermg Aside from questions of eqmty, voters have not always perceived 

that a problem exISted, or that a Wastewater Management DIStnct was the entity 

to fix it 

Sources 

Jordan D Mooers and Donald H Waller, 1994, Wastewater management distracts the Nova Scotia experience In EC Jowett, 1994, (see references) • Nova Scotia Dept of Municipal Affairs, 1983, Wastewater 

management distncts an alti•rnatzve for sewage disposal in small commumtzes (No further mformat1on available) • David A Pask, 1995, Personal commumcatwn Tecluucal Services Coordmator, Nat10nal Drmkmg 

Water Clearmghouse, West Virgmia Umv, Box 6064, Morgantown, WV 

26506 • Andrew Paton, 1995, Review ments of Wastewater Management 

Dzstncts (Mumc1pal mfrastructure action plan, Act1v1ty #15) Commumty 

Plannmg D1v1s1on, Provmc1al Plannmg Section, P 0 Box 216, Halifax, NS 

B3J2M4 

E-2 
Cass County, Minnesota 

Rural electric cooperatives manage service d1str1cts ,. Cass County is typical of the counties m the "Northern Lake Ecoreg1on" 

which have evolved from an economy based on agriculture and timber to an 

economy where the lakes and associated tourism have become very important Because much of the development and growth around the lake regions 

took place m earher years, there wasn't great attention paid to lot sizes, soll 

types, or to consideration of water quality Cass County ts now faced with a 

growmg number of nonconformmg ons1te septic systems around many of its 

rural lakes Furthermore, the state Shorelands Management Act, and Mmnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations, are setting tighter 

regulatory wastewater standards which Cass County ts obhged to enforce 

And many residents are m the unfortunate position of bemg unable to sell 

their homes due to the fact that they can not provide a "conformmg" septic 

system on their property Cass County has been pressed to look for answers 

In 1994, the county developed the concept of the "Environmental Subordmate Service District," whereby a township, as the local umt of government, 

can effectively provide, finance, and admm1strate governmental services for 

subsets of its residents Establishment of such d1str1cts withm a town is now 

authorized under Mmnesota Statute 365A So far, one district has been 

formed, five are m planmng stages The purpose of these d1str1cts ts to provide a self-sufficient, effective, and consistent long-term management tool, 

chiefly for neighborhood alternative (STEP) collection and communal leach 

fields This model IS mnovatlve, because it stays at the grass roots level where 

the affected property owners and the township remam involved Cass County 

provides techmcal and support assistance when reqmred, but is not directly mvolved on a dally basis The partnermg with the townships and the county has 

allowed resource sharmg, improved commumcat1on, and thus has opened up 

prospects for other cooperative ventures such as land-use planmng, road improvements, and geographic information systems 

Once a Subordmate Service D1stnct is created by petition and vote from 

the residents needmg the specific service, a CountyfTownshtp agreement is 

signed The County then determmes the system's design, handles construction oversight, gives fmal approval for the collection system, commits to yearly mspections, and assures regulatory compliance The leach fields are 

located away from lakes, wells, and groundwater supplies Cass County will 

allow systems to he on county-admimstered 1and m order to defray residents' 

costs, or to enable optimal sltlng 

E-3 
The township 1s the legal entity that secures management services needed 

for the district to function Other key players are the MPCA 's Brainerd 

Regional Office, prov1dmg regulatory and techrucal asststance, the Association of 

Cass County Lakes for lake and water quahty momtormg and educat10nal support, the Minnesota Assoc1atlon of Townships for their legal counsel, the 

Mutual Service Insurance Ag(•ncy for insuring the townships and the district 

wastewater collection systems, the Tn-County Leech Lake Watershed (dtstnct) 

for their engineering funding, and the Woodland Bank of Remer for working 

with the township to obtain low interest financing for residents 

However, another key and major player 1s the Rural Utilities Services 

(formerly the Rural Electrification Assoc1atlon) The piece of the puzzle missing for the districts to actually work was an operations, maintenance, and 

management program Therefore, Cass County sought out the local utility, 

Crow Wing Power and Light (Brainerd, MN), and asked them to consider 

helping Crow Wing Power and Light now provides the following services as 

utility managers ( 1) security momtoring, (2) monthly inspections (they also 

mamt.un the grounds), (3) through a subcontractor, pumping of md1v1dual 

septic tanks, and any other repair or maintenance reqmred, and ( 4) record 

keepmg....:.logs are kept of inspections and repairs/maintenance Bills are sent 

to the residents mvolved every six months, totalling about $200 per year per 

household 

A management mamtenance contract is negotiated for the ut1hty's services, 

thus reducmg the need for add1t1onal staffing by the town itself The townslup 

remains the legal entity guaranteeing any unpaid charges through its power to 

levy special district taxes 

Source 

This (extracted) text has been supplied by Bridget I Chard, Resource Consultant, Red River Ox Cart Tr,ul, Rte 1, Box 1187, Pillager, MN 567 J4, tel 

218-825-0528 

E-4 
Stinson Beach, California 

Another classic, enforceable by shutting off town water 

Stmson Beach is a small town m Marm County, located about 20 miles 

north of San Francisco Part of the beach is a park that can draw 10,000 

visitors on a weekend The town generally answers to Marm County government At present there are about 700 onsite systems m Stinson Beach It Is 

another early participant m the ons1te management concept . 

In 1961 a county survey concluded that surface and groundwaters were 

bemg polluted by many of the town's often antiquated ons1te systems In 

response, the county created the Stinson Beacb County Water DIStnct, whose 

task would be solve the problem The water district ts governed by a fivemember, elected Board of Directors who make policy and perform water 

quahty plannmg Between 1961and1973, nme separate studies and 

proposals for central treatment were rejected by voters In 1973 the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) mtervened, puttmg Stmson Beach on notice All ons1te systems would be ehmmated by 

1977, and a bmldmg moratormm would go mto effect forthwith Even so, a 

tenth central sewer proposal was rejected Voters were not only alarmed by 

costs, but were unconvmced that alternatives had been sufficiently considered An eleventh study, specifically undertaken to examme alternatives, 

concluded that ons1te remediation was both the most cost effective and environmentally bemgn 

Concurrence was sought from both the regional board and the state legislature, which enacted special legislation (consistent with Cahfornia Water 

Code prov1s1ons) m 1978 empowermg the Stuison Beach County Water District to estabhsh the Stinson Beach Onsite Wastewater Management Program 

The program would answer directly to the SFRWQCB, rather than to Marm 

County The program would govern the permittmg, construction, Inspection, 

repair, and mamtenance of old and, later, new systems Rules and regulations 

were approved by the regional board on a trial basis, and were later made permanent The program went mto effect with the passage of a series of town ordmances Rules and regulations (and ordmances) have evolved as problems 

were encountered, there bemg few precedents to go on 

Ownership of the systems, and ultimately the respons1b1hty for reparrmg 

or upgradmg them, rest with the bmldmg owner But program staff perform 

mspectlons out of which come permits to operate, or mstead a citation that 

hsts violations and provides a timetable for remediation (Imt1ally a house-tohouse survey was used to identify the most critical failures or substandard sys-

' 

E-5 
terns from wluch came mtenm penmts to operate ) As in the case of Georgetown, the permit to operate is condlt10nal on authorizmg the district to enter 

property for purposes of inspection and, if need be, repair Conventional systems are inspected every two years, alternative systems (now stipulated for 

some areas) every quarter Th€ permit may carry condltlons, or varymg 

penods of vahdity The regulations provide penalties for noncompliance of 

up to a $500 fme or 60 days 1mpnsonment, each day considered another 

count The district also has the power to effect its own repairs and put a hen 

on the property until repaid And It has access to low-mterest state loan funds 

for low-income households However, zt has rarely had to take strong measures 

because the dzstrzct rs also empowered to cut off the water supply of a noncomplzer, somethmg lt has had to do occasionally Durmg the mitrnl period, 

about half the existmg systems were found to require repair or replacement 

Five staffers approve plans, and mspect and handle compliance The 

budget IS met partly out of tax revenues and partly by a $53 per household 

semiannual fee Special mspect1ons or mspect1ons for compliance are also 

charged for 

Problems encountered at Stmson Beach mostly had to do with delays as 

bugs were worked out and sudden demands were put on staff as well as 

private engmeers and mstallers One completely unanticipated problem Access ports, reqmred of system owners, were leadmg to a serious mosqmto 

problem, redesign of the ports iresulted Then, m 1992, the RWQCB imposed 

a moratormm on new systems pendmg reevaluat10n of the program, revised 

(and tighter) techmcal, approval and trackmg procedures, and the development of a more adequate staff mg and fee structure New ordinances were 

passed m 1994, and the program is back on track Not without some g1owth 

pams, this 17-year old program is regarded as both successful and adaptable 

to other locales 

Sources 

Mark S Richardson, 1989, (see references) • Stmson Beach County 

Water District, 19?? Wastewal1er management program rules and regulations, and [Revmons of 1994] (SBCWD Ordmance 1994-01), SBCWD, 

Box 245, Stmson Beach, CA 94970 • SBCWD, 1982 Report on the Simson Beach Onstte Wastewater Management D1stnctfor the penod January 

17, 1978 through December 31, 1981 SBCWD (see address above) • 

SBCWD, 1991 Fifteenth annual report of the Ons1te Wastewater Management Program (January 1, 1992 - December 31, 1992, mcludmg data summary of Jan I, 1986 - Dec 31, 1991) SBCWD (see address above) • Bonme 

M Jones, 1995, Personal commumcatwn SBCWD (see address above) 

E-6 
Keuka Lake, New York 

A home-rule mtermumc1pal agreement, eight towns strong 

Lake Keuka hes m upper New York State's "Fmger Lakes Region" The 

Keuka watershed supplies water for over 20,000 people, over 10,000 hve on 

the lake's shores, which border 8 mumc1pahties and two counties Overall, 

water quahty m the lake Is good, but occasionally elevated levels of sedrment, 

nutnents, and pathogens have been recorded Pollution, and Its potential rmpact 

on health, recreation, property values and the associated tounsm mdustry, led 

local townspeople to 1dent1fy watershed management as their leadmg concern 

This concern was uncovered by a c1v1c group, the Keuka Lake Association, more than 30 years old, it ultimately comprised 1700 members and was 

able, via its nonprofit Foundation, to acqmre $180,000 m grants and other 

revenues for study and plannmg purposes It went on, m 1991, to establtsh 

the Keuka Lake Watershed Project, whose more spec1f1c purpose was to 

promote umform, coordmated, cooperative watershed management for the 

region There were three prongs to its effort (1) estabhsh detatls of the current 

situation, (2) educate the pubhc to the need for action, and (3) foster mterlllStltutional cooperation 

With regard to the latter, It encouraged the formation of md1v1dual Town 

Watershed Advisory Committees that would provide local participatory 

forums to address water issues, and at the same time report to the Project's 

duector An early suggestion of the md1v1dual committees was to form a 

smgle, oversight committee, cons1stmg of elected officials from the eight 

mumc1paht1es around the lake This committee came to be called the Keuka 

Watershed Improvement Cooperative (KWIC) Irutially it had no official status 

The stated purpose of the Cooperative was to develop a model watershed 

law, and then identify who should admm1ster 1t In developmg the law it 

specifically excluded fac1httes of such a size that they were already regulated 

by the state When It came to admm1strat1on, they exammed and rejected 

formmg a regulatory commission through the state's enablmg procedures, 

and they exammed and rejected county-based ("county-small") watershed districts Instead, they opted for drawmg up an mtermumcipal agreement under 

the state's Home Rule prov1s1ons which allow the mumc1pahties to do anythmg together (by agreement) that they could have done separately The agreement, itself, was only 8 pages long It legally fonnahzed the cooperative, 

prov1dmg for a board of directors cons1stmg of the Chief Executive Officer of 

each mumcipahty, and for a professional watershed management staff Voters 

were presented with a package cons1stmg of the agreement, the proposed 

E-7 
watershed protection law, and recommended pohcy and procedures, mcludmg those for dispute resolution After dozens of pubhc meetings the package 

won by a landslide m every mumc1pahty 

Regulations govern penmttmg, design standards, mspection and enforcement A program for all sites m "Zone One," the land w1thm 200 feet of lake, 

calls for their mspect1on at least once every five years Failures are cited and 

reqmred upgrades stipulated Aerobic and other alternative systems must be 

mspected annually, at which t11me the owner must show evidence of an extant 

maintenance contract Specific ations for the design, construction, and s1tmg 

of replacement systems are also tighter than the state's, and approval may reqmre the use of advanced or "Best A vailabfe Technology " Enforcement 

prov1s10ns define v10lat1ons, and specify timetables for comphance and fines 

The md1v1dual mumcipaht1es issue notices of v10latlons and citations to appear m town or village court 

The Cooperative coordmaties Its activities with state and county health 

agencies, mamtams a database and GIS system to track environmental[ variables and the perforn1ance of new technologies, contmues with ongomg 

studies, and retams a Technical Review Committee to help with policy and 

regulatory modificat10ns Staff mclude a full time watershed manager, 

employed by KWIC, and part time inspectors, employed by the towns 

KWIC is financed by septic system permit fees, grants as available, and 

funds from each member mumc 1pahty's annual budget The annual KWIC 

budget forecasts permit fees, considers grant funds immediately available, 

and d1stnbutes the balanc~ of funds needed evenly ~among the towns and villages 

Sources 

Peter Landre, 1995 The crt•at1on of Keuka Lake's Cooperative Water-

!.hed Program Cleanvaters, summer 1995, 28-30 • James C Smith, 1995 

Protecting and Improving the waters of Keuka Lake Clearwaters, summer, 1995, 32-33 • Text is also partially based on a one-page descnptlon of 

KWIC provided by James Snuth • (Peter Landre can be reached through 

Cornell Cooperative Extension, 315-536-5123, James C Smith, Keuka Lake 

Watershed Manager, can be reached at 315-536-4347) 

E-8 
Gloucester, Massachusetts 

Explormg new approaches for Massachusetts' c1t1es 

Gloucester is a fishmg port (population, 30,000) on the rocky coast of 

Cape Ann, about 40 mlles north of Boston Whtie 40% of the ctty IS sewered, 

the particularly troublesorμe area of North Gloucester ls not Palled septic systems have resulted m the closmg of shellfish beds, and smce 1979 the city has 

been under a consent decree to comply by 1999 with state clean water standards Numerous environmental problems were m1t1ally taken to Imply that 

North Gloucester should be reqmred to hook mto the city sewer These mcluded shallow sod depth, a high groundwater table, wetland areas, and 

numerous private wells 

The hookup was partially underway when the EPA Constructmn Grants 

program was terminated m 1985, leavmg Gloucester still with a problem, and 

stdl under a consent decree Aware that centralized hookups would now become extremely expensive to homeowners, and also aware that the central 

sewer provided only primary treatment (albeit wa1vered for the tune bemg), 

the city began an exammation of the many ram1ficat1ons of decentralized 

management, and many d1scuss1ons with the state's Department of Envttonmental Protection 

In ongoing negotiations for its consent decree, Gloucester is p1oneermg a 

new approach to wastewater management m Massachusetts It is m the 

process of developmg a c1tyw1de wastewater plan that avoids construction of 

additional conventional sewer Imes by proposmg STEP sewers and/or ensunng 

that all ons1te systems are properly built and mamtained Small commumty 

systems and package plants would be admm1stered by the city's Department 

of Public Works, although their ownership is stlll under d1scuss1on 

Ind1v1dual systems would still be adm.Irustered by the Board of Health, albeit 

m a framework tougher than the state• s recently revised (Title 5) regulations 

As it presently stands, key provisions relatmg to mdiv1dual systems mclude 

the followmg An 1mtial mspect1on and pumpmg will be conducted by either 

Board of Health personnel or pnvately-hcensed mspectors at the homeowner's 

option Inspection will result m either an Operatmg Permit or an Order to 

Comply that stipulates upgrade or replacement reqmrements and a time frame 

for compliance Regular mspectlons will follow, rangmg from annual (for 

food industries) to every seven years (for residences) A BOH computer system now m development will record data from these mspect1ons as well as 

from septage haulers There are emergency repair prov1s1ons and fmancial 

relief (loan) prov1s1ons for quahfymg homeowners to be funded through a 

E-9 
Betterment Bill bond issue The system is to be financed by license fees from 

professionals and by inspect10n fees from homeowners Contractors and 

haulers will be licensed annually by the city, which will also conduct training 

programs Enforcement will r1ely on the ultimate power of the BOH to make 

repairs itself and then mv01ce, with collection falling to the city and courts 

In areas unsuited for conventional systems, alternative technologies permitted by the DEP will be stipulated For those, technical advice can be obtained from the DPW as well as the BOH Such systems must be 

accompanied by three-year maintenance contracts with either the DPW or a 

hcensed manufacturer/installer In North Gloucester a National Onsite 

Demonstration Project is undf•rway to test innovative systems yet to receive 

general state approval Not alil details of Gloucester's plans are settled, and 

final approval has yet to be obtained from the DEP, which, however, is being 

consulted as the plan is developed 

Sources 

City of Gloucester wastewater management plan, revision of 1-10-95, 

Gloucester, MA • David Venhmzen, Ward Engmeermg Associates, 1992, 

Equivalent enviromnental protection analysis, an evaluation of the relative 

protection provided by altem,1Uves to Title 5 systems, in support of the City 

of Gloucester wastewater management plan • Ellen Katz (City Engineer), 

Dan Ottenheuner (City Health Agent), 1995, Personal communication, City 

Hall, Dale Ave , Gloucester, MA 01930 

E-10 
AppendixF 

The Role of Rural Electric Cooperatives 

m Upgradmg Facibhes 

THE ROLE OF RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES 

IN UPGRADING FACILITIES 

BACKGROUND 

Rural electnc cooperatives are pnvate entitles that bwld and manage extensive rural 

utility systems These cooperatives have the capability to address a full range of techmcal, 

financial, admm1stratlve, and regulatory issues related to the supply and management of 

electncal power A report titled, "COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT - Opporturutles m WaterW astewater Services, The Fmal Report of the NRECA/CFC Jomt Member Task Force on Rural 

Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, February 1995" (CI Report), producedJomtly by the _ 

National Rural Electnc Cooperative Association and the National Rural Ut1htles Cooperative 

Fmance Corporation, sets forth a "bluepnnt for rural electnc cooperatives which decide to enter 

the water-wastewater busmess voluntarily " In the Fiscal Year 1997 House Appropnat1ons 

Comnuttee report, the Comnuttee acknowledged the sigmficant mterest of the cooperatives "to 

expand their current role of dehvenng electnc1ty to the delivery to rural commurutles of clean 

water and safe dnnkmg water improvement technologies as well " The Committee "1s uncertam 

whether expansion mto this new field is an appropnate means of upgradmg rural drmkmg and 

wastewater fac1ht1es to meet federal reqwrements " EPA was asked to review this matter and 

report on its findmgs pnor to the Committee's fiscal year 1998 budget hearmgs for EPA This 

response exammes whether cooperatives are an appropnate vehicle to manage, operate, mamtam 

and upgrade dnnkmg water and wastewater systems It is mcluded as an appendix to an overall 

response to Congress on decentralized wastewater treatment systems 

There are approximately 900 rural electnc cooperatives m the Umted States An 

estimated 80 to 90 of these cooperatives are mvolved m some aspect of dnnkmg water or 

wastewater management with the overwhelmmg maJonty dealmg with dnnkmg water 

management Only a few of the cooperatives own wastewater treatment facihties or are currently 

mvolved m wastewater management 

KEY ISSUES 

- To determme whether cooperatives are appropnate management entities for managmg 

dnnkmg water and wastewater systems, there are several key issues to consider 

1 Authonty for ownership/management, 

2 Managenal and techmcal ab1hty, 

3 Ability to obtam capital, and 

4 Ab1hty to ensure continued management and operation and mamtenance (O&M) 

F-1 
These issues are exanuned below for the purpose of detenmrung whether cooperatives are 

appropnate for upgradmg dnnkmg wat1~r and wastewater fac1ht1es to meet federal reqmrements 

1. Authonty for Ownersh1p/Managem.ent The CI Report notes that most states - all 

but 13 - have laws that authonze coopell"at1ves to own and operate dnnkmg water and wastewater 

fac1hties The CI Report notes 11 some cooperatives have used mnovat1ve methods to gam entry 

to the dnnkmg water and wastewater busmess C<;>operat1ves may be ehg1ble through other 

methods of orgaruzat1on 11 

In addition to state and local authonty, m the wastewater area, cooperatives must have 

each md1v1dual owners' agreement to upgrade and/or operate and mamtam their ons1te 

wastewater systems This generally happens when a large percentage of homeowners have 

frulmg ons1te systems and have a need for upgraded treatment which they cannot meet 

themselves, and for which local government is mcapable or unwilling to meet The owners 

retam the services of a cooperative whic h would seek the capital needed for th1e system upgrade 

The cooperative would be charged with the responsibility for operation and mamtenance of the 

system and charge a monthly utility rate· for this service and the cost of needed upgrades 

In cases where centralized wastewater collect10n and treatment systemc; or water 

distribution systems already exist, but £ul to meet the federal statutory or regulatory 

requirements, the same situation occurs If the fac1hties are madequate, the system owner must 

mvest m rmprovements An organizat10n, such as a cooperative or other pnvate entity, may take 

ownership of the system and provide operation and mamtenance Issues associated with 

pnvatlzahon of wastewater are discussed ma comparuon document entitled, "Response to 

Congress on Pnvatizat1on ofWastewate1 Facilities" 

One area related to wastewater where cooperatives are havmg success is where state or 

local health officials have ruled that conventional onsite wastewater systems will not work due to 

sod conditions In these cases, developers are usually not frumhar with alternative systems and 

welcome cooperatives to take ownership and/or manage the new upgraded sys1ems that they are 

required to mstall There are two dnvmg forces that are bnngmg this about 1) the need for 

some form of wastewater treatment other than conventional septic systems, and 2) the revenue 

generated by each new homeowner (customer) for electnc power (estimated at about $1,000 I yr I 

household) 

A second area of success has been assistance and contract management to dnnkmg water 

authonties, both public and pnvate The CI Report mdicates that types of services currently 

provided mclude orgaruzmg, feasibility, bylaws, mappmg, accountmg and billmg 

2 Managerial and Techmcal Ab1hty Cooperatives do not generally have the techmcal 

ab1hty "m house" to conduct dnnkmg water and wastewater feas1b1lity studies and fac1hty 

designs (with the exception of those wmch currently own or operate dnnkmg water and/or 

wastewater facilities) However, they rue well eqmpped with managenal capab1hties and can 

F-2 

' 
contract for these techmcal services In addition, cooperative associations have contracted with 

several dnnkmg water and wastewater research-onented professionals who provide techmcal 

assistance, mcludmg demonstrations of technology, thus givmg them access to techrucally 

competent people At least one state cooperative association is already performmg 

demonstrations of alternative technologies (m Pennsylvarua, five ons1te system projects will be 

demonstrated) 

Rural electnc cooperatives have histoncally dealt with issues relatmg to the use of 

electnc1ty to enhance the hves of Inhabitants of rural areas m the context of econormc 

development Convent10nal ons1te systems (septic tank and leach field) typically do not mvolve 

the use of electncity, while centralized systems and alternative types of ons1te systems generally 

rely upon electncity for pumpmg, power, hghtmg and other actlv1tles Therefore, there could be 

a possible concern that rural electnc cooperatives rmght be more comfortable with constructmg 

or managmg fac1ht1es which rely on electnc power versus those that do not This concern would 

need to be addressed if rural electnc cooperatives are to play a more promment role m the 

construction and/or management of decentralized treatment systems It should be noted that the 

Federal Agnculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the Farm Bill) prohibits cooperatives 

from requmng those receivmg dnnkmg water and wastewater services to receive electnc 

services 

3 Ability to Obtam Capital In the Cl Report (chapter 9), there is considerable 

discussion of the vanous possible fundmg scenanos Federal fundmg, mcludmg loans, grants, 

and guarantee programs, for dnnkmg water and wastewater programs is provided by the 

followmg federal departments and agencies 

o USDA's Rural Utihties Service (RUS) 

o USDA's Rural Busmess and Cooperative Development Service (RBCDS) 

o USDA's Rural Housmg and Commuruty Development Service (RHCDS) 

o U S Department of Commerce's Econormc Development Admmistrat10n (EDA) 

o US Department of Housmg and Urban Development (HUD) 

o US EPA 

There are many opporturutres for fundmg other than federal programs, mcludmg loans 

from local fmanc1al Institutions In addition, two other sources offundmg are the National Rural 

Utilities Cooperative Fmance Corporation (CFC), and National Bank for Cooperatives 

(CoBank) The cooperatives' managenal skills and eqwty provide support that other pnvate or 

governmental organizations may not provide m rural areas However, issues related to 

ownership and management of the fac1hties may hrmt where funds can be obtamed The CI 

Report provides six recommendations to Congress to strengthen the ab1hty of cooperatives to 

obtam fundmg These recommendations mclude authonzatlon for a re-lendmg program for 

system upgrades, fundmg for the Water-Wastewater Disposal Loan Guarantee program, removal 

F-3 
of the "no-credit-elsewhere" condition m the loan program, financmg for feasibility studies, 

ehgibihty for cooperatives to receive funds under all federal programs, and support for rural 

electnc mfrastructure activities 

4 Ab1hty to Ensure Contmm d Management and O&M Chapter 8 of the CI Report 

provides a strong basis for the ways that cooperatives can assist in management and O&M 

Cooperatives are more hkely to providt> better management and O&M than small public (town) 

or pnvate entitles (e g homeowners' as.soc1atlons) which cannot afford to staff up appropnately 

and typically run mto poht1cal and financial conflicts The ab1hty to provide management, 

mcludmg O&M, could be the strongest and most valuable asset the cooperatives offer The real 

problem m the wastewater area involves convmcmg the homeowners there is a need for 

management services, mcludmg O&M, of the ons1te wastewater system startmg from its rmtial 

installation 

CONCLUSIONS 

In summary, drmkmg water andl wastewater treatment fac1ht1es can be upgraded and 

managed by rural electnc cooperatives, although 13 states would require enabling legislation for 

them to own and/or operate these fac1hbes Upgrades of drmkmg water and wastewater fac1ht1es 

by cooperatives could be a good solution m rural areas because cooperatives are non-political, 

known entities to the homeowners, that bnng expenenced management and staff to solve the 

O&M challenge, as well as options for obtarmng capital Also, the ab1hty to provide 

management services, includmg O&M, can be the cooperatives' most valuable asset 

From the drmkmg water perspe1:::tive, cooperatives offer great prormse as management 

entitles for small water systems which lack institutional strength However, for many reasons, 

some stated above, it is unlikely that more cooperatives will make s1gmficant movements into the 

drmkmg water and wastewater busmes<, qwckly These reasons involve mtere st on the part of 

mchv1dual owners to pay for ons1te system management, the techmcal ab1hty of the cooperative 

to manage drmkmg water and wastewa1 er fac1hties, hrmted expenence with low energy ons1te 

technologies, and the ab1hty to obtam capital Once these issues are resolved, the commumt1es 

and cooperatives may be able to work together to efficiently provide the needed improvements 

and services 

F-4