C A T E G O R YS

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

2

Letter from the Editor

Welcome to another spring issue of the Small Flows Quar-terly. Like the rest of the staff here, I am overjoyed at seeing

the end of winter. The experience, however, of having the

water line to my house freeze solid for a week each winter

when an unexpected temperature plunge into the single dig-

its catches me without my faucets trickling overnight, has left

an indelible impression on my psyche.

That is why I am presenting you with a look into the per-

formance of various types of onsite wastewater treatment sys-

tems in cold weather (p. 12). It’s comforting to know that as

long as you can keep your water running, your treatment system will

not let you down (at least not because of the weather).

What I am looking forward to is warm weather recreation, fishing

in particular, and that’s an activity that requires a healthy body of

water. Lakes are particularly at risk from pollution from failed onsite

treatment systems, and one of this issue’s management case studies

(our cover story, p. 16) is a look at a lakeside community in Colorado

that has brought that issue under control.

Sharon Nelson has been fondly called, “the homeowner from

hell.” Anyone who has attended the national and regional environ-

mental conferences at which she has presented will be familiar with

how she was instrumental in bringing about legislation in Washing-

ton State that regulates the licensing and certification of onsite waste-

water treatment system designers. For those of you who aren’t famil-

iar with it, we are presenting her story in this issue (p. 18), along with

a heads up on a proposed national plan to provide homeowners with

septic system insurance (p. 21).

Sometimes duplication of services is a bad thing, causing an or-

ganization to spend money and resources unnecessarily. That is not

the case in the onsite wastewater treatment industry, particularly

when it comes to demonstration projects. As you will see in the story

about the NODP II demonstration project in Centerville, Pennsylva-

nia (p. 10), the technology-testing there will be duplicated under sim-

ilar conditions in Central Europe. Sharing technology could open new

markets for U.S. onsite professionals, but it will certainly result in a

broader database for the benefit of all.

F R O M T H E E D I T O R

Small Flows Quarterly is sponsored by:

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

National Small Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia UniversityJohn L. Mori, Ph.D. | ManagerWVU National Environmental Services Center

Peter Casey, P. Eng. | Program Coordinator

Timothy Suhrer | Editor

Cathleen Falvey | Associate Editor

John Fekete | Graphic Designer

Colleen Mackne | Promotions Writer/Editor

Caigan C. McKenzie | Staff WriterMarilyn Noah | Staff WriterNatalie Eddy | Staff Writer

Jennifer Hause | Engineering Scientist Tricia Angoli | Engineering ScientistAndrew Lake | Engineering Scientist

Article SubmissionsSmall Flows Quarterly welcomes letters to the editor, articles, news items, photographs, or other materials for publication. Please address correspondence to:

Editor, Small Flows QuarterlyNational Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu

Juried Article Review BoardJames A. Bell, P.E., Smith & Loveless, Inc., Lenexa, KSSteven Berkowitz, P.E., North Carolina Department of Environment

and Natural ResourcesTerry Bounds, P.E., Roseberg, ORCraig Cogger, Ph.D., Washington State University, PuyallupJames Converse, Ph.D., P.E., University of WisconsinBrian Cooper, C.E.T., Simcoe Engineering Group, Ltd., Pickering, OntarioRon Crites, P.E., Brown and Caldwell, Sacramento, CADonald Gray, Ph.D., West Virginia UniversityMark Gross, Ph.D., P.E., University of ArkansasDavid Gustafson, P.E., University of MinnesotaMichael Hines, M.S., P.E., Southeast Environmental Engineering, Knoxville, TNAnish Jantrania, Ph.D., P.E., Virginia Department of HealthCraig Jowett, Ph.D., P. Eng., University of Waterloo, OntarioJim Kreissl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency George Loomis, University of Rhode IslandTed L. Loudon, Ph.D., P.E., Michigan State UniversityRoger E. Machmeier, Ph.D., P.E., University of MinnesotaKaren M. Mancl, Ph.D., The Ohio State UniversityDon P. Manthe, P.E., Entranco, Phoenix, AZStewart Oakley, Ph.D., P.E., California State University, ChicoMichael H. Ogden, P.E., Santa Fe, NMRichard J. Otis, Ph.D., P.E., Madison, WIMike A. Parker, i.e. Engineering Inc., Roseburg, ORFrank Pearson, Ph.D., P.E., Hercules, CASherwood Reed, P.E., Norwich, VTR. B. Reneau Jr., Ph.D., Virginia TechWill Robertson, Ph.D., University of Waterloo, OntarioA. R. Rubin, Ph.D., North Carolina State UniversityWilliam A. Sack, Ph.D., P.E., West Virginia UniversityC. M. Sawyer, Ph.D., P.E., Virginia Department of Health Robert L. Siegrist, Ph.D., P.E., Colorado School of MinesDennis Sievers, Ph.D., University of MissouriSteve Steinbeck, P.G., North Carolina Department of Environment

and Natural ResourcesJerry Stonebridge, Stonebridge Construction, Inc., Langley, WAWilliam L. Stuth Sr., Stuth Company Inc., Maple Valley, WAGeorge Tchobanoglous, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, DavisJerry Tyler, Ph.D., University of WisconsinTed Walker, R.E.H.S., Sonoma County Health Department, Sonoma, CAA. T. Wallace, Ph.D., P.E., Professor, University of IdahoRobert C. Ward, Ph.D., P.E., Colorado State University

The National Small Flows Clearinghouse, established by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1977 and locatedat West Virginia University, gathers and distributes information about small com-munity wastewater systems. Small Flows Quarterly is funded through a grantfrom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

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

International Standard Serial Number1528-6827

The contents of this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names orcommercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Printed on recycled paper

An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

Helping America’s Small Communities Meet Their Wastewater Needs

Tim Suhrer,Small FlowsQuarterly Edi-tor

Got an Opinion?Who wants your opinion? The editor of the Small Flows Quar-terly does, and not just as a “letter to the editor,” either. Our“Forum” column is a place where readers can share informed,well-thought-out ideas that they feel will be of value to peo-ple involved in the treatment of wastewater, both onsite andsmall centralized systems.

We are open to all aspects of small-flow wastewater treatment,such as technology, management, regulation, operation, andmaintenance. Please send your opinions (for the Forum col-umn, 750 to 1000 words) to the Small Flows Quarterly editorat the address on the staff box on this page.

®

Baby, It’s COLD Outside!Techniques for OnsiteSuccess in Cold Climates

Marilyn Noah

The latest research revealsthat alternative onsite sys-tems, such as constructed

wetlands, sand filters, and peatfilters, seem to function effec-tively in cold weather, althoughat a reduced level, as long asthey were designed carefully andafforded adequate maintenance.

J U R I E D A R T I C L E

4 News & Notes

5 Calendar of Events

7 Web Watch

8 Small Flows Forum

10 NODP Update

38 Question/Answer

40 Resources

43 Products List

50 Closing Thoughts

II NN TT HH II SS II SS SS UU EE .. .. ..

10

18

22

On the cover: Recreational lakes, such asthis one in the Colorado Rockies, are particu-larly at risk from failed onsite systems.

Evaluation of High-PorosityMedium in IntermittentlyDosed, Multi-Pass PackedBed Filters for the Treatment of Wastewater

Three configurations of non-woven textile fabric (NWTF)in a multi-pass, packed bed

filter were evaluated for the treat-ment of primary effluent. The config-urations included hanging sheets, apacked bed of chips, and a layered,packed bed of chips. Performancecomparisons were made betweensimilarly loaded NWTF and sand fil-ters that indicated that medium sizesand beds clogged and coarse sizesand beds deteriorated in effluentquality compared to the NWTF filters.

28

Crystal Lakes, Colorado, is a popularrecreational community in the RockyMountains. In 1972, the Coloradolegislature passed a water augmenta-

tion law that regulated water use. Crystal Lakeshad to come up with a management plan thatcould ensure the community’s compliance with thestate regulation as well as control developmentaround the three lakes. The use of onsite systemsis extensive in Crystal Lakes.

16

12

Caigan McKenzie

RockiesOnsite Systems Management

in the

24

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Centerville, PA—World-Class DemonstrationCaigan McKenzie

Who Says You Can’t Fight City Hall?How One Homeowner Made a DifferenceNatalie Eddy

DuPage County Illinois Health Department:An Unconventional Approach to Onsite Systems ManagementCaigan McKenzie

Small-Diameter Gravity SewersCan Mean Big Savings for CommunitiesCathleen Falvey

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) is proposing strict new controls to protect

public health and the environment from one of the

nation’s leading causes of water pollution—animal

wastes from large, industrial feedlot operations.

On December 15, 2000, EPA Assistant Admin-

istrator for Water, J. Charles Fox, said, “Wastes from

large factory farms are among the greatest threats

to our nation’s waters and drinking water supplies.

Today, EPA is taking action to protect public health

and the environment by significantly controlling

pollution from animal feeding operations.”

The livestock industry has undergone dramat-

ic changes in the past 20 years, consolidating scat-

tered, smaller facilities into fewer but vastly larger

feeding operations that result in greater and more

concentrated generation of wastes. An estimated

376,000 large and small livestock operations that

confine animals generate approximately 128 bil-

lion pounds of manure each year. Typically, these

facilities confine beef and dairy cattle, hogs, and

chickens.

Nationwide, nearly 40 percent of surveyed wa-

ters are too polluted for fishing or swimming.

Some 60 percent of river pollution comes from all

kinds of agricultural runoff, including livestock op-

erations. Pollution from livestock is associated with

many types of waterborne disease, as well as prob-

lems like pfiesteria outbreaks that have plagued

the Chesapeake Bay, red tides, algae blooms, and

the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

The new requirements would apply to as many

as 39,000 concentrated animal feeding operations

(CAFOs) across the country. Today, only an estimat-

ed 2,500 large and small livestock operations have

enforceable permits under the Clean Water Act. A

CAFO is currently defined as having 1,000 or more

cattle or comparable “animal units” of other

livestock. Smaller operations may also be

CAFOs if they are a threat to water

quality. EPA is co-proposing two op-

tions for a new CAFO definition.

One proposed definition could

include livestock

facilities with more than 500 cattle or other animal

units. The other proposal would require operations

with 300–1,000 cattle to have permits if they meet

certain risk-based conditions.

In addition to stricter permitting requirements,

the proposal includes several new controls:

• poultry, veal, and swine operations would be

required to prevent all discharges from their

waste storage pits and lagoons where wastes

are collected;

• the proposal eliminates potential exemptions

from permits presently used in some states—

as a result, EPA expects that all large livestock

operations will now have to acquire permits;

• under this proposal, EPA and the states will

issue co-permits for corporations and con-

tract growers to ensure financial resources

exist to meet environmental requirements;

• the spreading of manure on the land owned

by livestock facilities would be limited to pro-

tect waterways.

In March 1999, EPA and the U.S. Department

of Agriculture issued a Unified National Strategyfor Animal Feeding Operations in response to pub-

lic concern about contamination of rivers, lakes,

streams, coastal waters, and groundwater from

livestock manure. This latest proposal is seen as

an important step in that strategy.

EPA will take public comment for 120 days

(from December 15) and will hold public meet-

ings around the country on the proposal. Addi-

tional information is available on EPA’s Office of

Water Web site at www.epa.gov/owm/afo.htm.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

5

N E W S & N O T E SS

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

4

N E W S & N O T E S

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

* Denotes that NSFC staff will be attending.

Calendar of EventsEPA Proposes New Controls To Reduce WaterPollution from Large Livestock Operations

Onsite Wastewater DisposalSystems: Regulation, Design,Inspection, Operation andMaintenanceCook College-Rutgers UniversityOffice of Continuing ProfessionalEducationMay 16 and 23Cook College-Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, New JerseyCarol Broccoli (732) 932-9271,ext. 618Fax: (732) 932-1187www.cook.rutgers.edu/~ocpe

National Environmental PolicyForum and 31st AMSA AnnualMeetingThe Association of MetropolitanSewerage AgenciesMay 19–23Washington, D.C. (202) 833-2672www.amsa-cleanwater.org

Idaho OperatorsWater/Wastewater ConferenceSoutheast Idaho Operators Sec-tion of the Pacific NorthwestPollution Control AssociationMay 20–23Idaho Falls, IdahoDavid Smith (208) 529-1108ifsewer@ci.idaho-falls.id.us

Designing Best ManagementPractices for StormwaterQuality ImprovementUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMay 22–24Madison, Wisconsin(800) 462-0876epd.engr.wisc.edu

2001 Design-Build Odyssey:Water and Wastewater ProjectsWater Environment FederationMay 31–June 1Portland, MaineSusan Merther (703) 684-2417www.wef.org/Conferences/

APRIL

Third Annual Onsite Wastewater System Regulators’Conference*National Small Flows ClearinghouseApril 17–21Washington, D.C.Contact Sandy Miller or PeterCasey(800) 624-8301smiller2@wvu.edupcasey@wvu.eduwww.nsfc.wvu.edu

Third NSF International Sym-posium and Technology Expoon Small Drinking Water andWastewater SystemsApril 22–25Crystal Gateway MarriottWashington, D.C. (734) 913-5789Fax: (734) 827-6840/6831farmer@nsf.org

Class II Designer/InstallerCourseWest Virginia Onsite WastewaterAssociationApril 24–25West Virginia On-Site TrainingCenterWestvaco Natural ResourcesConference CenterMorgantown, West VirginiaSandra Markovic or Randy Levelle(800) 624-8301Fax: (304) 293-3161rlevelle@wvu.edu

National Tribal EnvironmentalCouncil (NTEC) 8th NationalConferenceApril 24–26Miami, Florida(505) 242-2175ntec@ntec.orgwww.ntec.org

Water Quality Monitoring andModelingAmerican Water Resources AssociationApril 30–May 2Menger HotelSan Antonio, Texaswww.awra.org/meetings/

TNRCC Environmental TradeFair and ConferenceTexas Natural Resource Conservation CommissionApril 30–May 2Austin, Texas(512) 239-3150www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/sbea/etf/etf.html

MAY

Management of Operationand Maintenance Programsfor Pump Stations and ForceMainsUniversity of Nevada Las Vegas,Division of Continuing EducationMay 2–4Stardust HotelLas Vegas, Nevada(702) 895-3394Fax: (702) 895-4195MAY

Technology: Making PublicWorks BetterUrban and Regional InformationSystems AssociationMay 6–8Rosemont, Illinois(847) 824-6300www.urisa.org

Soils 101—Field Descriptionof SoilsNorth Carolina Soils and On-SiteTraining AcademyMay 9–10Raleigh, North Carolina(919) 513-1678www.soil.ncsu.edu/training/

Second National Conferenceon Nonpoint Source PollutionInformation and EducationProgramsIllinois Environmental Protec-tion Agency, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and ChicagoBotanic GardenMay 14–17Congress Plaza HotelChicago, IllinoisBob Kirschner (847) 835-6837Fax: (837) 835-1635Bkirschn@chicagobotanic.org

JUNE

1st International Congress onUltraviolet TechnologiesInternational Ultraviolet AssociationJune 14–16Hyatt Regency on Capital HillWashington, D.C.Kathy Harvey (519) 632-8190kharvey@iuva.org

AWWA Annual Conference &ExpositionAmerican Water Works AssociationJune 17–21Washington, D.C.(303) 347-6195www.awwa.org

Decision Support Systems for Water Resources ManagementAmerican Water Resources AssociationJune 27–30Snowbird Conference Center andResortSnowbird, Utah(540) 687-8390www.awra.org/meetings/

National EnvironmentalHealth Association (NEHA)* 65th Annual Educational Confer-ence and ExhibitionJune 30–July 3Hyatt Regency Atlanta,Atlanta, Georgia(303) 756-9090, ext. 0www.neha.orgJULY

JULY

2001 A Collection SystemsOdyssey: Integrating O&Mand Wet Weather SolutionsWater Environment Federation July 8–11Bellevue, WashingtonSusan Merther (703) 684-2417www.wef.org/Conferences/

Coastal Zone 2001National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration CoastalServices CenterJuly 15–19The Cleveland Convention CenterCleveland, Ohiowww.csc.noaa.gov/cz2001/index.html

Groundwater Remediation Technology Analysis Center(GWRTAC)www.gwrtac.org/

GWRTAC is a specialized nationalenvironmental technology transfercenter that provides current informa-tion concerning innovative groundwa-ter remediation technologies. Its Website contains a search engine, vendorinformation database, and links totechnical documents. Conference pre-sentations can be downloaded, and apage provides descriptions of upcom-ing events related to groundwater re-mediation. Links to related Web sitesare available, and a page provides con-tact information for EPA and state ad-ministrators.

National Groundwater Association (NGWA)www.ngwa.org/

NGWA’s membership is made up ofcontractors, scientists and engineers,manufacturers, and wholesale distribu-tors. The site provides industry and as-sociation news; a vendor database; acalendar of events; downloads of theassociation’s bimonthly publication,

Ground Water; a bookstore;search engine; and

links to relatedsites.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

7

New Compliance AssistanceClearinghouse

A new compliance assistance clear-

inghouse is available on the Internet.

The National Compliance Assistance

Clearinghouse was developed by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), states, and other key stakehold-

ers. It provides quick access to compli-

ance tools, contacts, and planned activ-

ities from across EPA, as well as from

other compliance assistance providers,

such as the Local Government Environ-

mental Assistance Network (LGEAN).

This clearinghouse also provides a dis-

cussion forum to promote collaboration

and information exchange. For more in-

formation about this clearinghouse, call

Emily Chow of EPA at (202) 564-7071

or e-mail her at chow.emily@epa.gov.

The clearinghouse is located on the In-

ternet at www.epa.gov/clearinghouse.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

6

W E B W A T C HN E W S & N O T E S

Wastewater on the

Web

www.nsfc.wvu.edu

USDA Offers Loan and Grant Funding for SmallCommunity Wastewater Projects

The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) offers loan and grant money

geared for small community wastewater

treatment projects through the Rural Utili-

ties Service. The U.S. Environmental Pro-

tection Agency provides general informa-

tion about this program on its Web site at

www.epa.gov/owm/sc/usda/index.htm.

Model Ordinances for WaterQuality Protection Available

Model ordinances for water quality

protection are available on the U.S. En-

vironmental Protection Agency’s Web

site. The site offers both model and real-

life examples of ordinances that address

the following topics: aquatic buffers, ero-

sion and sediment control, open space

development, stormwater control oper-

ation and maintenance, illicit discharges,

post-construction runoff control, and

more. The site also includes supporting

materials such as examples of meeting

notices, inspection checklists, and links

to other related Web sites. To view the

ordinances on the Web, go to

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance.

Many Earth Day Resources Available on Internet

On April 22, millions of people worldwide will be participating in the

31st anniversary celebration of Earth Day!

Earth Day activities provide opportunities to address global environ-

mental concerns, as well as a chance for individuals and communities to

focus on their local environmental problems. Groups can organize

cleanups, parades, fairs, conferences, and even art and essay contests.

Other ways to get involved include encouraging the use of recycled prod-

ucts, restoring or improving local parks and beaches, supporting preserva-

tion efforts for endangered species, conserving water, composting food

and yard debris, and using only biodegradable soaps and detergents.

Information about Earth Day activities can be found on the World Wide

Web. Listed below are Internet sites that suggest Earth Day projects and

ideas for how you can celebrate Earth Day in your community:

• Earth Day by John McConnel, Founder of Earth Day:

www.earthsite.org/• EPA Earth Day: www.epa.gov/earthday/• Earthday.Org: www.earthday.net/• Heartland All Species Project Earth Day Block Event Planning:

www.allspecies.org/neigh/blocka.htm• San Diego EarthTimes and Earth Day:

www.earthdayweb.org/• New York Earth Day Links: home.dti.net/earthday/links.html• Earth Day 2000 Network: www.earthday.net/• The Wilderness Society’s Earth Day ‘01 Site:

earthday.wilderness.org• Earth Day Coalition: www.earthdaycoalition.org/• Earth Day Online: home.dti.net/earthday/index.html• Contra Costa County Earth Day Festival:

www.ccearthday.org/• Earth Day Online Education:

home.dti.net/earthday/edwebres.html • San Diego EarthWorks: www.earthdayweb.org/• Cleveland Earth Day Coalition:

www.edf.org/pubs/EDF-Letter/1998/Nov/u_scp.html• YouthCaN: Youth Communications and Networking:

www.nyu.edu/projects/youthcan/• Arbor Heights Elementary School in Seattle:

www.halcyon.com/arborhts/• Earth Day Canada:

www.earthday.ca/EDy2k/Home/homefrm1.html• Earth Day in Alexandria, Virginia: alexearthday.org/

The Biosolids Lifecyclewww.deh.enr.state.nc.us/oww/index.htm

This is the site of the onsite waste-water section of the North CarolinaDepartment of Environment and Nat-ural Resources. It provides informationabout onsite wastewater treatment,land application, and regulations. Thesite’s menu grid leads to documentsabout such topics as basic septic sys-tem maintenance and abandonment,experimental and innovative systems,onsite wastewater rules and regula-tions, and environmental impacts ofnutrients and pathogens.

Other menu items include guide-lines for application approvals, such assubsurface discharge approvals for in-dustrial-process wastewater; filters, ris-ers, and seals approvals; and aerobictreatment unit approval. There arealso training manuals and links.

New England Biosolids andResiduals Association (NEBRA)www.nebiosolids.org/

NEBRA is a nonprofit organizationmade up of public utilities, individu-als, and companies throughout theNortheastern U.S. solely dedicated tounderstanding and facilitating the re-cycling of biosolids and other residu-als. A “Question and Answer” pagedescribes biosolids, wastewater treat-ment, and biosolids management.Other pages contain informationabout biosolids use in New England,the history of biosolids use, andbiosolids research. A “News” sectionprovides press releases concerningbiosolids, and other pages listbiosolids products available in NewEngland and give advice on their use.There is a calendar of events and alinks page to biosolids-related sites.

Northwest Biosolid ManagementAssociation (NBMA)www.nwbiosolids.org/

NBMA membership is comprisedof more than 205 sewerage agenciesand private companies that managebiosolids in Washington, Oregon,

Idaho, and Alaska in the U.S., and inBritish Columbia, Canada. The organi-zation focuses on finding safe, eco-nomical ways to manage biosolids,and its Web site provides informationabout biosolids use, proposed regula-tions, and related links. In the “What’sNew” section, readers can access arti-cles from issues of the NBMA’s month-ly publication, Biosolids Bulletin, viewa calendar of events, and read newspostings about biosolids-related issues.

National Biosolids Partnership(NBP)www.biosolids.org

The goal of the NBP, a not-for-profitalliance formed in 1997 by the Associ-ation of Metropolitan Sewerage Agen-cies (AMSA), Water Environment Fed-eration (WEF), and U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), is to advanceenvironmentally sound and acceptedbiosolids management practices. TheWeb site’s “Newsroom” page offersweekly updated news items concerningbiosolids use, regulation, and research.A calendar page tracks industry-relatedevents, and a “Toolbox” page containslinks to reports, fact sheets,and othertechn ica ldocumentsa b o u tbiosolids.The sitealso of-fers con-tact in-formation forregional andn a t i o n a lbiosolids andpre t rea tmentcoordinators inEPA and stateoffices.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

9

F O R U MS

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

8

F O R U M

CONTINUED ON PAGE 38

Much has been written recently about the per-

formance of both new and not-so-new onsite

wastewater treatment technologies. The slant of

these articles is that “new” technology includes

aerobic treatment units while “not-so-new” in-

cludes a variety of technologies generally de-

scribed as “passive,” including sand filters and the

like. Generally, the performance of aerobic treat-

ment units has been explicitly or implicitly de-

clared substandard. These declarations are due to

lack of information about the technology, a lack

of understanding about how the technology

should be applied in specific situations, and a bias

that seems to persist in some corners of the on-

site industry.

It is the contention of aerobic treatment unit

manufacturers that many assessments of the per-

formance of onsite wastewater treatment tech-

nologies are made without adequate considera-

tion of the factors involved in the theory, design,

installation, operation, and maintenance of sys-

tems using the technology. In this essay, we will

focus on the performance of aerobic treatment

units used to treat wastewater from residences.

However, the issues raised are applicable to all

technologies used in onsite wastewater treatment

and disposal.

Aerobic PerformanceAerobic treatment units operating in conjunc-

tion with a variety of effluent disposal systems

perform well when properly designed, installed,

operated, and maintained. Numerous technical

papers and articles have addressed the positive

impact aerobic treatment units have had on

wastewater management in suburban and rural

areas: Young (1974); Locker and Vansickle

(1980); Stockton (1984); Monnett Reneau and

Hagedorn (1996); Otis (1994); National Small

Flows Clearinghouse (1996); and Sahr, Lynch, Sar-

rocco-Smith (1996). Most recently, Bohrer and

Converse (2001) note that the performance of

aerobic treatment units exceeds the performance

of sand filters, the standard by which onsite tech-

nologies are often judged.

Some bias against aerobic treatment units may

have been justifiable at one time. Ask any experi-

enced practitioner in the industry, whether

installer or regulator, and he or she will relate the

urban legends of how in the 1960’s aerobic treat-

ment units were foist upon unsuspecting jurisdic-

tions. The manufacturers were promising com-

plete treatment, suitability for any soil or site con-

dition, and no need for maintenance. The reality

was actually one of widespread pollution and eco-

nomic disaster, as both fraudulent claims and a

gullible public increased. Ultimately, some juris-

dictions banned the technology outright when

widespread “failures” became too numerous to

manage. Much has changed in the past 30 years.

The bias persists in some jurisdictions because

aerobic treatment units seem to collide with

human nature. By design, aerobic treatment units

are supposed to call attention to themselves

whenever there is a problem. For many people,

particularly overtaxed regulators, eliminating the

sources of complaints is a major time consumer.

The fact that aerobic treatment units call attention

to themselves is essential. It is much easier and

less expensive to service an aerobic treatment unit

than to replace a drainfield clogged with solids or

grease. If regulators are inclined to view every

alarm as indicative of a technology failure (or sim-

ply tire of responding to the phone calls), they

have taken one of the strengths of the design (ac-

tive warning upon evidence of trouble) and con-

sidered it to be a weakness.

Certainly there are examples of poor aerobic

treatment unit design, application, operation

and/or maintenance, resulting in inadequate per-

formance. Regardless of the technology, omitting

any one of these elements will lead to poor per-

formance. However, the same is true for peat fil-

ters, sand filters, and the standard septic tank sys-

tem. When evaluating performance, any technol-

ogy will fail if it is not properly designed, installed,

operated, and maintained.

The Need for Scientific EvaluationParticularly troubling is the poor method by

which aerobic treatment units seem to be evalu-

ated. Aerobic treatment units are often evaluated

in a manner that results in a biased conclusion,

particularly when the evaluation is conducted by

persons not generally trained to conduct in-depth

testing. There are issues that unfairly perpetuate

the myths that restrict the use of aerobic treat-

ment units. Four issues arise: the selection of units

for evaluation, the establishment and measure of

a baseline, sampling practices, and sampling tech-

niques. All of these issues contribute to the mis-

information that often results.

Consider the issue of sample selection. Statis-

ticians say random sampling provides the most

accurate results. Despite their best intentions for

impartiality, bias is almost surely the result when

the people conducting the study decide which in-

formation to include, rather than having it deter-

mined by the protocol. Such bias, which can exist

at an unconscious level, limits the applicability of

the data as surely as fraudulent data and/or mis-

takes.

Likewise, baselines (which are essential) may

be lacking. The West Virginia study (Winter 2001

Small Flows Quarterly) concluded that aerobic

treatment units performed poorly. Perhaps that’s

true, in an absolute sense, for the units the sur-

vey party inspected, but corresponding data for

other technologies are missing. It may be that

aerobic treatment units were performing as well

as, or better than, other technologies. Implied in

their conclusion is that other technologies per-

form better, but there are no corresponding data

to support the implication. It might be the case

that all technologies in the study area perform

equally poorly for reasons that have nothing to

do with the inherent strengths or weaknesses of

any allowed technology.

Furthermore, valid conclusions must be based

on valid sampling and sample analysis. Sampling

techniques can dramatically effect the result. By

“technique,” we refer to the procedure for col-

lecting wastewater for analysis. We distinguish this

from sampling protocol, which is discussed next.

If sampling ports are absent, it will be nearly im-

possible to collect samples that accurately reflect

the quality of the effluent. Written, standardized

procedures, proper sampling equipment, and ad-

equate training are essential to ensure that sam-

ples reflect the performance of the technology

and not the absence of procedures or skills on

the part of the surveyors.Sampling protocol is related to sampling tech-

nique. Often, the performance of aerobic treat-ment units is judged by a single effluent grab sam-ple. Composite sampling, not a single grab sam-ple, is the only scientifically accepted practicewhen evaluating the performance of biologicaltreatment devices. The data from the analysis ofthe composite samples is then computed into 7-day and 30-day averages in order to evaluateperformance. Sample averaging is how the per-formance of municipal and semi-public waste-water treatment systems are evaluated. (SeeUSEPA, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Sep-tember 20, 1987, Protection of Environment.)

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System PerformanceA Multifaceted Relationship Between Design,

Installation, Operation, and Maintenance

Bennette D. Burks, P.E.Michael S. Price, R.S.

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Dear Editor,

I want to comment on the article, “A Survey of HomeAerobic Treatment Systems Operating in Six West Vir-ginia Counties,” which appeared in the Fall 2000issue of the Small Flows Quarterly.

The authors make a very valid point in observing thatmandatory lifetime maintenance should be requiredfor these systems. Over a two-year period, I conduct-ed a small study of intermittent sand filters. I foundthat homeowners failed to conduct even the simplepreventive maintenance of flushing the distributionpipes and checking pressure by measuring “squirt”height. With one exception, this remained the caseeven when a reminder was mailed and accompaniedby an offer for free onsite instruction by the sanitar-ian at the homeowner’s convenience.

The county sanitary code now requires that a serviceagreement be in place for properties served by alter-native wastewater treatment systems. Serviceproviders are to be trained to meet the manufactur-er’s standards so that they are knowledgeable andcapable of trouble-shooting as well as performing theroutine maintenance. This code change made theservice agreement a part of the permitting processfor alternative systems. (Septic systems and wastestabilization ponds are currently not subject to themandatory service agreement.)

No matter how well-designed a treatment system is,if routine maintenance is not conducted, the systemcannot perform to meet standards. The permittingagency must require ongoing service/maintenanceagreements as a condition of installation. Otherwise,no permit is issued, the system (and building) is notbuilt, and there is no problem.

There is still an enforcement issue related to thehomeowner who refuses to renew the service agree-ment. Administrative citations or fines must be partof the permit or sanitary code. People areticketed/fined for parking violations or for lettingtheir dog run loose. The penalty for not having aservice agreement in place should be just as simplylevied, without court orders or attorneys.

Sincerely,Judy M. Willingham, R.S.Manhattan, Kansas

Letters to the Editor

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

11

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

10

N O D P U P D A T E

CONTINUED ON PAGE 39

Who would have thought that a

small, modest, rural, sparsely populat-

ed village in Appalachia would be of in-

terest to Central Europe? Centerville,

located in the Southern Alleghenies re-

gion of Pennsylvania, is not only a

model for onsite wastewater manage-

ment systems in the U.S., but also

serves as a classroom for Central Euro-

pean engineers.

Centerville is part of the Central Eu-

ropean Linkage Program (CELP), a tech-

nical and cultural exchange initiative

funded by the Pittsburgh-based Heinz

Endowment.

Conditions in Centerville so closely

parallel conditions in Central Europe’s

rural communities that engineers can

transfer information they learn here

about low-cost alternative wastewater

treatment technologies back to their

homelands of Slovakia, Poland, Hun-

gary, and the Czech Republic.

Edward Corriveau, P.E., of the Penn-

sylvania Department of Environmental

Protection (DEP) and David Pask,

P.Eng., of the National Small Flows

Clearinghouse (NSFC) at West Virginia

University, Morgantown, West Virginia,

provided training for the European en-

gineers.

In April 1998, the U.S. Environmen-

tal Protection Agency (EPA) awarded

Centerville a grant through Phase II of

the National Onsite Demonstration

Program (NODP). Centerville will use

the grant to set up a management dis-

trict for onsite wastewater systems.

Other communities can then use Cen-

terville as a technological and manage-

rial model for onsite wastewater treat-

ment systems.

The primary reason Centerville was

chosen for Phase II was because its en-

tire drainage area is directed toward

the Gordon and Koon Lakes. These

reservoirs are the only source of water

for 60,000 residents in parts of Mary-

land, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia,

and a contaminated watershed would

cause major public and environmental

health hazards. A sewage treatment fa-

cility in Centerville would protect these

water supplies and eliminate surface

septic discharge that can harm fish and

wildlife in the area.

Pennsylvania Law Holds TownshipSupervisors Responsible for Wastewater

In Pennsylvania, the township is re-

sponsible for wastewater planning and

implementation, and the Pennsylvania

DEP is the regulatory agency. Waste-

water planning and implementation is

mandated under Pennsylvania Act 537

(passed in 1966), which ensures mu-

nicipalities comply with the Clean

Streams Law and the Pennsylvania

Sewage Facilities Act. The law requires

that township supervisors meet these

requirements by preventing discharge

of untreated or inadequately treated

sewage, by inspecting, pumping, main-

taining, and rehabilitating private and

public onsite sewage disposal systems,

and by providing environmentally

sound disposal sites.

For the village of Centerville, this

was no easy task. Most of the onsite

septic systems here were constructed

before 1972 under relaxed standards.

The shallow soils, seasonally high

groundwater tables, small lots, and

close proximity of homes prohibited

repairing or replacing those systems to

bring them into compliance with

today’s standards.

Systems permitted since 1972 are

either conventional or sand mounds.

And although there is no documented

evidence of public health pollution

problems within the village, 70 percent

of the onsite systems were malfunc-

tioning, and 13 homes were linked to

two “wildcat” sewers (abandoned coal

mine pipes) that outlet directly into

ditches or streams.

Centerville Chooses RecirculatingSand Filter Treatment System

The alternative wastewater treat-

ment chosen for Centerville is a recir-

culating sand filter system with dis-

charge to a constructed wetland. This

type of system provides a high-quality

effluent. “Wildcat” sewers will be

abandoned.

The treatment system will serve 58

residences, one restaurant, one church,

three commercial buildings, one former

public school facility that has been con-

verted to offices, and the township

building. The type of wastewater dis-

charged in Centerville is domestic. The

Township does not plan to provide pub-

lic sewer service to any area other than

Centerville for a period of at least five

years. The Centerville treatment system

is planned to meet an existing sewage

problem and will accommodate mod-

est growth within the service area.

Contour trench systems will be used

for lots that have high levels of

bedrock. This soil condition causes

wastewater to flow laterally instead of

vertically into the ground. Installing

contour systems to treat the waste-

water will prevent untreated waste-

water from discharging to surface water

sources.

“The Pennsylvania DEP will monitor

the contour system for two years. If the

data show good effluent quality, then

the contour system will be added to

the state’s approved list of technolo-

CCeenntteerrvviillllee,, PPAA

Caigan McKenzie

NSFC STAFF WRITER

Update on the Central European Linkage Program

Centerville’s international link has reached a successful turning point. Ac-cording to Edward Corriveau, P.E., of the Pennsylvania Department of Envi-ronmental Protection, “The onsite demonstration project begun three yearsago in Nizne Repas, Slovakia was constructed in December 2000 with thepartnership of the Heinz Endowment’s Central European Linkage Program,Southern Allegheny Conservancy, Pennsylvania Department of EnvironmentalProtection, and the local Slovakian organization Ludia a Voda (translated‘People and Water’).”

The processes include a septic tank with a BioClere treatment unit dispers-ing into a subsurface sand mound or flowing through a wetland system. Itis one of the first systems in Slovakia to use soil or land treatment.

The site is a cluster system serving six home residences and will be devel-oped into an environmental education center. Village staff worked to helpinstall the sewer system while the contractor installed the tanks in a signif-icant self-help style project. People and Water and the local village of NizneRepas provide management and maintenance of the system.

“This is the kind of effort that can be duplicated elsewhere in Slovakia andcentral Europe and encourage our decentralized efforts in the U.S.,” Corriveau said.

gies. This is an action that other NODP

II projects have successfully brought

about in other states,” said NODP II

Program Coordinator Clement

Solomon.

NODP Grant Becomes Leverage for Securing Grants and Low-InterestLoans

Without outside funding, a public

treatment system would financially

strap Centerville’s residents, who can

be characterized as low to moderate

income. Fortunately, a variety of grants

have been awarded to the community

that will significantly lessen the burden.

“What began as a small project

seemed to mushroom into a communi-

tywide effort as other agencies part-

nered with the NODP activity at Cen-

terville,” said Solomon. For example,

the NSFC is directing wetland con-

struction for discharging wastewater.

Subsequently, the EPA, Penn Vest,

Farmer’s Home Administration, and the

Community Block Grant Program

awarded additional grants and low-in-

terest loans, such as a federal construc-

tion grant. Tap fees will also be used to

help finance the project.

Centerville Project Has Many Positive Outcomes

Not only did the Centerville project

spearhead new technology in Slovakia,

(Top)In Nizne Repas, Slovakia, this typical rural doma (house), of typical log and caulk construc-tion, stands along a service lateral being constructed by the village administration (self-helpexample) as part of a six-doma cluster system.

(Right)Construction (now completed) of an onsite treatment system in Nizne Repas, Slovakia, show-ing septic tank and Bioclere treament unit excavation leading to a constructed wetland andsubsurface sand mound.

Photos courtesy of Edward Corriveau.

World-ClassDemonstration

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

12

T E C H N O L O G Y

They also can be a good choice for homes, busi-

nesses, institutions, and small residential develop-

ments and communities in areas where central-

ized treatment is unavailable or too expensive.

Sand filters are constructed beds of sand or

other suitable granular material usually 2 to 3 feet

deep. The filter materials (called media) are con-

tained in a liner made of concrete, plastic, or other

impermeable material. Depending on the design,

the filter may be situated above ground, partially

above ground, or below ground.

Partially treated wastewater is applied to the fil-

ter surface in intermittent doses and receives treat-

ment as it slowly trickles through the media, where

natural physical, biological, and chemical process-

es combine to provide treatment. Most treatment

occurs in the first 6 to 12 inches of the filter sur-

face. The wastewater is collected in an underdrain

and sent for further treatment and/or disposal.

Sand filters are most affected in the winter by

freezing water. “First and most critical, the system

must be designed to drain out,” said Dave

Gustafson, extension specialist with the Universi-

ty of Minnesota. His work involves troubleshoot-

ing systems for homeowners, and from his experi-

ence, Gustafson has found that it is extremely im-

portant that no water be allowed to stand due to

closed check valves or laterals installed without

adequate slope. “Be sure that all lines run down,”

he added. He recommends that there should be

no bare (uninsulated) connections to the surface

and that all inspection pipes and risers are ade-

quately insulated.

Although he does advise insulating the septic

tank, Gustafson does not recommend the use of

deep systems. Another place for added insulation

that many homeowners fail to consider are drain

lines that run under sidewalks or driveways where

the natural snow cover is frequently removed.

“One common design problem we see often

are inadequate pumps that allow water to pool

and then freeze. As one of our routine mainte-

nance checks, we want to make sure that the

pumps are of sufficient capacity to keep water

moving and delivered,” Gustafson said. He tries

to impress on homeowners the importance of

making these winterizing checks during the

warmer months. “It’s much easier to change out

a pump in September than in February,” he noted.Ted Loudon,

associate profes-sor and exten-sion serviceagent at Michi-gan State Uni-versity, hadbeen studyingthe effective-ness of sand fil-ters in winterusing a speciallydesigned sprin-kler system todistribute the ef-fluent on the

Baby, It’s Outside!

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

13

Marilyn Noah

NSFC STAFF WRITER

Forecast: Continued cold, temperatures droppinginto the teens, winds 15–20 miles per hour. Littlechange expected over the next several weeks. Asyou stand at your kitchen window, cradling yourcoffee mug to warm your hands, you probablydon’t consider how this weather pattern will affectthe operation of your wastewater treatment system.

When temperatures drop low enough for ice

to form, are these systems able to function effec-

tively? The latest research reveals that alternative

onsite systems, such as constructed wetlands, sand

filters, drip irrigation systems, and peat filters, seem

to function effectively in cold weather, although at

a reduced level, as long as they were designed

carefully and afforded adequate maintenance.

By their very design, alternative onsite waste-

water treatment systems are at the mercy of the

elements. Most rely on the free movement of

water and the biological activity of living creatures

to work effectively, and freezing temperatures af-

fect the hydrology, chemistry, and biology of soils.

Under freezing conditions, soil becomes less per-

meable to rainfall and snowmelt, water within the

frozen part of the soil profile becomes immobile

and unavailable for leaching, and microbiological

activity is reduced.

Constructed WetlandsConstructed wetlands are especially useful in

areas with very slow permeable soils because

they are capable of absorbing pollutant loadings

and provide a low-cost alternative to chemical and

biological treatment. Constructed wetlands oper-

ate on ambient solar energy, providing increased

treatment capacity over time, creating wildlife

habitat, and achieving high levels of treatment

with minimal maintenance. Currently, construct-

ed wetlands are accepted as permitted systems in

states including Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Ken-

tucky, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas.

There are two main types of constructed wet-

lands: free water surface and subsurface flow. The

wastewater remains at a level above the soil and

so is exposed to the atmosphere in the free water

surface systems. The surface wastewater remains

below the substrate in subsurface flow systems,

protected from the elements by the insulating

layer of plant litter. Because of this insulating layer,

subsurface-flow wetlands are best suited for win-

ter applications.

Duplicating natural wetland processes, con-

structed wetlands are complex integrated systems

involving the interaction of plants, microorgan-

isms, water, and the environment. Microorgan-

isms and plants break down pollutants; the gravel

substrate filters particulates. Wetlands for waste-

water treatment are designed with a slope of be-

tween zero and 1 percent so gravity can pull the

water through the system.

Typically, quantities of heat are stored in the

underlying soil during the warm season and inhib-

it ice formation in the winter. The advantage sub-

surface-flow wetlands have over surface-flow wet-

lands is that water is not exposed to the atmos-

phere during the treatment process, minimizing

energy loss through evaporation and convection.

“If properly designed at the time of installation

and given an adequate layer of mulch for insula-

tion, the subsurface-flow constructed wetland bed

remains effective during cold periods,” said Sher-

wood Reed, P.E., a long-time proponent and de-

signer of these systems. “We have found that it is

especially important to cover the system with a

layer of straw 6 to 8 inches deep for the first win-

ter, because the plant materials have not had time

to establish completely. This insulating layer al-

lows the system to continue its work. The mulch

layer also helps to keep temperatures down dur-

ing hot summers.”

Snow cover forms an effective insulating layer,

but due to the unpredictability of the weather,

Reed recommends that the homeowner not rely

on snow and ice cover for a reliable insulation. He

prefers using straw because it contains few weed

seeds and adds very little nitrogen to the system.

Research shows that the biochemical reactions

that remove pollutants from wastewater are re-

duced at low temperatures, and so water temper-

ature must be considered in the process design.

The size of the wetland should be based on low-

temperature conditions, and the design should be

based on the average temperature from the cold-

est winter recorded.

Sand FiltersThe recirculating sand filter system is a me-

chanically simple, low-maintenance method of

wastewater treatment beyond the septic tank and

operates quite well in areas of the country that

encounter harsh winter temperatures.

Sand filters treat wastewater using naturally oc-

curring physical, biological, and chemical process-

es. They are one of the best options for additional

onsite treat-

ment where

septic tank/-

soil absorp-

tion systems

have failed

or are re-

stricted due

to high

groundwa-

ter, shallow

b e d r o c k ,

poor soils,

or other site

conditions.

Techniques for Onsite Success in Cold Climates

Sand

Gravel Underdrain

Distribution Lines

Sand Filter

From Septic Tank

To Dispersal

Photo by Michelle Moore

CCOOLLDD

Sand Filter

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

14

surface. From some of hisprojects, Loudon determinedthat recirculating sand filterswith surface application ap-peared to function quite wellduring extremely frigid condi-tions without requiring anymaintenance, even thoughheavy icing did occur on thesurface. The sprinklers wererelatively immune to icingand failure due to freezing.Ice cones built up aroundeach sprinkler, but remainedhollow, while the ice provid-ed a degree of protectionaround each sprinkler head.Loudon observed that evenwhen the temperaturesdropped to near freezingdown to the 18-inch depth inthe sand, there were suffi-ciently open zones for the fil-ters to continue to function.

As a result of recent work,however, Louden considerssuch sprinklers obsolete. “Weno longer recommend sur-face application of effluenton sand filters, especially noton individual home units,” hesaid. “Now, all up-to-date re-circulating sand filters havethe distribution pipe networkembedded in a stone layer sothere is no water on the sur-face and no ice buildup.”

Drip Irrigation SystemsDrip irrigation systems

(also known as “trickle” sys-tems) apply pretreated and fil-tered wastewater to soil slow-ly and uniformly through anetwork of thin, flexible tub-ing placed at shallow depthsin the soil. Drip irrigation sys-tems are for the dispersal of

septic system ef-

fluent. They can be designed to accommodatesites with complex terrain due to the flexible tub-ing used; drip dispersal is a possible option for lo-cations with high bedrock, high groundwater, orslowly permeable soils.

Professor Jim Converse, with the University ofWisconsin, has also been studying the effective-ness of drip irrigation systems for dispersal of sep-tic system effluent. After collecting data on E.Coli,median fecal coliform, organic nitrogen, ammoni-um-nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen from six differ-ent systems from December 1998 through March1999, even when temperatures dropped belowfreezing, Converse found that none of the systemsstudied encountered operational problems, andthe remediation of the water continued at accept-able levels. He concludes that with proper designand installation, drip distribution systems give ad-equate secondary treatment, even during the se-vere Wisconsin winters.

Minnesota Project with Multiple SystemsA multi-interest research site was established

in northern Minnesota in the fall of 1995 to moni-tor the performance of several different types ofpretreatment systems. This university/multi-indus-try/local, state, and federal agency project was in-stalled on the grounds of the Northeast RegionalCorrection Center (NERCC). Technologies investi-gated included single-pass peat filters, single-passsand filters, subsurface flow constructed wetlands,and modular recirculating peat filters. The systemswere monitored every three weeks, including thetemperatures of the systems.

“This is a unique test situation that allows usside-by-side comparisons of the performance ofboth alternative and a standard onsite systemusing the same wastewater at similar daily flows,”said Barbara McCarthy, research fellow, at the Nat-ural Resources Research Institute, one of the op-erating agencies of this project.

“We have had to make some redesign changesduring the life of the project, but we are pleasedto have a five-year history of data. And over-whelmingly, we can say that the performance ofthe systems at NERCC during the cold weatherwas good,” McCarthy said.

The single-pass peat filters are designed to treatseptic tank effluent at a hydraulic loading rate of 3.3centimeters per day (cm/d). The ability of the peatto remove total phosphorus is likely limited by thelow adsorptive mineral content of the media from a

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

15

low of 35 percent removal in the winter months toa high of 61 percent. Total nitrogen removal variedconsiderably, but with average removal rates of66–85 percent during the winter months.

Single-pass sand filters are dosed six times aday and designed for a hydraulic loading rate of3.1 cm/d. The sand filters performed well in theremoval of total suspended solids (TSS), biochemi-cal oxygen demand (BOD5), and fecal coliformbacteria. Phosphorus removal rates during the sum-mers were similar to winter removal rates. Andwhile it appeared that the sand filters provided ex-cellent removal of ammonium via nitrification tonitrate, total nitrogen removal was a relatively low8–33 percent since the sand is unlikely to nitrifylarge amounts of ammonium.

The constructed wetlands were installed in Oc-tober 1995 and were covered with straw to pre-vent freezing. Overall, the wetlands performedreasonably well, with better performance duringthe summers than the winters.

Modular recirculating peat filters were installedin June 1998 using both the standard Irish peatand a Minnesota peat. Test data indicate the recir-culating peat filters are performing well, using boththe Irish peat and the Minnesota peat. Becausepeat is such a good insulating material, there havebeen no problems with freezing of the units.

The intermittent sand filters were designed fora hydraulic loading rate of 3.15 cm/d and weredosed every 4 hours at 159 liters per dose. The fil-ters were covered with straw during winter to pre-vent the distribution network from freezing. Thefilter showed excellent TSS, BOD5, and fecal col-iforms removal, in addition to providing excellentremoval of ammonium via nitrification to nitrate.

The constructed wetlands consist of two cellsin series, with the first cell designed to meet sec-ondary treatment standards for TSS, BOD5, andfecal coliform bacteria at a flow of 1.5 cm/d. The

Zone 1

Dripper Line

Finished Grade

PVC Pipe

Zone 2 Septic Tan

Pump Tank

Supply to CU

Field Flush/

Back Flush

CentralUnit (CU)

NSFC Products

Readers who wish to further investigatethe systems referred to in this articleshould consider the following education-al products offered by the National SmallFlows Clearinghouse (NSFC).

BooksComputer Search—Constructed Wetlands(Item #WWBKCM01)This 137-page book is a computer searchof the NSFC Bibliographic Database thatcontains nearly 300 abstracts of articlesdetailing the use of constructed wet-lands as a wastewater treatment process.Topics discussed include design, site se-lection and sizing, construction, opera-tion and maintenance, cost, and per-formance. The price of this book is$19.70.

Computer Search—Sand Filters (Item#WWBKCM08)This NSFC computer search contains ab-stracts of articles about sand filters asan alternative wastewater treatment sys-tem. Topics discussed include design,sizing, site selection, operation andmaintenance, cost comparison withother conventional systems, system ef-fectiveness, and failures. The cost forthis 159-page book is $25.45.

BookletsSingle-Pass Sand Filters for Onsite Treat-ment of Domestic Wastes (Item #WWBLDM88)This 28-page paper by James C. Converse(Biological Systems Engineering College ofAgricultural and Life Sciences, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison) provides a basicknowledge of single-pass sand filter prin-ciples, design, construction, and mainte-nance. The cost of this booklet is $6.00

Computer Search—Drip Irrigation (Item#WWBLCM18)This 28-page NSFC computer search con-tains abstracts of articles discussing dripirrigation as an alternative to conven-tional methods of wastewater treatmentand disposal. These articles cover casestudies and design and performance ofdrip irrigation systems for residential andcommunity use.

Recirculating Sand/Gravel Filters for On-site Treatment of Domestic Wastes (Item#WWBLDM87)This booklet by James C. Converse of theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison pro-vides a basic knowledge of recirculatingsand filter principles, design, construc-tion, and maintenance. The price of this23-page booklet is $3.35.

(Top)At this Wisconsin drip irrigation testsite, vegetation planted over the drip-per lines between the trees minimizedfreezing.

(Middle)In Michigan, hollow ice cones thatformed around the sprinklers of thissurface application, recirculating sandfilter afforded protection from the elements, and there was very littlefrozen sand beneath them.

(Bottom)A typical surface application sand fil-ter in winter.

Photo by Jim Converse.

Photo by Ted Loudon.

Photo by Ted Loudon.

Drip Irrigation System

second cell was added to provide additional nu-trient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal. The firstcell is filled with pea rock and the second cell withcrushed limestone. Researchers allowed thefrozen system to run, as a homeowner might, andit developed an ice layer 1.5 centimeters thick onthe surface. The insulation from the ice, along withthe latent heat in the ground, thawed the cell andallowed the water to flow again through the sub-surface. While the average removals decreasedduring the cold season, data indicated a reason-able removal efficiency year round.

ConclusionsClearly, the alternative systems should contin-

ue to be considered as viable technologies innorthern climates. With little or no extra mainte-nance, these systems keep working right along,even in midst of winter’s fury.

ReferencesBohrer, R. M., and J. C. Converse. 2001. Soil treatment performance and

cold weather operations of drip distribution systems. Onsite waste-water treatment: Proceedings of the 9th national symposium on indi-vidual and small community sewage systems. ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.

Davis, J. 2000. Constructed wetlands for residential wastewater treat-ment in Chippewa County, Mich. Proceedings of the 2000 NOWRAannual meeting. NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.

Hanneck, J., R. Axler, B. McCarthy, D. Nordman, and S. M. Geerts. 1999.Experiences with constructed wetlands in Minnesota. Proceedings ofthe 1999 NOWRA annual meeting. NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.

Kadlec, R. H. 1996. Physical processes in constructed wetlands. Pro-ceedings of the constructed wetlands in cold climates conference.Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario.

Loudon, T. L., O. B. Thompson, L. E. Reese, and L. Fay. 1984. Cold cli-mate performance of recirculating sand filters. Onsite wastewatertreatment: Proceedings of the 4th national symposium on individualand small community sewage systems. ASAE. St. Joseph: Mich.

Osteraas, T. 1983. Subsurface absorption systems—Frost problems andprevention of frost. Proceedings of the International Conference onNew Technology of Wastewater Treatment and Sewerage in Ruraland Suburb Areas. Hanassari, Finland

McCarthy, B., R. Axler, S. M. Geerts, J. Henneck, J. Crosby, and P. Weid-man. 1999. Cold-Weather operation and performance of alternativetreatment systems in Northern Minnesota. Proceedings of the 1999NOWRA annual meeting. NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.

Reed, S., P.E., and D. Calkins, P.E. 1996. Thermal aspects of constructedwetland system design. Proceedings of the constructed wetlands incold climates conference. Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. Wallace, S.2000. Design and performance of cold climate wetland treatmentsystems. Proceedings of the 2000 NOWRA annual meeting.NOWRA. Laurel, Maryland.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

16

N O D P U P D A T E

Rockies

benefits, including

• free percolation tests;

• free consultation for developing

water or sewage facilities;

• free water fills for recreational ve-

hicles, small water containers,

and community showers;

• water and sewage hauling rates

25 percent lower than market

value;

• faster approval of well permits;

• annual testing of wells for con-

tamination; and

• water rights protection against de-

velopers and other water users on

the stream system.

Homeowner SupportCrystal Lakes published its first com-

munity newsletter in 1971. The

newsletter expressed the development

company’s commitment to preserving

the ecology of the mountain area in

which the development is located, to

keep water pure and usable, and to

meet state standards for sewage dis-

posal.

A summary of Mancl’s interviews

with homeowners indicates that the

majority agreed with Crystal Lakes’

wastewater management policies.

“Crystal Lakes has a better capabili-

ty of controlling the sewage solution

up here than probably any of the big

cities do,” said one homeowner. “I would hate to think of what we

would have if we didn’t have the sep-tic and well regulations that we have. Iwould argue for a continuation andperhaps a strengthening of standardsthat are developed—not at the federallevel, but at a more local level,” said

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

17

Crystal Lakes, Colorado, is a popu-

lar recreational community in the

Rocky Mountains. Most people are

drawn by the allure of the community’s

sparkling, freshwater lakes. For Karen

Mancl, Ph.D., it’s the wastewater.

Mancl has good reason to be curi-

ous about Crystal Lakes’ wastewater

management practices. In June 1999,

she was granted sabbatical leave from

the Ohio State University School of

Food, Agricultural and Biological Engi-

neering specifically to research and

identify public policies that shape suc-

cessful wastewater management sys-

tems. Crystal Lakes is one of the suc-

cessful wastewater management com-

munities Mancl explored.

The work Mancl normally does is re-

searching wastewater technologies and

teaching these technologies to a

variety of students—contractors, regula-

tors, developers, homeowners, govern-

ment officials, and college students.

But after receiving a grant from

Phase IV of the National Onsite

Demonstration Program (NODP),

Mancl set aside the technology to

focus on the public policies of waste-

water systems.

National Onsite Demonstration Pro-gram (NODP)

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency funds Phase IV of the NODP

with a budget of $1.25 million. It is

managed by the National Small Flows

Clearinghouse (NSFC) to assist local of-

ficials in implementing management

districts around the country. It does this

by providing them with successful man-

agement models and information for

customizing these models to meet their

specific needs.

Crystal Lakes Begins DevelopmentCrystal Lakes is a private, mountain-

ous, recreational community northwest

of Red Feather Lakes, Colorado. It en-

compasses 10 square miles nestled

within wooded lands owned by the

U.S. Forest Service. Its name reflects its

four man-made lakes. Three of these

lakes were constructed by damming

Panhandle Creek. Lone Pine Creek was

dammed to create the fourth lake.

The first cabin was completed in

Crystal Lakes in 1970, two years before

the Colorado legislature passed a water

augmentation law that allowed commu-

nities to borrow water as long as they re-

turned it before the owners of the water

needed it. This would be accomplished

by returning water to the stream system

through percolation from the soil ab-

sorption fields. In 1973, the Crystal

Lakes Water and Sewer Association was

formed to administer the state-mandat-

ed water augmentation plan.

Crystal Lakes’ Water AugmentationPlan

In 1974, Crystal Lakes developed its

own water augmentation plan, the first

in the state to plan for parcels with

fewer than 35 acres. “Without a water

augmentation plan,” Mancl said, “Crys-

tal Lakes would have no right to use

water. And without a right to use water,

Crystal Lakes could not develop.”

Crystal Lakes’ water augmentation

plan limits beneficial use of water to in-

house domestic use. Yard irrigation is

prohibited, but irrigation of up to 10

acres of open space in the develop-

ment is allowed.

The plan is for 1,312 homes. By

1999 there were 112 full-time

dwellings and 600 part-time dwellings

and properties, a community center,

firehouse, road, recreation shop, store,

and restaurant.

Types of Onsite SystemsThe use of onsite systems is exten-

sive in Crystal Lakes. One hundred and

twelve serve full-time dwellings, 500

serve part-time dwellings, and the re-

mainder are holding tanks that serve

recreational vehicles.

Of these systems, one cluster soil

absorption system serves 25 homes on

small lots, and one large system serves

the lodge, restaurant, and offices. Ap-

proximately 400 systems are conven-

tional soil absorption systems, and the

water and sewer association manages

300 holding tanks, seven community

vault toilets, and recreational vehicle

dump stations. The water augmenta-

tion plan allows evapotranspiration sys-

tems to be used for 72 properties.

Special ProgramsRecreational vehicle holding tanks

caused a problem in 1993 when trail-

er owners dumped sewage on the

ground because they found it incon-

venient to move trailers to designated

stations for dumping.

The association solved this problem

by purchasing a trailer with a small tank

that allowed for gravity flow from a

recreational vehicle’s holding tank. A

$15 fee was assessed for this service.

The association also found a way to

construct soil absorption systems in

bedrock areas. The developer exca-

vates weathered granite (a hard vol-

canic rock), drives over it with excava-

tion equipment to crush it, and then

places it back into the excavated site.

Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Asso-ciation

Landowners who use the Crystal

Lakes Water and Sewer Association’s

water or sewage facilities are associa-

tion members. Members elect the as-

sociation’s board of directors with one

vote for each lot. Directors voted into

office do not need to be Colorado res-

idents, users of the association’s facili-

ties, or association shareholders.

The community’s developer was an

original member of the board but was

voted out of office to ensure that the

association would be autonomous

from its developer. This nonprofit

group is funded through revenues it re-

ceives from membership dues and

from pumping fees.

The association uses a variety of

methods to keep homeowners’ water

and wastewater systems in compliance.

For example, property owners are re-

quired to join the association. The as-

sociation has the right to pre-approve

sites before they are developed and to

design the systems to be installed. The

association also inspects septic systems

when property is sold, uses its own

pumper truck to regularly pump septic

and holding tanks, and records water

consumption and wastewater pumped.

Benefits of Water and Sewer Associ-ation Membership

Members of the water and sewer

association are entitled to a variety of

Onsite Systems Management

Caigan McKenzie

NSFC STAFF WRITER

CONTINUED ON PAGE 39

in the

The 2000 annual meeting of the Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association. The associationworks to keep the community in compliance with state wastewater and water use regulationsand manages its own wastewater treatment and water use plan.

Pho

to b

y C

urt Liv

ingsto

n

Pho

to b

y C

urt Liv

ingsto

n

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

18

R E G U L A T I O N SS

ma

ll Flo

ws Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

19

W h e n

Sharon Nel-

son and her

family moved

into their dream

home in Vashon,

Washington, they had

no idea of the nightmare their

onsite wastewater treatment system had in store

for them. Malfunctions and mishaps would turn

their septic system into a “money pit.”

That was the beginning of a very long road for

Nelson, who became a vocal proponent for home-

owners with failing onsite systems across the state.

Nelson, along with a handful of industry profes-

sionals, was instrumental in getting legislation

passed requiring licensing for septic system design-

ers and certification for inspectors in that state.

“We moved here and built a brand new home

in 1995. It had a simple grav-

ity system. Nine months

later, my husband was out-

side and noticed an odor.

The system had failed,” ex-

plained Nelson.

“It has been a learning

experience,” said Nelson.

“As we continue to build out

and use more and more dif-

ficult soils, we really need to

make sure that the people

diagnosing those soils know

what they are doing and use the best standards

possible, and that the homeowner knows who is

responsible when there is a failure.”

Nelson’s StoryNelson’s story began on January 13, 1996,

when she detected the failure. The Nelsons found

out later that the designers and inspectors didn’t

have to have training at that time. “At that time

there was no minimum standard of care for

designers and inspectors. What happened in our case

was that the system was placed in fill which has a con-

crete texture,” she said. “When things went bad,

everyone disclaimed liability, including the designer,

inspector, and installer.

“In fact, after delving into it further, we found that

the designer and inspector were very involved. The

soil had not perked. I became livid about their roles

in all of this, especially after the health department in-

spector cited us for using too much water as the rea-

son for the failure.”

Nelson said the inspector wasn’t assisting them,

but jeopardizing them. “Trenches were dug in the

front yard for diagnostic purposes and left open. Then,

one of our daughters became ill from the effluent.”

Although her gastrointestinal sickness was never of-

ficially diagnosed as resulting from the effluent, Nelson

is convinced that it was the culprit in the temporary ill-

ness because if it had been viral, others in the family

likely would have gotten ill.

The inspector told Nelson

there was “no direct proof”

that the illness was a result of

the system failure.

Nelson said it is not uncom-

mon for designers and inspec-

tors to blame the homeowner,

adding that there is a tendency

for them to protect themselves.

“We need to say that some-

times this is what happens to

homeowners, and it is not fair. I

recognize that some homeowners may cause their sys-

tems to fail; but if you build a system that a homeown-

er can’t use, it’s of no value,” said Nelson.

“A lot of homeowners I’ve talked to are so tired by

the time they get through with the problem that they

just don’t want to discuss it. When systems fail, fami-

lies are stressed. Their houses have no value to them.

It’s a very personal thing when a system fails, very hum-

bling when they are questioning all of your habits. But

you have to find a way to resolve it and deal with it.”

In addition to the emotional cost, the financial

cost was high. Nelson’s initial gravity system cost

them $2,800. To remedy the failing system, they

added infiltrators and a pressurized dosing system

with monitoring ports in the drainfield. With engi-

neering fees, the remedy was in excess of $20,000.

Although she did file a lawsuit and settle out of

court, Nelson decided she didn’t want any other

homeowners to have to go through what her fami-

ly had suffered. “We just decided it was too egre-

gious to let go. We’ve used the failure to the best

advantage by fighting for new legislation. For me,

it’s a healing process,” she said.

Getting the Ball RollingNelson contacted legislators to put forth a bill

regulating septic designers. A work group was

formed, consisting of Nelson, a few industry peo-

ple, and other interested participants already work-

ing on the problem. One of those people was

William L. Stuth, owner of Aqua Test of Maple Val-

ley, Washington, whom Nelson said was a key play-

er in getting the legislation passed.

“At the time, I had no respect for this industry.

Today, I have a great deal of respect for some of

the key people, and I’ve learned that there are ac-

tually a lot of good industry people in this state,”

she added.

Stuth, a wastewater system designer, also has a

lot of respect for Nelson. “This whole thing started

about 12 years before Sharon got involved,” he said.

“Without her help, the legislation would never have

been approved. Sharon came along and said, ‘What

about the consumer?’

“She really dug in, was diligent, and did her

homework. It sparked things because she was com-

ing from a whole different perspective.”

The legislation process actually began in the late

1980s, when a group of engineers sued the state

for allowing people who were not engineers to de-

sign septic systems. “They were claiming that the

state didn’t have a right to allow anyone but a pro-

fessional engineer to design them,” Stuth said.

“We, the designers, formed a state association

to defend ourselves against that lawsuit. It just went

on and on. Defending ourselves only lined the at-

torneys’ pockets. We were trying to protect our

livelihood as designers, and the engineers were try-

ing to protect theirs. We had gone through many

court hearings when Sharon came along.”

Stuth said he realized then that the answer was

not going to come from the courts. “After she said

that we needed to look at how to protect con-

sumers, we found that none of us were doing a

good job protecting the consumer. The whole pro-

gram needed improving,” said Stuth.

One positive thing to come out of that time, ac-

cording to Stuth, was the development of the Wash-

ington State Onsite Sewage Training Center, locat-

ed in Puyallup, Washington. “We were on the right

track. We knew the answer was to raise the skill

level of the industry through an accreditation pro-

gram. That’s why the training center came about,”

said Stuth.

Making a LawAfter Nelson contacted legislators, a committee

made up of professional engineers, designers,

pumpers, health regulators, builders, consumers,

and environmentalists, was formed to develop the

legislation.

“Within three months, the work group came up

with really solid suggestions for the state in solving

the problems. A higher standard had to be tested,”

Nelson said. “We all learned a lot about getting a

bill passed. We worked to get both Democrat and

Republican support. It was labeled a public safety

and health issue. That’s why we had bipartisan sup-

port.”

The legislation was passed in 1999, but did not

begin the licensing/certification process until July

1, 2000. “It’s just now going to be implemented. I

think it will ultimately improve the quality of instal-

lation of septic tanks,” said Stuth.

“There were many people out there doing a

good job. Along with that, there were some peo-

ple who were doing poor work who are now going

to have to step to the side. Under the old system,

it was almost impossible to take anyone’s right to

do business away. Under this new program, just by

implementation, it will eliminate a lot of those prac-

ticing individuals the health department has been

trying to eliminate.”

Key PointsThe legislation, titled “Onsite Wastewater Treat-

ment Systems—Designer Licensing,” states that its

purpose is “to safeguard life, health, and property

and to promote the public welfare.” It also states

that, “The Legislature finds that it is in the public

interest to permit the limited practice of engineer-

ing by qualified individuals who are not registered

as professional engineers . . . .”

The legislation recognizes the need for design

professionals. “The increased complexity of onsite

wastewater treatment systems, changes in treat-

ment technology, and the need to protect ground-

water and watershed areas make it essential that

qualified professionals design the systems.”

Who Says You Can’t Fight City Hall?How One Homeowner Made a Difference

Natalie Eddy

NSFC STAFF WRITER In the Nelson’s failed septic system, repair trenches dug in the drainfieldfound the lines filled with effluent that could not leach into the surround-ing impermeable soil.

Photo by Sharon Nelson

The Nelson house, with multiple diagnostictrenches in the foreground.

Photo by Sharon Nelson

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

21

R E G U L A T I O N SS

ma

ll F

low

s Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

20

The bill declares that “it is desirable to establish a

statewide licensing program to create uniform appli-

cation of design practices, standards for designs, indi-

vidual qualifications, and consistent enforcement ef-

forts . . . .”The bill gave a practice permit to designers who

had been authorized by a local health jurisdiction todesign onsite systems on or before July 1, 2000.

After July 1, 2000, any individual wishing to obtaina practice permit must apply to the board of registra-tion for professional engineers and pay a fee. The prac-tice permit allows its holder to practice onsite designservices only within local health jurisdictions where theholder had authorization to practice as of July 1, 2000.

The permit is renewable annually until June 30,2003. After that, anyone who wants to design onsitesystems will need a license issued to perform designin all counties in the state.

To obtain the license, all applicants must pass a writ-ten examination administered by the board of profes-sional engineers and must have a high school diplomaor equivalent and a minimum of four years of experi-ence in system design.

The law also contains provisions for punishment forunprofessional conduct ranging from a reprimand andsuspension, to refusal for a new license. It also providesfor a monetary penalty not to exceed $1,000 per vio-lation.

Stuth explained that when the examination kicksin, designers will be licensed under the licensing boardthat presently licenses engineers, architects, and sur-veyors.

He added that the law passed is strictly to licensedesigners of onsite systems. He said that it does notpertain to maintenance providers but will directly en-hance the systems being installed by raising the skilllevel of those designing them.

Septic System Warranty Program Available

Residents in Pennsylvania and New Jersey currently have theoption of purchasing a warranty on their septic systems throughan insurance agency.

The warranty program, originating in Brookfield, Connecticut,is marketed under the name Pro-Sept.

Pro-Sept President Gary Missigman said the plan came aboutbecause of a need he saw after he developed a similar programfor leaking home heating oil tanks.

“The septage industry wanted a product that would require sep-tic systems to be maintained properly, and in the event that asystem malfunctioned, a product that would pay to repair orreplace the system,” said Missigman.

The Powderhorn Agency worked with regulatory bodies and sep-tage companies and associations to develop the warranty pro-gram.

To qualify for the warranty, homeowners must first have theirseptic tanks inspected by a certified inspector and pumped or,if it is a new dwelling, provide the appropriate inspection forms.In return, the warranty provides that if a problem occurs, thesystem will be repaired or replaced.

We insure our cars and homes, but until re-

cently we haven’t been able to insure our onsite

wastewater treatment systems.

A proposed plan originating within the Wash-

ington Onsite Sewage Association (WOSSA),

backed by the National Onsite Wastewater Recy-

cling Association (NOWRA), is on the way to do

just that. The insurance plan is what onsite system

designer William L. Stuth and homeowner Sharon

K. Nelson hope will be the ultimate outcome of

the recent legislation passed in Washington to cer-

tify practicing designers and inspectors there.

(See related story on page 18.)

“Sharon and I worked together

very closely for three or four years

trying to get legislation

passed for the licensing of

state designers. In that time,

products would come on

the market that were profes-

sionally marketed as good, but

sometimes the technology

failed,” Stuth said.

“In the end, the consumer was

left holding the bag. We decided

the consumer needed added protec-

tion or insurance.”

While serving on a work group to get the de-

signer legislation passed, Stuth and Nelson

worked on the insurance idea. “Thirty years ago,

the need was simply to dispose of the waste on-

site,” Stuth explained. “Disposal systems were

considered temporary, only intended to be uti-

lized until sewers were available.

“The systems needed little maintenance, and

if a system did fail, you merely added onto the

drainfield. The cost of such a repair would nor-

mally range between $100 and $500.”

Once the nation realized that sewering the en-

tire country was impossible, the onsite industry

was called upon to develop ways of disposing of

and treating wastewater, according to Stuth. Tech-

nology answered the call.

Although the technology exists to treat the na-

tion’s wastewater onsite, Stuth said it has its down-

falls. “First, the cost of the system may range be-

tween $3,000 and $20,000; second, the system

requires routine maintenance; and third, if a sys-

tem fails, it may be very costly to repair, ranging

between $100 and $10,000.”

Do You Have Insurance on Your Septic System?

Natalie Eddy

NSFC STAFF WRITER

In addition, the warranty holder agrees to have the systempumped out and inspected at three-year intervals.

Specifically, for a three-year premium of $235, the plan pro-vides a $25,000 limit per warranty with a $500 deductible perclaim. The warranty may be renewed by having the tankpumped and visually inspected. Ownership of the warranty canbe transferred when the home is sold.

The Pro-Sept warranty is sold and distributed by septic com-panies, home inspection companies, and septic system inspec-tors and installers.

This year Pro-Sept will expand to other states with the hopesof going national in the near future.

“The Pro-Sept warranty program is a win-win for everyone.Builders, installers, septic companies, and home inspectors areable to transfer the risk of a malfunction to a third party. Thehomeowner wins because he has additional protection for hislargest asset, his home,” Missigman said.

For additional information about Pro-Sept’s program, contactMissigman at (888) 354-0677, fax (203) 775-1542, or e-mailgjm54@gateway.net.

In addition to designer licensing, the legislationrequires that employees of local health jurisdictionswho review, inspect, or approve the design and con-struction of onsite systems must obtain a certificateof competency by passing a written examination.

The legislation states that inspectors must be“competent in the engineering aspects of onsitewastewater treatment system technology.” Nelsonsaid that previously, each health jurisdiction had im-posed its own standard of knowledge necessary forinspectors.

In addition, both designers and inspectors arerequired to obtain continuing professional develop-ment or continuing education “to demonstratemaintenance of knowledge and skills as a conditionof license or certificate renewal, including peer re-view of work products and periodic reexamination.”

Stuth said the training center is one institutionoffering the continuing education to all segmentsof the industry.

“We also tried to pass tag-along legislation thatwould protect the consumer,” said Stuth, addingthat he and Nelson worked to develop an insuranceprogram for homeowners for their septic systems.(See related story on page 21.)

Stuth said there are currently 36 health jurisdic-tions in the state. “Before the legislation, we hadone state guideline being interpreted 36 differentways. Under the new state certification program,we will have one designer program. It will bring har-mony into the state program and help to standard-ize the industry.

“A lot of firsts came out of this program,” Stuthadded. “I think we all grew up. It took a long time,but I believe we covered most of the bases. The bigwinner is the homeowner.”

Working with WOSSA, the idea is basically to

provide a homeowner extended warranty plan for

septic tank systems offered through designers.

Stuth said the insurance program, which is com-

plete, is modeled after the automobile insurance

program.

“The better driver you are, the better rate you

get,” said Stuth. “With onsite insurance, it would

be the same thing.”

Stuth said WOSSA was going to implement

the program within Washington in November

2000 but was delayed when they were

approached by NOWRA to make it

available nationally.

“It has taken us 100 years

to get where we’re at right

now,” said Stuth. “A few more

months aren’t going to make

that big a difference.”

But Stuth added that the de-

signer licensing inspector certifi-

cation legislation in Washington

will make a big difference. “And it will

be an even bigger help if you have an in-

surance program you can offer to con-

sumers through designers,” said Stuth.

“Everyone in the nation won’t be able to do

what we did in Washington, demanding that de-

signers be licensed by the state. But everyone

could offer this insurance.”

Maintenance Is KeyStuth said that even the best-designed system

will fail eventually if it is not properly maintained.

“I’ve been doing this since 1955, and I’ve seen a

lot of trends come and go. It doesn’t matter how

well the septic system is designed; if it’s not main-

tained, at some point it will crash.”

Stuth said the insurance program will act as

an incentive to make homeowners aware that

they have to maintain their system to keep the in-

surance plan in place.

“Presently, we use threats to keep homeown-

ers in compliance with maintenance issues.

We’ve come up with a program that will reward

homeowners rather than threaten them. I’m ex-

cited about it. In my lifetime, it’s the most excit-

ing thing I’ve seen that can protect the consumer

while holding the industry to a higher standard,”

Stuth said.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

22

M A N A G E M E N TS

ma

ll Flo

ws Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

23

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

Caigan M. McKenzie

NSFC STAFF WRITER

Census statistics collected since1840rank DuPage County, Illinois, as one ofthe fastest growing counties in the U.S.This growth drastically changed thecharacter of the community.

Once a rural area, DuPage Countyis now suburban, and in some areas,urban; once home to numerous naturalwetlands, it now has tight clay soils,shallow, seasonal high-water tables, andoccasional flooding. Over the years, asthe county developed, it accumulatedmany onsite wastewater systems, whichtoday number more than 23,000.

“Currently, there are more than 500onsite wastewater systems that use ei-ther aerobic treatment plants or sandfilters and discharge to a receivingbody of water or to the ground sur-face,” said Paul Chase, president ofChase Environmental Services, Inc., inRochelle, Illinois. “It was this proliferation of surface dis-charge systems that drove the onsite wastewater manage-ment activities in DuPage County.”

Zoning Ordinance Limits Discharging SystemsFrom 1963 to 1988, surface discharging systems in Du-

Page County were not permitted. Only subsurface systemswere allowed. The county operated under a 1963 waste-water code that required a reserve area equal in size to thesubsurface seepage system for future expansion. This hadthe effect of making it difficult to develop small single lots.

“In 1988,” said Chase, “the State Attorney challengedthe 1963 zoning ordinance, and the health departmentbegan to issue permits for aerobic treatment plants and sur-face discharge disposal systems on small lots.”

Surface Discharge Systems Increase in NumberOnce installing surface discharge systems was no longer

prohibited, it was possible to build on small, single lots. Con-sequently, development mushroomed and so did the num-ber of surface discharge systems.

Up to this time, the DuPage Coun-ty Zoning Department had relied onthe county’s reserve area requirementto limit density and development.Alarmed at the increasing use of smalllots, the zoning department revised itsregulations to increase the frontage ofnew development to a minimum of 75feet.

But a major problem still remained.No one knew how well the systemswould perform or what the countywould do about systems that producedsubstandard effluent quality. It wasclear the county needed to developsome sort of monitoring program.

Informal Management of OnsiteWastewater Systems

DuPage County approached devel-opment of its onsite wastewater man-

agement system much differently than many of the othercommunities that had participated in Phase IV of the Na-tional Onsite Demonstration Program (NODP). (NODP IVpromotes, develops, and demonstrates management strate-gies for onsite wastewater treatment in small communitiesin the U.S.)

“From the beginning, there was minimal in-volvement by the community, the target pop-ulation, which is comprised of the own-ers of onsite wastewater systems,” saidChase. “The community had no di-rect involvement in the vision, theplanning, the operation and im-plementation, or review andrevision. Rather, the Du-Page County Health De-partment took onthese tasks withsome input fromlocal onsite systeminstallers and designers.

“The reason for stating this is that the onsite wastewatermanagement system in DuPage County is by no means con-ventional—that is, it does not fit neatly into the formalizedmodel prepared for such management systems by NODPIV,” Chase said.

Sampling ProgramThe sampling program began in 1991. Since the county

health department’s environmental health services divisionalready had an established onsite wastewater program, itmade sense to include the sampling program within theirexisting range of responsibilities. These responsibilities in-cluded reviewing and issuing onsite wastewater construc-tion permits, registering onsite wastewater contractors, re-searching property records for field staff, and witnessing per-colation tests.

To gain support for this program from the community,the health department wrote a letter to system owners ex-plaining how the sampling program would work. System own-ers were told effluent would be tested for fecal coliform (theprimary public health parameter for wastewater quality) andthat those systems that did not comply would be retested.

Effluent Not Up to CodeSamples from the 1991 tests showed dismal results. The

DuPage County private sewage ordinance requires chlorineresidual to test between 0.2 and 1.5 parts per million. Butmost samples did not show any chlorine residual, and therate of noncompliance for fecal coliform was nearly 40 per-cent. It took seven rounds of sampling before all systemswere brought into compliance.

The sampling program also found that system ownerswere not receiving the full level of service they needed tokeep their systems operating properly. For example, al-though discharging units were serviced, disinfection systemswere not. In addition, service contracts did not cover pump-ing the system. These limitations in service caused many ofthe systems to fail to comply with the code.

Finger PointingSystem owners accused service compa-nies of not properly caring for their sys-

tems, and service companies respond-ed with accusations about the

health department, telling

system owners that their systems were fine and that thehealth department did not know what it was doing.Nonetheless, system owners pressured the service compa-nies to keep up with service calls.

Anticipating the Health Department’s VisitWhile sampling results in 1992 reflected those found in

1991, 1993 results showed some improvement. Believingthat service companies were anticipating when samplingwould be conducted, the health department halted the sam-pling program in 1994 but resumed it again in 1995.

Sampling results from 1995 testing were worse than theresults from any of the previous years, indicating that onceagain, the service companies were being lax in servicing sys-tems. These results also validated the need for continuingthe sampling program.

Enforcement Strategies, Resources, and Homeowner Education

In August of 1999, the health department proposed toeliminate the 1990 code requirement for lifetime servicingof surface discharge systems from the county’s privatesewage disposal ordinance. Instead, service would be re-quired for the first two years of operation based on Ameri-can National Standards Institute/NSF standards and statecode. After that, service would be optional.

This change would place the burden of complying witheffluent quality standards and having systems serviced onthe homeowner rather than having a technician from thecounty’s onsite wastewater program track service contracts.

The local onsite system installers and designers balked atthe proposed code changes and asked the health departmentto reconsider, which the health department agreed to do.

Although the sampling program began without specialfunding, additional personnel, or special regulatory changes,the health department was concerned the program wouldbe disrupted if it did not have dedicated resources. To pre-vent this from occurring, the health department plans to al-locate funds to this program in next year’s budget.

And finally, the health department is striving to decreasethe rate of system failure through increased community ed-ucation. The current method is to educate homeowners con-current to sampling their surface discharge units. In this sce-nario, the sanitarian gives the homeowner a brochure, ex-plains the method for sampling, and describes how the unitshould function.

Sampling Program Spurs State Action “The greatest success of this program is that light was

shed on a serious problem,” Chase said. “DuPage County isone of only three counties in the state that set up a programfor sampling effluent quality. The results of these programshave led to efforts by the Illinois Department of PublicHealth to deal with the problem statewide.”

For more information on this project, contact Paul Chase,president of Chase Environmental Services in Rochelle, Illi-nois at (815) 562-6783 or e-mail him at ces9198@aol.com.

DuPage County Illinois Health Department:

An Unconventional Approach to Onsite Systems Management

“From the beginning,there was minimal in-volvement by thecommunity. . . . Rather,the DuPage CountyHealth Departmenttook on these taskswith some input fromlocal onsite system in-stallers and designers.”

- Paul Chase

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

24

T E C H N O L O G YS

ma

ll Flo

ws Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

25

or years, a sign at the edge

of the tiny town of Miranda,

California, welcomed visi-

tors to “The Land of En-

chantment.” Located on the

famous “Avenue of the Giants,” Miran-

da’s residents live among one of Earth’s

true wonders—the giant redwoods.

However, by the 1970s, failing sep-

tic systems were leaving many in the

town feeling less than enchanted. A

former logging community, Miranda

has only 350 permanent residents,

many of whom are retired; yet more

than 500 students from surrounding

areas attend the local schools. The

town needed an economical solution

to its wastewater treatment problems,

so residents obtained a grant from the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and the state of California to study the

problem and investigate wastewater

collection and treatment alternatives

(Campos, 1984).

After evaluating different technolo-

gies, Miranda chose to install a small-

diameter gravity sewer system to col-

lect effluent from individual septic

tanks. The system serves 125 residen-

tial, commercial, and institutional con-

nections in the town, including the

high school, a junior high, two rest

homes, and three churches. Septic

tank effluent is transported by gravity

to two lagoons, which precede an in-

termittently-dosed recirculating sand

filter for final treatment.

Miranda completed its system in

1982, and according to volunteer op-

erator Bert Stevens, it has been oper-

ating successfully ever since. “We’ve

had people from all over the world

come to visit our little system, “ said

Stevens. “It has worked so well over

the years.”

At the time it was installed, Miran-

da’s system was one of the first small-

diameter gravity collection systems

built in the U.S. Since then, many more

communities around the country have

chosen this alternative to conventional

gravity sewers because of its low in-

stallation and operation costs, and be-

cause it is well-suited to their particu-

lar site characteristics.

How Small-Diameter Gravity SewersWork

Small-diameter gravity sewer

(SDGS) systems are known by a vari-

ety of names, including variable grade

sewers, septic tank effluent gravity

(STEG) systems, and effluent drains.

The technology was pioneered in the

1960s in Australia where much of the

terrain is extremely flat. SDGS systems

can work well in very flat terrain, be-

cause settleable solids are not con-

veyed through the collection lines.

Therefore, SDGS systems require less

hydraulic gradient and velocity to trans-

port the wastewater through the lines

than is necessary with conventional

sewers. The lines also can be laid at

shallower depths, which saves on sys-

tem installation costs. In addition,

SDGS systems do not employ man-

holes and require fewer lift stations, re-

ducing system maintenance costs.

In a SDGS system, grease and solid

materials in the wastewater are separat-

ed out at each connection in a septic

tank, which system designers some-

times refer to as the interceptor tank.

The septic tank is connected to the

house or business by a standard 4-inch

building sewer. A small-diameter (ap-

proximately 2-inch) service lateral on

the homeowner’s property conveys the

septic tank effluent to the SDGS main.

The size of SDGS mains are calculat-

ed based on the peak hydraulic flow rate

and the hydraulic velocity needed to

transport the wastewater through the

entire system. The mains typically range

from 2 to 8 inches in diameter. Design

professionals calculate the pipe diame-

ter necessary by using the Hazen-

Williams formula, Manning’s equation,

or the Darcy-Weisbach equation (EPA,

1986; Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998).

Unlike conventional gravity sewers

lines, which often are constructed of

concrete or clay, SDGS pipes are similar

to pressure sewer lines and are made of

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or high-density

polyethyhlene. The joints are solvent

weld or rubber gasket, and the system

usually employs cleanouts or pigging

ports instead of manholes, reducing the

possibility of inflow and infiltration of

stormwater and groundwater.

Air release or combination air re-

lease/vacuum valves may be installed

for air venting at high points in the sys-

tem layout. Check valves may be pres-

ent at each connection with the main

to prevent backflow during periods of

high flow (EPA, 1991).

SDGS Systems Can Be Adapted to aVariety of Terrains

Similar to pressure and vacuum sew-

ers, SDGS lines are laid at a relatively

constant, shallow depth, following the

natural contour of the land. So in com-

munities with hills, the wastewater will

flow downhill in some areas and uphill

Small-DiameterGravity SewersCan Mean Big Savings for CommunitiesCathleen Falvey

SFQ ASSOCIATE EDITOR

F

in others (hence the name variable

grade sewers). These up and down

flow patterns are possible as long as

the beginning of the SDGS system is

higher overall than its final destina-

tion—the outlet to the treatment facili-

ty. Also, the system should be low

enough to receive flows from the ma-

jority of service connections by gravity.

Ideally, the SDGS system outlet

should be lower than any individual

building connected to the sewer. How-

ever, if homes or businesses are locat-

ed below the system, they often can

connect by installing a septic tank ef-

fluent pump (STEP) system. Most

SDGS systems are actually combina-

tion STEP/SDGS systems. Such hybrid

designs can minimize or eliminate the

need for costly lift stations. (STEP sys-

tems are described in detail in the arti-

cles “Pressure Sewers Overcome

Tough Terrain and Reduce Installation

Costs” on page 24, and “STEP System

Clears the Air in Illinois Village” on

page 28 of the Winter 2001 SmallFlows Quarterly. The issue can be ac-

cessed online at www.nsfc.wvu.edu.)System design engineers typically

make use of spreadsheets and design

software to plan the overall layout and

design of SDGS systems.

Which Communities Should ConsiderSDGS Systems?

Dick Otis, P.E., Ph.D., of Ayres Asso-

ciates in Madison, Wisconsin, has been

involved in the design of several SDGS

systems, including some of the first in

the U.S. He states that although they

have many advantages, SDGSs are not

necessarily the best option for every

community.

Pho

to c

ourt

esy

Natio

nal Park

Serv

ice

Photo courtesy of the Humboldt County Convention & Vistors Bureau

dysmith, Wisconsin, designed the sys-

tem for Conrath and confirms that the

SDGS/sand filter system has served the

community well.

“Effluent from Conrath’s system av-

erages only 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L)

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),

and total suspended solids from the sys-

tem is in the single digits when the de-

sign requirement is 30,” says Bob Parm-

ley, president of Morgan & Parmley. “To

my knowledge, the collection system

hasn’t had any problems and hasn’t

needed to be flushed out or unclogged

in the past 11 years.”

Parmley says that he first began

working with Conrath in the 1980s dur-

ing the facility planning process, and

that his firm proposed several possible

systems to residents.

“The soils in the community are

very tight, so all the septic systems were

failing,” says Parmley. “Conrath decid-

ed on the SDGS/sand filter system be-

cause it was the least expensive and

also the most environmentally sound

option. As it turned out, the system was

classified as being innovative, which

qualified it for additional funding. But

that wasn’t at all part of the town’s orig-

inal motivation.”

According to Parmley, Conrath in-

stalled all new septic tanks with their

SDGS system. Konieczny says the sep-

tic tanks are all owned by the town, “so

residents don’t have to worry about

maintenance; the town does all the

maintenance.” Sewage fees are $20

per month per household.

For More InformationIf you would like to know more

about Miranda, California’s SDGS sys-

tem, contact Neal Carnam or Steve

McHaney at (707) 443-8326, or by e-

mail to nealcarnam@w-and-k.com.Bob Parmley can answer questions

about Conrath, Wisconsin’s SDGS sys-

tem. He can be reached at (715) 532-

3721.

ReferencesCampos, Marilyn Miller. 1985. Innovative wastewater

collection and treatment—Miranda, California. Pro-ceedings 1985 International Symposium on UrbanHydrology, Hydraulic Infrastructures and Water Quali-ty Control. University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Crites, R., and G. Tchobanoglous. 1998. Small and de-centralized wastewater management systems. NewYork: WCB/McGraw Hill, Inc.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986.Small-diameter gravity sewers: an alternative for un-sewered communities. Cinncinati: Water EngineeringResearch Laboratory. EPA 600/S2-86/022.

————. 1991. Alternative wastewater collection systems.Washington D.C.: U.S. EPA Office of Research andDevelopment. Office of Water. EPA 625/1-91/024.NSFC Item #WWBKDM53.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

26

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

27

“It’s never the case that one system

fits all communities,” says Otis. “You

have to look at each situation individu-

ally. What we try to do with SDGS sys-

tems is to reduce excavation costs. If a

community has simple slopes all going

in the same direction, then SDGS sys-

tems may be the best option. But if the

treatment plant is uphill, or if the town

has undulating topography, then pres-

sure sewers may be a better option.”

Any small community that is consid-

ering building a conventional sewer sys-

tem should give small-diameter sewers

a look. Systems such as SDGS, vacuum,

and pressure sewers can save commu-

nities money in a variety of ways.

For example, in addition to lower

excavation costs, SDGS systems also

can help communities save on final

wastewater treatment costs, because

the solids and grease in wastewater are

separated and treated in septic tanks.

Therefore, the need for headworks is

reduced in the final treatment facility,

because screening and grit removal is

not necessary. As a result, inexpensive

systems, such as sand filters or lagoons,

can be used to provide final treatment.

Also with SDGS, systems communi-

ties do not have the burden of remov-

ing, treating, and disposing of sludge

after final treatment. Instead septage

can be removed less expensively from

septic tanks at regularly scheduled in-

tervals. Before deciding on convention-

al gravity sewers, communities should

compare the life cycle costs of these

low-tech wastewater treatment systems

with the costs of constructing a tradi-

tional mechanical treatment facility

and staffing and maintaining it over

the years.

More SDGS Pros and ConsSDGS system mains usually are run

down the side of streets rather than

down the middle and below the pave-

ment like those of most conventional

sewers. In densely populated areas,

collector mains may be located on

both sides of the street to minimize

pavement crossings, or, less common-

ly, they may run along backlots to be

closer to preexisting septic tanks.

Therefore, extensive pavement excava-

tion and restoration isn’t usually neces-

sary with SDGS systems, which trans-

late to additional savings on installation

costs and less disruption to the envi-

ronment and everyday life.

Communities also save when in-

stalling SDGS systems because only

shallow, narrow trenches are required.

SDGS mains also are simpler to install

than conventional gravity mains, which

must be strictly aligned vertically and

horizontally. The plastic SDGS mains

can be laid at varying grades and can

be easily routed around obstacles dis-

covered during construction, such as

large boulders.

However, many communities that

choose SDGS systems must replace all

their old septic tanks with new ones to

ensure system performance. Some-

times, new septic tanks are relocated

to front yards to be closer to the SDGS

mains. This additional excavation

should be factored into overall installa-

tion costs.

Because SDGS systems include on-

site components, the community or

management entity may need to go

through the time-consuming and some-

times difficult process of obtaining

easements and the cooperation of in-

dividual property owners to successful-

ly complete the project.

Odors from hydrogen sulfide in the

wastewater can sometimes be a nui-

sance with SDGS systems. Engineers

often can prevent odor problems, for

example, by carefully designing how

ventilation is provided in the system

and by avoiding turbulence in the

mains. Other odor control measures in-

clude the use of carbon filters with air

release valves, aerating the lines, chlo-

rinating the final effluent, or adding hy-

drogen peroxide to the system.

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

Steve McHaney, assistant region

manager for Winzler & Kelly, the firm

that designed Miranda’s system, be-

lieves that while SDGSs don’t have par-

ticularly rigorous operation and main-

tenance requirements, taking proper

care of them is of critical importance.

“We will consider SDGS systems only

in situations where we know we can get

good quality maintenance for the septic

tanks—communities with a septic tank

maintenance district, for example,” says

McHaney. “If you don’t have good clean

effluent going into the lines, then you’ll

have solids carryover that can clog the

service lines and the mains.”

Miranda has a formal maintenance

district. Bert Stevens performs or super-

vises all maintenance to Miranda’s sys-

tem on a part-time, volunteer basis. He

estimates that he spends an average of

about two hours per day, mostly in

maintaining the final treatment system

rather than the SDGS system.

“Mostly we check the meters at the

sand filter to make sure that the system

is running,” Stevens said. “We monitor

water quality leaving the system, fill out

our monthly reports, and do things

such as check and change valves and

pull weeds out of the ponds. All septic

tanks are pumped every five years, un-

less there is a problem with them soon-

er. The septic tanks at the rest homes

and commercial establishments have

different requirements and are pumped

more often.”

Stevens says that the small-diameter

collection system itself has required lit-

tle maintenance over the years. “We

have it on our agenda to flush the lines

every four years or so,” said Stevens.

“We have manholes with our system as

well as cleanouts, so occasionally

groundwater and stormwater get into

the system.”

Miranda residents pay a $25 per

month base fee for water and sewer,

plus additional fees for individual water

use. The fee includes any service calls

for septic tanks and all costs for peri-

odic pumping.

Conrath, WisconsinAlthough they live on opposite sides

of the country, Bert Stevens and Louie

Konieczny have been living parallel

lives. Konieczny is the wastewater treat-

ment plant operator for the village of

Conrath, Wisconsin. Like Stevens, a re-

tired logging truck owner, Konieczny is

a retired auto shop owner who was

originally enlisted by his community to

operate the local wastewater system be-

cause “there was no one else to do it.”

Conrath also is a former logging

community like Miranda. It was incor-

porated more than 90 years ago. Ac-

cording to Konieczny, the town has al-

ways had about 100 residents.

“I’ve been here for about 50 years,”

he says. “We’re just a little town that

never grew. We have about 38 homes,

a church, a school with only about 30

students, three commercial establish-

ments and farmland all around. One

business is a convenience store, one is

a feedmill with a bathroom, and one is

a garage with two bathrooms. But all

of our wastewater is septage—no

chemicals. None of their commercial

waste goes into our system. ”

Like Stevens, Konieczny oversees

the operation and maintenance of the

SDGS system; the subsurface, intermit-

tently-dosed sand filter; and the septic

tanks. The SDGS lines require little

maintenance. Yet he performs all the pa-

perwork and sees that all the septic

tanks are pumped every three years.

“We pump one-third of the septic tanks

every fall to pace ourselves,” he says.

The town hires a local contractor to

do the septic tank pumping. The sep-

tage is mixed with lime and is land ap-

plied and buried nearby on fields vol-

unteered by two local farmers. The

town alternates the use of the fields.

About six homes in Conrath are lo-

cated below the system and are con-

nected via STEP systems. Konieczny

also helps maintain the STEP system

pumps and the pumps at a lift station,

which precedes the sand filter. Two

1,000-gallon holding tanks also pre-

cede the sand filter and act as addi-

tional septic tanks. These final tanks are

pumped and cleaned every year.

Konieczny says that the sand filter re-

quires little maintenance, but that he

sometimes must clean the bulbs of an

ultraviolet (UV) disinfection unit that

follows the sand filter. He says that the

UV filter is only required seasonally,

and that the entire system has done an

excellent job throughout its 11 years of

operation.

“The wastewater system discharges

to Main Creek,” says Konieczny. “The

creek has been polluted over the years

by farming, but the effluent

we discharge is at least 50

times cleaner than the water

in the creek, even in the win-

ter without UV disinfection.”

Konieczny says that fecal

coliform values usually range

from 0 to 9 or 10 most prob-

able number (MPN)/100

millileters (mL) in the summer,

when they are allowed 400

MPN/100 mL. Testing for

fecal coliforms is not required

in the winter.

The firm of Morgan &

Parmley Limited in nearby La-

Most SDGS systems are

actually combination

STEP/SDGS systems.

Such hybrid designs

can minimize or elimi-

nate the need for costly

lift stations.

Photos courtesy of Jan Adams Photography

Above, redwoods are logged near Miranda inHumboldt County, California. Both Mirandaand Conrath, Wisconsin, are former loggingtowns. Both chose small-diameter gravitysewer systems in lieu of conventional sewers.

Above: Miranda High School, circa 1940. Today theschool looks much the same and continues to befully enrolled by serving students from surroundingcommunities.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

28

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

29

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

tion, adsorption, biological conversion,and volatilization. Wastewater is dis-tributed over the surface of the mediathrough a distribution manifold andcollected in an underdrain system afterpassing through the bed.

Single-pass packed bed filters(SPBFs) rely on the passage of waste-water through the filter medium onlyonce to accomplish treatment objec-tives. Multi-pass packed bed filters(MPBFs), commonly known as recircu-lating filters, operate in a similar man-ner as single-pass filters, but they in-clude an intermediate tank that servesto capture the effluent from the filterand dilute the incoming septic tank ef-fluent before the mixture is reappliedto the surface of the packed bed filter.A schematic diagram of an MPBF sys-tem is presented in figure 1.

The advantages of MPBFs overSPBFs are the potential for improvedtransformation and removal of certainconstituents, the capacity to dilute pe-riods of high organic loading, a reduc-tion in odors associated with open fil-ters, and a reduced footprint (Loudenet al., 1985; Crites et al., 1997). Typi-cally, MPBFs use coarse sand or gravelmedia and support hydraulic loadingrates (HLRs) three to five times higherthan SPBFs (EPA, 1980). Hines andFavreau (1974) reported that multi-pass sand filters produced effluent bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD5) andtotal suspended solids (TSS) values typ-ically not exceeding 10 mg L-1 andoften less than 5 mg L-1.

The potential for nitrogen reductionin MPBFs has also been recognized,with total nitrogen (TN) removal rang-ing from 40 to 70 percent (Louden etal., 1985; Piluk and Hao, 1989; Whit-myer et al., 1991). Because of the highquality effluent produced by MPBFs,they are potentially well suited forwater reuse applications (Crites et al.,1997; Jowett, 1999).

Media Used in Packed Bed FiltersGraded sand has traditionally been

used as the medium in packed bed fil-ters. While past researchers have eluci-dated some of the critical factors thatcan be used to optimize sand filter per-formance, sand and other solid granu-lar media have inherent limiting char-acteristics. A majority of the solid gran-ular medium bed volume (60 to 70 per-cent) is occupied by the medium itself.Small-diameter granular media have ahigh surface area, but the small poresize limits the maximum hydraulic load-ing rate. As particulate matter and bio-

mass accumulate in the pore space ofthe upper layers, the porosity is furtherreduced. Alternately, solid granularmedia with a large diameter (and poresize) will not restrict hydraulic loadingbut will have a significantly reducedsurface area for biomass growth, limit-ing the allowable organic loading rate.

Two principal factors limit the appli-cation of sand filters (Ball et al., 1999;EPA, 1999b). First, a packed bed ofsand has a low porosity that limits thesustainable hydraulic and organic load-ing rates to avoid clogging and resultsin increased land area requirements.Second, the sand required in packedbed filters must meet size and unifor-mity standards to ensure that the treat-ment system will function properly, al-lowing capacity for hydraulic, solids,and organic loading. The cost to obtainand deliver the required volume of ap-propriately sized sand to remote sitescan be prohibitive.

The commercial demand for com-pact and efficient alternatives to con-

ventional sand filters has prompted thedevelopment and testing of innovativemedia in packed bed filters. Among themost promising of these new mediaare nonwoven textile fabrics (NWTFs)composed of plastic filaments config-ured in densely packed sheets. The re-sulting NWTF is lightweight and has ahigh porosity and specific surface area.

Currently, NWTFs are in use at sev-eral demonstration sites and house-holds in the U.S. However, only a lim-ited amount of investigation into theirperformance is available in the litera-ture (Roy et al., 1998; Ball et al., 1999).Roy et al. (1998) described the use ofNWTF chips in single-pass and multi-pass filters. In laboratory columns withan NWTF medium depth of 0.9 m(2.95 ft), the authors observed excep-tional removal of BOD and TSS atHLRs ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 m d-1 (5to 15 gal ft-2 d-1) in single-pass andmulti-pass configurations. The authorshypothesized that increased water re-tention within the media was respon-sible for higher organic removal. The

Abstract: Three configurations of nonwoven textile fabric(NWTF) in a multi-pass, packed bed filter were evaluated forthe treatment of primary effluent. The configurations includ-ed hanging sheets, a packed bed of chips, and a layeredpacked bed of chips. Hydraulic loading rates (HLRs) of 0.41and 1.22 m d-1 (10 and 30 gal ft-2 d-1) and organic loadingrates (OLRs) of 0.0538 and 0.161 kg biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) m-2 d-1 (0.263 and 0.788 lb BOD ft-2 d-1)were evaluated. The hydraulic application rate (HAR) anddosing frequency (DF) were held constant at 0.025 m dose-1

(0.082 ft dose-1) and 150 doses d-1, respectively. All orienta-

tions provided excellent treatment of the wastewater interms of organic and solids removal (97 and 95 percent re-duction, respectively) at the lower HLR. At the higher HLR,the hanging sheet filter removal performance deterioratedin contrast to the chip filters, which maintained treatmentefficiency. The fraction of water retained against gravity asa function of media volume was approximately 19 percent(90 L or 23.8 gal) for the chip orientation and 4 percent (20 Lor 5.3 gal) for the hanging sheets. The dose volume applied tothe filters was approximately 23 L dose-1 (6 gal dose-1), or 0.26and 1.15 times the measured water holding capacity for thechips and NWTF sheets, respectively. Performance in simi-larly loaded NWTF and sand filters indicated that medium-size sand beds clogged and coarse-size sand beds deterio-rated in effluent quality compared to the NWTF filters. Thepacked bed porosity (void volume/total volume) for theNWTF media was approximately 95 percent as comparedto 30 percent for the sand. The high porosity combined withthe larger surface area of the NWTF can support a greatermass of biofilm growth and thus process a higher organicloading rate while not clogging.

Currently, more than 60 millionpeople in the U.S. live in homes thatuse onsite systems for the collectionand treatment of wastewater (Critesand Tchobanoglous, 1998). The mostcommon type of onsite system is theseptic tank followed by a soil absorp-tion field (ST-SAF). The ST-SAF systemrelies on the soil ecosystem for purifi-cation of septic tank effluent beforethat effluent reaches the groundwater.

When ST-SAF systems are improp-erly designed, poorly maintained, over-loaded, or sited in an unsuitable loca-tion, inadequately treated wastewateris released prematurely to the sur-rounding environment and/or ground-water raising both public health andenvironmental concerns (EPA, 1999a).Thus in some situations, it is necessaryto provide additional treatment to sep-tic tank effluent before its release to theenvironment. The most common addi-tional treatment is the use of packedbed filters, as discussed next.

DESCRIPTION OF INTERMITTENTLYDOSED PACKED BED FILTERS

Single-pass and multi-pass packedbed filters are established technologiesfor the additional treatment of septictank effluent and have typically pro-duced high quality effluent. Intermittent-ly dosed packed bed filters consist of abed of inert media onto which septictank effluent is periodically applied. Asthe wastewater passes through thebed, constituents are removed by filtra-

Evaluation of High-Porosity Medium in Intermittently Dosed, Multi-PassPacked Bed Filters for the Treatment of Wastewater

Harold Leverenz, P.E.Loret Ruppe, P.E.George Tchobanoglous, Ph.D., P.E.Jeannie Darby, Ph.D., P.E.

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaUntreated

wastewater

Packedbed filter

Septic tank Recirculation tankFilter effluent

to reuse application

Wastewaterdistribution manifold

Flow splitting valvereturns portion of flowto recirculation tank

Wastewater collectedin underdrain system

Submergedpumps

Figure 1

Diagram of Multi-Pass Packed Bed Filter System

Septic Tank EffluentThis study (with Effluent Filter Vault)a

Parameter Unit Average Range Typical Range BOD5 mg L-1 125 80 – 200 130 100 – 140 COD mg L-1 341 282 – 411 250 160 – 300 TSS mg L-1 91 36 – 274 30 20 – 55 Turbidity NTU 39 25 – 48 TKN as N mg L-1 20 14 – 25 68 50 – 90 NH3 as N mg L-1 16 11 – 20 40 30 – 50 NO3- as N mg L-1 0.7 0 – 2 Alkalinity mg L-1 as CaCO3 338 310 – 373 pH 7.6 7.5 – 7.7 aCrites and Tchobanoglous (1998)

Comparison of Wastewater Characteristics

Table 1

between 10 a.m. and noon; samples

were refrigerated and analyses were per-

formed the same day. Conventional

water quality parameters were moni-

tored as per table 3.

Characterization of NWTFA laboratory investigation was con-

ducted to evaluate the media character-

istics. The porosity of an individual

NWTF chip and a randomly packed bed

of NWTF chips was determined. The

water holding capacity was determined

for a randomly packed bed of NWTF

chips and a hanging sheet of NWTF.

The porosity, η, and water holding

capacity, θ, were determined as follows:

(3)

(4)

where

Vv = void volume, m3;

Vt = total volume, m3; and

Vw = volume of water held against

gravity, m3.

Measurements of Vv, Vt and Vw were

made as described below.

To estimate the volume of material

(Vs) of an individual chip, a 100 mL

graduated cylinder was filled to 80 mL,

a dry NWTF chip was submerged, and,

after visually confirming that all pore

space was filled with water, the increase

in volume was recorded. The total vol-

ume (Vt) of an individual chip was cal-

culated from its dimensions. The void

volume (Vv) was obtained by subtract-

ing the volume of material (Vs) from the

measured total volume (Vt). The specif-

ic porosity of an individual chip was

then calculated with equation 3.

To estimate the void volume (Vv) in

a randomly packed bed of chips, a 2-L

beaker was packed with chips and

water was added to the beaker, satu-

rating the bed and filling all available

pore space. The volume of water

added was assumed equal to the void

volume. The total volume (Vt) of the

packed bed was taken as 2 L. The bulk

porosity of the packed bed of chips was

then calculated according to equation 3.

To estimate the water holding ca-

pacity of a packed bed of chips, an

acrylic tube (inner diameter of 0.267

m) was packed with chips, saturated

with water, and allowed to drain

against gravity for about 20 minutes

(time at which drainage had essential-

ly stopped). The change in mass was

assumed to be the mass of water held

in the NWTF pore spaces. The total

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

31

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

whereQr = flow from recirculation tank

to the filter, andQ = flow of primary effluent to the re-

circulation tank (forward flow).At the HLR of 0.41 m d-1 (10 gal ft2

d-1), the recirculation ratio was 9. Afterfive months, the loading was increasedto 1.22 m d-1 (30 gal ft-2 d-1), while thedosing frequency (DF) was left constant,resulting in a recirculation ratio of 3. Asummary of independent variables ispresented in table 2.

A DF of 150 doses d-1 and hydraulicapplication rate (HAR) of 0.025 m dose-1

(0.08 ft dose-1) were controlled withprogrammable timers (Model#MVP1251PT, Orenco Systems, Inc.)and held constant during the research.The HAR, a measure of the depth ofwater applied to the filter surface witheach dose, is defined as

(2)

where HLR = hydraulic loading rate, m d-1; andDF = dosing frequency, doses d-1.

To increase the HLR from 0.41 to 1.22m d-1 (10 to 30 gal ft-2 d-1), the forwardflow to each recirculation tank was in-creased by 300 percent. Because the in-fluent wastewater was diluted whenmixed with filter effluent in the recircu-lation tank, water quality measurementswere not made for several weeks afterthe HLR was increased, until the filtersreturned to a steady state of operation.

Wastewater Sampling and AnalysisTo evaluate the NWTF filter perform-

ance, filter influent and effluent samples

were obtained periodically. Filter effluent

was collected for a duration equal to one

dosing period (24 hours/150 doses = 9.6

minutes). Sampling generally occurred

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

30

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

authors also hypothesized that sepa-rating a bed into distinct layers wouldfurther improve treatment and allowfor increased loading rates but side-by-side testing of layered and continu-ous beds was not conducted.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVESThe goal of the research presented

herein was to develop a better under-

standing of how the configuration

and operation of NWTF media in

multi-pass filters affect performance.

FacilitiesA plan view of the research site is

presented in figure 2, and photographsof the NWTF filter units (Orenco Sys-tems, Inc., Sutherlin, Oregon) are pro-vided in figure 3. Wastewater was si-phoned from the primary clarifier into aholding tank before being pumped toeach recirculation tank. The concrete re-circulation tanks (Jensen Precast, Sacra-mento, California) had a water volumeof 0.65 m3 (265 gal). Wastewater waspumped from the recirculation tank tothe filter surface through a convention-al distribution system, consisting of lat-eral pipes, upward pointing orifices, andorifice shields to direct the flow downinto the bed. After passing through theNWTF medium, the effluent flowedthrough a splitting valve where a por-tion of the flow was discharged from thesystem and the remainder was directedback into the recirculation tank.

A 20 W fan supplied air to thepacked bed filters. In contrast to low-porosity granular medium filters wherea fan would be of little value, the in-clusion of a fan with high-porositymedia is standard practice. Air fromthe fan entered the units near the topand traveled through a manifold fordistribution in the bed. The fan wasused to increase the amount of oxy-gen available to the biomass and to en-sure aerobic conditions; however, theimpact of the fan was not quantified.The filter effluent was typically saturat-ed with oxygen and without objec-tionable odor.

Operational ParametersThe recirculation ratio (a), an esti-

mate of how many times a volume ofwater has passed through the bed be-fore being discharged, is defined as

(1)

The specific research ob-

jectives were (1) to charac-

terize NWTF media by

measuring physical proper-

ties of porosity and water

holding capacity in com-

parison to sand, and (2) to

compare the performance

of three different NWTF

configurations (hanging

sheets, packed bed, and

layered packed bed) under

two loading conditions

(0.41 and 1.22 m d-1, 10

and 30 gal ft-2 d-1, respec-

tively).

RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS

Three NWTF filter units

were operated in a multi-

pass mode, at hydraulic

loading rates of 0.41 and

1.22 m d-1 (10 and 30 gal

ft-2 d-1). Three packed bed

configurations were test-

ed: (1) hanging sheets of

NWTF, (2) a single layer of

NWTF chips, and (3) three

independent layers of NWTF chips

supported on screens with a total

NWTF medium volume equivalent to

that of configuration (2). A principal

advantage of a hanging sheet config-

uration is the ease of removal of the

sheets for maintenance and cleaning

if necessary. Primary effluent from the

University of California, Davis (UCD)

wastewater treatment plant was used

because of its similarity to septic tank

effluent. The values for BOD5, chem-

ical oxygen demand (COD), and TSS

are within the range typical of septic

tank effluent (table 1).

Period of Operation9/2/99– 2/2/00 –

Parameter Unit of Measure 2/2/00 3/17/00Hydraulic loading rate (HLR)a m d-1 0.41 1.22 Forward flow dosing frequency doses d-1 48 48 Forward flow dosing volume L dose-1 7.9 23.8 Filter surface area, A m2 0.93 0.93 Recycle ratiob, a 9:1 3:1 Filter dosing frequency, DF doses d-1 150 150 Filter dosing volume L dose-1 22.7 22.7 Volume of water applied to filter bed m3 d-1 3.4 3.4 Hydraulic application rate (HAR)c m dose-1 0.025 0.025 Organic loading rate to filter units kg BOD5 m-2 d-1 0.054 0.161

a HLR is the forward flow to recirculation tank based on filter surface areab As calculated with Equation (1)c As calculated with Equation (2)

Parameter Analysis Technique Chemical oxygen demand (COD) Reactor digestion and colorimetric

determination method 8000a

Dissolved oxygen (DO) Membrane electrode method 4500-O Gb

5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) Method 5210 Bb

Total suspended solids (TSS) Method 2540 Db

Turbidity Turbidimeter (Model #2100A)a

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) Method 4500-Norg Cb

Ammonia (NH3) Ammonia selective electrode 4500-NH3

Db Nitrate (NO3-) Nitrate selective electrode 4500-NO3- Db

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) Titration method 8203a

a Hach Company, Loveland, COb Standard Methods, 1998

Summary of Independent Variables for the Operation of the Textile Filters

Table 2

Analysis of Dependent Variables Representing Filter Performance

Table 3

Primaryeffluent

Holding tank

Flowmeters

Forward flowpumps submerged inscreened vault

Anti-siphonvalve

Overflowdrain totreatmentplantheadworks

Fan

Influentsamplingvalves

Threelayertextilefilterunit

Singlelayertextilefilterunit

Hangingsheettextilefilterunit

Effluentsamplinglocation

500 gallon concreterecirculation tank

Flow splitting valve

Dosing pumpsubmerged inrecirculation tank

Filter effluent andoverflow returnedto headworks oftreatment plant

Research Site Plan View

Figure 2

RNWTF filter units

Figure 3

α =Qr

Q

HAR =α . HLR

DF

η = Vv

Vt

θ = Vw

Vt

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

33

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

sheet and chip filters, and that such a

difference impacted performance.

Such effects can not be separated from

the impacts of water holding capacity

in this research; however, given the

continuous air supply, the extremely

high porosity of the material, and the

reduced water holding capacity in the

sheets compared to the chips, it is like-

ly that any oxygen transfer limitations

in the hanging sheets were of second-

ary importance compared to the ef-

fects of the reduced water holding ca-

pacity. If the water holding capacity is

improved, gas transfer limitations

should be investigated.

Comparison of continuous and

layered chip configuration—Effluent

quality did not appear to be a function

of media configuration for the chip fil-

ters. In the bed of randomly stacked,

uncompressed NWTF chips, each

piece of NWTF holds water independ-

ently from the rest of the bed or its po-

sition in the bed. Therefore, the water

holding capacity of the NWTF chip fil-

ter was not increased when the bed

was divided into three layers.

Removal of nitrogen—Complete ni-

trification and some denitrification (ap-

proximately 30 percent total nitrogen

removal) took place in the combined

filter unit and recirculation tank system.

Alkalinity was measured and found to

be in sufficient concentrations to sup-

port nitrification processes. Because of

the limited data obtained for the vari-

ous forms of nitrogen, any discussion

of transformation and removal of nitro-

gen is speculative. The high concen-

tration of nitrate in the effluents, how-

ever, may be a concern in environ-

ments sensitive to nitrogen.

Total nitrogen removal was lower

than the 40 to 70 percent reported in

the literature. Modification of the sys-

tem configuration and loading charac-

teristics may increase the removal of

total nitrogen. It is possible that denitri-

fication was restricted by the presence

of aerobic or facultative conditions in

the recirculation tank, limited carbon in

the raw wastewater, or short-circuiting

of the return filter effluent in the recir-

culation tank. Measures that may in-

crease denitrification include (1) de-

creasing the recirculation ratio to reduce

the concentration of dissolved oxygen

in the recirculation tank and (2) modify-

ing the hydraulics in the recirculation

tank to provide a carbon source for den-

itrification by encouraging mixing septic

effluent with nitrified filter effluent.

Comparison of NWTF and sand

performance—The NWTF showed no

signs of the surface clogging character-

istic of sand beds. For comparison, six

single-pass sand filters were in operation

at the same time as the NWTF filters uti-

lizing wastewater from the same source.

Three of the sand filters used a medium

sand (effective size [ES] = 0.44 mm; uni-

formity coefficient [UC] = 2.4) and were

loaded at 0.12 m d-1 (3 gal ft-2 d-1), while

the other three sand filters had a coarse-

sand medium (ES = 3.8 mm, UC = 1.3)

and were loaded at 0.2 m d-1 (5 gal ft-2

d-1). Each of the three medium sand fil-

ters had different distribution system

configurations (conventional, drip, and

spray), and all produced a high quality

effluent equivalent to the NWTF filters.

Surface clogging occurred in the

medium sand filter units 108, 91, and

153 days after system startup for the

conventional, drip, and spray systems,

respectively. The coarse sand filters did

not clog during the study, but, it was ob-

served that filter effluent quality deteri-

orated in the winter months, with efflu-

ent BOD5 ranging from 5 to 20 mg L-1.

It is believed that a combination of

NWTF characteristics contributed to the

filter beds excellent hydraulic conduc-

tivity and resistance to clogging, prima-

rily the material porosity and the large

pores created by the random stacking

configuration of the chips and the gaps

between the hanging sheets. The NWTF

media were examined to identify the

characteristics that make it efficient for

wastewater treatment. The packed bed

porosity (void volume/total volume) for

the NWTF media, as determined with

equation 3, was approximately 95 per-

cent. Thus, in a bed of NWTF media,

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

32

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

volume (Vt) of the packed bed of chips

was taken as the volume of the tube.

The water holding capacity was calcu-

lated with equation 4.

The water holding capacity of the

NWTF sheet was estimated by saturating

a single sheet with water, allowing the

material to drain in a vertical orientation,

and measuring the mass of water held

against gravity. The total volume (Vt) of

the sheet was calculated from its meas-

ured dimensions and the water holding

capacity was calculated with equation 4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Performance of NWTF filtersA summary of all influent and efflu-

ent measurements is presented in table

4. The filters were in operation from Sep-

tember 1999 to March 2000, the peri-

od coinciding with the fall and winter

seasons. Most data taken for this study

were collected during winter. The aver-

age air temperature for that period was

10oC (50oF). The effluent from the filter

units was typically clear with no odor.

The high dosing frequency contributed

and 4 percent (20 L or 5.3 gal) for the

hanging sheets. A high DF allowed for

a low HAR, resulting in the wastewater

being applied in small doses. The

dose volume applied to the filters was

about 23 L dose-1 (6 gal dose-1), or 0.26

and 1.15 times the measured water

holding capacity for the chips and

NWTF sheets, respectively. The addi-

tional water holding capacity of the

NWTF chips may increase the contact

time between the biomass and waste-

water constituents, contributing to the

higher performance of the chips rela-

tive to the hanging sheets.

Given the maintenance and clean-

ing advantages of a hanging sheet

compared to a chip configuration, ef-

forts to reduce the short-circuiting of

flow through the hanging sheet filters

are warranted. Such efforts might in-

clude modification of the surface prop-

erties of the material to promote water

absorption and reduce surface flow

across the sheets as well as reducing the

gaps between the vertical sheets.

It also is possible that there was a dif-

ference in oxygen transfer in the hanging

to efficient constituent removal, making

it difficult to discern the effects of media

configuration; however, some signifi-

cant differences were observed as de-

scribed below.

Comparison of chip and hanging

sheet configuration—The influent and

effluent BOD5 and TSS and the percent

removal are plotted as a function of day

of operation for each filter on figure 4.

All filters provided excellent treatment

of the wastewater in terms of organic

and solids removal (97 and 95 percent

reduction, respectively) at the HLR of

0.41 m d-1 (10 gal ft-2 d-1). However, after

the loading was increased to 1.22 m d-1

(30 gal ft-2 d-1) on day 153, the hanging

sheet filter removal performance deteri-

orated in contrast to the chip filters,

which maintained treatment efficiency.

A possible explanation for the de-

cline in performance of the hanging

sheet filter is related to the water hold-

ing capacity. The fraction of water re-

tained against gravity as a function of

media volume, as calculated with

equation 4, was approximately 19 per-

cent (90 L or 23.8 gal) for the chips

Concentrationa, mg L-1

HLR = 0.41 m d-1 HLR = 1.22 m d-1

Parameter Influent Three-Layer Single-Layer Hanging Sheet Three-Layer Single-Layer Hanging Sheet Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter Textile Filter

BOD5 125 (80–200)b 1c (0.5–5) 1 (0.6–1.7) 2.5 (1.3–5) 4.4 (5–5.2) 2.6 (2–3.6) 16 (11–21)[n=10]b [n=8] [n=8] [n=8] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2]

COD 341 (282–411) 17 (15–19) 16.5 (16–17)23 (22–24) 21 (N/A) 22 (N/A) 45 (N/A)[n=3] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2] [n=1] [n=1] [n=1]

TSS 91 (36–274) 1.3 (0.2–2.8) 1.2 (0.2–4.3) 1.4 (0.7–4.9) 4 (2.6–5.5) 2.4 (2.3–2.5) 15.5 (9.7–21.2)[n=9] [n=7] [n=7] [n=7] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2]

Turbidity 39 (25–48) 1.6 (0.9–3) 1.6 (1.1–2.3) 2.1 (1.6–2.7) 2.7 (2.3–3) 2 (1.9–2) 6.4 (4.7–8)[n=7] [n=5] [n=5] [n=5] [n=2] [n=2] [n=2]

TKN as N 20 (13.6–24.6) 3.4 (N/A) 2.2 (N/A) 1 (N/A) 6.3 (4.6–8.4) 4.7 (4.4–5) 8.1 (6.9–9)[n=4] [n=1] [n=1] [n=1] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]

NH3 an N 16 (11.3–19.6) 0.05 (0–0.1) 0.03 (0–0.1) 0.5 (0.1–0.8) 0.4 (0.2–0.6) 0.2 (0.2–0.3) 4.7 (4.2–5.1)[n=7] [n=4] [n=4] [n=4] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]

NO3- as N 0.7 (0–1.7) 13.7 (12.2–15) 12 (10.8–12.9) 15 (13.3–16.5) 10.2 (8.4–12.0) 10.5 (8.5–11.9)5.7 (4.3–6.6)[n=6] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]

Alkalinity as 338 (310–373) 212 (200–230) 223 (218–232) 218 (212–228) 250 (238–270)246 (234–268) 286 (268–309)CaCO3 [n=6] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3] [n=3]

a Except turbidity, which is reported as NTUb Average (range) [number of data points]c Outlier removed

Summary of Influent and Effluent Wastewater Characteristics for Three Textile Filter Units Operated at HLRs of 0.41and 1.22 md-1

Table 4

Conceptual Model Illustrating Particle Removal in a Sand Bed Compared

to the NWTF Chips

(a)

(b)

Holding tank (raw)

Hanging sheets

Single layer

Three layer

Percentremoval

Effluentconcentration

0

100

200

300

400

0

25

50

75

100

0 50 100 150 200

5-day biochemical oxygen demand, mgL-1

Percent removal

Time of filter operation,d

0

100

200

300

400

0

25

50

75

100

0 50 100 150 200

5-day biochemical oxygen demand, mgL-1

Percent removal

Time of filter operation,d

Effluent Concentrations and Percent Re-

moval of (a) Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen

Demand and (b) Total Suspended Solids

in Hanging Sheets, Single-Layer, and

Three-Layer Textile Filter Units. Note: onday 153 of operation the HLR was in-creased from 0.41 to 1.22 m d-1(10 to 30gal ft-2 d-1)

Figure 4

Number ofparticles

Number ofparticles

Sand grains

Particles accumulatein the pore space, forming

a clogging layer onthe surface

Non-woven textilefabric chips

Particles removedby straining, clogginglayer does not form

because of high porosity

(a) (b)

Figure 5

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

34

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

five percent of the volume is occupied

by a solid, leaving 95 percent of the bed

volume for biomass growth, gas ex-

change, and liquid infiltration. For com-

parison, granular media such as sand

typically has a porosity of approximate-

ly 30 to 40 percent, with a majority of

the filter bed occupied by an inert ma-

terial. NWTFs have a high surface area

(~16,400 m2 m-3 or 5,000 ft2 ft-3; Ball et

al., 1999) for biofilm growth. Sands have

a significantly smaller surface area; the

medium and coarse sands used in this

study had a surface area of approxi-

mately 7,000 m2 m-3 (2,100 ft2 ft-3) and

1270 m2 m-3 (387 ft2 ft-3) , respectively.

The following is a conceptual expla-

nation of how the NWTF media facilitat-

ed an increased hydraulic loading rate

and maintained a high constituent re-

moval rate despite the high porosity of

the material. A dose of

wastewater, containing

both dissolved species and

a distribution of various size

particles, is applied to the

NWTF media. A fraction of

the water comes into con-

tact with the biofilm that re-

sides on the surface of the

media fibers and is ab-

sorbed and transformed.

The NTWF has a large sur-

face area and, therefore,

can support a large amount

of attached biomass, allow-

ing for increased con-

stituent removal. Larger par-

ticles are removed as they

are strained out with depth

in the media and are re-

duced through biological

conversion processes. The

ly high hydraulic conductivity of theNWTFs compared to conventional gran-ular media such as sand, the distributionof wastewater to the surface of the filterswas not optimal. When the convention-al orifice type distribution system (devel-oped for sand filters) was used for the ap-plication of wastewater onto the NWTF,the flow was concentrated directly belowthe orifice as shown in figure 6. Increas-ing the horizontal distribution of waste-water would make more efficient use ofthe material and likely allow for even high-er hydraulic loading rates. Alternative dis-tribution systems should be developedand tested to determine the effects of dis-tribution on filter performance.

RamificationsThe high loading rate of, and excel-

lent effluent quality from, the NWTF fil-ters make them a compelling alternativefor onsite wastewater treatment. More-over, NWTF filters have the potential tobe an integral part of compact, cost-effi-cient onsite wastewater treatment andwater reuse systems.

High loading rate—The increasedloading rate allows for a decrease in thefootprint required by the filter units (com-pared to sand and gravel filters) and aconcurrent reduction in the quantity offilter media. The NWTF units were op-erated at loading rates up to 1.22 m d-1

(30 gal ft-2 d-1) and had a surface foot-print of 0.93 m2 (10 ft2) with approxi-mately 35 kg (77 lb) of NWTF media. Totreat the same volume per day with asingle-pass sand filter, with a convention-al depth of 0.6 m (2 ft) operated at a con-ventional loading rate of 0.04 m d-1 (1 galft-2 d-1), a surface footprint of 28 m2 (300ft2) with approximately 30,000 kg (33

other fraction of the applied water may

preferentially flow around a chip

through the large pore spaces and into

a different fabric chip, where similar re-

moval processes occur. Because the fil-

ter bed is composed of many NWTF

chips, the surface area available for large

particle filtration is much greater than

that of a sand bed. The increased sur-

face area available for filtration and par-

ticle entrapment makes it possible to

treat an equivalent volume of waste-

water in a smaller area. Moreover, the

recirculation of the filter influent pro-

vides multiple opportunities for particle

entrapment and contaminant removal.

A diagram of the conceptual model il-

lustrating particle removal in a sand bed

compared to the NWTF chips is pre-

sented in figure 5.Interestingly, because of the relative-

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

35

JU

RI

ED

A

RT

IC

LE

tons) of sand would be required. The 30-fold difference in required land area and850-fold difference in weight of mediarequired is significant.

Reliable high quality effluent—Thepotential stability of NWTF filter unitsgiven variable loading and the resultinghigh quality effluent, suggests that the ef-fluent could be used directly for onsitesubsurface irrigation or, alternatively,would be a high quality feed for an ad-vanced water treatment system that pro-duced water for multiple purposes.Complete reuse would even eliminatethe need for a soil absorption field. Fig-ure 7 (Tchobanoglous et al., 1999) de-picts a total reuse scenario utilizing acompact NWTF filter unit.

CONCLUSIONSThree configurations of NWTF filter

units were investigated at HLRs of 0.41and 1.22 m d-1 with a DF of 150 dosesd-1 for a period of 7 months. Observa-tions of the NWTF filter performanceand media characteristics led to the fol-lowing conclusions:

1. All orientations provided excellenttreatment of the wastewater interms of organic and solids re-moval (97 and 95 percent reduc-tion, respectively) at the HLR of0.41 m d-1 (10 gal ft-2 d-1). How-ever, after the loading was in-creased to 1.22 m d-1 (30 gal ft-2

d-1), the hanging sheet filter re-moval performance deterioratedin contrast to the chip filters, whichmaintained treatment efficiency.The vertical orientation of thesheets reduced the effective waterholding capacity and it was alsonoted that water appeared to flowover the surface of the sheets. Thefraction of water retained againstgravity as a function of media vol-ume was approximately 19 per-cent (90 L or 23.8 gal) for the chiporientation and 4 percent (20 L or5.3 gal) for the hanging sheets.The dose volume applied to the fil-ters was about 23 L dose-1 (6 galdose-1), or 0.26 and 1.15 times themeasured water holding capacityfor the chips and NWTF sheets, re-spectively.

2. Performance in similarly loadedNWTF and sand filters indicatedthat medium-size sand bedsclogged and coarse-size sand bedsdeteriorated in effluent qualitycompared to the NWTF filters.The packed bed porosity (void vol-ume/total volume) for the NWTFmedia was approximately 95 per-

cent as compared to 30 to 40 per-cent for the sand. The high porosi-ty combined with the larger sur-face area of the NWTF can supporta greater mass of biofilm growthand thus process a higher organicloading rate while not clogging.

3. There was no discernable differ-ence in performance between asingle continuous layer and anequivalent depth three layer NWTFchip filter under the conditionsevaluated. Both NWTF chip filterstypically achieved BOD5 and TSSremoval of 97 to 100 percent re-moval and nearly complete nitrifi-cation of the ammonia nitrogen. Infuture research, the hydraulic load-ing rate should be increased to de-termine the assimilative capacity ofNWTF in multi-pass packed bed fil-ters. In addition, the impact ofpacking density of the NWTFshould be investigated.

4. The distribution of wastewater tothe surface of the filters was not op-timal. The NWTF has a much high-er hydraulic conductivity thangranular media. When the con-ventional orifice type distributionsystem is used for the applicationof wastewater onto the NWTF, theflow is concentrated below the ori-fice. Increasing the horizontal dis-tribution of wastewater wouldmake more efficient use of the ma-terial and likely allow for higher or-ganic loading rates. Alternative dis-tribution systems should be devel-oped and tested to determine theeffects of distribution on filter per-formance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe donation of equipment by Oren-

co Systems, Inc. (Sutherlin, Oregon) for

this research and a U.S. Department of

Education Graduate Assistance in Areas

of National Need Fellowship to H. Lev-

erenz is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCESAmerican Public Health Association, American Water

Works Association, and Water Environment Federa-tion. 1998. Standard methods for the examination ofwater and wastewater, 20th ed. Washington, D. C.

Ball, E. S., H. L. Ball, and T. R. Bounds. 1999. A new gener-ation of packed bed filters. Proceedings of the 10thNorthwest On-site Wastewater Treatment Short Courseand Equipment Exhibition. Seattle, Washington.

Crites, R. and G. Tchobanoglous. 1998. Small and de-centralized wastewater management systems. NewYork: The McGraw Hill Companies.

Crites, R., C. Lekven, S. Wert, and G. Tchobanoglous.1997. A decentralized wastewater system for asmall residential development in California. TheSmall Flows Journal. vol. 3. no.1.

Hines, M. and R. E. Favreau. 1974. Recirculating sandfilter: An alternative to traditional sewage absorp-tion systems. Proceedings of the National HomeSewage Disposal Symposium. ASAE. St. Joseph,Mich.

Jowett, E. C. 1999. Immediate re-use of treated waste-

water for household and irrigation purposes. Pro-ceedings of the 10th Northwest On-Site Waste-water Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhi-bition. Seattle, Washington.

Louden, T. L., D. B. Thompson, and L. E. Reese. 1985.Cold climate performance of recirculating sand fil-ters. Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium ofIndividual and Small Community Sewage Systems.ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.

Piluk, R. J. and O. J. Hao. 1989. Evaluation of onsitewaste disposal systems for nitrogen removal. Jour-nal of Environmental Engineering. vol. 115. no. 4.

Roy, C., R. Auger, and R. Chenier. 1998. Use of non-woven fabric in intermittent filters. On-site waste-water treatment: Proceedings of the 8th NationalSymposium on Individual and Small CommunitySewage Systems. ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.

Tchobanoglous, G., L. Ruppe, H. Leverenz, and J.Darby. 1999. Decentralized wastewater manage-ment challenges and opportunities for the twenty-first century. Proceedings of the 10th NorthwestOn-Site Wastewater Treatment Short Course andEquipment Exhibition. Seattle, Washington.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999a.Decentralized systems technology fact sheet: SepticTank – Soil Adsorption Systems. EPA 932-F-99-075.U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-ton, D.C.

———. 1999b. Wastewater technology fact sheet: Inter-mittent sand filters. Washington, D.C. EPA 932-F-99-067.

———. 1980. Design manual: Onsite wastewater treat-ment and disposal systems. Washington, D.C. EPA625-1-80-012.

Whitmyer, R. W., R. A. Apfel, R. J. Otis, and R. L.Meyer. 1991. Overview of individual onsite nitro-gen removal systems. On-site wastewater treat-ment: Proceedings of the 6th National Symposiumon Individual and Small Community Systems. St.ASAE. Joseph, Mich.

Conventional Orifice-Type Distribution System (developed for sand filters)

Figure 6

Septic tank Textilefilter

Membrane unit

Reverse osmosis

UV disinfection

Bathroom sink

Shower/bath

Kitchen sink

Toilet flushing

Clothes washing In-linelint filter

Outdoor activities: car washing, surface watering, etc.

Subsurface tree andlandscape irrigation

Solids returned toseptic tank

A Total Reuse Scenario Utilizing a Compact NWTF Filter Unit

Figure 7

Harold Leverenz, P.E.is a doctoral student in the Depart-ment of Civil and Environmental En-gineering at the University of Cali-fornia, Davis and studies decentral-ized wastewater treatment systems.

Loret M. Ruppe, P.E. is a doctoral student in the Depart-ment of Civil and Environmental En-gineering at the University of Cali-fornia, Davis and studies decentral-ized wastewater treatment systems.

George Tchobanoglous, Ph.D.,P.E.is a professor emeritis in the Depart-ment of Civil and Environmental En-gineering at the University of Cali-fornia, Davis. He has a bachelor ofscience degree in civil engineeringfrom the University of the Pacific(Stockton, CA), a master of sciencedegree in sanitary engineering from theUniversity of California at Berkeley, anda Ph.D. in civil engineering from Stan-ford University. He is a registeredprofessional engineer.

Jeannie Darby, Ph.D., P.E.is a professor in the Department ofCivil and Environmental Engineeringat the University of California atDavis. She has a bachelor of sciencedegree in civil engineering from RiceUniversity, a master of science de-gree in civil engineering from TuftsUniversity, and a Ph.D. in civil engi-neering from the University of Texasat Austin. She is a registered pro-fessional engineer.

quality of the Evitts Creek Watershed and the water quality

of Gordon and Koon Lakes.”

The City of Cumberland, Maryland, is donating land for

the establishment of an environmental learning center that

will showcase Centerville’s onsite wastewater management

system. The Centerville project will be used to train SAC

personnel in the planning, design, construction, and inspec-

tion of alternative wastewater treatment systems. SAC can

then use its knowledge to provide similar assistance to other

small communities throughout the six-county region in the

future once these communities see the long-term effects of

appropriate wastewater treatment.

For more information about the Centerville Project, con-

tact Len Lichvar, executive director of Southern Alleghenies

Conservancy at 702 West Pitt Street, Suite 8, Bedford, PA,

15222. You can telephone Lichvar at (814) 623-7900, ex-

tension 5 or e-mail him at sac@nb.net.Additional background information about the link be-

tween the Centerville demonstration project and CELP can

be found in Small Flows, Winter, 1999 in the story titled

“NODP Phase II Site Serves International Role.”

function—the one serving the lodge. The low malfunctionrate is partially attributed to the seasonal use of the systems.

Plans for the FutureMancl said that an abandoned airstrip is being consid-

ered for a second cluster system to serve a group of homesnow using holding tanks. The association also has set asidesites for large soil absorption systems throughout the devel-opment to serve new homes.

Mancl plans to revisit Crystal Lakes in 20 years. “I wantto see how true Crystal Lakes stays to its original wastewatermanagement goals and how its public policies impact itsstreams and communities.”

For more information about Crystal Lakes as a case studyfor NODP Phase IV, write Karen Mancl, Ph.D., professor,Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 590 WoodyHayes Dr., The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210or telephone her at (614) 292-6007.

For information about the rate of malfunctions at CrystalLakes, contact Richard Rosecrans, general manager, CrystalLakes Water and Sewer Association, 300 Tami Rd., RedFeather Lakes, CO 80545. Rosecrans’s telephone number is(970) 881-2250.

evaluations, bad designs, or inadequatemaintenance. Yes, there have beenpoorly installed, operated, and main-tained aerobic treatment units. Ourchallenge is to strengthen the industryusing the many tools at our disposal, notban viable technology.

Bennette D. Burks, P.E., isdirector of engineering forConsolidated Treatment Sys-tems, Inc., in Franklin, Ohio.

Michael S. Price, R.S., isvice president, Sales for Nor-weco, Inc., Norwalk, Ohio.

REFERENCESBohrer, R. M., and J. C. Converse. 2001. Soil treatment per-

formance and cold weather operations of drip distribu-tion systems. Onsite wastewater treatment: Proceedingsof the 9th national symposium on individual and smallcommunity sewage systems. ASAE. St. Joseph, Mich.

Felix, Charles W., and George A. Kupfer. 1988. Third-Party certification. Journal of Environmental Health.vol. 50. no. 6. (May/June).

Locker, Calvin, and Larry Vansickle. 1980. Experienceswith the use of aerobic plants and soil absorptionsystems. Presented at the Seventh National Confer-ence, sponsored by the National Sanitation Founda-tion (NSF) and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Water Program Operation. Illinois.

McClelland, Nina M. 1977. New techniques relating toindividual onsite wastewater disposal. Presented atthe Edward J. Zimmer Memorial Refresher Course,71st Annual Meeting, American Society of SanitaryEngineering. Kissimmee, Florida. (October).

Monnett, G. T., R. B. Reneau, Jr., and C. Hagedorn.1996. Evaluation of spray irrigation for on-site waste-water treatment and disposal on marginal soils.Water Environment Research. vol. 68. no. 1. (Janu-ary/February).

National Small Flows Clearinghouse. 1996. Pipeline. vol.7. no. 1. (winter).

Otis, Richard J. 1994. Aerobic unit good wastewatertreatment option. The Capital Time. February 17.

Sahr, Tim, Jim Lynch, and Davene Sarrocco-Smith. 1996.Evapotranspiration absorption system: A creative al-ternative for on-lot wastewater disposal. Ohio Journalof Environmental Health. (May/June).

Stockton, Edward L. 1984. Disposal of treated sewage ef-fluent. Presented before the Home Sewage andWaste Disposal Conference at Michigan State Uni-versity.

Young, Allan N., Jr. 1974. Soils infiltration and evapora-tion of wastewater by aerobic processes. Presentedat the National Environmental Health AssociationAnnual Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

37

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

36

but it also has introduced new technology to Pennsylvania.

Contour trench technology, currently not approved for use

in Pennsylvania, is being used experimentally in Centerville.

The Pennsylvania DEP will carefully monitor and evaluate how

well this system works. If the method is successful there, it

might spur regulatory changes that would allow contour

trenches to be permitted in other appropriate sites in the state.

Throughout the process, public meetings were held to

keep residents informed. “A major outcome of this project is

the way the residents changed their attitude from denial of

sewage problems and contamination of the Evitts Creek Wa-

tershed to strong participation in the project and the manage-

ment district,” said Dennis Beal, sewage enforcement officer.

Len Lichvar, executive director of the Southern Alleghe-

ny Conservancy (SAC) said, “The Centerville project allowed

the citizens of Cumberland Valley Township to effectively

deal with their wastewater and conform to Pennsylvania DEP

regulations. In addition, from a resource conservation stand-

point, the project will greatly enhance and protect the water

Centerville, PA World-Class Demonstration

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 11

another homeowner. Twelve homeowners resisted membership in the water

and sewer association. These homeowners argued that theyshould not be forced to join the association since theirhomes were built before it was formed.

The association filed suit, but exception was granted tothe original owners of lots who had wells drilled prior to July18, 1975.

Collecting Delinquent AccountsThe Crystal Lakes Water and Sewer Association has

found that most members pay dues promptly. Liens areplaced against delinquent lots. In addition, a delinquencyfee that averages 18 percent is assessed against these prop-erties to cover costs. Liens are collected only after the saleof the property by warranty deed transfer.

MalfunctionsSince 1973, Crystal Lakes has only had one system mal-

Onsite Systems Management in the Rockies

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17

panies or collectively through a tradeassociation, you can accomplish morein a couple of years than you can in 20years relying entirely on the regulatoryprocess.” Their wisdom holds true. In-dependent, third-party evaluators areessential to the unbiased documenta-tion of technology performance

Needed: New Standard for EvaluationArguments have been made that ex-

isting standards and evaluation protocolsdo not accurately reflect real-world op-erating conditions. These arguments aremostly academic. Operating conditionsvary immensely among users, and cur-rent engineering practices focus on flowequalization as a management strategy.ANSI/NSF Standard 40, which is used toevaluate aerobic treatment units, pro-vides some assurance regarding properoperation and maintenance. Some arguethat ANSI/NSF Standard 40 addressesonly the first two years of operation andmaintenance, but there are no compet-ing standards so far. As aerobic treat-ment unit manufacturers, we challengethe onsite wastewater treatment indus-try and regulators to develop standardsand certification programs that providethe consumer and regulatory communi-ty with the level of design, installation,and ongoing operation and maintenanceassurances provided by standards likeANSI/NSF Standard 40.

In this regard, we welcome and willparticipate in the development of amodel code for onsite wastewater treat-ment. The current draft model code,which includes evaluation, certification,design, installation, operation, andmaintenance, would do much to cor-rect the current bias. Under this modelcode, all technologies would be treat-ed equally, based on their documentedperformance. No longer would technol-ogy be limited to the particular favoritesof a locality. The selection of a particu-lar technology would be based uponthe requirements of an individual site,limits of the in situ soils, and the third-party-documented performance of thelisted technologies. The success of theinstallation would be ensured by thesystem management, which would bea condition of its use.

The performance of aerobic treat-ment units—indeed all onsite wastewatertreatment technologies—is not perfect.Often, however, failures attributed to thetechnology are the result of poor soil

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System PerformanceA Multifaceted Relationship Between Design, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9

The industry’s reliance on compos-ite samples (see American Public HealthAssociations, Standard Methods for theExaminations of Water and Wastewater,Eighteenth Edition) and the averaging ofdata collected from the laboratoryanalysis of effluent samples are testimo-ny to the importance of these evalua-tion concepts. Any attempt to judge theperformance of a wastewater treatmenttechnology by relying on a single or lim-ited number of grab samples is a prac-tice in bad science.

Consider what Dr. Nina I. McClel-land wrote more than 20 years ago: “Itis not uncommon for NSF to receive re-ports that field test data [collected fromaerobic treatment units] are dissimilarfrom those obtained during the sixmonths evaluation for listing. Invariablythe ‘dissimilar’ data were taken underconditions totally different from thoseassociated with the evaluation pro-gram. Most often they are random grabsamples, which should not be com-pared with daily composite results.”

Third-Party TestingAccredited, third-party testing of all

onsite treatment technologies providesone path to accurate and fair evalua-tions of onsite wastewater treatmentsystems. Evaluations should includetesting, certification, and listing by in-dependent, American National Stan-dards Institute (ANSI) accredited third-party certifiers. Independent evaluatorstest products and designs and providedata from which objective judgmentsabout technologies can be made. Third-party certification and product listingprovide a means to make sure productmanufacturers and engineers are ac-countable for internationally acceptedstandards of design, application, opera-tion, and maintenance.

In 1988, Felix and Kupfer wrote,“The value of the independent, third-party approach to standards develop-ment is that the organizations special-izing in this approach have the abilityand experience to bring to the sametable competing companies—and to acertain extent ‘competing’ agencies ofgovernment . . . with some expectationof achieving general agreement amongthem . . . . When you get an industryworking hard on public health andsafety objectives, individually as com-

NSFC Products

Readers who wish to learn more about the NODP andits projects should consider the following educa-tional products offered by the NSFC.Fact Sheet—Overview of the National Onsite Demon-stration Program (Item #SFFSGN137)Developed by the NSFC, this fact sheet briefly sum-marizes the NODP and its first four phases. The NODPassists communities in selecting, installing, fund-ing, monitoring, and using onsite treatment systemsand management models that are cost-effective, vi-able alternatives to full central sewage systems.There is no cost for this four-page fact sheet.

Fact Sheet—The National Onsite Demonstration Pro-gram: Projects Database (Item #SFFSGN140)This NSFC fact sheet summarizes the NODP Data-base, which is designed to house a wide range ofinformation on various domestic wastewater demon-stration projects within the U.S. Details are provid-ed about the information that will be included foreach database entry, how the database can be usedas a resource tool, and how everyone can partici-pate and benefit from the database. This five-pagefact sheet is offered free of charge.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2,

Num

ber

2

38

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

needs to locate the dispersal system and deter-

mine the size of the dispersal area to ensure that

it is adequate for the residence. Once it is locat-

ed, the inspector will examine the site for signs of

system failure. Some of these signs may include

soggy ground over the drainfield; ponding/surfac-

ing effluent; changes in grass color or thickness;

and cover, such as trees, bushes, and shrubs lo-

cated next to, or around, the system that can po-

tentially clog or disrupt the distribution network.

The inspector will also probe the soil in the drain-

field or soil absorption area to determine if the soil

is adequately handling the treated effluent being

dispersed.

In some cases, PTIs are required. Some entities

that may require a PTI to include state and/or local

regulatory authorities, banking/lending institu-

tions, and real estate agencies. For your own pro-

tection as a prospective buyer, you should insist

on a complete inspection whether it is required

or not. Contact the local regulatory authority or

ask the lending institution you’re working with if

they require an inspection.

Building A HomeIf you are planning to build a home that will

not be located on or near a centralized waste-

water collection system, a site evaluation should

be conducted prior to purchasing property. It will

be up to you, the potential land purchaser, to have

the land evaluated to be certain the property can

be “developed” (i.e., it is conducive to onsite

wastewater treatment and dispersal).

There are some very important aspects of the

property that a site evaluation should consider.

The size of the lot is important for determining the

ideal location of the wastewater treatment and dis-

persal system. The land area and location of the

onsite system must meet the required horizontal

separation distances (the regulated distance from

adjacent properties, drinking water wells if there

are no public water services available, or surface

water bodies). In addition to the size of the prop-

erty, another and quite possibly more important

component that needs to be evaluated is the soil.

Editor’s Note: This column is based on calls re-ceived over the National Small Flows Clearing-house (NSFC) technical assistance hotline. If youhave further questions concerning purchasing anonsite treatment system, call (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191 and ask to speak with a technicalassistant.

Whether you are purchasing a home with an

existing onsite wastewater treatment and dispos-

al system (OSDS), or building your own home

that will need an OSDS, there are a few things

that you, the purchaser/builder, should be aware

of to protect yourself and the environment.

Buying a HomeIf there is an existing OSDS, it is important that

you have the entire system inspected by a li-

censed inspector or the proper local permitting

authority. Often, this procedure is termed a Prop-

erty Transfer Inspection (PTI). A PTI is necessary

to determine whether the existing system is func-

tioning properly and meeting current local/state

regulatory requirements. The PTI protects you, the

potential new owner of the OSDS, by relieving

you of the financial responsibility of repairing or

replacing a failing or substandard system. If there

are problems with the OSDS, the PTI will make

the current owner responsible for bringing the

system up to code.

The system inspection consists of locating the

OSDS and identifying the system components

(i.e., septic tank, aerobic treatment unit [ATU],

sand filters, and dispersal methods). The primary

treatment unit (septic tank or ATU) will be

checked for structural integrity, proper size for

the residence, and liquid volume in the tank. If

the septic tank contains effluent filters, these will

also be inspected. The inspection process will be

similar for an ATU; however, different compo-

nents, such as the aerator and electrical devices,

will need to be inspected.

The dispersal system, such as a drainfield or

soil absorption system, will also need to be in-

spected. As mentioned earlier, the inspector

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

39

Andrew LakeNSFC ENGINEERING SCIENTIST

Soil characteristics play a major role in siting

an onsite wastewater system. It is important to

know the site conditions before purchasing the

land. If site conditions are unacceptable for an

OSDS, chances are you will be stuck with prop-

erty that you cannot build upon.

For example, imagine that you purchased a

parcel of land with a great view or that seems ideal

for your particular needs, but the soil conditions

don’t meet specified requirements for wastewater

dispersal. The physical site characteristics must be

evaluated to ensure that the soil can handle the

amount and quality of effluent being discharged.

These characteristics include soil classification or

percolation tests; vertical separation (subsurface)

distances to restrictive horizons, such as bedrock;

the natural groundwater table; and the seasonal

high water table. If these conditions are not ac-

ceptable and do not meet the requirements estab-

lished by your local or state regulatory authority,

you will want to know this prior to making any

commitment to purchasing the property.

If any of these site characteristics cannot be

met, all may not be lost. There are alternative

methods for onsite wastewater treatment and dis-

posal. It is vital, however, to work closely with

local regulatory authorities because they will be

able to provide you with options that would be

approved for your site’s conditions.

Again, it is the purchaser’s responsibility to

schedule a site evaluation. Your local health de-

partment or state regulatory agency should be

able to provide you with contacts for a licensed

inspector or soil evaluator. If the site meets the re-

quirements and can be developed, it is also im-

portant to contact a reputable OSDS installer or

designer. You may also check the local yellow

pages or ask questions of others living in the area

to help determine who would be most appropri-

ate to perform your site evaluation and/or design

and install your OSDS. The designer or installer,

in cooperation with the local health department

or permitting authority, can help you determine

which wastewater treatment and dispersal tech-

nology will be appropriate for your site.

Once you become the proud new owner of an

onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal system,

you need to take care of your new investment.

Knowing the location of the system and under-

standing how the system and its components work

are very important to you as the new homeown-

er. Proper maintenance and care of your onsite

system will ensure that your wastewater is proper-

ly treated and safely returned to the environment.

It is also important for you, the purchaser, to be

present when all of these inspections are conduct-

ed. This will provide you the opportunity to ask

questions and have a full understanding of your

wastewater treatment and dispersal system.

The NSFC has products and publications that

can assist you in all phases of these inspections,

site evaluations, and in choosing an appropriate

onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal system.

Please feel free to contact the NSFC at (800) 624-

8301 for more information.

What should I know about onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems when pur-chasing a home or buying property?

Septic Systems: What You Need To KnowWhen Building or Buying a House

Products

PipelineA Homeowner’s Guide to Onsite SystemRegulations (Item #SFPLNL12)The Winter 1998, Volume 9, Number 1issue of Pipeline examines some commononsite wastewater system regulations asthey affect property transfers, professionalqualifications, operation and maintenance,system changes and repairs, and the stepsfor system approval. The price of thiseight-page NSFC newsletter is 20 cents.

Inspections Equal Preventative Care forOnsite Systems (Item #SFPLNL13)The Spring 1998, Volume 9, Number 2issue of Pipeline focuses on the advan-tages of having onsite wastewater sys-tems regularly inspected, including dis-cussions about when the onsite systemshould be inspected, who should inspectit, the homeowner’s role in the process,and what happens during an inspection.The price of this eight-page NSFCnewsletter is 20 cents.

Site Evaluations (Item #SFPLNL21)The Spring 2000, Volume 11, Number 2issue of Pipeline explains the importanceof a site evaluation prior to installingan onsite wastewater system, and howthe testing determines the type of on-site system that is appropriate for a par-ticular site. Planning for an onsite sys-tem, including the preliminary site eval-uation, soil surveys, field testing, land-scape contour and subsurface drainage,soil tests, texture, structure, and othersoil properties, as well as water move-ment, are all discussed. Suggested siteevaluation procedures and tips are of-fered. This current issue of the eight-page NSFC newsletter is free of charge.

PosterOnsite Wastewater Treatment for SmallCommunities and Rural Areas (Item#WWPSPE02)Developed by the NSFC, this updatedposter provides descriptions and illustrations of various onsite conven-

tional and alternative wastewater treat-ment and disposal technologies. Thesetechnologies are applicable to individualhomes, schools, restaurants, and othersmall-flow situations. There is also a sec-tion about systems that can be installedin difficult site conditions. The cost forthis poster is $1.25.

BookletState Level Onsite Wastewater RegulatoryContacts (Item #WWBLRG34)Compiled by the NSFC, this list includesregulatory contacts for states that haveonsite wastewater regulations. A contactperson’s name, department, address, andtelephone number is provided. This eight-page booklet is offered free of charge.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2,

Num

ber

2

40

N S F C R E S O U R C E SS

ma

ll Flo

ws Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

41

The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item

#WWFSGN146.

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: SprayDistribution System

This fact sheet, produced by the Texas Agri-

cultural Extension Service at Texas A&M Universi-

ty, discusses spray distribution systems, which

spray treated wastewater over the surface of a

yard. Spray distribution systems are the least ex-

pensive to install of all wastewater distribution sys-

tems; however, they require the most wastewater

treatment, which increases the cost of a complete

system. The fact sheet describes four main system

components: a wastewater treatment system, a

disinfection system, a pump tank, and spray heads.

This fact sheet also explains how the distribution

system is designed, including the amount of land

space, maximum wastewater application, and site

selection. Color diagrams of the system are in-

cluded. The four-page fact sheet is geared toward

Texas residents; however, it could be useful to

local, state, and public health officials; contrac-

tors/developers; engineers; finance officers; man-

agers; planners; state regulatory agency person-

nel; researchers; and the general public.

The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item

#WWFSGN149.

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Constructed Wetlands

This Texas Agricultural Extension Service (Texas

A&M University) fact sheet describes constructed

wetland systems for domestic wastewater treat-

ment designed to mimic the natural wetland treat-

ment processes of Mother Nature. The fact sheet

discusses how the system uses plants and microbes

to purify wastewater. Natural wetlands generally

have visible water in the system; however, for

household use, the water flows beneath the soil

surface, which limits contact between residents

and wastewater. This fact sheet discusses how to

maintain constructed wetlands and includes de-

sign factors, along with color diagrams of the sys-

tem. The four-page fact sheet is geared toward

Texas residents; however, it could be useful to

New

Are AvailableNSFC Products

On-Site Wastewater Treat-ment Systems: SepticTank/Soil AbsorptionField

Produced by the Texas

Agricultural Extension Ser-

vice at Texas A&M Univer-

sity, this fact sheet de-

scribes septic tank and soil

absorption systems for

treating residential waste-

water. Using numeric tables

and color diagrams to sup-

plement the text, it de-

scribes the components of

the system and how to maintain them. Soil ab-

sorption field siting and design are discussed, in-

cluding tank size and construction, soil texture,

hydraulic loading, and absorption field size. The

four-page fact sheet is geared toward Texas resi-

dents; however, it could be useful to local, state,

and public health officials; contractors/develop-

ers; engineers; finance officers; managers; opera-

tors; planners; state regulatory agency personnel;

researchers; and the general public.

The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item

#WWFSGN147.

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: SandFilter

This Texas Agricultural Extension Service(Texas A&M University) fact sheet describes sandfiltration—one of the oldest wastewater treatmenttechnologies known. Color diagrams supplementthe text, which explains the types of sand filters(intermittent and recirculating). The fact sheet dis-cusses how the sand filter treats wastewaterthrough filtration, chemical sorption, and assimi-lation; how it should be designed; and how tokeep it working. If properly designed, construct-ed, operated, and maintained, a sand filter pro-duces a very high-quality effluent. The four-pagefact sheet is geared toward Texas residents; how-ever, it could be useful to local, state, and publichealth officials; contractors/developers; engi-neers; finance officers; managers; operators; plan-ners; state regulatory agency personnel; re-searchers; and the general public.

local, state, and public health officials; contrac-

tors/developers; engineers; finance officers; man-

agers; operators; planners; state regulatory agency

personnel; researchers; and the general public.

The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item

#WWFSGN148.

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Evapotranspiration Bed

This fact sheet by the Texas Agricultural Ex-

tension Service at Texas A&M University discuss-

es treating wastewater by evapo-

transpiration (ET)—the loss of water

from the soil by evaporation and by

transpiration from plants growing

there. This fact sheet explains why

ET beds are used, how they are de-

signed, and how they treat waste-

water. Types of ET beds, color dia-

grams, and maintenance tips are

also included. The four-page fact

sheet is geared toward Texas resi-

dents; however, it could be useful

to local, state, and public health of-

ficials; contractors/developers; en-

gineers; finance officers; managers;

operators; planners; state regulatory agency per-

sonnel; researchers; and the general public.

The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item

#WWFSGN150.

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Aerobic Treatment Unit

Produced by the Texas Agricultural Extension

Service at Texas A&M University, this fact sheet

discusses how aerobic units treat wastewater for

homes and small businesses using the same

process (scaled down) as municipal wastewater

treatment systems. Aerobic treatment units re-

move 85–98 percent of the organic matter and

solids from wastewater, producing effluent as

clean as that from municipal wastewater treat-

ment plants, and cleaner than that from conven-

tional septic tanks. The fact sheet details the aer-

obic treatment process, including tank types,

treatment, design, and operation and mainte-

nance. Color diagrams and a numeric table of flow

rates for single-family residences of various sizes

supplement the text. The four-page fact sheet is

geared toward Texas residents; however, it could

be useful to local, state, and public health officials;

contractors/developers; managers; operators; plan-

ners; state regulatory agency personnel; and the

general public.

The cost for this fact sheet is $1. Request Item

#WWFSGN160.

Watershed Progress: Rouge River WatershedMichigan

Since 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has been promoting the watershed

approach to achieve the next generation of water

protection. This booklet by the EPA Office of Water

and the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-

sheds details the Rouge River Watershed area south-

east of Detroit, Michigan. Because of the polluted

condition of the Rouge River, fish consumption ad-

visories were posted, and the county health depart-

ment prohibited total body contact. This booklet dis-

cusses how the EPA, state of Michigan, local busi-

nesses, citizens, and grassroots organizations in the

area worked together to clean up the Rouge River

and protect their watershed. This four-page booklet

may be helpful to local, state, and public health offi-

cials, as well as the general public.

The cost for this booklet is 70 cents. Request Item

#WWBLGN159.

Animal Feeding Operations: The Role of Counties

Written by James Kundell of the University of

Georgia, this book was produced for the Conference

of Southern County Associations in cooperation

with the National Association of Counties. The book

discusses animal feeding operations (AFOs), which

are livestock-raising operations, such as hog, cattle,

and poultry farms that confine and concentrate ani-

mal populations and their wastes. Concerns with

AFOs appear to fall into three major categories: the

impact of expanding corporate farms on the econo-

my of rural counties; the po-

tential environmental and

public health impacts of

AFOs; and siting concerns re-

lated to nuisance odors. The

purpose of this book is to

provide county officials with

guidance on the issues relat-

ing to AFOs and the county’s

role in addressing the issues.

The book includes a table of

states that had counties with

home rule authority in 1990,

a glossary, and an appendix of cattle AFO-related

activities in each state. This 78-page book may be

helpful to local, state, and public health officials;

managers; planners; and the general public.

The cost for this book is $5. Request Item

#WWBKGN161.

Funding of Small Community Needs Through theClean Water State Revolving Fund

This fact sheet by the EPA Office of Water pro-

vides an overview of the Clean Water State Revolv-

ing Fund (SRF) program, authorized by Title VI of

the 1987 Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments. The

fact sheet discusses funding trends, including

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

43

Case StudiesWWBLCS02 Vacuum Collection System (Cedar Rocks,

West Virginia) ........................................................................$1.45

WWBLCS03 Variable Grade Effluent Sewers (Maysville Area,

Muskingum County, Ohio) ................................................$2.10

WWBLCS04 Alternating Bed Soil Absorption Systems (Crystal Lakes,

Colorado) ..............................................................................$2.30

WWBLCS05 Intermittent Sand Filter (Gardiner, New York)................$1.60

WWBLCS06 Overland Flow (Kenbridge, Virginia) ................................$2.70

WWBLCS07 Wetlands/Marsh (Cannon Beach, Oregon) ....................$2.30

WWBLCS09 Slow Rate Land Treatment (Craigsville, Virginia) ..........$2.10

WWBLCS10 Year-Round Slow-Rate Land Treatment (Hershey’s Mills,

Pennsylvania) ........................................................................$2.10

WWBLCS11 Flat Grade Sewers (Ericson, Nebraska) ............................$1.20

WWBLCS12 Grinder Pump Pressure Sewers (Augusta, Maine) ........$1.30

WWBLCS13 Minimum Grade Effluent Sewers (Dexter, Oregon) ....$1.60

WWBLCS14 Free Access Intermittent Sand Filter (New York) ..........$2.70

WWBLCS18 Septic Tank Effluent Collection and Sand Filter Treatment

(New York) ............................................................................$2.55

WWBLCS21 Pollution Prevention at POTW’s ......................................$0.00

WWBKCS22 Combined Sewer Overflows and the Multimetric Evalua-

tion of Their Biological Effects: Case Studies in Ohio and

New York................................................................................$0.00

Computer SearchesWWBKCM01 Constructed Wetlands, February 2001 ........................$32.20

WWBLCM02 Composting Toilets, February 2001 ................................$6.90

WWBKCM03 Failing Systems, February 2001 ......................................$19.55

WWBKCM04 Greywater, February 2001 ..............................................$10.90

WWBKCM05 Onsite Management, February 2001 ............................$11.20

WWBKCM06 Mound Systems, February 2001 ....................................$13.00

WWBKCM07 Pressure Sewers, February 2001 ....................................$10.25

WWBKCM08 Sand Filters, February 2001 ............................................$25.45

WWBKCM09 Septage, February 2001....................................................$10.25

WWBKCM10 Wastewater Characteristics, February 2001 ................$19.20

WWBKCM11 Water Conservation, February 2001 ............................$17.00

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

WWPCCM15 Facilities Database Search ..................................................Varies

WWPCCM16 Manufacturers and Consultants Database Search........Varies

WWBKCM17 Lagoons, February 2001 ..................................................$30.75

WWBLCM18 Drip Irrigation, February 2001 ..........................................$4.50

WWBKCM19 Spray Systems, February 2001 ..........................................$9.15

WWBLCM20 Additives, February 2001....................................................$2.75

WWBLCM21 Low-Flush Toilets, February 2001......................................$3.55

WWBLCM22 Operator Health and Safety, February 2001..................$2.10

WWBKCM23 Disinfection, February 2001 ............................................$21.15

WWBKCM24 Site Evaluation, February 2001........................................$11.40

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

WWSWDM55 Station Version 3.0 and User’s Guide..............................$7.10

WWSWDM58 User Documentation: POTW Expert Version 1.0 ....$33.75

WWSWDM77 Gravity Sewer Design Version 3.1M and User’s

Guide ......................................................................................$6.70

WWSWDM79 Variable Grade Effluent Sewers Version 2.2M and

User’s Guide ......................................................................$10.15

Products List

(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191 | nsfc_orders@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

Item Number BreakdownFirst two characters of item number: (Major Product Category)WW WastewaterFM Finance and MangementGN General InformationSF Small Flows

Second two characters of itemnumber: (Document Type)BK Book, greater than 50 pagesBL Booklet, less than 50 pagesBR BrochureCD Computer Disk/ROMFS Fact SheetJR JournalNL NewsletterPL PipelinePK PacketPS PosterSW SoftwareVT Video Tape

Third two characters of item number: (Content Type)CM Computer SearchCS Case StudyDM DesignFN FinanceNL Newsletter/PublicationOM Operation and MaintenancePE Public EducationPP Public-Private Partnerships (P3)RE ResearchRG RegulationsTR Training

Last two characters of item number:Uniquely identifies product within major category

Highlighted products are new

* Indicates changes in title, itemnumber, and/or price

To place an order . . .To place an order, call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, or use the order formon page 51 and fax your request to (304) 293-3161. You also may send e-mail to nsfc_orders@mail.nesc.wvu.edu. Be prepared togive the item number and title of the productyou wish to order. Shipping charges apply to allorders.

Abstracts of many products are provided in theNSFC’s Products Catalog. The guide may be down-loaded via the NSFC’s Web site atwww.nsfc.wvu.edu.

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

42

NSFC’s Updated Products Catalog Now Available

The National Small Flows Clearinghouse

(NSFC) 2000-2001 Wastewater Products Catalog

provides a complete listing of the 434 products

NSFC offers. The catalog profiles each product

and includes case studies, computer searches,

computer software, design manuals, newsletters

and magazines, technology packages, fact sheets,

and videotapes. Materials range from educational

products for the general public to technical man-

uals for wastewater professionals. Many NSFC

products are free; others are priced on a cost-re-

covery basis.

The catalog offers a brief description of each

product, including intended audience (e.g., engi-

neers, state officials, etc.), year produced, num-

ber of pages, item number, and price. In the back

of the catalog, a keyword index allows readers to

search for a product by topic. Instructions for

placing orders are included.

To order the 2000-2001 Wastewater Products

Catalog, call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or

(304) 293-4191 and request Item #WWCAT. Or-

ders may also be placed via e-mail at nsfc_or-

ders@mail.estd.wvu.edu.

distribution of SRF dollars to small communities

relative to total SRF funding during the past 11

years. (It also presents this information graphical-

ly.) Graphics also illustrate the relationship be-

tween SRF agreements with small communities

and total SRF agreements, as well as the costs as-

sociated with specific categories of need. A table

contains Clean Water SRF assistance in dollars

and the number of agreements by community

size for fiscal years 1988–1998 for each state with

totals for all states. This four-page fact sheet could

serve as a reference for local officials, managers,

planners, public health officials, finance officers,

state officials, and the general public.

The cost of this fact sheet is 70 cents. Request

Item #FMFSFN33.

Wastewater Treatment Programs Serving SmallCommunities

Many small communities lack adequate waste-

water facilities, but must come into compliance

with the Clean Water Act requirements. This

4-page, EPA Office of Water fact sheet highlights

EPA-funded programs that provide financial assis-

tance, technical assistance, and training to small

communities for the construction and operation

of wastewater treatment facilities. Programs in-

clude the following:

• Alaskan Native Vil-

lages Sanitation

Grant Program

• Clean Water Tribal

Grant Program

• Colonias Program

• National Environ-

mental Training

Center for Small

Communities

• National Onsite

Demonstration Pro-

gram

• National Small Flows Clearinghouse

• Operator Onsite Technical Assistance Pro-

gram—104(g)

• Rural Community Assistance Program

• Small Communities Outreach and Educa-

tion Network

Contact information and hotlines for waste-

water treatment are provided.

The cost of this fact sheet is 70 cents. Request

Item #WWFSGN157.

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

45

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

44

WWFSGN120 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of

Concentrated Dairy Cattle Feeding Operations ..........$0.35

WWFSGN121 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of

Concentrated Horse Feeding Operations ......................$0.35

WWFSGN122 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of

Concentrated Poultry Feeding Operations ....................$0.35

WWFSGN123 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of

Concentrated Sheep Feeding Operations ......................$0.35

WWFSGN124 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of

Concentrated Slaughter and Feeder Cattle Feeding

Operations ............................................................................$0.35

WWFSGN125 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of

Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations ......................$0.35

WWFSGN131 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Conventional

Septic Tank/Drain Field ......................................................$1.00

WWFSGN132 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Subsurface

Drip Distribution ..................................................................$1.00

WWFSGN133 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Low-Pressure

Dosing ....................................................................................$1.00

WWFSGN134 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems: Spray

Distribution ............................................................................$1.00

SFFSGN136 The National Onsite Demonstration Program:

Phase III ..................................................................................$0.00

SFFSGN137 Overview of the National Onsite Demonstration

Program ..................................................................................$0.00

SFFSGN138 The National Onsite Demonstration Program:

Phase I ....................................................................................$0.00

SFFSGN139 The National Onsite Demonstration Program:

Phase II ..................................................................................$0.00

SFFSGN140 The National Onsite Demonstration Program Projects

Database ................................................................................$0.00

SFPKGN141 Complete Package of the National Onsite

Demonstration Program Fact Sheets ..............................$0.00

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

WWFSGN146 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Sand Filter ..$1.00

WWFSGN147 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Septic

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

WWFSGN148 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Constructed

Wetlands ................................................................................$1.00

WWFSGN149 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Spray

Distribution System ..............................................................$1.00

WWFSGN150 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Evapotranspiration

Bed ..........................................................................................$1.00

WWFSGN151 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Conventional

Septic Tank/Drain Field (Spanish Version) ......................$1.00

WWFSGN152 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Spray

Distribution (Spanish Version) ..........................................$1.00

WWFSGN153 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Subsurface

Drip Distribution (Spanish Version)..................................$1.00

WWFSGN154 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems – Low-Pressure

Dosing (Spanish Version)....................................................$1.00

WWFSGN157 Wastewater Treatment Programs Serving Small

Communities ........................................................................$0.70

WWFSGN160 On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems - Aerobic Treatment

Unit ..........................................................................................$1.00

Finance and ManagementFMBKCS21 Cost Savings Models for Environmental Protection: Helping

Communities Meet Their Environmental Goals ..........$14.45

WWBLFN01 Clean Water State Revolving Fund: How to Fund

Nonpoint Source Estuary Enhancement Projects..........$0.00

WWBRFN02 EPA’s Clean Water Act Indian Set-Aside Grant

Program ..................................................................................$0.00

FMBLFN03 A Water and Wastewater Manager’s Guide for Staying

Financially Healthy ..............................................................$0.00

WWBLFN03 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About the U.S.

EPA Clean Water Indian Set-Aside Grant Program ......$0.00

WWBLFN05 Rural Communities Hardship Grants Program

Implementation Guidelines; Notice ................................$1.45

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

FMBKFN06 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Funding

Options ................................................................................$10.00

WWFSFN07 Funding Decentralized Wastewater Systems Using

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund............................$0.00

FMBKFN12 Alternative Financing Mechanisms for Environmental

Programs ..............................................................................$19.25

FMBLFN13 A Utility Manager’s Guide to Water and Wastewater

Budgeting ..............................................................................$0.00

FMBLFN14 State and Local Government Guide to Environmental

Program Funding Alternatives............................................$4.15

FMSWFN16 Determining Wastewater User Service Charge Rates

A Step By Step Manual with Software ............................$5.50

FMBLFN17 The Road To Financing: Assessing and Improving Your

Community’s Credit Worthiness ......................................$0.00

FMBKFN18 Financing Models for Environmental Protection: Helping

Communities Meet Their Environmental Goals ............$0.00

FMBLFN19 Evaluating Municipal Wastewater User Charge

Systems ..................................................................................$6.05

FMBLFN20 Clean Water State Revolving Fund: Financing America’s

Environmental Infrastructure–A Report of Progress ....$0.00

FMBKFN22 Beyond SRF: A Workbook for Financing CCMP

Implementation ....................................................................$0.00

FMBLFN25 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding

Framework ............................................................................$0.00

FMBKFN26 CSOs: Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment

and Schedule Development ..............................................$0.00

FMFSFN27 Hardship Grants Program for Rural Communities ........$0.00

FMBLFN28 State Match Options for the State Revolving Fund

Program ..................................................................................$0.00

FMBLFN29 Federal Funding Sources for Small Community

Wastewater Systems ............................................................$0.00

FMFSFN30 Cleaning Up Polluted Runoff with the Clean Water

State Revolving Fund ..........................................................$0.00

FMFSFN31 Protecting Wetlands with the Clean Water State

Revolving Fund......................................................................$0.00

FMFSFN32 Funding Estuary Projects Using the Clean Water

State Revolving Fund ..........................................................$0.00

WWFSFN32 Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP) Help

for Small Community Wastewater Projects....................$0.00

FMFSFN33 Funding of Small Community Needs Through the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund ..................................$0.70

FMBLFN34 USDA Loan and Grant Funding for Small Community

Wastewater Projects ............................................................$1.30

FMFSFN35 Funding Water Conservation and Reuse with the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund ..................................$0.35

WWFSFN36 Baseline Information on Small Community Wastewater

Needs and Financial Assistance ........................................$0.35

FMBKGN01 It’s Your Choice: A Guidebook for Local Officials

on Small Community Wastewater Management

Options ..................................................................................$7.50

FMBLGN04 Looking at User Charges: A State Survey and

Report ....................................................................................$5.75

FMBKGN11 Andrew W Breidenback Environmental Research Center

Small Systems Resource Directory ..................................$0.00

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

FMBLGN15 Why Watersheds? ................................................................$0.00

FMBKGN16 Selecting Your Engineer . . . How to Find the Best

Consultant for Small Town Water and Wastewater

Projects ................................................................................$18.00

FMBLPE32 Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls ............................$0.00

FMBKPP03 Public-Private Partnerships for Environmental Facilities:

A Self-Help Guide for Local Governments ....................$0.00

FMBLPP06 Developing Public/Private Partnerships: An Option

for Wastewater Financing ..................................................$0.00

WWBKMG02 Biosolids Management Handbook for Small Publicly

Owned Treatment Works ................................................$40.80

WWBLMG03 Septage Management in Ohio ..........................................$1.40

WWBKMG04 A Manual for Managing Septic Systems ......................$28.35

FMBLMG05 Septic Systems and Ground Water Protection: An

Executive’s Guide ................................................................$2.30

WWBKMG05 Draft Framework for Watershed-Based Trading ............$0.00

WWBKMG07 Environmental Planning for Small Communities: A

Guide for Local Decision Makers ..................................$16.50

GNBLMG08 Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices ......$1.65

WWBLMG09 Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management

Options for Rural Areas ......................................................$0.55

WWBKMG10 Ohio Livestock Manure and Wastewater Management

Guide ......................................................................................$2.20

GNBLMG11 Clean Water Action Plan: The First Year, the Future ..$0.00

nsfc_orders@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

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

WWBKDM74 Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment ............................................................................$13.50

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

WWBLDM76 Mound Systems: Pressure Distribution of Wastewater

Design and Construction in Ohio ....................................$2.75

WWBKDM78 Nitrogen Control ................................................................$50.75

WWBKDM80 In-Vessel Composting of Municipal Wastewater

Sludge ....................................................................................$0.00

WWBKDM81 Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge and Domestic

Septage ................................................................................$47.25

WWBKDM82 Land Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic

Septage ................................................................................$48.55

WWBKDM83 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 1, A Guide

to Creating Wetlands for General Considerations the

Mid-Atlantic Region ..........................................................$11.15

WWBLDM84 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 2,

Domestic Wastewater ........................................................$4.80

WWBLDM85 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 3,

Agricultural Wastewater ......................................................$5.10

WWBLDM86 Handbook of Constructed Wetlands: Volume 5,

Stormwater ............................................................................$6.05

WWBLDM87 Recirculating Sand/Gravel Filters for On-Site

Treatment of Domestic Wastes ........................................$3.70

WWPKDM89 Producing Watertight Concrete Septic Tanks (Video); and

Septic Tank Manufacturing Best Practices Manual

(Booklet) ..............................................................................$53.00

WWBLDM90 Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Using Sand Filter

Treatment Systems; Guidelines and Specifications ......$6.25

Fact SheetsWWFSGN84 Constructed Wetlands/Natural Wetlands........................$0.35

WWFSGN98 Ultraviolet Disinfection: A General Overview................$0.10

WWFSOM20 Ultraviolet Disinfection: A Technical Overview ............$0.10

WWFSGN99 Chlorine Disinfection: A General Overview ..................$0.10

WWFSOM21 Chlorine Disinfection: A Technical Overview ................$0.10

WWFSGN100 Ozone Disinfection: A General Overview......................$0.10

WWFSOM22 Ozone Disinfection: A Technical Overview ..................$0.10

WWFSGN101 Fine Bubble Aeration: A General Overview ..................$0.10

WWFSOM23 Fine Bubble Aeration: A Technical Overview ................$0.10

WWFSGN102 Trickling Filters Achieving Nitrification: A General

Overview................................................................................$0.10

WWFSOM24 Trickling Filters Achieving Nitrification: A Technical

Overview................................................................................$0.10

WWFSGN103 Recirculating Sand Filters: A General Overview............$0.10

WWFSOM25 Recirculating Sand Filters: A Technical Overview ........$0.10

WWFSGN104 Intermittent Sand Filters: A General Overview ..............$0.10

WWFSOM26 Intermittent Sand Filters: A Technical Overview............$0.10

WWFSGN105 Mound Systems: A General Overview ............................$0.10

WWFSOM27 Mound Systems: A Technical Overview..........................$0.10

WWFSGN106 Composting Toilet Systems: A General Overview ........$0.10

WWFSOM28 Composting Toilet Systems: A Technical Overview......$0.10

WWFSGN107 Low-Pressure Pipe Systems: A General Overview ........$0.10

WWFSOM29 Low Pressure Pipe Systems: A Technical Overview......$0.10

WWFSGN109 Septage Management: A General Overview ................$0.10

WWFSOM31 Septage Management: A Technical Overview ..............$0.10

WWFSGN110 Evapotranspiration Systems: A General Overview........$0.10

WWFSOM32 Evapotranspiration Systems: A Technical Overview ....$0.10

WWFSGN111 Water Efficiency: A General Overview............................$0.10

WWFSOM33 Water Efficiency: A Technical Overview ........................$0.10

WWPKGN112 Complete Package of ETI Fact Sheets: A General

Overview................................................................................$1.30

WWPKOM34 Complete Package of ETI Fact Sheets: A Technical

Overview................................................................................$1.30

WWFSOM38 Land Application of Animal Manure ................................$1.30

WWFSOM39 Enforcement Alert: Clean Water Act Prohibits Sewage

‘Bypasses’ ..............................................................................$0.00

WWFSGN118 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s)

and Their Effect on Water Pollution ................................$0.35

WWFSGN119 NPDES Regulations Governing Management of

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ....................$0.35

WWSWDM91 User’s Guide Spreadsheet Pregrav.xls Version 1.2E ....$6.50

WWSWDM92 User’s Guide Spreadsheet Pregrav.WQ1,

Version 1.3 ............................................................................$6.20

DesignWWBLDM01 Subsurface Soil Absorption of Wastewater: Artificially

Drained Systems ..................................................................$2.70

WWBKDM02 Cost Effectiveness Analysis ................................................$8.60

WWBLDM03 Onsite Wastewater Disposal: Distribution Networks

for Subsurface Soil Absorption Systems..........................$7.35

WWBLDM04 Onsite Wastewater Disposal: Evapotranspiration and

Evapotranspiration/Absorption Systems..........................$2.55

WWBLDM07 Low-Pressure Sewer Systems..............................................$7.45

WWBLDM08 Management Plans and Implementation Issues: Small

Alternative Wastewater Systems Workshops ................$3.40

WWBKDM09 Design Modules: Wisconsin Mound Soil Absorption

System Siting, Design, and Construction Manual and

Pressure Distribution Network ..........................................$6.70

WWBLDM12 Site Evaluation for Onsite Treatment and Disposal

Systems ..................................................................................$6.25

WWBLDM13 Design Workbook for Small-Diameter, Variable-Grade,

Gravity Sewers ......................................................................$7.35

WWBLDM14 Subsurface Soil Absorption of Wastewater: Trenches

and Beds ................................................................................$4.15

WWBLDM15 Vacuum Sewerage ................................................................$7.80

WWBLDM16 Subsurface Soil Absorption System Design Work Session:

New Development—Stump Creek Subdivision..............$6.85

WWBLDM18 Onsite Wastewater Treatment: Septic Tanks ..................$2.45

WWBLDM20 Technology Assessment of Intermittent Sand Filters ....$5.75

WWBLDM22 Variable Grade Sewers: Special Evaluation Project ....$2.70

WWBKDM31 Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for

Small Communities............................................................$24.85

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

WWBKDM35 Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

Systems ................................................................................$50.00

WWBKDM36 Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Ponds ..................$53.25

WWBKDM37 Septage Treatment and Disposal ......................................$0.00

WWBKDM38 Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems

for Municipal Wastewater Treatment ............................$13.75

WWBLDM40 Sequencing Batch Reactors ................................................$3.80

WWBKDM41 Phosphorus Removal ........................................................$19.65

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

WWBKDM43 Odor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewage

Systems and Treatment Plants ..........................................$0.00

WWBKDM44 Composting of Municipal Wastewater Sludges ..........$11.40

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

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

WWBLDM48 EPA Environmental Regulations and Technology: The

National Pretreatment Program ........................................$4.65

WWBKDM49 Municipal Wastewater Disinfection................................$40.50

WWBKDM50 Identification and Correction of Typical Design Deficien-

cies at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities ....$65.60

WWBKDM53 Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems....................$0.00

WWBKDM57 Control of Slug Loadings to POTWs Guidance

Manual..................................................................................$16.50

WWBKDM59 Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementa-

tion of Local Discharge Limitations Under the

Pretreatment Program ......................................................$56.45

WWBKDM64 Assessment of Single-Stage Trickling Filter

Nitrification ............................................................................$0.00

WWBLDM65 General Design, Construction, and Operation Guidelines:

Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems

for Small Users Including Individual Residences

(Second Edition)....................................................................$5.50

WWBKDM67 Sewer System Infrastructure Analysis and

Rehabilitation ......................................................................$15.35

WWBKDM68 Technical Support Document for Water Quality

Based Toxics Control ..........................................................$0.00

WWBKDM69 Ultraviolet Disinfection Technology Assessment ..........$0.00

WWBKDM70 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems for

Small Communities ..............................................................$0.00

WWBKDM71 Retrofitting POTWs for Phosphorus Removal in the

Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin ......................................$0.00

(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191

WWBLPE38 Wastewater Treatment: The Student’s Resource

Guide ......................................................................................$1.50

WWBRPE39 Combined Sewer Overflows in Your Community ........$0.70

WWPSPE41 Do More with SCORE: Small Community Outreach

and Education Helps Solve Wastewater Problems ......$0.00

WWBLPE44 Clean Water for Today: What is Wastewater

Treatment?..............................................................................$1.00

WWBLPE46 Living on Karst: A Refrence Guide for Landowners

in Limestone Regions ..........................................................$0.00

GNBRPE51 Polluted ..................................................................................$0.00

GNPSPE52 National Estuary Program: Bringing our Esturaries

New Life ................................................................................$0.00

WWBRPE53 How Wastewater Treatment Works…The Basics ..........$0.00

WWBKPE54 State of the Chesapeake Bay: A Report to the Citizens

of the Bay Region ................................................................$0.00

WWBRPE57 The Care and Feeding of Your Septic System

(Spanish Version) ..................................................................$0.00

WWBRPE58 So...Now You Own a Septic System

(Spanish Version) ..................................................................$0.00

WWBRPE59 Groundwater Protection and Your Septic System

(Spanish Version) ..................................................................$0.00

RegulationsGNBLRG01 Introduction to Water Quality Standards........................$3.80

WWBKRG01 A Guide to State-Level Onsite Regulations, (2000) ....$16.20

WWBKRG21 Wastewater Flow Rates from the State Regulations,

November 2000 ................................................................$21.80

WWBKRG22 Percolation Tests from the State Regulations,

November 2000 ................................................................$27.55

WWBKRG23 Alternative Toilets from the State Regulations,

November 2000 ................................................................$22.90

WWBKRG24 Greywater Systems from the State Regulations,

November 2000 ..................................................................$9.60

WWBKRG26 Package Plants and Aerobic Treatment Systems

from the State Regulations, November 2000 ..............$20.80

WWBKRG30 Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in

Sewage Sludge ......................................................................$0.00

WWBLRG31 NPDES Storm Water Program: Question and Answer

Document, Volume 1..........................................................$0.00

WWBLRG34 State Onsite Wastewater Regulatory Contacts List,

November 2000 ..................................................................$0.00

WWBKRG35 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge

40 CFR Part 503 ..................................................................$0.00

WWBKRG36 Domestic Septage Regulatory Guidance: A Guide to

the EPA 503 Rule..................................................................$0.00

WWBLRG37 NPDES Storm Water Program: Question and Answer

Document, Volume 2..........................................................$0.00

WWBKRG38 Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids

Rule..........................................................................................$0.00

WWBLRG39 NPDES Self-Monitoring System User Guide ..................$4.50

WWBLRG41 Federal Register Part VII EPA CSO Control Policy ........$1.80

WWBLRG42 NPDES and Sewage Sludge Program Authority: A Hand-

book for Federally Recognized Indian Tribes ................$0.00

WWBKRG43 Land Application of Sewage Sludge: A Guide for Land

Appliers on the Requirements of the Federal Standards

for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR

Part 503 ..................................................................................$0.00

WWBKRG44 Preparing Sewage Sludge for Land Application or

Surface Disposal ..................................................................$8.70

WWBLRG45 Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge ................................$7.45

WWBRRG48 Florida Clean Vessel Act: What it Means for Boaters

and Marinas ..........................................................................$0.00

WWBLRG49 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy ......$5.25

WWBKRG50 Part 503 Implementation Guidance ..............................$38.50

WWBKRG51 U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual ........................$0.00

WWBKRG52 Septic Tanks—Southeast from the State Regulations:

November 2000 ................................................................$15.05

WWBKRG53 Septic Tanks—Southwest from the State Regulations :

November 2000 ................................................................$11.20

WWBKRG54 Septic Tanks—Northwest from the State Regulations:

November 2000 ..................................................................$9.60

WWBKRG55 Septic Tanks—Northeast from the State Regulations:

November 2000 ................................................................$10.40

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

47

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2,

Num

ber

2

46

SFPLNL16 Spray and Drip Irrigation for Wastewater Reuse,

Disposal ..................................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL17 Infiltration and Inflow Can Be Costly for

Communities ........................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL18 Mounds: A Septic System Alternative..............................$0.25

SFPLNL19 Funding Sources Are Available for Wastewater

Projects ..................................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL20 Evapotranspiration Systems ................................................$0.25

SFPLNL21 Site Evaluations......................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL22 Alternative Toilets Options for Conservation and

Specific Site Conditions ......................................................$0.25

SFPLNL23 Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems ..............$0.25

SFPLNL24 Water Softener Use Raises Questions for System

Owners ..................................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL25 Planning for Onsite System Management ......................$0.00

SFQUNL01 Small Flows Quarterly, Winter 2000 ................................$1.00

SFQUNL02 Small Flows Quarterly, Spring 2000 ................................$1.00

SFQUNL04 Small Flows Quarterly, Fall 2000 ......................................$1.00

SFQUNL06 Small Flows Quarterly, Spring 2001 ................................$0.00

Operation and MaintenanceWWBLOM01 Reducing the Cost of Operating Municipal Wastewater

Facilities ..................................................................................$0.00

WWBKOM02 Cost Reduction and Self-Help Handbook ....................$17.15

WWBLOM04 Contract Operation and Maintenance: The Answer

for Your Town? ......................................................................$2.10

WWBLOM05 Analysis of Performance Limiting Factors (PLFs) at

Small Sewage Treatment Plants ........................................$3.55

WWBLOM06 Onsite Operator Training Program: Success in Every

Region!....................................................................................$3.80

WWBLOM07 Alternative Sewers Operation and Maintenance:

Special Evaluation Project ..................................................$2.90

WWBKOM08 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Nine

Minimum Controls ..............................................................$0.00

WWBKOM09 POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance

Document............................................................................$15.85

WWBKOM16 Detection, Control, and Correction of Hydrogen Sulfide

Corrosion in Existing Wastewater Systems ....................$0.00

WWBKOM17 Chemical Aids Manual for Wastewater Treatment

Facilities ................................................................................$0.00

WWBLOM35 Onsite Assistance Program – Helping Small Wastewater

Treatment Plants Achieve Permit Compliance ..............$0.00

WWBLOM37 Constructed Wetlands for On-Site Septic Treatment: A

Guide to Selecting Aquatic Plants for Low-Maintenance

Micro-Wetlands ....................................................................$0.70

Public EducationGNBRPE02 Everyone Shares a Watershed............................................$0.20

GNBLPE03 DES Guide to Groundwater Protection: Answers to

Questions About Groundwater Protection in New

Hampshire..............................................................................$2.75

GNBRPE04 Test the Waters! Careers in Water Quality ....................$0.20

GNBRPE05 Adopt Your Watershed........................................................$0.00

GNBLPE06 Reflecting on Lakes: A Guide for Watershed

Partnerships............................................................................$0.80

GNFSPE07 Quality Development and Stormwater Runoff ..............$0.35

WWBLPE01 Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project Too Costly?

Options for Small Communities........................................$1.00

WWPSPE02 Onsite Wastewater Treatment for Small Communities

and Rural Areas ....................................................................$1.25

WWBLPE07 Benefits of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure..........$0.00

WWBRPE17 Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeowners ............$0.00

WWBRPE18 The Care and Feeding of Your Septic System................$0.00

WWBRPE20 So...Now You Own a Septic System ................................$0.00

WWBRPE21 Groundwater Protection and Your Septic System ........$0.00

WWBRPE26 Preventing Pollution Through Efficient Water Use........$0.00

WWPKPE28 Homeowner’s Septic Tank Information Package ..........$2.25

WWBLPE31 Sanitary Sewer Overflows: What Are They, and

How Do We Reduce Them?..............................................$0.00

WWPSPE35 Indicator Organisms in Wastewater Treatment..............$2.90

WWBLPE37 Homeowner Onsite System Recordkeeping Folder

(NSFC) ....................................................................................$0.45

nsfc_orders@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

General InformationGNBKGN02 Federal Agency Ground Water Technical Assistance

Directory ..............................................................................$19.50

GNBLGN03 Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview............$0.00

GNBLGN04 ENVEST: Engineers Volunteering Environmental

Service Teams........................................................................$1.00

WWBKGN05 Small Town Task Force: Final Report of Key

Findings . . .............................................................................$5.50

GNBRGN06 Watershed Approach ..........................................................$0.00

GNBLGN07 Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic

Conditions..............................................................................$5.50

GNBLGN09 Office of Compliance: An Introductory Guide..............$0.00

GNBKGN10 Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned ................................$0.00

GNBLGN11 Section 319 National Monitoring Program:

An Overview ........................................................................$0.00

GNBKGN12 Community-Based Environmental Protection: A Resource

Book For Protecting Ecosystems and Communities ....$0.00

GNBLGN13 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United

States ......................................................................................$0.00

GNBKGN14 Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach ..............$0.00

GNBLGN15 Water Pollution Control: Twenty-five Years of Progress

and Challenges for the New Millenium ..........................$0.00

GNBKGN16 The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters—Nutrients and

Pesticides ................................................................................$0.00

WWBRGN15 Water Reuse via Dual Distribution Systems ..................$0.00

WWBLGN16 Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ..............................$6.35

WWBRGN19 Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment in Cold

Climates ..................................................................................$0.00

WWBRGN20 Innovations in Sludge Drying Beds: A Practical

Technology ............................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN31 Inflow/Infiltration: A Guide for Decision Makers ..........$6.85

WWBKGN35 Municipal Wastewater Reuse: Selected Readings on

Water Reuse ........................................................................$11.55

WWBKGN36 Waste Water Justice? Its Complexion in Small Places

(Appendix) ............................................................................$0.00

WWBKGN39 Septic Tank Siting to Minimize the Contamination

of Ground Water by Microorganisms ..........................$15.35

WWBLGN40 EPA Journal Reprint: Protecting Ground Water,

The Hidden Resource..........................................................$5.10

WWBLGN55 GAO Report: Water Pollution Information on the

Use of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems ......$2.00

WWBKGN58 Guide to Septage Treatment and Disposal ....................$0.00

WWBLGN59 Biosolids Recycling: Beneficial Technology for a

Better Environment ..............................................................$0.00

WWBLGN62 Office of Wastewater Management Primer....................$4.80

WWBRGN63 Clean Water...A Better Environment: Wastewater

Management at EPA ............................................................$0.00

WWBRGN64 Source Reduction: An Integral Part of the MWPP

Program ..................................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN65 Marine and Estuarine Protection Programs and

Activities ................................................................................$0.00

WWBKGN67 Summary Report: Small Community Water and

Wastewater Treatment ......................................................$13.60

WWBLGN71 Combined Sewer Overflows: Screening and Ranking

Guidance................................................................................$0.00

WWBKGN72 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Long

Term Control Plan ................................................................$0.00

WWBKGN73 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Permit

Writers ....................................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN78 United States Census Data1980 and 1990 ....................$1.00

WWBLGN79 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy: A

Consensus Solution to Improve Water Quality ............$0.70

WWBKGN85 Guide to the Biosolids Risk Assessments for the EPA

Part 503 Rule ........................................................................$0.00

WWBRGN88 Clean Vessel Act: Keep Our Water Clean—Use

Pumpouts ..............................................................................$0.00

WWBKGN89 National Onsite Wastewater Treatment: A National

Small Flows Clearinghouse Summary of Onsite

Systems in the United States, 1993..................................$0.00

WWBKGN90 Seminar Publication: National Conference on Sanitary

Sewer Overflows ..................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN91 Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Use or Disposal

Documents ............................................................................$0.70

WWBKGN92 Commitment to Watershed Protection: A Review

of the Clean Lakes Program ..............................................$0.00

WWBKGN93 Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized

Wastewater Treatment Systems ......................................$14.45

WWBLGN94 Waste Water Justice? Its Complexion in Small

Places ......................................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN95 Small Community Wastewater Systems ..........................$1.95

WWBKGN96 Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment

and TMDL Development....................................................$0.00

WWBKGN97 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey: Report to

Congress ................................................................................$0.00

WWBRGN113 Composting Biosolids ..........................................................$0.00

WWBRGN114 Land Application of Biosolids ............................................$0.00

WWBRGN115 Sewage Sludge Incineration ..............................................$0.00

WWBRGN116 Sludge or Biosolids ..............................................................$0.00

WWBLGN126 Outreach and Technical Assistance Programs: 1997

Accomplishments Small Underserved Team..................$0.00

WWBKGN127 Clean Water Tribal Resource Directory For Wastewater

Treatment Assistance ..........................................................$0.00

WWBKGN128 Wastewater Disposal Options for Small Communities

in Mississippi..........................................................................$4.05

WWBKGN129 Wastewater Disposal Options for Small Communities

in Alabama ............................................................................$4.05

WWBKGN130 Wastewater Disposal Options for Small Communities

in Louisiana ............................................................................$4.05

WWBKGN142 Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting

America’s Waters..................................................................$0.00

WWBLGN143 Response to Congress on the AEES “Living Machine”

Wastewater Treatment Technology ..................................$6.70

WWBLGN144 Response to Congress On Privatization of Wastewater

Facilities ..................................................................................$6.25

WWBLGN155 US Census Data on Small Community Housing and

Wastewater Disposal and Plumbing Practices ..............$1.30

WWBLGN156 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey: Small Community

Wastewater Needs ..............................................................$1.30

WWBKGN158 Introduction to the National Pretreatment

Program................................................................................$17.40

WWBLGN159 Watershed Progress: Rouge River Wastershed

Michigan ................................................................................$0.70

WWBKGN161 Animal Feeding Operations: The Role of Counties ....$5.00

WWCDGN162 Wastewater Resources for Small Communities ........$14.950

GNBKIN05 Designing a Water Conservation Program: An Annotated

Bibliography of Source Materials......................................$0.00

NSFC PublicationsGNBKIN01 Publications Index 1999......................................................$0.00

SFPLNL01 Combined Sewer Overflows..............................................$0.25

SFPLNL02 Septic Systems A Practical Alternative for Small

Communities ........................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL03 Maintaining Your Septic System A Guide for

Homeowners ........................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL04 Home Aerobic Wastewater Treatment: An Alternative

to Septic Systems..................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL05 Management Programs Can Help Small

Communities ........................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL06 Wastewater Treatment Protects Small Community

Life, Health ............................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL07 Alternative Sewers: A Good Option for Many

Communities ........................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL08 Choose the Right Consultant for Your Wastewater

Project ....................................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL09 Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater

Treatment ..............................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL10 Sand Filters Provide Quality, Low-Maintenance

Treatment ..............................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL11 Basic Wastewater Characteristics ......................................$0.25

SFPLNL12 A Homeowner’s Guide to Onsite System

Regulations ............................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL13 Inspections Equal Preventative Care for Onsite

Systems ..................................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL14 Constructed Wetlands: A Natural Treatment

Alternative ..............................................................................$0.25

SFPLNL15 Managing Biosolids in Small Communities ....................$0.25

(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191

WWBKRG56 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—South-

east from the State Regulations: November 2000 ....$10.10

WWBLRG57 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—South-

west from the State Regulations: November 2000 ......$7.20

WWBKRG58 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—North-

west from the State Regulations: November 2000 ......$8.50

WWBKRG59 Location, Separation and Sizing of Onsite Systems—North-

east from the State Regulations: November 2000........$9.80

WWBKRG60 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Southeast from

the State Regulations: November 2000........................$12.35

WWBLRG61 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Southwest from

the State Regulations: November 2000 ..........................$5.15

WWBLRG62 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Northwest from

the State Regulations: November 2000 ..........................$4.80

WWBKRG63 Site Evaluations and Inspections—Northeast from

the State Regulations: November 2000........................$14.10

WWBKRG64 Proceedings of the First National Onsite Wastewater

State Regulators Conference..............................................$9.20

WWFSRG65 Fact Sheet: Class V Injection Wells ................................$0.70

ResearchWWBKRE13 Technical Evaluation of the Vertical Loop Reactor

Process Technology ..........................................................$12.05

WWBLRE14 Methodology to Predict Nitrogen Loading from

Conventional Gravity On-Site Wastewater Treatment

Systems ..................................................................................$3.20

WWBKRE16 Preliminary Risk Assessment for Viruses in Municipal

Sewage Sludge Applied to Land ......................................$0.00

WWBKRE17 Evaluation of Oxidation Ditches for Nutrient

Removal................................................................................$17.40

WWBLRE18 Rock-Plant Filter: An Alternative for Onsite Sewage

Treatment ..............................................................................$1.45

WWBLRE19 NPCA Septic Tank Project 1990-1995 ............................$5.60

WWBLRE20 Field Performance of the Waterloo Biofilter with

Different Wastewaters ........................................................$4.15

WWBKRE21 Potential Effects of Water Softener Use on Septic

Tank Soil Absorption On-Site Waste Water Systems....$7.60

WWBLRE22 Project Summary: Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters

by the Fluidized Bed Bioreactor Process ........................$1.30

WWBKRE23 Treatment Capability of Three Filters for Septic Tank

Effluent..................................................................................$17.30

WWBKRE24 Evaluation of the Performance of Five Aerated

Package Treatment Systems ..............................................$5.00

WWBKRE25 The Expanding Dairy Industry: Impact on Ground Water

Quality and Quantity with Emphasis on Waste Manage-

ment System Evaluation for Open Lot Dairies ............$11.70

WWBKRE26 Assessment of On-Site Graywater and Combined

Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Systems ..........$25.00

WWBKRE27 ULF Water Closets Study: Final Report ........................$25.00

WWBLRE28 Household Water Reduction and Design Flow Allowance for

On-Site Wastewater Management and Supplement ......$2.55

WWBKRE29 Evaluation of Spray Irrigation As A Methodology For

On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ..............$13.35

WWBLRE30 Linear Regression for Nonpoint Source Pollution

Analyses..................................................................................$0.00

Technology PackagesWWBKGN09 Alternative Toilets Technology Package ..........................$7.15

WWBKGN29 Sand Filter Technology Package......................................$12.40

WWBKGN41 STEP Pressure Sewer Technology Package ..................$13.00

WWBKGN53 Spray and Drip Irrigation Technology Package ..........$16.95

WWBKGN54 Constructed Wetlands General Information

Technology Package..........................................................$10.80

WWBLGN57 Watershed Management Technology Package..............$6.50

WWBKGN61 Vertical Separation Distance Technology Package ....$10.45

WWBKGN66 Septic Tank Additives Technology Package..................$13.00

WWBKGN68 Water Conservation Effects on Onsite Wastewater

Treatment Technology Package ......................................$11.90

WWBKGN69 Design of Constructed Wetlands Technology

Package ................................................................................$10.80

WWBKGN70 Management Districts Technology Package ................$13.35

WWBKGN74 Gravelless Drainfields Technology Package ................$10.80

WWBKGN75 Operator Protection Information Package (Aids

Virus in Wastewater Treatment Plants)..........................$13.60

WWBKGN76 Sand Mound Technology Package ..................................$9.35

Sm

all F

low

s Q

ua

rterly

, Spring 2001, V

olume 2, N

umber 2

49

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2,

Num

ber

2

48

In an effort to send out wastewater-related news more quickly, the Na-

tional Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) established a listserver to an-

nounce NSFC publications, new products, and other information.

The listserver is an e-mail based mechanism that simply sends messages

to e-mail addresses. New information is automatically transmitted to all sub-

scribers via e-mail on a regular basis. This listserv is for notification only,

and cannot be used for posting messages.

To subscribe to the NSFC News Listserv:

• Send an e-mail to:

macjordomo@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

• Leave the subject line blank.

• In the message area, type: subscribe nsfcnews Firstname Last-

name

• Place one space between each word as

indicated.

• Example: subscribe nsfcnews John Smith

• Do not add any extra text to the message.

• Send your message.

Ordering InformationPhone:(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191 Business hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time

E-mail:nsfc_orders@mail.nesc.wvu.edu

Fax:(304) 293-3161

Mail:

National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

Please indicate the product itemnumber, title, cost, quantity, andtotal for each item ordered. Makesure you include your name, affilia-tion, address, and phone numberwith each order.

Free items are limited to one ofeach per order.

Shipping and handling charges areactual shipping and handling costsfor all orders. All orders from out-side the U.S. (excluding Canada)must be prepaid.

All payments must be in U.S. dollars using VISA, MasterCard, Dis-cover, check, or money order.

To place your order using VISA,MasterCard, or Discover, includeyour credit card number, expirationdate, and signature on the orderform.

Make checks payable to WVU Research Corporation.

Please allow two to four weeks for delivery.

Name________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Affiliation __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Address ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

City __________________________________________________________ State ________ Zip Code__________________

Phone ( _____ ) ____________________________________ Fax ( _____ ) ______________________________________

E-mail Address __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please check form of payment:

Check/Money Order MasterCard VISA Discover

Card Number________________________________________________________________________________

Expiration Date ________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Signature (Required for credit card orders.)

Subtotal

Shipping

Total Cost

Products Order FormItem Number Title Cost Qty. Total

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CUT OR COPY FORM FOR ORDERING

Subscribe to the NSFC News Listserv

WWBKGN77 Biomat Technology Package............................................$13.60

WWBKGN80 Grinder Pump Pressure Sewer Technology

Package ................................................................................$14.25

WWBKGN81 Disinfection Technology Package ..................................$15.05

WWBKGN82 Greywater Technology Package ........................................$7.95

WWBKGN83 Site Evaluation Technology Package ..............................$14.25

WWPKGN86 Nonpoint Pointers: Understanding and Managing

Nonpoint Source Pollution in Your Community ..........$0.00

WWPKGN87 Alternative Onsite Systems Technology Package ..........$5.50

Training MaterialsWWBKTR01 NPDES Compliance Inspection Training Program

Student’s Guide..................................................................$18.65

WWBLTR02 NPDES Compliance Inspection Video Workbook:

Inspecting a Parshall Flume................................................$4.55

WWBKTR03 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—

Sampling ..............................................................................$15.70

WWBKTR04 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—

Biomonitoring ....................................................................$11.90

WWBKTR05 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—

Overview ............................................................................$13.60

WWBKTR06 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training –

Legal Issues..........................................................................$18.40

WWBKTR07 NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training—

Laboratory Analysis............................................................$22.00

VideotapesFMVTMG01 Wastewater Management in Unsewered Areas ..........$10.00

FMVTPE01 Building Support for Increasing User Fees (Videotape

and Workbook ) ................................................................$12.90

WWVTGN10 Morrilton, Arkansas, Land Application of

Wastewater ..........................................................................$10.00

WWVTGN13 Alternative is Conservation ..............................................$10.00

WWVTGN117 Proper Treatment and Uses of Septage ........................$15.00

WWVTGN135 Septic Systems: Making the Best Use of Nature ........$10.00

WWVTOM36 Sampling Wastewater at a Wastewater Treatment

Facility ..................................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE03 Sand Filter Technology ......................................................$10.00

WWVTPE04 Small Diameter Effluent Sewers ......................................$10.00

WWVTPE05 Planning Wastewater Treatment for Small

Communities ......................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE06 Upgrading Small Community Wastewater

Treatment ............................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE13 Municipal Wastewater: America’s Forgotten

Resources ............................................................................$15.00

WWVTPE16 Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeowners ..........$10.00

WWVTPE22 Surface Water Video ............................................................Loan

WWVTPE23 Ground Water Video Adventure ........................................Loan

WWVTPE24 Saving Water—The Conservation Video............................Loan

WWVTPE25 Careers in Water Quality......................................................Loan

WWVTPE29 Artificial Marshland Treatment Systems ........................$10.00

WWVTPE33 Water Conservation: Managing Our Precious

Liquid Asset ........................................................................$13.50

WWVTPE34 Keeping Our Shores/Protecting Minnesota Waters:

Shoreland Best Management Practices ........................$25.00

WWVTPE40 Care and Feeding of Your Septic System ....................$10.00

WWVTPE42 Dollars Down the Drain: Caring for Your Septic

Tank ......................................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE43 Septic Systems Revealed: Guide to Operation, Care

and Maintenance ..............................................................$15.00

WWVTPE45 Maintaining Your Home Aeration Sewage Treatment

System ..................................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE47 Small Community Wastewater Treatment: Management and

Myths ....................................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE48 Intermittent Sand Filter - State of the Art Onsite

Wastewater Treatment ......................................................$10.00

WWVTPE49 PSMA Protocol: Inspecting On-lot Wastewater

Treatment Systems ............................................................$25.00

WWVTPE50 Problem with Shallow Disposal Systems ........................$0.00

WWVTPE55 Choosing an Alternative Septic System ........................$13.00

WWVTPE60 Recirculating Filter On-Site Sewage Disposal

System ..................................................................................$10.00

WWVTPE61 Conventional On-Site Sewage Disposal System..........$10.00

(800) 624-8301 | (304) 293-4191

The National Small Flows

Clearinghouse (NSFC) is pleased

to announce its first-ever CD-

ROM of NSFC resources. Titled

Wastewater Resources for SmallCommunities, this CD-ROM in-

cludes the best of NSFC’s prod-

ucts distributed in the last 10

years. The CD is easily accessi-

ble in a Web-based format and

puts a wealth of helpful informa-

tion at the user’s fingertips.

This diverse collection of

wastewater-related information

can be useful to local, state, and

public health officials; engineers; operators; contractors/de-

velopers; planners; managers; state regulatory agency per-

sonnel; and homeowners.

For example, health departments will have a handy ref-

erence to look up statistics about onsite system failures or

find the number of septic systems being used per county.

Homeowners can use this information to find out what

home sewage treatment alternatives are out there to help

them choose the most suitable option for their situation. Sep-

tic system owners can access maintenance tips. Teachers

and professors can use the materials to educate students

about environmental issues. Engineers can find out where

to locate design specifications for a particular system.

Peter Casey P.E., NSFC program coordinator, is excited

about the advantages of CD technology in distributing this

information. “Using CD-ROMs to disseminate large quanti-

ties of information will make the NSFC’s services available

to more people. Our customers will have the information

electronically without having to wait for a PDF file to down-

load off the Internet.”

This CD-ROM contains a diverse collection of NSFC

resources. More than 400 articles are included from

NSFC’s publications since 1989, including the Small Flowsnewsletter, the Small Flows Quarterly magazine, and the

Pipeline newsletter. The articles are categorized as general

information, onsite management, and technologies. All of

the Pipeline “theme” issues, such as the popular issues

about “Maintaining Your Septic System: A Guide for Home-

owners,” and “Inspections Equal Preventative Care for On-

site Systems” are included.

This CD provides a variety of educational information

about wastewater, such as the poster Onsite WastewaterTreatment for Small Communities and Rural Areas. This poster

describes 23 different wastewater treatment technologies and

illustrates how they can

be applied in a communi-

ty setting. Three

brochures on septic sys-

tems that discuss how to

prolong the life of a sep-

tic system through proper

maintenanceare also in-

cluded. These brochures

are available on the CD in

both English and Spanish.

Also included are

general and technical

versions of fact sheets

II NN CC OO MM II NN GG II SS SS UU EE SS .. .. ..

Onsite Impacts on Coastal Zones

Biosolids Update

Onsite Management in Charlotte County, Florida

NNeeww NNSSFFCC CCDD--RROOMM OOffffeerrss tthhee BBeesstt ooff SSmmaallll FFlloowwss

about 13 innovative and alternative technologies for treat-

ing and disposing of wastewater. They were developed by

the NSFC as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA’s) Environmental Technology Initiative.

In this CD-ROM, you’ll also get a copy of the 2000-2001

Wastewater Products Catalog, which provides a complete

listing of the 434 free and low-cost products NSFC offers.

The catalog profiles each product and includes case stud-

ies, computer searches, computer software, design manu-

als, newsletters and magazines, technology packages, fact

sheets, and videotapes. Materials range from educational

products for the general public to technical manuals for the

wastewater professional.

In addition, you’ll have access to reference materials, such

as the “Septic Stats” developed through Phase IV of the Na-

tional Onsite Demonstration Program. These statistics sum-

marize the use of onsite systems across the U.S. and provide

such data as the number of reported failures. Bar charts and

data sheets are included for each state.

The CD also includes

the complete text of EPA’s

Response To Congress OnDecentralized WastewaterTreatment Systems, which

analyzes the costs and ben-

efits of decentralized waste-

water treatment alternatives

and EPA’s plans for imple-

menting the alternatives.

The CD-ROM is PC-

compatible and requires a

486 or Pentium® processor

and Microsoft Windows®

95 or a more recent ver-

sion. The software needed

to read the files is provided

(Adobe Acrobat Reader

and Internet Explorer 5.5).

Wastewater Resourcesfor Small Communities is an

excellent reference guide

for any wastewater profes-

sional or homeowner to

have on hand. Get your copy today for the low price of

$14.95. Call the NSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-

4191 and request Item #WWCDGN162 to get the most

comprehensive source of information about small commu-

nity wastewater treatment!

Sm

all

Flo

ws Q

ua

rte

rly

, S

prin

g 20

01,

Vol

ume

2, N

umbe

r 2

50

C L O S I N G T H O U G H T S

When is onsite a better alternative?The 1997 Response to Congress on Use of De-

centralized Wastewater Treatment Systems found

that the decentralized approach to wastewater

management favors rural communities and is fre-

quently more cost-effective than centralized sew-

ering. EPA analyzed costs of a hypothetical rural

community with 450 people living in 135 homes.

They assumed homes were located on lots at least

one acre in size and that the homes had conven-

tional septic systems. They assumed also that 50

percent of the systems were failing.

EPA considered three wastewater management

options: a centralized system, cluster systems, and

managed onsite systems. They spread capital costs

over 30 years (the life of the system) for each tech-

nology. The analysis found that the decentralized

approach, with either managed onsite systems or

cluster systems, is frequently a more cost-effective

wastewater management option—especially for

sparsely populated areas.

The response states that decentralized systems

protect public health and the environment and

are appropriate for low density communities, as

well as for varying site conditions. Onsite systems

can provide additional benefits for ecologically

sensitive areas. In addition, these systems can

offer significant cost savings while recharging local

aquifers and providing other water reuse oppor-

tunities.

According to Choices for Communities: Waste-water Management Options for Rural Areas, the

success of the decentralized approach depends

upon establishing a management program to as-

sure that systems are regularly inspected and

maintained.

Those who need information about specific

state regulations may want to order NSFC’s AGuide to State-level Onsite Regulations, a Novem-

ber 2000 publication (Item #WWBKRG01). The

guide includes Web sites so readers may check

on updates for those states currently in the

process of revising regulations.

You may also wish to order NSFC’s NationalOnsite Wastewater Treatment: A National SmallFlows Clearinghouse Summary of Onsite Systemsin the United States, 1993, also known as the

“health department study” (Item #WWBKGN89).

Tricia Angoli, NSFC engineering scientist, is cur-

rently updating this study. An updated version

should be available in Summer 2001.

Are Onsite Systems a Viable Option?

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) 1997 Response to Congress on theUse of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Sys-tems, onsite wastewater systems have been used

since the mid-1800s, with technological advances

improving the systems from simple outhouses to

cesspools, to septic tanks, to some of the more ad-

vanced treatment units available today.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of

1972, later called the Clean Water Act (CWA), re-

stricted what can be dumped into rivers and

streams, and since its inception, centralized sew-

erage systems have been the standard approach

to wastewater collection and treatment. From

1972 to 1993, the CWA provided significant

funds for planning, designing, and constructing

public wastewater infrastructure through the Con-

struction Grants program. Between 1972 and

1990, the federal government spent more than

$62 billion dollars on the program—constructing

or upgrading treatment facilities.

According to Mike Hoover, Ph.D, North Car-

olina State University soil science professor, in his

booklet, Choices for Communities: WastewaterManagement Options for Rural Areas, construc-

tion costs in less densely populated areas can be

incredibly high. Often the collection network it-

self can account for 70 to 90 percent of the total

construction cost. He says that traditionally, rural

communities have viewed centralized systems as

the desirable goal.

Unlike drinking water, which has been federal-

ly regulated since the 1974 Safe Drinking Water

Act, no federal law governs onsite septic systems.

And onsite management is in its infancy. Even

when underground storage tank regulations were

tightened at the end of 1998, home heating oil

tanks, septic tanks and other wastewater collec-

tion systems were specifically excluded.

According to the 1995 American Housing Sur-

vey, 25 million households use decentralized

wastewater treatment, and in 1995, 2.5 million of

these systems malfunctioned. Data on septic sys-

tem failure rate is limited. The EPA says this esti-

mate is probably conservative, and it anticipates

that as communities expand into suburban and

rural areas, the number of decentralized systems—

and associated system failures—will increase. Poor-

ly managed septic systems remain a major con-

cern as to groundwater contamination. The Na-

tional Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) health

department survey indicates that 90,632 onsite

system failures were reported during 1993 by

responding local permitting agencies.

Harriet Emerson

NESC SENIOR EDITOR

Looking for information about wastewater collection, treat-ment, and disposal? The National Small Flows Clearinghouse(NSFC) can help.

Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, theNSFC is a nonprofit organization that assists small communi-ties (those with populations less than 10,000) with theirwastewater-related needs. We offer a wide variety of re-sources about such topics as:

• septic systems and alternative onsite and communitywastewater treatment technologies,

• regulations,• operation and maintenance, • design and monitoring, • strategies for managing small wastewater systems, and• public education.

The NSFC helps homeowners, local and state governmentofficials, renters, bankers, citizens’ groups, regulators, re-search scientists, educators, consultants, manufacturers, op-erators, contractors, and other professionals. We produce twoquarterly publications, Small Flows Quarterly and Pipeline, which are free byrequest to U.S. residents. Our Web site hosts discussion groups on waste-water issues and provides information about conferences and events acrossthe country.

In addition, the NSFC operates a toll-free technical assistance hotline avail-able Monday through Friday from 8 a.m.– 5 p.m. Eastern Time. The NSFCprovides outreach services through workshops, seminars, and conference par-ticipation. We have an inventory of more than 430 free and low-cost educa-tional wastewater products. Contact us today for a free information packet!

America’sInformation Source on Small

Community and OnsiteSewage Systems

National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia University Research CorporationWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED

National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia University Research Corporation

P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

(800) 624-8301/(304) 293-4191www.nsfc.wvu.edu

NONPROFIT ORGA-NIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE PAIDPERMIT NO. 309KNOXVILLE, TN

®