Don't be left Feeling Flushed

1. Don’t be Left Feeling Flushed
Moderator—Virgil J. Lloyd, PE
Speaker—M. James Riordan, AICP, LEED AP
Speaker—Kurt A. Mailman, PE
Speaker—Gary R. Crosby, AICP

2. Session Overview
• Basics of Wastewater Planning
– Identifying Local Goals and Preferences
– Identifying Management Solutions
– Technologies
– Regulatory Framework and Funding Opportunities
• Local Case Studies
• Questions?
• Planning Exercise/Breakout groups

3. Background
• Wastewater management is critical to our society
– Clean drinking water
– Safe treatment of wastewater

4. The Problem
• If you build it, they will come…..
– Public sewers may lead to uncontrolled saturation
development
– Unintended consequences
• On-site treatment as de facto zoning tool
– Soil capacity is limiting factor

5. Wastewater Management Planning
• Protect Public Health
• Satisfy regulatory requirements
– TMDLs
– Coastal and resource management
• Provide for economic growth
– Support development goals/growth of grand list
• Protect conservation areas

6. Public Health Code – Conventional Septic System
House
Existing Grade
Septic
Tank
Leaching
Trenches
Minimum Vertical
Separation Distance
Required - Varies by State
Groundwater
Minimum Vertical
Separation Distance
Required – Varies by State
Impervious
Formation
Septic System
Effluent
18-inch separation distance to groundwater is an important
Health Code requirement for wastewater treatment
Takeaway: Treatment of effluent occurs in the soil, not the groundwater

7. Wastewater Management Practices
• Decentralized: On-site
treatment
– i.e., septic systems
– Discharge to ground
– Capacity of soil is limiting

8. Wastewater Management Practices
• Decentralized Advanced Treatment
– ―Mini‖ treatment plants at
each home
Aerated Media Filter
Textile Filter
Trickling Filter

9. Wastewater Management Practices
• Decentralized Advanced Treatment
– Ground discharge
(dispersal)
Bottomless Sand Filter
Shallow Narrow Drainfield*
Recirculating Sand Filter
* Shallow Narrow Drainfield Figure Courtesy of URI

10. Low Profile & Mound Systems
• Proprietary leaching products
Bottomless Sand Filter
• Shallow narrow drain field
• Bottomless sand filter
• Mounded Systems
Low profile leaching system
Mounded System

11. Bacteria, Nutrient, Phosphorus Reduction
• Aeration Systems
• Textile Filters
• Peat
• Shallow Narrow Drainfields
• Sand Filters, etc.
• UV disinfection

12. Wastewater Management Practices
• Community system
– Essentially a large septic system with or without
treatment
– Normally with discharge to ground
– Capacity is limited by soil
– Needs larger area

13. Why Community Systems?
• Essential: Area to discharge is available
• Tight Lots/Well defined problem areas
• Concentrated development
• Regulatory abatement order (e.g., NOV)
• Important detail:
– Local management is ESSENTIAL (i.e. O&M)

14. Wastewater Management Practices
• Treatment plant with
point source discharge
– aka ―sewers‖
– Capacity is
independent of soil

15. Decision Making Info You Need
• Soils Investigation
• Depth to Bedrock
• Available Land
• Location of Nearest Public Sewer
• Existing Treatment Capacity of Nearby Plants
• Local Preference for Infrastructure and Management
(Local Officials, Electorate)
• POCD goals
• And cost too

16. How Will You Allocate Capacity?
• You need to get ahead of this question
• Create a Service Area
– Map the Service Area (Who’s in, who’s out?)
• Integrate wastewater management into land use
decision process
– Coordinate zoning and land use regulations with
apportionment of capacity
• You may need a permitting process

17. Typical Funding
OPTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
& MANAGEMENT

18. Capital (Infrastructure) Improvement
• Property Owners
• Local Bonds
• State Revolving Fund
• Grants and Earmarks? (Scattered opportunities at
best—Not like in days of yore!)

19. State Revolving Fund
• Federally enabled, state-run program for financing
water and wastewater projects.
• Two programs: Drinking Water SRF; and Clean Water
SRF.
• Clean Water SRF = 2.2% financing (on average)
• Green Reserve (ARRA)

20. SRF in SNE
State
Massachusetts
Typical Rate
2%
Available Money
$300 – $350M annually
Comments
•
•
Rhode Island
1/3 off the market rate
(~0 – 4%)
$945M in 23 years ($40
– $50M annually)
•
•
•
Connecticut
2%
$489M in FY13
•
OWTS loans
available
Some 0% loans
Over $9M in OWTS
loans
Some 0% loans
CT X10
overmatches the
cap grant
Grants of 20% or
more

21. How to Get SRF Financing
Develop Loan
Agreement and Local
Bonding
Priority
Listing of
Conceptual
Projects
Technical
Approval
Wastewater Facilities
or Onsite Wastewater
Management Plan
Financial
Approval
Loan/Grant

22. Operations Financing
• Enterprise/Utility Fee (i.e., fee-for-service typically
based on use rate of sewers)—Common
• Wastewater Management Districts (i.e., user fee for
community-run inspection and maintenance of onsite
systems)—Occasional
• Ad Valorem Tax (i.e., through general property
taxation)—Very rare

23. Common Regulatory Frameworks
WHO’S DECISION IS
THIS, ANYWAY?

24. State and Local Permitting
Zoning & Land Use
State
Authorities
GUIDANCE
Federal
Guidance
Regulated
Community
(Sewers & Lg.
Systems)
Innovative
Systems
Local
Authorities
Regulated
Community
(OWTS)

25. State and Local O&M
Federal
Guidance
GUIDANCE
State
Authorities
Local
Authorities
Regulated
Community
(Sewers & Lg.
Systems)
Regulated
Community
(OWTS)
Innovative
Systems

26. Wastewater Decision
CASE STUDIES

27. Case Study: Portsmouth, RI
Local decision-making is
highly political in nature
and is fundamentally
unresponsive to big
picture environmental
issues such as wastewater
treatment

28. Set the Stage
• No Sewers anywhere in Portsmouth – all on-site
treatment systems
• DEM does all septic system permitting in
Rhode Island
• One-to-one relationship between homeowner
and DEM
• Neighborhoods of Island Park & Portsmouth Park
– Small lots – subdivided in 1920’s as more or less tent sites
– Old Septic Systems - nearly 50% cesspools

29. Set the Stage
• Poor Soils – percolation rates too fast or too slow
• High groundwater in Portsmouth Park
• Seasonal conversion stretching on-site capacity
• Late 1960’s – DEM Shellfish Program Shoreline Surveys
• Put on impaired waters list, Shellfish closure in 1987
• DEM began work on a TMDL in 1995

33. DEM Position
• Conditions not conducive to on-site treatment
with poorly functioning and failing systems
contaminating the groundwater
• Contaminated groundwater getting into the
Town-owned storm drain system and then
discharging into State’s SA waters, interfering with
designated uses
• Installing sewers is the best long-term solution to
the problem
• The legal hook:
– Portsmouth is responsible for what comes out of the storm
drain outfalls

34. The Legal Hook
• Portsmouth is responsible for what comes out of the
storm drain outfalls.

35. In an effort to restore the designated uses DEM provided
grant $$ to Portsmouth.
Town hired two separate engineering firms to produce:
• A Wastewater Facilities Plan for Island Park & Portsmouth Park
– Design a collection and treatment system with construction and maintenance
cost estimates
• An On-Site Wastewater Management Plan for the entire Town
– A comprehensive plan for managing the population of on-site septic systems
for everywhere else in Town.
– Added benefit of participation in CCSLP program.

36. The Sweet Irony
• The Wastewater Facilities Plan recommended the continued
use of on-site treatment systems (advanced treatment systems
required as replacement).
• The On-Site Wastewater Management Plan recommended the
installation of sewers in Island Park & Portsmouth Park and a
Wastewater Management District for the rest of Town.
• Both draft plans were sent to DEM for comment
• DEM endorsed the sewer recommendation and have been
ever since.
Results:
– Local decision-makers paralyzed – public opinion, NO SEWERS
– Town unilaterally halts the planning process – no response to
comment letters

37. The Grand Argument
DEM –
• If Town were to continue the planning process, we are certain
that you would arrive at the logical conclusion that sewers are
needed.
• We are here to help with funding and technical expertise to
make that happen.
• Why don’t you just listen to what your engineers are telling
you, sharpen your pencils and put in sewers?
Town –
• There is no pollution……..and if there is, it’s DEM’s problem.
• If DEM would just fix all the failing septic systems then there would
not be any contamination in our storm drains.

38. Decision-makers decided to conduct
a Town-wide citizen survey
What do the people think we should do?
• Mail questionnaire – 49% response
• Answers took us further down the rabbit hole:
– Town-wide – 78% against sewers
– Some neighborhoods 50/50 on subject
– Why should I pay for sewers that I am not going to use?
– Wastewater planning by referendum?
– Time and effort to obtain answers that really did not inform
the decision-making process.

39. 2005 – TMDL Issued by DEM
Recommended:
• Illicit Discharge Detection
• Education program
• Completion of a
comprehensive communitywide wastewater and
stormwater strategy
“This TMDL differs from the typical TMDL in that the identified water quality impairment is not
based on ambient water quality violations but on the presence of a threat to public health,
in the form of direct and indirect discharges of untreated and inadequately treated
wastewater. Therefore, to restore the targeted waterbodies designated uses as shell-fishing
waters, the goal of this phased TMDL is the estimation of all discharges of untreated or
inadequately treated wastewater.”

40. Town Response
Hire yet another engineer to develop detailed cost
estimates for installation of sewers
New Draft Wastewater Facilities Plan - 2009
– Looked at scenarios including more users to lessen costs for
those areas that really need sewers.
DEM endorsed the plan and provide additional grant $$
to expand study
– Town Council voted to ―take the draft plan under
advisement‖
– Decided to task Town staff with:
•
preparing a cost/benefit analysis of sewers vs on-site treatment
•
beginning work on drafting a Wastewater Management District
Ordinance

41. September 2010
The dreaded
NOTICE OF VIOLATION

42. Notice of Violation
Cites 19 separate incidents of contaminated discharge
from Town-owned storm drains (some of it my data!)
Orders Portsmouth to:
– Integrate previous plans (which call for sewers to be installed)
– Pay a fine of $186,000
– Install sewers in Island Park & Portsmouth neighborhoods within
three years
Town’s response:
– There is no pollution……..and if there is, it’s your problem.
– If you would just find and fix all the failing septic systems than
there would not be any contamination in our storm drains.
– Directed DPW to look into sleeving the storm drains and/or
end-of-pipe treatment

43. NOV cont.
• Hired (at great expense) engineer that provided the
original OWMP to provide a new plan. Essentially
reversing his original recommendation - A ―sewer
equivalent‖ alternative strategy.
• July, 2011 - Plan is dead on arrival
– Maximized use of on-site systems but made liberal use of
cluster systems
– Town did not bother to send it to DEM for comment
• Hire a lawyer (at great expense) to concentrate
narrowly on defeating the NOV
Town to DEM:
―You don’t have the authority to force us to install
sewers‖

44. April 2013
New Draft On-Site Wastewater Management Plan
– Makes argument that there is no site that cannot accommodate an
on-site system
– Technological advances, thorough IDDE, good education program
– Sewers are not necessary
• Features:
– A full-time Wastewater Manager
– Vigorous inspection program to find failed systems
– Financial Aid
– Education program
• Current Status:
– DEM has not commented on the draft plan
– Hearing date coming up soon on the NOV
– Cesspool Phase out Act - 2007

45. Conclusions
Local decision-making is highly political in nature and
is fundamentally un-responsive to big picture
environmental issues such as wastewater treatment
Some Observations:
– Because of jurisdictional ambiguity, this is a uniquely
Rhode Island situation.
– Events have taken place over a long period of time, not
any one set of local decision-makers
– Decision criteria and perspective different for politicians vs
engineers/town staff
– Classic tragedy of the common problem
– Comfort in the details

46. Chester CT Wastewater Planning

47. Chester CT Wastewater Planning
• Area specifics
– Quaint Hamlet-style
Main Street
– Built-out
– Nearby Chester Creek
– Commercial center
– Small existing sewer
system to OWRS

48. Chester CT Wastewater Planning
• Wastewater issues
– Existing OWRS
hydraulically & nutrient
overloaded
– Consent Order
– Financial &
development concerns
– Sensitive receptors
– Dug wells
– Failing septic - Health
Care Facility

49. Chester Wastewater Planning
• Study area desktop
analysis
– Poor soils
– Shallow depth to
groundwater
– Densely developed
– Self-reported problems
•
Chesterfields failure

50. Chester Wastewater Planning
• Wastewater
alternatives
– Upgrade existing
OWRS
– Evaluate alternative
OWRS location
– Sewer to adjacent
Town
– Do nothing

51. Chester Wastewater Planning
• Upgrade Existing OWRS
– Nutrient removal problems
– Hydraulic problems
– Bacteria die-off and virus
inactivation problems

52. Chester Wastewater Planning
• Develop alternative OWRS site
– Chesterfield Fairgrounds
– Hydraulic capacity and cost issues

53. Chester Wastewater Planning
• Connection to sewer in adjacent Town
– Inter-municipal negotiations
– Development concerns
– Costs vs ―do-nothing‖ approach
– Public awareness campaign

54. Chester Wastewater Planning
• Solution
– Small sewer connection to
adjacent town
– Shrink-wrapped sewer service
area – 183 to 67
– Shrink-wrapped future sewer
area as required
– State funding
•
DEEP and STEAP
– Capital repayment costs
•
$2,000 Residential
•
$6,000 Commercial
•
75% Debt Service to Town
– Consent Order lifted

55. Old Saybrook Wastewater Planning
• Wastewater Issues
– TMDL for nitrogen into
Long Island Sound
– Unwanted development
concerns
– Seasonal occupation
– No Nearby WWTP
– Excessively draining soils or
muck
– Extremely small lots
– Shallow depth to restrictive
layer
– Under Consent Order

56. Old Saybrook Wastewater Planning
• Regulatory challenges
– 1989 Public voted against
Regional Big Pipe Solution
– DEEP issued NOV - twice
– DEEP won…twice
– Created Decentralized
Wastewater Management
District Legislation in 2003
– Mediation step in 2003-2005
– Funding mechanism
established through Clean
Water Fund

57. Old Saybrook Wastewater Planning
• Decentralized solution
– Engineering report
– Ordinance
– Mediated decisions
– $41M upgrade program
– Collaborative workshop
approach
– 8 year Implementation
Plan

58. Old Saybrook Wastewater Planning
• Decentralized solution
– 1,900 properties
– 15 focus areas
– 250 - 300 AT systems

59. Old Saybrook Wastewater Planning
• Technical aspects
– Mediated technical
decisions
– All cesspools removed
– PHC repairs except:
– If not, then AT (IA) required

60. Old Saybrook Wastewater Planning
• Non-conventional upgrades
– Clustering or Community systems
•
Handle storm surges and climate
change
•
AT systems dispersal

61. Questions

62. Village of Easttuxet, Pawchuham, SNE
NOW IT’S YOUR TURN!
Footer goes here

63. Town of Easttuxet, SNE
• Financially stable community
• Grand list is weighted to residential
• Plan of Conservation & Development identified
need for wastewater planning
• No existing sewers
• Neighboring community has treatment plant
with available capacity
• Three areas to be investigated

64. Area 1: Main Street downtown area
• Old town center
– Existing use is mostly retail
– Older movie theater is main attraction
– Existing septic systems are generally adequate for
existing use, but limited expansion potential
– One restaurant (septic tank pumped frequently)
• Public water
• POCD goal is to increase residential component
and create more vibrant evening atmosphere
• Public sewer approximately 3 miles away

65. Area 2: Lakefront neighborhood
• Pre-1960 as summer (seasonal) cottages, converted
over time into full-time residences
• Very small lots (most less than ) ½-acre; many 1/8-acre
• Mostly cesspools, undersized steel tanks
• Private wells, some ammonia detected
• Some surface water pollution, but no TMDL
• Shallow depth to groundwater
• Public sewer approximately 2 miles away

66. Area 3: Large residential area
• Mostly developed since 1970
• Private wells, generally adequate drinking water
quality
• Mostly residential use
• Predominantly 2-acre and 1-acre lots
• Some farmland, and some conservation areas
• A few failures, but no impaired water or groundwater
• Public sewer is over 5 miles away

67. Exercise Guidance
• Consider challenges now and future (e.g.
development)
• Subsurface criteria influences choices

68. Easttuxet, SNE

69. Area 1: Main Street downtown area

70. Area 2: Lakefront neighborhood

71. Area 3: Large residential area

72. Town of Easttuxet, SNE
DISCUSSION OF EXERCISE
RESULTS
Footer goes here

73. Closing Remarks & Takeaways
• Be preemptive and know the soils, etc.
– Private developments and public initiatives
• The more sophisticated the treatment process, the
more attention is needed for O&M
• Beware of ―experts‖ promoting systems that sound
too good to be true…
• Coordinate zoning /land use regs with sewer capacity
• It’s primarily your decision as a town
– Engineering supports your goals