March 21 Wastewater
Management District (WMD) Workshop: Highlights
Professor Karen Mancl (Ohio State University) spent a sabbatical year
studying WMD’s in Panora, IA; Red Feather
Lakes, CO; Cool, CA and Stinson Beach CA.
Most of those WMD’s started with about 300
homes and grew larger after establishing a service record (the Panora WMD now
serves 1200 residential units with 600 individual onsite and 4 cluster
systems). The driving force has been
public health and federal clean water standards. Ohio, for example, has tightened discharge limits each time
National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standard permits are renewed, and
encourages recycling of treated wastewater, mainly to irrigate farms (nitrogen
is not a concern but rather welcome for the farms).
Most
of the WMD’s Mancl studied use onsite
septic units, and the core mission of the WMD is to assure that they operate
effectively. Simple but effective
management systems are used to clearly identify the location and surrounding features
of each unit, provide for regular inspection, and identify performance problems
before they require costly repairs.
Thus, WMD field personnel need to develop rapport with homeowners. Costs range from $50 to $250 /home/year,
depending on unit type, and include regular pump-out. Fees are collected via utility or tax bills, usually. Repairs, or new installations built to WMD
specifications, are paid for by home owners.
Mancl
found that engineering features like inspection ports to check for early signs
of saturation, and an extra distribution lateral so that flow can be diverted
away from saturated parts of the leaching field (that recover after a year of
rest) extend the life of onsite units.
Such features need to be integrated into regular inspection routines, effective
maintenance and follow-up, updated site plans and other records that trained
observers can use to spot developing problems early. In short, simple
management systems diligently followed by “people person” inspectors make these
WMD’s work, not rocket science.
Daniel Ottenheimer [Gloucester Public Health Director] manages an
inspection/performance monitoring WMD for on site septic systems, concentrating
on a few hundred homes bordering the harbor.
The impetus was a consent decree protecting public health that could
have shut down Gloucester’s small treatment plant. Some new
sewers were added in East Gloucester, but the rocky terrain made sewers too
expensive for West Gloucester where it was decided to find and fix onsite units
that were discharging into the harbor.
A city wastewater management plan identified a critical border zone, and
all onsite systems in that zone came under stricter guidelines under the
direction of the Health Department.
The
WMD licenses inspectors who check the function of onsite units on a regular
schedule, specify pump-out and repairs as needed, and either perform or verify
the work. The Health Department keeps
for each onsite unit a computer-based log that records all WMD contacts and
results of those contacts, including certificates of compliance plus
maintenance contracts and monitoring tests for alternative systems. The entire
focus is public health; there is no testing or control limit for nitrogen
releases. The City does offer a
relatively modest revolving fund with 0% interest loans for septic upgrades.
Professor Robert Rubin [North Carolina State University & EPA
consultant] described newly released guidelines for management of
onsite/decentralized wastewater treatment systems. In 1997, EPA reported to Congress that technology exists, with
adequately managed decentralized systems, to provide the basis for long-term
wastewater treatment. (Before then, the
policy was to consider such systems as temporary transitions to sewers and
central treatment plants.)
EPA
is updating the 1980 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual and is
releasing a progressive series of program guidelines on how to raise the
performance and extend the life of onsite/decentralized systems. The guidelines address environmental
sensitivities of affected communities and complexity of the system required to
achieve their objectives. Each model
includes recommended approaches to plan, site, design, install, operate and
maintain systems.
There
are five model management programs: (1) System inventory and awareness of
maintenance needs; (2) Management through maintenance contracts; (3) Management
through operating permits; (4) Operation and maintenance by a public or private
management entity; and (5) Ownership and management by a public or private
management entity. The models are
voluntary, apply to new and existing septic systems of all sizes (including
nonresidential, large capacity units) and are intended to support EPA programs
such as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), underground injection control, and
protection of source water, watersheds and beach and shellfish. A management handbook on how to implement
the guideline models is scheduled to be released in a few months. Professor
Rubin believes that the latest onsite alternative systems can consistently
deliver nitrogen effluent levels below 5 ppm.
John W Giorgio, Esq (Partner, Kopelman & Page PC) described the
limited alternatives under existing Massachusetts statutes to manage wastewater
treatment (e.g. sewer districts and inter-municipal agreements to combine
districts in two towns), and the difficulty in keeping such districts
development-neutral. For example, every property owner abutting a sewer line
has a right to connect if treatment capacity exists. Similarly, every property owner able to connect must be assessed
an equal betterment.
Thus,
although boards of health have fairly extensive authority to regulate
wastewater treatment, in his experience it usually is more productive to obtain
specially drawn home rule legislation.
That is the successful route Provincetown took recently. To undertake such an initiative first
requires a vote of town meeting on a proposal that, among other things must
define the management district boundaries and the method of funding (e.g. general
tax base or district-only). If
betterments are to be used, they must be assessed up-front; although some
provision can be made to defer payment for vacant lots.
It
is not necessary for town meeting to vote a specific draft bill, however; such
a bill can be drafted by the town administrator or state legislative sponsor
after town meeting votes. Another alternative is a general vote of draft
legislation that allows legislative amendments within the scope of the general
public objectives of the petition. A
third, and perhaps optimum alternative, is to append language to a restrictive
vote allowing the selectmen or town administrator to approve amendments in
conjunction with proposals of the Legislature before enactment by the General
Court. Language reflecting the third
alternative was provided in the form of a memorandum from Counsel to the House
and Senate.
In
response to questions, Mr. Giorgio indicated that it is possible for a town to
adopt a nutrient management plan that would have the effect of regulating land
use, and also that a board of health could adopt regulations limiting the use
of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
He also suggested that normal grand-fathering in zoning bylaws could be
bypassed by adopting a preemptive general bylaw.
Pio Lombardo, PE (President, Lombardo Associates) described a variety of methods that
could be used to fund a WMD, and also some of the engineering steps essential
to planning one. In regard to the
latter, it is his view that a WMD plan must identify the type of treatment for
every lot in the district in order to determine the optimal environmental and
economic integration of onsite, cluster and central plant units. Work performed by his firm for Concord and
the Mayo Peninsula in Maryland was cited as examples.
To
conserve initial capital costs, he recommended the type of active management
plan Professor Mancl described to extend the useful life of existing onsite
systems, Title V especially. When such
systems are retained, a relatively modest annual sinking fund can be
established to build up an account to replace them (extending useful life also
creates more opportunity for technology to keep developing, which might avoid
having to replace entire onsite units).
It also reduces sharply the potential conflict over failed systems that
must be replaced even while the WMD district is being developed and authorized.
Initial
capital costs that remain could be funded by some combination of assessment on
property owners whose system is being replaced near-term (which would qualify
for state revolving fund loans), a general capital levy on the town or WMD as a
whole, and potentially some federal demonstration grant if the WMD is deemed
sufficiently innovative. In addition,
operating and maintenance costs would be paid for by a utility-type charge that
could vary by type and age of systems serving each property. There also is the possibility of entering a
public/private partnership to lease some or all of the system and operate it.
Ed Eichner (Cape Cod Commission) traced the dependence of the Cape on onsite
systems both to treat wastewater and curb development, and the emerging concern
about nutrient pollution of surface waters.
The Commission has obtained a grant to examine wastewater treatment on a
regional basis, and also is looking at measures to limit urban sprawl. The Estuaries Project, just getting
underway, and federal TDML Program will be spurs to developing measures for
curbing nutrient loading of surface waters.
Brian Dudley (MA DEP, Lakeville) indicated the Commonwealth recognizes the need for
more comprehensive wastewater management programs, and is working on a document
to provide guidance to help towns develop WMD’s (release date TBD).
JEB, March 30, 2002