letter from the editor - national environmental services center€¦ · letter from the editor...
TRANSCRIPT
C A T E G O R YS
ma
ll F
low
s Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
2
Letter from the Editor
Welcome to another spring issue of the Small Flows Quar-terly. Like the rest of the staff here, I am overjoyed at seeing
the end of winter. The experience, however, of having the
water line to my house freeze solid for a week each winter
when an unexpected temperature plunge into the single dig-
its catches me without my faucets trickling overnight, has left
an indelible impression on my psyche.
That is why I am presenting you with a look into the per-
formance of various types of onsite wastewater treatment sys-
tems in cold weather (p. 12). It’s comforting to know that as
long as you can keep your water running, your treatment system will
not let you down (at least not because of the weather).
What I am looking forward to is warm weather recreation, fishing
in particular, and that’s an activity that requires a healthy body of
water. Lakes are particularly at risk from pollution from failed onsite
treatment systems, and one of this issue’s management case studies
(our cover story, p. 16) is a look at a lakeside community in Colorado
that has brought that issue under control.
Sharon Nelson has been fondly called, “the homeowner from
hell.” Anyone who has attended the national and regional environ-
mental conferences at which she has presented will be familiar with
how she was instrumental in bringing about legislation in Washing-
ton State that regulates the licensing and certification of onsite waste-
water treatment system designers. For those of you who aren’t famil-
iar with it, we are presenting her story in this issue (p. 18), along with
a heads up on a proposed national plan to provide homeowners with
septic system insurance (p. 21).
Sometimes duplication of services is a bad thing, causing an or-
ganization to spend money and resources unnecessarily. That is not
the case in the onsite wastewater treatment industry, particularly
when it comes to demonstration projects. As you will see in the story
about the NODP II demonstration project in Centerville, Pennsylva-
nia (p. 10), the technology-testing there will be duplicated under sim-
ilar conditions in Central Europe. Sharing technology could open new
markets for U.S. onsite professionals, but it will certainly result in a
broader database for the benefit of all.
F R O M T H E E D I T O R
Small Flows Quarterly is sponsored by:
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySteve Hogye | Project OfficerMunicipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia UniversityJohn L. Mori, Ph.D. | ManagerWVU National Environmental Services Center
Peter Casey, P. Eng. | Program Coordinator
Timothy Suhrer | Editor
Cathleen Falvey | Associate Editor
John Fekete | Graphic Designer
Colleen Mackne | Promotions Writer/Editor
Caigan C. McKenzie | Staff WriterMarilyn Noah | Staff WriterNatalie Eddy | Staff Writer
Jennifer Hause | Engineering Scientist Tricia Angoli | Engineering ScientistAndrew Lake | Engineering Scientist
Article SubmissionsSmall Flows Quarterly welcomes letters to the editor, articles, news items, photographs, or other materials for publication. Please address correspondence to:
Editor, Small Flows QuarterlyNational Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu
Juried Article Review BoardJames A. Bell, P.E., Smith & Loveless, Inc., Lenexa, KSSteven Berkowitz, P.E., North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural ResourcesTerry Bounds, P.E., Roseberg, ORCraig Cogger, Ph.D., Washington State University, PuyallupJames Converse, Ph.D., P.E., University of WisconsinBrian Cooper, C.E.T., Simcoe Engineering Group, Ltd., Pickering, OntarioRon Crites, P.E., Brown and Caldwell, Sacramento, CADonald Gray, Ph.D., West Virginia UniversityMark Gross, Ph.D., P.E., University of ArkansasDavid Gustafson, P.E., University of MinnesotaMichael Hines, M.S., P.E., Southeast Environmental Engineering, Knoxville, TNAnish Jantrania, Ph.D., P.E., Virginia Department of HealthCraig Jowett, Ph.D., P. Eng., University of Waterloo, OntarioJim Kreissl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency George Loomis, University of Rhode IslandTed L. Loudon, Ph.D., P.E., Michigan State UniversityRoger E. Machmeier, Ph.D., P.E., University of MinnesotaKaren M. Mancl, Ph.D., The Ohio State UniversityDon P. Manthe, P.E., Entranco, Phoenix, AZStewart Oakley, Ph.D., P.E., California State University, ChicoMichael H. Ogden, P.E., Santa Fe, NMRichard J. Otis, Ph.D., P.E., Madison, WIMike A. Parker, i.e. Engineering Inc., Roseburg, ORFrank Pearson, Ph.D., P.E., Hercules, CASherwood Reed, P.E., Norwich, VTR. B. Reneau Jr., Ph.D., Virginia TechWill Robertson, Ph.D., University of Waterloo, OntarioA. R. Rubin, Ph.D., North Carolina State UniversityWilliam A. Sack, Ph.D., P.E., West Virginia UniversityC. M. Sawyer, Ph.D., P.E., Virginia Department of Health Robert L. Siegrist, Ph.D., P.E., Colorado School of MinesDennis Sievers, Ph.D., University of MissouriSteve Steinbeck, P.G., North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural ResourcesJerry Stonebridge, Stonebridge Construction, Inc., Langley, WAWilliam L. Stuth Sr., Stuth Company Inc., Maple Valley, WAGeorge Tchobanoglous, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, DavisJerry Tyler, Ph.D., University of WisconsinTed Walker, R.E.H.S., Sonoma County Health Department, Sonoma, CAA. T. Wallace, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, University of IdahoRobert C. Ward, Ph.D., P.E., Colorado State University
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse, established by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1977 and locatedat West Virginia University, gathers and distributes information about small com-munity wastewater systems. Small Flows Quarterly is funded through a grantfrom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ReprintsFor permission to reprint information appearing in Small Flows Quarterly, please send a letter of request to the editor.
International Standard Serial Number1528-6827
The contents of this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names orcommercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Printed on recycled paper
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
Helping America’s Small Communities Meet Their Wastewater Needs
Tim Suhrer,Small FlowsQuarterly Edi-tor
Got an Opinion?Who wants your opinion? The editor of the Small Flows Quar-terly does, and not just as a “letter to the editor,” either. Our“Forum” column is a place where readers can share informed,well-thought-out ideas that they feel will be of value to peo-ple involved in the treatment of wastewater, both onsite andsmall centralized systems.
We are open to all aspects of small-flow wastewater treatment,such as technology, management, regulation, operation, andmaintenance. Please send your opinions (for the Forum col-umn, 750 to 1000 words) to the Small Flows Quarterly editorat the address on the staff box on this page.
®
Baby, It’s COLD Outside!Techniques for OnsiteSuccess in Cold Climates
Marilyn Noah
The latest research revealsthat alternative onsite sys-tems, such as constructed
wetlands, sand filters, and peatfilters, seem to function effec-tively in cold weather, althoughat a reduced level, as long asthey were designed carefully andafforded adequate maintenance.
J U R I E D A R T I C L E
4 News & Notes
5 Calendar of Events
7 Web Watch
8 Small Flows Forum
10 NODP Update
38 Question/Answer
40 Resources
43 Products List
50 Closing Thoughts
II NN TT HH II SS II SS SS UU EE .. .. ..
10
18
22
On the cover: Recreational lakes, such asthis one in the Colorado Rockies, are particu-larly at risk from failed onsite systems.
Evaluation of High-PorosityMedium in IntermittentlyDosed, Multi-Pass PackedBed Filters for the Treatment of Wastewater
Three configurations of non-woven textile fabric (NWTF)in a multi-pass, packed bed
filter were evaluated for the treat-ment of primary effluent. The config-urations included hanging sheets, apacked bed of chips, and a layered,packed bed of chips. Performancecomparisons were made betweensimilarly loaded NWTF and sand fil-ters that indicated that medium sizesand beds clogged and coarse sizesand beds deteriorated in effluentquality compared to the NWTF filters.
28
Crystal Lakes, Colorado, is a popularrecreational community in the RockyMountains. In 1972, the Coloradolegislature passed a water augmenta-
tion law that regulated water use. Crystal Lakeshad to come up with a management plan thatcould ensure the community’s compliance with thestate regulation as well as control developmentaround the three lakes. The use of onsite systemsis extensive in Crystal Lakes.
16
12
Caigan McKenzie
RockiesOnsite Systems Management
in the
24
Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Centerville, PA—World-Class DemonstrationCaigan McKenzie
Who Says You Can’t Fight City Hall?How One Homeowner Made a DifferenceNatalie Eddy
DuPage County Illinois Health Department:An Unconventional Approach to Onsite Systems ManagementCaigan McKenzie
Small-Diameter Gravity SewersCan Mean Big Savings for CommunitiesCathleen Falvey
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is proposing strict new controls to protect
public health and the environment from one of the
nation’s leading causes of water pollution—animal
wastes from large, industrial feedlot operations.
On December 15, 2000, EPA Assistant Admin-
istrator for Water, J. Charles Fox, said, “Wastes from
large factory farms are among the greatest threats
to our nation’s waters and drinking water supplies.
Today, EPA is taking action to protect public health
and the environment by significantly controlling
pollution from animal feeding operations.”
The livestock industry has undergone dramat-
ic changes in the past 20 years, consolidating scat-
tered, smaller facilities into fewer but vastly larger
feeding operations that result in greater and more
concentrated generation of wastes. An estimated
376,000 large and small livestock operations that
confine animals generate approximately 128 bil-
lion pounds of manure each year. Typically, these
facilities confine beef and dairy cattle, hogs, and
chickens.
Nationwide, nearly 40 percent of surveyed wa-
ters are too polluted for fishing or swimming.
Some 60 percent of river pollution comes from all
kinds of agricultural runoff, including livestock op-
erations. Pollution from livestock is associated with
many types of waterborne disease, as well as prob-
lems like pfiesteria outbreaks that have plagued
the Chesapeake Bay, red tides, algae blooms, and
the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
The new requirements would apply to as many
as 39,000 concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) across the country. Today, only an estimat-
ed 2,500 large and small livestock operations have
enforceable permits under the Clean Water Act. A
CAFO is currently defined as having 1,000 or more
cattle or comparable “animal units” of other
livestock. Smaller operations may also be
CAFOs if they are a threat to water
quality. EPA is co-proposing two op-
tions for a new CAFO definition.
One proposed definition could
include livestock
facilities with more than 500 cattle or other animal
units. The other proposal would require operations
with 300–1,000 cattle to have permits if they meet
certain risk-based conditions.
In addition to stricter permitting requirements,
the proposal includes several new controls:
• poultry, veal, and swine operations would be
required to prevent all discharges from their
waste storage pits and lagoons where wastes
are collected;
• the proposal eliminates potential exemptions
from permits presently used in some states—
as a result, EPA expects that all large livestock
operations will now have to acquire permits;
• under this proposal, EPA and the states will
issue co-permits for corporations and con-
tract growers to ensure financial resources
exist to meet environmental requirements;
• the spreading of manure on the land owned
by livestock facilities would be limited to pro-
tect waterways.
In March 1999, EPA and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture issued a Unified National Strategyfor Animal Feeding Operations in response to pub-
lic concern about contamination of rivers, lakes,
streams, coastal waters, and groundwater from
livestock manure. This latest proposal is seen as
an important step in that strategy.
EPA will take public comment for 120 days
(from December 15) and will hold public meet-
ings around the country on the proposal. Addi-
tional information is available on EPA’s Office of
Water Web site at www.epa.gov/owm/afo.htm.
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
5
N E W S & N O T E SS
ma
ll F
low
s Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
4
N E W S & N O T E S
If your organization is sponsoring an event that you would like to have promoted in this calendar, please send information to the Small Flows Quarterly,Attn. Cathleen Falvey, National Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064. Or you may contact Ms.Falvey at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, ext. 5526, or via e-mail at [email protected].
* Denotes that NSFC staff will be attending.
Calendar of EventsEPA Proposes New Controls To Reduce WaterPollution from Large Livestock Operations
Onsite Wastewater DisposalSystems: Regulation, Design,Inspection, Operation andMaintenanceCook College-Rutgers UniversityOffice of Continuing ProfessionalEducationMay 16 and 23Cook College-Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, New JerseyCarol Broccoli (732) 932-9271,ext. 618Fax: (732) 932-1187www.cook.rutgers.edu/~ocpe
National Environmental PolicyForum and 31st AMSA AnnualMeetingThe Association of MetropolitanSewerage AgenciesMay 19–23Washington, D.C. (202) 833-2672www.amsa-cleanwater.org
Idaho OperatorsWater/Wastewater ConferenceSoutheast Idaho Operators Sec-tion of the Pacific NorthwestPollution Control AssociationMay 20–23Idaho Falls, IdahoDavid Smith (208) [email protected]
Designing Best ManagementPractices for StormwaterQuality ImprovementUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMay 22–24Madison, Wisconsin(800) 462-0876epd.engr.wisc.edu
2001 Design-Build Odyssey:Water and Wastewater ProjectsWater Environment FederationMay 31–June 1Portland, MaineSusan Merther (703) 684-2417www.wef.org/Conferences/
APRIL
Third Annual Onsite Wastewater System Regulators’Conference*National Small Flows ClearinghouseApril 17–21Washington, D.C.Contact Sandy Miller or PeterCasey(800) [email protected]@wvu.eduwww.nsfc.wvu.edu
Third NSF International Sym-posium and Technology Expoon Small Drinking Water andWastewater SystemsApril 22–25Crystal Gateway MarriottWashington, D.C. (734) 913-5789Fax: (734) 827-6840/[email protected]
Class II Designer/InstallerCourseWest Virginia Onsite WastewaterAssociationApril 24–25West Virginia On-Site TrainingCenterWestvaco Natural ResourcesConference CenterMorgantown, West VirginiaSandra Markovic or Randy Levelle(800) 624-8301Fax: (304) [email protected]
National Tribal EnvironmentalCouncil (NTEC) 8th NationalConferenceApril 24–26Miami, Florida(505) [email protected]
Water Quality Monitoring andModelingAmerican Water Resources AssociationApril 30–May 2Menger HotelSan Antonio, Texaswww.awra.org/meetings/
TNRCC Environmental TradeFair and ConferenceTexas Natural Resource Conservation CommissionApril 30–May 2Austin, Texas(512) 239-3150www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/sbea/etf/etf.html
MAY
Management of Operationand Maintenance Programsfor Pump Stations and ForceMainsUniversity of Nevada Las Vegas,Division of Continuing EducationMay 2–4Stardust HotelLas Vegas, Nevada(702) 895-3394Fax: (702) 895-4195MAY
Technology: Making PublicWorks BetterUrban and Regional InformationSystems AssociationMay 6–8Rosemont, Illinois(847) 824-6300www.urisa.org
Soils 101—Field Descriptionof SoilsNorth Carolina Soils and On-SiteTraining AcademyMay 9–10Raleigh, North Carolina(919) 513-1678www.soil.ncsu.edu/training/
Second National Conferenceon Nonpoint Source PollutionInformation and EducationProgramsIllinois Environmental Protec-tion Agency, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and ChicagoBotanic GardenMay 14–17Congress Plaza HotelChicago, IllinoisBob Kirschner (847) 835-6837Fax: (837) [email protected]
JUNE
1st International Congress onUltraviolet TechnologiesInternational Ultraviolet AssociationJune 14–16Hyatt Regency on Capital HillWashington, D.C.Kathy Harvey (519) [email protected]
AWWA Annual Conference &ExpositionAmerican Water Works AssociationJune 17–21Washington, D.C.(303) 347-6195www.awwa.org
Decision Support Systems for Water Resources ManagementAmerican Water Resources AssociationJune 27–30Snowbird Conference Center andResortSnowbird, Utah(540) 687-8390www.awra.org/meetings/
National EnvironmentalHealth Association (NEHA)* 65th Annual Educational Confer-ence and ExhibitionJune 30–July 3Hyatt Regency Atlanta,Atlanta, Georgia(303) 756-9090, ext. 0www.neha.orgJULY
JULY
2001 A Collection SystemsOdyssey: Integrating O&Mand Wet Weather SolutionsWater Environment Federation July 8–11Bellevue, WashingtonSusan Merther (703) 684-2417www.wef.org/Conferences/
Coastal Zone 2001National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration CoastalServices CenterJuly 15–19The Cleveland Convention CenterCleveland, Ohiowww.csc.noaa.gov/cz2001/index.html
Groundwater Remediation Technology Analysis Center(GWRTAC)www.gwrtac.org/
GWRTAC is a specialized nationalenvironmental technology transfercenter that provides current informa-tion concerning innovative groundwa-ter remediation technologies. Its Website contains a search engine, vendorinformation database, and links totechnical documents. Conference pre-sentations can be downloaded, and apage provides descriptions of upcom-ing events related to groundwater re-mediation. Links to related Web sitesare available, and a page provides con-tact information for EPA and state ad-ministrators.
National Groundwater Association (NGWA)www.ngwa.org/
NGWA’s membership is made up ofcontractors, scientists and engineers,manufacturers, and wholesale distribu-tors. The site provides industry and as-sociation news; a vendor database; acalendar of events; downloads of theassociation’s bimonthly publication,
Ground Water; a bookstore;search engine; and
links to relatedsites.
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
7
New Compliance AssistanceClearinghouse
A new compliance assistance clear-
inghouse is available on the Internet.
The National Compliance Assistance
Clearinghouse was developed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), states, and other key stakehold-
ers. It provides quick access to compli-
ance tools, contacts, and planned activ-
ities from across EPA, as well as from
other compliance assistance providers,
such as the Local Government Environ-
mental Assistance Network (LGEAN).
This clearinghouse also provides a dis-
cussion forum to promote collaboration
and information exchange. For more in-
formation about this clearinghouse, call
Emily Chow of EPA at (202) 564-7071
or e-mail her at [email protected].
The clearinghouse is located on the In-
ternet at www.epa.gov/clearinghouse.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
6
W E B W A T C HN E W S & N O T E S
Wastewater on the
Web
www.nsfc.wvu.edu
USDA Offers Loan and Grant Funding for SmallCommunity Wastewater Projects
The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) offers loan and grant money
geared for small community wastewater
treatment projects through the Rural Utili-
ties Service. The U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency provides general informa-
tion about this program on its Web site at
www.epa.gov/owm/sc/usda/index.htm.
Model Ordinances for WaterQuality Protection Available
Model ordinances for water quality
protection are available on the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency’s Web
site. The site offers both model and real-
life examples of ordinances that address
the following topics: aquatic buffers, ero-
sion and sediment control, open space
development, stormwater control oper-
ation and maintenance, illicit discharges,
post-construction runoff control, and
more. The site also includes supporting
materials such as examples of meeting
notices, inspection checklists, and links
to other related Web sites. To view the
ordinances on the Web, go to
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance.
Many Earth Day Resources Available on Internet
On April 22, millions of people worldwide will be participating in the
31st anniversary celebration of Earth Day!
Earth Day activities provide opportunities to address global environ-
mental concerns, as well as a chance for individuals and communities to
focus on their local environmental problems. Groups can organize
cleanups, parades, fairs, conferences, and even art and essay contests.
Other ways to get involved include encouraging the use of recycled prod-
ucts, restoring or improving local parks and beaches, supporting preserva-
tion efforts for endangered species, conserving water, composting food
and yard debris, and using only biodegradable soaps and detergents.
Information about Earth Day activities can be found on the World Wide
Web. Listed below are Internet sites that suggest Earth Day projects and
ideas for how you can celebrate Earth Day in your community:
• Earth Day by John McConnel, Founder of Earth Day:
www.earthsite.org/• EPA Earth Day: www.epa.gov/earthday/• Earthday.Org: www.earthday.net/• Heartland All Species Project Earth Day Block Event Planning:
www.allspecies.org/neigh/blocka.htm• San Diego EarthTimes and Earth Day:
www.earthdayweb.org/• New York Earth Day Links: home.dti.net/earthday/links.html• Earth Day 2000 Network: www.earthday.net/• The Wilderness Society’s Earth Day ‘01 Site:
earthday.wilderness.org• Earth Day Coalition: www.earthdaycoalition.org/• Earth Day Online: home.dti.net/earthday/index.html• Contra Costa County Earth Day Festival:
www.ccearthday.org/• Earth Day Online Education:
home.dti.net/earthday/edwebres.html • San Diego EarthWorks: www.earthdayweb.org/• Cleveland Earth Day Coalition:
www.edf.org/pubs/EDF-Letter/1998/Nov/u_scp.html• YouthCaN: Youth Communications and Networking:
www.nyu.edu/projects/youthcan/• Arbor Heights Elementary School in Seattle:
www.halcyon.com/arborhts/• Earth Day Canada:
www.earthday.ca/EDy2k/Home/homefrm1.html• Earth Day in Alexandria, Virginia: alexearthday.org/
The Biosolids Lifecyclewww.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/index.htm
This is the site of the onsite waste-water section of the North CarolinaDepartment of Environment and Nat-ural Resources. It provides informationabout onsite wastewater treatment,land application, and regulations. Thesite’s menu grid leads to documentsabout such topics as basic septic sys-tem maintenance and abandonment,experimental and innovative systems,onsite wastewater rules and regula-tions, and environmental impacts ofnutrients and pathogens.
Other menu items include guide-lines for application approvals, such assubsurface discharge approvals for in-dustrial-process wastewater; filters, ris-ers, and seals approvals; and aerobictreatment unit approval. There arealso training manuals and links.
New England Biosolids andResiduals Association (NEBRA)www.nebiosolids.org/
NEBRA is a nonprofit organizationmade up of public utilities, individu-als, and companies throughout theNortheastern U.S. solely dedicated tounderstanding and facilitating the re-cycling of biosolids and other residu-als. A “Question and Answer” pagedescribes biosolids, wastewater treat-ment, and biosolids management.Other pages contain informationabout biosolids use in New England,the history of biosolids use, andbiosolids research. A “News” sectionprovides press releases concerningbiosolids, and other pages listbiosolids products available in NewEngland and give advice on their use.There is a calendar of events and alinks page to biosolids-related sites.
Northwest Biosolid ManagementAssociation (NBMA)www.nwbiosolids.org/
NBMA membership is comprisedof more than 205 sewerage agenciesand private companies that managebiosolids in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and Alaska in the U.S., and inBritish Columbia, Canada. The organi-zation focuses on finding safe, eco-nomical ways to manage biosolids,and its Web site provides informationabout biosolids use, proposed regula-tions, and related links. In the “What’sNew” section, readers can access arti-cles from issues of the NBMA’s month-ly publication, Biosolids Bulletin, viewa calendar of events, and read newspostings about biosolids-related issues.
National Biosolids Partnership(NBP)www.biosolids.org
The goal of the NBP, a not-for-profitalliance formed in 1997 by the Associ-ation of Metropolitan Sewerage Agen-cies (AMSA), Water Environment Fed-eration (WEF), and U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), is to advanceenvironmentally sound and acceptedbiosolids management practices. TheWeb site’s “Newsroom” page offersweekly updated news items concerningbiosolids use, regulation, and research.A calendar page tracks industry-relatedevents, and a “Toolbox” page containslinks to reports, fact sheets,and othertechn ica ldocumentsa b o u tbiosolids.The sitealso of-fers con-tact in-formation forregional andn a t i o n a lbiosolids andpre t rea tmentcoordinators inEPA and stateoffices.
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
9
F O R U MS
ma
ll F
low
s Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
8
F O R U M
CONTINUED ON PAGE 38
Much has been written recently about the per-
formance of both new and not-so-new onsite
wastewater treatment technologies. The slant of
these articles is that “new” technology includes
aerobic treatment units while “not-so-new” in-
cludes a variety of technologies generally de-
scribed as “passive,” including sand filters and the
like. Generally, the performance of aerobic treat-
ment units has been explicitly or implicitly de-
clared substandard. These declarations are due to
lack of information about the technology, a lack
of understanding about how the technology
should be applied in specific situations, and a bias
that seems to persist in some corners of the on-
site industry.
It is the contention of aerobic treatment unit
manufacturers that many assessments of the per-
formance of onsite wastewater treatment tech-
nologies are made without adequate considera-
tion of the factors involved in the theory, design,
installation, operation, and maintenance of sys-
tems using the technology. In this essay, we will
focus on the performance of aerobic treatment
units used to treat wastewater from residences.
However, the issues raised are applicable to all
technologies used in onsite wastewater treatment
and disposal.
Aerobic PerformanceAerobic treatment units operating in conjunc-
tion with a variety of effluent disposal systems
perform well when properly designed, installed,
operated, and maintained. Numerous technical
papers and articles have addressed the positive
impact aerobic treatment units have had on
wastewater management in suburban and rural
areas: Young (1974); Locker and Vansickle
(1980); Stockton (1984); Monnett Reneau and
Hagedorn (1996); Otis (1994); National Small
Flows Clearinghouse (1996); and Sahr, Lynch, Sar-
rocco-Smith (1996). Most recently, Bohrer and
Converse (2001) note that the performance of
aerobic treatment units exceeds the performance
of sand filters, the standard by which onsite tech-
nologies are often judged.
Some bias against aerobic treatment units may
have been justifiable at one time. Ask any experi-
enced practitioner in the industry, whether
installer or regulator, and he or she will relate the
urban legends of how in the 1960’s aerobic treat-
ment units were foist upon unsuspecting jurisdic-
tions. The manufacturers were promising com-
plete treatment, suitability for any soil or site con-
dition, and no need for maintenance. The reality
was actually one of widespread pollution and eco-
nomic disaster, as both fraudulent claims and a
gullible public increased. Ultimately, some juris-
dictions banned the technology outright when
widespread “failures” became too numerous to
manage. Much has changed in the past 30 years.
The bias persists in some jurisdictions because
aerobic treatment units seem to collide with
human nature. By design, aerobic treatment units
are supposed to call attention to themselves
whenever there is a problem. For many people,
particularly overtaxed regulators, eliminating the
sources of complaints is a major time consumer.
The fact that aerobic treatment units call attention
to themselves is essential. It is much easier and
less expensive to service an aerobic treatment unit
than to replace a drainfield clogged with solids or
grease. If regulators are inclined to view every
alarm as indicative of a technology failure (or sim-
ply tire of responding to the phone calls), they
have taken one of the strengths of the design (ac-
tive warning upon evidence of trouble) and con-
sidered it to be a weakness.
Certainly there are examples of poor aerobic
treatment unit design, application, operation
and/or maintenance, resulting in inadequate per-
formance. Regardless of the technology, omitting
any one of these elements will lead to poor per-
formance. However, the same is true for peat fil-
ters, sand filters, and the standard septic tank sys-
tem. When evaluating performance, any technol-
ogy will fail if it is not properly designed, installed,
operated, and maintained.
The Need for Scientific EvaluationParticularly troubling is the poor method by
which aerobic treatment units seem to be evalu-
ated. Aerobic treatment units are often evaluated
in a manner that results in a biased conclusion,
particularly when the evaluation is conducted by
persons not generally trained to conduct in-depth
testing. There are issues that unfairly perpetuate
the myths that restrict the use of aerobic treat-
ment units. Four issues arise: the selection of units
for evaluation, the establishment and measure of
a baseline, sampling practices, and sampling tech-
niques. All of these issues contribute to the mis-
information that often results.
Consider the issue of sample selection. Statis-
ticians say random sampling provides the most
accurate results. Despite their best intentions for
impartiality, bias is almost surely the result when
the people conducting the study decide which in-
formation to include, rather than having it deter-
mined by the protocol. Such bias, which can exist
at an unconscious level, limits the applicability of
the data as surely as fraudulent data and/or mis-
takes.
Likewise, baselines (which are essential) may
be lacking. The West Virginia study (Winter 2001
Small Flows Quarterly) concluded that aerobic
treatment units performed poorly. Perhaps that’s
true, in an absolute sense, for the units the sur-
vey party inspected, but corresponding data for
other technologies are missing. It may be that
aerobic treatment units were performing as well
as, or better than, other technologies. Implied in
their conclusion is that other technologies per-
form better, but there are no corresponding data
to support the implication. It might be the case
that all technologies in the study area perform
equally poorly for reasons that have nothing to
do with the inherent strengths or weaknesses of
any allowed technology.
Furthermore, valid conclusions must be based
on valid sampling and sample analysis. Sampling
techniques can dramatically effect the result. By
“technique,” we refer to the procedure for col-
lecting wastewater for analysis. We distinguish this
from sampling protocol, which is discussed next.
If sampling ports are absent, it will be nearly im-
possible to collect samples that accurately reflect
the quality of the effluent. Written, standardized
procedures, proper sampling equipment, and ad-
equate training are essential to ensure that sam-
ples reflect the performance of the technology
and not the absence of procedures or skills on
the part of the surveyors.Sampling protocol is related to sampling tech-
nique. Often, the performance of aerobic treat-ment units is judged by a single effluent grab sam-ple. Composite sampling, not a single grab sam-ple, is the only scientifically accepted practicewhen evaluating the performance of biologicaltreatment devices. The data from the analysis ofthe composite samples is then computed into 7-day and 30-day averages in order to evaluateperformance. Sample averaging is how the per-formance of municipal and semi-public waste-water treatment systems are evaluated. (SeeUSEPA, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Sep-tember 20, 1987, Protection of Environment.)
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System PerformanceA Multifaceted Relationship Between Design,
Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
Bennette D. Burks, P.E.Michael S. Price, R.S.
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS
Dear Editor,
I want to comment on the article, “A Survey of HomeAerobic Treatment Systems Operating in Six West Vir-ginia Counties,” which appeared in the Fall 2000issue of the Small Flows Quarterly.
The authors make a very valid point in observing thatmandatory lifetime maintenance should be requiredfor these systems. Over a two-year period, I conduct-ed a small study of intermittent sand filters. I foundthat homeowners failed to conduct even the simplepreventive maintenance of flushing the distributionpipes and checking pressure by measuring “squirt”height. With one exception, this remained the caseeven when a reminder was mailed and accompaniedby an offer for free onsite instruction by the sanitar-ian at the homeowner’s convenience.
The county sanitary code now requires that a serviceagreement be in place for properties served by alter-native wastewater treatment systems. Serviceproviders are to be trained to meet the manufactur-er’s standards so that they are knowledgeable andcapable of trouble-shooting as well as performing theroutine maintenance. This code change made theservice agreement a part of the permitting processfor alternative systems. (Septic systems and wastestabilization ponds are currently not subject to themandatory service agreement.)
No matter how well-designed a treatment system is,if routine maintenance is not conducted, the systemcannot perform to meet standards. The permittingagency must require ongoing service/maintenanceagreements as a condition of installation. Otherwise,no permit is issued, the system (and building) is notbuilt, and there is no problem.
There is still an enforcement issue related to thehomeowner who refuses to renew the service agree-ment. Administrative citations or fines must be partof the permit or sanitary code. People areticketed/fined for parking violations or for lettingtheir dog run loose. The penalty for not having aservice agreement in place should be just as simplylevied, without court orders or attorneys.
Sincerely,Judy M. Willingham, R.S.Manhattan, Kansas
Letters to the Editor
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
11
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
10
N O D P U P D A T E
CONTINUED ON PAGE 39
Who would have thought that a
small, modest, rural, sparsely populat-
ed village in Appalachia would be of in-
terest to Central Europe? Centerville,
located in the Southern Alleghenies re-
gion of Pennsylvania, is not only a
model for onsite wastewater manage-
ment systems in the U.S., but also
serves as a classroom for Central Euro-
pean engineers.
Centerville is part of the Central Eu-
ropean Linkage Program (CELP), a tech-
nical and cultural exchange initiative
funded by the Pittsburgh-based Heinz
Endowment.
Conditions in Centerville so closely
parallel conditions in Central Europe’s
rural communities that engineers can
transfer information they learn here
about low-cost alternative wastewater
treatment technologies back to their
homelands of Slovakia, Poland, Hun-
gary, and the Czech Republic.
Edward Corriveau, P.E., of the Penn-
sylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) and David Pask,
P.Eng., of the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (NSFC) at West Virginia
University, Morgantown, West Virginia,
provided training for the European en-
gineers.
In April 1998, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) awarded
Centerville a grant through Phase II of
the National Onsite Demonstration
Program (NODP). Centerville will use
the grant to set up a management dis-
trict for onsite wastewater systems.
Other communities can then use Cen-
terville as a technological and manage-
rial model for onsite wastewater treat-
ment systems.
The primary reason Centerville was
chosen for Phase II was because its en-
tire drainage area is directed toward
the Gordon and Koon Lakes. These
reservoirs are the only source of water
for 60,000 residents in parts of Mary-
land, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia,
and a contaminated watershed would
cause major public and environmental
health hazards. A sewage treatment fa-
cility in Centerville would protect these
water supplies and eliminate surface
septic discharge that can harm fish and
wildlife in the area.
Pennsylvania Law Holds TownshipSupervisors Responsible for Wastewater
In Pennsylvania, the township is re-
sponsible for wastewater planning and
implementation, and the Pennsylvania
DEP is the regulatory agency. Waste-
water planning and implementation is
mandated under Pennsylvania Act 537
(passed in 1966), which ensures mu-
nicipalities comply with the Clean
Streams Law and the Pennsylvania
Sewage Facilities Act. The law requires
that township supervisors meet these
requirements by preventing discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage, by inspecting, pumping, main-
taining, and rehabilitating private and
public onsite sewage disposal systems,
and by providing environmentally
sound disposal sites.
For the village of Centerville, this
was no easy task. Most of the onsite
septic systems here were constructed
before 1972 under relaxed standards.
The shallow soils, seasonally high
groundwater tables, small lots, and
close proximity of homes prohibited
repairing or replacing those systems to
bring them into compliance with
today’s standards.
Systems permitted since 1972 are
either conventional or sand mounds.
And although there is no documented
evidence of public health pollution
problems within the village, 70 percent
of the onsite systems were malfunc-
tioning, and 13 homes were linked to
two “wildcat” sewers (abandoned coal
mine pipes) that outlet directly into
ditches or streams.
Centerville Chooses RecirculatingSand Filter Treatment System
The alternative wastewater treat-
ment chosen for Centerville is a recir-
culating sand filter system with dis-
charge to a constructed wetland. This
type of system provides a high-quality
effluent. “Wildcat” sewers will be
abandoned.
The treatment system will serve 58
residences, one restaurant, one church,
three commercial buildings, one former
public school facility that has been con-
verted to offices, and the township
building. The type of wastewater dis-
charged in Centerville is domestic. The
Township does not plan to provide pub-
lic sewer service to any area other than
Centerville for a period of at least five
years. The Centerville treatment system
is planned to meet an existing sewage
problem and will accommodate mod-
est growth within the service area.
Contour trench systems will be used
for lots that have high levels of
bedrock. This soil condition causes
wastewater to flow laterally instead of
vertically into the ground. Installing
contour systems to treat the waste-
water will prevent untreated waste-
water from discharging to surface water
sources.
“The Pennsylvania DEP will monitor
the contour system for two years. If the
data show good effluent quality, then
the contour system will be added to
the state’s approved list of technolo-
CCeenntteerrvviillllee,, PPAA
Caigan McKenzie
NSFC STAFF WRITER
Update on the Central European Linkage Program
Centerville’s international link has reached a successful turning point. Ac-cording to Edward Corriveau, P.E., of the Pennsylvania Department of Envi-ronmental Protection, “The onsite demonstration project begun three yearsago in Nizne Repas, Slovakia was constructed in December 2000 with thepartnership of the Heinz Endowment’s Central European Linkage Program,Southern Allegheny Conservancy, Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalProtection, and the local Slovakian organization Ludia a Voda (translated‘People and Water’).”
The processes include a septic tank with a BioClere treatment unit dispers-ing into a subsurface sand mound or flowing through a wetland system. Itis one of the first systems in Slovakia to use soil or land treatment.
The site is a cluster system serving six home residences and will be devel-oped into an environmental education center. Village staff worked to helpinstall the sewer system while the contractor installed the tanks in a signif-icant self-help style project. People and Water and the local village of NizneRepas provide management and maintenance of the system.
“This is the kind of effort that can be duplicated elsewhere in Slovakia andcentral Europe and encourage our decentralized efforts in the U.S.,” Corriveau said.
gies. This is an action that other NODP
II projects have successfully brought
about in other states,” said NODP II
Program Coordinator Clement
Solomon.
NODP Grant Becomes Leverage for Securing Grants and Low-InterestLoans
Without outside funding, a public
treatment system would financially
strap Centerville’s residents, who can
be characterized as low to moderate
income. Fortunately, a variety of grants
have been awarded to the community
that will significantly lessen the burden.
“What began as a small project
seemed to mushroom into a communi-
tywide effort as other agencies part-
nered with the NODP activity at Cen-
terville,” said Solomon. For example,
the NSFC is directing wetland con-
struction for discharging wastewater.
Subsequently, the EPA, Penn Vest,
Farmer’s Home Administration, and the
Community Block Grant Program
awarded additional grants and low-in-
terest loans, such as a federal construc-
tion grant. Tap fees will also be used to
help finance the project.
Centerville Project Has Many Positive Outcomes
Not only did the Centerville project
spearhead new technology in Slovakia,
(Top)In Nizne Repas, Slovakia, this typical rural doma (house), of typical log and caulk construc-tion, stands along a service lateral being constructed by the village administration (self-helpexample) as part of a six-doma cluster system.
(Right)Construction (now completed) of an onsite treatment system in Nizne Repas, Slovakia, show-ing septic tank and Bioclere treament unit excavation leading to a constructed wetland andsubsurface sand mound.
Photos courtesy of Edward Corriveau.
World-ClassDemonstration
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
12
T E C H N O L O G Y
They also can be a good choice for homes, busi-
nesses, institutions, and small residential develop-
ments and communities in areas where central-
ized treatment is unavailable or too expensive.
Sand filters are constructed beds of sand or
other suitable granular material usually 2 to 3 feet
deep. The filter materials (called media) are con-
tained in a liner made of concrete, plastic, or other
impermeable material. Depending on the design,
the filter may be situated above ground, partially
above ground, or below ground.
Partially treated wastewater is applied to the fil-
ter surface in intermittent doses and receives treat-
ment as it slowly trickles through the media, where
natural physical, biological, and chemical process-
es combine to provide treatment. Most treatment
occurs in the first 6 to 12 inches of the filter sur-
face. The wastewater is collected in an underdrain
and sent for further treatment and/or disposal.
Sand filters are most affected in the winter by
freezing water. “First and most critical, the system
must be designed to drain out,” said Dave
Gustafson, extension specialist with the Universi-
ty of Minnesota. His work involves troubleshoot-
ing systems for homeowners, and from his experi-
ence, Gustafson has found that it is extremely im-
portant that no water be allowed to stand due to
closed check valves or laterals installed without
adequate slope. “Be sure that all lines run down,”
he added. He recommends that there should be
no bare (uninsulated) connections to the surface
and that all inspection pipes and risers are ade-
quately insulated.
Although he does advise insulating the septic
tank, Gustafson does not recommend the use of
deep systems. Another place for added insulation
that many homeowners fail to consider are drain
lines that run under sidewalks or driveways where
the natural snow cover is frequently removed.
“One common design problem we see often
are inadequate pumps that allow water to pool
and then freeze. As one of our routine mainte-
nance checks, we want to make sure that the
pumps are of sufficient capacity to keep water
moving and delivered,” Gustafson said. He tries
to impress on homeowners the importance of
making these winterizing checks during the
warmer months. “It’s much easier to change out
a pump in September than in February,” he noted.Ted Loudon,
associate profes-sor and exten-sion serviceagent at Michi-gan State Uni-versity, hadbeen studyingthe effective-ness of sand fil-ters in winterusing a speciallydesigned sprin-kler system todistribute the ef-fluent on the
Baby, It’s Outside!
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
13
Marilyn Noah
NSFC STAFF WRITER
Forecast: Continued cold, temperatures droppinginto the teens, winds 15–20 miles per hour. Littlechange expected over the next several weeks. Asyou stand at your kitchen window, cradling yourcoffee mug to warm your hands, you probablydon’t consider how this weather pattern will affectthe operation of your wastewater treatment system.
When temperatures drop low enough for ice
to form, are these systems able to function effec-
tively? The latest research reveals that alternative
onsite systems, such as constructed wetlands, sand
filters, drip irrigation systems, and peat filters, seem
to function effectively in cold weather, although at
a reduced level, as long as they were designed
carefully and afforded adequate maintenance.
By their very design, alternative onsite waste-
water treatment systems are at the mercy of the
elements. Most rely on the free movement of
water and the biological activity of living creatures
to work effectively, and freezing temperatures af-
fect the hydrology, chemistry, and biology of soils.
Under freezing conditions, soil becomes less per-
meable to rainfall and snowmelt, water within the
frozen part of the soil profile becomes immobile
and unavailable for leaching, and microbiological
activity is reduced.
Constructed WetlandsConstructed wetlands are especially useful in
areas with very slow permeable soils because
they are capable of absorbing pollutant loadings
and provide a low-cost alternative to chemical and
biological treatment. Constructed wetlands oper-
ate on ambient solar energy, providing increased
treatment capacity over time, creating wildlife
habitat, and achieving high levels of treatment
with minimal maintenance. Currently, construct-
ed wetlands are accepted as permitted systems in
states including Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Ken-
tucky, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas.
There are two main types of constructed wet-
lands: free water surface and subsurface flow. The
wastewater remains at a level above the soil and
so is exposed to the atmosphere in the free water
surface systems. The surface wastewater remains
below the substrate in subsurface flow systems,
protected from the elements by the insulating
layer of plant litter. Because of this insulating layer,
subsurface-flow wetlands are best suited for win-
ter applications.
Duplicating natural wetland processes, con-
structed wetlands are complex integrated systems
involving the interaction of plants, microorgan-
isms, water, and the environment. Microorgan-
isms and plants break down pollutants; the gravel
substrate filters particulates. Wetlands for waste-
water treatment are designed with a slope of be-
tween zero and 1 percent so gravity can pull the
water through the system.
Typically, quantities of heat are stored in the
underlying soil during the warm season and inhib-
it ice formation in the winter. The advantage sub-
surface-flow wetlands have over surface-flow wet-
lands is that water is not exposed to the atmos-
phere during the treatment process, minimizing
energy loss through evaporation and convection.
“If properly designed at the time of installation
and given an adequate layer of mulch for insula-
tion, the subsurface-flow constructed wetland bed
remains effective during cold periods,” said Sher-
wood Reed, P.E., a long-time proponent and de-
signer of these systems. “We have found that it is
especially important to cover the system with a
layer of straw 6 to 8 inches deep for the first win-
ter, because the plant materials have not had time
to establish completely. This insulating layer al-
lows the system to continue its work. The mulch
layer also helps to keep temperatures down dur-
ing hot summers.”
Snow cover forms an effective insulating layer,
but due to the unpredictability of the weather,
Reed recommends that the homeowner not rely
on snow and ice cover for a reliable insulation. He
prefers using straw because it contains few weed
seeds and adds very little nitrogen to the system.
Research shows that the biochemical reactions
that remove pollutants from wastewater are re-
duced at low temperatures, and so water temper-
ature must be considered in the process design.
The size of the wetland should be based on low-
temperature conditions, and the design should be
based on the average temperature from the cold-
est winter recorded.
Sand FiltersThe recirculating sand filter system is a me-
chanically simple, low-maintenance method of
wastewater treatment beyond the septic tank and
operates quite well in areas of the country that
encounter harsh winter temperatures.
Sand filters treat wastewater using naturally oc-
curring physical, biological, and chemical process-
es. They are one of the best options for additional
onsite treat-
ment where
septic tank/-
soil absorp-
tion systems
have failed
or are re-
stricted due
to high
groundwa-
ter, shallow
b e d r o c k ,
poor soils,
or other site
conditions.
Techniques for Onsite Success in Cold Climates
Sand
Gravel Underdrain
Distribution Lines
Sand Filter
From Septic Tank
To Dispersal
Photo by Michelle Moore
CCOOLLDD
Sand Filter
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
14
surface. From some of hisprojects, Loudon determinedthat recirculating sand filterswith surface application ap-peared to function quite wellduring extremely frigid condi-tions without requiring anymaintenance, even thoughheavy icing did occur on thesurface. The sprinklers wererelatively immune to icingand failure due to freezing.Ice cones built up aroundeach sprinkler, but remainedhollow, while the ice provid-ed a degree of protectionaround each sprinkler head.Loudon observed that evenwhen the temperaturesdropped to near freezingdown to the 18-inch depth inthe sand, there were suffi-ciently open zones for the fil-ters to continue to function.
As a result of recent work,however, Louden considerssuch sprinklers obsolete. “Weno longer recommend sur-face application of effluenton sand filters, especially noton individual home units,” hesaid. “Now, all up-to-date re-circulating sand filters havethe distribution pipe networkembedded in a stone layer sothere is no water on the sur-face and no ice buildup.”
Drip Irrigation SystemsDrip irrigation systems
(also known as “trickle” sys-tems) apply pretreated and fil-tered wastewater to soil slow-ly and uniformly through anetwork of thin, flexible tub-ing placed at shallow depthsin the soil. Drip irrigation sys-tems are for the dispersal of
septic system ef-
fluent. They can be designed to accommodatesites with complex terrain due to the flexible tub-ing used; drip dispersal is a possible option for lo-cations with high bedrock, high groundwater, orslowly permeable soils.
Professor Jim Converse, with the University ofWisconsin, has also been studying the effective-ness of drip irrigation systems for dispersal of sep-tic system effluent. After collecting data on E.Coli,median fecal coliform, organic nitrogen, ammoni-um-nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen from six differ-ent systems from December 1998 through March1999, even when temperatures dropped belowfreezing, Converse found that none of the systemsstudied encountered operational problems, andthe remediation of the water continued at accept-able levels. He concludes that with proper designand installation, drip distribution systems give ad-equate secondary treatment, even during the se-vere Wisconsin winters.
Minnesota Project with Multiple SystemsA multi-interest research site was established
in northern Minnesota in the fall of 1995 to moni-tor the performance of several different types ofpretreatment systems. This university/multi-indus-try/local, state, and federal agency project was in-stalled on the grounds of the Northeast RegionalCorrection Center (NERCC). Technologies investi-gated included single-pass peat filters, single-passsand filters, subsurface flow constructed wetlands,and modular recirculating peat filters. The systemswere monitored every three weeks, including thetemperatures of the systems.
“This is a unique test situation that allows usside-by-side comparisons of the performance ofboth alternative and a standard onsite systemusing the same wastewater at similar daily flows,”said Barbara McCarthy, research fellow, at the Nat-ural Resources Research Institute, one of the op-erating agencies of this project.
“We have had to make some redesign changesduring the life of the project, but we are pleasedto have a five-year history of data. And over-whelmingly, we can say that the performance ofthe systems at NERCC during the cold weatherwas good,” McCarthy said.
The single-pass peat filters are designed to treatseptic tank effluent at a hydraulic loading rate of 3.3centimeters per day (cm/d). The ability of the peatto remove total phosphorus is likely limited by thelow adsorptive mineral content of the media from a
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
15
low of 35 percent removal in the winter months toa high of 61 percent. Total nitrogen removal variedconsiderably, but with average removal rates of66–85 percent during the winter months.
Single-pass sand filters are dosed six times aday and designed for a hydraulic loading rate of3.1 cm/d. The sand filters performed well in theremoval of total suspended solids (TSS), biochemi-cal oxygen demand (BOD5), and fecal coliformbacteria. Phosphorus removal rates during the sum-mers were similar to winter removal rates. Andwhile it appeared that the sand filters provided ex-cellent removal of ammonium via nitrification tonitrate, total nitrogen removal was a relatively low8–33 percent since the sand is unlikely to nitrifylarge amounts of ammonium.
The constructed wetlands were installed in Oc-tober 1995 and were covered with straw to pre-vent freezing. Overall, the wetlands performedreasonably well, with better performance duringthe summers than the winters.
Modular recirculating peat filters were installedin June 1998 using both the standard Irish peatand a Minnesota peat. Test data indicate the recir-culating peat filters are performing well, using boththe Irish peat and the Minnesota peat. Becausepeat is such a good insulating material, there havebeen no problems with freezing of the units.
The intermittent sand filters were designed fora hydraulic loading rate of 3.15 cm/d and weredosed every 4 hours at 159 liters per dose. The fil-ters were covered with straw during winter to pre-vent the distribution network from freezing. Thefilter showed excellent TSS, BOD5, and fecal col-iforms removal, in addition to providing excellentremoval of ammonium via nitrification to nitrate.
The constructed wetlands consist of two cellsin series, with the first cell designed to meet sec-ondary treatment standards for TSS, BOD5, andfecal coliform bacteria at a flow of 1.5 cm/d. The
Zone 1
Dripper Line
Finished Grade
PVC Pipe
Zone 2 Septic Tan
Pump Tank
Supply to CU
Field Flush/
Back Flush
CentralUnit (CU)
NSFC Products
Readers who wish to further investigatethe systems referred to in this articleshould consider the following education-al products offered by the National SmallFlows Clearinghouse (NSFC).
BooksComputer Search—Constructed Wetlands(Item #WWBKCM01)This 137-page book is a computer searchof the NSFC Bibliographic Database thatcontains nearly 300 abstracts of articlesdetailing the use of constructed wet-lands as a wastewater treatment process.Topics discussed include design, site se-lection and sizing, construction, opera-tion and maintenance, cost, and per-formance. The price of this book is$19.70.
Computer Search—Sand Filters (Item#WWBKCM08)This NSFC computer search contains ab-stracts of articles about sand filters asan alternative wastewater treatment sys-tem. Topics discussed include design,sizing, site selection, operation andmaintenance, cost comparison withother conventional systems, system ef-fectiveness, and failures. The cost forthis 159-page book is $25.45.
BookletsSingle-Pass Sand Filters for Onsite Treat-ment of Domestic Wastes (Item #WWBLDM88)This 28-page paper by James C. Converse(Biological Systems Engineering College ofAgricultural and Life Sciences, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison) provides a basicknowledge of single-pass sand filter prin-ciples, design, construction, and mainte-nance. The cost of this booklet is $6.00
Computer Search—Drip Irrigation (Item#WWBLCM18)This 28-page NSFC computer search con-tains abstracts of articles discussing dripirrigation as an alternative to conven-tional methods of wastewater treatmentand disposal. These articles cover casestudies and design and performance ofdrip irrigation systems for residential andcommunity use.
Recirculating Sand/Gravel Filters for On-site Treatment of Domestic Wastes (Item#WWBLDM87)This booklet by James C. Converse of theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison pro-vides a basic knowledge of recirculatingsand filter principles, design, construc-tion, and maintenance. The price of this23-page booklet is $3.35.
(Top)At this Wisconsin drip irrigation testsite, vegetation planted over the drip-per lines between the trees minimizedfreezing.
(Middle)In Michigan, hollow ice cones thatformed around the sprinklers of thissurface application, recirculating sandfilter afforded protection from the elements, and there was very littlefrozen sand beneath them.
(Bottom)A typical surface application sand fil-ter in winter.
Photo by Jim Converse.
Photo by Ted Loudon.
Photo by Ted Loudon.
Drip Irrigation System
second cell was added to provide additional nu-trient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal. The firstcell is filled with pea rock and the second cell withcrushed limestone. Researchers allowed thefrozen system to run, as a homeowner might, andit developed an ice layer 1.5 centimeters thick onthe surface. The insulation from the ice, along withthe latent heat in the ground, thawed the cell andallowed the water to flow again through the sub-surface. While the average removals decreasedduring the cold season, data indicated a reason-able removal efficiency year round.
ConclusionsClearly, the alternative systems should contin-
ue to be considered as viable technologies innorthern climates. With little or no extra mainte-nance, these systems keep working right along,even in midst of winter’s fury.
ReferencesBohrer, R. M., and J. C. Converse. 2001. Soil treatment performance and
cold weather operations of drip distribution systems. Onsite waste-water treatment: Proceedings of the 9th national symposium on indi-vidual and small community sewage systems. ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.
Davis, J. 2000. Constructed wetlands for residential wastewater treat-ment in Chippewa County, Mich. Proceedings of the 2000 NOWRAannual meeting. NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.
Hanneck, J., R. Axler, B. McCarthy, D. Nordman, and S. M. Geerts. 1999.Experiences with constructed wetlands in Minnesota. Proceedings ofthe 1999 NOWRA annual meeting. NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.
Kadlec, R. H. 1996. Physical processes in constructed wetlands. Pro-ceedings of the constructed wetlands in cold climates conference.Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario.
Loudon, T. L., O. B. Thompson, L. E. Reese, and L. Fay. 1984. Cold cli-mate performance of recirculating sand filters. Onsite wastewatertreatment: Proceedings of the 4th national symposium on individualand small community sewage systems. ASAE. St. Joseph: Mich.
Osteraas, T. 1983. Subsurface absorption systems—Frost problems andprevention of frost. Proceedings of the International Conference onNew Technology of Wastewater Treatment and Sewerage in Ruraland Suburb Areas. Hanassari, Finland
McCarthy, B., R. Axler, S. M. Geerts, J. Henneck, J. Crosby, and P. Weid-man. 1999. Cold-Weather operation and performance of alternativetreatment systems in Northern Minnesota. Proceedings of the 1999NOWRA annual meeting. NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.
Reed, S., P.E., and D. Calkins, P.E. 1996. Thermal aspects of constructedwetland system design. Proceedings of the constructed wetlands incold climates conference. Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. Wallace, S.2000. Design and performance of cold climate wetland treatmentsystems. Proceedings of the 2000 NOWRA annual meeting.NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
16
N O D P U P D A T E
Rockies
benefits, including
• free percolation tests;
• free consultation for developing
water or sewage facilities;
• free water fills for recreational ve-
hicles, small water containers,
and community showers;
• water and sewage hauling rates
25 percent lower than market
value;
• faster approval of well permits;
• annual testing of wells for con-
tamination; and
• water rights protection against de-
velopers and other water users on
the stream system.
Homeowner SupportCrystal Lakes published its first com-
munity newsletter in 1971. The
newsletter expressed the development
company’s commitment to preserving
the ecology of the mountain area in
which the development is located, to
keep water pure and usable, and to
meet state standards for sewage dis-
posal.
A summary of Mancl’s interviews
with homeowners indicates that the
majority agreed with Crystal Lakes’
wastewater management policies.
“Crystal Lakes has a better capabili-
ty of controlling the sewage solution
up here than probably any of the big
cities do,” said one homeowner. “I would hate to think of what we
would have if we didn’t have the sep-tic and well regulations that we have. Iwould argue for a continuation andperhaps a strengthening of standardsthat are developed—not at the federallevel, but at a more local level,” said
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
17
Crystal Lakes, Colorado, is a popu-
lar recreational community in the
Rocky Mountains. Most people are
drawn by the allure of the community’s
sparkling, freshwater lakes. For Karen
Mancl, Ph.D., it’s the wastewater.
Mancl has good reason to be curi-
ous about Crystal Lakes’ wastewater
management practices. In June 1999,
she was granted sabbatical leave from
the Ohio State University School of
Food, Agricultural and Biological Engi-
neering specifically to research and
identify public policies that shape suc-
cessful wastewater management sys-
tems. Crystal Lakes is one of the suc-
cessful wastewater management com-
munities Mancl explored.
The work Mancl normally does is re-
searching wastewater technologies and
teaching these technologies to a
variety of students—contractors, regula-
tors, developers, homeowners, govern-
ment officials, and college students.
But after receiving a grant from
Phase IV of the National Onsite
Demonstration Program (NODP),
Mancl set aside the technology to
focus on the public policies of waste-
water systems.
National Onsite Demonstration Pro-gram (NODP)
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency funds Phase IV of the NODP
with a budget of $1.25 million. It is
managed by the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (NSFC) to assist local of-
ficials in implementing management
districts around the country. It does this
by providing them with successful man-
agement models and information for
customizing these models to meet their
specific needs.
Crystal Lakes Begins DevelopmentCrystal Lakes is a private, mountain-
ous, recreational community northwest
of Red Feather Lakes, Colorado. It en-
compasses 10 square miles nestled
within wooded lands owned by the
U.S. Forest Service. Its name reflects its
four man-made lakes. Three of these
lakes were constructed by damming
Panhandle Creek. Lone Pine Creek was
dammed to create the fourth lake.
The first cabin was completed in
Crystal Lakes in 1970, two years before
the Colorado legislature passed a water
augmentation law that allowed commu-
nities to borrow water as long as they re-
turned it before the owners of the water
needed it. This would be accomplished
by returning water to the stream system
through percolation from the soil ab-
sorption fields. In 1973, the Crystal
Lakes Water and Sewer Association was
formed to administer the state-mandat-
ed water augmentation plan.
Crystal Lakes’ Water AugmentationPlan
In 1974, Crystal Lakes developed its
own water augmentation plan, the first
in the state to plan for parcels with
fewer than 35 acres. “Without a water
augmentation plan,” Mancl said, “Crys-
tal Lakes would have no right to use
water. And without a right to use water,
Crystal Lakes could not develop.”
Crystal Lakes’ water augmentation
plan limits beneficial use of water to in-
house domestic use. Yard irrigation is
prohibited, but irrigation of up to 10
acres of open space in the develop-
ment is allowed.
The plan is for 1,312 homes. By
1999 there were 112 full-time
dwellings and 600 part-time dwellings
and properties, a community center,
firehouse, road, recreation shop, store,
and restaurant.
Types of Onsite SystemsThe use of onsite systems is exten-
sive in Crystal Lakes. One hundred and
twelve serve full-time dwellings, 500
serve part-time dwellings, and the re-
mainder are holding tanks that serve
recreational vehicles.
Of these systems, one cluster soil
absorption system serves 25 homes on
small lots, and one large system serves
the lodge, restaurant, and offices. Ap-
proximately 400 systems are conven-
tional soil absorption systems, and the
water and sewer association manages
300 holding tanks, seven community
vault toilets, and recreational vehicle
dump stations. The water augmenta-
tion plan allows evapotranspiration sys-
tems to be used for 72 properties.
Special ProgramsRecreational vehicle holding tanks
caused a problem in 1993 when trail-
er owners dumped sewage on the
ground because they found it incon-
venient to move trailers to designated
stations for dumping.
The association solved this problem
by purchasing a trailer with a small tank
that allowed for gravity flow from a
recreational vehicle’s holding tank. A
$15 fee was assessed for this service.
The association also found a way to
construct soil absorption systems in
bedrock areas. The developer exca-
vates weathered granite (a hard vol-
canic rock), drives over it with excava-
tion equipment to crush it, and then
places it back into the excavated site.
Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Asso-ciation
Landowners who use the Crystal
Lakes Water and Sewer Association’s
water or sewage facilities are associa-
tion members. Members elect the as-
sociation’s board of directors with one
vote for each lot. Directors voted into
office do not need to be Colorado res-
idents, users of the association’s facili-
ties, or association shareholders.
The community’s developer was an
original member of the board but was
voted out of office to ensure that the
association would be autonomous
from its developer. This nonprofit
group is funded through revenues it re-
ceives from membership dues and
from pumping fees.
The association uses a variety of
methods to keep homeowners’ water
and wastewater systems in compliance.
For example, property owners are re-
quired to join the association. The as-
sociation has the right to pre-approve
sites before they are developed and to
design the systems to be installed. The
association also inspects septic systems
when property is sold, uses its own
pumper truck to regularly pump septic
and holding tanks, and records water
consumption and wastewater pumped.
Benefits of Water and Sewer Associ-ation Membership
Members of the water and sewer
association are entitled to a variety of
Onsite Systems Management
Caigan McKenzie
NSFC STAFF WRITER
CONTINUED ON PAGE 39
in the
The 2000 annual meeting of the Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association. The associationworks to keep the community in compliance with state wastewater and water use regulationsand manages its own wastewater treatment and water use plan.
Pho
to b
y C
urt Liv
ingsto
n
Pho
to b
y C
urt Liv
ingsto
n
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
18
R E G U L A T I O N SS
ma
ll Flo
ws Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
19
W h e n
Sharon Nel-
son and her
family moved
into their dream
home in Vashon,
Washington, they had
no idea of the nightmare their
onsite wastewater treatment system had in store
for them. Malfunctions and mishaps would turn
their septic system into a “money pit.”
That was the beginning of a very long road for
Nelson, who became a vocal proponent for home-
owners with failing onsite systems across the state.
Nelson, along with a handful of industry profes-
sionals, was instrumental in getting legislation
passed requiring licensing for septic system design-
ers and certification for inspectors in that state.
“We moved here and built a brand new home
in 1995. It had a simple grav-
ity system. Nine months
later, my husband was out-
side and noticed an odor.
The system had failed,” ex-
plained Nelson.
“It has been a learning
experience,” said Nelson.
“As we continue to build out
and use more and more dif-
ficult soils, we really need to
make sure that the people
diagnosing those soils know
what they are doing and use the best standards
possible, and that the homeowner knows who is
responsible when there is a failure.”
Nelson’s StoryNelson’s story began on January 13, 1996,
when she detected the failure. The Nelsons found
out later that the designers and inspectors didn’t
have to have training at that time. “At that time
there was no minimum standard of care for
designers and inspectors. What happened in our case
was that the system was placed in fill which has a con-
crete texture,” she said. “When things went bad,
everyone disclaimed liability, including the designer,
inspector, and installer.
“In fact, after delving into it further, we found that
the designer and inspector were very involved. The
soil had not perked. I became livid about their roles
in all of this, especially after the health department in-
spector cited us for using too much water as the rea-
son for the failure.”
Nelson said the inspector wasn’t assisting them,
but jeopardizing them. “Trenches were dug in the
front yard for diagnostic purposes and left open. Then,
one of our daughters became ill from the effluent.”
Although her gastrointestinal sickness was never of-
ficially diagnosed as resulting from the effluent, Nelson
is convinced that it was the culprit in the temporary ill-
ness because if it had been viral, others in the family
likely would have gotten ill.
The inspector told Nelson
there was “no direct proof”
that the illness was a result of
the system failure.
Nelson said it is not uncom-
mon for designers and inspec-
tors to blame the homeowner,
adding that there is a tendency
for them to protect themselves.
“We need to say that some-
times this is what happens to
homeowners, and it is not fair. I
recognize that some homeowners may cause their sys-
tems to fail; but if you build a system that a homeown-
er can’t use, it’s of no value,” said Nelson.
“A lot of homeowners I’ve talked to are so tired by
the time they get through with the problem that they
just don’t want to discuss it. When systems fail, fami-
lies are stressed. Their houses have no value to them.
It’s a very personal thing when a system fails, very hum-
bling when they are questioning all of your habits. But
you have to find a way to resolve it and deal with it.”
In addition to the emotional cost, the financial
cost was high. Nelson’s initial gravity system cost
them $2,800. To remedy the failing system, they
added infiltrators and a pressurized dosing system
with monitoring ports in the drainfield. With engi-
neering fees, the remedy was in excess of $20,000.
Although she did file a lawsuit and settle out of
court, Nelson decided she didn’t want any other
homeowners to have to go through what her fami-
ly had suffered. “We just decided it was too egre-
gious to let go. We’ve used the failure to the best
advantage by fighting for new legislation. For me,
it’s a healing process,” she said.
Getting the Ball RollingNelson contacted legislators to put forth a bill
regulating septic designers. A work group was
formed, consisting of Nelson, a few industry peo-
ple, and other interested participants already work-
ing on the problem. One of those people was
William L. Stuth, owner of Aqua Test of Maple Val-
ley, Washington, whom Nelson said was a key play-
er in getting the legislation passed.
“At the time, I had no respect for this industry.
Today, I have a great deal of respect for some of
the key people, and I’ve learned that there are ac-
tually a lot of good industry people in this state,”
she added.
Stuth, a wastewater system designer, also has a
lot of respect for Nelson. “This whole thing started
about 12 years before Sharon got involved,” he said.
“Without her help, the legislation would never have
been approved. Sharon came along and said, ‘What
about the consumer?’
“She really dug in, was diligent, and did her
homework. It sparked things because she was com-
ing from a whole different perspective.”
The legislation process actually began in the late
1980s, when a group of engineers sued the state
for allowing people who were not engineers to de-
sign septic systems. “They were claiming that the
state didn’t have a right to allow anyone but a pro-
fessional engineer to design them,” Stuth said.
“We, the designers, formed a state association
to defend ourselves against that lawsuit. It just went
on and on. Defending ourselves only lined the at-
torneys’ pockets. We were trying to protect our
livelihood as designers, and the engineers were try-
ing to protect theirs. We had gone through many
court hearings when Sharon came along.”
Stuth said he realized then that the answer was
not going to come from the courts. “After she said
that we needed to look at how to protect con-
sumers, we found that none of us were doing a
good job protecting the consumer. The whole pro-
gram needed improving,” said Stuth.
One positive thing to come out of that time, ac-
cording to Stuth, was the development of the Wash-
ington State Onsite Sewage Training Center, locat-
ed in Puyallup, Washington. “We were on the right
track. We knew the answer was to raise the skill
level of the industry through an accreditation pro-
gram. That’s why the training center came about,”
said Stuth.
Making a LawAfter Nelson contacted legislators, a committee
made up of professional engineers, designers,
pumpers, health regulators, builders, consumers,
and environmentalists, was formed to develop the
legislation.
“Within three months, the work group came up
with really solid suggestions for the state in solving
the problems. A higher standard had to be tested,”
Nelson said. “We all learned a lot about getting a
bill passed. We worked to get both Democrat and
Republican support. It was labeled a public safety
and health issue. That’s why we had bipartisan sup-
port.”
The legislation was passed in 1999, but did not
begin the licensing/certification process until July
1, 2000. “It’s just now going to be implemented. I
think it will ultimately improve the quality of instal-
lation of septic tanks,” said Stuth.
“There were many people out there doing a
good job. Along with that, there were some peo-
ple who were doing poor work who are now going
to have to step to the side. Under the old system,
it was almost impossible to take anyone’s right to
do business away. Under this new program, just by
implementation, it will eliminate a lot of those prac-
ticing individuals the health department has been
trying to eliminate.”
Key PointsThe legislation, titled “Onsite Wastewater Treat-
ment Systems—Designer Licensing,” states that its
purpose is “to safeguard life, health, and property
and to promote the public welfare.” It also states
that, “The Legislature finds that it is in the public
interest to permit the limited practice of engineer-
ing by qualified individuals who are not registered
as professional engineers . . . .”
The legislation recognizes the need for design
professionals. “The increased complexity of onsite
wastewater treatment systems, changes in treat-
ment technology, and the need to protect ground-
water and watershed areas make it essential that
qualified professionals design the systems.”
Who Says You Can’t Fight City Hall?How One Homeowner Made a Difference
Natalie Eddy
NSFC STAFF WRITER In the Nelson’s failed septic system, repair trenches dug in the drainfieldfound the lines filled with effluent that could not leach into the surround-ing impermeable soil.
Photo by Sharon Nelson
The Nelson house, with multiple diagnostictrenches in the foreground.
Photo by Sharon Nelson
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
21
R E G U L A T I O N SS
ma
ll F
low
s Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
20
The bill declares that “it is desirable to establish a
statewide licensing program to create uniform appli-
cation of design practices, standards for designs, indi-
vidual qualifications, and consistent enforcement ef-
forts . . . .”The bill gave a practice permit to designers who
had been authorized by a local health jurisdiction todesign onsite systems on or before July 1, 2000.
After July 1, 2000, any individual wishing to obtaina practice permit must apply to the board of registra-tion for professional engineers and pay a fee. The prac-tice permit allows its holder to practice onsite designservices only within local health jurisdictions where theholder had authorization to practice as of July 1, 2000.
The permit is renewable annually until June 30,2003. After that, anyone who wants to design onsitesystems will need a license issued to perform designin all counties in the state.
To obtain the license, all applicants must pass a writ-ten examination administered by the board of profes-sional engineers and must have a high school diplomaor equivalent and a minimum of four years of experi-ence in system design.
The law also contains provisions for punishment forunprofessional conduct ranging from a reprimand andsuspension, to refusal for a new license. It also providesfor a monetary penalty not to exceed $1,000 per vio-lation.
Stuth explained that when the examination kicksin, designers will be licensed under the licensing boardthat presently licenses engineers, architects, and sur-veyors.
He added that the law passed is strictly to licensedesigners of onsite systems. He said that it does notpertain to maintenance providers but will directly en-hance the systems being installed by raising the skilllevel of those designing them.
Septic System Warranty Program Available
Residents in Pennsylvania and New Jersey currently have theoption of purchasing a warranty on their septic systems throughan insurance agency.
The warranty program, originating in Brookfield, Connecticut,is marketed under the name Pro-Sept.
Pro-Sept President Gary Missigman said the plan came aboutbecause of a need he saw after he developed a similar programfor leaking home heating oil tanks.
“The septage industry wanted a product that would require sep-tic systems to be maintained properly, and in the event that asystem malfunctioned, a product that would pay to repair orreplace the system,” said Missigman.
The Powderhorn Agency worked with regulatory bodies and sep-tage companies and associations to develop the warranty pro-gram.
To qualify for the warranty, homeowners must first have theirseptic tanks inspected by a certified inspector and pumped or,if it is a new dwelling, provide the appropriate inspection forms.In return, the warranty provides that if a problem occurs, thesystem will be repaired or replaced.
We insure our cars and homes, but until re-
cently we haven’t been able to insure our onsite
wastewater treatment systems.
A proposed plan originating within the Wash-
ington Onsite Sewage Association (WOSSA),
backed by the National Onsite Wastewater Recy-
cling Association (NOWRA), is on the way to do
just that. The insurance plan is what onsite system
designer William L. Stuth and homeowner Sharon
K. Nelson hope will be the ultimate outcome of
the recent legislation passed in Washington to cer-
tify practicing designers and inspectors there.
(See related story on page 18.)
“Sharon and I worked together
very closely for three or four years
trying to get legislation
passed for the licensing of
state designers. In that time,
products would come on
the market that were profes-
sionally marketed as good, but
sometimes the technology
failed,” Stuth said.
“In the end, the consumer was
left holding the bag. We decided
the consumer needed added protec-
tion or insurance.”
While serving on a work group to get the de-
signer legislation passed, Stuth and Nelson
worked on the insurance idea. “Thirty years ago,
the need was simply to dispose of the waste on-
site,” Stuth explained. “Disposal systems were
considered temporary, only intended to be uti-
lized until sewers were available.
“The systems needed little maintenance, and
if a system did fail, you merely added onto the
drainfield. The cost of such a repair would nor-
mally range between $100 and $500.”
Once the nation realized that sewering the en-
tire country was impossible, the onsite industry
was called upon to develop ways of disposing of
and treating wastewater, according to Stuth. Tech-
nology answered the call.
Although the technology exists to treat the na-
tion’s wastewater onsite, Stuth said it has its down-
falls. “First, the cost of the system may range be-
tween $3,000 and $20,000; second, the system
requires routine maintenance; and third, if a sys-
tem fails, it may be very costly to repair, ranging
between $100 and $10,000.”
Do You Have Insurance on Your Septic System?
Natalie Eddy
NSFC STAFF WRITER
In addition, the warranty holder agrees to have the systempumped out and inspected at three-year intervals.
Specifically, for a three-year premium of $235, the plan pro-vides a $25,000 limit per warranty with a $500 deductible perclaim. The warranty may be renewed by having the tankpumped and visually inspected. Ownership of the warranty canbe transferred when the home is sold.
The Pro-Sept warranty is sold and distributed by septic com-panies, home inspection companies, and septic system inspec-tors and installers.
This year Pro-Sept will expand to other states with the hopesof going national in the near future.
“The Pro-Sept warranty program is a win-win for everyone.Builders, installers, septic companies, and home inspectors areable to transfer the risk of a malfunction to a third party. Thehomeowner wins because he has additional protection for hislargest asset, his home,” Missigman said.
For additional information about Pro-Sept’s program, contactMissigman at (888) 354-0677, fax (203) 775-1542, or [email protected].
In addition to designer licensing, the legislationrequires that employees of local health jurisdictionswho review, inspect, or approve the design and con-struction of onsite systems must obtain a certificateof competency by passing a written examination.
The legislation states that inspectors must be“competent in the engineering aspects of onsitewastewater treatment system technology.” Nelsonsaid that previously, each health jurisdiction had im-posed its own standard of knowledge necessary forinspectors.
In addition, both designers and inspectors arerequired to obtain continuing professional develop-ment or continuing education “to demonstratemaintenance of knowledge and skills as a conditionof license or certificate renewal, including peer re-view of work products and periodic reexamination.”
Stuth said the training center is one institutionoffering the continuing education to all segmentsof the industry.
“We also tried to pass tag-along legislation thatwould protect the consumer,” said Stuth, addingthat he and Nelson worked to develop an insuranceprogram for homeowners for their septic systems.(See related story on page 21.)
Stuth said there are currently 36 health jurisdic-tions in the state. “Before the legislation, we hadone state guideline being interpreted 36 differentways. Under the new state certification program,we will have one designer program. It will bring har-mony into the state program and help to standard-ize the industry.
“A lot of firsts came out of this program,” Stuthadded. “I think we all grew up. It took a long time,but I believe we covered most of the bases. The bigwinner is the homeowner.”
Working with WOSSA, the idea is basically to
provide a homeowner extended warranty plan for
septic tank systems offered through designers.
Stuth said the insurance program, which is com-
plete, is modeled after the automobile insurance
program.
“The better driver you are, the better rate you
get,” said Stuth. “With onsite insurance, it would
be the same thing.”
Stuth said WOSSA was going to implement
the program within Washington in November
2000 but was delayed when they were
approached by NOWRA to make it
available nationally.
“It has taken us 100 years
to get where we’re at right
now,” said Stuth. “A few more
months aren’t going to make
that big a difference.”
But Stuth added that the de-
signer licensing inspector certifi-
cation legislation in Washington
will make a big difference. “And it will
be an even bigger help if you have an in-
surance program you can offer to con-
sumers through designers,” said Stuth.
“Everyone in the nation won’t be able to do
what we did in Washington, demanding that de-
signers be licensed by the state. But everyone
could offer this insurance.”
Maintenance Is KeyStuth said that even the best-designed system
will fail eventually if it is not properly maintained.
“I’ve been doing this since 1955, and I’ve seen a
lot of trends come and go. It doesn’t matter how
well the septic system is designed; if it’s not main-
tained, at some point it will crash.”
Stuth said the insurance program will act as
an incentive to make homeowners aware that
they have to maintain their system to keep the in-
surance plan in place.
“Presently, we use threats to keep homeown-
ers in compliance with maintenance issues.
We’ve come up with a program that will reward
homeowners rather than threaten them. I’m ex-
cited about it. In my lifetime, it’s the most excit-
ing thing I’ve seen that can protect the consumer
while holding the industry to a higher standard,”
Stuth said.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
22
M A N A G E M E N TS
ma
ll Flo
ws Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
23
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
Caigan M. McKenzie
NSFC STAFF WRITER
Census statistics collected since1840rank DuPage County, Illinois, as one ofthe fastest growing counties in the U.S.This growth drastically changed thecharacter of the community.
Once a rural area, DuPage Countyis now suburban, and in some areas,urban; once home to numerous naturalwetlands, it now has tight clay soils,shallow, seasonal high-water tables, andoccasional flooding. Over the years, asthe county developed, it accumulatedmany onsite wastewater systems, whichtoday number more than 23,000.
“Currently, there are more than 500onsite wastewater systems that use ei-ther aerobic treatment plants or sandfilters and discharge to a receivingbody of water or to the ground sur-face,” said Paul Chase, president ofChase Environmental Services, Inc., inRochelle, Illinois. “It was this proliferation of surface dis-charge systems that drove the onsite wastewater manage-ment activities in DuPage County.”
Zoning Ordinance Limits Discharging SystemsFrom 1963 to 1988, surface discharging systems in Du-
Page County were not permitted. Only subsurface systemswere allowed. The county operated under a 1963 waste-water code that required a reserve area equal in size to thesubsurface seepage system for future expansion. This hadthe effect of making it difficult to develop small single lots.
“In 1988,” said Chase, “the State Attorney challengedthe 1963 zoning ordinance, and the health departmentbegan to issue permits for aerobic treatment plants and sur-face discharge disposal systems on small lots.”
Surface Discharge Systems Increase in NumberOnce installing surface discharge systems was no longer
prohibited, it was possible to build on small, single lots. Con-sequently, development mushroomed and so did the num-ber of surface discharge systems.
Up to this time, the DuPage Coun-ty Zoning Department had relied onthe county’s reserve area requirementto limit density and development.Alarmed at the increasing use of smalllots, the zoning department revised itsregulations to increase the frontage ofnew development to a minimum of 75feet.
But a major problem still remained.No one knew how well the systemswould perform or what the countywould do about systems that producedsubstandard effluent quality. It wasclear the county needed to developsome sort of monitoring program.
Informal Management of OnsiteWastewater Systems
DuPage County approached devel-opment of its onsite wastewater man-
agement system much differently than many of the othercommunities that had participated in Phase IV of the Na-tional Onsite Demonstration Program (NODP). (NODP IVpromotes, develops, and demonstrates management strate-gies for onsite wastewater treatment in small communitiesin the U.S.)
“From the beginning, there was minimal in-volvement by the community, the target pop-ulation, which is comprised of the own-ers of onsite wastewater systems,” saidChase. “The community had no di-rect involvement in the vision, theplanning, the operation and im-plementation, or review andrevision. Rather, the Du-Page County Health De-partment took onthese tasks withsome input fromlocal onsite systeminstallers and designers.
“The reason for stating this is that the onsite wastewatermanagement system in DuPage County is by no means con-ventional—that is, it does not fit neatly into the formalizedmodel prepared for such management systems by NODPIV,” Chase said.
Sampling ProgramThe sampling program began in 1991. Since the county
health department’s environmental health services divisionalready had an established onsite wastewater program, itmade sense to include the sampling program within theirexisting range of responsibilities. These responsibilities in-cluded reviewing and issuing onsite wastewater construc-tion permits, registering onsite wastewater contractors, re-searching property records for field staff, and witnessing per-colation tests.
To gain support for this program from the community,the health department wrote a letter to system owners ex-plaining how the sampling program would work. System own-ers were told effluent would be tested for fecal coliform (theprimary public health parameter for wastewater quality) andthat those systems that did not comply would be retested.
Effluent Not Up to CodeSamples from the 1991 tests showed dismal results. The
DuPage County private sewage ordinance requires chlorineresidual to test between 0.2 and 1.5 parts per million. Butmost samples did not show any chlorine residual, and therate of noncompliance for fecal coliform was nearly 40 per-cent. It took seven rounds of sampling before all systemswere brought into compliance.
The sampling program also found that system ownerswere not receiving the full level of service they needed tokeep their systems operating properly. For example, al-though discharging units were serviced, disinfection systemswere not. In addition, service contracts did not cover pump-ing the system. These limitations in service caused many ofthe systems to fail to comply with the code.
Finger PointingSystem owners accused service compa-nies of not properly caring for their sys-
tems, and service companies respond-ed with accusations about the
health department, telling
system owners that their systems were fine and that thehealth department did not know what it was doing.Nonetheless, system owners pressured the service compa-nies to keep up with service calls.
Anticipating the Health Department’s VisitWhile sampling results in 1992 reflected those found in
1991, 1993 results showed some improvement. Believingthat service companies were anticipating when samplingwould be conducted, the health department halted the sam-pling program in 1994 but resumed it again in 1995.
Sampling results from 1995 testing were worse than theresults from any of the previous years, indicating that onceagain, the service companies were being lax in servicing sys-tems. These results also validated the need for continuingthe sampling program.
Enforcement Strategies, Resources, and Homeowner Education
In August of 1999, the health department proposed toeliminate the 1990 code requirement for lifetime servicingof surface discharge systems from the county’s privatesewage disposal ordinance. Instead, service would be re-quired for the first two years of operation based on Ameri-can National Standards Institute/NSF standards and statecode. After that, service would be optional.
This change would place the burden of complying witheffluent quality standards and having systems serviced onthe homeowner rather than having a technician from thecounty’s onsite wastewater program track service contracts.
The local onsite system installers and designers balked atthe proposed code changes and asked the health departmentto reconsider, which the health department agreed to do.
Although the sampling program began without specialfunding, additional personnel, or special regulatory changes,the health department was concerned the program wouldbe disrupted if it did not have dedicated resources. To pre-vent this from occurring, the health department plans to al-locate funds to this program in next year’s budget.
And finally, the health department is striving to decreasethe rate of system failure through increased community ed-ucation. The current method is to educate homeowners con-current to sampling their surface discharge units. In this sce-nario, the sanitarian gives the homeowner a brochure, ex-plains the method for sampling, and describes how the unitshould function.
Sampling Program Spurs State Action “The greatest success of this program is that light was
shed on a serious problem,” Chase said. “DuPage County isone of only three counties in the state that set up a programfor sampling effluent quality. The results of these programshave led to efforts by the Illinois Department of PublicHealth to deal with the problem statewide.”
For more information on this project, contact Paul Chase,president of Chase Environmental Services in Rochelle, Illi-nois at (815) 562-6783 or e-mail him at [email protected].
DuPage County Illinois Health Department:
An Unconventional Approach to Onsite Systems Management
“From the beginning,there was minimal in-volvement by thecommunity. . . . Rather,the DuPage CountyHealth Departmenttook on these taskswith some input fromlocal onsite system in-stallers and designers.”
- Paul Chase
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
24
T E C H N O L O G YS
ma
ll Flo
ws Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
25
or years, a sign at the edge
of the tiny town of Miranda,
California, welcomed visi-
tors to “The Land of En-
chantment.” Located on the
famous “Avenue of the Giants,” Miran-
da’s residents live among one of Earth’s
true wonders—the giant redwoods.
However, by the 1970s, failing sep-
tic systems were leaving many in the
town feeling less than enchanted. A
former logging community, Miranda
has only 350 permanent residents,
many of whom are retired; yet more
than 500 students from surrounding
areas attend the local schools. The
town needed an economical solution
to its wastewater treatment problems,
so residents obtained a grant from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the state of California to study the
problem and investigate wastewater
collection and treatment alternatives
(Campos, 1984).
After evaluating different technolo-
gies, Miranda chose to install a small-
diameter gravity sewer system to col-
lect effluent from individual septic
tanks. The system serves 125 residen-
tial, commercial, and institutional con-
nections in the town, including the
high school, a junior high, two rest
homes, and three churches. Septic
tank effluent is transported by gravity
to two lagoons, which precede an in-
termittently-dosed recirculating sand
filter for final treatment.
Miranda completed its system in
1982, and according to volunteer op-
erator Bert Stevens, it has been oper-
ating successfully ever since. “We’ve
had people from all over the world
come to visit our little system, “ said
Stevens. “It has worked so well over
the years.”
At the time it was installed, Miran-
da’s system was one of the first small-
diameter gravity collection systems
built in the U.S. Since then, many more
communities around the country have
chosen this alternative to conventional
gravity sewers because of its low in-
stallation and operation costs, and be-
cause it is well-suited to their particu-
lar site characteristics.
How Small-Diameter Gravity SewersWork
Small-diameter gravity sewer
(SDGS) systems are known by a vari-
ety of names, including variable grade
sewers, septic tank effluent gravity
(STEG) systems, and effluent drains.
The technology was pioneered in the
1960s in Australia where much of the
terrain is extremely flat. SDGS systems
can work well in very flat terrain, be-
cause settleable solids are not con-
veyed through the collection lines.
Therefore, SDGS systems require less
hydraulic gradient and velocity to trans-
port the wastewater through the lines
than is necessary with conventional
sewers. The lines also can be laid at
shallower depths, which saves on sys-
tem installation costs. In addition,
SDGS systems do not employ man-
holes and require fewer lift stations, re-
ducing system maintenance costs.
In a SDGS system, grease and solid
materials in the wastewater are separat-
ed out at each connection in a septic
tank, which system designers some-
times refer to as the interceptor tank.
The septic tank is connected to the
house or business by a standard 4-inch
building sewer. A small-diameter (ap-
proximately 2-inch) service lateral on
the homeowner’s property conveys the
septic tank effluent to the SDGS main.
The size of SDGS mains are calculat-
ed based on the peak hydraulic flow rate
and the hydraulic velocity needed to
transport the wastewater through the
entire system. The mains typically range
from 2 to 8 inches in diameter. Design
professionals calculate the pipe diame-
ter necessary by using the Hazen-
Williams formula, Manning’s equation,
or the Darcy-Weisbach equation (EPA,
1986; Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998).
Unlike conventional gravity sewers
lines, which often are constructed of
concrete or clay, SDGS pipes are similar
to pressure sewer lines and are made of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or high-density
polyethyhlene. The joints are solvent
weld or rubber gasket, and the system
usually employs cleanouts or pigging
ports instead of manholes, reducing the
possibility of inflow and infiltration of
stormwater and groundwater.
Air release or combination air re-
lease/vacuum valves may be installed
for air venting at high points in the sys-
tem layout. Check valves may be pres-
ent at each connection with the main
to prevent backflow during periods of
high flow (EPA, 1991).
SDGS Systems Can Be Adapted to aVariety of Terrains
Similar to pressure and vacuum sew-
ers, SDGS lines are laid at a relatively
constant, shallow depth, following the
natural contour of the land. So in com-
munities with hills, the wastewater will
flow downhill in some areas and uphill
Small-DiameterGravity SewersCan Mean Big Savings for CommunitiesCathleen Falvey
SFQ ASSOCIATE EDITOR
F
in others (hence the name variable
grade sewers). These up and down
flow patterns are possible as long as
the beginning of the SDGS system is
higher overall than its final destina-
tion—the outlet to the treatment facili-
ty. Also, the system should be low
enough to receive flows from the ma-
jority of service connections by gravity.
Ideally, the SDGS system outlet
should be lower than any individual
building connected to the sewer. How-
ever, if homes or businesses are locat-
ed below the system, they often can
connect by installing a septic tank ef-
fluent pump (STEP) system. Most
SDGS systems are actually combina-
tion STEP/SDGS systems. Such hybrid
designs can minimize or eliminate the
need for costly lift stations. (STEP sys-
tems are described in detail in the arti-
cles “Pressure Sewers Overcome
Tough Terrain and Reduce Installation
Costs” on page 24, and “STEP System
Clears the Air in Illinois Village” on
page 28 of the Winter 2001 SmallFlows Quarterly. The issue can be ac-
cessed online at www.nsfc.wvu.edu.)System design engineers typically
make use of spreadsheets and design
software to plan the overall layout and
design of SDGS systems.
Which Communities Should ConsiderSDGS Systems?
Dick Otis, P.E., Ph.D., of Ayres Asso-
ciates in Madison, Wisconsin, has been
involved in the design of several SDGS
systems, including some of the first in
the U.S. He states that although they
have many advantages, SDGSs are not
necessarily the best option for every
community.
Pho
to c
ourt
esy
Natio
nal Park
Serv
ice
Photo courtesy of the Humboldt County Convention & Vistors Bureau
dysmith, Wisconsin, designed the sys-
tem for Conrath and confirms that the
SDGS/sand filter system has served the
community well.
“Effluent from Conrath’s system av-
erages only 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
and total suspended solids from the sys-
tem is in the single digits when the de-
sign requirement is 30,” says Bob Parm-
ley, president of Morgan & Parmley. “To
my knowledge, the collection system
hasn’t had any problems and hasn’t
needed to be flushed out or unclogged
in the past 11 years.”
Parmley says that he first began
working with Conrath in the 1980s dur-
ing the facility planning process, and
that his firm proposed several possible
systems to residents.
“The soils in the community are
very tight, so all the septic systems were
failing,” says Parmley. “Conrath decid-
ed on the SDGS/sand filter system be-
cause it was the least expensive and
also the most environmentally sound
option. As it turned out, the system was
classified as being innovative, which
qualified it for additional funding. But
that wasn’t at all part of the town’s orig-
inal motivation.”
According to Parmley, Conrath in-
stalled all new septic tanks with their
SDGS system. Konieczny says the sep-
tic tanks are all owned by the town, “so
residents don’t have to worry about
maintenance; the town does all the
maintenance.” Sewage fees are $20
per month per household.
For More InformationIf you would like to know more
about Miranda, California’s SDGS sys-
tem, contact Neal Carnam or Steve
McHaney at (707) 443-8326, or by e-
mail to [email protected] Parmley can answer questions
about Conrath, Wisconsin’s SDGS sys-
tem. He can be reached at (715) 532-
3721.
ReferencesCampos, Marilyn Miller. 1985. Innovative wastewater
collection and treatment—Miranda, California. Pro-ceedings 1985 International Symposium on UrbanHydrology, Hydraulic Infrastructures and Water Quali-ty Control. University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Crites, R., and G. Tchobanoglous. 1998. Small and de-centralized wastewater management systems. NewYork: WCB/McGraw Hill, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986.Small-diameter gravity sewers: an alternative for un-sewered communities. Cinncinati: Water EngineeringResearch Laboratory. EPA 600/S2-86/022.
————. 1991. Alternative wastewater collection systems.Washington D.C.: U.S. EPA Office of Research andDevelopment. Office of Water. EPA 625/1-91/024.NSFC Item #WWBKDM53.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
26
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
27
“It’s never the case that one system
fits all communities,” says Otis. “You
have to look at each situation individu-
ally. What we try to do with SDGS sys-
tems is to reduce excavation costs. If a
community has simple slopes all going
in the same direction, then SDGS sys-
tems may be the best option. But if the
treatment plant is uphill, or if the town
has undulating topography, then pres-
sure sewers may be a better option.”
Any small community that is consid-
ering building a conventional sewer sys-
tem should give small-diameter sewers
a look. Systems such as SDGS, vacuum,
and pressure sewers can save commu-
nities money in a variety of ways.
For example, in addition to lower
excavation costs, SDGS systems also
can help communities save on final
wastewater treatment costs, because
the solids and grease in wastewater are
separated and treated in septic tanks.
Therefore, the need for headworks is
reduced in the final treatment facility,
because screening and grit removal is
not necessary. As a result, inexpensive
systems, such as sand filters or lagoons,
can be used to provide final treatment.
Also with SDGS, systems communi-
ties do not have the burden of remov-
ing, treating, and disposing of sludge
after final treatment. Instead septage
can be removed less expensively from
septic tanks at regularly scheduled in-
tervals. Before deciding on convention-
al gravity sewers, communities should
compare the life cycle costs of these
low-tech wastewater treatment systems
with the costs of constructing a tradi-
tional mechanical treatment facility
and staffing and maintaining it over
the years.
More SDGS Pros and ConsSDGS system mains usually are run
down the side of streets rather than
down the middle and below the pave-
ment like those of most conventional
sewers. In densely populated areas,
collector mains may be located on
both sides of the street to minimize
pavement crossings, or, less common-
ly, they may run along backlots to be
closer to preexisting septic tanks.
Therefore, extensive pavement excava-
tion and restoration isn’t usually neces-
sary with SDGS systems, which trans-
late to additional savings on installation
costs and less disruption to the envi-
ronment and everyday life.
Communities also save when in-
stalling SDGS systems because only
shallow, narrow trenches are required.
SDGS mains also are simpler to install
than conventional gravity mains, which
must be strictly aligned vertically and
horizontally. The plastic SDGS mains
can be laid at varying grades and can
be easily routed around obstacles dis-
covered during construction, such as
large boulders.
However, many communities that
choose SDGS systems must replace all
their old septic tanks with new ones to
ensure system performance. Some-
times, new septic tanks are relocated
to front yards to be closer to the SDGS
mains. This additional excavation
should be factored into overall installa-
tion costs.
Because SDGS systems include on-
site components, the community or
management entity may need to go
through the time-consuming and some-
times difficult process of obtaining
easements and the cooperation of in-
dividual property owners to successful-
ly complete the project.
Odors from hydrogen sulfide in the
wastewater can sometimes be a nui-
sance with SDGS systems. Engineers
often can prevent odor problems, for
example, by carefully designing how
ventilation is provided in the system
and by avoiding turbulence in the
mains. Other odor control measures in-
clude the use of carbon filters with air
release valves, aerating the lines, chlo-
rinating the final effluent, or adding hy-
drogen peroxide to the system.
Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Steve McHaney, assistant region
manager for Winzler & Kelly, the firm
that designed Miranda’s system, be-
lieves that while SDGSs don’t have par-
ticularly rigorous operation and main-
tenance requirements, taking proper
care of them is of critical importance.
“We will consider SDGS systems only
in situations where we know we can get
good quality maintenance for the septic
tanks—communities with a septic tank
maintenance district, for example,” says
McHaney. “If you don’t have good clean
effluent going into the lines, then you’ll
have solids carryover that can clog the
service lines and the mains.”
Miranda has a formal maintenance
district. Bert Stevens performs or super-
vises all maintenance to Miranda’s sys-
tem on a part-time, volunteer basis. He
estimates that he spends an average of
about two hours per day, mostly in
maintaining the final treatment system
rather than the SDGS system.
“Mostly we check the meters at the
sand filter to make sure that the system
is running,” Stevens said. “We monitor
water quality leaving the system, fill out
our monthly reports, and do things
such as check and change valves and
pull weeds out of the ponds. All septic
tanks are pumped every five years, un-
less there is a problem with them soon-
er. The septic tanks at the rest homes
and commercial establishments have
different requirements and are pumped
more often.”
Stevens says that the small-diameter
collection system itself has required lit-
tle maintenance over the years. “We
have it on our agenda to flush the lines
every four years or so,” said Stevens.
“We have manholes with our system as
well as cleanouts, so occasionally
groundwater and stormwater get into
the system.”
Miranda residents pay a $25 per
month base fee for water and sewer,
plus additional fees for individual water
use. The fee includes any service calls
for septic tanks and all costs for peri-
odic pumping.
Conrath, WisconsinAlthough they live on opposite sides
of the country, Bert Stevens and Louie
Konieczny have been living parallel
lives. Konieczny is the wastewater treat-
ment plant operator for the village of
Conrath, Wisconsin. Like Stevens, a re-
tired logging truck owner, Konieczny is
a retired auto shop owner who was
originally enlisted by his community to
operate the local wastewater system be-
cause “there was no one else to do it.”
Conrath also is a former logging
community like Miranda. It was incor-
porated more than 90 years ago. Ac-
cording to Konieczny, the town has al-
ways had about 100 residents.
“I’ve been here for about 50 years,”
he says. “We’re just a little town that
never grew. We have about 38 homes,
a church, a school with only about 30
students, three commercial establish-
ments and farmland all around. One
business is a convenience store, one is
a feedmill with a bathroom, and one is
a garage with two bathrooms. But all
of our wastewater is septage—no
chemicals. None of their commercial
waste goes into our system. ”
Like Stevens, Konieczny oversees
the operation and maintenance of the
SDGS system; the subsurface, intermit-
tently-dosed sand filter; and the septic
tanks. The SDGS lines require little
maintenance. Yet he performs all the pa-
perwork and sees that all the septic
tanks are pumped every three years.
“We pump one-third of the septic tanks
every fall to pace ourselves,” he says.
The town hires a local contractor to
do the septic tank pumping. The sep-
tage is mixed with lime and is land ap-
plied and buried nearby on fields vol-
unteered by two local farmers. The
town alternates the use of the fields.
About six homes in Conrath are lo-
cated below the system and are con-
nected via STEP systems. Konieczny
also helps maintain the STEP system
pumps and the pumps at a lift station,
which precedes the sand filter. Two
1,000-gallon holding tanks also pre-
cede the sand filter and act as addi-
tional septic tanks. These final tanks are
pumped and cleaned every year.
Konieczny says that the sand filter re-
quires little maintenance, but that he
sometimes must clean the bulbs of an
ultraviolet (UV) disinfection unit that
follows the sand filter. He says that the
UV filter is only required seasonally,
and that the entire system has done an
excellent job throughout its 11 years of
operation.
“The wastewater system discharges
to Main Creek,” says Konieczny. “The
creek has been polluted over the years
by farming, but the effluent
we discharge is at least 50
times cleaner than the water
in the creek, even in the win-
ter without UV disinfection.”
Konieczny says that fecal
coliform values usually range
from 0 to 9 or 10 most prob-
able number (MPN)/100
millileters (mL) in the summer,
when they are allowed 400
MPN/100 mL. Testing for
fecal coliforms is not required
in the winter.
The firm of Morgan &
Parmley Limited in nearby La-
Most SDGS systems are
actually combination
STEP/SDGS systems.
Such hybrid designs
can minimize or elimi-
nate the need for costly
lift stations.
Photos courtesy of Jan Adams Photography
Above, redwoods are logged near Miranda inHumboldt County, California. Both Mirandaand Conrath, Wisconsin, are former loggingtowns. Both chose small-diameter gravitysewer systems in lieu of conventional sewers.
Above: Miranda High School, circa 1940. Today theschool looks much the same and continues to befully enrolled by serving students from surroundingcommunities.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
28
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
29
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
tion, adsorption, biological conversion,and volatilization. Wastewater is dis-tributed over the surface of the mediathrough a distribution manifold andcollected in an underdrain system afterpassing through the bed.
Single-pass packed bed filters(SPBFs) rely on the passage of waste-water through the filter medium onlyonce to accomplish treatment objec-tives. Multi-pass packed bed filters(MPBFs), commonly known as recircu-lating filters, operate in a similar man-ner as single-pass filters, but they in-clude an intermediate tank that servesto capture the effluent from the filterand dilute the incoming septic tank ef-fluent before the mixture is reappliedto the surface of the packed bed filter.A schematic diagram of an MPBF sys-tem is presented in figure 1.
The advantages of MPBFs overSPBFs are the potential for improvedtransformation and removal of certainconstituents, the capacity to dilute pe-riods of high organic loading, a reduc-tion in odors associated with open fil-ters, and a reduced footprint (Loudenet al., 1985; Crites et al., 1997). Typi-cally, MPBFs use coarse sand or gravelmedia and support hydraulic loadingrates (HLRs) three to five times higherthan SPBFs (EPA, 1980). Hines andFavreau (1974) reported that multi-pass sand filters produced effluent bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD5) andtotal suspended solids (TSS) values typ-ically not exceeding 10 mg L-1 andoften less than 5 mg L-1.
The potential for nitrogen reductionin MPBFs has also been recognized,with total nitrogen (TN) removal rang-ing from 40 to 70 percent (Louden etal., 1985; Piluk and Hao, 1989; Whit-myer et al., 1991). Because of the highquality effluent produced by MPBFs,they are potentially well suited forwater reuse applications (Crites et al.,1997; Jowett, 1999).
Media Used in Packed Bed FiltersGraded sand has traditionally been
used as the medium in packed bed fil-ters. While past researchers have eluci-dated some of the critical factors thatcan be used to optimize sand filter per-formance, sand and other solid granu-lar media have inherent limiting char-acteristics. A majority of the solid gran-ular medium bed volume (60 to 70 per-cent) is occupied by the medium itself.Small-diameter granular media have ahigh surface area, but the small poresize limits the maximum hydraulic load-ing rate. As particulate matter and bio-
mass accumulate in the pore space ofthe upper layers, the porosity is furtherreduced. Alternately, solid granularmedia with a large diameter (and poresize) will not restrict hydraulic loadingbut will have a significantly reducedsurface area for biomass growth, limit-ing the allowable organic loading rate.
Two principal factors limit the appli-cation of sand filters (Ball et al., 1999;EPA, 1999b). First, a packed bed ofsand has a low porosity that limits thesustainable hydraulic and organic load-ing rates to avoid clogging and resultsin increased land area requirements.Second, the sand required in packedbed filters must meet size and unifor-mity standards to ensure that the treat-ment system will function properly, al-lowing capacity for hydraulic, solids,and organic loading. The cost to obtainand deliver the required volume of ap-propriately sized sand to remote sitescan be prohibitive.
The commercial demand for com-pact and efficient alternatives to con-
ventional sand filters has prompted thedevelopment and testing of innovativemedia in packed bed filters. Among themost promising of these new mediaare nonwoven textile fabrics (NWTFs)composed of plastic filaments config-ured in densely packed sheets. The re-sulting NWTF is lightweight and has ahigh porosity and specific surface area.
Currently, NWTFs are in use at sev-eral demonstration sites and house-holds in the U.S. However, only a lim-ited amount of investigation into theirperformance is available in the litera-ture (Roy et al., 1998; Ball et al., 1999).Roy et al. (1998) described the use ofNWTF chips in single-pass and multi-pass filters. In laboratory columns withan NWTF medium depth of 0.9 m(2.95 ft), the authors observed excep-tional removal of BOD and TSS atHLRs ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 m d-1 (5to 15 gal ft-2 d-1) in single-pass andmulti-pass configurations. The authorshypothesized that increased water re-tention within the media was respon-sible for higher organic removal. The
Abstract: Three configurations of nonwoven textile fabric(NWTF) in a multi-pass, packed bed filter were evaluated forthe treatment of primary effluent. The configurations includ-ed hanging sheets, a packed bed of chips, and a layeredpacked bed of chips. Hydraulic loading rates (HLRs) of 0.41and 1.22 m d-1 (10 and 30 gal ft-2 d-1) and organic loadingrates (OLRs) of 0.0538 and 0.161 kg biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) m-2 d-1 (0.263 and 0.788 lb BOD ft-2 d-1)were evaluated. The hydraulic application rate (HAR) anddosing frequency (DF) were held constant at 0.025 m dose-1
(0.082 ft dose-1) and 150 doses d-1, respectively. All orienta-
tions provided excellent treatment of the wastewater interms of organic and solids removal (97 and 95 percent re-duction, respectively) at the lower HLR. At the higher HLR,the hanging sheet filter removal performance deterioratedin contrast to the chip filters, which maintained treatmentefficiency. The fraction of water retained against gravity asa function of media volume was approximately 19 percent(90 L or 23.8 gal) for the chip orientation and 4 percent (20 Lor 5.3 gal) for the hanging sheets. The dose volume applied tothe filters was approximately 23 L dose-1 (6 gal dose-1), or 0.26and 1.15 times the measured water holding capacity for thechips and NWTF sheets, respectively. Performance in simi-larly loaded NWTF and sand filters indicated that medium-size sand beds clogged and coarse-size sand beds deterio-rated in effluent quality compared to the NWTF filters. Thepacked bed porosity (void volume/total volume) for theNWTF media was approximately 95 percent as comparedto 30 percent for the sand. The high porosity combined withthe larger surface area of the NWTF can support a greatermass of biofilm growth and thus process a higher organicloading rate while not clogging.
Currently, more than 60 millionpeople in the U.S. live in homes thatuse onsite systems for the collectionand treatment of wastewater (Critesand Tchobanoglous, 1998). The mostcommon type of onsite system is theseptic tank followed by a soil absorp-tion field (ST-SAF). The ST-SAF systemrelies on the soil ecosystem for purifi-cation of septic tank effluent beforethat effluent reaches the groundwater.
When ST-SAF systems are improp-erly designed, poorly maintained, over-loaded, or sited in an unsuitable loca-tion, inadequately treated wastewateris released prematurely to the sur-rounding environment and/or ground-water raising both public health andenvironmental concerns (EPA, 1999a).Thus in some situations, it is necessaryto provide additional treatment to sep-tic tank effluent before its release to theenvironment. The most common addi-tional treatment is the use of packedbed filters, as discussed next.
DESCRIPTION OF INTERMITTENTLYDOSED PACKED BED FILTERS
Single-pass and multi-pass packedbed filters are established technologiesfor the additional treatment of septictank effluent and have typically pro-duced high quality effluent. Intermittent-ly dosed packed bed filters consist of abed of inert media onto which septictank effluent is periodically applied. Asthe wastewater passes through thebed, constituents are removed by filtra-
Evaluation of High-Porosity Medium in Intermittently Dosed, Multi-PassPacked Bed Filters for the Treatment of Wastewater
Harold Leverenz, P.E.Loret Ruppe, P.E.George Tchobanoglous, Ph.D., P.E.Jeannie Darby, Ph.D., P.E.
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaUntreated
wastewater
Packedbed filter
Septic tank Recirculation tankFilter effluent
to reuse application
Wastewaterdistribution manifold
Flow splitting valvereturns portion of flowto recirculation tank
Wastewater collectedin underdrain system
Submergedpumps
Figure 1
Diagram of Multi-Pass Packed Bed Filter System
Septic Tank EffluentThis study (with Effluent Filter Vault)a
Parameter Unit Average Range Typical Range BOD5 mg L-1 125 80 – 200 130 100 – 140 COD mg L-1 341 282 – 411 250 160 – 300 TSS mg L-1 91 36 – 274 30 20 – 55 Turbidity NTU 39 25 – 48 TKN as N mg L-1 20 14 – 25 68 50 – 90 NH3 as N mg L-1 16 11 – 20 40 30 – 50 NO3- as N mg L-1 0.7 0 – 2 Alkalinity mg L-1 as CaCO3 338 310 – 373 pH 7.6 7.5 – 7.7 aCrites and Tchobanoglous (1998)
Comparison of Wastewater Characteristics
Table 1
between 10 a.m. and noon; samples
were refrigerated and analyses were per-
formed the same day. Conventional
water quality parameters were moni-
tored as per table 3.
Characterization of NWTFA laboratory investigation was con-
ducted to evaluate the media character-
istics. The porosity of an individual
NWTF chip and a randomly packed bed
of NWTF chips was determined. The
water holding capacity was determined
for a randomly packed bed of NWTF
chips and a hanging sheet of NWTF.
The porosity, η, and water holding
capacity, θ, were determined as follows:
(3)
(4)
where
Vv = void volume, m3;
Vt = total volume, m3; and
Vw = volume of water held against
gravity, m3.
Measurements of Vv, Vt and Vw were
made as described below.
To estimate the volume of material
(Vs) of an individual chip, a 100 mL
graduated cylinder was filled to 80 mL,
a dry NWTF chip was submerged, and,
after visually confirming that all pore
space was filled with water, the increase
in volume was recorded. The total vol-
ume (Vt) of an individual chip was cal-
culated from its dimensions. The void
volume (Vv) was obtained by subtract-
ing the volume of material (Vs) from the
measured total volume (Vt). The specif-
ic porosity of an individual chip was
then calculated with equation 3.
To estimate the void volume (Vv) in
a randomly packed bed of chips, a 2-L
beaker was packed with chips and
water was added to the beaker, satu-
rating the bed and filling all available
pore space. The volume of water
added was assumed equal to the void
volume. The total volume (Vt) of the
packed bed was taken as 2 L. The bulk
porosity of the packed bed of chips was
then calculated according to equation 3.
To estimate the water holding ca-
pacity of a packed bed of chips, an
acrylic tube (inner diameter of 0.267
m) was packed with chips, saturated
with water, and allowed to drain
against gravity for about 20 minutes
(time at which drainage had essential-
ly stopped). The change in mass was
assumed to be the mass of water held
in the NWTF pore spaces. The total
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
31
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
whereQr = flow from recirculation tank
to the filter, andQ = flow of primary effluent to the re-
circulation tank (forward flow).At the HLR of 0.41 m d-1 (10 gal ft2
d-1), the recirculation ratio was 9. Afterfive months, the loading was increasedto 1.22 m d-1 (30 gal ft-2 d-1), while thedosing frequency (DF) was left constant,resulting in a recirculation ratio of 3. Asummary of independent variables ispresented in table 2.
A DF of 150 doses d-1 and hydraulicapplication rate (HAR) of 0.025 m dose-1
(0.08 ft dose-1) were controlled withprogrammable timers (Model#MVP1251PT, Orenco Systems, Inc.)and held constant during the research.The HAR, a measure of the depth ofwater applied to the filter surface witheach dose, is defined as
(2)
where HLR = hydraulic loading rate, m d-1; andDF = dosing frequency, doses d-1.
To increase the HLR from 0.41 to 1.22m d-1 (10 to 30 gal ft-2 d-1), the forwardflow to each recirculation tank was in-creased by 300 percent. Because the in-fluent wastewater was diluted whenmixed with filter effluent in the recircu-lation tank, water quality measurementswere not made for several weeks afterthe HLR was increased, until the filtersreturned to a steady state of operation.
Wastewater Sampling and AnalysisTo evaluate the NWTF filter perform-
ance, filter influent and effluent samples
were obtained periodically. Filter effluent
was collected for a duration equal to one
dosing period (24 hours/150 doses = 9.6
minutes). Sampling generally occurred
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
30
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
authors also hypothesized that sepa-rating a bed into distinct layers wouldfurther improve treatment and allowfor increased loading rates but side-by-side testing of layered and continu-ous beds was not conducted.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVESThe goal of the research presented
herein was to develop a better under-
standing of how the configuration
and operation of NWTF media in
multi-pass filters affect performance.
FacilitiesA plan view of the research site is
presented in figure 2, and photographsof the NWTF filter units (Orenco Sys-tems, Inc., Sutherlin, Oregon) are pro-vided in figure 3. Wastewater was si-phoned from the primary clarifier into aholding tank before being pumped toeach recirculation tank. The concrete re-circulation tanks (Jensen Precast, Sacra-mento, California) had a water volumeof 0.65 m3 (265 gal). Wastewater waspumped from the recirculation tank tothe filter surface through a convention-al distribution system, consisting of lat-eral pipes, upward pointing orifices, andorifice shields to direct the flow downinto the bed. After passing through theNWTF medium, the effluent flowedthrough a splitting valve where a por-tion of the flow was discharged from thesystem and the remainder was directedback into the recirculation tank.
A 20 W fan supplied air to thepacked bed filters. In contrast to low-porosity granular medium filters wherea fan would be of little value, the in-clusion of a fan with high-porositymedia is standard practice. Air fromthe fan entered the units near the topand traveled through a manifold fordistribution in the bed. The fan wasused to increase the amount of oxy-gen available to the biomass and to en-sure aerobic conditions; however, theimpact of the fan was not quantified.The filter effluent was typically saturat-ed with oxygen and without objec-tionable odor.
Operational ParametersThe recirculation ratio (a), an esti-
mate of how many times a volume ofwater has passed through the bed be-fore being discharged, is defined as
(1)
The specific research ob-
jectives were (1) to charac-
terize NWTF media by
measuring physical proper-
ties of porosity and water
holding capacity in com-
parison to sand, and (2) to
compare the performance
of three different NWTF
configurations (hanging
sheets, packed bed, and
layered packed bed) under
two loading conditions
(0.41 and 1.22 m d-1, 10
and 30 gal ft-2 d-1, respec-
tively).
RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS
Three NWTF filter units
were operated in a multi-
pass mode, at hydraulic
loading rates of 0.41 and
1.22 m d-1 (10 and 30 gal
ft-2 d-1). Three packed bed
configurations were test-
ed: (1) hanging sheets of
NWTF, (2) a single layer of
NWTF chips, and (3) three
independent layers of NWTF chips
supported on screens with a total
NWTF medium volume equivalent to
that of configuration (2). A principal
advantage of a hanging sheet config-
uration is the ease of removal of the
sheets for maintenance and cleaning
if necessary. Primary effluent from the
University of California, Davis (UCD)
wastewater treatment plant was used
because of its similarity to septic tank
effluent. The values for BOD5, chem-
ical oxygen demand (COD), and TSS
are within the range typical of septic
tank effluent (table 1).
Period of Operation9/2/99– 2/2/00 –
Parameter Unit of Measure 2/2/00 3/17/00Hydraulic loading rate (HLR)a m d-1 0.41 1.22 Forward flow dosing frequency doses d-1 48 48 Forward flow dosing volume L dose-1 7.9 23.8 Filter surface area, A m2 0.93 0.93 Recycle ratiob, a 9:1 3:1 Filter dosing frequency, DF doses d-1 150 150 Filter dosing volume L dose-1 22.7 22.7 Volume of water applied to filter bed m3 d-1 3.4 3.4 Hydraulic application rate (HAR)c m dose-1 0.025 0.025 Organic loading rate to filter units kg BOD5 m-2 d-1 0.054 0.161
a HLR is the forward flow to recirculation tank based on filter surface areab As calculated with Equation (1)c As calculated with Equation (2)
Parameter Analysis Technique Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Reactor digestion and colorimetric
determination method 8000a
Dissolved oxygen (DO) Membrane electrode method 4500-O Gb
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) Method 5210 Bb
Total suspended solids (TSS) Method 2540 Db
Turbidity Turbidimeter (Model #2100A)a
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) Method 4500-Norg Cb
Ammonia (NH3) Ammonia selective electrode 4500-NH3
Db Nitrate (NO3-) Nitrate selective electrode 4500-NO3- Db
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Titration method 8203a
a Hach Company, Loveland, COb Standard Methods, 1998
Summary of Independent Variables for the Operation of the Textile Filters
Table 2
Analysis of Dependent Variables Representing Filter Performance
Table 3
Primaryeffluent
Holding tank
Flowmeters
Forward flowpumps submerged inscreened vault
Anti-siphonvalve
Overflowdrain totreatmentplantheadworks
Fan
Influentsamplingvalves
Threelayertextilefilterunit
Singlelayertextilefilterunit
Hangingsheettextilefilterunit
Effluentsamplinglocation
500 gallon concreterecirculation tank
Flow splitting valve
Dosing pumpsubmerged inrecirculation tank
Filter effluent andoverflow returnedto headworks oftreatment plant
Research Site Plan View
Figure 2
RNWTF filter units
Figure 3
α =Qr
Q
HAR =α . HLR
DF
η = Vv
Vt
θ = Vw
Vt
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
33
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
sheet and chip filters, and that such a
difference impacted performance.
Such effects can not be separated from
the impacts of water holding capacity
in this research; however, given the
continuous air supply, the extremely
high porosity of the material, and the
reduced water holding capacity in the
sheets compared to the chips, it is like-
ly that any oxygen transfer limitations
in the hanging sheets were of second-
ary importance compared to the ef-
fects of the reduced water holding ca-
pacity. If the water holding capacity is
improved, gas transfer limitations
should be investigated.
Comparison of continuous and
layered chip configuration—Effluent
quality did not appear to be a function
of media configuration for the chip fil-
ters. In the bed of randomly stacked,
uncompressed NWTF chips, each
piece of NWTF holds water independ-
ently from the rest of the bed or its po-
sition in the bed. Therefore, the water
holding capacity of the NWTF chip fil-
ter was not increased when the bed
was divided into three layers.
Removal of nitrogen—Complete ni-
trification and some denitrification (ap-
proximately 30 percent total nitrogen
removal) took place in the combined
filter unit and recirculation tank system.
Alkalinity was measured and found to
be in sufficient concentrations to sup-
port nitrification processes. Because of
the limited data obtained for the vari-
ous forms of nitrogen, any discussion
of transformation and removal of nitro-
gen is speculative. The high concen-
tration of nitrate in the effluents, how-
ever, may be a concern in environ-
ments sensitive to nitrogen.
Total nitrogen removal was lower
than the 40 to 70 percent reported in
the literature. Modification of the sys-
tem configuration and loading charac-
teristics may increase the removal of
total nitrogen. It is possible that denitri-
fication was restricted by the presence
of aerobic or facultative conditions in
the recirculation tank, limited carbon in
the raw wastewater, or short-circuiting
of the return filter effluent in the recir-
culation tank. Measures that may in-
crease denitrification include (1) de-
creasing the recirculation ratio to reduce
the concentration of dissolved oxygen
in the recirculation tank and (2) modify-
ing the hydraulics in the recirculation
tank to provide a carbon source for den-
itrification by encouraging mixing septic
effluent with nitrified filter effluent.
Comparison of NWTF and sand
performance—The NWTF showed no
signs of the surface clogging character-
istic of sand beds. For comparison, six
single-pass sand filters were in operation
at the same time as the NWTF filters uti-
lizing wastewater from the same source.
Three of the sand filters used a medium
sand (effective size [ES] = 0.44 mm; uni-
formity coefficient [UC] = 2.4) and were
loaded at 0.12 m d-1 (3 gal ft-2 d-1), while
the other three sand filters had a coarse-
sand medium (ES = 3.8 mm, UC = 1.3)
and were loaded at 0.2 m d-1 (5 gal ft-2
d-1). Each of the three medium sand fil-
ters had different distribution system
configurations (conventional, drip, and
spray), and all produced a high quality
effluent equivalent to the NWTF filters.
Surface clogging occurred in the
medium sand filter units 108, 91, and
153 days after system startup for the
conventional, drip, and spray systems,
respectively. The coarse sand filters did
not clog during the study, but, it was ob-
served that filter effluent quality deteri-
orated in the winter months, with efflu-
ent BOD5 ranging from 5 to 20 mg L-1.
It is believed that a combination of
NWTF characteristics contributed to the
filter beds excellent hydraulic conduc-
tivity and resistance to clogging, prima-
rily the material porosity and the large
pores created by the random stacking
configuration of the chips and the gaps
between the hanging sheets. The NWTF
media were examined to identify the
characteristics that make it efficient for
wastewater treatment. The packed bed
porosity (void volume/total volume) for
the NWTF media, as determined with
equation 3, was approximately 95 per-
cent. Thus, in a bed of NWTF media,
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
32
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
volume (Vt) of the packed bed of chips
was taken as the volume of the tube.
The water holding capacity was calcu-
lated with equation 4.
The water holding capacity of the
NWTF sheet was estimated by saturating
a single sheet with water, allowing the
material to drain in a vertical orientation,
and measuring the mass of water held
against gravity. The total volume (Vt) of
the sheet was calculated from its meas-
ured dimensions and the water holding
capacity was calculated with equation 4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Performance of NWTF filtersA summary of all influent and efflu-
ent measurements is presented in table
4. The filters were in operation from Sep-
tember 1999 to March 2000, the peri-
od coinciding with the fall and winter
seasons. Most data taken for this study
were collected during winter. The aver-
age air temperature for that period was
10oC (50oF). The effluent from the filter
units was typically clear with no odor.
The high dosing frequency contributed
and 4 percent (20 L or 5.3 gal) for the
hanging sheets. A high DF allowed for
a low HAR, resulting in the wastewater
being applied in small doses. The
dose volume applied to the filters was
about 23 L dose-1 (6 gal dose-1), or 0.26
and 1.15 times the measured water
holding capacity for the chips and
NWTF sheets, respectively. The addi-
tional water holding capacity of the
NWTF chips may increase the contact
time between the biomass and waste-
water constituents, contributing to the
higher performance of the chips rela-
tive to the hanging sheets.
Given the maintenance and clean-
ing advantages of a hanging sheet
compared to a chip configuration, ef-
forts to reduce the short-circuiting of
flow through the hanging sheet filters
are warranted. Such efforts might in-
clude modification of the surface prop-
erties of the material to promote water
absorption and reduce surface flow
across the sheets as well as reducing the
gaps between the vertical sheets.
It also is possible that there was a dif-
ference in oxygen transfer in the hanging
to efficient constituent removal, making
it difficult to discern the effects of media
configuration; however, some signifi-
cant differences were observed as de-
scribed below.
Comparison of chip and hanging
sheet configuration—The influent and
effluent BOD5 and TSS and the percent
removal are plotted as a function of day
of operation for each filter on figure 4.
All filters provided excellent treatment
of the wastewater in terms of organic
and solids removal (97 and 95 percent
reduction, respectively) at the HLR of
0.41 m d-1 (10 gal ft-2 d-1). However, after
the loading was increased to 1.22 m d-1
(30 gal ft-2 d-1) on day 153, the hanging
sheet filter removal performance deteri-
orated in contrast to the chip filters,
which maintained treatment efficiency.
A possible explanation for the de-
cline in performance of the hanging
sheet filter is related to the water hold-
ing capacity. The fraction of water re-
tained against gravity as a function of
media volume, as calculated with
equation 4, was approximately 19 per-
cent (90 L or 23.8 gal) for the chips
Concentrationa, mg L-1
HLR = 0.41 m d-1 HLR = 1.22 m d-1
Parameter Influent Three-Layer Single-Layer Hanging Sheet Three-Layer Single-Layer Hanging Sheet Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter
BOD5 125 (80–200)b 1c (0.5–5) 1 (0.6–1.7) 2.5 (1.3–5) 4.4 (5–5.2) 2.6 (2–3.6) 16 (11–21)[n=10]b [n=8] [n=8] [n=8] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2]
COD 341 (282–411) 17 (15–19) 16.5 (16–17)23 (22–24) 21 (N/A) 22 (N/A) 45 (N/A)[n=3] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2] [n=1] [n=1] [n=1]
TSS 91 (36–274) 1.3 (0.2–2.8) 1.2 (0.2–4.3) 1.4 (0.7–4.9) 4 (2.6–5.5) 2.4 (2.3–2.5) 15.5 (9.7–21.2)[n=9] [n=7] [n=7] [n=7] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2]
Turbidity 39 (25–48) 1.6 (0.9–3) 1.6 (1.1–2.3) 2.1 (1.6–2.7) 2.7 (2.3–3) 2 (1.9–2) 6.4 (4.7–8)[n=7] [n=5] [n=5] [n=5] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2]
TKN as N 20 (13.6–24.6) 3.4 (N/A) 2.2 (N/A) 1 (N/A) 6.3 (4.6–8.4) 4.7 (4.4–5) 8.1 (6.9–9)[n=4] [n=1] [n=1] [n=1] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]
NH3 an N 16 (11.3–19.6) 0.05 (0–0.1) 0.03 (0–0.1) 0.5 (0.1–0.8) 0.4 (0.2–0.6) 0.2 (0.2–0.3) 4.7 (4.2–5.1)[n=7] [n=4] [n=4] [n=4] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]
NO3- as N 0.7 (0–1.7) 13.7 (12.2–15) 12 (10.8–12.9) 15 (13.3–16.5) 10.2 (8.4–12.0) 10.5 (8.5–11.9)5.7 (4.3–6.6)[n=6] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]
Alkalinity as 338 (310–373) 212 (200–230) 223 (218–232) 218 (212–228) 250 (238–270)246 (234–268) 286 (268–309)CaCO3 [n=6] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]
a Except turbidity, which is reported as NTUb Average (range) [number of data points]c Outlier removed
Summary of Influent and Effluent Wastewater Characteristics for Three Textile Filter Units Operated at HLRs of 0.41and 1.22 md-1
Table 4
Conceptual Model Illustrating Particle Removal in a Sand Bed Compared
to the NWTF Chips
(a)
(b)
Holding tank (raw)
Hanging sheets
Single layer
Three layer
Percentremoval
Effluentconcentration
0
100
200
300
400
0
25
50
75
100
0 50 100 150 200
5-day biochemical oxygen demand, mgL-1
Percent removal
Time of filter operation,d
0
100
200
300
400
0
25
50
75
100
0 50 100 150 200
5-day biochemical oxygen demand, mgL-1
Percent removal
Time of filter operation,d
Effluent Concentrations and Percent Re-
moval of (a) Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand and (b) Total Suspended Solids
in Hanging Sheets, Single-Layer, and
Three-Layer Textile Filter Units. Note: onday 153 of operation the HLR was in-creased from 0.41 to 1.22 m d-1(10 to 30gal ft-2 d-1)
Figure 4
Number ofparticles
Number ofparticles
Sand grains
Particles accumulatein the pore space, forming
a clogging layer onthe surface
Non-woven textilefabric chips
Particles removedby straining, clogginglayer does not form
because of high porosity
(a) (b)
Figure 5
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
34
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
five percent of the volume is occupied
by a solid, leaving 95 percent of the bed
volume for biomass growth, gas ex-
change, and liquid infiltration. For com-
parison, granular media such as sand
typically has a porosity of approximate-
ly 30 to 40 percent, with a majority of
the filter bed occupied by an inert ma-
terial. NWTFs have a high surface area
(~16,400 m2 m-3 or 5,000 ft2 ft-3; Ball et
al., 1999) for biofilm growth. Sands have
a significantly smaller surface area; the
medium and coarse sands used in this
study had a surface area of approxi-
mately 7,000 m2 m-3 (2,100 ft2 ft-3) and
1270 m2 m-3 (387 ft2 ft-3) , respectively.
The following is a conceptual expla-
nation of how the NWTF media facilitat-
ed an increased hydraulic loading rate
and maintained a high constituent re-
moval rate despite the high porosity of
the material. A dose of
wastewater, containing
both dissolved species and
a distribution of various size
particles, is applied to the
NWTF media. A fraction of
the water comes into con-
tact with the biofilm that re-
sides on the surface of the
media fibers and is ab-
sorbed and transformed.
The NTWF has a large sur-
face area and, therefore,
can support a large amount
of attached biomass, allow-
ing for increased con-
stituent removal. Larger par-
ticles are removed as they
are strained out with depth
in the media and are re-
duced through biological
conversion processes. The
ly high hydraulic conductivity of theNWTFs compared to conventional gran-ular media such as sand, the distributionof wastewater to the surface of the filterswas not optimal. When the convention-al orifice type distribution system (devel-oped for sand filters) was used for the ap-plication of wastewater onto the NWTF,the flow was concentrated directly belowthe orifice as shown in figure 6. Increas-ing the horizontal distribution of waste-water would make more efficient use ofthe material and likely allow for even high-er hydraulic loading rates. Alternative dis-tribution systems should be developedand tested to determine the effects of dis-tribution on filter performance.
RamificationsThe high loading rate of, and excel-
lent effluent quality from, the NWTF fil-ters make them a compelling alternativefor onsite wastewater treatment. More-over, NWTF filters have the potential tobe an integral part of compact, cost-effi-cient onsite wastewater treatment andwater reuse systems.
High loading rate—The increasedloading rate allows for a decrease in thefootprint required by the filter units (com-pared to sand and gravel filters) and aconcurrent reduction in the quantity offilter media. The NWTF units were op-erated at loading rates up to 1.22 m d-1
(30 gal ft-2 d-1) and had a surface foot-print of 0.93 m2 (10 ft2) with approxi-mately 35 kg (77 lb) of NWTF media. Totreat the same volume per day with asingle-pass sand filter, with a convention-al depth of 0.6 m (2 ft) operated at a con-ventional loading rate of 0.04 m d-1 (1 galft-2 d-1), a surface footprint of 28 m2 (300ft2) with approximately 30,000 kg (33
other fraction of the applied water may
preferentially flow around a chip
through the large pore spaces and into
a different fabric chip, where similar re-
moval processes occur. Because the fil-
ter bed is composed of many NWTF
chips, the surface area available for large
particle filtration is much greater than
that of a sand bed. The increased sur-
face area available for filtration and par-
ticle entrapment makes it possible to
treat an equivalent volume of waste-
water in a smaller area. Moreover, the
recirculation of the filter influent pro-
vides multiple opportunities for particle
entrapment and contaminant removal.
A diagram of the conceptual model il-
lustrating particle removal in a sand bed
compared to the NWTF chips is pre-
sented in figure 5.Interestingly, because of the relative-
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
35
JU
RI
ED
A
RT
IC
LE
tons) of sand would be required. The 30-fold difference in required land area and850-fold difference in weight of mediarequired is significant.
Reliable high quality effluent—Thepotential stability of NWTF filter unitsgiven variable loading and the resultinghigh quality effluent, suggests that the ef-fluent could be used directly for onsitesubsurface irrigation or, alternatively,would be a high quality feed for an ad-vanced water treatment system that pro-duced water for multiple purposes.Complete reuse would even eliminatethe need for a soil absorption field. Fig-ure 7 (Tchobanoglous et al., 1999) de-picts a total reuse scenario utilizing acompact NWTF filter unit.
CONCLUSIONSThree configurations of NWTF filter
units were investigated at HLRs of 0.41and 1.22 m d-1 with a DF of 150 dosesd-1 for a period of 7 months. Observa-tions of the NWTF filter performanceand media characteristics led to the fol-lowing conclusions:
1. All orientations provided excellenttreatment of the wastewater interms of organic and solids re-moval (97 and 95 percent reduc-tion, respectively) at the HLR of0.41 m d-1 (10 gal ft-2 d-1). How-ever, after the loading was in-creased to 1.22 m d-1 (30 gal ft-2
d-1), the hanging sheet filter re-moval performance deterioratedin contrast to the chip filters, whichmaintained treatment efficiency.The vertical orientation of thesheets reduced the effective waterholding capacity and it was alsonoted that water appeared to flowover the surface of the sheets. Thefraction of water retained againstgravity as a function of media vol-ume was approximately 19 per-cent (90 L or 23.8 gal) for the chiporientation and 4 percent (20 L or5.3 gal) for the hanging sheets.The dose volume applied to the fil-ters was about 23 L dose-1 (6 galdose-1), or 0.26 and 1.15 times themeasured water holding capacityfor the chips and NWTF sheets, re-spectively.
2. Performance in similarly loadedNWTF and sand filters indicatedthat medium-size sand bedsclogged and coarse-size sand bedsdeteriorated in effluent qualitycompared to the NWTF filters.The packed bed porosity (void vol-ume/total volume) for the NWTFmedia was approximately 95 per-
cent as compared to 30 to 40 per-cent for the sand. The high porosi-ty combined with the larger sur-face area of the NWTF can supporta greater mass of biofilm growthand thus process a higher organicloading rate while not clogging.
3. There was no discernable differ-ence in performance between asingle continuous layer and anequivalent depth three layer NWTFchip filter under the conditionsevaluated. Both NWTF chip filterstypically achieved BOD5 and TSSremoval of 97 to 100 percent re-moval and nearly complete nitrifi-cation of the ammonia nitrogen. Infuture research, the hydraulic load-ing rate should be increased to de-termine the assimilative capacity ofNWTF in multi-pass packed bed fil-ters. In addition, the impact ofpacking density of the NWTFshould be investigated.
4. The distribution of wastewater tothe surface of the filters was not op-timal. The NWTF has a much high-er hydraulic conductivity thangranular media. When the con-ventional orifice type distributionsystem is used for the applicationof wastewater onto the NWTF, theflow is concentrated below the ori-fice. Increasing the horizontal dis-tribution of wastewater wouldmake more efficient use of the ma-terial and likely allow for higher or-ganic loading rates. Alternative dis-tribution systems should be devel-oped and tested to determine theeffects of distribution on filter per-formance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe donation of equipment by Oren-
co Systems, Inc. (Sutherlin, Oregon) for
this research and a U.S. Department of
Education Graduate Assistance in Areas
of National Need Fellowship to H. Lev-
erenz is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCESAmerican Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, and Water Environment Federa-tion. 1998. Standard methods for the examination ofwater and wastewater, 20th ed. Washington, D. C.
Ball, E. S., H. L. Ball, and T. R. Bounds. 1999. A new gener-ation of packed bed filters. Proceedings of the 10thNorthwest On-site Wastewater Treatment Short Courseand Equipment Exhibition. Seattle, Washington.
Crites, R. and G. Tchobanoglous. 1998. Small and de-centralized wastewater management systems. NewYork: The McGraw Hill Companies.
Crites, R., C. Lekven, S. Wert, and G. Tchobanoglous.1997. A decentralized wastewater system for asmall residential development in California. TheSmall Flows Journal. vol. 3. no.1.
Hines, M. and R. E. Favreau. 1974. Recirculating sandfilter: An alternative to traditional sewage absorp-tion systems. Proceedings of the National HomeSewage Disposal Symposium. ASAE. St. Joseph,Mich.
Jowett, E. C. 1999. Immediate re-use of treated waste-
water for household and irrigation purposes. Pro-ceedings of the 10th Northwest On-Site Waste-water Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhi-bition. Seattle, Washington.
Louden, T. L., D. B. Thompson, and L. E. Reese. 1985.Cold climate performance of recirculating sand fil-ters. Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium ofIndividual and Small Community Sewage Systems.ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.
Piluk, R. J. and O. J. Hao. 1989. Evaluation of onsitewaste disposal systems for nitrogen removal. Jour-nal of Environmental Engineering. vol. 115. no. 4.
Roy, C., R. Auger, and R. Chenier. 1998. Use of non-woven fabric in intermittent filters. On-site waste-water treatment: Proceedings of the 8th NationalSymposium on Individual and Small CommunitySewage Systems. ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.
Tchobanoglous, G., L. Ruppe, H. Leverenz, and J.Darby. 1999. Decentralized wastewater manage-ment challenges and opportunities for the twenty-first century. Proceedings of the 10th NorthwestOn-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course andEquipment Exhibition. Seattle, Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999a.Decentralized systems technology fact sheet: SepticTank – Soil Adsorption Systems. EPA 932-F-99-075.U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-ton, D.C.
———. 1999b. Wastewater technology fact sheet: Inter-mittent sand filters. Washington, D.C. EPA 932-F-99-067.
———. 1980. Design manual: Onsite wastewater treat-ment and disposal systems. Washington, D.C. EPA625-1-80-012.
Whitmyer, R. W., R. A. Apfel, R. J. Otis, and R. L.Meyer. 1991. Overview of individual onsite nitro-gen removal systems. On-site wastewater treat-ment: Proceedings of the 6th National Symposiumon Individual and Small Community Systems. St.ASAE. Joseph, Mich.
Conventional Orifice-Type Distribution System (developed for sand filters)
Figure 6
Septic tank Textilefilter
Membrane unit
Reverse osmosis
UV disinfection
Bathroom sink
Shower/bath
Kitchen sink
Toilet flushing
Clothes washing In-linelint filter
Outdoor activities: car washing, surface watering, etc.
Subsurface tree andlandscape irrigation
Solids returned toseptic tank
A Total Reuse Scenario Utilizing a Compact NWTF Filter Unit
Figure 7
Harold Leverenz, P.E.is a doctoral student in the Depart-ment of Civil and Environmental En-gineering at the University of Cali-fornia, Davis and studies decentral-ized wastewater treatment systems.
Loret M. Ruppe, P.E. is a doctoral student in the Depart-ment of Civil and Environmental En-gineering at the University of Cali-fornia, Davis and studies decentral-ized wastewater treatment systems.
George Tchobanoglous, Ph.D.,P.E.is a professor emeritis in the Depart-ment of Civil and Environmental En-gineering at the University of Cali-fornia, Davis. He has a bachelor ofscience degree in civil engineeringfrom the University of the Pacific(Stockton, CA), a master of sciencedegree in sanitary engineering from theUniversity of California at Berkeley, anda Ph.D. in civil engineering from Stan-ford University. He is a registeredprofessional engineer.
Jeannie Darby, Ph.D., P.E.is a professor in the Department ofCivil and Environmental Engineeringat the University of California atDavis. She has a bachelor of sciencedegree in civil engineering from RiceUniversity, a master of science de-gree in civil engineering from TuftsUniversity, and a Ph.D. in civil engi-neering from the University of Texasat Austin. She is a registered pro-fessional engineer.
quality of the Evitts Creek Watershed and the water quality
of Gordon and Koon Lakes.”
The City of Cumberland, Maryland, is donating land for
the establishment of an environmental learning center that
will showcase Centerville’s onsite wastewater management
system. The Centerville project will be used to train SAC
personnel in the planning, design, construction, and inspec-
tion of alternative wastewater treatment systems. SAC can
then use its knowledge to provide similar assistance to other
small communities throughout the six-county region in the
future once these communities see the long-term effects of
appropriate wastewater treatment.
For more information about the Centerville Project, con-
tact Len Lichvar, executive director of Southern Alleghenies
Conservancy at 702 West Pitt Street, Suite 8, Bedford, PA,
15222. You can telephone Lichvar at (814) 623-7900, ex-
tension 5 or e-mail him at [email protected] background information about the link be-
tween the Centerville demonstration project and CELP can
be found in Small Flows, Winter, 1999 in the story titled
“NODP Phase II Site Serves International Role.”
function—the one serving the lodge. The low malfunctionrate is partially attributed to the seasonal use of the systems.
Plans for the FutureMancl said that an abandoned airstrip is being consid-
ered for a second cluster system to serve a group of homesnow using holding tanks. The association also has set asidesites for large soil absorption systems throughout the devel-opment to serve new homes.
Mancl plans to revisit Crystal Lakes in 20 years. “I wantto see how true Crystal Lakes stays to its original wastewatermanagement goals and how its public policies impact itsstreams and communities.”
For more information about Crystal Lakes as a case studyfor NODP Phase IV, write Karen Mancl, Ph.D., professor,Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 590 WoodyHayes Dr., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210or telephone her at (614) 292-6007.
For information about the rate of malfunctions at CrystalLakes, contact Richard Rosecrans, general manager, CrystalLakes Water and Sewer Association, 300 Tami Rd., RedFeather Lakes, CO 80545. Rosecrans’s telephone number is(970) 881-2250.
evaluations, bad designs, or inadequatemaintenance. Yes, there have beenpoorly installed, operated, and main-tained aerobic treatment units. Ourchallenge is to strengthen the industryusing the many tools at our disposal, notban viable technology.
Bennette D. Burks, P.E., isdirector of engineering forConsolidated Treatment Sys-tems, Inc., in Franklin, Ohio.
Michael S. Price, R.S., isvice president, Sales for Nor-weco, Inc., Norwalk, Ohio.
REFERENCESBohrer, R. M., and J. C. Converse. 2001. Soil treatment per-
formance and cold weather operations of drip distribu-tion systems. Onsite wastewater treatment: Proceedingsof the 9th national symposium on individual and smallcommunity sewage systems. ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.
Felix, Charles W., and George A. Kupfer. 1988. Third-Party certification. Journal of Environmental Health.vol. 50. no. 6. (May/June).
Locker, Calvin, and Larry Vansickle. 1980. Experienceswith the use of aerobic plants and soil absorptionsystems. Presented at the Seventh National Confer-ence, sponsored by the National Sanitation Founda-tion (NSF) and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Water Program Operation. Illinois.
McClelland, Nina M. 1977. New techniques relating toindividual onsite wastewater disposal. Presented atthe Edward J. Zimmer Memorial Refresher Course,71st Annual Meeting, American Society of SanitaryEngineering. Kissimmee, Florida. (October).
Monnett, G. T., R. B. Reneau, Jr., and C. Hagedorn.1996. Evaluation of spray irrigation for on-site waste-water treatment and disposal on marginal soils.Water Environment Research. vol. 68. no. 1. (Janu-ary/February).
National Small Flows Clearinghouse. 1996. Pipeline. vol.7. no. 1. (winter).
Otis, Richard J. 1994. Aerobic unit good wastewatertreatment option. The Capital Time. February 17.
Sahr, Tim, Jim Lynch, and Davene Sarrocco-Smith. 1996.Evapotranspiration absorption system: A creative al-ternative for on-lot wastewater disposal. Ohio Journalof Environmental Health. (May/June).
Stockton, Edward L. 1984. Disposal of treated sewage ef-fluent. Presented before the Home Sewage andWaste Disposal Conference at Michigan State Uni-versity.
Young, Allan N., Jr. 1974. Soils infiltration and evapora-tion of wastewater by aerobic processes. Presentedat the National Environmental Health AssociationAnnual Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
37
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
36
but it also has introduced new technology to Pennsylvania.
Contour trench technology, currently not approved for use
in Pennsylvania, is being used experimentally in Centerville.
The Pennsylvania DEP will carefully monitor and evaluate how
well this system works. If the method is successful there, it
might spur regulatory changes that would allow contour
trenches to be permitted in other appropriate sites in the state.
Throughout the process, public meetings were held to
keep residents informed. “A major outcome of this project is
the way the residents changed their attitude from denial of
sewage problems and contamination of the Evitts Creek Wa-
tershed to strong participation in the project and the manage-
ment district,” said Dennis Beal, sewage enforcement officer.
Len Lichvar, executive director of the Southern Alleghe-
ny Conservancy (SAC) said, “The Centerville project allowed
the citizens of Cumberland Valley Township to effectively
deal with their wastewater and conform to Pennsylvania DEP
regulations. In addition, from a resource conservation stand-
point, the project will greatly enhance and protect the water
Centerville, PA World-Class Demonstration
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11
another homeowner. Twelve homeowners resisted membership in the water
and sewer association. These homeowners argued that theyshould not be forced to join the association since theirhomes were built before it was formed.
The association filed suit, but exception was granted tothe original owners of lots who had wells drilled prior to July18, 1975.
Collecting Delinquent AccountsThe Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association has
found that most members pay dues promptly. Liens areplaced against delinquent lots. In addition, a delinquencyfee that averages 18 percent is assessed against these prop-erties to cover costs. Liens are collected only after the saleof the property by warranty deed transfer.
MalfunctionsSince 1973, Crystal Lakes has only had one system mal-
Onsite Systems Management in the Rockies
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17
panies or collectively through a tradeassociation, you can accomplish morein a couple of years than you can in 20years relying entirely on the regulatoryprocess.” Their wisdom holds true. In-dependent, third-party evaluators areessential to the unbiased documenta-tion of technology performance
Needed: New Standard for EvaluationArguments have been made that ex-
isting standards and evaluation protocolsdo not accurately reflect real-world op-erating conditions. These arguments aremostly academic. Operating conditionsvary immensely among users, and cur-rent engineering practices focus on flowequalization as a management strategy.ANSI/NSF Standard 40, which is used toevaluate aerobic treatment units, pro-vides some assurance regarding properoperation and maintenance. Some arguethat ANSI/NSF Standard 40 addressesonly the first two years of operation andmaintenance, but there are no compet-ing standards so far. As aerobic treat-ment unit manufacturers, we challengethe onsite wastewater treatment indus-try and regulators to develop standardsand certification programs that providethe consumer and regulatory communi-ty with the level of design, installation,and ongoing operation and maintenanceassurances provided by standards likeANSI/NSF Standard 40.
In this regard, we welcome and willparticipate in the development of amodel code for onsite wastewater treat-ment. The current draft model code,which includes evaluation, certification,design, installation, operation, andmaintenance, would do much to cor-rect the current bias. Under this modelcode, all technologies would be treat-ed equally, based on their documentedperformance. No longer would technol-ogy be limited to the particular favoritesof a locality. The selection of a particu-lar technology would be based uponthe requirements of an individual site,limits of the in situ soils, and the third-party-documented performance of thelisted technologies. The success of theinstallation would be ensured by thesystem management, which would bea condition of its use.
The performance of aerobic treat-ment units—indeed all onsite wastewatertreatment technologies—is not perfect.Often, however, failures attributed to thetechnology are the result of poor soil
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System PerformanceA Multifaceted Relationship Between Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9
The industry’s reliance on compos-ite samples (see American Public HealthAssociations, Standard Methods for theExaminations of Water and Wastewater,Eighteenth Edition) and the averaging ofdata collected from the laboratoryanalysis of effluent samples are testimo-ny to the importance of these evalua-tion concepts. Any attempt to judge theperformance of a wastewater treatmenttechnology by relying on a single or lim-ited number of grab samples is a prac-tice in bad science.
Consider what Dr. Nina I. McClel-land wrote more than 20 years ago: “Itis not uncommon for NSF to receive re-ports that field test data [collected fromaerobic treatment units] are dissimilarfrom those obtained during the sixmonths evaluation for listing. Invariablythe ‘dissimilar’ data were taken underconditions totally different from thoseassociated with the evaluation pro-gram. Most often they are random grabsamples, which should not be com-pared with daily composite results.”
Third-Party TestingAccredited, third-party testing of all
onsite treatment technologies providesone path to accurate and fair evalua-tions of onsite wastewater treatmentsystems. Evaluations should includetesting, certification, and listing by in-dependent, American National Stan-dards Institute (ANSI) accredited third-party certifiers. Independent evaluatorstest products and designs and providedata from which objective judgmentsabout technologies can be made. Third-party certification and product listingprovide a means to make sure productmanufacturers and engineers are ac-countable for internationally acceptedstandards of design, application, opera-tion, and maintenance.
In 1988, Felix and Kupfer wrote,“The value of the independent, third-party approach to standards develop-ment is that the organizations special-izing in this approach have the abilityand experience to bring to the sametable competing companies—and to acertain extent ‘competing’ agencies ofgovernment . . . with some expectationof achieving general agreement amongthem . . . . When you get an industryworking hard on public health andsafety objectives, individually as com-
NSFC Products
Readers who wish to learn more about the NODP andits projects should consider the following educa-tional products offered by the NSFC.Fact Sheet—Overview of the National Onsite Demon-stration Program (Item #SFFSGN137)Developed by the NSFC, this fact sheet briefly sum-marizes the NODP and its first four phases. The NODPassists communities in selecting, installing, fund-ing, monitoring, and using onsite treatment systemsand management models that are cost-effective, vi-able alternatives to full central sewage systems.There is no cost for this four-page fact sheet.
Fact Sheet—The National Onsite Demonstration Pro-gram: Projects Database (Item #SFFSGN140)This NSFC fact sheet summarizes the NODP Data-base, which is designed to house a wide range ofinformation on various domestic wastewater demon-stration projects within the U.S. Details are provid-ed about the information that will be included foreach database entry, how the database can be usedas a resource tool, and how everyone can partici-pate and benefit from the database. This five-pagefact sheet is offered free of charge.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2,
Num
ber
2
38
Q U E S T I O N & A N S W E R
needs to locate the dispersal system and deter-
mine the size of the dispersal area to ensure that
it is adequate for the residence. Once it is locat-
ed, the inspector will examine the site for signs of
system failure. Some of these signs may include
soggy ground over the drainfield; ponding/surfac-
ing effluent; changes in grass color or thickness;
and cover, such as trees, bushes, and shrubs lo-
cated next to, or around, the system that can po-
tentially clog or disrupt the distribution network.
The inspector will also probe the soil in the drain-
field or soil absorption area to determine if the soil
is adequately handling the treated effluent being
dispersed.
In some cases, PTIs are required. Some entities
that may require a PTI to include state and/or local
regulatory authorities, banking/lending institu-
tions, and real estate agencies. For your own pro-
tection as a prospective buyer, you should insist
on a complete inspection whether it is required
or not. Contact the local regulatory authority or
ask the lending institution you’re working with if
they require an inspection.
Building A HomeIf you are planning to build a home that will
not be located on or near a centralized waste-
water collection system, a site evaluation should
be conducted prior to purchasing property. It will
be up to you, the potential land purchaser, to have
the land evaluated to be certain the property can
be “developed” (i.e., it is conducive to onsite
wastewater treatment and dispersal).
There are some very important aspects of the
property that a site evaluation should consider.
The size of the lot is important for determining the
ideal location of the wastewater treatment and dis-
persal system. The land area and location of the
onsite system must meet the required horizontal
separation distances (the regulated distance from
adjacent properties, drinking water wells if there
are no public water services available, or surface
water bodies). In addition to the size of the prop-
erty, another and quite possibly more important
component that needs to be evaluated is the soil.
Editor’s Note: This column is based on calls re-ceived over the National Small Flows Clearing-house (NSFC) technical assistance hotline. If youhave further questions concerning purchasing anonsite treatment system, call (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191 and ask to speak with a technicalassistant.
Whether you are purchasing a home with an
existing onsite wastewater treatment and dispos-
al system (OSDS), or building your own home
that will need an OSDS, there are a few things
that you, the purchaser/builder, should be aware
of to protect yourself and the environment.
Buying a HomeIf there is an existing OSDS, it is important that
you have the entire system inspected by a li-
censed inspector or the proper local permitting
authority. Often, this procedure is termed a Prop-
erty Transfer Inspection (PTI). A PTI is necessary
to determine whether the existing system is func-
tioning properly and meeting current local/state
regulatory requirements. The PTI protects you, the
potential new owner of the OSDS, by relieving
you of the financial responsibility of repairing or
replacing a failing or substandard system. If there
are problems with the OSDS, the PTI will make
the current owner responsible for bringing the
system up to code.
The system inspection consists of locating the
OSDS and identifying the system components
(i.e., septic tank, aerobic treatment unit [ATU],
sand filters, and dispersal methods). The primary
treatment unit (septic tank or ATU) will be
checked for structural integrity, proper size for
the residence, and liquid volume in the tank. If
the septic tank contains effluent filters, these will
also be inspected. The inspection process will be
similar for an ATU; however, different compo-
nents, such as the aerator and electrical devices,
will need to be inspected.
The dispersal system, such as a drainfield or
soil absorption system, will also need to be in-
spected. As mentioned earlier, the inspector
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
39
Andrew LakeNSFC ENGINEERING SCIENTIST
Soil characteristics play a major role in siting
an onsite wastewater system. It is important to
know the site conditions before purchasing the
land. If site conditions are unacceptable for an
OSDS, chances are you will be stuck with prop-
erty that you cannot build upon.
For example, imagine that you purchased a
parcel of land with a great view or that seems ideal
for your particular needs, but the soil conditions
don’t meet specified requirements for wastewater
dispersal. The physical site characteristics must be
evaluated to ensure that the soil can handle the
amount and quality of effluent being discharged.
These characteristics include soil classification or
percolation tests; vertical separation (subsurface)
distances to restrictive horizons, such as bedrock;
the natural groundwater table; and the seasonal
high water table. If these conditions are not ac-
ceptable and do not meet the requirements estab-
lished by your local or state regulatory authority,
you will want to know this prior to making any
commitment to purchasing the property.
If any of these site characteristics cannot be
met, all may not be lost. There are alternative
methods for onsite wastewater treatment and dis-
posal. It is vital, however, to work closely with
local regulatory authorities because they will be
able to provide you with options that would be
approved for your site’s conditions.
Again, it is the purchaser’s responsibility to
schedule a site evaluation. Your local health de-
partment or state regulatory agency should be
able to provide you with contacts for a licensed
inspector or soil evaluator. If the site meets the re-
quirements and can be developed, it is also im-
portant to contact a reputable OSDS installer or
designer. You may also check the local yellow
pages or ask questions of others living in the area
to help determine who would be most appropri-
ate to perform your site evaluation and/or design
and install your OSDS. The designer or installer,
in cooperation with the local health department
or permitting authority, can help you determine
which wastewater treatment and dispersal tech-
nology will be appropriate for your site.
Once you become the proud new owner of an
onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal system,
you need to take care of your new investment.
Knowing the location of the system and under-
standing how the system and its components work
are very important to you as the new homeown-
er. Proper maintenance and care of your onsite
system will ensure that your wastewater is proper-
ly treated and safely returned to the environment.
It is also important for you, the purchaser, to be
present when all of these inspections are conduct-
ed. This will provide you the opportunity to ask
questions and have a full understanding of your
wastewater treatment and dispersal system.
The NSFC has products and publications that
can assist you in all phases of these inspections,
site evaluations, and in choosing an appropriate
onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal system.
Please feel free to contact the NSFC at (800) 624-
8301 for more information.
What should I know about onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems when pur-chasing a home or buying property?
Septic Systems: What You Need To KnowWhen Building or Buying a House
Products
PipelineA Homeowner’s Guide to Onsite SystemRegulations (Item #SFPLNL12)The Winter 1998, Volume 9, Number 1issue of Pipeline examines some commononsite wastewater system regulations asthey affect property transfers, professionalqualifications, operation and maintenance,system changes and repairs, and the stepsfor system approval. The price of thiseight-page NSFC newsletter is 20 cents.
Inspections Equal Preventative Care forOnsite Systems (Item #SFPLNL13)The Spring 1998, Volume 9, Number 2issue of Pipeline focuses on the advan-tages of having onsite wastewater sys-tems regularly inspected, including dis-cussions about when the onsite systemshould be inspected, who should inspectit, the homeowner’s role in the process,and what happens during an inspection.The price of this eight-page NSFCnewsletter is 20 cents.
Site Evaluations (Item #SFPLNL21)The Spring 2000, Volume 11, Number 2issue of Pipeline explains the importanceof a site evaluation prior to installingan onsite wastewater system, and howthe testing determines the type of on-site system that is appropriate for a par-ticular site. Planning for an onsite sys-tem, including the preliminary site eval-uation, soil surveys, field testing, land-scape contour and subsurface drainage,soil tests, texture, structure, and othersoil properties, as well as water move-ment, are all discussed. Suggested siteevaluation procedures and tips are of-fered. This current issue of the eight-page NSFC newsletter is free of charge.
PosterOnsite Wastewater Treatment for SmallCommunities and Rural Areas (Item#WWPSPE02)Developed by the NSFC, this updatedposter provides descriptions and illustrations of various onsite conven-
tional and alternative wastewater treat-ment and disposal technologies. Thesetechnologies are applicable to individualhomes, schools, restaurants, and othersmall-flow situations. There is also a sec-tion about systems that can be installedin difficult site conditions. The cost forthis poster is $1.25.
BookletState Level Onsite Wastewater RegulatoryContacts (Item #WWBLRG34)Compiled by the NSFC, this list includesregulatory contacts for states that haveonsite wastewater regulations. A contactperson’s name, department, address, andtelephone number is provided. This eight-page booklet is offered free of charge.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2,
Num
ber
2
40
N S F C R E S O U R C E SS
ma
ll Flo
ws Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
41
The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item
#WWFSGN146.
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: SprayDistribution System
This fact sheet, produced by the Texas Agri-
cultural Extension Service at Texas A&M Universi-
ty, discusses spray distribution systems, which
spray treated wastewater over the surface of a
yard. Spray distribution systems are the least ex-
pensive to install of all wastewater distribution sys-
tems; however, they require the most wastewater
treatment, which increases the cost of a complete
system. The fact sheet describes four main system
components: a wastewater treatment system, a
disinfection system, a pump tank, and spray heads.
This fact sheet also explains how the distribution
system is designed, including the amount of land
space, maximum wastewater application, and site
selection. Color diagrams of the system are in-
cluded. The four-page fact sheet is geared toward
Texas residents; however, it could be useful to
local, state, and public health officials; contrac-
tors/developers; engineers; finance officers; man-
agers; planners; state regulatory agency person-
nel; researchers; and the general public.
The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item
#WWFSGN149.
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Constructed Wetlands
This Texas Agricultural Extension Service (Texas
A&M University) fact sheet describes constructed
wetland systems for domestic wastewater treat-
ment designed to mimic the natural wetland treat-
ment processes of Mother Nature. The fact sheet
discusses how the system uses plants and microbes
to purify wastewater. Natural wetlands generally
have visible water in the system; however, for
household use, the water flows beneath the soil
surface, which limits contact between residents
and wastewater. This fact sheet discusses how to
maintain constructed wetlands and includes de-
sign factors, along with color diagrams of the sys-
tem. The four-page fact sheet is geared toward
Texas residents; however, it could be useful to
New
Are AvailableNSFC Products
On-Site Wastewater Treat-ment Systems: SepticTank/Soil AbsorptionField
Produced by the Texas
Agricultural Extension Ser-
vice at Texas A&M Univer-
sity, this fact sheet de-
scribes septic tank and soil
absorption systems for
treating residential waste-
water. Using numeric tables
and color diagrams to sup-
plement the text, it de-
scribes the components of
the system and how to maintain them. Soil ab-
sorption field siting and design are discussed, in-
cluding tank size and construction, soil texture,
hydraulic loading, and absorption field size. The
four-page fact sheet is geared toward Texas resi-
dents; however, it could be useful to local, state,
and public health officials; contractors/develop-
ers; engineers; finance officers; managers; opera-
tors; planners; state regulatory agency personnel;
researchers; and the general public.
The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item
#WWFSGN147.
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: SandFilter
This Texas Agricultural Extension Service(Texas A&M University) fact sheet describes sandfiltration—one of the oldest wastewater treatmenttechnologies known. Color diagrams supplementthe text, which explains the types of sand filters(intermittent and recirculating). The fact sheet dis-cusses how the sand filter treats wastewaterthrough filtration, chemical sorption, and assimi-lation; how it should be designed; and how tokeep it working. If properly designed, construct-ed, operated, and maintained, a sand filter pro-duces a very high-quality effluent. The four-pagefact sheet is geared toward Texas residents; how-ever, it could be useful to local, state, and publichealth officials; contractors/developers; engi-neers; finance officers; managers; operators; plan-ners; state regulatory agency personnel; re-searchers; and the general public.
local, state, and public health officials; contrac-
tors/developers; engineers; finance officers; man-
agers; operators; planners; state regulatory agency
personnel; researchers; and the general public.
The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item
#WWFSGN148.
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Evapotranspiration Bed
This fact sheet by the Texas Agricultural Ex-
tension Service at Texas A&M University discuss-
es treating wastewater by evapo-
transpiration (ET)—the loss of water
from the soil by evaporation and by
transpiration from plants growing
there. This fact sheet explains why
ET beds are used, how they are de-
signed, and how they treat waste-
water. Types of ET beds, color dia-
grams, and maintenance tips are
also included. The four-page fact
sheet is geared toward Texas resi-
dents; however, it could be useful
to local, state, and public health of-
ficials; contractors/developers; en-
gineers; finance officers; managers;
operators; planners; state regulatory agency per-
sonnel; researchers; and the general public.
The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item
#WWFSGN150.
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Aerobic Treatment Unit
Produced by the Texas Agricultural Extension
Service at Texas A&M University, this fact sheet
discusses how aerobic units treat wastewater for
homes and small businesses using the same
process (scaled down) as municipal wastewater
treatment systems. Aerobic treatment units re-
move 85–98 percent of the organic matter and
solids from wastewater, producing effluent as
clean as that from municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, and cleaner than that from conven-
tional septic tanks. The fact sheet details the aer-
obic treatment process, including tank types,
treatment, design, and operation and mainte-
nance. Color diagrams and a numeric table of flow
rates for single-family residences of various sizes
supplement the text. The four-page fact sheet is
geared toward Texas residents; however, it could
be useful to local, state, and public health officials;
contractors/developers; managers; operators; plan-
ners; state regulatory agency personnel; and the
general public.
The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item
#WWFSGN160.
Watershed Progress: Rouge River WatershedMichigan
Since 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has been promoting the watershed
approach to achieve the next generation of water
protection. This booklet by the EPA Office of Water
and the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-
sheds details the Rouge River Watershed area south-
east of Detroit, Michigan. Because of the polluted
condition of the Rouge River, fish consumption ad-
visories were posted, and the county health depart-
ment prohibited total body contact. This booklet dis-
cusses how the EPA, state of Michigan, local busi-
nesses, citizens, and grassroots organizations in the
area worked together to clean up the Rouge River
and protect their watershed. This four-page booklet
may be helpful to local, state, and public health offi-
cials, as well as the general public.
The cost for this booklet is 70 cents. Request Item
#WWBLGN159.
Animal Feeding Operations: The Role of Counties
Written by James Kundell of the University of
Georgia, this book was produced for the Conference
of Southern County Associations in cooperation
with the National Association of Counties. The book
discusses animal feeding operations (AFOs), which
are livestock-raising operations, such as hog, cattle,
and poultry farms that confine and concentrate ani-
mal populations and their wastes. Concerns with
AFOs appear to fall into three major categories: the
impact of expanding corporate farms on the econo-
my of rural counties; the po-
tential environmental and
public health impacts of
AFOs; and siting concerns re-
lated to nuisance odors. The
purpose of this book is to
provide county officials with
guidance on the issues relat-
ing to AFOs and the county’s
role in addressing the issues.
The book includes a table of
states that had counties with
home rule authority in 1990,
a glossary, and an appendix of cattle AFO-related
activities in each state. This 78-page book may be
helpful to local, state, and public health officials;
managers; planners; and the general public.
The cost for this book is $5. Request Item
#WWBKGN161.
Funding of Small Community Needs Through theClean Water State Revolving Fund
This fact sheet by the EPA Office of Water pro-
vides an overview of the Clean Water State Revolv-
ing Fund (SRF) program, authorized by Title VI of
the 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments. The
fact sheet discusses funding trends, including
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
43
Case StudiesWWBLCS02 Vacuum Collection System (Cedar Rocks,
West Virginia) ........................................................................$1.45
WWBLCS03 Variable Grade Effluent Sewers (Maysville Area,
Muskingum County, Ohio) ................................................$2.10
WWBLCS04 Alternating Bed Soil Absorption Systems (Crystal Lakes,
Colorado) ..............................................................................$2.30
WWBLCS05 Intermittent Sand Filter (Gardiner, New York)................$1.60
WWBLCS06 Overland Flow (Kenbridge, Virginia) ................................$2.70
WWBLCS07 Wetlands/Marsh (Cannon Beach, Oregon) ....................$2.30
WWBLCS09 Slow Rate Land Treatment (Craigsville, Virginia) ..........$2.10
WWBLCS10 Year-Round Slow-Rate Land Treatment (Hershey’s Mills,
Pennsylvania) ........................................................................$2.10
WWBLCS11 Flat Grade Sewers (Ericson, Nebraska) ............................$1.20
WWBLCS12 Grinder Pump Pressure Sewers (Augusta, Maine) ........$1.30
WWBLCS13 Minimum Grade Effluent Sewers (Dexter, Oregon) ....$1.60
WWBLCS14 Free Access Intermittent Sand Filter (New York) ..........$2.70
WWBLCS18 Septic Tank Effluent Collection and Sand Filter Treatment
(New York) ............................................................................$2.55
WWBLCS21 Pollution Prevention at POTW’s ......................................$0.00
WWBKCS22 Combined Sewer Overflows and the Multimetric Evalua-
tion of Their Biological Effects: Case Studies in Ohio and
New York................................................................................$0.00
Computer SearchesWWBKCM01 Constructed Wetlands, February 2001 ........................$32.20
WWBLCM02 Composting Toilets, February 2001 ................................$6.90
WWBKCM03 Failing Systems, February 2001 ......................................$19.55
WWBKCM04 Greywater, February 2001 ..............................................$10.90
WWBKCM05 Onsite Management, February 2001 ............................$11.20
WWBKCM06 Mound Systems, February 2001 ....................................$13.00
WWBKCM07 Pressure Sewers, February 2001 ....................................$10.25
WWBKCM08 Sand Filters, February 2001 ............................................$25.45
WWBKCM09 Septage, February 2001....................................................$10.25
WWBKCM10 Wastewater Characteristics, February 2001 ................$19.20
WWBKCM11 Water Conservation, February 2001 ............................$17.00
WWPCCM12 Customized Bibliographic Database Search ..................Varies
WWPCCM15 Facilities Database Search ..................................................Varies
WWPCCM16 Manufacturers and Consultants Database Search........Varies
WWBKCM17 Lagoons, February 2001 ..................................................$30.75
WWBLCM18 Drip Irrigation, February 2001 ..........................................$4.50
WWBKCM19 Spray Systems, February 2001 ..........................................$9.15
WWBLCM20 Additives, February 2001....................................................$2.75
WWBLCM21 Low-Flush Toilets, February 2001......................................$3.55
WWBLCM22 Operator Health and Safety, February 2001..................$2.10
WWBKCM23 Disinfection, February 2001 ............................................$21.15
WWBKCM24 Site Evaluation, February 2001........................................$11.40
Computer SoftwareWWSWDM39 Airvac Version 3.2 and User’s Guide ..............................$7.60
WWSWDM55 Station Version 3.0 and User’s Guide..............................$7.10
WWSWDM58 User Documentation: POTW Expert Version 1.0 ....$33.75
WWSWDM77 Gravity Sewer Design Version 3.1M and User’s
Guide ......................................................................................$6.70
WWSWDM79 Variable Grade Effluent Sewers Version 2.2M and
User’s Guide ......................................................................$10.15
Products List
(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191 | [email protected]
Item Number BreakdownFirst two characters of item number: (Major Product Category)WW WastewaterFM Finance and MangementGN General InformationSF Small Flows
Second two characters of itemnumber: (Document Type)BK Book, greater than 50 pagesBL Booklet, less than 50 pagesBR BrochureCD Computer Disk/ROMFS Fact SheetJR JournalNL NewsletterPL PipelinePK PacketPS PosterSW SoftwareVT Video Tape
Third two characters of item number: (Content Type)CM Computer SearchCS Case StudyDM DesignFN FinanceNL Newsletter/PublicationOM Operation and MaintenancePE Public EducationPP Public-Private Partnerships (P3)RE ResearchRG RegulationsTR Training
Last two characters of item number:Uniquely identifies product within major category
Highlighted products are new
* Indicates changes in title, itemnumber, and/or price
To place an order . . .To place an order, call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, or use the order formon page 51 and fax your request to (304) 293-3161. You also may send e-mail to [email protected]. Be prepared togive the item number and title of the productyou wish to order. Shipping charges apply to allorders.
Abstracts of many products are provided in theNSFC’s Products Catalog. The guide may be down-loaded via the NSFC’s Web site atwww.nsfc.wvu.edu.
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
42
NSFC’s Updated Products Catalog Now Available
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse
(NSFC) 2000-2001 Wastewater Products Catalog
provides a complete listing of the 434 products
NSFC offers. The catalog profiles each product
and includes case studies, computer searches,
computer software, design manuals, newsletters
and magazines, technology packages, fact sheets,
and videotapes. Materials range from educational
products for the general public to technical man-
uals for wastewater professionals. Many NSFC
products are free; others are priced on a cost-re-
covery basis.
The catalog offers a brief description of each
product, including intended audience (e.g., engi-
neers, state officials, etc.), year produced, num-
ber of pages, item number, and price. In the back
of the catalog, a keyword index allows readers to
search for a product by topic. Instructions for
placing orders are included.
To order the 2000-2001 Wastewater Products
Catalog, call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or
(304) 293-4191 and request Item #WWCAT. Or-
ders may also be placed via e-mail at nsfc_or-
distribution of SRF dollars to small communities
relative to total SRF funding during the past 11
years. (It also presents this information graphical-
ly.) Graphics also illustrate the relationship be-
tween SRF agreements with small communities
and total SRF agreements, as well as the costs as-
sociated with specific categories of need. A table
contains Clean Water SRF assistance in dollars
and the number of agreements by community
size for fiscal years 1988–1998 for each state with
totals for all states. This four-page fact sheet could
serve as a reference for local officials, managers,
planners, public health officials, finance officers,
state officials, and the general public.
The cost of this fact sheet is 70 cents. Request
Item #FMFSFN33.
Wastewater Treatment Programs Serving SmallCommunities
Many small communities lack adequate waste-
water facilities, but must come into compliance
with the Clean Water Act requirements. This
4-page, EPA Office of Water fact sheet highlights
EPA-funded programs that provide financial assis-
tance, technical assistance, and training to small
communities for the construction and operation
of wastewater treatment facilities. Programs in-
clude the following:
• Alaskan Native Vil-
lages Sanitation
Grant Program
• Clean Water Tribal
Grant Program
• Colonias Program
• National Environ-
mental Training
Center for Small
Communities
• National Onsite
Demonstration Pro-
gram
• National Small Flows Clearinghouse
• Operator Onsite Technical Assistance Pro-
gram—104(g)
• Rural Community Assistance Program
• Small Communities Outreach and Educa-
tion Network
Contact information and hotlines for waste-
water treatment are provided.
The cost of this fact sheet is 70 cents. Request
Item #WWFSGN157.
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
45
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
44
WWFSGN120 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of
Concentrated Dairy Cattle Feeding Operations ..........$0.35
WWFSGN121 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of
Concentrated Horse Feeding Operations ......................$0.35
WWFSGN122 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of
Concentrated Poultry Feeding Operations ....................$0.35
WWFSGN123 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of
Concentrated Sheep Feeding Operations ......................$0.35
WWFSGN124 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of
Concentrated Slaughter and Feeder Cattle Feeding
Operations ............................................................................$0.35
WWFSGN125 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of
Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations ......................$0.35
WWFSGN131 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Conventional
Septic Tank/Drain Field ......................................................$1.00
WWFSGN132 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Subsurface
Drip Distribution ..................................................................$1.00
WWFSGN133 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Low-Pressure
Dosing ....................................................................................$1.00
WWFSGN134 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Spray
Distribution ............................................................................$1.00
SFFSGN136 The National Onsite Demonstration Program:
Phase III ..................................................................................$0.00
SFFSGN137 Overview of the National Onsite Demonstration
Program ..................................................................................$0.00
SFFSGN138 The National Onsite Demonstration Program:
Phase I ....................................................................................$0.00
SFFSGN139 The National Onsite Demonstration Program:
Phase II ..................................................................................$0.00
SFFSGN140 The National Onsite Demonstration Program Projects
Database ................................................................................$0.00
SFPKGN141 Complete Package of the National Onsite
Demonstration Program Fact Sheets ..............................$0.00
WWFSGN145 Landscaping Septic Systems ..............................................$0.75
WWFSGN146 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Sand Filter ..$1.00
WWFSGN147 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Septic
Tank/Soil Absorption Field ................................................$1.00
WWFSGN148 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Constructed
Wetlands ................................................................................$1.00
WWFSGN149 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Spray
Distribution System ..............................................................$1.00
WWFSGN150 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Evapotranspiration
Bed ..........................................................................................$1.00
WWFSGN151 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Conventional
Septic Tank/Drain Field (Spanish Version) ......................$1.00
WWFSGN152 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Spray
Distribution (Spanish Version) ..........................................$1.00
WWFSGN153 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Subsurface
Drip Distribution (Spanish Version)..................................$1.00
WWFSGN154 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Low-Pressure
Dosing (Spanish Version)....................................................$1.00
WWFSGN157 Wastewater Treatment Programs Serving Small
Communities ........................................................................$0.70
WWFSGN160 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems - Aerobic Treatment
Unit ..........................................................................................$1.00
Finance and ManagementFMBKCS21 Cost Savings Models for Environmental Protection: Helping
Communities Meet Their Environmental Goals ..........$14.45
WWBLFN01 Clean Water State Revolving Fund: How to Fund
Nonpoint Source Estuary Enhancement Projects..........$0.00
WWBRFN02 EPA’s Clean Water Act Indian Set-Aside Grant
Program ..................................................................................$0.00
FMBLFN03 A Water and Wastewater Manager’s Guide for Staying
Financially Healthy ..............................................................$0.00
WWBLFN03 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S.
EPA Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant Program ......$0.00
WWBLFN05 Rural Communities Hardship Grants Program
Implementation Guidelines; Notice ................................$1.45
WWFSFN06 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program ..................$0.00
FMBKFN06 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Funding
Options ................................................................................$10.00
WWFSFN07 Funding Decentralized Wastewater Systems Using
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund............................$0.00
FMBKFN12 Alternative Financing Mechanisms for Environmental
Programs ..............................................................................$19.25
FMBLFN13 A Utility Manager’s Guide to Water and Wastewater
Budgeting ..............................................................................$0.00
FMBLFN14 State and Local Government Guide to Environmental
Program Funding Alternatives............................................$4.15
FMSWFN16 Determining Wastewater User Service Charge Rates
A Step By Step Manual with Software ............................$5.50
FMBLFN17 The Road To Financing: Assessing and Improving Your
Community’s Credit Worthiness ......................................$0.00
FMBKFN18 Financing Models for Environmental Protection: Helping
Communities Meet Their Environmental Goals ............$0.00
FMBLFN19 Evaluating Municipal Wastewater User Charge
Systems ..................................................................................$6.05
FMBLFN20 Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Financing America’s
Environmental Infrastructure–A Report of Progress ....$0.00
FMBKFN22 Beyond SRF: A Workbook for Financing CCMP
Implementation ....................................................................$0.00
FMBLFN25 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding
Framework ............................................................................$0.00
FMBKFN26 CSOs: Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment
and Schedule Development ..............................................$0.00
FMFSFN27 Hardship Grants Program for Rural Communities ........$0.00
FMBLFN28 State Match Options for the State Revolving Fund
Program ..................................................................................$0.00
FMBLFN29 Federal Funding Sources for Small Community
Wastewater Systems ............................................................$0.00
FMFSFN30 Cleaning Up Polluted Runoff with the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund ..........................................................$0.00
FMFSFN31 Protecting Wetlands with the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund......................................................................$0.00
FMFSFN32 Funding Estuary Projects Using the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund ..........................................................$0.00
WWFSFN32 Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) Help
for Small Community Wastewater Projects....................$0.00
FMFSFN33 Funding of Small Community Needs Through the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund ..................................$0.70
FMBLFN34 USDA Loan and Grant Funding for Small Community
Wastewater Projects ............................................................$1.30
FMFSFN35 Funding Water Conservation and Reuse with the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund ..................................$0.35
WWFSFN36 Baseline Information on Small Community Wastewater
Needs and Financial Assistance ........................................$0.35
FMBKGN01 It’s Your Choice: A Guidebook for Local Officials
on Small Community Wastewater Management
Options ..................................................................................$7.50
FMBLGN04 Looking at User Charges: A State Survey and
Report ....................................................................................$5.75
FMBKGN11 Andrew W Breidenback Environmental Research Center
Small Systems Resource Directory ..................................$0.00
FMBLGN14 Watershed Approach Framework ....................................$0.00
FMBLGN15 Why Watersheds? ................................................................$0.00
FMBKGN16 Selecting Your Engineer . . . How to Find the Best
Consultant for Small Town Water and Wastewater
Projects ................................................................................$18.00
FMBLPE32 Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls ............................$0.00
FMBKPP03 Public-Private Partnerships for Environmental Facilities:
A Self-Help Guide for Local Governments ....................$0.00
FMBLPP06 Developing Public/Private Partnerships: An Option
for Wastewater Financing ..................................................$0.00
WWBKMG02 Biosolids Management Handbook for Small Publicly
Owned Treatment Works ................................................$40.80
WWBLMG03 Septage Management in Ohio ..........................................$1.40
WWBKMG04 A Manual for Managing Septic Systems ......................$28.35
FMBLMG05 Septic Systems and Ground Water Protection: An
Executive’s Guide ................................................................$2.30
WWBKMG05 Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading ............$0.00
WWBKMG07 Environmental Planning for Small Communities: A
Guide for Local Decision Makers ..................................$16.50
GNBLMG08 Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices ......$1.65
WWBLMG09 Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management
Options for Rural Areas ......................................................$0.55
WWBKMG10 Ohio Livestock Manure and Wastewater Management
Guide ......................................................................................$2.20
GNBLMG11 Clean Water Action Plan: The First Year, the Future ..$0.00
WWBKDM72 Guidelines for Water Reuse ..............................................$0.00
WWBKDM74 Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment ............................................................................$13.50
WWBKDM75 Combined Sewer Overflow Control ................................$0.00
WWBLDM76 Mound Systems: Pressure Distribution of Wastewater
Design and Construction in Ohio ....................................$2.75
WWBKDM78 Nitrogen Control ................................................................$50.75
WWBKDM80 In-Vessel Composting of Municipal Wastewater
Sludge ....................................................................................$0.00
WWBKDM81 Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge and Domestic
Septage ................................................................................$47.25
WWBKDM82 Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic
Septage ................................................................................$48.55
WWBKDM83 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 1, A Guide
to Creating Wetlands for General Considerations the
Mid-Atlantic Region ..........................................................$11.15
WWBLDM84 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 2,
Domestic Wastewater ........................................................$4.80
WWBLDM85 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 3,
Agricultural Wastewater ......................................................$5.10
WWBLDM86 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 5,
Stormwater ............................................................................$6.05
WWBLDM87 Recirculating Sand/Gravel Filters for On-Site
Treatment of Domestic Wastes ........................................$3.70
WWPKDM89 Producing Watertight Concrete Septic Tanks (Video); and
Septic Tank Manufacturing Best Practices Manual
(Booklet) ..............................................................................$53.00
WWBLDM90 Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Using Sand Filter
Treatment Systems; Guidelines and Specifications ......$6.25
Fact SheetsWWFSGN84 Constructed Wetlands/Natural Wetlands........................$0.35
WWFSGN98 Ultraviolet Disinfection: A General Overview................$0.10
WWFSOM20 Ultraviolet Disinfection: A Technical Overview ............$0.10
WWFSGN99 Chlorine Disinfection: A General Overview ..................$0.10
WWFSOM21 Chlorine Disinfection: A Technical Overview ................$0.10
WWFSGN100 Ozone Disinfection: A General Overview......................$0.10
WWFSOM22 Ozone Disinfection: A Technical Overview ..................$0.10
WWFSGN101 Fine Bubble Aeration: A General Overview ..................$0.10
WWFSOM23 Fine Bubble Aeration: A Technical Overview ................$0.10
WWFSGN102 Trickling Filters Achieving Nitrification: A General
Overview................................................................................$0.10
WWFSOM24 Trickling Filters Achieving Nitrification: A Technical
Overview................................................................................$0.10
WWFSGN103 Recirculating Sand Filters: A General Overview............$0.10
WWFSOM25 Recirculating Sand Filters: A Technical Overview ........$0.10
WWFSGN104 Intermittent Sand Filters: A General Overview ..............$0.10
WWFSOM26 Intermittent Sand Filters: A Technical Overview............$0.10
WWFSGN105 Mound Systems: A General Overview ............................$0.10
WWFSOM27 Mound Systems: A Technical Overview..........................$0.10
WWFSGN106 Composting Toilet Systems: A General Overview ........$0.10
WWFSOM28 Composting Toilet Systems: A Technical Overview......$0.10
WWFSGN107 Low-Pressure Pipe Systems: A General Overview ........$0.10
WWFSOM29 Low Pressure Pipe Systems: A Technical Overview......$0.10
WWFSGN109 Septage Management: A General Overview ................$0.10
WWFSOM31 Septage Management: A Technical Overview ..............$0.10
WWFSGN110 Evapotranspiration Systems: A General Overview........$0.10
WWFSOM32 Evapotranspiration Systems: A Technical Overview ....$0.10
WWFSGN111 Water Efficiency: A General Overview............................$0.10
WWFSOM33 Water Efficiency: A Technical Overview ........................$0.10
WWPKGN112 Complete Package of ETI Fact Sheets: A General
Overview................................................................................$1.30
WWPKOM34 Complete Package of ETI Fact Sheets: A Technical
Overview................................................................................$1.30
WWFSOM38 Land Application of Animal Manure ................................$1.30
WWFSOM39 Enforcement Alert: Clean Water Act Prohibits Sewage
‘Bypasses’ ..............................................................................$0.00
WWFSGN118 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s)
and Their Effect on Water Pollution ................................$0.35
WWFSGN119 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ....................$0.35
WWSWDM91 User’s Guide Spreadsheet Pregrav.xls Version 1.2E ....$6.50
WWSWDM92 User’s Guide Spreadsheet Pregrav.WQ1,
Version 1.3 ............................................................................$6.20
DesignWWBLDM01 Subsurface Soil Absorption of Wastewater: Artificially
Drained Systems ..................................................................$2.70
WWBKDM02 Cost Effectiveness Analysis ................................................$8.60
WWBLDM03 Onsite Wastewater Disposal: Distribution Networks
for Subsurface Soil Absorption Systems..........................$7.35
WWBLDM04 Onsite Wastewater Disposal: Evapotranspiration and
Evapotranspiration/Absorption Systems..........................$2.55
WWBLDM07 Low-Pressure Sewer Systems..............................................$7.45
WWBLDM08 Management Plans and Implementation Issues: Small
Alternative Wastewater Systems Workshops ................$3.40
WWBKDM09 Design Modules: Wisconsin Mound Soil Absorption
System Siting, Design, and Construction Manual and
Pressure Distribution Network ..........................................$6.70
WWBLDM12 Site Evaluation for Onsite Treatment and Disposal
Systems ..................................................................................$6.25
WWBLDM13 Design Workbook for Small-Diameter, Variable-Grade,
Gravity Sewers ......................................................................$7.35
WWBLDM14 Subsurface Soil Absorption of Wastewater: Trenches
and Beds ................................................................................$4.15
WWBLDM15 Vacuum Sewerage ................................................................$7.80
WWBLDM16 Subsurface Soil Absorption System Design Work Session:
New Development—Stump Creek Subdivision..............$6.85
WWBLDM18 Onsite Wastewater Treatment: Septic Tanks ..................$2.45
WWBLDM20 Technology Assessment of Intermittent Sand Filters ....$5.75
WWBLDM22 Variable Grade Sewers: Special Evaluation Project ....$2.70
WWBKDM31 Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for
Small Communities............................................................$24.85
WWBKDM34 Land Application of Municipal Sludge ............................$0.00
WWBKDM35 Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems ................................................................................$50.00
WWBKDM36 Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Ponds ..................$53.25
WWBKDM37 Septage Treatment and Disposal ......................................$0.00
WWBKDM38 Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment ............................$13.75
WWBLDM40 Sequencing Batch Reactors ................................................$3.80
WWBKDM41 Phosphorus Removal ........................................................$19.65
WWBKDM42 Dewatering Municipal Wastewater Sludges ..................$0.00
WWBKDM43 Odor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewage
Systems and Treatment Plants ..........................................$0.00
WWBKDM44 Composting of Municipal Wastewater Sludges ..........$11.40
WWBKDM46 Retrofitting POTWs ..............................................................$0.00
WWBKDM47 Fine Pore Aeration Systems................................................$0.00
WWBLDM48 EPA Environmental Regulations and Technology: The
National Pretreatment Program ........................................$4.65
WWBKDM49 Municipal Wastewater Disinfection................................$40.50
WWBKDM50 Identification and Correction of Typical Design Deficien-
cies at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities ....$65.60
WWBKDM53 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems....................$0.00
WWBKDM57 Control of Slug Loadings to POTWs Guidance
Manual..................................................................................$16.50
WWBKDM59 Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementa-
tion of Local Discharge Limitations Under the
Pretreatment Program ......................................................$56.45
WWBKDM64 Assessment of Single-Stage Trickling Filter
Nitrification ............................................................................$0.00
WWBLDM65 General Design, Construction, and Operation Guidelines:
Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems
for Small Users Including Individual Residences
(Second Edition)....................................................................$5.50
WWBKDM67 Sewer System Infrastructure Analysis and
Rehabilitation ......................................................................$15.35
WWBKDM68 Technical Support Document for Water Quality
Based Toxics Control ..........................................................$0.00
WWBKDM69 Ultraviolet Disinfection Technology Assessment ..........$0.00
WWBKDM70 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems for
Small Communities ..............................................................$0.00
WWBKDM71 Retrofitting POTWs for Phosphorus Removal in the
Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin ......................................$0.00
(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191
WWBLPE38 Wastewater Treatment: The Student’s Resource
Guide ......................................................................................$1.50
WWBRPE39 Combined Sewer Overflows in Your Community ........$0.70
WWPSPE41 Do More with SCORE: Small Community Outreach
and Education Helps Solve Wastewater Problems ......$0.00
WWBLPE44 Clean Water for Today: What is Wastewater
Treatment?..............................................................................$1.00
WWBLPE46 Living on Karst: A Refrence Guide for Landowners
in Limestone Regions ..........................................................$0.00
GNBRPE51 Polluted ..................................................................................$0.00
GNPSPE52 National Estuary Program: Bringing our Esturaries
New Life ................................................................................$0.00
WWBRPE53 How Wastewater Treatment Works…The Basics ..........$0.00
WWBKPE54 State of the Chesapeake Bay: A Report to the Citizens
of the Bay Region ................................................................$0.00
WWBRPE57 The Care and Feeding of Your Septic System
(Spanish Version) ..................................................................$0.00
WWBRPE58 So...Now You Own a Septic System
(Spanish Version) ..................................................................$0.00
WWBRPE59 Groundwater Protection and Your Septic System
(Spanish Version) ..................................................................$0.00
RegulationsGNBLRG01 Introduction to Water Quality Standards........................$3.80
WWBKRG01 A Guide to State-Level Onsite Regulations, (2000) ....$16.20
WWBKRG21 Wastewater Flow Rates from the State Regulations,
November 2000 ................................................................$21.80
WWBKRG22 Percolation Tests from the State Regulations,
November 2000 ................................................................$27.55
WWBKRG23 Alternative Toilets from the State Regulations,
November 2000 ................................................................$22.90
WWBKRG24 Greywater Systems from the State Regulations,
November 2000 ..................................................................$9.60
WWBKRG26 Package Plants and Aerobic Treatment Systems
from the State Regulations, November 2000 ..............$20.80
WWBKRG30 Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in
Sewage Sludge ......................................................................$0.00
WWBLRG31 NPDES Storm Water Program: Question and Answer
Document, Volume 1..........................................................$0.00
WWBLRG34 State Onsite Wastewater Regulatory Contacts List,
November 2000 ..................................................................$0.00
WWBKRG35 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge
40 CFR Part 503 ..................................................................$0.00
WWBKRG36 Domestic Septage Regulatory Guidance: A Guide to
the EPA 503 Rule..................................................................$0.00
WWBLRG37 NPDES Storm Water Program: Question and Answer
Document, Volume 2..........................................................$0.00
WWBKRG38 Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids
Rule..........................................................................................$0.00
WWBLRG39 NPDES Self-Monitoring System User Guide ..................$4.50
WWBLRG41 Federal Register Part VII EPA CSO Control Policy ........$1.80
WWBLRG42 NPDES and Sewage Sludge Program Authority: A Hand-
book for Federally Recognized Indian Tribes ................$0.00
WWBKRG43 Land Application of Sewage Sludge: A Guide for Land
Appliers on the Requirements of the Federal Standards
for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR
Part 503 ..................................................................................$0.00
WWBKRG44 Preparing Sewage Sludge for Land Application or
Surface Disposal ..................................................................$8.70
WWBLRG45 Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge ................................$7.45
WWBRRG48 Florida Clean Vessel Act: What it Means for Boaters
and Marinas ..........................................................................$0.00
WWBLRG49 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy ......$5.25
WWBKRG50 Part 503 Implementation Guidance ..............................$38.50
WWBKRG51 U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual ........................$0.00
WWBKRG52 Septic Tanks—Southeast from the State Regulations:
November 2000 ................................................................$15.05
WWBKRG53 Septic Tanks—Southwest from the State Regulations :
November 2000 ................................................................$11.20
WWBKRG54 Septic Tanks—Northwest from the State Regulations:
November 2000 ..................................................................$9.60
WWBKRG55 Septic Tanks—Northeast from the State Regulations:
November 2000 ................................................................$10.40
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
47
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2,
Num
ber
2
46
SFPLNL16 Spray and Drip Irrigation for Wastewater Reuse,
Disposal ..................................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL17 Infiltration and Inflow Can Be Costly for
Communities ........................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL18 Mounds: A Septic System Alternative..............................$0.25
SFPLNL19 Funding Sources Are Available for Wastewater
Projects ..................................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL20 Evapotranspiration Systems ................................................$0.25
SFPLNL21 Site Evaluations......................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL22 Alternative Toilets Options for Conservation and
Specific Site Conditions ......................................................$0.25
SFPLNL23 Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems ..............$0.25
SFPLNL24 Water Softener Use Raises Questions for System
Owners ..................................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL25 Planning for Onsite System Management ......................$0.00
SFQUNL01 Small Flows Quarterly, Winter 2000 ................................$1.00
SFQUNL02 Small Flows Quarterly, Spring 2000 ................................$1.00
SFQUNL04 Small Flows Quarterly, Fall 2000 ......................................$1.00
SFQUNL06 Small Flows Quarterly, Spring 2001 ................................$0.00
Operation and MaintenanceWWBLOM01 Reducing the Cost of Operating Municipal Wastewater
Facilities ..................................................................................$0.00
WWBKOM02 Cost Reduction and Self-Help Handbook ....................$17.15
WWBLOM04 Contract Operation and Maintenance: The Answer
for Your Town? ......................................................................$2.10
WWBLOM05 Analysis of Performance Limiting Factors (PLFs) at
Small Sewage Treatment Plants ........................................$3.55
WWBLOM06 Onsite Operator Training Program: Success in Every
Region!....................................................................................$3.80
WWBLOM07 Alternative Sewers Operation and Maintenance:
Special Evaluation Project ..................................................$2.90
WWBKOM08 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Nine
Minimum Controls ..............................................................$0.00
WWBKOM09 POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance
Document............................................................................$15.85
WWBKOM16 Detection, Control, and Correction of Hydrogen Sulfide
Corrosion in Existing Wastewater Systems ....................$0.00
WWBKOM17 Chemical Aids Manual for Wastewater Treatment
Facilities ................................................................................$0.00
WWBLOM35 Onsite Assistance Program – Helping Small Wastewater
Treatment Plants Achieve Permit Compliance ..............$0.00
WWBLOM37 Constructed Wetlands for On-Site Septic Treatment: A
Guide to Selecting Aquatic Plants for Low-Maintenance
Micro-Wetlands ....................................................................$0.70
Public EducationGNBRPE02 Everyone Shares a Watershed............................................$0.20
GNBLPE03 DES Guide to Groundwater Protection: Answers to
Questions About Groundwater Protection in New
Hampshire..............................................................................$2.75
GNBRPE04 Test the Waters! Careers in Water Quality ....................$0.20
GNBRPE05 Adopt Your Watershed........................................................$0.00
GNBLPE06 Reflecting on Lakes: A Guide for Watershed
Partnerships............................................................................$0.80
GNFSPE07 Quality Development and Stormwater Runoff ..............$0.35
WWBLPE01 Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project Too Costly?
Options for Small Communities........................................$1.00
WWPSPE02 Onsite Wastewater Treatment for Small Communities
and Rural Areas ....................................................................$1.25
WWBLPE07 Benefits of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure..........$0.00
WWBRPE17 Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeowners ............$0.00
WWBRPE18 The Care and Feeding of Your Septic System................$0.00
WWBRPE20 So...Now You Own a Septic System ................................$0.00
WWBRPE21 Groundwater Protection and Your Septic System ........$0.00
WWBRPE26 Preventing Pollution Through Efficient Water Use........$0.00
WWPKPE28 Homeowner’s Septic Tank Information Package ..........$2.25
WWBLPE31 Sanitary Sewer Overflows: What Are They, and
How Do We Reduce Them?..............................................$0.00
WWPSPE35 Indicator Organisms in Wastewater Treatment..............$2.90
WWBLPE37 Homeowner Onsite System Recordkeeping Folder
(NSFC) ....................................................................................$0.45
General InformationGNBKGN02 Federal Agency Ground Water Technical Assistance
Directory ..............................................................................$19.50
GNBLGN03 Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview............$0.00
GNBLGN04 ENVEST: Engineers Volunteering Environmental
Service Teams........................................................................$1.00
WWBKGN05 Small Town Task Force: Final Report of Key
Findings . . .............................................................................$5.50
GNBRGN06 Watershed Approach ..........................................................$0.00
GNBLGN07 Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic
Conditions..............................................................................$5.50
GNBLGN09 Office of Compliance: An Introductory Guide..............$0.00
GNBKGN10 Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned ................................$0.00
GNBLGN11 Section 319 National Monitoring Program:
An Overview ........................................................................$0.00
GNBKGN12 Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource
Book For Protecting Ecosystems and Communities ....$0.00
GNBLGN13 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United
States ......................................................................................$0.00
GNBKGN14 Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach ..............$0.00
GNBLGN15 Water Pollution Control: Twenty-five Years of Progress
and Challenges for the New Millenium ..........................$0.00
GNBKGN16 The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Nutrients and
Pesticides ................................................................................$0.00
WWBRGN15 Water Reuse via Dual Distribution Systems ..................$0.00
WWBLGN16 Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ..............................$6.35
WWBRGN19 Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment in Cold
Climates ..................................................................................$0.00
WWBRGN20 Innovations in Sludge Drying Beds: A Practical
Technology ............................................................................$0.00
WWBLGN31 Inflow/Infiltration: A Guide for Decision Makers ..........$6.85
WWBKGN35 Municipal Wastewater Reuse: Selected Readings on
Water Reuse ........................................................................$11.55
WWBKGN36 Waste Water Justice? Its Complexion in Small Places
(Appendix) ............................................................................$0.00
WWBKGN39 Septic Tank Siting to Minimize the Contamination
of Ground Water by Microorganisms ..........................$15.35
WWBLGN40 EPA Journal Reprint: Protecting Ground Water,
The Hidden Resource..........................................................$5.10
WWBLGN55 GAO Report: Water Pollution Information on the
Use of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems ......$2.00
WWBKGN58 Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal ....................$0.00
WWBLGN59 Biosolids Recycling: Beneficial Technology for a
Better Environment ..............................................................$0.00
WWBLGN62 Office of Wastewater Management Primer....................$4.80
WWBRGN63 Clean Water...A Better Environment: Wastewater
Management at EPA ............................................................$0.00
WWBRGN64 Source Reduction: An Integral Part of the MWPP
Program ..................................................................................$0.00
WWBLGN65 Marine and Estuarine Protection Programs and
Activities ................................................................................$0.00
WWBKGN67 Summary Report: Small Community Water and
Wastewater Treatment ......................................................$13.60
WWBLGN71 Combined Sewer Overflows: Screening and Ranking
Guidance................................................................................$0.00
WWBKGN72 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Long
Term Control Plan ................................................................$0.00
WWBKGN73 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Permit
Writers ....................................................................................$0.00
WWBLGN78 United States Census Data1980 and 1990 ....................$1.00
WWBLGN79 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy: A
Consensus Solution to Improve Water Quality ............$0.70
WWBKGN85 Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessments for the EPA
Part 503 Rule ........................................................................$0.00
WWBRGN88 Clean Vessel Act: Keep Our Water Clean—Use
Pumpouts ..............................................................................$0.00
WWBKGN89 National Onsite Wastewater Treatment: A National
Small Flows Clearinghouse Summary of Onsite
Systems in the United States, 1993..................................$0.00
WWBKGN90 Seminar Publication: National Conference on Sanitary
Sewer Overflows ..................................................................$0.00
WWBLGN91 Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Use or Disposal
Documents ............................................................................$0.70
WWBKGN92 Commitment to Watershed Protection: A Review
of the Clean Lakes Program ..............................................$0.00
WWBKGN93 Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems ......................................$14.45
WWBLGN94 Waste Water Justice? Its Complexion in Small
Places ......................................................................................$0.00
WWBLGN95 Small Community Wastewater Systems ..........................$1.95
WWBKGN96 Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment
and TMDL Development....................................................$0.00
WWBKGN97 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey: Report to
Congress ................................................................................$0.00
WWBRGN113 Composting Biosolids ..........................................................$0.00
WWBRGN114 Land Application of Biosolids ............................................$0.00
WWBRGN115 Sewage Sludge Incineration ..............................................$0.00
WWBRGN116 Sludge or Biosolids ..............................................................$0.00
WWBLGN126 Outreach and Technical Assistance Programs: 1997
Accomplishments Small Underserved Team..................$0.00
WWBKGN127 Clean Water Tribal Resource Directory For Wastewater
Treatment Assistance ..........................................................$0.00
WWBKGN128 Wastewater Disposal Options for Small Communities
in Mississippi..........................................................................$4.05
WWBKGN129 Wastewater Disposal Options for Small Communities
in Alabama ............................................................................$4.05
WWBKGN130 Wastewater Disposal Options for Small Communities
in Louisiana ............................................................................$4.05
WWBKGN142 Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America’s Waters..................................................................$0.00
WWBLGN143 Response to Congress on the AEES “Living Machine”
Wastewater Treatment Technology ..................................$6.70
WWBLGN144 Response to Congress On Privatization of Wastewater
Facilities ..................................................................................$6.25
WWBLGN155 US Census Data on Small Community Housing and
Wastewater Disposal and Plumbing Practices ..............$1.30
WWBLGN156 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey: Small Community
Wastewater Needs ..............................................................$1.30
WWBKGN158 Introduction to the National Pretreatment
Program................................................................................$17.40
WWBLGN159 Watershed Progress: Rouge River Wastershed
Michigan ................................................................................$0.70
WWBKGN161 Animal Feeding Operations: The Role of Counties ....$5.00
WWCDGN162 Wastewater Resources for Small Communities ........$14.950
GNBKIN05 Designing a Water Conservation Program: An Annotated
Bibliography of Source Materials......................................$0.00
NSFC PublicationsGNBKIN01 Publications Index 1999......................................................$0.00
SFPLNL01 Combined Sewer Overflows..............................................$0.25
SFPLNL02 Septic Systems A Practical Alternative for Small
Communities ........................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL03 Maintaining Your Septic System A Guide for
Homeowners ........................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL04 Home Aerobic Wastewater Treatment: An Alternative
to Septic Systems..................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL05 Management Programs Can Help Small
Communities ........................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL06 Wastewater Treatment Protects Small Community
Life, Health ............................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL07 Alternative Sewers: A Good Option for Many
Communities ........................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL08 Choose the Right Consultant for Your Wastewater
Project ....................................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL09 Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater
Treatment ..............................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL10 Sand Filters Provide Quality, Low-Maintenance
Treatment ..............................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL11 Basic Wastewater Characteristics ......................................$0.25
SFPLNL12 A Homeowner’s Guide to Onsite System
Regulations ............................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL13 Inspections Equal Preventative Care for Onsite
Systems ..................................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL14 Constructed Wetlands: A Natural Treatment
Alternative ..............................................................................$0.25
SFPLNL15 Managing Biosolids in Small Communities ....................$0.25
(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191
WWBKRG56 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—South-
east from the State Regulations: November 2000 ....$10.10
WWBLRG57 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—South-
west from the State Regulations: November 2000 ......$7.20
WWBKRG58 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—North-
west from the State Regulations: November 2000 ......$8.50
WWBKRG59 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—North-
east from the State Regulations: November 2000........$9.80
WWBKRG60 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Southeast from
the State Regulations: November 2000........................$12.35
WWBLRG61 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Southwest from
the State Regulations: November 2000 ..........................$5.15
WWBLRG62 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Northwest from
the State Regulations: November 2000 ..........................$4.80
WWBKRG63 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Northeast from
the State Regulations: November 2000........................$14.10
WWBKRG64 Proceedings of the First National Onsite Wastewater
State Regulators Conference..............................................$9.20
WWFSRG65 Fact Sheet: Class V Injection Wells ................................$0.70
ResearchWWBKRE13 Technical Evaluation of the Vertical Loop Reactor
Process Technology ..........................................................$12.05
WWBLRE14 Methodology to Predict Nitrogen Loading from
Conventional Gravity On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Systems ..................................................................................$3.20
WWBKRE16 Preliminary Risk Assessment for Viruses in Municipal
Sewage Sludge Applied to Land ......................................$0.00
WWBKRE17 Evaluation of Oxidation Ditches for Nutrient
Removal................................................................................$17.40
WWBLRE18 Rock-Plant Filter: An Alternative for Onsite Sewage
Treatment ..............................................................................$1.45
WWBLRE19 NPCA Septic Tank Project 1990-1995 ............................$5.60
WWBLRE20 Field Performance of the Waterloo Biofilter with
Different Wastewaters ........................................................$4.15
WWBKRE21 Potential Effects of Water Softener Use on Septic
Tank Soil Absorption On-Site Waste Water Systems....$7.60
WWBLRE22 Project Summary: Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters
by the Fluidized Bed Bioreactor Process ........................$1.30
WWBKRE23 Treatment Capability of Three Filters for Septic Tank
Effluent..................................................................................$17.30
WWBKRE24 Evaluation of the Performance of Five Aerated
Package Treatment Systems ..............................................$5.00
WWBKRE25 The Expanding Dairy Industry: Impact on Ground Water
Quality and Quantity with Emphasis on Waste Manage-
ment System Evaluation for Open Lot Dairies ............$11.70
WWBKRE26 Assessment of On-Site Graywater and Combined
Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Systems ..........$25.00
WWBKRE27 ULF Water Closets Study: Final Report ........................$25.00
WWBLRE28 Household Water Reduction and Design Flow Allowance for
On-Site Wastewater Management and Supplement ......$2.55
WWBKRE29 Evaluation of Spray Irrigation As A Methodology For
On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ..............$13.35
WWBLRE30 Linear Regression for Nonpoint Source Pollution
Analyses..................................................................................$0.00
Technology PackagesWWBKGN09 Alternative Toilets Technology Package ..........................$7.15
WWBKGN29 Sand Filter Technology Package......................................$12.40
WWBKGN41 STEP Pressure Sewer Technology Package ..................$13.00
WWBKGN53 Spray and Drip Irrigation Technology Package ..........$16.95
WWBKGN54 Constructed Wetlands General Information
Technology Package..........................................................$10.80
WWBLGN57 Watershed Management Technology Package..............$6.50
WWBKGN61 Vertical Separation Distance Technology Package ....$10.45
WWBKGN66 Septic Tank Additives Technology Package..................$13.00
WWBKGN68 Water Conservation Effects on Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Technology Package ......................................$11.90
WWBKGN69 Design of Constructed Wetlands Technology
Package ................................................................................$10.80
WWBKGN70 Management Districts Technology Package ................$13.35
WWBKGN74 Gravelless Drainfields Technology Package ................$10.80
WWBKGN75 Operator Protection Information Package (Aids
Virus in Wastewater Treatment Plants)..........................$13.60
WWBKGN76 Sand Mound Technology Package ..................................$9.35
Sm
all F
low
s Q
ua
rterly
, Spring 2001, V
olume 2, N
umber 2
49
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2,
Num
ber
2
48
In an effort to send out wastewater-related news more quickly, the Na-
tional Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) established a listserver to an-
nounce NSFC publications, new products, and other information.
The listserver is an e-mail based mechanism that simply sends messages
to e-mail addresses. New information is automatically transmitted to all sub-
scribers via e-mail on a regular basis. This listserv is for notification only,
and cannot be used for posting messages.
To subscribe to the NSFC News Listserv:
• Send an e-mail to:
• Leave the subject line blank.
• In the message area, type: subscribe nsfcnews Firstname Last-
name
• Place one space between each word as
indicated.
• Example: subscribe nsfcnews John Smith
• Do not add any extra text to the message.
• Send your message.
Ordering InformationPhone:(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 Business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time
E-mail:[email protected]
Fax:(304) 293-3161
Mail:
National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
Please indicate the product itemnumber, title, cost, quantity, andtotal for each item ordered. Makesure you include your name, affilia-tion, address, and phone numberwith each order.
Free items are limited to one ofeach per order.
Shipping and handling charges areactual shipping and handling costsfor all orders. All orders from out-side the U.S. (excluding Canada)must be prepaid.
All payments must be in U.S. dollars using VISA, MasterCard, Dis-cover, check, or money order.
To place your order using VISA,MasterCard, or Discover, includeyour credit card number, expirationdate, and signature on the orderform.
Make checks payable to WVU Research Corporation.
Please allow two to four weeks for delivery.
Name________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Affiliation __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City __________________________________________________________ State ________ Zip Code__________________
Phone ( _____ ) ____________________________________ Fax ( _____ ) ______________________________________
E-mail Address __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please check form of payment:
Check/Money Order MasterCard VISA Discover
Card Number________________________________________________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature (Required for credit card orders.)
Subtotal
Shipping
Total Cost
Products Order FormItem Number Title Cost Qty. Total
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CUT OR COPY FORM FOR ORDERING
Subscribe to the NSFC News Listserv
WWBKGN77 Biomat Technology Package............................................$13.60
WWBKGN80 Grinder Pump Pressure Sewer Technology
Package ................................................................................$14.25
WWBKGN81 Disinfection Technology Package ..................................$15.05
WWBKGN82 Greywater Technology Package ........................................$7.95
WWBKGN83 Site Evaluation Technology Package ..............................$14.25
WWPKGN86 Nonpoint Pointers: Understanding and Managing
Nonpoint Source Pollution in Your Community ..........$0.00
WWPKGN87 Alternative Onsite Systems Technology Package ..........$5.50
Training MaterialsWWBKTR01 NPDES Compliance Inspection Training Program
Student’s Guide..................................................................$18.65
WWBLTR02 NPDES Compliance Inspection Video Workbook:
Inspecting a Parshall Flume................................................$4.55
WWBKTR03 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—
Sampling ..............................................................................$15.70
WWBKTR04 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—
Biomonitoring ....................................................................$11.90
WWBKTR05 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—
Overview ............................................................................$13.60
WWBKTR06 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training –
Legal Issues..........................................................................$18.40
WWBKTR07 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—
Laboratory Analysis............................................................$22.00
VideotapesFMVTMG01 Wastewater Management in Unsewered Areas ..........$10.00
FMVTPE01 Building Support for Increasing User Fees (Videotape
and Workbook ) ................................................................$12.90
WWVTGN10 Morrilton, Arkansas, Land Application of
Wastewater ..........................................................................$10.00
WWVTGN13 Alternative is Conservation ..............................................$10.00
WWVTGN117 Proper Treatment and Uses of Septage ........................$15.00
WWVTGN135 Septic Systems: Making the Best Use of Nature ........$10.00
WWVTOM36 Sampling Wastewater at a Wastewater Treatment
Facility ..................................................................................$10.00
WWVTPE03 Sand Filter Technology ......................................................$10.00
WWVTPE04 Small Diameter Effluent Sewers ......................................$10.00
WWVTPE05 Planning Wastewater Treatment for Small
Communities ......................................................................$10.00
WWVTPE06 Upgrading Small Community Wastewater
Treatment ............................................................................$10.00
WWVTPE13 Municipal Wastewater: America’s Forgotten
Resources ............................................................................$15.00
WWVTPE16 Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeowners ..........$10.00
WWVTPE22 Surface Water Video ............................................................Loan
WWVTPE23 Ground Water Video Adventure ........................................Loan
WWVTPE24 Saving Water—The Conservation Video............................Loan
WWVTPE25 Careers in Water Quality......................................................Loan
WWVTPE29 Artificial Marshland Treatment Systems ........................$10.00
WWVTPE33 Water Conservation: Managing Our Precious
Liquid Asset ........................................................................$13.50
WWVTPE34 Keeping Our Shores/Protecting Minnesota Waters:
Shoreland Best Management Practices ........................$25.00
WWVTPE40 Care and Feeding of Your Septic System ....................$10.00
WWVTPE42 Dollars Down the Drain: Caring for Your Septic
Tank ......................................................................................$10.00
WWVTPE43 Septic Systems Revealed: Guide to Operation, Care
and Maintenance ..............................................................$15.00
WWVTPE45 Maintaining Your Home Aeration Sewage Treatment
System ..................................................................................$10.00
WWVTPE47 Small Community Wastewater Treatment: Management and
Myths ....................................................................................$10.00
WWVTPE48 Intermittent Sand Filter - State of the Art Onsite
Wastewater Treatment ......................................................$10.00
WWVTPE49 PSMA Protocol: Inspecting On-lot Wastewater
Treatment Systems ............................................................$25.00
WWVTPE50 Problem with Shallow Disposal Systems ........................$0.00
WWVTPE55 Choosing an Alternative Septic System ........................$13.00
WWVTPE60 Recirculating Filter On-Site Sewage Disposal
System ..................................................................................$10.00
WWVTPE61 Conventional On-Site Sewage Disposal System..........$10.00
(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191
The National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (NSFC) is pleased
to announce its first-ever CD-
ROM of NSFC resources. Titled
Wastewater Resources for SmallCommunities, this CD-ROM in-
cludes the best of NSFC’s prod-
ucts distributed in the last 10
years. The CD is easily accessi-
ble in a Web-based format and
puts a wealth of helpful informa-
tion at the user’s fingertips.
This diverse collection of
wastewater-related information
can be useful to local, state, and
public health officials; engineers; operators; contractors/de-
velopers; planners; managers; state regulatory agency per-
sonnel; and homeowners.
For example, health departments will have a handy ref-
erence to look up statistics about onsite system failures or
find the number of septic systems being used per county.
Homeowners can use this information to find out what
home sewage treatment alternatives are out there to help
them choose the most suitable option for their situation. Sep-
tic system owners can access maintenance tips. Teachers
and professors can use the materials to educate students
about environmental issues. Engineers can find out where
to locate design specifications for a particular system.
Peter Casey P.E., NSFC program coordinator, is excited
about the advantages of CD technology in distributing this
information. “Using CD-ROMs to disseminate large quanti-
ties of information will make the NSFC’s services available
to more people. Our customers will have the information
electronically without having to wait for a PDF file to down-
load off the Internet.”
This CD-ROM contains a diverse collection of NSFC
resources. More than 400 articles are included from
NSFC’s publications since 1989, including the Small Flowsnewsletter, the Small Flows Quarterly magazine, and the
Pipeline newsletter. The articles are categorized as general
information, onsite management, and technologies. All of
the Pipeline “theme” issues, such as the popular issues
about “Maintaining Your Septic System: A Guide for Home-
owners,” and “Inspections Equal Preventative Care for On-
site Systems” are included.
This CD provides a variety of educational information
about wastewater, such as the poster Onsite WastewaterTreatment for Small Communities and Rural Areas. This poster
describes 23 different wastewater treatment technologies and
illustrates how they can
be applied in a communi-
ty setting. Three
brochures on septic sys-
tems that discuss how to
prolong the life of a sep-
tic system through proper
maintenanceare also in-
cluded. These brochures
are available on the CD in
both English and Spanish.
Also included are
general and technical
versions of fact sheets
II NN CC OO MM II NN GG II SS SS UU EE SS .. .. ..
Onsite Impacts on Coastal Zones
Biosolids Update
Onsite Management in Charlotte County, Florida
NNeeww NNSSFFCC CCDD--RROOMM OOffffeerrss tthhee BBeesstt ooff SSmmaallll FFlloowwss
about 13 innovative and alternative technologies for treat-
ing and disposing of wastewater. They were developed by
the NSFC as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA’s) Environmental Technology Initiative.
In this CD-ROM, you’ll also get a copy of the 2000-2001
Wastewater Products Catalog, which provides a complete
listing of the 434 free and low-cost products NSFC offers.
The catalog profiles each product and includes case stud-
ies, computer searches, computer software, design manu-
als, newsletters and magazines, technology packages, fact
sheets, and videotapes. Materials range from educational
products for the general public to technical manuals for the
wastewater professional.
In addition, you’ll have access to reference materials, such
as the “Septic Stats” developed through Phase IV of the Na-
tional Onsite Demonstration Program. These statistics sum-
marize the use of onsite systems across the U.S. and provide
such data as the number of reported failures. Bar charts and
data sheets are included for each state.
The CD also includes
the complete text of EPA’s
Response To Congress OnDecentralized WastewaterTreatment Systems, which
analyzes the costs and ben-
efits of decentralized waste-
water treatment alternatives
and EPA’s plans for imple-
menting the alternatives.
The CD-ROM is PC-
compatible and requires a
486 or Pentium® processor
and Microsoft Windows®
95 or a more recent ver-
sion. The software needed
to read the files is provided
(Adobe Acrobat Reader
and Internet Explorer 5.5).
Wastewater Resourcesfor Small Communities is an
excellent reference guide
for any wastewater profes-
sional or homeowner to
have on hand. Get your copy today for the low price of
$14.95. Call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-
4191 and request Item #WWCDGN162 to get the most
comprehensive source of information about small commu-
nity wastewater treatment!
Sm
all
Flo
ws Q
ua
rte
rly
, S
prin
g 20
01,
Vol
ume
2, N
umbe
r 2
50
C L O S I N G T H O U G H T S
When is onsite a better alternative?The 1997 Response to Congress on Use of De-
centralized Wastewater Treatment Systems found
that the decentralized approach to wastewater
management favors rural communities and is fre-
quently more cost-effective than centralized sew-
ering. EPA analyzed costs of a hypothetical rural
community with 450 people living in 135 homes.
They assumed homes were located on lots at least
one acre in size and that the homes had conven-
tional septic systems. They assumed also that 50
percent of the systems were failing.
EPA considered three wastewater management
options: a centralized system, cluster systems, and
managed onsite systems. They spread capital costs
over 30 years (the life of the system) for each tech-
nology. The analysis found that the decentralized
approach, with either managed onsite systems or
cluster systems, is frequently a more cost-effective
wastewater management option—especially for
sparsely populated areas.
The response states that decentralized systems
protect public health and the environment and
are appropriate for low density communities, as
well as for varying site conditions. Onsite systems
can provide additional benefits for ecologically
sensitive areas. In addition, these systems can
offer significant cost savings while recharging local
aquifers and providing other water reuse oppor-
tunities.
According to Choices for Communities: Waste-water Management Options for Rural Areas, the
success of the decentralized approach depends
upon establishing a management program to as-
sure that systems are regularly inspected and
maintained.
Those who need information about specific
state regulations may want to order NSFC’s AGuide to State-level Onsite Regulations, a Novem-
ber 2000 publication (Item #WWBKRG01). The
guide includes Web sites so readers may check
on updates for those states currently in the
process of revising regulations.
You may also wish to order NSFC’s NationalOnsite Wastewater Treatment: A National SmallFlows Clearinghouse Summary of Onsite Systemsin the United States, 1993, also known as the
“health department study” (Item #WWBKGN89).
Tricia Angoli, NSFC engineering scientist, is cur-
rently updating this study. An updated version
should be available in Summer 2001.
Are Onsite Systems a Viable Option?
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 1997 Response to Congress on theUse of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Sys-tems, onsite wastewater systems have been used
since the mid-1800s, with technological advances
improving the systems from simple outhouses to
cesspools, to septic tanks, to some of the more ad-
vanced treatment units available today.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972, later called the Clean Water Act (CWA), re-
stricted what can be dumped into rivers and
streams, and since its inception, centralized sew-
erage systems have been the standard approach
to wastewater collection and treatment. From
1972 to 1993, the CWA provided significant
funds for planning, designing, and constructing
public wastewater infrastructure through the Con-
struction Grants program. Between 1972 and
1990, the federal government spent more than
$62 billion dollars on the program—constructing
or upgrading treatment facilities.
According to Mike Hoover, Ph.D, North Car-
olina State University soil science professor, in his
booklet, Choices for Communities: WastewaterManagement Options for Rural Areas, construc-
tion costs in less densely populated areas can be
incredibly high. Often the collection network it-
self can account for 70 to 90 percent of the total
construction cost. He says that traditionally, rural
communities have viewed centralized systems as
the desirable goal.
Unlike drinking water, which has been federal-
ly regulated since the 1974 Safe Drinking Water
Act, no federal law governs onsite septic systems.
And onsite management is in its infancy. Even
when underground storage tank regulations were
tightened at the end of 1998, home heating oil
tanks, septic tanks and other wastewater collec-
tion systems were specifically excluded.
According to the 1995 American Housing Sur-
vey, 25 million households use decentralized
wastewater treatment, and in 1995, 2.5 million of
these systems malfunctioned. Data on septic sys-
tem failure rate is limited. The EPA says this esti-
mate is probably conservative, and it anticipates
that as communities expand into suburban and
rural areas, the number of decentralized systems—
and associated system failures—will increase. Poor-
ly managed septic systems remain a major con-
cern as to groundwater contamination. The Na-
tional Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) health
department survey indicates that 90,632 onsite
system failures were reported during 1993 by
responding local permitting agencies.
Harriet Emerson
NESC SENIOR EDITOR
Looking for information about wastewater collection, treat-ment, and disposal? The National Small Flows Clearinghouse(NSFC) can help.
Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, theNSFC is a nonprofit organization that assists small communi-ties (those with populations less than 10,000) with theirwastewater-related needs. We offer a wide variety of re-sources about such topics as:
• septic systems and alternative onsite and communitywastewater treatment technologies,
• regulations,• operation and maintenance, • design and monitoring, • strategies for managing small wastewater systems, and• public education.
The NSFC helps homeowners, local and state governmentofficials, renters, bankers, citizens’ groups, regulators, re-search scientists, educators, consultants, manufacturers, op-erators, contractors, and other professionals. We produce twoquarterly publications, Small Flows Quarterly and Pipeline, which are free byrequest to U.S. residents. Our Web site hosts discussion groups on waste-water issues and provides information about conferences and events acrossthe country.
In addition, the NSFC operates a toll-free technical assistance hotline avail-able Monday through Friday from 8 a.m.– 5 p.m. Eastern Time. The NSFCprovides outreach services through workshops, seminars, and conference par-ticipation. We have an inventory of more than 430 free and low-cost educa-tional wastewater products. Contact us today for a free information packet!
America’sInformation Source on Small
Community and OnsiteSewage Systems
National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia University Research CorporationWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED
National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia University Research Corporation
P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
(800) 624-8301/(304) 293-4191www.nsfc.wvu.edu
NONPROFIT ORGA-NIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE PAIDPERMIT NO. 309KNOXVILLE, TN
®