From the EditorIn this issue, you will notice that the

National Small Flows Clearinghouse’sname and logo has disappeared from theSmall Flows Quarterly, replaced with refer-ences to the National Environmental Ser-vices Center (NESC). Did we change ourname? Not really.

NESC has evolved as an amalgama-tion of the programs housed at West VirginiaUniversity that work with wastewater anddrinking water treatment and training: the

National Small Flows Clearinghouse, the National DrinkingWater Clearinghouse, and the National EnvironmentalTraining Center for Small Communities. We feel that themerging of these programs and their resources will betterserve the nation’s water needs as a whole. When you visitour Web site at www.nesc.wvu.edu, you will find these pro-grams presented as the various arms of the NESC.

Another first in this issue is the regulations section (pg.8). This new section will focus on state and federal legisla-tion that impacts the wastewater industry, on new initia-tives, and on position papers that are produced by the an-nual NESC-sponsored State Regulators and Captains of In-dustry conferences.

The forum section is devoted to essays on issues that af-fect the onsite wastewater treatment industry and the envi-ronment, but that is not the only place where readers canexpress their opinions. We publish letters when we havethem, but we don’t get enough to create a “letters to theeditor” section that can be regularly filled. I would like toencourage readers who want to react to what they see inthe Small Flows Quarterly to send me letters of any length,email or otherwise. One of the objectives of this publicationis to create a dialogue among members of the wastewatercommunity, and you can help us do that by sending usyour opinions in the simplest form. It doesn’t require anessay to move peoples’ minds.

Small Flows Quarterly is sponsored by:

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySteve Hogye | Project OfficerMunicipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C.

National Environmental Services CenterJohn L. Mori, Ph.D. | Executive DirectorTimothy Suhrer | EditorCathleen Falvey | Associate EditorJohn Fekete | Senior Graphic Designer Natalie Eddy | Staff WriterCaigan M. McKenzie | Staff WriterNikki Stiles | Staff WriterJennifer Hause | Engineering Scientist Andrew Lake | Engineering ScientistEd Winant, P.E., Ph.D. | 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 Environmental Services CenterWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191www.nesc.wvu.edu

Juried Article Review BoardPatricia Miller, Ph.D., West Virginia University | Technical AdvisorJames Anderson, Ph.D., University of MinnesotaA. Bell, P.E., Smith & Loveless, Inc., Lenexa, KSSteven Berkowitz, P.E., North Carolina Department of Environment

and Natural ResourcesTerry Bounds, P.E., Roseberg, ORJean Caudill, Ohio Department of HealthPaul K. Chase, M.A., L.E.H.P., Chase Environmental Services, Inc.Craig 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, CAJeannie Darby, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, DavisDonald 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 (ret.)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., Stanley Consultants, 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, CAR. 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 University (ret.)C. 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 WisconsinRobert Uebler, North Carolina Department of Environment

and Natural ResourcesTed 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 UniversitySteve Wert, C.P.S.S., Wert & Associates, Inc., Bend, OR

Small Flows Quarterly is funded through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ReprintsFor permission to reprint information appearing in Small Flows Quarterly, please send a letter of request to the editor.

International Standard Serial Number: 1528-6827

The contents of this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constituteendorsement or recommendation for use.

Printed on recycled paper

Helping America’s Small Communities Meet Their Wastewater Needs

Timothy Suhrer,Editor

2

On the Cover

The city of St. Petersburg, Florida limits the useof recycled water to irrigation purposes only. See the story on page 24.Cover photo courtesy of Susan Horvat.

®An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

JURIED ARTICLE34

SUMMER 2004S M A L L F L O W S Q U A R T E R L Y

India’s Wastewater Treatment StatusNatalie Eddy

India, with its overcrowded population and overalllack of wastewater treatment facilities, historicallyhas had difficulties maintaining a clean environ-ment, particularly in rural areas. Dr. BindeshwarPathak, founder of Sulabh International Social Ser-vice Organization, a nonprofit, voluntary organiza-tion involved in the field of sanitation in India, istrying to change this.

Municipal Wastewater UserCharge Rates in Nebraska

Mahmood Arbab, Ph.D., P.E. This paper presents the results of a surveyof municipal wastewater user charge ratesconducted in communities across Nebraska.The objective was to gain knowledge onprevailing user charge rates in the stateand perform data analyses that would as-sist in evaluating the financial capability ofcommunities for the purpose of state re-volving fund (SRF) loan qualification. Re-sponses from 173 communities were usedin compiling this report.

4 News & Notes6 Calendar of Events7 Web Watch8 Regulations Section

Onsite Wastewater Research Needs and Technology Transfer

16 Legal ViewsMandatory Connection Policies

40 Letter to the Editor42 Question/Answer

Composting Toilets

44 New Products47 Products List54 Closing Thoughts

Clorination Tablets

33

Soil Characteristics—Demystifying DirtMarilyn Noah

Soil is the foundation of conventional onsite waste-water treatment. The drainfields used with onsitesystems work because the soil around the trenchesacts as a filter and removes organic matter, some ofthe nutrients present in wastewater, bacteria, andother pollutants before the water returns to thegroundwater. Every site has unique soil characteris-tics that are critical in determining the size and typeof onsite wastewater treatment system required.

19

Small Flows Forum: Watertight TanksMark A. Gross, P.E., Ph.D.Tank water tightness has been debated over the years. Most state regulationshave a statement that septic tanks shall be watertight. Unfortunately, manystates either do not define what it means for a tank to be watertight, or thestate does not enforce the regulation. If the tanks leak in or out, the timeand effort spent on the soil characterization and designing the soil absorp-tion area may be for naught.

12

C O V E R S T O R Y

30

Caigan McKenzieDroughts, explosive population growth in arid areas of the country, and thecontinuing view that water is an infinite resource are some of the reasons forwater shortages in many areas across the nation. In response to this prob-lem, some wastewater professionals are reusing treated wastewater and havefound it to be a reliable alternative water source.

24 Wastewater Reuse Conserves Water and Protects Waterways24 Wastewater Reuse Conserves Water and Protects Waterways

India Museum PaysHomage to the ToiletNatalie EddyIt has been called the john, the loo, thethrone, the lavatory, the can, the potty,the water closet, even the porcelainpalace, but did you know there is a Muse-um of Toilets in New Delhi, India, thatpays homage to the bathroom fixture thathas become a staple of the American home?

Mandatory Connection PoliciesElizabeth Dietzmann, J.D.

Mandatory connection policies are extremely unpop-ular, virually impossible to enforce, and have achilling effect on otherwise sound wastewater projects in rural areas.

16

The International City/County Man-agement Association (ICMA) has re-leased a CD-ROM called the LocalGovernment Environmental Toolkit.The toolkit contains 21 publications,fact sheets, and other resources thatICMA has produced to help localgovernment officials meet their en-vironmental and economic develop-ment challenges.

Contents include resources on:• brownfields;

• smart growth;

• military base reuse; and

• environmental liability.

To request a free copy of this toolk-it, call (877) 865-4326 or e-maillgean@icma.org.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

4

California’s State Water ResourcesControl Board (SWRCB) has intro-duced draft guidelines for the imple-mentation of its proposed SmallCommunity Wastewater Grant(SCWG) Program. Funding in theamount of approximately $20 mil-lion will be available statewide underthis program.

Funding for the program wasmade available through voter ap-proval, in 2002, of Proposition 40(The Watershed, Clean Beaches, andWater Quality Act) and Proposition50 (The Water Security, Clean Drink-ing Water, Coastal and Beach Pro-tection Act). It provides grant assis-tance for the construction of pub-licly owned wastewater treatmentand collection facilities. Grants areavailable for small communities withfinancial hardships. Communitiesmust comply with population re-strictions (maximum population of

N E W S & N O T E S

California Creates New Wastewater Funding Program

Scientists from the Department ofSoil, Water, and Climate at the Univer-sity of Minnesota have developed asimple method to quantify two typesof antibiotics in animal manures andin surface and groundwaters. Chlorte-tracycline and tylosin antibiotics arecommonly used for growth promo-tion in swine production.

In general, as much as 90 per-cent of antibiotics fed to food ani-mals are excreted unchanged in ani-mal feces and urine. ResearcherKudlip Kumar explains that these an-imal wastes when applied to fieldspresent a potential for the spread ofantibiotics in the environment vianonpoint source pollution.

According to Kumar, there is notmuch information about the con-centration of various antibiotics inmanure or surface and groundwa-ters, probably due to lack of simplemethods to analyze these antibioticsat very low concentrations in variousenvironmental samples.

In this study, the researchers de-veloped a simple method for ultra-

trace determination of chlortetracy-cline and tylosin antibiotics. Tests ofa few swine manure samples showedthat they contained as high as 7.9mg/L chlortetracycline and 5.2 mg/Ltylosin. The method developed bythese researchers is very sensitiveand can pick up antibiotics in sur-face or groundwaters at parts perbillion levels.

This study was part of the re-search project led by Satish Guptaon fate and transport of manure-ap-plied antibiotics on land. In this proj-ect, Gupta and his team quantifiedthe extent of antibiotics losses inrainfall and snowmelt runoff as wellas through drainage from manure-applied lands. There is an increasingconcern that subtherapeutic feedingof antibiotics in animal agriculture isincreasing microbial resistance in theenvironment. It appears that verysmall amounts of antibiotics move insolution form, and thus this newmeasuring method is highly useful inquantifying these trace amount ofantibiotics in aquatic environment.

Antibiotics in the Environment Scientists Discover a Method To Detect Trace Levels of Swine Antibiotics in Groundwater

Gupta states that small amountsof antibiotics are generally not toxicto plants and aquatic life, but on re-peated manure application there issome potential for increase in antibi-otic resistant bacteria in the environ-ment. This is another facet thatGupta and his team are quantifying.

Results of the study are publishedin the January/February 2004 issue ofthe Journal of Environmental Quality,published by the American Society ofAgronomy-Crop Science Society ofAmerica and Soil Science Society ofAmerica. Online subscribers can ac-cess the full article; nonsubscriberscan access the abstract, or pay a $10per-article fee, or buy a $25, 14-daysite pass, at: http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/250>http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/250.

20,000 people) and annual medianhousehold income provisions to qualifyfor funding under the SCWG Program.

Funding through the SCWG Pro-gram will be provided only to localpublic agencies. Priority will be given tothose agencies who seek to install or re-pair sewer systems in communities thatlack adequate sewer systems and to as-sist the expansion of systems in com-munities with population growth pres-sures. A public entity managing decen-tralized systems could also apply.

“Financial hardship” will be deter-mined by the SWRCB, and workshopshave been held in order to establish theprogram criteria. More information andavailable documents can be found onthe SWRCB Web site at www.swrcb.ca.gov/funding/index.html.

If you have any questions regardingthis program, please contact Mr. DavidKirn at (916) 341-5720 or kirnd@swrcb.ca.gov.

LGEAN Distributes

Local GovernmentEnvironmentalToolkit CD-ROM

The U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) has released a setof new resource guides designed toassist local governments, watershedgroups, watershed managementagencies, and others in planning andconducting effective watershed out-reach to improve water quality. Theguidebook, Getting In Step: A Guidefor Conducting Watershed Outreach

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

5

Campaigns, pulls together principles,techniques, and information for effec-tive watershed outreach into a single,user-friendly source. A 35-minutevideo reinforces the six-step processoutlined in the guidebook and show-cases four successful outreach pro-grams from around the U.S.

To obtain a free copy of theguidebook and video, please contact

New Guidebook Assists Local GovernmentsConduct Effective Watershed Outreach

For the first time, water profes-sionals can access up-to-the-minutedevelopments in water quality test-ing standards and consult with otherexperts through a new site on theWorld Wide Web.

Three prominent water and pub-lic health organizations, the Ameri-can Public Health Association, theAmerican Water Works Association,and the Water Environment Federa-tion, have launched an online, sub-scription-based service of the popu-lar Standard Methods for the Examina-tion of Water and Wastewater atwww.StandardMethods.org. Printversions of Standard Methods haveserved as the industry guide for

water quality testing for 99 years,providing more than 350 separatemethods of water quality measure-ments used by industry scientists, an-alysts and engineers.

Standard Methods Online will addthe following services:• new, revised, and U.S. Environ-

mental Protection Agency-ap-proved methods will be continu-ously updated and available fordownload 24 hours a day, sevendays a week;

• subscribers will receive e-mail noti-fication of additions, updates, andapprovals as they happen;

• fully searchable text;

New Web Site Keeps Water Quality TestingStandards Current and Accessible

The U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) has unveiled anew Web site to help high schoolstudents explore and learn abouttheir environment and ways to pro-tect it. The site can be found atwww.epa.gov/highschool.

“For all the students going backto school, this will be an especiallyvaluable environmental informationresource,” said EPA Acting Adminis-trator Marianne Lamont Horinko. “Itcan sometimes be difficult to knowwhat to trust on the Web, but like allEPA materials, this site has beenthoroughly reviewed to make sureit’s accurate and educational.”

A team of EPA environmental ed-ucators created the new Web site to

New Web Site HelpsTeens Learn about the Environment

• e-newsletter highlighting the latestissues and trends; and

• access to a community of expertsthrough online discussion forums.”In addition to enabling quicker

dissemination of new and revisedmethods, adding Standard MethodsOnline will create a constant energyfor new methods to be produced,”said Lenore Clesceri, chair of theStandards Methods Joint EditorialBoard.

Older methods that could not beincluded in revised printed editionsdue to space constraints will also beretained online pending review andapproval by the Standard MethodsCommittee.

help high schoolstudents findgood environ-mental informa-tion, not just onEPA’s Web site,but on other re-liable sites aswell. The teamused guidelinesdeveloped by the North AmericanAssociation for Environmental Educa-tion to ensure that only truly educa-tional materials were included. Thesite complements other EPA sites forkids and teachers.

The Web site contains easy-to-find and easy-to-understand informa-

the National Service Center for Envi-ronmental Publications via phone at(800) 490-9198 or www.epa.gov/ncepihom/and ask for Publication#EPA841-B-03-002 and #EPA841-V-03-001. The book may also bedownloaded from the EPA’s Web siteat www.epa.gov/nps/outreach.html.For more information contact DonWaye at (202) 566-1170.

tion about air and water issues,waste and recycling, conservation,health and safety, ecosystems, andcommunity environmental condi-tions. It also links interested studentsto internship and scholarship oppor-tunities, environmental careers, andcommunity involvement projects.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

6

80th Annual Missouri Waterand Wastewater ConferenceMissouri Water and WastewaterConferenceSeptember 14–16Jefferson, Missouriwww.mwwc.org

Iraq ReconstructionPennWell CorporationSeptember 13–15Bahrain International ExhibitionCentre, Bahraindeekas@pennwell.comwww.reconstructing-iraq.com

SDWWA Annual MeetingSouth Dakota Water and Waste-water AssociationSeptember 15–17Aberdeen, South Dakota rob.kittay@midconetwork.comwww.sdwwa.s5.com

12th Sampling, On-Site Analyzis, and Sample Preparation ConferenceProfessional Analytical and Con-sulting ServicesSeptember 16–17Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Barbpacs@aol.com

WaPUG International Confer-ence: Meeting the Global Challenges for WastewaterPlanners in the 21st CenturyWastewater Planning UsersGroup and Integrated ModellingUser Group (IMUG)September 16–17London, England01275 337910wendy.kane@hydro-international.co.ukwww.wapug.org.uk

SEPTEMBER

10th World Congress: Anaero-bic Digestion 2004Anaerobic Bioconversion forSustainabilityAugust 29–September 2Montreal, Canadawww.ad2004montreal.orgww.loghomeliving.com

Getting in Step with Phase II:A Workshop for City and Coun-ty Stormwater ManagersU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency

The U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency has been hostingseveral “Getting in Step withPhase II” workshops across thecountry. Participants in thesetwo-day workshops receive in-depth training on several of theminimum measures, includingeducation, outreach and publicinvolvement, illicit dischargedetection and elimination, andconstruction and post construc-tion. Dates and locations of theremaining workshops are listedbelow. For more information orto register, visit www.epa.gov/ npdes/gettin-ginstepwithphase2.

August 17–18Atlanta, Georgia

September 16–17Salem, Oregon

AUGUST World Water Conference and ExhibitionInternational Water Associationand AMEPA (The Moroccan Asso-ciation of Drinking Water andSanitation)September 19–24Marrekech, Morocco +212 (0) 22 44 12 12(Fax) +212 (0) 22 31 80 98www.iwa2004marrakech.cominfo.iwa@atlasvoyages.co.ma

9th International Conferenceon Wetland Systems for WaterPollution Control and 6th In-ternational Conference onWaste Stabilization PondsInternational Water AssociationSeptember 27–30Avignon, France (Fax) +33 4 7847 7875 wwww.iwahq.org.uk/template.cfm?name=wetland_systemswetlands@lyon.cemagref.fr www.loghomeliving.com

WEFTEC 2004Water Environment FederationOctober 2–6New Orleans, Louisiana (708) 486-0725(888) 629-6441www.weftec.org

Water & Wastewater AsiaPennWell Corporation and theSouth East Asian Water UtilitiesNetwork (SEAWUN)October 5–7Bangkok, Thailand+44 1992 656 629Fax + 44 1992 656 712attindingwwa@pennwell.comwww.pennwell.com

If your organization is sponsoring an event that you would like us to promote in this calendar, please send information to the Small FlowsQuarterly, Attn. Cathleen Falvey, National Environmental Services Center, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6064, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064. Or you may contact Cathleen at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, ext. 5526, or via e-mail to cfalvey@wvu.edu.

AWRA 2004 Annual ConferenceAmerican Water Resources AssociationNovember 1–4Orlando, Florida(540) 687-8390Fax: (540) 687-8395www.awra.org/meetings/

Groundwater and Public Health:Making the ConnectionThe Groundwater FoundationNovember 4–5Washington, D.C. (800) 858-4844cindy@groundwater.orgwww.groundwater.org

NOWRA’s 13th Annual Technical Education Conference and ExpositionNational Onsite Wastewater Recy-cling AssociationNovember 7–10Albuquerque, New Mexico (800) 966-2942/(410) 798-1697Fax: (410) 798-5741nowra@hanifin.comwww.nowra.org

NOVEMBER

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

7www.nesc.wvu.edu

Georgia Water & PollutionControl Association(GW&PCA)www.gwpca.orgThe GW&PCA is a nonprofit associa-tion of 5,200 members that includesoperators, owners, contractors, manu-facturers’ representatives, engineers,elected officials, industry representa-tives, and others concerned withwater resources. The GW&PCA’s chiefpurpose is to educate and assist thosewho have an interest in water andwastewater in the state. This Web siteincludes information about GW&PCA’sfour major conferences and sectionswith specialized interest such as water,wastewater, backflow prevention,water resources, and groundwater.

W.K. Kellogg Collection ofRural Community Develop-ment Resourceswww.unl.edu/kellogg/main.htmlThis collection contains seven cate-gories of materials including: commu-nity development, strategic planning,telecommunication/education, leader-ship development, economic develop-ment, land use/natural resources, andhealth care. Users can locate annota-tions on this site in three differentways: a keyword search, browsing bytitle, and browsing by category. Userscan read annotations and, if they de-sire, can contact the source directly toobtain more information or a copy.Many publications are free or availablefor a nominal fee.

Science Traveler International www.scitrav.com/wwater/waterlnk.htmScience Traveler International pro-duces a site called Wastewater World

Wide, subtitled “The Wide World ofActivated Sludge.” This site aims tobring together all information avail-able on the Internet on activatedsludge. The site has an extensive list-ing of links, including general back-ground information with glossaries ofterms, microbiology of activatedsludge, publications, process informa-tion, conferences, courses, organiza-tions, research groups, and servicesand suppliers. The site also has soft-ware links, which include softwarelists, software developers, activatedsludge software demos, related soft-ware, and CD-ROMs.

Combined Sewer Overflow(CSO) Partnershipwww.csop.com/The CSO Partnership’s mission is tobuild and sustain a coalition betweenfederal, state, and local governmentsand environmental organizations. Itaims to promote federal legislative,regulatory, and policy initiatives andadequate funding to ensure the devel-opment and implementation of cost-effective and affordable environmentalcontrols to abate or minimize thenegative impacts of CSOs on the na-tion’s receiving waters. The CSO Website provides access to CSO publica-tions and reports, description of goalsand objectives, and the latest legisla-tion involving CSO funding.

The Septic Information Websitewww.inspect-ny.com/septbook.htmThe Septic Information Website pro-vides a wealth of information aboutseptic systems. The site contains infor-mation on septic system design, de-fects, diagnosis, alternatives, mainte-

nance, pumping schedules, and ex-pert resources. This site also containsseveral online articles, such as “HomeBuyer’s Guide to Septic Systems,”“Septic Tank Pumping,” “AlternativeDesigns and Consultants,” and links toassociations and consultants.

Waterworld-Water andWastewater Technologywww.pennet.com/This site is the homepage of the publi-cations WaterWorld Magazine, Industri-al WaterWorld and Water and Waste-water International, news and technol-ogy sources serving engineers, man-agers, and consultants in the waterand wastewater industry worldwide.The site provides daily internationalbusiness and industry-related news,current issue articles, and access toyears of searchable editorial archives.It also provides information on the lat-est products and services for planning,designing, operating, and maintainingwater and wastewater systems.

Water and WastewaterEquipment ManufacturersAssociation (WWEMA)www.wwema.org/WWEMA is a nonprofit trade organiza-tion that represents the interests ofcompanies that manufacture productssold to the potable water and waste-water treatment industries. WWEMAoffers sophisticated leading productsand technology for water-related envi-ronment problems. Users can accessthe product listing and order productson WWEMA’s Web site. The site alsoprovides information on WWEMA’srole in government affairs and accessto the member directory.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

8

Maine has passed a bill that willencourage the proper disposal of ex-pired pharmaceuticals in that state.It is the first of its kind in the U.S.

“Many of us have had the experi-ence of getting a prescription and fora variety of reasons we don’t use it all.Our choices are to leave the medica-tion in the cabinet, throw it in thetrash, or flush it down the toilet. Thereare problems with all these alterna-tives,” said State Senator Lynn Bromley(D-Cumberland County) of South Port-land, who introduced the bill.

LD 1826, An Act to Encourage theProper Disposal of Expired Pharmaceu-ticals, was signed into law on May 5,2004 and will go into effect on July 1,2005. It will provide for safe and prop-er disposal of unused or expired pre-scription drugs by making use of pre-paid mailing envelopes. This wouldallow the unused medication to bemailed to an appropriate location forproper disposal.

Last year, Senator Bromley begana conversation with Steve Gressitt,M.D., with the Maine Benzodiazap-ine Study Group about their mutualinterest in reducing the incidence ofdrug diversion—where unused pre-scription drugs simply lying aroundthe home can end up being sold onthe street. Their conversation ex-panded to include concerns aboutthe incidence of accidental childoverdoses, as well as the severe envi-ronmental impacts of pharmaceuti-cals in the waste stream. The MaineMedical Association picked up onthe conversation and immediatelylent their unanimous support to Sen-ator Bromley’s bill.

“Maine physicians recognize thepublic health threat posed by un-used prescription drugs that may bediverted to improper and dangeroususe or may wind up poisoning ourenvironment,” said Gordon H.Smith, Executive Vice President ofthe Maine Medical Association. “OurPublic Health Committee formallysupported this important initiativethrough a resolution adopted at theMMA’s annual session in September2003.”

“As we began to research theissue, we discovered there was ahuge amount of interest on the partof the medical community, law en-forcement, poison control, the fish-ing industry, environmental protec-

tion at both the state and nationallevel, and others. There is growingevidence that the current and com-mon practice of flushing drugsdown the toilet has a profound im-pact on the environment,” com-mented Senator Bromley.

In order to get a better handleon this issue, Senator Bromley con-vened a meeting with more than 20interested parties representing a va-riety of stakeholders including: pub-lic health officials, retail pharmacies,environmental groups, law enforce-ment and others to discuss the pos-sibility of a legislative solution.Bromley noted, “We discovered thatno state has yet to enact legislationon this issue, and in fact, a represen-tative from Florida traveled to Maineto attend our meeting. There havebeen, however, a handful of pilotprograms in Canada. Recently,Prince Edward Island and British Co-lumbia sponsored one-time col-lections, much like our localhousehold hazardouschemical collectiondays, and tons ofunused and ex-

R E G U L A T I O N S S E C T I O N

Maine Passes Bill To Deal with Unused Medicationspired pharmaceuticals were re-turned.

“The more we talked, the morewe realized the enormity of theissue. I was struck by the level ofagreement at the meeting—all in at-tendance agreed to move forward inorder to find a solution,” added Sen-ator Bromley.

Senator Bromley plans to workwith the committee and affected de-partments, as well as communitygroups and pharmaceutical manu-facturers, to find public and privatesources of funding to support thislegislation.

More information about the billcan be found at www.mainesenate.org/expiredmeds, or contact: Sena-tor Lynn Bromley, (207) 799-2065, orMichael Johnson, Press Liaison, (207)287-1515.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

9

Editor’s Note: This issue paper was de-veloped by a committee of state onsitesystem regulators at the 3rd AnnualNational Small Flows ClearinghouseOnsite Wastewater State Regulator’sConference held in Arlington, Virginia,in April 2001. The paper was present-ed to U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency officials at the meeting.

Design Performance andManagement of OnsiteWastewater Soil AbsorptionSystems (WSAS) andAdvanced Systems

Wastewater Soil Absorption Systemsare said to be properly functioning, bythe vast majority of those served bythem, when sewage is not backing upinto the house or coming to theground surface in the backyard. Al-though much more is known aboutsystem performance, the information isoften not readily available in a usableform to regulators and the generalpublic. Compilation of what has al-ready been researched is thereforeviewed as the first priority. Next, it isimportant to investigate the perform-ance issues that have not yet been re-searched. This will assist regulators inassessing the performance of conven-tional WSAS as well as what to expectfrom newer, more advanced waste-water treatment systems.

Research needs fall into four broadcategories: 1) Treatment performance,2) Hydraulic performance, 3) Expect-ed longevity of performance, and 4)Management needed to sustain per-formance. Under category 1, practi-tioners feel the need for further detailon the transformation of influent con-stituents once they enter the soil bothin terms of species and concentration.Clearer understanding of the potentialeffects on public health and the envi-ronment is needed. Site and soil fac-tors that affect treatment need to bebetter characterized.

Under category two, the move-ment of pollutants to ground and sur-face waters through the connectinghydrologic paths needs further char-

acterization if strategies to minimizethe impact of WSAS are to be devel-oped. Can we model performancewith accuracy? Under categorythree, we still do not have a goodgrasp of the expected longevity of“conventional” technologies, letalone innovative technologies thatare coming to the market daily. Thesustainable levels of BOD loadingthat will maintain adequate infiltra-tion to prevent the surfacing ofsewage (clogging) are not wellknown for the site and soil condi-tions where WSAS are used. Are“stress tests” adequate predictors ofthe long-term performance of newtechnologies? Finally, under categoryfour, the levels of managementneeded for all system types must beestablished. Also, have existing man-agement efforts affected system per-formance?

The following is a list of questionsthat raise some of the issues that reg-ulators have determined are a highpriority for detailed examination.

Treatment Performance/Efficiency:• What are the appropriate methods

for evaluating the performance ofWSAS that protect public health andthe environment in a given setting?

• What is the relationship betweenperformance and age of operationfor similar WSAS in similar environ-ments? What short-term tests canbe used to predict long-term per-formance? There is a lack of pub-lished research on the expectedlongevity of “conventional systems.”

• We need empirical data on thelong-term performance of the newperformance-based systems.

• What methods can be used to es-timate the contribution of new orexisting WSAS to pollutant loadsin a watershed?

• What is the treatment efficiencyachieved in a WSAS designed withdifferent methods of application orextreme environmental conditions?

R E G U L A T I O N S S E C T I O N

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Tom Groves—New England Interstate Pollution Control CommissionRobert L. Uebler—North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Onsite Wastewater Research Needs and Technology Transfer

• What models are appropriate forpredicting efficiency as a functionof siting, design, and operation?

• What are easily measured “indica-tors” of WSAS function that canbe used to predict the perform-ance of treatment?

• What methods can be reliablyused to provide performance dataon the purification and the flux ofpollutants from a WSAS into theunderlying groundwater?

• What methods can be applied to as-sess the treatment capacity of a sitefor nutrients, bacteria, and virus?

• What are the effluent characteris-tics of different emerging tank-based treatment units?

• Several levels or classifications oftreatment. Example: Class I -pri-mary treatment, Class II- second-ary treatment, Class III - tertiarytreatment, Class IV treatment withnitrification-denitrification (nutri-ent removal).

• What are the real input values formodeling parameters andprocesses?

• What is the real BOD loading toand the efficiency of the infiltrativesurface?

Hydraulics• What is the relationship of infiltra-

tive surface character on short-and long-term hydraulic propertiesof the infiltrative surface?

• What are the essential field dataneeded to support understandingand/or modeling of unsaturatedflow and hydraulic conductivity?

• What methods can be used to as-sess the hydraulic capacity of a sitefor larger and clustered WSAS?

• Obtain updated research on LTAR.

Soil Clogging• What is the effect of pretreatment on

soil clogging and WSAS hydraulicand purification performance?

• What is the relationship betweenclogging zone genesis and result-

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

10

ing loss in infiltration rate withcommon WSAS designs?

• How can the natural soil propertiesthat impact soil-clogging develop-ment be assessed in the field?

• What methods can be used to re-store the infiltrative capacity of aWSAS with excessive existing clog-ging?

Management• What is the role and impact of re-

mote sensing and monitoring onperformance assurance for decen-tralized systems?

• What WSAS performance improve-ments can be attributed to trainingand certification programs?

• More management studies are need-ed to assist regulators and local au-thorities in the planning and imple-mentation of good onsite sewagemanagement programs.

• We as regulators need to knowwhat happens once the technologyis in the hands of the end user.Problems with technologies are fre-quently not reported.

• Develop a standardized index ofcomplexity that could be used toestablish the necessary levels ofoversight or maintenance neededfor technology, for example, rang-ing from 1 = septic system to 5 =UV disinfection.

Fate and Transport ofPathogens

Until we understand the fate andtransport of pathogens, we will notfully comprehend the effect we haveon the environment and what steps weshould take to ensure its protection.With the advent of new onsite tech-nologies in wastewater treatment,many manufacturers are asking for cer-tain reductions, such as leachfield sizeand/or isolation distances or higherloading rates. These claims are basedon the quality of the effluent that isproduced by the advanced treatmentsystem. In most cases, it is expected tomeet or exceed the quality of effluentproduced by conventional systems. Butwhat type of pathogen treatment dowe achieve with conventional systems?Are we even providing an acceptabledegree of treatment with conventionalsystems and our traditional leachfieldsizes and isolation distances?

Pathogens• What are the basic methods by

which pathogens are contained orinactivated by conventional andinnovative onsite systems? How ispathogen containment or inactiva-tion by innovative systems influ-enced by septic tanks or shallowwater table disposal systems? Howdoes pathogen discharge resultfrom the abrupt failure of an inno-vative system?

• What is the effectiveness ofpathogen retention during pas-sage through the vadose zone?Quantify the survival and transportof pathogens in saturated soil.

• How do cluster systems meet therequirements of pathogen con-tainment or inactivation? How willcatastrophic events impact clustersystems, and how long will it takefor adequate performance to bere-established?

• What are the effects of biomat de-velopment on pathogen retentionin the soil and on alternative engi-neered infiltrative surfaces?

• How does pathogen mobilizationoccur during a catastrophic eventand how long does it take for nor-mal operation to be re-estab-lished?

• Research is needed into a risk-based approach to pathogens thatshould look at things like isolationdistances from leachfields to wellsand whether these distancesshould depend on the type of sys-tem installed.

• What is the fate of viruses in con-ventional systems as well as alter-native systems that ask for reduc-tions to the groundwater table?

Sludge• How can solids generated from

onsite systems be removed with-out threatening public health?Quantify the removal ofpathogens from wastewater by re-tention of solids in septic tanks.

• What are the effects of sludge ac-cumulation and surge loads onpathogen retention and on the in-activation of pathogens retainedin the sludge?

• What special pathogen problemsare associated with the combined

R E G U L A T I O N S S E C T I O N

disposal of domestic waste fromseveral sources at a common site?

• What are the economically feasiblemeans for disposing of pathogen-rich septage that adequately pro-tect public health?

• What pathogen loads are likely insolids generated by aerated treat-ment systems or in material back-washed from filters?

Nutrient ContaminationKnowledge of the fate of waste-

water nutrients in groundwater fol-lowing onsite treatment has beenproblematic for state regulators. Ifcontaminate levels can be measuredor calculated, having adequate treat-ment technologies is even more prob-lematic. In the last decade, somegood research has been conducted onnutrient contamination; however, dis-semination of these results has beenlimited to the literature. Certificationof adequate treatment technologiesthrough a universally accepted ap-proval protocol is another problem. Asa result, research needs exist for ni-trate-nitrogen as a groundwater pollu-tant with public health implicationsand phosphorus as a limiting factornutrient in watershed enrichment.Specific research questions include thefollowing:

Performance• What site characteristics affect the

long-term performance of nutrientremoval from Domestic Waste-water Treatment Systems (DWTS)?

• What is the range of soil texturesand saturation under pressuredosing that promotes denitrifica-tion without generating hydraulicfailure?

• How does aerobic pre-treatmentimpact long-term denitrificationand hydraulic performance?

• What factors impact the long-termperformance for nutrient removalin different alternative DWTS?

• What conditions and designs pro-mote denitrification in aerobic fil-ters and pre-treatment tanks?

• What is the long-term removal ex-pected from plant uptake and mi-crobial immobilization in rootzone and wetland systems?

• What is the viability of dosingDTWS or amending filters with

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

11

chemical additives to precipitatephosphorous?

• What are the performance param-eters for nitrate removal in pres-sure dosed, shallow placed, andat-grade systems discharging to Aand A/B soil horizons?

• What is the maximum possiblecontamination of total nitrogenexpected from standard onsite sys-tems?

• What is the biological cause andeffect of denitrification and exis-tence of denitrifying bacteria?

Watersheds• What is the role of in-stream and

streamside removal in reducingwatershed nutrient loads fromDTWS, and what are the site fac-tors and management practicesthat impact the capacity ofstreamside areas to remove nutri-ents from groundwater?

• Are there mappable attributes thatrelate to the streamside character-istics that generate high nutrientremoval capacities?

• Can nutrient dilution and removalcapacities be determined in differ-ent aquifers?

• Can the interaction between nutri-ents in groundwater from DTWSand biologically active streamsidenutrient sinks be predicted?

Economics of DecentralizedWastewaterTreatmentSystems

As the competition increases forgovernment tax dollars throughgrants and loans, it has become in-creasingly important that local waste-water providers examine the use ofonsite decentralized wastewater treat-ment and disposal systems. Direct andindirect benefits including cost of theuse of decentralized wastewater sys-tems must be provided to local offi-cials so that sound choices for waste-water management can be made. Ed-ucation of the homeowners on thebenefits to using decentralized waste-water treatment and disposal systemsis a must to overcome past negativelabeling.

The following is a list of questionsthat describe some of the issues thatregulators have determined are a high

priority to examine in more detail.• What are the actual life spans and

failure rates of onsite and decen-tralized systems?

• Can national performance stan-dards for decentralized systems in-crease their acceptance?

• What are the costs and benefits ofperformance-based codes?

• How does the scale of wastewaterservices affect costs and benefits?

• When are management and re-mote monitoring systems cost ef-fective?

• What effects do advanced onsitetreatment technologies have onland-use patterns?

• How can decentralized treatmentplay a part in smart growth goals?

• How can we improve decision-making models used by communi-ties to evaluate wastewater man-agement alternatives?

• What are the costs, benefits, andissues that need to be addressedfor water reuse and blackwaterseparation systems?

• What is the value of releasingwater near where it is used ratherthan discharging it from a central-ized treatment facility?

• What are the preferences and val-ues of homeowners and how dothese affect their choices of waste-water technologies?

• How can education campaigns bedeveloped to increase acceptanceof decentralized wastewater man-agement and increased costs tomanage them?

Technology TransferMany states wrestle with the

question of how best to approve al-ternative systems and components.Several protocols exist, and othersare being considered. Yet the needfor each state to “reinvent thewheel” in its own attempts to devel-op a satisfactory approval methodoften proves frustrating.

A better system for promulgatinginformation and relaying examplesof alternative system successes andfailures between states would domuch to ease this frustration. Such atechnology transfer system would re-

R E G U L A T I O N S S E C T I O N

quire an easily accessible database ofresearch along with copies of theoriginal research publications. Prop-erly constructed, this system wouldenable a more expeditious review ofalternate technology. This, in turn,would inspire industries to investmore resources into developing bet-ter and more reasonably pricedproducts for furthering the nation’swater protection goals.

For developing such a technologytransfer system, regulators have tar-geted the following issues for furtherexamination:• The need for new technology test-

ing and assessment protocol thatcan be accepted nationally or atleast regionally (i.e., New Jersey’s“A Protocol for Testing, Assessingand Approving Innovative or Alter-native Onsite Wastewater DisposalSystems”).

• Assessment of alternative systemcomplexity and how to evaluateproducts and material replace-ments, such as shredded tires, foruse as gravel surrogate.

• The coordination of informationderived from all national demon-stration projects (i.e., National On-site Demonstration Program,USEPA Part 319 projects, etc.) intomeaningful reports that everyonecan share and benefit from.

• The need for an easily accessiblecommunication clearinghouse toprovide resources, model plans, re-search findings, etc.

• The need for a comprehensive lit-erature review and disseminationof studies done on Topic 1 (systemperformance).

• The need for a comprehensive lit-erature review and disseminationof virus studies—Topic 2(Pathogen Fate and Transport).

• A more easily accessible nationalclearinghouse for regulator re-search.

• A system for evaluating modifica-tions to approved innovative/alter-native technologies and how thesemodifications affect their perform-ance and/or approvals.

ank water tightness has been debated overthe years. Nearly 10 years ago, the Nation-

al Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association(NOWRA) and the National Precast ConcreteAssociation (NPCA) produced a videotapeabout how to construct watertight tanks. Moststate regulations have a statement that septictanks shall be watertight. Unfortunately, manystates either do not define what it means for atank to be watertight, or the state does not en-force the regulation. In some cases, the tanksare tested at the manufacturers’ yards, but notafter having been hauled cross-country and setinto the excavation in the field. In some cases,a few tanks are occasionally selected for testingon the manufacturers’ yards. Wanderingthrough exhibits at the various conferencesand equipment exhibitions, it is easy to ob-serve that many tank manufacturers advertisetheir tanks as watertight.

What is the importance of watertight tanks,anyway? In comparison to the standards forgravity sewers, constructing watertight tanksseems to be overkill. A textbook value for infil-tration and inflow for gravity sewers is 30,000gallons per day per mile of sewer main andservice connection. When the soil is saturatedafter rain, this amount of groundwater runsinto the sewers, resulting in sewer overflowssuch as the one depicted in photo 1. Interest-ingly enough, this photo shows the largeemergency generator to run the pumps in caseof power loss. If power is lost during a thun-

derstorm, the generator can run the under-sized pumps and the sewage will still geyserout of the manhole and run into the adjacentstream. For the sake of comparison, infiltrationof 30,000 gallons per day per mile would belike having an extra house every 50 feet alongthe sewer main.

The other side of the infiltration and inflowpicture is that the leaks that allow groundwaterinto the sewers do not have check valves onthem. They can leak out as well as in. In sensi-tive areas, where traditional septic tank-soil ab-sorption systems have been an environmentalconcern, gravity sewers have been proposed asa solution. If the gravity sewers are allowed toleak 30,000 gallons per day per mile, the envi-ronmental threat from septic tank effluentwould not appear to be alleviated by con-structing gravity sewers that could leak rawsewage.

When septic tanks leak, the effluent mayleak out into the environment if the seasonalgroundwater is low or non present, or thegroundwater could leak into the tank if theseasonal or true groundwater is high. Whenthe seasonal groundwater is high, and the tankleaks around the seams (top or mid- seam) oraround the inlet and outlet pipes, the soil ab-sorption system can become hydraulically over-loaded. Photo 2A shows concrete tanks withmalformed seams that will lead to leaking in-ward if the high water table reaches the seam.During these times, the soil absorption system

may already be under hydraulicstress due to the high seasonalwater table and the high cli-matic load. In the eastern U.S.,high seasonal groundwater oc-curs during the winter monthswhen little evapotranspiration isoccurring and the soil is nearsaturation. When a tank leaksnear the top of the tank, or ifthe seasonal water table is nearthe top of the tank, allowingthe tank to overfill, the resultcan be a flooded tank andbackup of sewage in the house.Photo 2B shows a tank with amalformed top seam with a

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Mark A. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.

12

Photo 1

F O R U M

tion, and treatment throughanaerobic digestion. If an efflu-ent screen is installed on theoutlet, an additional function isremoval of solids that are neu-trally buoyant.

When water leaks into thetank, the tank can become flooded, andthe floating solids layer may wash out ofthe tank and into the soil absorptionfield. When the inlet tee or baffle is flood-ed, it is not uncommon for solids andpaper to accumulate in the inlet tee and

clog the incoming house sewer. If the outlettee is flooded over the top of the tee, the float-ing solids may exit the tank and clog the soilabsorption system.

When water leaks out of the tank duringlow seasonal water table and low water usage(wastewater generation), the sludge layer onthe tank bottom and the scum layer on the liq-uid surface can approach each other, and thestratification in the tank is eliminated. Whenwater re-enters the tank and refills the tank tothe level of the outlet tee, the “homogenized”solids layers can be washed out of the tankinto the soil absorption system.

During the past decade or more, significantefforts have been made (and rightly so) tostudy the soil absorption system function andthe soil’s ability to treat and disperse septictank effluent. In some cases, due to soil con-straints, or due to the sensitivity of the receiv-ing environment, the septic tank effluent orthe raw sewage is treated to high water qualityprior to dispersal or reuse in the soil. Moststates have regulations regarding the verticalseparation between the soil absorption systemor the application point of the soil dispersalsystem (drip irrigation, etc.). The point of theseparation seems to be to allow the waste-water to pass through some vertical distance ofsoil prior to intercepting the groundwater—whether it is perched seasonal groundwater or

a permanent water table. Normally, thetank depth is greater than the soil ab-sorption system depth. Certainly thetank depth is greater than the depth ofdrip irrigation tubing.

When a leaking tank is installed, theseparation distance between thesewage and the groundwater is essen-tially ignored. If the tank leaks aroundthe inlet fittings, raw sewage is poten-tially leaking into the soil and ground-water. If the tank leaks at the bottom,there is potentially no separation be-tween the leaking sewage and thegroundwater. In some cases, the tankmay be installed in dry weather when

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

13

hole large enough for a hand to go through.This provides a place for the tank to leak if theseasonal water table reaches the top of thetank. This tank was manufactured by a precasttank company whose tanks are certified by thedepartment of health as watertight tanks. Fig-ure 1 illustrates a tank lid separating after thetank settles. When a tank is placed into the ex-cavation and filled with water, unless the soil isstable, settlement may occur. For a 1200-gal-lon capacity tank, the weight of the liquidalone (not including the tank weight) is slightlyover 10,000 pounds. If the tank hole is overexcavated and refilled for leveling, the fill ma-terial has the potential to be a source for settle-ment if it is not compacted.

During high seasonal groundwater periods,if a leaking tank is pumped or flows into apumped tank, the additional groundwater en-tering the tank can overwork the pump. At aminimum, it is not uncommon to incur high-water alarms due to leaking tanks. The septictank effluent and groundwater is pumpedaway from the tank and into the soil absorp-tion system. The result may be an overloadedsoil absorption system with surfacing septictank effluent.

Some discussion of the septic tank’s func-tion may help clarify some of the issues withleaking tanks. The septic tank is expected toprovide several functions. Among these aresolids removal through settlement and flota-

Tank lid separationFigure 1

Photo 2A

Photo 2B

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

14

the seasonal groundwater is not present. Thetank can leak into the zone where the ground-water will be in the wet part of the year, andsewage is essentially introduced directly intothe groundwater. Figure 2 illustrates this point.When this happens, it would seem that all ofthe work of the soil scientists, engineers, de-signers, and regulators to maintain a verticalseparation in the soil absorption system or dis-persal area is negated by setting the leakingtank directly into the groundwater so that itcan leak sewage into the zone that was so dili-gently protected in the soil absorption area.The point being, what is all of the fuss over thesoil absorption area if the tanks aren’t reallywatertight? Sort of swallowing the camel whilestraining the gnat aren’t we? Not that weshouldn’t continue the efforts to properly sitethe dispersal area, but we should make thesame level of effort to provide watertight tanksand pipes. Without watertight tanks, all of theeffort to maintain the vertical separation wouldseem to be wasted time and money.

When the issue of testing a tank in the fieldis discussed, several arguments can be present-ed. Most of the arguments are centered ontime and money. Some of them include thefollowing:• The tanks are tested on the manufacturer’s

yard; isn’t that good enough?

• In order to hydrostatically test the tanks inthe field, water must be hauled in to fill thetank(s).

• In order to test the tanks in the field, it willinvolve an extra trip to the site for either theinstaller or the regulator.

• It’s too expensive and it takes to much time.

Some answers to these arguments are as fol-lows:

• Maybe, but what happens to the tank whenit is loaded on a truck, driven down thehighway, bounced along gravel or dirtroads? Is it still watertight when it is set inthe excavation?

• What happens when the tank connectionsare made? Are they watertight? Was the tanktested over the top seam and over the con-

nections to ensure that they didn’t leak? Ifa riser was installed, was the connectionbetween the top of the tank and the risertested to ensure that it didn’t leak?

• Aren’t the tanks filled after settingthem in the excavation and beforeleaving the site? If not, what happenswhen a rain occurs and fills the tankexcavation? Won’t the tank float andbecome unlevel? In the eastern U.S. itis unwise to leave an empty tank inthe excavation. One rainstorm canundo a significant amount of work bycausing the tank to float.

• When the regulator, the designer, and possi-bly the installer were evaluating the propertyfor soil and site conditions, was this an argu-ment? Is maintaining adequate vertical sepa-ration worth another trip, or is it really worththe risk to the soil absorption area to not testthe tanks and take the chance that it will orwon’t leak?

• Is it less expensive to fix a leaking tank after ithas been backfilled, used, and caused a soilabsorption system worth several thousanddollars to malfunction and burn up a pumpcosting several hundred dollars? How muchmoney was spent evaluating the site for theproper soil conditions? What if the tank leakssewage into the receiving environment andthe site has to be remediated? Isn’t it worthone more trip?In addition to these arguments, similar to

most septic system topics, there are a few “wa-tertight” myths that are floating around outthere. Some examples are:

“The soil around the tank will sealup the leaks.”

The only experience I have with this mythwould indicate otherwise. A tank in one of theexperiments we conducted showed some signsof leaking when we installed it, and tested itprior to backfilling. We experienced high wateralarms and increased metered effluent aftermost rains over a period of 4 years. The tankwas installed in expansive clay, and after 4 years,the soil had not sealed the leaks. At another sitein southwest Arkansas, a pump tank continuous-ly gave high water alarms and excessive (yes,the pump burned up, that’s how we knew itwas “excessive”) pump run times.

“Once you start using the tank, thebacteria will seal it up.”

Really? Cool. Where do you get those bacte-ria? We need to introduce some into the sewershown in photo 1. The City would sure like tohave some. A dead cat in the septic tank once ayear makes the system work great, too. Seriously,that hasn’t been my experience. In both casesmentioned above, the systems were in place andwere receiving sewage for years, and there was no

A leaking tankFigure 2

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

15

sign that the leaks were sealed bybacteria.

Granted, these are only twodata points to add to the discus-sion of leaking tanks sealing them-selves after some period of use.However, they are the only datapoints I have, and if there are datato validate the myths, they shouldbe provided as evidence that con-structing watertight tanks is un-necessary.

It isn’t impossible to build wa-tertight tanks that can withstandtime, use, and installation in areal onsite/decentralized waste-

water system. Simply using a different materi-al doesn’t solve the problem. Any type of tankcan leak. Any type of tank can be misappliedor installed into conditions for which it wasn’tdesigned to withstand. The polyethylenetanks in photo 3 were installed for use aspumped interceptor tanks in a STEP (SepticTank Effluent Pumping) system. The tankmanufacturer examined the installation andfound that the tanks had been installed in ahigh water table and in a soil that they (the

manufacturer) did notrecommend for use oftheir tanks. The lessonlearned here is that thedesigner should con-tact the manufacturerand discuss soil typebefore recommendingthe tank.

Photo 4 shows apolyethylene tank suf-

fering from deflection. Not all polyethylenetanks are constructed the same. If the tank isgoing to need the structural strength to with-stand an application, it should be designedand constructed with the appropriate structur-al integrity. In a conversation at the Floridatraining center, I recently learned that polyeth-ylene tanks might not be manufactured fromall-virgin materials. If tanks fail the quality con-trol test, they may be ground into pieces andthe pieces are reused in the rotomoldingprocess for new tanks. The amount of “re-grind” or reused polyethylene apparently af-

fects thestructuralintegrity ofthe tank.

Photo 5shows afiberglasstank with asplit seam.Just becausea tank isfiberglass,

that doesn’t mean that it won’t leak, or that itcan withstand any hydrostatic or soil pressure.Also, it is not uncommon for tanks to have de-fects when they are glued or glassed together inhalves. Tank fabricators generally need to climba learning curve when they begin putting tankstogether that have been shipped to them inmore than one piece. Just because it’s a fiber-glass tank doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need tobe tested in the field.

Some construction and fabrication tech-niques are available for manufacturing tanks thatare more likely to be watertight. Some of thesuggestions garnered from professionals acrossthe U.S. are noted below. Since I don’t claim tobe a tank manufacturer, I have depended uponothers for their suggestions.

Concrete Tanks:• Make the tank walls 3” or thicker.

• Do not use mid-seam tanks.

• Use flexible fittings on inlet and outlet—noknock-outs to be grouted around pipe.

• Use reinforcing bars instead of welded wire.

• Use lap joints along lid and top of wall.

• Use a low water : cement ratio.

• Use plasticizers.

• See the NOWRA/NPCA video.

Fiberglass Tanks:• Use flexible inlet and outlet joints.

• Use proper backfill.

• Use ballast as recommended by manufacturer.

Polyethylene tanks:• Do they creep?

• Bed in sand or gravel or the manufacturer’ssuggested bedding.

• Do not use in high seasonal water table if thetank isn’t made for it—check with the manu-facturer.

• Do not use in high shrink-swell clays if thetank isn’t made for it

• Conduct vacuum testing.

• Use tanks that are made for pump tanks whena pump is specified.

• What about when the tank needs to bepumped? Don’t pump it during high ground-water periods if the tank isn’t constructed towithstand high hydrostatic pressures.

• Limit the amount of non-virgin materials or“regrind.”

Watertight tanks are as important as properlysited and designed soil absorption areas. If thetanks leak in or out, the time and effort spent onthe soil characterization and designing the soilabsorption area may be for naught. The differ-ence in price between a leaky tank and a water-tight tank may well be insignificant compared toreplacing the soil absorption system.

Photo 4

Photo 5

Photo 3

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

16

CONTRIBUTING WRITER

Elizabeth Dietzmann, J.D.

If you have ever stood in front ofa group of citizens in a rural commu-nity and had them accuse you ofstealing their land, and then hadthem remind you of their right tobear arms and of the sanctity of ahost of other constitutional rights,then you have had the privilege ofexplaining a mandatory connectionpolicy on a wastewater project! Any-one who is unfamiliar with this sce-nario has not tried to borrow federaland/or state wastewater projectmoney recently.

Like so many other governmentalpolicies, a mandatory connectionpolicy is deceptively simple and logi-cal: political entities who are borrow-ing wastewater project funds mustrequire that all individuals who arelocated within a predetermined dis-tance from a collection line connectto the system and pay for sewer serv-ice. This is an issue that is unique torural areas. City officials would neverthink twice about whether or not cityresidents would connect to a waste-water system. If you live inside thecity limits you will pay for and re-ceive city services. Philosophically,this goes to the underlying differencebetween city dwellers and countrydwellers. In cities, it is accepted thatmany more aspects of daily life areregulated. You can’t burn trash inyour backyard, but then you don’tneed to because you have trash pick-up service.

In rural areas, the state or federalagency loaning the money needs to

make sure that everyone within theproject area connects to the systemfor a number of sound reasons. Re-quiring people to connect means thatyou know exactly how many usersthere will be. That allows you to de-sign the treatment capacity to servethe actual number of users, which inturn allows you to calculate the costof construction, which allows you todetermine user fees, which allows youmake sure that the project will gener-ate sufficient revenue to service thedebt load. Avoiding default on loans isa high priority for the lending agen-cies, as it should be.

When you consider that projectfunds are probably not going to bemade available unless you have apretty high percentage of failing sep-tic systems (the definition of “fail-ure” will have to wait until the nextcolumn) and/or no existing waste-water service, then you wonder whatall the fuss is about. Some localgroup has shouldered the burden,waded through the cumbersome ap-plication process, and arranged toborrow low-interest loan and grantmoney in order to build a waste-water treatment and collection sys-tem. In addition to the public healthissues, many people with failing sep-tic systems find it nearly impossibleto refinance or sell their homes with-out making costly repairs—if thoserepairs are even possible. So alongcomes the friendly neighborhoodwater or sewer district, or a small,unincorporated community and of-

fers to solve the sewer problem forless than the cost of an averagemonthly cable bill. Sounds like awin-win.

The fact remains, however, thatmandatory connection policies areextremely unpopular, virtually im-possible to enforce, and have a chill-ing effect on otherwise sound waste-water projects in rural areas. Oh, youcan impose them, but the reality isyou can’t enforce them. I like to callthem “unenforceable” mandates, asopposed to the “unfunded” man-dates that we normally get from thefederal government. These policiesare so unpopular that I have seenmany good projects die after thatfirst public hearing, when the dread-ed “Do I have to hook up?” questionwas asked. No matter how diplomat-ically you answer that one, if you an-swer it honestly, you are telling peo-ple who live in rural areas that theymust do something. As one oldfarmer told me, “Honey, that justdon’t set real good with me.” Now, Isuppose it seems silly to say that inthe age of the Internet, us “rural”folks (I grew up in a part of Missouriso remote that we had a party lineuntil 1965 and we never will havepublic water or sewer) still have this“live free or die” mentality. The factremains that historically, when waterand electricity were brought to ruralareas, they were brought in volun-tarily. That is to say, you didn’t haveto connect if you didn’t want to con-nect. Sure, it would cost you more

MANDATORY CONNECTION POLICIESDamned If You Do, Damned If You Don’tMANDATORY CONNECTION POLICIESDamned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t

to connect later, but no one was re-quired to connect. Folks in ruralareas are not accustomed to beingtold that they must receive and payfor a utility service they are not evensure they need.

During one project I worked on,the elected board made the stan-dard disclosure that in order to getthe federal money and keep ratesdown, everyone inside the projectarea would be required to connect.A group of people who were outsidethe project area were so afraid that amandatory connection policy wouldsomehow allow the government totake their land in the future (Yes,that is what they believed, and notreacherous lawyer was going to tellthem otherwise!) that they mounteda vocal minority campaign to op-pose the project. Ultimately, the op-position ended up running forenough board seats to take over thedistrict, and once installed quicklykilled the entire project. So no one,even the folks who wanted it, re-ceived wastewater service. Some-time democracy is a scary thing.Granted, these folks were misguidedextremists, but make no mistakeabout it, mandatory connection poli-cies evoke powerful responses.

I have actually discussed this re-sistance to mandatory connectionswith lots of the people who wereoriginal electric cooperative or waterdistrict customers. Clearly, peopleperceive that they are getting some-thing in return when they pay theirmonthly water and electric bills. Withwastewater, they are being told thatthey have to pay to do somethingthat they never had to pay to do be-fore—flush the toilet—and that justdoesn’t have the same immediategratification as turning on the lightsor getting a glass of water. However,even when you convince them thatpaying for wastewater service is agood thing, people who agree withall your arguments still do not wantto connect if they are forced to doso. I even had a state health depart-ment employee tell me that a waste-water project sounded like a goodidea, but he lived in the county justso he wouldn’t be forced to pay forservices he didn’t want. I have notfigured out a way to overcome therural resistance to mandatory connec-tion policies. I just know that they areunpopular. I also know that they arenigh well impossible to enforce.

So let’s talk enforcement. Againand again, I have met with boardsthat have risked the wrath of theircustomers and enacted a mandatoryconnection policy as required by thefunding agency. Then they turn tome and ask me how they are sup-posed to enforce it. I do not haveany good answers. Mostly I shrugand tell them what will not work.The typical entity trying to build awastewater treatment and collectionsystem in a rural area is what I call asingle-interest political subdivision.Its powers will vary from state tostate, but they have few powers thatwill allow them to force someone tophysically connect to a wastewatersystem. So can’t they just use thepower of eminent domain to con-demn the ground where the sewermain would run? Well, they can, andthis works well if all you need is aneasement for a sewer main. But con-demnation can only be used whereit serves a public purpose, and Idon’t think it can be used to con-demn the actual trunk line from themain to the house. That line wouldonly serve a private residence and itwould only get more complicated ifyou were using STEP or STEG collec-tion. You would have to condemnan area for the STEP tank, the con-trol panel, etc. Even if those legaltechnicalities were ignored, if an in-dividual refuses to allow you on hisland to start digging, it really isn’tgoing to matter whether you havecondemned his land or not. Afteryou have condemned the easement,you could in theory go to court andfile a declaratory judgment action oran action for contempt of court.Then you might get another nicepiece of paper allowing you to entersomeone else’s land. I haven’t seenbody armor listed as a reimbursableexpense on funding applications, soI am wondering what contractor iswilling to risk the safety of his em-ployees and forcibly install a collec-tion line. The fact is there are no“sewer police” available to physicallyoversee the installation of a systemon an unwilling landowner’s proper-ty. Even if you are able to persuade alocal sheriff’s department or thestate police to assist, you have to askhow far you want to take this. Is itworth risking someone’s life to forcea connection to a wastewater sys-tem? Even if you force them to con-nect, they may not pay the bill, and

then for public health reasons youmay not be able to shut them off!This seems to defeat the purpose ofhaving a mandatory connection poli-cy in the first place. A few years agoin a small town in Missouri, a manwas upset because the city had asewer easement over his land. Heshot an alderman and two city work-ers after they attempted to start dig-ging in the easement. The man laterkilled himself. A fatal shooting over asewer easement? The reality is thatsome people will defend their prop-erty with firearms if they perceivethat they are being forced to con-nect to a sewer system.

Even when there is a simple wayto force people to connect to awastewater project, it is extremelyunpopular with many elected offi-cials. The case in point involves awater district that decided to borrowfederal money in order to build awastewater system. About fifteenwater customers refused to acceptwastewater service. In order to keepthe project within its calculations forthe projected number of users andto actually comply with the manda-tory connection policy required byUSDA/Rural Development, the boardtook a bold step. They informed theholdouts that they did not have toconnect to the wastewater service,but that if they refused, the waterdistrict would no longer providewater service to them. Certainly thisis analogous to a water district shut-ting off a paying customer whofailed to install a back flow preven-tion device, added an illegal connec-tion, or refused to fix a leak. Thewater district was merely trying toprotect the groundwater from con-tamination from failing septic sys-tems. Interestingly enough, thebiggest backlash came from electedofficials who thought it was awfulthat the water district would forceanyone to connect to a wastewatersystem. So the water board used theone tool they had to actually forcepeople to connect, and they werebesieged by state senators and rep-resentatives demanding to knowwhy they were forcing people toconnect! I have had numerous callsfrom other water districts that aren’tso sure they even want to get intothe wastewater business at all be-cause of this.

It doesn’t have to be like this—really it doesn’t. You don’t needmandatory connection policies in

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

17

order to make a project work. The re-ality is that few funding agencies evercheck to see who is physically con-nected after the project is completed.The borrower does have to certifythat it has enacted a mandatory con-nection policy, but I have neverworked on a project yet where anyone from the funding agency evercame out and drove around to see ifall the people who were supposed toconnect did connect. As long as thedebt gets repaid and the project is onschedule and at or near budget, thefunding agencies really don’t ask toomany questions about connections.The borrower will usually try to softpeddle the whole mandatory connec-tion issue, knowing that the relativelysmall number of people who refuse toconnect on a typical wastewater proj-ect are quickly made up by additionalusers or new construction. The “if youbuild it they will come” mantra holdstrue. On every single project I haveworked on, I have seen many addi-tional users opt for service once con-struction begins.

A voluntary connection policy canbe much more effective than amandatory connection policy, and be-cause it is predicated upon peoplewanting wastewater service, it is lessconfrontational. It may take morework on the front end, but the result-ing project is much smoother. Severalrecent projects that did not use stateor federal funding have been success-fully completed using a voluntary

pation did not drop off as propertychanged hands during the course ofthe project. Basically, through edu-cation, financial incentives, and col-lateral health department enforce-ment, enough users were lined up inadvance so that the project was fi-nancially viable. Clearly it is possibleto build a wastewater system andhave enough users to make the proj-ect viable without requiring manda-tory connections. But are the lend-ing agencies willing to revisit theissue of mandatory connection poli-cies and realistically review their im-pact and usefulness? Hopefully a dia-logue can begin so that we can in-crease the number of viable waste-water projects in rural areas withoutalienating rural users.

connection policy. Prior to com-mencement of the projects, numer-ous educational meetings were heldwith the public, and prospectiveusers were informed that the projectwould not go forward unless a base-line percentage of the users signed auser agreement and easement. Theproject engineer determined that theproject would be financially viablewith a minimum percentage of con-nections (usually over fifty percent).The number of users was trackedmuch like a United Way campaignand people were encouraged (anddid) get their neighbors to sign up inorder to get the project going. Thelocal health department agreed tobegin enforcement actions againstthose individuals with failing septicsystems who refused to con-nect, and local lenders werealso informed about the proj-ect and encouraged to requireconnection to the system as acondition of new or refi-nanced loans. In addition, anincentive plan was created sothat people who connectedvoluntarily at the time of con-struction did not pay a con-nection fee, and those whoopted out were required topay a fee if and when theyconnected. As soon as aprospective user signed a useragreement/easement, it wasnotarized and recorded, sothat the percentage of partici-

L E G A L V I E W S

Related Products For ordering information, see page 47.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

18

Small Community WastewaterSolutions: A Guide to MakingTreatment, Management andFinancing Decisions

Ken Olsen, Bridget Chard, Doug Malchow, andDon HickmanThis publication aims to help property ownersbecome critical thinkers with respect to the in-formation, concerns, and recommendationsthat will surface as they begin the process ofsolving their wastewater problems. It also pro-vides the tools small communities need to ac-cess this data and to make independent, in-formed judgments and choices. The first chap-ter offers a quick grounding in wastewaterproblems, followed by a chapter-by-chapterroadmap to small community wastewater treat-ment solutions. It explains what the people in acommunity will need to do, including whatthey need to know before making any deci-sions—sewage treatment system options,wastewater management options, communityorganizational structure options, financingwastewater systems, working with profession-als, and, finally, implementation of the plan.There is a glossary and several appendices that

include sample surveys, a summary of treat-ment options, scientific abbreviations andmeasurements, and a guide to commonacronyms. The cost of this 120-page bookis $19.50. Request item #FMBKGN210.

Planning WastewaterManagement Facilities forSmall Communities

U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental ResearchLaboratory, Office of Research andDevelopmentThis manual presents procedures for plan-ning wastewater management facilities forsmall communities with populations under10,000. It is designed to aid engineers andthe communities they serve in evaluatingvarious options for treatment and disposalof wastewater, which range from septictanks and onsite disposal fields to conven-tional gravity sewers and centralized treat-ment plants. The manual presents informa-tion and techniques for recognizing andevaluating wastewater management prob-lems frequently faced by small communitiesand for planning facilities that will solve

those problems, giving consideration to costs,community characteristics, and growth man-agement. Part 1 of the manual was preparedto give an overview of the planning processand the regulatory context under which it fits.Part 2 is a technical reference, explaining de-tails of the planning process with examplesform case studies. The price for this 157-pagebook is $47.10. Request item #WWBKDM31.

It’s Your Choice: A Guidebook forLocal Officials on Small Commu-nity Wastewater Management Op-tions

U.S. EPA Office of Municipal Pollution ControlThis book examines choices that small commu-nity officials have to solve their communities’current wastewater problems or to address fu-ture wastewater needs. It discusses the stepsneeded to define the problem, select a consult-ing engineer, and finance a system. The bookidentifies where to turn for help and how tomake your wastewater system self-sustainingby setting up appropriate user fees. The priceof this 70-page book is $7.50. Request item#FMBKGN01.

Elizabeth Dietzmann, J.D.,is a consultant in theplanning, development,and management ofdecentralized wastewatersystems. As an attorney, shefocuses on coordinating thelegal, political, and financialaspects of usingdecentralized technology asan alternative to centralsewer systems. Althoughshe consults with clients across the country,Elizabeth is happy to live in a small town inMissouri, with her dogs, cats, and horses. She can be reached at edietzmann@earthlink.net.

SoilCharacteristics—DemystifyingDirt

cles, organic particles, water, and air.See the figure below for a simple piechart representing these propor-tions. Note that only about half ofthe soil volume consists of solid ma-terial. The other half consists of porespaces filled with air or water.

Soil is the foundation of conven-tional onsite wastewater treatment.The drainfields used with onsite sys-tems work because the soil aroundthe trenches acts as a filter and re-moves organic matter, some of thenutrients present in wastewater, bac-teria, and other pollutants before thewater returns to the groundwater.Every site has unique soil characteris-tics that are critical in determiningthe size and type of onsite waste-water treatment system required.

Soil conditions are one of themost important elements in siteevaluation and system design. Otherrestricting site parameters includethe topography, separation dis-tances, owner’s preferences, existingwater sources, depth to any limitinglayer, and landscape position. Butthe ability of the soil to accept andtransmit the effluent from the dis-posal system is the most crucial ele-ment. (See Soil Terminology.)

It is necessary to evaluate the soilto ensure that a drainfield is de-signed properly and will not fail pre-maturely. Information about thedepth of the soil and how quickly itwill absorb water determines thesuitability of the dispersal area. Soilsthat accept water too quickly willnot treat wastewater adequately, andsoil conditions that do not allow theeffluent to move quickly enough intoand through the soil also createproblems.

In a site evaluation, the designermust be concerned with not justhow to get the effluent into the soil,but he or she must also determinethe best way to introduce the efflu-ent into the soil horizon, how it willmove across the site, and in whatcondition the effluent will be inwhen (or if) it moves across propertylines.

Soil consists of four componentsin various proportions: mineral parti-

Air20–30%

Mineral45%

Organic5%

Water20–30%

Drainfield – an area of perforated pipingthat carries wastewater from the septic tankto the soil providing both disposal andtreatment of the effluent, also referred to asthe leachfield or dispersal field

Separation distance – the physical spacebetween the bottom of the trench and thelimiting layer

Limiting layer – anything that changes thenormal flow of water through the soil pro-file, such as bedrock or the water table

Effluent – clarified wastewater from theseptic tank

Topography – the configuration of a sur-face in relation to natural and man-madefeatures, described in terms of differencesin elevation and slope; in other words, thelay of the land

Nutrients – elements including nitrogenand phosphorus necessary for plant growth

Percolation rates – indicates how fast thewater will move down through the soil

Soil texture – determined by the propor-tions of the different-sized soil particles

Soil structure – relates to the grouping orarrangement of soil particles

Soil horizons – layers of soil composed ofdifferent minerals and amounts of organic mat-

ter; each layer exhibits similar color and texture;horizons make up the soil profile as seen in the

test pit

Hydraulic conductivity or permeability – theability of a porous media or soil to conduct water

through its pore spaces

Permeameter – an instrument used to measure hydraulicconductivity of soil

SoilCharacteristics—DemystifyingDirt

NESC WRITER/EDITOR

Marilyn Noah

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

19

Soil Terminology

Components of soil by proportion

PoreSpace Soil

Solids

Some new technologies, such asa permeameter, are on the horizonthat may provide even more precisemeasurements of soil properties.These techniques and technologiesmay be faster and more reliable thansome of the ones currently in use.

The soil pit should be aboutthree feet deep and about a yardwide to expose the soil layers calledhorizons. Horizons vary in thicknessand have irregular boundaries, butgenerally parallel the land surface.The vertical section exposing thetexture changes in the different lay-ers of soil is termed a soil profile.Road cuts and other open excava-tions expose soil profiles and serveas a window to the soil.

Horizons begin to differentiate asmaterials are added to the upperpart of the profile and other materi-als move to deeper zones. Organicmatter from decomposed plantleaves and roots tends to accumu-late in the uppermost horizons, giv-ing these layers a darker color thanthe lower ones. These horizons aregenerally referred to as the topsoil.

The next layers contain less or-ganic matter and are composed ofsilicate clays, iron and aluminum ox-ides, gypsum, or calcium carbonateaccumulated from the horizonsabove. These lower layers are referredto as subsoil. The characteristics ofsubsoil greatly influence most land-use activities. Roots can’t penetrateimpermeable subsoil and water can’tmove through it. Poor drainage inthe subsoil can result in waterloggedconditions in the topsoil. S

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

20

Soil types are a result of the un-derlying rock types, climate, nativevegetation, topography, and weath-ering. Not much remedial work canbe done to change these factors.But, by identifying the soils present,it becomes easier for wastewaterprofessionals to predict which dis-persal technology will be most effec-tive and reliable over time. The dif-ferent soil types are classified, andthese differences impact onsitewastewater treatment.

Soil CharacteristicsA site evaluation is the first step

toward installing an appropriatewastewater disposal system. Siteevaluations determine soil character-istics at the building site and thesoil’s ability to treat and dispose ofwastewater. The Spring 2000 issueof Pipeline presents a completeoverview of the site evaluationprocess. The Small Flows QuarterlySummer 2002 issue has a discussionabout techniques used to determinesoil characteristics.

When a landowner applies tohave his site evaluated before his on-site wastewater treatment system isapproved, a representative from thelocal health department or permit-ting agency reviews the soil surveysthat the National Resource Conserva-tion Service (formerly known as theU.S. Soil Conservation Service) pro-vides. Table 1 lists the proceduresperformed by a soil evaluator.

A soil survey is the systematic ex-amination, description, classification,and mapping of soils in an area.These surveys consist of aerial photo-graphs of the mapped area that notetypes and distribution of soils. Thesurvey indicates the soil’s suitabilityfor subsurface absorption systems, aswell as other important engineeringproperties, such as how far it is tobedrock, whether seasonally highwater tables are probable, averagepercolation rates, and drainage po-tential.

A skilled soil evaluator will beable to estimate the hydraulic con-ductivity or permeability of the soil

horizons by noting thestructure and textureof the soil. From this,he or she will be ableto determine the lay-out and format of thedrainfield so that itprovides adequate dis-persion of the effluentinto the soil horizonsand provides the de-gree of treatment re-quired to preserve theenvironment. This isessentially a judgmentcall based on a thor-ough examination ofsoil properties and theevaluator’s past experi-ence.

A soil evaluationbegins with a simplesoil probe or handauger, to retrieve sam-ples of soil at differentdepths. To determine ifthere is enough unsat-urated soil below theproposed bottom ofthe absorption area,the evaluator will thendig a larger test pitwithin the perimeter ofthe proposed absorp-tion area.

Table 1

Describe soil horizonsList soil horizon features:3 Depth of horizon, thickness3 Moisture content3 Color3 Volumetric percentage of rock3 Size, shape, type of rock3 Texture of <2mm fraction of horizon3 Presence/absence of mottling3 Soil structure by grade3 Level of cementation3 Presence/absence of carbonates3 Soil penetration resistance3 Abundance, size,distribution of roots

Determine soil changes in soil profileacross proposed site

Interpret results by identifying limiting depths3 Check vertical separation distances3 Identify mottled layers, concretions3 Determine depth to saturation3 Measure depth to confining layer3 Identify highly permeable layers

Issue site reportDevelop system type, size location, and installation recommendations

Soil evaluation procedures

Help your soil be its best!

• Keep heavy equipment off the soil ab-sorption system area both before andafter construction. Soil compaction canresult in premature failure of the sys-tem.

• Avoid installing the septic tank and soilabsorption system when the soil is wet.Construction in wet soil can cause pud-dling, smearing, and increased soilcompaction. This can greatly reduce soilpermeability and the life of a system.

• Divert rainwater from building roofs andpaved areas away from the soil absorp-tion system. This surface water can in-crease the amount of water the soil hasto absorb and cause premature failure.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

21

Limiting LayerA factor known as the “limiting

layer” occurs in the subsoil. This lim-iting layer impedes or interferes withthe natural flow of water. It mightbe a seasonal water table (high inwinter and spring, then falling insummer and fall), a layer of solidrock, or a gravel bed. The depth be-tween the bottom of the dispersaltrench and this limiting layer is im-portant—the greater the depth ordistance between them the better itis for effective wastewater treatment.States or regions have various re-strictions on this depth. The localpermitting authority will have infor-mation on restrictions, if any exist.

Where there is a permanentlyhigh water table, it is sometimespossible to use subsurface drains tolower the water table and keep it far

enough below the trenches so thateffluent is treated adequately. Sea-sonal high water tables may requirethat loading rates be decreased dur-ing wet winter and early spring peri-ods. For septic systems, this meansmore land area is required for thelarger drainfields needed during wetperiods, when loading rates need tobe reduced. It may also mean thateffluent should be diverted to alter-nate drain lines, so that biologicalclogging of the soil can be avoided.

TextureMost of the soil’s solid framework

consists of mineral particles. Theseparticles in different size ranges andproportions determine the soil tex-ture. The larger soil particles, whichinclude stones, gravel, and coarsesands, are generally different kindsof rock fragments. Most smaller par-

ticles are composed of a single min-eral. Any soil is made up of particlesthat vary greatly in both size andcomposition.

Sand grains are the most familiarmineral particles. They are largeenough to be seen by the naked eyeand feel gritty when rubbed be-tween the fingers. Sand particles donot stick to one another; thereforesands do not feel sticky. Silt particlesare somewhat smaller—too small tosee without a microscope or to feelindividually, so silt feels smooth butnot sticky, even when wet. Thesmallest class of mineral particles arethe clays, which form a sticky masswhen wet and hard clods when dry.

Terms such as sandy loam, siltyclay, and clay loam are used to iden-tify the texture. See Table 2 for acomplete list of textures and howthey react when wet and dry.

Table 2

Soil Class Dry MoistSandy gravel

Textural properties of mineral soils – feeling and appearance

Loose stones and single grains that feel grit-ty. Squeezed in the hand, the soil mass fallsapart when the pressure is released.

Squeezed in the hand, it forms a cast thatcrumbles when touched. Does not form aribbon when rubbed between thumb andforefinger.

Silty sand Aggregates easily crushed; very faint velvetyfeeling initially, but with continued rubbing,the gritty feeling of sand soon dominates.

Forms a cast that bears careful handlingwithout breaking. Does not form a ribbonbetween the thumb and forefinger.

Sandy silt Aggregates are crushed under moderatepressure; clods can be quite firm. When pul-verized, soil has velvety feel continued rub-bing. Casts bear careful handling.

Casts can be handled quite freely withoutbreaking. Very slight tendency to ribbon be-tween the thumb and forefinger. Rubbedsurface is rough.

Clayey silt Aggregates are firm but may be crushedunder moderate pressure. Clods are firm tohard. Smooth, flour-like feel dominateswhen soil is pulverized.

Cast can be freely handled without breaking.Slight tendency to ribbon between thumband forefinger. Rubbed surface has a brokenor rippled appearance.

Silty clay Very firm aggregates and hard clods thatstrongly resist crushing by hand. When pul-verized, the soil takes on a somewhat grittyfeeling due to the harshness of the verysmall aggregates.

Cast can bear much handling without break-ing. Pinched between the thumb and forefin-ger, it forms a ribbon whose surface tendsto feel slightly gritty when dampened andrubbed. Soil is plastic, sticky, and puddleseasily.

Clay Aggregates are hard; clods are extremelyhard and strongly resist crushing by hand.When pulverized, it has a grit-like texturedue to the harshness of numerous verysmall aggregates which persist.

Casts can bear considerable handling with-out breaking. Forms a flexible ribbon be-tween thumb and forefinger and retains itsplasticity when elongated. Rubbed surfacehas a very smooth, satin feeling. Stickywhen wet and easily puddled.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

22

As effluent from a drainfield pass-es through a silty soil, particulates arefiltered out in a relatively short dis-tance. Most bacteria, viruses, or otherpotential disease-causing organismscannot pass through long distancesof dry soil; they remain within thefirst few feet. In saturated soils, or-ganisms may travel greater distances.Water moves very slowly throughsoils with high clay content, and con-sequently, clay soils require a largearea in order to treat the effluent.

When effluent enters gravel withlittle or no fine material (silt and clayparticles), it will pass through theempty spaces in the soil unfiltered soquickly that pathogens can travelhundreds of feet. Slower travel givesopportunity for good contact be-tween soil particles and effluent, thusproviding more effective purificationof the water.

Soil StructureSoil structure refers to how soil particles are

arranged relative to each other. Soil particlestend to group themselves into blocks or clus-ters called “peds.” If these peds have a charac-teristic shape, the soil is said to have structure.The space between these peds and how theyare aligned influence how water moves withinthe soil. Structure is considered more impor-tant than texture for determining water move-ment in soils.

Soil structure can be adversely altered ifcompressed or compacted by heavy equip-ment during construction. Homeowners needto protect the proposed drainfield site fromthis type of damage.

Soil ColorColor and color patterns may provide clues

that help estimate how well a soil will absorband transmit water. Much of soil color is dueto the presence of iron. When there is no air inthe soil, as in waterlogged soil, iron is lostfrom the soil and the soil becomes grayish.When the soil drains well, allowing air to enter,the iron oxidizes to brown, yellow, or red.Dark colors generally indicate higher organiccontent. Interpreting color helps to identifyconditions where soils drain well or where soilsremain saturated.

The soil in the pit should be examined inbright daylight and compared to the Munsell®color system, the universally accepted standardfor identifying soil color. While soil color is eas-ily seen and an excellent indicator of the soil’saeration status, temperature, mineral content,vegetation, and position in the soil profile canmodify color. Soil color must be used in con-junction with the other soil features to form acomplete analysis.

Typically, well-drained soils are red orbrown in color, and poorly drained soils are a

Soil properties used toassess soil suitability foronsite wastewatertreatment include thepresence or absence ofredoximorphic features(color patterns in soilformed by repeatedoxidation and reduction ofiron and manganese) thatindicate wetness in soils.These pictures show (top)well-drained sandy soilwith no limiting factors,(middle) red splotchesnear the shovel bladeindicating moderateseasonal wetness, and(bottom) redoximorphiccolor patterns indicating avery wet soil.

Photos courtesy of RobertRubin, Ph.D.

23

splotchy gray. A mottled appearance,where spots of color intermingle withthe gray, usually indicates seasonallysaturated soils.

DensityA soil’s bulk density relates to the

volume of mass of dry soil plus its airspaces. Soils with high bulk density areless porous and less permeable. For in-stance, clay soils have high bulk densi-ty. Their particles are tightly packedwith minimal air spaces between them.Clays that swell when they becomewet, seal off soil pores further, and canvirtually stop the flow of water.

Approximately half of the volumeof the soil consists of different-sizedpore spaces. When water enters thesoil, it displaces air. If you think of thenetwork of soil pores as the ventilationsystem connecting airspaces to the at-mosphere, it is easy to understand that

when the smaller pores fill withwater, the ventilation system be-comes clogged.

The Right Design for the SiteThe proper onsite wastewater sys-

tem must be able to handle the pro-jected wastewater volume and com-position, work within thedesign boundaries of thereceiving environment,the performance require-ments for the environ-ment, and the needs anddesires of the owner. Table3 presents a simple chartof site conditions andsome alternative dispersaltechnologies effectiveunder those conditions.

All of the above soilcharacteristics, togetherwith the percolation tests,

make up the site evaluation, and the siteevaluation identifies the critical designboundaries. Soil characteristics are at thebasis of this evaluation procedure.

Reprinted from Pipeline, Spring 2002,Vol. 13, No. 2., item #SFPLNL29.

Table 3

Selection of Dispersal Methods Under Various Site Constraints

Soil Depth to Depth to Permeability Bedrock Water Table

Very Rapid- Slow- Shallow Shallow and Deep Shallow DeepRapid Moderate Very Slow and Porous Non-Porous

Trenches u u u u

Beds u u u

Pressure/Low-Pressure Pipe System u u u u u u

Contour Trench u u u u u u u

Drip Irrigation u u u u u u u u

Spray Irrigation u u u u u u

Gravelless/Chamber System u u u

Mound System u u u u u u u u

At-Grade System u u u u u u u u

Evapotranspiration Trench u u u u u u u u

Evapotranspiration-Absorption Trench u u u u

Source: Table adapted and updated from EPA, 1980, table 2-1.

The Final Scoop

What is soil?The unconsolidated mineral or organic material

on the immediate surface of the earth

What determines the soil’s ability to treatwastewater?

Texture, structure, depth, color, and density

What determines these properties?They are a result of underlying materials, cli-

mate, native vegetation, topography, and the timeof weathering

Related Products For ordering information, see page 47.Site EvaluationsThe Spring 2000, Volume 11, Number 2 issueof Pipeline explains the importance of a siteevaluation prior to installing an onsite waste-water system, and how the testing deter-mines which type of onsite system is appro-priate for a particular site. The newsletterdiscusses planning for an onsite system, in-cluding the preliminary site evaluation; soilsurveys; field testing; landscape contour andsubsurface drainage; soil test, texture, struc-

ture, and other soil properties, as well aswater movement. Suggested site evalua-tion procedures and tips are offered. Item# SFPLM21, cost is $0.40.

Subsurface Soil Absorption System De-sign Work Session: New Development atStump CreekThis Rural Systems Engineering designmodule consists of three phases of a sub-surface soil absorption system design for

the Stump Creek subdivision. Phase 1 is a feasi-bility assessment for determining potentiallysuitable areas for subsurface soil absorption,site limitations, and the types of systems thatcan be used. Phase 2 includes a soil survey,outlining areas suitable for subsurface soil ab-sorption, selecting the best type of system foreach area, and making a rough analysis of hy-draulic capacity. Phase 3 is the description ofthe mound design that is being used in a clus-ter system. Item #WWBLDM16, cost is $6.85.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

24

roughts, explosive popula-tion growth in arid areas of

the country, and the continuingview that water is an infinite re-source are some of the reasons forwater shortages in many areasacross the nation. In response tothis problem, some wastewaterprofessionals are reusing treatedwastewater and have found it to bea reliable alternative water source.

In addition to conserving highlytreated, expensive drinking water,wastewater reuse reduces the re-lease of nutrient-rich wastewaterinto environmentally stressedstreams and rivers.

“Wastewater can be viewed as aresource, fresh water containingplant nutrients (nitrogen, phospho-rus, and potassium),” said JohnSheaffer, Ph.D., president, SheafferInternational, Ltd., Naperville, Illi-nois. “In the groundwater, thesenutrients are a pollutant, but on agrowing crop or turf, they are a re-source. When wastewater is reused,it is not available to pollute thegroundwater supply.”

What is wastewater reuse?The term wastewater reuse is

often used synonymously with theterms wastewater recycling andwastewater reclamation. Becausethe general public often does notunderstand the quality differencebetween treated and untreatedwastewater, many communitieshave shortened the term to waterreuse, which creates a more posi-tive image.

The U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) defines waste-

• Environmental reuse: creatingartificial wetlands, enhancingnatural wetlands, and sustainingstream flows.

• Industrial reuse: process ormakeup water and coolingtower water.

Guidelines and RegulationsIn 1992, the EPA developed a

comprehensive, technical docu-ment titled Guidelines for WaterReuse. Some of the informationcontained in this manual includesa summary of state reuse require-ments, guidelines for treating andreusing water, key issues in evalu-ating wastewater reuse opportuni-ties, and case studies illustratinglegal issues, such as water rights,that affect wastewater reuse.

EPA guidelines for three of themore common types of waste-water reuse are given in the tableon page 25.

State Guidelines VaryMany states have guidelines or

regulations for the design and op-eration of wastewater reuse facili-ties, but wide discretion in inter-preting EPA’s guidelines has result-ed in standards that differ signifi-cantly across the states. For in-stance, Texas prohibits using recy-cled water to irrigate food cropswhile New Mexico allows surfaceirrigation of food crops wherethere is no contact between theedible portion of the crop and thetreated wastewater. Some states,Pennsylvania for instance, are justbeginning to look at wastewaterreuse.

NESC STAFF WRITER

Caigan McKenzie

water reuse as, “using wastewater orreclaimed water from one applica-tion for another application. The de-liberate use of reclaimed water orwastewater must be in compliancewith applicable rules for a beneficialpurpose (landscape irrigation, agri-cultural irrigation, aesthetic uses,ground water recharge, industrialuses, and fire protection). A com-mon type of recycled water is waterthat has been reclaimed from mu-nicipal wastewater (sewage)” (EPA,1991).

Reasons for WastewaterReuse

The most common reasons forestablishing a wastewater reuse pro-gram is to identify new watersources for increased water demandand to find economical ways tomeet increasingly more stringentdischarge standards.

Types of ReuseWastewater reuse can be grouped

into the following categories:• Urban reuse: the irrigation of pub-

lic parks, school yards, highwaymedians, and oriental and resi-dential landscape, as well as forfire protection and toilet and uri-nal flushing in commercial and in-dustrial buildings.

• Agricultural reuse: irrigation ofnonfood crops, such as fodderand fiber, commercial nurseries,and pasture lands. High-quality re-claimed water is used to irrigatefood crops.

• Recreational impoundments.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

25

Recent droughts in the water-richstate of Pennsylvania have promptedwater agencies to investigate waste-water reuse. “We are starting to pre-pare an internal position paper onwastewater reuse for managementreview, said Roger Musselman, chiefof permit section, Pennsylvania De-partment of Environmental Protec-tion, Division of Wastewater Manage-ment, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.”Wehope to establish guidelines withinthe next two years.”

Pennsylvania’s experience inwastewater reuse is limited. “We’veused it to make artificial snow and tospray irrigate a couple of golf cours-es,” Musselman said. “In each in-stance, the state’s Department of En-vironmental Protection’s regional of-fice oversaw the project. Basically, weused a high-quality effluent for theseprojects, so the end result was a posi-tive one.

ultraviolet light, andozone.

Public EducationEducation is key

to overcoming publicfears about a reusesystem, particularlyfears that relate topublic health andwater quality. “Abroad, in-depth pub-lic relations programand a demonstrationproject are especiallyhelpful when thereuse project is thefirst of its kind in thestate,” said CurtisStultz, assistant super-intendent, Waste-water Treatment Plantfor the City of Wood-burn, Oregon.

The public can ei-ther be your ally oryour worst night-mare. “Our citizensbacked our project,but another Oregon

community wasn’t as fortunate,”Stultz said. “Their treatment plantwanted to create a plantation of hy-brid poplar trees where it could dis-charge some of its treated industrialwastewater. The plantation site wassmall, and the homeowner who livednext to the site had concerns aboutthe project. Misconceptions aboutthe treatment process, its effect onthe groundwater, and the use of ge-netically engineered trees led thehomeowner to file suit against thewastewater treatment plant. That in-cident was the impetus for setting upregulations in Oregon for howpoplar trees are planted.”

Cross-Connection ControlIt is crucial to be able to differenti-

ate between piping, valves, and out-lets that are used to distribute treatedeffluent (reclaimed water) and thosethat are used to distribute potablewater. One method used for this pur-pose is color-coding componentsused to distribute reclaimed waternot intended for drinking water. An-other method is to post areas such asparks, cemeteries, and yards withwarning signs stating the water is notfor consumption. Signage should re-flect all the major languages in theregion. Florida, for instance, usesboth Spanish and English.

Treatment

Secondary1

Filtration2

Disinfection3

SecondaryDisinfection

Site specificSecondary anddisinfection (min.)May also needfiltration and/oradvancedwastewatertreatment

SetbackDistances

50 ft (15 m) topotable watersupply wells

300 feet (90 m)to potable watersupply wells

100 ft (30 m) toareas accessibleto the public (ifspray irrigation)site specific

Reclaimed WaterMonitoring

pH – weeklyBOD – weeklyTurbidity – continuousColiform – dailyCl2 residual – continuous

pH – weeklyBOD – weeklyTSS – dailyColiform – dailyCl2 residual – continuous

pH – dailyTurbidity – continuousColiform – dailyCl2 residual – continuousDrinking water standards– quarterlyOther – depends onconstituent

Reclaimed WaterQuality

pH = 6–9<10 mg/L biochemicaloxygen demand (BOD)< 2 turbidity units (NTU)5

No detectable fecalcoliform/100 mL4

1 mg/L chlorine (Cl2)residual (min.)

pH = 6–9< 30 mg/L BOD< 30 mg/L totalsuspended solids (TSS)< 200 fecal coliform/100 mL5

1 mg/L Cl2 residual (min.)

Site specificMeet drinking waterstandards afterpercolation throughvadose zone.

Types of Reuse

Urban ReuseLandscape irrigation,vehicle washing, toiletflushing, fire protection,commercial airconditioners, and otheruses with similar accessor exposure to the water.

Agricultural ReuseFor Non-Food Crops Pasture for milkinganimals; fodder, fiber andseed crops.

Indirect Potable ReuseGroundwater recharge byspreading into potableaquifiers.

Reuse Table

1 Secondary treatment processes include activated sludge processes, trickling filters, rotatingbiological contactors, and many stabilization pond systems. Secondary treatment should produceeffluent in which both the BOD and TSS do no exceed 30 mg/L.

2 Filtration means passing the effluent through natural undisturbed soil or filter media such as sandand/or anthracite.

3 Disinfection means the destruction, inactivation or removal of pathogenic microorganisms. It maybe accomplished by chlorination, or other chemical disinfectants, UV radiation or other processes.

4 The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 14/100 mL in any sample.5 The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 800/100 mL in any sample.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guidelines for Water Reuse. (EPA)/625/R-92/004.

“Our major problem right now isthe lack of agreement among the re-gions about the required level oftreatment before reuse. Some re-gions closely follow EPA’s guidelinesand require tertiary treatment. Otherregions think wastewater with a fecalcoliform level of 200 colonies per100 mL is sufficient for irrigating agolf course. We really need to geteveryone on the same page.”

HealthIn any reuse system, protecting

public health is critical. Human expo-sure to disease-causing organisms orother contaminants in treated effluentcould cause serious public healthproblems. For this reason, wastewaterthat could come in contact with thepublic is treated at the tertiary level,which removes most of the originalpollutants. The most common disin-fectants used to remove or inactivatepathogenic organisms are chlorine,

26

“The City of St. Petersburg’s cross-connection control program is nation-ally recognized as being one of themost thorough programs in place, es-pecially for dual distribution systems,”Bruce Bates, manager of water recla-mation, St. Petersburg, Florida, said.“We routinely inspect homeowner andcommercial systems to ensure theyhaven’t inadvertently tied theirpotable water system into the re-claimed system, we require backflowprevention assemblies, and we havehose bibbs for the reclaimed line in anunderground service box.”

CostsSome considerations for costs in-

clude the type of reuse equipmentchosen, whether or not the reuse sys-tem was constructed at the same timeas the treatment plant or added on af-terward, the level to which the efflu-ent is treated, and the distance thetreated effluent must travel betweenthe treatment site and the dischargesite. Many communities have defrayedcosts through low-interest loans andfederal, state, and local grants.

In his abstract “Wastewater Reusefor Non-Potable Applications: An In-troduction,” presented at the 2000 In-ternational Symposium on EfficientWater Use in Urban Area, TakashiAsano, Ph.D., P.E., University of Cali-fornia, Davis, California, wrote the fol-lowing, “A common misconception inplanning for wastewater reclamationand reuse is that reclaimed wastewaterrepresents a low-cost new water sup-ply. This assumption is generally trueonly when wastewater reclamation fa-cilities are conveniently located nearlarge agricultural or industrial usersand when no additional treatment isrequired beyond the existing waterpollution control facilities from whichreclaimed water is delivered. The con-veyance and distributionsystems for reclaimed waterrepresent the principal costof most proposed waterreuse projects. Recent ex-perience in California indi-cates that approximatelyfour million U.S. dollars incapital cost are required foreach one million m3 peryear of reclaimed waterthat is made available forreuse. Assuming a facilitylife of 20 years and a ninepercent interest rate, the

amortized cost of this reclaimed water isabout $0.45/m3, excluding operationsand management costs.”

Systems Wastewater reuse systems range from

very sophisticated and complex engi-neering processes to simple, natural sys-tems. A professional engineer can exam-ine the various processes and compo-nents to design a system that best meetsyour needs. The National EnvironmentalServices Center (NESC) maintains a list ofmanufacturers and consultants in itsManufacturers and Consultants database.The Web site address is: www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc_manufacturers.htm.

Wastewater Reuse in St.Petersburg, Florida

In 2001, Florida reused 584 milliongallons per day of treated wastewater forbeneficial purposes.

“In Florida, it’s either feast orfamine,” Bates said. “Florida enjoys plen-tiful rainfall, but uneven distribution ofprecipitation has caused drought condi-tions, particularly in March, April, andMay. To preserve water supplies, Florida’sstate law mandates that potable waterbe limited for irrigation purposes.”

St. Petersburg, Florida, is home to theoldest municipal dual distribution systemin the United States, and one of thelargest in the world. The system suppliespotable water through one distributionnetwork and nonpotable water throughthe other.

The city’s four water reclamation treat-ment plants handle more than 40 milliongallons of wastewater each day. When thewater enters the plant, it is screenedthrough a bar screen structure to removelarge debris and then goes to a grit cham-ber to allow the sand and grit to settle.After settling, the water is biologicallytreated in special aeration basins to allowbillions of microorganisms to consume or-ganics in the wastewater. After biological

Some Wastewater Reuse Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:• This technology reduces the demands on

potable sources of freshwater.

• It may reduce the need for large waste-water treatment systems, if significantportions of the waste stream are reusedor recycled.

• The technology may diminish the volumeof wastewater discharged, resulting in abeneficial impact on the aquatic environ-ment.

• Capital costs are low to medium, formost systems, and are recoverable in avery short time; this excludes systemsdesigned for direct reuse of sewagewater.

• Operation and maintenance are relativelysimple except in direct reuse systems,where more extensive technology andquality control are required.

• Provision of nutrient-rich wastewaterscan increase agricultural production inwater-poor areas.

• Pollution of rivers and groundwaters maybe reduced.

• Lawn maintenance and golf course irriga-tion is facilitated in resort areas.

• In most cases, the quality of the waste-water, as an irrigation water supply, is su-perior to that of well water.

Disadvantages• If implemented on a large scale, revenues

to water supply and wastewater utilitiesmay fall as the demand for potable waterfor non-potable uses and the dischargeof wastewaters is reduced.

• Reuse of wastewater may be seasonal innature, resulting in the overloading oftreatment and disposal facilities duringthe rainy season; if the wet season is oflong duration and/or high intensity, theseasonal discharge of raw wastewatersmay occur.

• Health problems, such as water-bornediseases and skin irritations, may occurin people coming into direct contact withreused wastewater.

• Gases, such as sulfuric acid, producedduring the treatment process can resultin chronic health problems.

• In some cases, reuse of wastewater isnot economically feasible because of therequirement for an additional distributionsystem.

• Application of untreated wastewater as ir-rigation water or as injected rechargewater may result in groundwater contam-ination.

Source: Organization of American States. Water Reuse.Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment.www.oas.org/sp/prog/chap3_2.htm.

Photo courtesy of Susan Horvat

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

27

treatment, the water is filteredthrough deep bed, dual media filtersand then clarified. To complete theprocess, the water is disinfected withchlorine.

The treated effluent flowsthrough 260 miles of pipe to morethan 10,000 homes and businesses,including 9,340 residential lawns, 51schools, 86 parks, 6 golf courses,and 11 commercial cooling towers.Forty million gallons of treatedwastewater can be stored onsite;after that, the water is stored 900feet below the ground in deep wellinjection.

“The public loves the service,”Bates said. “Statistically, it takeswastewater from five homeownersto provide enough water for onelawn, so our biggest criticism hasbeen that we can’t serve everyone.Currently, we serve approximately10 percent of our population.”

One reason the public has re-sponded so favorably is that reusedwastewater is billed on a flat rate, noton consumption. “Using potablewater would cost between five to 10times more than reused wastewater,”Bates said. “When we first started theprogram back in the 1970s, no onewas sure how the program would bereceived, so it was marketed at a low,flat rate to win people over and wassubsidized through other revenues.But charging a flat rate was a bigmistake. People don’t conserve be-cause there is no economic incentive

were going to do it. It was a lot ofeffort, but it was well worth it.”

In 1999, the City of Woodburnwas ready to discharge treated efflu-ent through micro-spray sprinklersinto its newly developed poplar treeplantation. “This was the perfect so-lution for us,” Stultz said. “We havea lot of farmland around us, and thesoil was adequate for the applica-tion, so we didn’t have to do muchpreparation work.”

“The great thing about poplartrees is that they grow quickly anduse lots of water,”Stultz said. “Afour-year-old tree, for instance,would uptake 10.6 acreages ofwater. We generally produce about 2million gallons a day of wastewater,and we can irrigate the 88-acre plan-tation with 1 and 1/2 million gallonsa day during our critical dry monthsfrom June through September. Theremaining one-half million gallons aday is discharged to our receivingstream. Because the amount ofwastewater being discharged intothe stream has been greatly re-duced, the receiving stream is ableto dilute the concentrations of am-monia so that the levels are withinregulations.” The amount of waste-water taken into the treatment plantslows down during the Novemberrainy season when the receivingstream is naturally high, providing agreater dilution factor for loadings.

Wastewater is treated using a bi-ological nutrient removal aeration

associated with it. The $5 monthlyuser fee doesn’t come close to cover-ing our capital and operating costsfor this service.”

St. Petersburg is setting up sever-al pilot programs in which meterswill be used to determine consump-tion rates. “We’ll only be gatheringbase line data,” Bates said. “Movingfrom a flat rate to a consumptionrate is a political decision the mayorwould have to make, and it will re-quire serious discussion in order toconvince our customers.”

Woodburn, OregonWhen the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality revised thetotal maximum daily load for thePudding River, the City of Woodburnhad to decide between lowering theammonia level in its wastewater orfinding an alternative discharge site.After investigating a variety of op-tions, the City of Woodburn chose torefurbish its treatment plant to in-clude a wastewater reuse facility.

Gaining public acceptance was atthe top of the list. “Management puttogether a citizen’s committee, creat-ed an educational video about thefacility, conducted poplar plantationtours, organized school sciencepoplar projects, sent out flyers andmailers, and got newspaper cover-age,” Stultz said. “We hired a retiredpublic relations woman from thecommunity to assist us. We madesure that the community understoodwhat we wanted to do and how we

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

28

BWS Water Reclamation Facility—Simplified Flow DiagramFIGURE 1

basin, a clarifier, and sandfilters,bringing it to tertiary treatment.Treated effluent is disinfected in anultraviolet unit and then divertedinto a basin for chlorination. Whilethis level of treatment exceeds therequirements for a nonfood crop,management decided to use theprecautions since the treatmentplant had the equipment to do it.

After chlorination, the treated ef-fluent is pumped into a manifoldsystem that distributes it to thepoplar plantation through an under-ground piping system. Micro-spraysprinklers are used to irrigate theplantation, but there is an offset of35 feet from the property line whereirrigation does not occur. In addi-tion, the plantation is completelyfenced and surrounded by signswarning intruders that treated efflu-ent is being discharged.

The irrigation system can be shutdown in five-acre blocks, providingthe capability for spot irrigation. Thesystem is operated from a micro-computer and requires only minimaldaily input and supervision.

Should the plantation or a pumpfail, the treatment plant can dis-charge the effluent into a five-acrelagoon that it maintains for emer-gency storage.

“The sys-tem went in

pretty smooth.There are just

some minorchanges I’d make

when we expand,”Stultz said. “For in-

stance, some of our employ-ees have a farming background, andthere are certain steps that we triedto get the engineers to do beforeplanting the trees that would havebeen helpful. The field was plowed,leveled, and then grass and a four-inch cutting were planted into thebare ground. When we irrigated, wehad a weed control problem andhad to manually remove the grassfrom around the cuttings.

“What we recommended wasplanting grass seed on the site for ayear or two and spraying andharvesting it for grass seed. Thiswould condition the soil, and therewouldn’t be any weeds. Then youplant the trees in your stream linesand rows without disturbing the soil.This way, grass is already growing

and weedsaren’t a big

problem.”This natural system creates

an attractive habitat for wildlife,provides 30 to 50 percent more evap-otranspiration capacity than would adifferent crop of equal size, and pro-vides a new source of revenue. Treescan be harvested every seven to 12years, and revenue from the sale ofwoodchips can be used to offset aportion of the capital and operationand maintenance costs of the system.

The city plans to expand the facili-ty every five years to match popula-tion growth. By 2020, the site willcover 300 acres and will reuse fivemillion gallons of wastewater per day.

Oahu, HawaiiIn August 2000, the City of Hon-

olulu opened its first reuse facilityon Oahu and, at 13 million gallonsper day, it is the largest in theHawaiian Islands. The HonouliuliWater Recycling Facility (HWRF) wasbuilt to preserve limited potablewater and to satisfy a 1990s decreemandating the city reduce theamount of wastewater effluent itdischarges into the Pacific Ocean.

Originally, the city entered into apublic/private partnership with US-Filter™ Operating Services, nowknown as Veolia Water North Ameri-ca, one of North America’s largestwater companies. According to theagreement, Veolia Water would de-sign, build, own, and operate thefacility for 20 years and then turn itover to the city.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

29

One month before the facilityopened, however, the city decidedthat the Honolulu Board of WaterSupply (HBWS) would purchase theHWRF and contract Veolia Water tooperate it. “By buying the facility,we’re in control of the operationand we receive the profits by sortof taking out the middle man prof-its,” Clifford Jamile, manager andchief engineer of the Board ofWater Supply, said in a July 2000Board of Water news release. “Wefeel the effects are twofold. One,we will save millions of gallons ofdrinking water per day currentlyused for irrigation or industrial pur-poses. Two, the profits from thesale of reclaimed water adds anoth-er revenue to our base, and we canpass the savings on to the cus-tomer.”

The HWRF was built adjacent tothe Honouliuli Wastewater Treat-ment Plant so that it could “T” intothe plant’s effluent outfall. The facil-ity produces two grades of high-quality recycled water, R-1 water,which is used for landscape, agri-culture, and golf course irrigation,and Reverse Osmosis water (RO),which is used for industrial purpos-es, such as boiler feed water andultra pure process water.

“When one of the industrialcustomers uses the RO water, theisland saves 600,000 gallons a dayof drinking water. With all the in-dustrial users combined, we saveabout 2.5 million gallons a day ofdrinking water,” Ken Windram,project manager for Veolia Water,Oahu, Hawaii said.

Both types of recycled waterbegin with secondary treated efflu-ent from the Honouliuli WastewaterTreatment Plant. The R-1 and theRO processes are given in figure 1.

Windram said that switching toRO water turned into a savings forindustrial users. “When rain waterfilters through the lava structure inthe ground, it picks up between 60to 70 parts silica per million gallonsin the drinking water. The silicaturns into glass when it enters theboilers, costing the power plantsand refineries a substantial sum ofmoney to demineralize the water toremove it.”

The HWRF, on the other hand,reduced the silica from 60 to 70parts per million to about 1 part

per million gallons of water. “Indus-trial users had paid the city andcounty $1.98 per thousand gallonsfor drinking water,” Windram said.“In addition, they spent $5 to $12per thousand gallons to demineral-ize the water.

“We charge industrial usersabout $5 per thousand gallons forrecycled water, yet they save be-tween $2 and $7 per thousand gal-lons, depending on their daily flowrate, because ultra pure RO waterallows more demineralizer produc-tion gallons between backwashes,greatly reducing the amount of re-generation chemicals used.”

When the HWRF first opened, ir-rigation users such as golf coursespaid only 25 cents per thousandgallons of R-1 water. Over a three-year period, the rate was increasedto 65 cents. Providing water at suchlow prices enticed users to replacegroundwater with recycled waterfor nonpotable uses. The R-1 waterusers are pleased with the results.Chlorides were reduced from 800to 1,600 for groundwater to lessthan 300 chlorides for recycledwater, and chloride sensitive vege-tation is now plentiful on the golfcourses.

“Because of the dissolved nitro-gen and phosphorus compounds inthe R-1 water, the golf courses havereduced their purchases of commer-cial fertilizers, and the ‘play’ on thecourses has really improved,” Wind-ham said. “Also, when other Oahugolf courses have to reduce wateruse during the summer season, theHWRF watered golf courses contin-ue to irrigate with the droughtproof recycled water supply.”

The greatest obstacle to recycledwater was public acceptance. “It’ssimply a matter of explaining thetechnology that is involved here andthe standards required by the De-partment of Health before we candischarge the water,” Windram said.

Veolia Water and the HBWS de-veloped a public outreach programthat educated the public throughfacility tours, newsletters,brochures, and public presentationsat neighborhood board meetings,community meetings, church asso-ciations, and schools.

The Future of WastewaterReuse

Actions promoting wastewaterreuse are everywhere. New Jersey, forinstance, has formed a ten-membercommission to investigate waste-water reuse for non-potable urbanuses such as irrigation, dust control,and fire fighting.

New York submitted a Senate bill(AB 4081) that would require treat-ment facilities to submit a feasibilitystudy when wastewater dischargepermits are renewed. Through thesestudies, plants would increase thepossibility of developing water reusecapabilities.

Louisiana submitted a House bill(H.B. 55) that would establish a newreclaimed water program and pro-hibit using potable water for non-drinking water uses.

In addition to proposed legisla-tion, new wastewater reuse projectscontinue to develop across the coun-try. For example, the city of Odessa,Texas, the Texas Water DevelopmentBoard, and the Texas Natural Re-source Conservation Commissionhave proposed building the State’sfirst dual water supply system that willuse highly treated effluent to irrigatelawns in new residential neighbor-hoods. If approved, this will be thestate’s first residential reuse project.

Denver, Colorado, recently beganconstruction on a facility that willtreat and deliver up to 17,660 acre-feet per year of recycled water thatwill be used for outdoor irrigationand industry in Northeastern Denver.Capacity for the 174 million dollarrecycling plant is 45 million gallonsof wastewater per day. The treatedeffluent will exceed Colorado’s De-partment of Public Health’s standardsfor recycled water and will be billedat a rate lower than drinking water.

Wastewater reuse is a proventechnology that has been used formore than 40 years across the U.S. Itis a drought-proof, renewable supplyof water that will help communitieskeep water tables from dropping,water resources from shrinking, andwaterways from becoming polluted.

For more information contact-Musselman, Pennsylvania DEP, (717)787-8184; Stultz, City of Woodburn,Oregon, (503) 982-528l; Bates, St.Petersburg, Florida, (727) 892-5641;and Windram, Oahu, Hawaii, (808)681-5353.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

30

It has been called the john, the loo, the throne,the lavatory, the can, the potty, the water closet,even the porcelain palace, but did you know thereis a Museum of Toilets in New Delhi, India, thatpays homage to the bathroom fixture that has be-come a staple of the American home?

The Sulabh International Museum of Toilets, lo-cated in New Delhi, India, was created by Dr.Bindeshwar Pathak to chronicle the evolution andhistorical relevance of the toilet and to educate thepublic about the importance of proper wastewaterdisposal.

It is most likely the largest, and probably theonly, museum of its kind in the world, housing ap-proximately 300 displays and receiving 8,500 visi-tors per month, including online perusers.

The online site takes you through the museumand provides an exhibitor’s gallery where several re-lated books and a VHS tour through the museumcan be purchased. For those lucky enough to visitthe museum in person, the tour can last from 15minutes up to a few hours. The online museum canbe accessed at www.sulabhtoiletmuseum.org.

Pathak is the founder of Sulabh International So-cial Service Organization (SISSO), a nonprofit, vol-untary social organization involved in the field of

sanitation in India.“The toilet is a critical link between order

and disorder and between a good and bad en-vironment,” Pathak said. “It is part of the his-tory of human hygiene, which is a critical

chapter in the history of human civilization.”The SISSO has been involved in wastewater is-

sues since 1970. “Recently, I saw a trend that all or-ganizations were going to subject-specific museumsto preserve their achievements for posterity,” saidPathak.

“That’s when I started toying with the idea ofa toilet museum. In this backdrop, I was inspired

by a visit to Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum inLondon. My project started in 1993.”

One of Pathak’s chief goals in establishing themuseum is to educate students about historicaltrends in the development of toilets and to provideinformation to researchers about the design, materi-als, and technologies adopted in the past and thosein the contemporary world. He hopes this informa-tion will help sanitation experts learn from the pastand will help solve sanitation problems in the future

India MuseumPays Homageto the Toilet

NESC STAFF WRITER

Natalie Eddy

A replica of the “rumble throne” of the French monarch, Louis XII. All photos courtesy of Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

31

for toilet-related objects, facts, andphotographs pertaining to their na-tive countries.

“Responses from approximately60 of them were highly encourag-ing,” said Pathak. “Meanwhile, inthe course of my visits abroad. Imade efforts and took pains to lo-cate and procure objects befittingthe proposed museum.”

Pathak said the Internet was animportant resource for trackingdown some of the fixtures. “Materialavailable on Web sites proved useful.

Pathak also believes the museumwill help policy makers understandthe efforts made by predecessors inthe field and will serve as a technol-ogy storehouse for manufacturers oftoilet equipment and accessories,helping to improve their products inthe future.

Getting Started…Where does one begin, when

one wants to amass a treasure troveof toilets? Pathak began by writingletters to approximately 100 Delhi-based foreign missions, asking them

I also interacted with some impor-tant personalities in the fields of sani-tation and museology,” he added.

After successfully collectingenough material, the museum wasinaugurated in March 1994 in Delhi.

Pathak points to a pre-millenniumpoll in Time magazine as evidence ofthe importance of the toilet. The pollnamed the toilet as the most impor-tant invention of the last century,placing it before the atomic bomb,space vehicles, life-saving drugs, andmany other inventions.

Pathak added that the toilet ismankind’s top achievement, whichmade it possible for people to splitatoms, probe the psyche, splicegenes, clone sheep, and invent awide variety of materials, such asplastic, radar, silicon chips, television,satellite, and telephones, to name afew.

He also said further evidence ofthe toilet’s importance could be seenhistorically, citing the Bubonic Plagueof the Middle Ages, caused by poorsanitation. “The plague of the 14thcentury, known as the Black Death,wiped out about a fourth of Europe’spopulation in just four years—a tidalwave of death almost unimaginabletoday. Ignorant of its cause and para-noid of the air itself, medieval societyquickly descended into panic and

A decorative commode from Austria, typical of a typepopular during the last quarter of the 19th century.

A fancy toilet used in the 1930s.

The main hall of the Sulabh InternationalMuseum of Toilets, New Delhi, India.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

32

mayhem. And as recently as 1918-1919, the great global influenza and

malaria pandemic left at least 20million people dead,” Pathak

said.

Museum DisplaysThe museum’s earli-

est toilet display piecedates back to the2,500 B.C. IndusValley civilizationand came fromPakistan. Pathakexplained thatthis type of toi-let was in-stalled in indi-viduals’houses,which wereconnectedwith drainsthat carriedthe wasteto a maindrain lead-ing out ofthe city.

Themost re-cent toilet

innovationon display is the Incinolet, devel-oped in the U.S. in the 1990s. Inthis toilet, waste is burned and con-verted into a teaspoonful of ash. Theash is then deposited in a detach-

able plate at the bottom of the toiletand can later be used as fertilizer inthe garden. Because of the high costof the toilet, its use is mainly con-fined to submarines today, he ex-plained.

Pathak said they hope to acquirea computerized toilet, developed inJapan, “to make those lonely mo-ments enjoyable.”

The full collection includes a vari-ety of toilet-related facts, pictures,and objects. It also chronologicallynotes the developments of technolo-gy, social customs and etiquettes,sanitary conditions, and legislativeefforts for wastewater disposal.

It also houses an extensive displayof privies, toilet furniture, bidets, andwater closets in use from 1145 AD totoday.

A variety of chamber pots canalso be viewed. Pathak notes thatduring Victorian times, the chamberpot became “a veritable objectd’art.” The museum also housessome pictures of medieval, ornatelycarved and painted urinals and com-modes from Britain. One particularlynoteworthy exhibit is the picture of amedieval mobile commode in theshape of a treasure chest, which theEnglish used while camping for ahunt.

For more information about themuseum, contact Pathak at sulabhl@nde.vsnl.net.in or visit theWeb site referenced above.

20th century European toilet in the form ofa leather chair.

European portable toilet carried on hunting trips.

Purported two-story American toilet from the first quarter of the 20thcentury meant for factory workers (management used the top floor).

Model of porcelain toilet with lion headfrom Austria.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

33

India, with its overcrowded pop-ulation and overall lack of waste-water treatment facilities, historicallyhas had difficulties maintaining aclean environment, particularly inrural areas.

The following figures from the2001 Census of India illustrate thecountry’s escalating environmentalproblems. Out of the approximate192 million households in India,only 69 million, or 36 percent, havesome type of bathroom facility with-in the house.

Compounding the problem, thepopulation continues to grow. In thepast 10 years, the country’s censushas grown by 21 percent, increasingthe total population to well over 1billion people.

Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, founderof Sulabh International Social ServiceOrganization (SISSO), a nonprofit,voluntary organization involved inthe field of sanitation in India, hastried to change this.

Pathak began the Sulabh Interna-tional Museum of Toilets in 1993 asan effort to educate the publicabout the importance of properwastewater disposal. (See relatedstory on page 30) “Lack of toiletawareness in developing coun-tries is a great problem for peoplelike us working in the sanitationfield,” said Pathak.

In addition to a lack of properwastewater facilities, properwastewater disposal is also aproblem. Many of the country’swater sources are contaminatedby sewage runoff.

“Out of India’s 5005 townand cities, only 232 have beensewered. The Planning Commis-sion of India has estimated thetotal number of manually cleanedlatrines at 7.66 million, of which5.4 million are in urban areas,and 2.4 million are in ruralareas,” said Pathak.

Pathak’s organization hasbeen working to improve sanita-tion conditions in the countrysince 1970 when it set up eco-friendly flush compost Sulabh toi-let system for individual house-

holds and in 1974 India’s first payand use community toilet. Prior tothat, Pathak said civic authoritiesprovided free facilities, but becausethey were underfunded they re-mained dirty and unusable.

“I first introduced the pay-and-use system in Patna, the capital ofBihar state, where this was most un-likely to succeed. But it did,” saidPathak.

“Users pay a token sum of 1Rupee (two cents U.S.) to use thetoilet and bathing facilities. Women,children, and the physically chal-lenged people use these facilitiesfree.”

Pathak added that the pay-and-use system was once introduced in1876 by the British in Bengal, whichdid not succeed. “Now the Sulabhtoilet facilities are used on the pay-and-use basis by over 10 millionpeople, which is the population ofmany countries. And the toilets areclean and usable,” he added.

Although a 2001 breakdown ofurban vs. rural usage was not avail-able, Pathak said that in urban areas,the percentage of households hav-ing toilet facilities in 1991 was 64percent while only 9 percent of rural

India’s Wastewater Treatment Status

households had toilet facilities.Pathak added that in many caseswhen people have no restroom facili-ty, they “sit out in the open.”

The 1991 national census foundthat overall 24 percent of Indianhouseholds had toilet facilities. Thatfigure increased to 36 percent by2001. “It is evident that the sanita-tion problem has been tackled tosome extent in urban areas, but it isstill a grave problem in rural areas.”

For more information, contactPathak at sulabhl@nde.vsnl.net.inor visit the Museum of Toilets atwww.sulabhtoiletmuseum.org.

NESC STAFF WRITER

Natalie Eddy

Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak.Both photos courtesy ofDr. Bindeshwar Pathak.

One of the many mobile toilet vansoperated by Sulabh InternationalSocial Service Organization.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

34

Materials and Methods A questionnaire was mailed to

Nebraska communities in earlyOctober 2002. The names and ad-dresses of recipient communitieswere obtained from the NebraskaDirectory of Municipal Officialspublished by the League of Ne-braska Municipalities. The ques-tionnaire was mailed to each ofthe 530 communities listed in thedirectory except Omaha, Lincoln,and Grand Island. These threecities were excluded because oftheir disproportionate size relativeto all others.

The one-page questionnaire(see Figure 1) was formulated tobe simple, nontechnical, and easi-ly understood by the clerical staffin order to encourage participa-tion. It requested information,such as the user charge rates,number of customers, operationand maintenance costs, andbudgeting, etc. Participation wastotally voluntary without anymandates.

A total of 173 completed ques-tionnaires were returned to thedepartment, a response rate of32.6 percent. This response ratewas regarded as acceptable giventhe following:• According to the 2000 census

data, 142 of the recipient com-munities have a population ofless than 150. It is fair to assumethat most of these communitiesare on private septic tank sys-tems and have no sewer usercharge rates. Therefore, they did

Abstract:This paper presents an analy-

sis of the results of a survey ofmunicipal wastewater user chargerates conducted in communitiesacross Nebraska. As part of theNebraska Department of Environ-mental Quality Year 2002 NeedsSurvey, a questionnaire wasmailed to all communities in thestate. This questionnaire request-ed information on sewer chargerates, revenues, operation andmaintenance budgets, and ex-penditures for wastewater facili-ties and annual debt service relat-ed to each community’s waste-water works. The objective forgathering this information was togain knowledge about prevailinguser charge rates and performdata analyses to assist in evaluat-ing the financial capability ofcommunities for the purpose ofState Revolving Fund (SRF) loanqualification. Responses from 173communities were used in com-piling this report. It is hoped thatthis report will help local officialssee where their communitystands relative to other sewer util-ities across Nebraska.

Prior to 1985, federal and stategrant programs generously subsi-dized construction of many waste-water projects. The SRF loan pro-gram has since replaced the grantprograms. Communities that bor-row money through SRF programto finance construction or up-grade of their wastewater worksare required to have a user chargerates system that is sufficient tocover the loan payments. A well-devised user charge rates systemis fundamental to the proper ad-ministration and management ofa community’s wastewater collec-tion and treatment works.

User charge rates represent theamount of money a communitywill charge each customer per yearin order to pay for the operation,maintenance, and replacementand debt service of the wastewatercollection and treatment works.Generally, the charges are basedupon the amount of water (meas-ured by the water meter) used bythe homeowners and small com-mercial establishments. Industriesand large commercial users, ingeneral, also pay by water use, but,in addition, a surcharge may beapplied due to additional opera-tion and maintenance (O&M) coststo be incurred. In summary, themain objective of the user chargerates system is to provide themoney necessary to operate andmaintain the treatment works plusaccumulate a reserve to pay for re-placement and wastewater-relatedloan payments.

Municipal WastewaterUser Charge Rates In NebraskaCONTRIBUTING WRITER

Mahmood Arbab, Ph.D., P.E.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

arte

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

35

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

User Charge Rates QuestionnaireFIGURE 1

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

36

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

not care to respond to the ques-tionnaire, except for a few thatreturned the questionnaire witha note stating as such.

• In the author’s opinion, the re-sponding 173 communities pos-sibly represent anywhere from50 to 65 percent of all commu-nities in the state that have anestablished user charge ratessystem enacted through a seweruse ordinance. The rest are pre-sumed not to have such an ordi-nance, and their revenue is pos-sibly collected through either anannual advalorem tax or otherone-time fees imposed on resi-dents. This group may haveopted not to return the question-naire, since its main objectivewas focused on the community’suser charge rates.

An initial review of the re-turned questionnaires revealedthat there were 66 instances thatthe response to the question ask-ing flow information was leftblank on the questionnaire or thereported flow data was quite outof line with respect to town’s pres-ent population. One-third of thesedata were corrected with a followup phone conversation and therest, due to a lack of data, weresimply estimated based on a rea-sonable average flow rate of 100gallons per capita per day for thecorresponding communities.

Information from returnedquestionnaires was input into aMicrosoft Excel database. Addi-

studies the median householdrates were $95 per year in 1996and $72 per year in 1992.

User charge rates as a percent-age of median household incomefor the community (MHI) are pre-sented in Figure 3. About 77 per-cent of communities have a resi-dential user charge rate equal toor less than 0.5% of the communi-ty’s MHI. Only 8 of 173 communi-ties surveyed have a rate above0.95 percent of MHI. EPA considersthat 1.5% of MHI is the upperlimit for what a household can af-ford to pay for wastewater usercharge rate.

A community’s wastewater fa-cility annual total cost is the sumof its operation and maintenancebudget plus its debt service obliga-tions per year. Presently 33 percentof responding communities in thesurvey reported making loan pay-ments for their wastewater works.Figure 4 shows the variations inwastewater facility total costs forthe communities surveyed. Theaverage annual total cost (whichincludes the cost of treating resi-dential, commercial and industrialwastewater flows) is $135 perhousehold. This is somewhat morethan the average annual $126 perhousehold fee collected as usercharge rate. Evidently, surchargerevenues from commercial and in-dustrial sources make up the dif-ference for most communities.

Unit costs for collection andtreatment (total cost per 1,000 gal-lons) were also calculated for the

tionally, census bureau’s year2000 data on population and me-dian household income for listedcommunities were integrated intothe database. Excel tools and ca-pabilities were utilized to processthe data and compute the desiredcriteria for the analysis. Finally,Excel data analysis tools wereused to generate the statistics anddevelop charts depicting the find-ings and outcome of the survey.

ResultsFigure 2 shows the reported an-

nual residential user charge rates.Of all 173 responding communi-ties, about 65 percent have a rateequal or less than the average res-idential user charge rate of $126.The median rate is $105 per year.For a comparison, in previous

Annual User Charge as % of MHI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.00

-0.2

0

0.20

-0.3

5

0.35

-0.5

0

0.50

-0.6

5

0.65

-0.8

0

0.80

-0.9

5

0.95

-1.1

0

Mor

e

% of MHI

Fre

qu

en

cy

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Frequency

Cumulative %

Average = 0.39 Median = 0.34 Max = 1.23 Min = 0.11 Mode = 0.17

Annual User Charge as % MHIFIGURE 3

User Charge Rates

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

00-5

0

50-7

5

75-1

00

100-

125

125-

150

150-

175

175-

200

200-

225

225-

250

Mor

e

$ / year / houshold

Fre

qu

ency

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Frequency

Cumulative %

Average = $126 Median *= $105 Max = $475 Min = $33 Mode †= $60

* Mid range† Most frequent or repetitive

User Charge RatesFIGURE 2

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

arte

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

37

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

communities in the survey. Theseare presented in Figure 5. As can beseen, there is a considerable varia-tion in unit cost among communi-ties surveyed. In general, however,about 71 percent of communitieshave a cost of $2.00 or less per1,000 gallons of wastewater treat-ed. About 20 percent of communi-ties have a unit cost between $2.00and $4.00 and the remaining 9percent have a cost greater than$4.00 per 1,000 gallons.

Another criterion considered inthis analysis is the revenue to ex-pense ratio (Figure 6). The termexpense refers to the total costs,i.e., the sum of operation, mainte-nance costs plus debt service obli-gations on the wastewater works.A most favorable and preferreduser charge rate system shouldhave the level of user charge rev-enues set at slightly higher thancorresponding expenditures. TheU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) generally recom-mends a minimum level of 110percent. Also, an equitable usercharge rate system would have in-dividual user charges proportion-ately assessed to reflect the actualwater used by customers. Amongcommunities surveyed, just about35 percent have water meters andactually set the wastewater userfees based on quantity of wateruse by the customers. The rest (65percent) use flat rates. In a similarstudy in 1996, the percentage of

communities with user fees basedon water use was 30 percent. Thisindicates that, gradually, morecommunities are installing watermeters for residential households.

Just under half of communities(44.5 percent) have a revenue-ex-pense ratio of equal or less thanone. This indicates that these arenot collecting adequate user feesto finance their wastewater utilitycosts and, evidently, must makeup the deficiency with funds fromother sources or general taxes.

In the 1996 survey, 43 percentof respondents had a revenue-ex-pense ratio of less than one.

Seventeen or almost 10 percentof communities surveyed reportedcollecting at least double their

total wastewater costs. These com-munities may be planning amajor capital improvement fortheir facilities soon and have in-creased the rates to cover the up-coming expenditures accordingly.Or there may be special circum-stances, such as a rapid growth inthe community in terms of resi-dential developments and/or asudden increase in levied industri-al and commercials surcharges. Itis assumed that the surplus is ei-ther used towards debt prepay-ments or maintained in the re-serve funds for replacements.

Seven facilities or 4 percent re-ported collecting half or less oftheir actual costs through userfees. These communities have a se-vere shortage of revenues and aremost likely not being properly op-erated and maintained and cer-tainly have no reserved replace-ment funds.

From the reported data, it wasnot feasible to investigate the cost-effectiveness of different types ofwastewater treatment systemscommon in Nebraska. This wasdue to the lack of information re-garding the facilities original con-struction costs. However, using re-ported operation and mainte-nance costs, an analysis was per-formed to show the relationshipbetween such costs and type oftreatment system. Table 1 com-pares the reported O&M costs ofdifferent systems common in Ne-braska. It should be noted herethat the reported O&M costs in-clude all expenditures related to

Total Wastewater Costs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

50 75 100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

Mor

e

$ / year / household

Fre

qu

ency

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Frequency Cumulative %

Average = $135 Median = $109 Max = $479 Min = $15 Mode = $67

Total Wastewater CostsFIGURE 4

Average = $1.51 Median = $1.27 Max = $4.41 Min = $0.21 Mode = $0.37

Unit Wastewater Cost

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Mo

re

$ per 1000 Gallons

Fre

qu

en

cy

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Frequency

Cumulative %

Unit Wastewater CostFIGURE 5

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

38

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

the collection as well as treatmentsystems. It does not include anyloan payment.

The order of ranking in Table 1is ascending in terms of medianunit cost. Lagoon systems havehistorically had lower O&M coststhan mechanical plants. This canbe seen in Table 1 both in terms ofaverage and median O&M costs.Next to lagoons are trickling filterswith lowest O&M costs. Activatedsludge systems ranked third interms of median and fourth interms of average O&M costs. The30 activated sludge facilities in thesurvey include both conventionaland extended aeration systems,but exclude oxidation ditches,which have their own category.Ranking of other systems may notbe conclusive due to small numberof representatives in the survey.

Caution needs to be exercisedin interpreting the results present-ed in Table 1. This is because ofthe fact that soundness of unitcosts is totally dependent on thedegree of accuracy with which thecommunities in the survey report-ed the flow data.

To observe the impact of com-munity size on the unit cost ofwastewater treatment, Figures 7and 8 were constructed. These twographs represent variations in unitO&M costs for communities with apopulation of 800 or less com-pared to those with a populationgreater than 800. It appears thatthere is not much difference incost variations, and, in general,the unit costs are pretty close forboth groups. Both graphs similarlyshow that over 70 percent of com-munities have a unit cost of $1.5or less and that about 90 percenthave a unit cost of $2.00 or lessper 1,000 gallons treated.

Conclusions• About 45 percent of the commu-

nities surveyed appear not tohave sufficient revenues fromuser charges for adequate opera-tion, maintenance (O&M) andcontribution to a replacement ac-count for their wastewater collec-tion and treatment facilities. As aresult, the facilities may be eitheroperating with inadequate O&M

and replacement carewhen needed or fundsare borrowed from othersources to cover for thisdeficiency. Therefore, itis imperative andstrongly recommendthat all communities, inorder to have sufficientfunds, to regularly onan annual basis reviewtheir user charge rates

In summary, this indicates thatthe O&M cost to treat a unit ofwastewater is not impacted by thecommunity size. However, in termsof per capita cost (i.e., unit cost di-vided by the number of residents orhouseholds), smaller communitiesgenerally have higher per capitacosts due to fewer residents orhouseholds.

Average = 1.15 Median = 1.03 Max = 2.80 Min = 0.22 Mode = 1.00

Wastewater Revenue-Expense Ratios

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

Mor

e

Revenue/Expense

Fre

qu

ency

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Frequency Cumulative %

Wastewater Revenue-Expense RatiosFIGURE 6

Average = $1.17 Median = $0.99 Max = $3.93 Min = $0.23 Mode = $0.37

Population 800 or less

05

1015202530354045

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Mor

eO&M Costs, $ / 1000 Gallons

Fre

qu

ency

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Frequency

Cumulative %

Population 800 or lessFIGURE 7

Treatment System No. Average Median Max MinFacultative Lagoons 117 1.04 0.93 3.20 0.21Trickling Filters (TF) 4 1.06 1.06 1.42 0.67Activated Sludge (AS) 30 1.43 1.08 3.93 0.37TF/AS 3 1.34 1.48 1.58 0.94RBC's 4 1.97 1.67 3.46 1.08SBR 3 2.15 1.81 2.95 1.69Oxidation Ditches 7 1.82 1.98 2.56 1.17TF/RBC 2 2.56 2.56 3.47 1.65

Cost per 1000 Gallons, $

Operation & Maintenance Costs

Comparison of Secondary Treatment SystemsOperation & Maintenance Costs Comparison of Secondary Treatment SystemsTABLE 1

RBC = rotating biological contactor. SBR = sequencing batch reactor.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

arte

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

39

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

system and consider an adjust-ment of the fees when necessary.

• About 95 percent of communitiessurveyed have an annual resi-dential user charge rate of lessthan one percent of the commu-nity’s Median Household Income(MHI). This is less than 1.5 per-cent of MHI, which the EPA con-siders as the upper limit of whata household can afford to payfor the wastewater charges.

• About 71 percent of communi-ties surveyed have a cost of$2.00 or less per 1,000 gallonsof wastewater treatment. Therest have a cost of $2.00 ormore, including 9 percent hav-ing a cost equal or greater than

$4.00 per 1,000 gallons. Most ofthe communities with a highunit cost have annual loan pay-ments making up a sizable partof their costs. Those facilitieswith high unit cost not attrib-uted to debt service paymentsshould consider a thorough in-vestigation of their system to de-termine the cause and see if thiscost can be reduced. Items tolook for include infiltration andinflow (I/I) reduction, old equip-ments (pumps) upgrade or re-placement, etc.

• Communities using facultativelagoons for wastewater treat-ment had the lowest averageO&M cost. Those with trickling

filters treatment system werenext with the lowest O&M costscompared to the others withtreatment methods such as acti-vated sludge, rotating biologicalcontactors (RBC), sequencingbatch reactors (SBR) or oxida-tion ditch systems.

AcknowledgementsThe author is grateful to the

officials and managers of commu-nities who responded to the sur-vey and wishes to thank them fortheir time and efforts. Data fromall of the communities who re-sponded to the 2002 user chargerates survey are utilized in gener-ating this report.

Average = $1.30 Median = $1.19 Max = $3.47 Min = $0.21 Mode = ‡

‡ No duplicate number in the range

Population greater than 800

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Mor

e

O&M Costs, $ / 1000 Gallons

Fre

qu

ency

.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Frequency

Cumulative %

Population greater than 800FIGURE 8

Mahmood Arbab, Ph.D., P.E.,is an environmen-tal engineer withthe Nebraska De-partment of Envi-ronmental Quality.Since 1984, he hasbeen involved inthe EPA’s Construc-tion Grants andSRF programs, aswell as wastewater engineering works review activities.He can be reached at (402) 471-4236 or via email atMahmood.Arbab@ndeq.state.ne.us

For ordering information, see page 47.

Determining Wastewater User ServiceCharge Rates: A Step-by-Step Manualwith Software

This 30-page U.S. EPA publication helpsoperators of small- to medium-sizedwastewater utilities to determine chargerates for their residential, commercial,and industrial wastewater services. Acomputer model program and manual areincluded for calculating specific valuesof a wastewater system’s service charges.Once basic information has been en-tered, the computer program makes iteasy to see the effects of a change indifferent operating variables. The usermust have an IBM/PC or PS/2 compati-ble computer and Lotus 1-2-3, version2.01, 2.2 or higher. However, the pro-gram only requires that you have generalfamiliarity with Lotus 1-2-3 since in-structions in the manual and those that

appear on the computer screen will leadthe user through the program. Requestitem #FMSWFN16. The cost of this pack-age is $10.80.

Funding Decentralized Wastewater Sys-tems Using the Clean Water State Re-volving Fund

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund(CWSRF) is a low-interest or no-interestfunding source for installing, repairing,and upgrading decentralized wastewatersystems in small-town, rural, and subur-ban areas. This 6-page U.S. EPA factsheet discusses how the CWSRF operates,including eligible projects and who mayqualify. Success stories from Ohio, Maine,Pennsylvania, and Minnesota describehow these states have used the CWSRF.Other funding sources for decentralized

systems are summarized, including EPA319 Grants, USDA Rural Utilities Service,Housing and Urban Development Com-munity Development Block Grant, andnon-federal assistance. Request item#WWFSFN07. This fact sheet is free ofcharge.

Utility Manager’s Guide to Water andWastewater Budgeting

This 21-page U.S. EPA booklet presentsfinancial concepts to water or waste-water utility managers developing an an-nual budget. The booklet offers severalsources of possible revenue, expenses toconsider, suggestions about how to gainpublic support for the budget, and exam-ples to help develop revenue and ex-pense trends information. Request item#FMBLFN13. This booklet is free ofcharge.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

40

To the Editor:Reading the two recent “juried” articles on

the science of wastewater infiltration into soilthat appeared in SFQ (White and West, Spring2003 and Siegrist et al., Winter 2004) promptsme to offer some thoughts based on my 20years of experience designing, inspecting, andtesting over 1,000 soil absorption systems insouth-central Alaska. Being a non-academicfield engineer without a large research budget,my comments will be more qualitative and lessacronym-rich than the articles cited. I do, how-ever, applaud SFQ and the authors for under-taking to tackle these important issues.

I was a little disappointed that both articlesfocused exclusively on attempting to quantifythe rate of effluent percolation downwardsthrough the basal area of trench bottoms, whiletotally ignoring the sidewalls. The laboratory ex-periments and pilot-scale test cells were deliber-ately configured to restrict flow to that passingthrough the basal area only. While this configu-ration may be easier to simulate and model be-cause of the uniform nature of the strata andapplied heads, there is reason to believe thatdownward percolation through the cloggedbasal area of a trench represents only a smallfraction of the total flux into the native receiv-

ing soil. It has been my observation that themajority of the percolation out of a trench islaterally through the upper portion of the par-tially clogged sidewalls as well as the relativelyuncontaminated sidewalls above the ambientponded level. The ponded depth and lateraloutflow is directly related to the fluctuations inthe rate of incoming flow. This lateral flow wasdiscussed and qualitatively illustrated in a paperby Keys, Tyler and Converse presented at the8th National ASAE symposium in 1998.

Bed-type soil absorption systems, whichhave a large basal area sized on the assumptionof a specific absorption rate per unit area, oftentend to exhibit rapid biomat formation fol-lowed by ponding to several inches in depth.At some point, however, the rate of increase inponded depth diminishes as the bed switchesto a mode of primarily lateral outflow throughthe perimeter sidewalls; ironically these side-walls are not considered in the design calcula-tions at all. Hydraulic failure occurs some timelater, when the sidewalls finally becomeclogged with biomat to the point where inflowexceeds outflow. It is easy to visualize how themajority of sediments and suspended solids inwastewater have a propensity to accumulate onthe bottom of the absorption system, thereby

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

41

promoting rapid formation of nearly imperme-able biomat there. The Alaska experience withsoil absorption systems designed primarily forabsorption through the base has not beengood. There are exceptions, or course, but innumerous sad cases, hydraulic failure has oc-curred within 2 to 5 years.

To the extent that the above interpretationis valid, a logical approach would be to designabsorption systems featuring less basal areaand more sidewall area.

Where I live in south-central Alaska, we arefortunate to have many areas with relativelythick strata of permeable soils overlying a morerestrictive strata or water table. Common prac-tice where these soil conditions obtain is toconstruct deep trenches filled with 5 to 10 feetof aggregate below the distribution pipe. Inaddition to significantly better hydraulic per-formance, such deep trenches are quite costeffective to construct. It has been argued thatdeep trenches do not provide the same levelof biologic treatment as shallow systems dueto the absence of available oxygen in the re-ceiving soil. While this may be true, the neces-sity to insulate and/or deeply bury absorptionsystems to provide frost protection prettymuch means they are in a low-oxygen envi-ronment anyway. Even in the “lower 48,” oncea biomat has formed and ponding occurs, ananaerobic environment exists beneath theponded level. In consideration of the apparentadvantages of a deep-trench system, I don’tunderstand why it is not used more elsewhere.

The basic disagreement between Siegrist etal. and White and West seems to revolvearound the effect of gravel masking a portionof the basal infiltrative surface. Siegrist et al.make a convincing argument, supported bylaboratory and pilot-scale tests, that at leastsome basal area masking does occur, whichsupports their contention of the superiority ofopen chamber systems over stone filled sys-tems. However, if the primary direction of ab-sorption from a ponded system is in fact later-ally through the sidewalls, as is my contention,then differences in basal area absorption arerelatively moot. To allow a reduction in basalarea for open chamber systems based on thelack of masking of the basal surface would alsoresult in proportionately less sidewall area(where much of the real absorption takesplace).

Furthermore, the nature of the fabricationof open chamber units serves to inhibit lateralflux, due to the almost total masking of thesidewall surface by the synthetic body of the

unit. A stone-filled trench thus allows signifi-cantly higher lateral flux in real-life applica-tions. Due to the lack of sidewall embedmentand infilling by silt and sediments, aggregateimpinging against sidewalls probably causessignificantly less infiltrative surface maskingthan it does on the trench bottom.

In Alaska, where the presence of a shallowwater table or thin receiving stratum preventsthe construction of deep trenches, we have at-tempted to come up with design features toenhance the potential for downward percola-tion through the basal area. One approach isto place a 12-inch-thick stratum of coarse,clean sand between the aggregate and the na-tive soil. A manufactured sand that is readilyavailable in our area has a d10=0.35 mm,d60=1.3 mm, with less than 1 percent passingthe #200 sieve. This is the same sand that isused in intermittent sand filters.

Theoretically, coarse sand placed in this po-sition should accomplish several good things.(1) Due to the large grain size, it helps filterthe suspended solids in the wastewaterthrough a larger vertical distance, thereby re-ducing the concentration at one infiltrative sur-face and thus promoting bacterial degradationof the organic material. The underlyingsand/native soil interface thus receives cleanwater. (2) The coarse sand promotes the circu-lation of soil oxygen through and under thestrained wastewater. (3) Due to the sand’s highK value, it should reduce the adverse maskingeffects of embedded aggregate. The sand-na-tive soil interface is protected from embeddedaggregate. (4) The application of pressurizedwastewater to a silty soil surface causes someof the silt to be brought into suspension, whichcauses sorting and redeposition, with low Kvalue silts concentrated on the surface, therebyaccelerating the clogging process. The use ofclean sand as a buffer avoids this potentialproblem.

While we do not have conclusive proof ofthe efficacy of this approach, field observationslead me to believe it significantly slows the rateof biomat formation and ponding. As opposedto a laboratory environment, wherein roundmarbles are embedded in neat cylinders ofsand, there are so many variables that random-ly change without warning in the real septicenvironment, that it is difficult to conclusivelylink cause and effect.

Ted Moore, P.E.Anchorage, Alaska

CompostingToilets

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Spr

ing

2004

42

ecause water is not an unlimitedresource, everyone from govern-

ment agencies to individuals is lookingfor ways to conserve water and reducecosts associated with water treatmentto make it reusable. Alternative toilets,such as composting toilets, requireminimal to no water to carry the wasteaway and require no water as part ofthe waste treatment process.

Composting toilets eliminate theneed for flush toilets, thereby greatlyreducing water-use needs and thus re-ducing the hydraulic load to a septicsystem. Composting toilets also allowfor the recycling of valuableplant nutrients by producinga soil-like supplement. Com-posting toilets can be usedanywhere a flush toilet canbe used. A composting toiletis also well suited for season-al homes, recreation areas,remote areas where water isscarce, or areas with lowpercolation, high water ta-bles, shallow soil, or roughterrain.

The primary objective ofa composting toilet is to col-lect and destroy pathogens,reducing the risk of humaninfection and environmentalcontamination. A compost-ing toilet is a well-ventilatedcontainer that provides theoptimum environment forunsaturated conditionswhere aerobic bacteria breakdown the organic matterand transform it with natu-rally occurring bacteria andfungi into a soil-like materialcalled humus. These natural-ly occurring organisms thrive

What is a composting toilet?How does it work? Should I install one in my house?

Editor’s Note:This column is based on calls receivedover the National Environmental ServicesCenter (NESC) technical assistance hot-line. If you have further questions con-cerning drainfields, call (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 and ask tospeak with a technical assistant.

CompostingToilets

by aeration, without the need for wateror chemicals. Various process controlsmanage environmental factors such asair, heat, and moisture to optimize thecomposting process.

The composting unit must be con-structed to separate the solid from theliquid wastes and produce a stable,humus material with less than 200MPN per gram of fecal coliform. Themain components of a composting toi-let include: a composting reactor con-nected to a dry or micro flush toilet, ascreened air inlet and exhaust system,a means to drain/manage excess liquid,

A composting toiletFigure 1

NESC ENGINEERING SCIENTIST

Jennifer Hause

composting process, refer to the fol-lowing NESC products: “Compost-ing Toilet Systems,” item #WWF-SOM28 and “Alternative Toilets,”item #SFBLTO04.

Composting toilets require regu-lar operation and maintenance; thusa serious commitment on the ownerand/or user of the composting sys-tem is necessary. Once the liquid orleachate has been removed from thesystem, either by draining or evapo-ration, the aerobic organisms de-compose the solids. Bulking agentssuch as grass clippings, leaves, saw-dust, or finely chopped straw can beadded to provide spaces for aerationand an adequate carbon foodsource for microbial growth. Period-ic turning or mixing of the compost

is required, and for some units, thisis automated so that the owner oruser does not have to perform thistask. For other units, it will be the re-sponsibility of the owner or user.

The finished end product, thehumus, must be removed periodical-ly. Time frames for removal will varywith each unit. The humus should beinoffensive and safe to handle. Han-dling and disposal or reuse of thehumus should follow in accordancewith local and state regulations.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

43

Q U E S T I O N & A N S W E R

a mechanism to provide necessaryventilation to support the aerobic or-ganisms in the reactor, a heating sys-tem to warm the temperature withinthe reactor if necessary, and accessto remove the end product periodi-cally. In cold climates, compostingtoilets should be well insulated andheated to levels specified by themanufacturer or designer.

Several factors affect the rate ofcomposting and the overall perform-ance of a composting toilet. They in-clude: temperature, moisture, pH,carbon to nitrogen ration (C/N), aer-ation, microorganism population,time, and maintenance. These fac-tors are only mentioned in this arti-cle. For a more detailed look at thesefactors and how they impact the

Advantages of compostingtoilets include:• Reduced water consumption

• Reduced quantity and strength ofwastewater to be disposed of on-site

• Well suited for new construction atremote sites

• Low power consumption

• Elimination of need to transportwastes for treatment/disposal

• Nutrient-rich end product

• Potential reduction in size of septicsystem to handle other wastes

Disadvantages ofcomposting toilets include:• Maintenance requires commitment

from owner/user

• Improperly installed or maintainedsystems may produce odors or anunprocessed end product that mayhave possible health consequences

• Too much liquid (leachate) in thereactor can disrupt the compost-ing process if not drained or main-tained properly

• Removal of end product may beunpleasant if unit is not function-ing properly

• Does not eliminate the need for aseptic system in many cases totreat other wastes

• Some units require a power sourcefor heat and/or ventilation

• Aesthetics may be a concern sincethe excrement in some units maybe in sight of the user

Ranking the advantages and dis-advantages of composting toilets de-pends on the individual owner. Thiswill determine if a composting toiletis an acceptable option.

The Human Nutrient Cycle Intact and Broken

The Human Nutrient Cycleis an endless natural cycle.In order to keep the cycleintact, food for humansmust be grown on soil thatis enriched by thecontinuous addition oforganic materials recycledby humans, such ashumanure, food scraps,and agricultural residues.By respecting this cycle ofnature, humans canmaintain the fertility oftheir agricultural soilsindefinitely, instead ofdepleting them ofnutrients, as is commontoday.

Food-producing soilsmust be left morefertile after eachharvest due to the ever-increasing humanpopulation and the needto produce more foodwith each passing year.

Source: The Humanure Handbook.

Jenkins Publishing, PO Box 607, Grove City,

PA 16127. To order, phone: (800) 639-4099.

Contact us for more information.

(800) 624-8301 | info@mail.nesc.wvu.edu | www.nesc.wvu.edu

Assistance.Solutions.Knowledge.The National Environmental Services CenterP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

All you have to do is ask.

The National Environmental Services Center (NESC) exists to assist small and rural communities with their drinking water, wastewater, environmentaltraining, solid waste, infrastructure security, and utility management needs and to help them find solutions to problems they face.Our staff of environmental specialists, engineers, certified operators, technical writers, editors,and trainers understand the latest technologies, regulations, and industry developments. Overthe last 25 years, we’ve helped thousands of communities find solutions to their environmentalproblems. We’ve also helped thousands of individuals learn more about environmental issues.

At NESC, we believe that you can’t do the job correctly without the right tools and that knowledge is the most important tool of all.

We’re waiting to put NESC’s assistance, solutions, and knowledge to work for you.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

44

45

Biological Nutrient Removal Project:Demonstrating Practical Tools ForWatershed Management Through theNational Estuary ProgramEPA Office of Water

Long Island Sound encompasses 1300square miles, with a drainage basin of 16,000square miles. The Sound’s circulation patternsand bottom topography together create acomplex system, obscuring the impact of dis-charges. Excessive levels of nitrogen frompoint and nonpoint sources have contributedto a decrease in the amount of available oxy-gen in the Sound. Ofthe 90,800 tons of ni-trogen entering theSound per year, 32,400tons come from pointsources, such as munici-pal sewage treatmentplants. Upgrading theexisting 45 treatmentplants for nitrogen re-moval via conventionalmeans carried a pricetag of up to $8 billion.Therefore, it becamenecessary to search fornew, cost-effectivetechniques for remov-ing nitrogen from thewaste stream.

Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) technol-ogy was tested at two sewage treatmentplants that discharge directly into the Sound.Variations of the BNR system were tested foroptimum nitrogen removal. The BNR process-es were instituted without additional staff, ex-tensive training, or costly modifications. Re-sults from the testing have led to the planningof wide-scale BNR implementation throughoutthe Sound.

Use of the Clean Water StateRevolving Fund to ImplementSecurity Measures at Publicly OwnedWastewater Treatment WorksEPA Office of Water, Clean Water State RevolvingFund Branch

Every American needs to be confident thatthe discharge from their community waste-water treatment plant is safe. Adequate protec-tion of publicly owned treatment works(POTW) conveyance and treatment systemshas been an important goal of the EPA waste-

water program. POTWs havealways worked toidentify vulnerabilitiesand protect facilitiesfrom vandalism. Thisfact sheet discussesthe types of projectsto assist POTWs withthe protection of theirfacilities and that maybe eligible for fundingthrough the CleanWater State RevolvingFund (CWSRF).

General questionsabout the CWSRF pro-gram and securitymeasures that can befunded through theCWSRF are answered.

Other state and federal assistance programsexist to also aid POTWs with security measuresand other projects to protect public health andwater quality. To make the process of applyingfor funding easier many states have come upwith streamlined processes. Programs in Wash-ington, Arizona, and Montana are highlightedin this fact sheet as well.

This 12-page fact sheet is free. Requestitem #WWFSFN39.

Please note that shipping charges apply to all orders, even if the product itself is free.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

46

This fact sheet could be of interest to oper-ators, state regulatory agencies, planners, man-agers, local officials, and public health officialsthat are faced with excessive levels of nitrogenreaching water resources.

This 4-page fact sheet is free. Request item#WWFSMG26.

Buttermilk Bay Coliform ControlProject: Demonstrating Practical Toolsfor Watershed Management Throughthe National Estuary ProgramEPA Office of Water

Buttermilk Bay, located at the north end ofBuzzards Bay, is a tidal embayment where

many residents and visi-tors enjoy shellfishing,sun bathing, boating,and recreational fishing.Recurring high fecal col-iform levels have result-ed in periodic closure ofButtermilk Bay and itsbeaches to shellfishingand recreational activi-ties.

The Buttermilk BayDemonstration Projectwas designed to controlthe discharge of fecal co-liform into the bay. Pro-ject objectives includedidentifying sources of

fecal coliform, employing Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) to control runoff, and imple-menting local regulations to control coliforminput. The project included the implementa-tion of storm water controls, beach clean-upefforts, correction of failing septic systems,and public education and outreach initiatives.Results of the project are detailed along withseveral lessons learned during the implemen-tation phases of the project. This fact sheetwould be of interest to public health officials,local officials, the general public, and anyoneelse involved with the protection of the envi-ronment and public health of a community.

This 4-page fact is free. Request item#WWFSMG27.

Soft Path Integrated Water ResourceManagement: Training, Researchand Development NeedsValerie I. Nelson, Ph.D.

Water resource management in the U.S. hasbeen dominated in recent decades by “hardpath” centralized infrastructure solutions thathas led to unintentional consequences and en-vironmental damage such as depleted aquifers

dried-up streambeds, and salt-water intrusionin coastal zones. In recent years, progress hasbeen made in the development of decentral-ized or distributed approaches, or “soft path”approaches to water resource protection. Softpath approaches rely on managing and pro-tecting water resources near the point of use.These approaches hold much promise toachieve water resource protection at lowercosts. In many areas a blended approach, useof centralized and decentralized systems, canbe more cost-effective and viable than a one-sided approach.

In February 2002, a workshop was held todiscuss this idea of an integrated water re-source management approach. This reportstems from the workshop and focuses on im-plications for training, research, and develop-ment needs and priorities to advance the prac-tice and use of integrated water resource man-agement and soft path approaches.

This 29-page report is free. Request item#WWBKMG25.

Technical Overview: AlternatingDrainfields Edward Winant; National Environmental ServicesCenter

The septic tank soil absorption system (ST-SAS) is the most conventional onsite system in-stalled because it works well in varied situa-tions and is normally the least expensive. Overtime and with constantuse, waste byproducts canform an impermeablelayer within the soil ab-sorption system, thus notallowing water to contin-ue moving down throughthe soils. This may causebackup of sewage intothe home or to the sur-face above the absorptionarea. This 8-page techno-logical overview describesthe design and siting re-quirements for an alter-nating drainfield systemto avoid the problem ofbackup. Having two soilabsorption systems avail-able for dispersal of the water, flow is alternat-ed between systems. One system operateswhile the other rests. To further describe theuse of alternating drainfields, this technicaloverview includes a case study conducted atPenn State University as well as detailed opera-tion and maintenance practices.

The price of this booklet is $1.25. RequestItem #SFBLTO01.

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

47

Case StudiesWWBLCS04 Crystal Lakes Wastewater Management System:

Private Wastewater Management System for a Large Subdivision (Crystal Lakes, Colorado) ..........$2.80

WWBLCS13 Minimum Grade Effluent Sewers (Dexter, Oregon) $2.00

WWBLCS14 Free Access Intermittent Sand Filter (New York)......$3.40

WWBLCS18 Septic Tank Effluent Collection and Sand Filter Treatment(New York) ............................................................$3.00

WWBLCS21 Pollution Prevention at POTWs ..............................$0.00

WWBKCS22 Combined Sewer Overflows and the Multimetric Evaluation of Their Biological Effects: Case Studies in Ohio and New York............................................$0.00

GNBKCS23 Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned ........................$0.00

WWCDCS24 Application of a Risk-Based Approach to Community Wastewater Management: Tisbury, Massachusetts $0.00

Computer SearchesYou can search our Bibliographic or Manufacturers and Consultants Databasesonline by logging onto www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_databases.htm. If you donot have Internet access, please call the NESC at the phone numbers below.

WWPCCM12 Bibliographic Database Search................................Varies

WWPCCM15 Facilities Database Search (database not available online) ................................Varies

WWPCCM16 Manufacturers and Consultants Database Search....Varies

Computer SoftwareWWSWDM39 AIRVAC Version 3.2 and User’s Guide ....................$7.60

WWSWDM55 STATION Version 3.1 and User’s Guide ..................$7.10

WWSWDM77 Gravity Sewer Design, Version 3.2 and User’s Guide ....................................................................$6.70

WWSWDM79 Variable Grade Effluent Sewers Version 2.2M and User’s Guide ........................................................$10.15

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 ....................................................$5.10

WWBLDM03 Onsite Wastewater Disposal: Distribution Networks for Subsurface Soil Absorption Systems ................$13.80

WWBLDM04 Onsite Wastewater Disposal: Evapotranspiration and Evapotranspiration/Absorption Systems..................$4.80

WWBLDM08 Management Plans and Implementation Issues: Small Alternative Wastewater Systems Workshops ..........$6.30

WWBKDM09 Wisconsin Mound Soil Absorption System Siting, Design, and Construction Manual and Pressure Distribution Networks ..........................................$15.90

WWBLDM12 Site Evaluation for Onsite Treatment and Disposal Systems................................................................$11.70

WWBLDM13 Design Module for Small-Diameter, Variable-Grade, Gravity Sewers ....................................................$13.80

WWBLDM14 Subsurface Soil Absorption of Wastewater: Trenches and Beds ................................................................$7.50

WWBLDM16 Subsurface Soil Absorption System Design Work Session:New Development—Stump Creek Subdivision ......$6.85

WWBLDM18 Onsite Wastewater Treatment: Septic Tanks............$4.50

WWBKDM31 Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small Communities ..............................................$47.10

WWBKDM34 Land Application of Municipal Sludge ....................$0.00

WWBKDM35 Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems..............................................................$123.00

Item Number Breakdown

First two characters of item number: (Major Product Category)WW WastewaterFM Finance and MangementGN General InformationSF Small FlowsDP Demonstration Program

Second two characters of item number:(Document Type)BK Book, greater than 50 pagesBL Booklet, less than 50 pagesBR BrochureCD Computer Disk/ROMFS Fact SheetPC Customized SearchPL PipelinePK PacketPS PosterQU QuarterlySW SoftwareVT Video Tape

Third two characters of item number: (Content Type)CM Computer searchCS Case StudyDM DesignFN FinanceGN General InformationIN IndexMG ManagementNL NewsletterOM 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

Products in green are new

* Indicates changes in title, item number,and/or price

First copy provided at no cost.

To place an order…To place an order, call the National Environmental Ser-vices Center (NESC) at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, or use the order form on page 49 and fax yourrequest to (304) 293-3161. You also may send e-mailto info@mail.nesc.wvu.edu. Be prepared to give theitem number and title of the product you wish toorder. Shipping charges apply to all orders.

The NESC’s Products Catalog provides abstracts ofmany products. The guide may be downloaded viathe NESC’s Web site at www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc_productscatalog.htm.

Products List

Prod

ucts

Lis

tS

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

48

EPA Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet. . .WWFSGN168 Recessed-Plate Filter Press ..........................$1.40

WWFSGN169 Land Application of Biosolids ......................$1.80

WWFSGN200 In-Vessel Composting of Biosolids ..............$1.80

WWFSGN201 Centrifuge Thickening and Dewatering ......$1.60

WWFSGN202 Alkaline Stabilization of Biosolids ................$1.80

WWFSGN203 Belt Filter Press............................................$1.40

EPA Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet . . .WWFSGN170 Aerobic Treatment ......................................$1.60

WWFSGN171 Septic Tank Leaching Chamber ..................$1.40

WWFSGN172 Small Diameter Gravity Sewers ..................$1.40

WWFSGN173 Mound Systems..........................................$1.40

WWFSGN174 Septage Treatment/Disposal ......................$1.40

WWFSGN175 Septic Tank Systems for Large Flow Applications................................................$2.00

WWFSGN176 Recirculating Sand Filters ............................$1.60

WWFSGN177 Types of Filters............................................$0.80

WWFSGN178 Septic Tank/Soil Absorption Systems ..........$1.60

WWFSGN204 Evapotranspiration......................................$1.20

WWFSGN209 Low Pressure Pipe Systems..........................$1.40

Environmental Technology Initiative–A General Overview:WWFSGN98 Ultraviolet Disinfection................................$0.20

WWFSGN99 Chlorine Disinfection ..................................$0.20

WWFSGN100 Ozone Disinfection ....................................$0.20

WWFSGN101 Fine Bubble Aeration ..................................$0.20

WWFSGN102 Trickling Filters—Achieving Nitrification ......$0.20

WWFSGN103 Recirculating Sand Filters ............................$0.20

WWFSGN104 Intermittent Sand Filters ............................$0.20

WWFSGN105 Mound Systems..........................................$0.20

WWFSGN106 Composting Toilet Systems ........................$0.20

WWFSGN107 Low-Pressure Pipe Systems ........................$0.20

WWFSGN109 Septage Management ................................$0.20

WWFSGN110 Evapotranspiration Systems ........................$0.20

WWFSGN111 Water Efficiency ..........................................$0.20

WWPKGN112 Complete Package of ETI Fact Sheets..........$2.60

Environmental Technology Initiative–A Technical Overview:WWFSOM20 Ultraviolet Disinfection................................$0.40

WWFSOM21 Chlorine Disinfection ..................................$0.40

WWFSOM22 Ozone Disinfection ....................................$0.40

WWFSOM23 Fine Bubble Aeration ..................................$0.40

WWFSOM24 Trickling Filters—Achieving Nitrification ......$0.40

WWFSOM25 Recirculating Sand Filters ............................$0.40

WWFSOM26 Intermittent Sand Filters ............................$0.40

WWFSOM27 Mound Systems..........................................$0.40

WWFSOM28 Composting Toilet Systems ........................$0.40

WWFSOM29 Low Pressure Pipe Systems..........................$0.40

WWFSOM31 Septage Management ................................$0.40

WWFSOM32 Evapotranspiration Systems ........................$0.40

WWFSOM33 Water Efficiency ..........................................$0.40

WWPKOM34 Complete Package of ETI Fact Sheets..........$5.20

EPA NPDES Regulations Governing Management of:WWFSGN119 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ..$0.40

WWFSGN120 Concentrated Dairy Cattle Feeding Operations..................................................$0.40

WWFSGN121 Concentrated Horse Feeding Operations ....$0.40

WWFSGN122 Concentrated Poultry Feeding Operations ..$0.40

WWFSGN123 Concentrated Sheep Feeding Operations....$0.40

WWFSGN124 Concentrated Slaughter and Feeder Cattle Feeding Operations ....................................$0.40

WWFSGN125 Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations....$0.40

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems . . .WWFSGN131 Conventional Septic Tank/Drain Field ........$1.00

WWFSGN151 (Spanish Version)..................$1.00

WWFSGN132 Subsurface Drip Distribution........................$1.00WWFSGN153 (Spanish Version)..................$1.00

WWBKDM38 Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment....................$26.10

WWBKDM42 Dewatering Municipal Wastewater Sludges ............$0.00

WWBKDM46 Retrofitting POTWs ................................................$0.00

WWBKDM47 Fine Pore Aeration Systems ....................................$0.00

WWBKDM53 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems ..........$64.50

WWBLDM65 General Design, Construction and Operation Guidelines:Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Users Including Individual Residences,Second Edition ....................................................$14.10

WWBKDM67 Sewer System Infrastructure Analysis and Rehabilitation ......................................................$29.10

WWBKDM68 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control ........................................................$0.00

WWBKDM70 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems for Small Communities ..............................................$34.80

WWBKDM72 Guidelines for Water Reuse ....................................$0.00

WWBKDM75 Combined Sewer Overflow Control........................$0.00

WWBLDM76 Mound Systems: Pressure Distribution of Wastewater Design and Construction in Ohio ..........................$4.40

WWBKDM78 Nitrogen Control..................................................$96.30

WWBKDM82 Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage................................................................$92.10

WWBLDM87 Recirculating Sand/Gravel Filters for On-Site Treatment of Domestic Wastes ..............................$6.90

WWBLDM88 Single Pass Sand Filters for On-site Treatment ofDomestic Wastes ....................................................$6.00

WWPKDM89 Producing Watertight Concrete Septic Tanks (video); and Septic Tank Manufacturing Best Practices Manual (booklet) ................................................$62.60

WWBLDM90 Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Using Sand FilterTreatment Systems: Guidelines and Specifications$11.70

WWPKDM97 Effluent Pumps for Onsite Wastewater Treatment: Selecting the Right Pump for the Job ..................$45.00

WWBKDM98 Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters ..........................................................$0.00

WWBKDM99 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (Book on CD-ROM)..................................................$0.00

WWBLDM101 Low-Pressure Pipe Sewage System Installationand Design ............................................................$4.00

WWVTDM100 Low Pressure Pipe Sewage Disposal System..........$13.00

Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: A Guide to CreatingWetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Region . . .

WWBKDM83 Volume 1: General Considerations ............$16.50

WWBLDM84 Volume 2: Domestic Wastewater Operations $9.00

WWBLDM85 Volume 3: Agricultural Wastewater ............$9.60

WWBLDM86 Volume 5: Stormwater..............................$11.40

Constructed Wetlands in East Texas Design, Permitting,Construction & Operations . . .

WWBLDM93 Volume 1: Single-Family Systems—Flows up to 500 GPD ..........................................$9.80

WWBLDM94 Volume 2: On-Site Collection Systems—Flows from 500 to 5,000 GPD..............................$9.80

WWBLDM95 Volume 3: Municipal Systems—Flows from 5,000 to 50,000GPD ..................................$9.80

WWBLDM96 Volume 4: Plant Identification Guide ........$11.40

Fact SheetsWWFSGN84 Constructed Wetlands/Natural Wetlands (EPA)........$0.40

WWPKGN86 Nonpoint Pointers: Understanding and Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution in Your Community (EPA)$0.00

WWFSGN118 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and Their Effect on Water Pollution (EPA) ..............$0.40

WWFSGN145 Landscaping Septic Systems ..................................$0.75

WWFSGN157 Wastewater Treatment Programs Serving Small Communities (EPA) ................................................$0.70

WWFSGN167 Biosolids and Residuals Management Fact Sheet: Odor Control in Biosolids Management (EPA) ........$3.20

WWFSGN205 Why Do Septic Systems Malfunction? ....................$0.40

INFO@MAIL.NESC.WVU.EDU

Products ListS

ma

ll Flo

ws Q

ua

r terly

, Sum

mer 2004, V

olume 5, N

umber 3

49

WWFSGN133 Low-Pressure Dosing ..................................$1.00WWFSGN154 (Spanish Version)..................$1.00

WWFSGN134 Spray Distribution ......................................$1.00WWFSGN152 (Spanish Version)..................$1.00

WWFSGN146 Sand Filter ..................................................$1.00

WWFSGN147 Septic Tank/Soil Absorption Field ................$1.00

WWFSGN148 Constructed Wetlands ................................$1.00

WWFSGN149 Spray Distribution System ..........................$1.00

WWFSGN150 Evapotranspiration Bed ..............................$1.00

WWFSGN160 Aerobic Treatment Unit ..............................$1.00

WWFSGN163 Leaching Chambers ....................................$1.00WWFSGN164 (Spanish Version)..................$1.00

WWFSGN165 Gravelless Pipe............................................$1.00WWFSGN166 (Spanish Version)..................$1.00

WWFSGN206 Tablet Chlorination ....................................$1.00

WWFSGN207 (Spanish Version)..................$1.00

WWFSGN208 Trickling Filter ............................................$1.00

EPA Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet . . .WWFSGN179 Sequencing Batch Reactors ........................$1.80

WWFSGN180 Ozone Disinfection ....................................$1.40

WWFSGN181 Wetlands: Subsurface Flow ........................$1.80

WWFSGN182 Free Water Surface Wetlands ......................$1.80

WWFSGN183 Intermittent Sand Filters ............................$1.40

WWFSGN184 Pipe Construction and Materials ................$1.00

WWFSGN185 Sewers, Force Main ....................................$1.80

WWFSGN186 In-Plant Pump Stations ..............................$1.80

WWFSGN187 Fine Bubble Aeration ..................................$1.40

WWFSGN188 Dechlorination............................................$1.40

WWFSGN189 Chlorine Disinfection ..................................$1.40

WWFSGN190 High-Efficiency Toilets ................................$1.00

WWFSGN191 Chemical Precipitation................................$1.60

WWFSGN192 Trickling Filter Nitrification ..........................$1.80

WWFSGN193 Trickling Filters............................................$1.40

WWFSGN194 Package Plants ............................................$2.40

WWFSGN195 Oxidation Ditches ......................................$1.20

WWFSGN199 Ultraviolet Disinfection................................$1.40

EPA Water Efficiency Technology Fact Sheet . . .WWFSGN196 Composting Toilets ....................................$1.40

WWFSGN197 Incinerating Toilets ....................................$1.00

WWFSGN198 Oil Recirculating Toilets ..............................$0.80

Finance and ManagementWWBLFN01 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

WWBLFN03 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About theU.S. EPA Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant Program$0.00

WWFSFN06 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program............$0.00

WWFSFN07 Funding Decentralized Wastewater Systems Using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund ..................$0.00

FMBLFN13 A Utility Manager’s Guide to Water and Wastewater Budgeting ..............................................................$0.00

FMSWFN16 Determining Wastewater User Service Charge Rates:A Step-by-Step Manual with Software ..................$10.80

FMBLFN17 The Road To Financing: Assessing and Improving Your Community’s Creditworthiness ......................$0.00

FMBKFN18 Financing Models for Environmental Protection: Helping Communities Meet Their Environmental Goals ........$0.00

FMBKFN22 Beyond SRF: A Workbook for Financing CCMP Implementation ....................................................$0.00

FMBLFN25 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding Framework ............................................................$0.00

FMFSFN27 Hardship Grants Program for Rural Communities ..$0.00

FMBLFN28 State Match Options for the State Revolving Fund Program ................................................................$3.60

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 ............$0.60

FMFSFN33 Funding of Small Community Needs Through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund..........................$0.80

FMBLFN34 USDA Loan and Grant Funding for Small Community Wastewater Projects ..............................................$1.60

FMFSFN35 Funding Water Conservation and Reuse with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund..........................$0.40

WWFSFN36 Baseline Information on Small Community Wastewater Needs and Financial Assistance............$0.40

WWBKFN37 Cost-Effective Analysis ..........................................$10.60

WWFSFN38 Wastewater Treatment Programs Available to Native Americans ..................................................$0.00

WWBLFN39 Reducing the Cost of Operating Municipal Wastewater Facilities ................................................................$0.00

WWFSFN42 Use of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to Implement Security Measures at Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Works ........$0.00

FMBKFN40 Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure........................................................$15.00

FMBKFN41 Water Infrastructure: Information on Financing, Capital Planning, and Privatization ........................$2.00

FMBKGN01 It’s Your Choice: A Guidebook for Local Officials on Small Community Wastewater Management Options..................................................................$7.50

FMBLGN14 Watershed Approach Framework............................$0.00

FMBLGN15 Why Watersheds? ..................................................$1.60

FMBKGN16 Selecting Your Engineer . . . How to Find the Best Consultant for Small Town Water and Wastewater Projects ................................................................$18.00

FMBKGN210 Small Community Wastewater Solutions: A Guide to Making Treatment, Management, and Financing Decisions..............................................................$19.50

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

WWBKPP07 Guidance on the Privatization of Federally Funded Wastewater Treatment Works ................................$0.00

General InformationGNBLGN03 Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview ......$0.00

GNBLGN11 Section 319 National Monitoring Program: An Overview ..........................................................$0.00

GNBKGN12 Community-Based Environmental Protection: A ResourceBook For Protecting Ecosystems and Communities(Book on CD-ROM) ....................................................$10.00

GNBLGN13 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States..........................................................$5.60

GNBKGN14 Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach ........$0.00

GNBKGN16 The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients andPesticides ..............................................................$0.00

GNBLGN17 Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices ..$2.55

WWBRGN19 Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment in Cold Climates ................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN31 Inflow/Infiltration: A Guide for Decision Makers......$8.60

WWBKGN39 Septic Tank Siting to Minimize the Contamination of Ground Water by Microorganisms ..................$19.40

WWBLGN55 GAO Report: Water Pollution Information on the Use of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems..$2.60

WWBLGN59 Biosolids Recycling: Beneficial Technology for a Better Environment ................................................$0.00

WWBKGN93 Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems ............................$18.20

WWBLGN94 Waste Water Justice? Its Complexion in Small Places ....................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN95 Small Community Wastewater Systems ..................$2.40

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

(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191

Prod

ucts

Lis

tS

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

50

WWBRGN114 Land Application of Biosolids..................................$0.00

WWBRGN115 Sewage Sludge Incineration ..................................$0.00

WWBRGN116 Sludge or Biosolids ................................................$0.00

WWBKGN127 Clean Water Tribal Resource Directory For WastewaterTreatment Assistance..............................................$0.00

WWBLGN144 Response to Congress On Privatization of Wastewater Facilities ................................................................$6.25

WWBLGN155 U.S. Census Data on Small Community Housing andWastewater Disposal and Plumbing Practices ........$1.60

WWBLGN156 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey: Small Community Wastewater Needs..................................................$1.60

WWBKGN161 Animal Feeding Operations: The Role of Counties ..$5.00

WWBLGN211 Suitability of Ohio Soils for Treating Wastewater ....$0.00

NODP PublicationsDPBLGN01 Education, technology, and management system

demonstrations in rural Vermont............................$3.50

DPBLGN02 Demonstration of innovative onsite wastewatersystems in the Green Hill Pond watershed of Rhode Island ..........................................................$2.25

DPBLGN03 An innovative technology and management districtdemonstration in an impaired watershed in southern Pennsylvania ..........................................................$1.95

DPBLGN04 A demonstration of innovative treatment and disposal technologies in environmentally sensitive karst terrain near Rock Bridge Memorial State Park Missouri......$1.95

DPBLGN05 Monongalia Management and Maintenance Partnership Project (3MP), Monongalia County, West Virginia ..........................................................$1.95

DPBLGN06 Demonstration of innovative treatment and disposalsystems in the former coal-mining town of Burnett, Washington............................................................$2.65

DPFSMG01 On-Site Wastewater Management ..........................$0.80

DPFSMG02 On-Site Wastewater Management: Cost and Financing ..............................................................$0.80

The National Onsite Demonstration ProgramsDPFSGN07 Overview ....................................................$0.00

DPFSGN08 Phase I ........................................................$0.00

DPFSGN09 Phase II ......................................................$0.00

DPFSGN10 Phase III ......................................................$0.00

DPFSGN11 Projects Database ......................................$0.00

DPPKGN12 Complete Package......................................$0.00

The National Onsite Demonstration Program Phase IVDPCDFN01 Financing Your Community’s Onsite Management

System......................................................$10.00

DPCDGN13 Overview of Onsite Technologies..............$10.00

DPCDMG03 Community Self Assessment ....................$10.00

DPCDMG04 Envisioning Your Community’s Future ......$10.00

DPCDMG05 Enabling Mechanisms: Options for community onsite management..................................$10.00

DPCDMG06 Community Rediness Indicators................$10.00

DPVTMG07 Community Onsite Options: Wastewater Management in the New Millennium ......$10.00

DPBRMG08 Managing Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Adds Value ....................................$0.00

DPVTMG09 Approaches to Onsite Management: CommunityPerspectives ..............................................$10.00

DPBLMG10 Insights into Community Onsite Management Systems: A National Overview ....................$0.00

DPFSGN14 Sanitary Situation Survey: Individual HousingUnit Response Form....................................$0.00

DPFSGN15 Sanitary Situation Survey: Individual Lot Assessment ................................................$0.00

NESC PublicationsSFBKHD01 National Onsite Wastewater Treatment: A NSFC

Summary of Onsite Systems in the United States, 1993$0.00

SFCDHD02 A Summary of the Status of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in the United States During 1998$10.00

WWCDGN162 Wastewater Resources for Small Communities ......$14.95

info@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

SFPLNL01 Combined Sewer Overflows ......................$0.40

SFPLNL02 Septic Systems: A Practical Alternative for Small Communities ....................................$0.40

SFPLNL03 Maintaining Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeowners ..............................................$0.40

SFPLNL04 Home Aerobic Wastewater Treatment: An Alternative to Septic Systems ......................$0.40

SFPLNL05 Management Programs Can Help Small Communities ..............................................$0.40

SFPLNL06 Wastewater Treatment Protects Small Community Life, Health..............................$0.40

SFPLNL07 Alternative Sewers: A Good Option for Many Communities ....................................$0.40

SFPLNL08 Choose the Right Consultant for Your Wastewater Project ....................................$0.40

SFPLNL09 Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment ................................$0.40

SFPLNL10 Sand Filters Provide Quality, Low-MaintenanceTreatment ..................................................$0.40

SFPLNL11 Basic Wastewater Characteristics ................$0.40

SFPLNL12 A Homeowner’s Guide to Onsite System Regulations ................................................$0.40

SFPLNL13 Inspections Equal Preventative Care for Onsite Systems ..........................................$0.40

SFPLNL14 Constructed Wetlands: A Natural Treatment Alternative ..................................................$0.40

SFPLNL15 Managing Biosolids in Small Communities $0.40

SFPLNL16 Spray and Drip Irrigation for WastewaterReuse, Disposal ..........................................$0.40

SFPLNL17 Infiltration and Inflow Can Be Costly for Communities ..............................................$0.40

SFPLNL18 Mounds: A Septic System Alternative..........$0.40

SFPLNL19 Funding Sources Are Available forWastewater Projects....................................$0.40

SFPLNL20 Evapotranspiration Systems ........................$0.40

SFPLNL21 Site Evaluations ..........................................$0.40

SFPLNL22 Alternative Toilets: Options for Conservationand Specific Site Conditions ......................$0.40

SFPLNL23 Decentralized Wastewater TreatmentSystems ......................................................$0.40

SFPLNL24 Water Softener Use Raises Questions for System Owners ..........................................$0.40

SFPLNL25 Planning Is Essential for Successful Onsite System Management..................................$0.40

SFPLNL26 Gravelless and Chamber Systems:Alternative Drainfield Designs ....................$0.40

SFPLNL27 Paying for Onsite System Management ......$0.40

SFPLNL28 Graywater: Safe Reuse and Recycling..........$0.40

SFPLNL29 Soil Characteristics: Demystifying Dirt ........$0.40

SFPLNL30 How to Keep Your Water ‘Well’ ..................$0.40

SFPLNL31 Alternative Dispersal Options ......................$0.40

SFPLNL32 Preparing for the Unexpected: An Assessment Process for Small Wastewater Systems ........$0.40

SFPLNL33 Explaining the Activated Sludge Process ....$0.40

SFPLNL34 High-strength flows—not your average wastewater ................................................$0.40

SFPLNL35 Septic Tank Enhancements ........................$0.40

SFPLNL36 The Attached Growth Process—An old technology takes on new forms ........$0.00

Small Flows QuarterlySFQUNL01 Winter 2000 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL02 Spring 2000 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL05 Winter 2001 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL06 Spring 2001 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL07 Summer 2001 ............................................$1.00

SFQUNL08 Fall 2001 ....................................................$1.00

SFQUNL09 Winter 2002 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL10 Spring 2002 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL11 Summer 2002 ............................................$1.00

Products ListS

ma

ll Flo

ws Q

ua

r terly

, Sum

mer 2004, V

olume 5, N

umber 3

51

SFQUNL12 Fall 2002 ....................................................$1.00

SFQUNL13 Winter 2003 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL14 Spring 2003 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL15 Summer 2003 ............................................$1.00

SFQUNL16 Fall 2003 ....................................................$1.00

SFQUNL17 Winter 2004 ..............................................$1.00

SFQUNL18 Spring 2004 ........................................$0.00

NESC Technical OverviewsSFBLTO01 Alternating Drainfields ............................................$1.25

SFBLTO02 Biological Filtration ................................................$1.25

SFBLTO03 Soil Absorption Systems................................$1.25

Operation, Maintenance, and ManagementWWBLMG09 Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management

Options for Rural Areas ..........................................$1.00

WWBKMG10 Ohio Livestock Manure and Wastewater Management Guide ....................................................................$2.60

WWBLMG12 Watershed Management: A Policy-Making Primer ..$2.30

GNBKMG13 Environmental Planning for Communities: A Guide to the Environmental Visioning Process Utilizing a Geographic Information System (GIS) ....................$0.00

WWBKMG14 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Permit Writers ..................................................................$0.00

WWBKMG15 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan ........................................$0.00

WWBLMG17 2002-2003 National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project: Training, Research and Development Plan..................................................$0.00

WWFSMG18 Managing Septic Tank-Sand Bioreactor Systems ....$0.80

WWFSMG19 EPA Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems ..............................................$0.60

WWBKMG21 A Status of Tools and Support for Community Decentralized Wastewaedr Solutions ......................$0.00

WWCDMG22 Evaluating Customer Response to Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Options ..............................$0.00

WWCDMG23 Voluntary national Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems ..................$0.00

WWBKMG24 Directions in Development: An Integrated Approach to Wastewater Treatment–Deciding Where, When, and How Much to Invest......................................$39.55

WWBKMG25 Soft Path Integrated Water Resource Management: Training, Research, and Development Needs ......................................$0.00

WWFSMG28 Buttermilk Bay Coliform Control Project: Demonstrating Practical Tools for Watershed Management Through the National Estuary Program ........................................................$0.00

WWCDMG26 Wastewater Planning Handbook..................$0.00

WWCDMG27 Creative Community Design and Wastewater Management ................................................$0.00

WWFSMG29 Buzzards Bay SepTrack Initiative: Demonstrating Practical Tools for Watershed Management Through the National Estuary Program ................................$0.00

WWFSMG30 Biological Nutrient Removal Project: Demonstrating Practical Tools for Watershed Management Through the National Estuary Program ........................................................$0.00

WWBLMG31 Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat ....$4.80

WWBLOM05 Analysis of Performance Limiting Factors (PLFs) at Small Sewage Treatment Plants ..............................$4.20

WWBLOM06 On-Site Operator Training Program: Success in Every Region! ..................................................................$5.20

WWBKOM09 POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Document............................................................$20.00

WWBKOM16 Detection, Control, and Correction of Hydrogen Sulfide Corrosion in Existing Wastewater Systems ..$0.00

WWBKOM17 Chemical Aids Manual for Wastewater Treatment Facilities ..............................................................$38.60

WWBLOM35 Onsite Assistance Program: Helping Small WastewaterTreatment Plants Achieve Permit Compliance ........$0.00

WWBLOM37 Constructed Wetlands for On-Site Septic Treatment: A Guide to Selecting Aquatic Plants for Low-MaintenanceMicro-Wetlands ......................................................$0.95

(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191

WWFSOM38 Land Application of Animal Manure ......................$1.30

WWFSOM39 Enforcement Alert: Clean Water Act ProhibitsSewage ‘Bypasses’ ..................................................$0.00

GNBLOM40 Guide to Safety in Confined Spaces........................$0.00

WWBKOM41 A Manual for Managing Septic Systems ..............$30.00

WWBKOM42 Biosolids Management Handbook for Small Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) ..........$52.20

WWBKOM43 Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading ......$0.00

WWCDOM44 OASIS Operator Assisted Sewer Information System (Shareware)................................................$0.00

WWFSOM45 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Operation and Maintenance ..................................................$1.00

WWFSOM46 (Spanish Version) ..............................$1.00

Public EducationGNBRPE02 Everyone Shares a Watershed ................................$0.20

GNBRPE04 Test the Waters! Careers in Water Quality ..............$0.20

GNBRPE05 Adopt Your Watershed............................................$0.00

GNFSPE07 Quality Development and Stormwater Runoff ........$0.35

WWBLPE01 Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project Too Costly? Options for Small Communities ............................$1.20

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 Reference Guide for Homeowners ......................................................$0.25

WWBRPE18 The Care and Feeding of Your Septic System ......$0.20WWBRPE57 (Spanish Version) ............................$0.20

WWBRPE20 So...Now You Own a Septic System....................$0.20WWBRPE58 (Spanish Version) ............................$0.20

WWBRPE21 Groundwater Protection and Your Septic System $0.20WWBRPE59 (Spanish Version) ............................$0.20

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 ......$3.80

WWBLPE37 Homeowner Onsite System Recordkeeping Folder $0.45

WWBLPE38 Wastewater Treatment: The Student’s ResourceGuide ....................................................................$1.95

WWBLPE44 Clean Water for Today: What is Wastewater Treatment? ............................................................$1.30

WWBLPE46 Living on Karst: A Refrence Guide for Landowners in Limestone Regions ............................................$0.00

GNBRPE51 Polluted..................................................................$0.00

GNPSPE52 National Estuary Program: Bringing Our Estuaries 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

WWBRPE62 Fat-Free Sewers: How to Prevent Fats, Oils, and Greasesfrom Damaging Your Home and the Environment....$0.30

WWPSPE65 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems for Small Communities ................................................$1.25

GNBKPE66 Home*A*Syst: An Environmental Risk-Assessment Guide for the Home ............................................$10.00

WWFSPE68 Selecting an Onsite Wastewater or Septic System ..$0.75

WWFSPE69 A Quick Guide to Small Community Wastewater Treatment Decisions ..............................................$1.30

WWFSPE70 Preventing On-lot Sewage System Malfunctions ....$0.80

WWBRPE71 Pumping Your Septic Tank......................................$0.40

WWBRPE72 Landscaping Your Septic Tank ................................$0.40

WWFSPE73 Septic System Maintenance....................................$0.80

WWBLPE75 Septic Systems for Waste Water Disposal ................$0.65

WWCDPE76 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Septic Systems. . . But Didn’t Know Who to Ask! HomeOwner Version 1.0 ............................................................$6.50

WWFSPE77 Managing Your Household Septic System ..............$0.20

WWFSPE79 Understanding Your Household Septic System ......$0.00

WWFSPE80 Inspecting Your Household Septic System ..............$0.00

WWFSPE81 Maintaining Your Septic Tank ................................$0.00

Prod

ucts

Lis

tS

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

52

WWBLPE82 What Do You Mean My House Has a Septic Tank? ..........................................................$8.45

WWBLPE83 Solutions to Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Riparian Homeowner’s Guide to Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention ........................$0.00

RegulationsIn addition to the regulatory products listed below, the NESC maintains otherregulatory information in our online Regulations Database. To access thisinformation, please log onto www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_regulations.htm. If you do not have Internet access, contact the NESC at the phone numbers below to request this additional information.

GNBLRG01 Introduction to Water Quality Standards ................$8.20

WWBLRG34 State Onsite Wastewater Regulatory Contacts List, January 2003..........................................................$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

WWBKRG38 Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule........................................................................$0.00

WWBLRG42 NPDES and Sewage Sludge Program Authority: A Handbook 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 ..................................................$11.00

WWBLRG45 Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge ........................$9.40

WWBKRG64 Proceedings of the First National Onsite Wastewater State Regulators Conference ..................................$9.20

WWFSRG65 Class V Injection Wells ............................................$0.70

WWBKRG66 Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessments for the EPA Part 503 Rule ........................................................$0.00

GNFSRG67 USEPA’s Program to Regulate the Placement of Waste Water and other Fluids Underground ..........$0.00

WWCDRG68 State Onsite Wastewater Regulators and Captains of Industry Conference Proceedings ....................$10.00

ResearchWWBLRE14 Methodology to Predict Nitrogen Loading from

Conventional Gravity On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems..................................................................$5.00

WWBKRE16 Preliminary Risk Assessment for Viruses in MunicipalSewage Sludge Applied to Land ............................$0.00

WWBLRE18 Rock-Plant Filter: An Alternative for Onsite Sewage Treatment ..............................................................$2.25

WWBLRE19 NPCA Septic Tank Project 1990—1995 ..................$8.75

WWBLRE20 Field Performance of the Waterloo Biofilter with Different Wastewaters ............................................$6.25

WWBKRE21 Potential Effects of Water Softener Use on Septic TankSoil Absorption On-Site Waste Water Systems..........$12.20

WWBKRE23 Treatment Capability of Three Filters for Septic Tank Effluent ................................................................$27.25

WWBKRE25 The Expanding Dairy Industry: Impact on Ground Water Quality and Quantity with Emphasis on WasteManagement System Evaluation for Open Lot Dairies$11.70

WWBLRE28 Household Water Reduction and Design Flow Allowancesfor On-Site Wastewater Management and Supplement$4.00

WWBKRE29 Evaluation of Spray Irrigation as a Methodology for On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ........$21.00

WWBLRE30 Linear Regression for Nonpoint Source Pollution Analyses ................................................................$0.00

WWBLRE31 Variable Grade Sewers: Special Evaluation Project ..$4.25

WWBKRE32 Assessment of Single-Stage Trickling Filter Nitrification ............................................................$0.00

WWBLRE33 Sequencing Batch Reactors ....................................$6.00

WWBKRE34 In-Vessel Composting of Municipal Wastewater Sludge....................................................................$0.00

WWBLRE35 Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ....................$10.00

WWBKRE36 Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for WastewaterTreatment ............................................................$21.25

WWBKRE38 Literature Review for Septic Siting Study: A Means of Interpreting Past Research on Septic Systems ..$30.25

WWBKRE39 Septic Tank Nutrient Removal Project: Advanced Onsite Sewage Disposal System Demonstration ..$21.25

WWCDRE43 Septic Tank Nutrient Removal Project: Advanced Onsite Sewage Disposal System Demonstration (Book on CD-ROM) ......................$10.00

GNBLRE40 Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions ............................................................$6.50

WWBLRE42 Response to Congress on the AEES “Living Machine” Wastewater Treatment Technology ......................$10.50

Training MaterialsNPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training . . .

WWBKTR03 Sampling ..................................................$19.80WWBKTR04 Biomonitoring ..........................................$15.60WWBKTR05 Overview ..................................................$17.20WWBKTR06 Legal Issues ..............................................$23.20WWBKTR07 Laboratory Analysis ..................................$27.80

VideotapesWWVTDM100 Low Pressure Pipe Sewage Disposal System..........$13.00

FMVTMG01 Wastewater Management in Unsewered Areas ....$10.00

WWVTGN10 Morrilton, Arkansas, Land Application of Wastewater ..........................................................$10.00

WWVTGN117 Proper Treatment and Uses of Septage ................$15.00

WWVTGN135 Septic Systems: Making the Best Use of Nature ....$20.00

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

WWVTPE16 Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeowners......$10.00

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

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: Managementand 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

WWPKPE55 Alternative Septic Systems ....................................$13.00

WWVTPE60 Recirculating Filter On-Site Sewage Disposal System ................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE61 Conventional On-Site Sewage Disposal System: Your Septic System, What It Is and How To Take Care of It..............................................................$10.00

WWVTPE63 Next Generation of Sewage Treatment: “Flushing in the New Millennium” ......................................$30.00

WWVTPE64 Mound/Pressure Distribution On-Site SewageDisposal System ..................................................$15.00

WWVTPE67 Down the Drain: Septic System Sense ..................$16.00

WWVTPE74 Uncovering the Mystery in your Backyard: A Homeowner’s Guide to Septic Systems ..................$0.00

WWVTPE78 Septic System 1-2-3................................................$0.00

If you would like to receive news about NESC productsor services, subscribe to our electronic mailing list.This notification service gives subscribers theopportunity to learn of NESC activities and otherinformation about sewage treatment options for homesand small community developments.

Information is sent to subscribers via e-mail. Pleasenote that this listserv is for notification only, andcannot be used for posting messages.

To subscribe to the NESC News Listserv, either: • send an e-mail to subnsfcnews@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

(no additional text is required) or • log onto www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfc_listserv.htm

Sm

all F

low

s Qu

ar te

rly, S

umm

er 2004, Volum

e 5, Num

ber 3

53

Ordering Information

Phone:

(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 Business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time

E-mail:info@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

Fax:(304) 293-8651

Mail:

National Environmental Services CenterWest 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, affili-ation, address, and phone numberwith each order.

Free items are limited to one ofeach per order.

Shipping charges reflect the actualcosts of shipping all orders. All or-ders from outside the U.S. (exclud-ing Canada) must be prepaid.

All payments must be in U.S. dollars using VISA, MasterCard,Discover, check, or money order.

To place your order using VISA,MasterCard, or Discover, includeyour credit card number, expira-tion date, and signature on theorder form.

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

Where regulations allow treatedwastewater to be land applied, it firstmust be disinfected to prevent odorsand remove disease-causing microor-ganisms. Wastewater can be disinfec-ted with chlorine, ozone, and ultravi-olet light. For onsite wastewatertreatment systems, the most com-mon form of disinfection is tabletchlorination.

Tablet chlorinators generally havefour components: • chlorine tablets,• a tube holding the tablets, • a contact device that puts the

chlorine tablets into contact withthe wastewater, and

• a storage reservoir, usually a pumptank, where the wastewater isstored before it is distributed.Before being chlorinated, waste-

water from a home is treated by asecondary treatment device, usuallyin an aerobic treatment unit or sandfilter. The wastewater moves from thetreatment device through a pipe tothe contact device.

The contact device usually con-tains a basin where the tube contain-ing a stack of chlorine tablets isplaced. The bottom tablet in thetube is in contact with the waste-water flowing through the basin. Asthat tablet dissolves and/or erodes,the tablet above falls by gravity to re-place it.

A tablet can dissolve quickly orslowly, depending on the amount ofwastewater coming into contact withit and the length of time it is in con-tact. A balance must be struck re-garding the contact time in the chlo-rinator basin: too much contact timecauses the wastewater to be over-chlorinated and the tablets to beconsumed rapidly; too little contacttime, and the wastewater is not chlo-rinated enough.

Use only chlorine tablets that areapproved for use in wastewater. Theyare made of calcium hypochlorite, acommon household bleach. Thesetablets dissolve in the wastewater, re-leasing the hypochlorite, which then

becomes hypochlorous acid, the pri-mary disinfectant.

Do not use swimming pool chlo-rine tablets. They are often madefrom trichloroisocyanuric acid, whichis not approved for use in wastewatertreatment systems. These tabletsmake the chlorine available too slow-ly for it to be effective. If wetted re-peatedly, they also can produce ni-trogen chloride, which can explode.

Do not combine tablets oftrichloroisocyanuric acid with calciumhypochlorite, because the combina-tion will form the explosive com-pound nitrogen chloride. Read thelist of active ingredients on the tabletlabel to make sure you are using cal-cium hypochlorite.

Because chlorine tablets are caus-tic, handle them with care. Weargloves to protect your skin from directcontact with the tablets. Moist tabletsare the most caustic; handle themwith special care.

Also, because chlorine gas collectsin the tablet container, open the con-tainer in a well-ventilated area. Chlo-rine gas can escape from the tabletsand container, reducing the effective-ness of the tablets and possibly cor-roding metal products stored nearthe container.

After being chlorinated, thewastewater enters the pump tank,where the disinfection process iscompleted. At this point the waste-water is called reclaimed water.

An easy way to determine thechlorine concentration in your re-claimed water is by using chlorinetest kits. They are available in storesthat sell swimming pool supplies.

The most satisfactory kits requirethat you mix a small amount of re-claimed water in a solution and com-pare the mixture’s color with thoseshown in the kit. The kits using paperstrips may be less satisfactory becausethey do not determine the actual con-centration of chlorine in the water.

Usually, if a test detects any chlo-rine, the wastewater will contain lessthan 200 fecal coliforms per 100 mil-

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly,

Sum

mer

200

4, V

olum

e 5,

Num

ber

3

54

Note: The following is taken from a fact sheet produced by the Texas A&M University System.

Richard Weaver and Bruce Lesikar

liliters. But this does not guaranteethat it is free of disease-causing or-ganisms. To reduce the risk of havingany disease-causing organisms, thewastewater should have at least 0.2milliliters of chlorine per liter.

Keep it WorkingYou can either buy a chlorinator

commercially or have one built by aninstaller. Please follow the manufac-turer’s recommendations for main-taining the system. • Make sure the chlorinator contains

chlorine tablets at all times. In-spect it weekly to ensure thattablets are present and in contactwith the wastewater. Add chlorinetablets as necessary. Just as cars donot operate without gasoline,tablet chlorinators do not operatewithout chlorine tablets.

• Tablets can become compacted inthe tube. To reduce the chances ofcompaction, place two to fivetablets in the tube at a time.

• If the tablets do become compact-ed in the tube, or if a portion ofthe bottom tablet has not dis-solved and is holding up the restof the stack, remove the tube andwash out the blockage with astream of water from a gardenhose.

• Use only tablets that have beencertified for use in domestic waste-water systems. State regulationsdo not allow tablets for swimmingpools and other applications to beused to treat wastewater.

• Use a chlorine test kit to deter-mine the chlorine concentration inthe pump.

C L O S I N G T H O U G H T S

Tablet Chlorination

Papers are now being accepted forthe juried article section of the SmallFlows Quarterly, the onlymagazine/journal devoted to onsiteand small community wastewaterissues (i.e., communities withpopulations less than 10,000 orcommunities handling fewerthan one million gallonsof wastewaterflows perday).

For additional information about theSmall Flows Quarterly, manuscriptsubmission guidelines and publicationdeadlines, please contact CathleenFalvey at cfalvey@wvu.edu, or phone

(800) 624-8301, ext. 5526, orwrite to Editor, Small Flows

Quarterly, NationalEnvironmental ServicesCenter, West VirginiaUniversity, P.O. Box 6064,Morgantown, WV 26506-6064.

I N C O M I N G I S S U E S . . .Homeowner Cost Cutter: Build YourOwn Constructed Wetland

The Cycle of Life: WastewaterReclamation and Reuse

Offensive Odors Don’t Always MeanSeptic System Failure

Onsite Wastewater Treatment and the Center for Disease Control

A 25-Year History of the OnsiteIndustry: Where have we been and where should we be going?

Operating Constructed Wetlands inCold Climates

Call for Papers

Who wants your opinion?The editor of the Small Flows Quarterly does, and not just as a “let-ter to the editor.” Our “Forum” column is a place where readers canshare ideas that they feel will be of value to people involved in thetreatment of wastewater, both onsite and small centralized systems.

We are open to all aspects of small-flow wastewater treatment.Please send your opinions (for the Forum column, 750 to 1,000words) to the Small Flows Quarterly editor at:

Editor, Small Flows QuarterlyNational Environmental Services CenterWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064 or call (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191

National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia University Research Corporation

P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

(800) 624-8301/(304) 293-4191www.nesc.wvu.edu

National Environmental Services CenterWest Virginia University Research CorporationWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

NONPROFITORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE PAIDPERMIT NO. 34

MORGANTOWN, WV

Carlin,NevadaOn the surface, Carlin, Nevada,

looks like a sleepy ranching town.But just below ground is the fa-mous Carlin Trend, which makesCarlin the gateway to some of thelargest goldmines in the world.

Although the area has beensettled since the gold rush days,the city of Carlin was incorporatedin 1971. According to Jim Aiazzi,Carlin’s public works director, allbut 15 or so of Carlin’s 2,400 resi-dents are hooked up the city’ssmall wastewater treatment plant,which also dates from the early1970s. The plant has an aeratedprimary treatment pond and asecondary treatment pond, and inthe harsh winter months, thetreated wastewater is pumped toa reservoir. In summer, water from

the reservoir is used to irrigatefields owned by the city. A localranch has an agreement with thecity to keep the fields planted,which Aiazzi says reduces theamount of nitrates from the waste-water entering the local environ-ment, and the ranch uses thefields to feed cattle and horses.

Carlin’s public works depart-ment employs a total of nine peo-ple, including Aiazzi and one sec-retary, and is not only responsiblefor operating and maintaining thewastewater plant and sewers, butalso the water system, streets,parks, public buildings, and eventhe local cemeteries.

If you would like to share asnapshot of your community, pleasecontact Cathleen Falvey at (800)624-8301 or cfalvey@wvu.edu.