Recomindation Summeries

Orange Blossom Hills Homeowners Association Inc.

Recommendation Summaries

To Marion County Commission:

Scientists, engineers, and manufacturers in the wastewater treatment industry have developed a wide range of alternative technologies designed to address increasing hydraulic loads and water contamination by nutrients and pathogens. These technologies can achieve significant pollutant removal rates. With proper management oversight, alternative systems (e.g., recirculating sand filters, peat-based systems, package aeration units) can be installed in areas where soils, bedrock, fluctuating ground water levels, or lot sizes limit the use of conventional systems. Alternative technologies typically are applied to the treatment train beyond the septic tank (figure 1-2). The tank is designed to equalize hydraulic flows; retain oils, grease, and settled solids; and provide some minimal anaerobic digestion of settleable organic matter. Alternative treatment technologies often provide environments (e.g., sand, peat, and artificial media) that promote additional biological treatment and remove pollutants through filtration, absorption, and adsorption. All of the alternative treatment technologies in current use require more intensive management and monitoring than conventional OWTS because of mechanical components, additional residuals generated, and process sensitivities (e.g., to wastewater strength or hydraulic loading).

Prescribed system designs require that site conditions fit system capabilities rather than the reverse and are sometimes incorrectly based.

One Program that might be adopted is a transfer inspection program which is based on an inspection of each septic system prior to home sale, which can provide a comprehensive data collection effort.

In Florida approximately only one percent of the septic systems fail. To properly manage an on site septic system communities you must

Have a Good management system for on site septic systems:

A good program must have the following:

· Codes that do not thwart adaptation of difficult local site conditions that will accommodate effective innovative and alternative technologies.

· Adequately consideration site-specific environments

· Effective public education and training programs.

· Include conservation and potential reuse of water in large projects.

· Effective controls on operation and maintenance of systems, including residuals (septage, sludge).

· Consider the special characteristics and requirements of commercial, industrial, and large residential systems.

· Strong code compliance and enforcement programs.

· Reporting requirements from septic servicing companies to collect data and support enforcement when systems are failing.

· Low cost funding, grants and financing plans to support repair and or replacement of failing onsite systems.

· Homeowner Associations, septic service, and contractor distribution of educational materials about the proper maintenance of on site septic systems .

System owners should be made aware of the need for periodically removing tank sludge, maintaining system components, and operating systems within their design limitations to help maximize treatment effectiveness and extend the life of the systems. This would

reduce system failures and help the homeowner avoid the cost of system failure and need for repairs.

Service pamphlets should provide Information regarding regular inspections, pumping, ground water threats from chemicals, hydraulic overloading from roof runoff or other clear water sources, pollutant loads from garbage disposal units, drain field protection, and warning signs of failing systems can be easily communicated. Flyers, brochures, posters, news media articles, and other materials have proven effective in raising awareness and increasing public knowledge of onsite wastewater management issues.

Financial programs might be needed to provide loans or cost-share grants to retrofit or replace failing systems. Statewide public financing programs for onsite systems like the PENNVEST initiative in Pennsylvania provide a powerful incentive for upgrading inadequate or failed systems (Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority, 1997). Regional cost-share programs like the Triplett Creek Project in Kentucky, which provided funding for new septic tanks and drain field repairs, are also effective approaches for addressing failed systems (USEPA, 1997). Chapter 2 and the Resources section provide more information on funding options for onsite systems and management programs.

Developing programs should be uniquely tailored to each community.

The most arbitrary siting requirement, however, is the minimum lot size restriction incorporated into many state and local codes. Lot size limits prohibit onsite treatment system installations on nonconforming lots without regard to the performance capabilities of the proposed system. Lot size restrictions also serve as an inappropriate but de facto approach to land use planning in many localities because they are often seen as establishing the allowable number of housing units in a development without regard to other factors that might increase or decrease that number. Area soil types and available septic systems might be included in area planning. Parks and recreation are one other example.

Transplanting programs or program components without considering local conditions can result in incompatibilities and a general lack of effectiveness. Although drawing on the experience of others can save time and money, local planners and health officials need to make sure that the programs and regulations are appropriately tailored to local conditions, and to the septic systems that are available for such conditions.

USEPA has identified more effective management of onsite systems as a key challenge for efforts to improve system performance (USEPA, 1997). In its Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems, USEPA noted that "adequately managed decentralized wastewater treatment systems can be a cost-effective and long term option for meeting public health and water quality goals, particularly for small towns and rural areas."

Because there are newer enhanced septic systems available, some solutions that should be considered in older and underdeveloped sub-divisions, where there may be older resident populations on social security and fixed incomes would be to require a change in codes for all new construction. Balancing site, soil conditions and available septic systems to determine lot sizing requirements would be a first step in solving local concerns and long term outcomes. Lower cost investments make more sense in terms of how fast water and septic techno ledges are progressing. In addition provide for local distribution of information on maintaining a good septic system program for those communities. This would eliminate build out density concerns community leaders might have.

In addition, the Agency found that properly managed onsite systems protect public health and water quality, lower capital and maintenance costs for low-density communities, are appropriate for varying site conditions, and are suitable for ecologically sensitive areas (USEPA, 1997). However, USEPA identified several barriers to the increased use of onsite systems, including the lack of adequate management programs. Although most communities have some form of management program in place.

In 1996 Congress requested USEPA to report on the potential benefits of onsite/decentralized wastewater treatment and management systems, the potential costs or savings associated with such systems, and the ability and plans of the Agency to implement additional alternative wastewater system measures within the current regulatory and statutory regime. A year later USEPA reported that properly managed onsite/decentralized systems offer several advantages over centralized wastewater treatment facilities (USEPA, 1997; see http://www.epa.gov/owm/decent/response/index.htm).

The construction and maintenance costs of onsite/decentralized systems can be significantly lower, especially in low-density residential areas, making them an attractive alternative for small towns, suburban developments, remote school and institutional facilities, and rural regions. Onsite/decentralized wastewater treatment systems also avoid potentially large transfers of water from one watershed to another via centralized collection and treatment (USEPA, 1997). These systems tend to be costly to build and maintain, and they also removing substantial revenue from local economies.

USEPA reported that both centralized and onsite/ decentralized systems need to be considered when upgrading failing systems. The report concluded that onsite/decentralized systems can protect public health and the environment and can lower capital and maintenance costs in low-density communities. They are also appropriate for a variety of site conditions and can be suitable for ecologically sensitive areas (USEPA, 1997). However, the Agency also cited several barriers to implementing more effective onsite wastewater management programs, including the following:

Lack of knowledge and misperceptions that centralized sewage treatment plants perform better, protect property values, and are more acceptable than decentralized treatment systems.
Legislative and regulatory constraints and prescriptive requirements that discourage local jurisdictions from developing or implementing effective management and oversight functions.
Splitting of regulatory authority, which limits the evaluation of alternatives and a lack of management programs that consolidate planning, siting, design, installation, and maintenance activities under a single entity with the resources, and authority to ensure that performance requirements are met and performance is maintained.
Liability laws that discourage innovation, as well as cost-based engineering fees that discourage investment in designing innovative, effective, low-cost systems.
Grant guidelines, loan priorities, and other financial or institutional barriers that prevent rural communities from accessing funds, considering alternative wastewater treatment approaches, or creating management entities that span the jurisdictions of multiple agencies.

USEPA is committed to elevating the standards of onsite wastewater management practice and removing barriers that preclude widespread acceptance of onsite treatment technologies. In addition, the Agency is responding to calls to reduce other barriers to onsite treatment by improving access to federal funding programs, providing performance information on alternative onsite wastewater treatment technologies through the Environmental Technology Verification program (see http://www.epa.gov/etv/) and other programs, partnering with other agencies to reduce funding barriers, and providing guidance through cooperation with other public agencies and private organizations. USEPA supports a number of efforts to improve onsite treatment technology design, application, and funding nationwide. For example, the National Onsite Demonstration Project (NODP), funded by USEPA and managed by the National Small Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia University, was established in 1993 to encourage the use of alternative, decentralized wastewater treatment technologies to protect public health and the environment in small and rural communities (see http://www.nesc.wvu.edu).

In addition, USEPA is studying ground water impacts caused by large-capacity septic systems, which might be regulated under the Class V Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. Large capacity septic systems serve multiple dwellings, business establishments, and other facilities and are used to dispose of sanitary and other wastes through subsurface application (figure 1-6). Domestic and most commercial systems serving fewer than 20 persons are not included in the UIC program (see http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/classv.html for exceptions and limitations), but some commercial facilities serving fewer than 20 people may be regulated. States and tribes with delegated authority are studying possible guidance and other programs that reduce water resource impacts from these systems. USEPA estimates that there are more than 350,000 large-capacity septic systems nationwide.

References

Curry, D. 1998. National Inventory of Key Activities Supporting the Implementation of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment. Fact Sheet No. 3-2. Research conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. Available from Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Florida DHRS).1993. Onsite Sewage Disposal System Research in Florida: An Evaluation of Current OSDS Practices in Florida. Report prepared for the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Environmental Health Program, by Ayres Associates, Tallahassee, FL.

Fogarty, S. 2000. Land Use and Zoning Laws. Small Flows Quarterly 1(1):13.

Hoover, M.T., A.R. Rubin, and F. Humenik. 1998. Choices for Communities: Wastewater Management Options for Rural Areas. AG-585. North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Raleigh, NC.

Kreissl, J.F. 1982. Evaluation of State Codes and Their Implications. In Proceedings of the Fourth Northwest On-Site Wastewater Disposal Short Course, September, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Kreissl, J.F. 2000. Onsite Wastewater Management at the Start of the New Millenium. Small Flows Quarterly 1(1):10-11.

National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Associations (NOWRA). 1999. Model Framework for Unsewered Wastewater Infrastructure. National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association. July 1999. <http://www.nowra.org/Sept99 /article_frame. html

>. Accessed March 29, 2000.

Nelson, V.I., S.P. Dix, and F. Shepard. 1999. Advanced On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Management Scoping Study: Assessment of Short-Term Opportunities and Long-Run Potential. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the Water Environment Research Federation.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA). 1997. A Guide to Developing Local Watershed Action Plans in Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH.

Otis, J. 2000. Performance management. Small Flows Quarterly 1(1):12.

Parsons Engineering Science. 2000. Septic System Failure Summary. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, under Contract 68-C6-0001. June 13, 2000.

Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST). 1997. A Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Utility's Guide to Financial and Technical Assistance Programs. Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority, Harrisburg, PA.

Plews, G.D. 1977. The Adequacy and Uniformity of Regulations for Onsite Wastewater Disposal-- A State Viewpoint. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Less Costly Treatment Systems for Small Communities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.