| 
|
Onsite water treatment is not a one-size-fits-all industry.
Yet throughout much of the nation, that's exactly how it's
approached. Most state regulations include a "prescriptive
code" that specifies the several different pre-approved onsite
treatment systems allowed under regulations. There is an assumption
that all site characteristics will be suitable for one of
these systems. But obvious factors such as soil composition,
water tables, and waste strength may call for alternative
treatment technologies—ones that aren't specified under
the code. So if alternative designs are prohibited, these
pre-approved systems are often installed in site applications
where they cannot function properly. If the prescribed system
fails, the finger pointing begins and an unhappy property
owner—who is most often responsible for ongoing operation
and maintenance—usually ends up with the tab.
| |
 |
|
|
The alternative to a prescriptive code is a performance-based
paradigm. In its purest form, say practitioners, this is a
code that establishes a measurable performance objective,
allows the engineer or designer freedom to develop a solution,
and gives the regulator the authority to track and enforce
performance standards. In theory, today's industry buzz touts
this as the answer. In practice, however, a performance code
is often met with budget restrictions, legal red tape, and
public confusion—so much so that performance-based proponents
may certainly be seen as "pioneering" the concept.
 |
IMAGE: BIO-MICROBIOCS INC. |
| A cutaway of the components of a MicroFAST wastewater treatment system. |
The problems arising from a prescriptive approach, or the
barriers placed before performance models, are less about
flagrant irresponsibility and more about a huge missing management
link across the board. Consider that during its 1997 response
to Congress, officials at the EPA pointed to the fact that
communities require organizational structures for centralized
wastewater facilities and for services such as electricity,
telephone, and water; but few have an infrastructure for the
management of decentralized wastewater systems. Systems are
built, then it's pretty much out of sight, out of mind—a
sure prescription for failure. It's estimated that at least
10% of onsite systems have stopped working, with some communities
reporting failure rates as high as 70%. Plus, only about 2%
of all households with onsite systems have regular maintenance
programs. Few systems are being held accountable to any enforced
performance standards. Consequently, failing septic systems
are cited as the third most common source of groundwater contamination.
Creating a Model Performance Code
In 2005, the EPA formalized an agreement to partner with
key industry organizations in an effort to improve onsite
wastewater treatment nationwide. Their program strategy is
upgrading the way systems are managed while boosting collaboration
between EPA regions, state and local governments, and onsite
treatment practitioners.
One of the partnering organizations, the National Onsite
Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA), is developing a
model performance code (downloadable at www.nowra.org).
NOWRA defines the intent of its model as providing code provisions
that are supported by data, science, and expert opinion, versus
prescriptive codes that are supported only by tradition and
not at all by data. Performance requirement data, says the
EPA, can be expressed as numeric criteria (pollutant concentration
or mass loading limits) or by narrative criteria (no odors
or visible sheen), and should be based on ground- or surface-water
conditions, water-quality objectives, and public health goals.
As no governmental entity is required to adopt a model code,
the hope is to influence local officials and promote change
in public health goals with a code that is well-developed
and well-supported by industry experts. The adoption of model
codes, says NOWRA, will reduce code variation between counties
and between states, resulting in new product innovations,
higher quality, lower costs, and the protection of valuable
water resources.
Missing Management
Much has been accomplished within the performance-based movement—new
treatment technologies, educational programs for onsite engineers
and local public health officials, guidelines for proper onsite
management, and more—but a formidable uphill battle still
lies ahead.
Those who pioneer performance-based codes know that the real
issue is the absence of management and accountability. Who
will ensure ongoing maintenance? Who will pay for consistent
monitoring? Who will enforce standards? What happens if performance
standards are not met?
"With a prescriptive approach, there is a mere assumption
that systems will meet performance standards," says Bill Stuth,
owner of Aqua Test Inc., a company that evaluates and designs
commercial and residential onsite wastewater systems. "You
can have the same technology involved under prescriptive as
in performance. The difference in the performance approach
is that a management entity is monitoring and maintaining
systems at the same level as a sewer district," he says.
Stuth cautions against a current regulation trend that specifies
a system as one that's "deemed to comply" with performance
requirements. "This is simply a prescriptive approach that
ignores necessary performance tracking and monitoring as someone
at a health department simply 'deemed' it so. I speak with
owners every week whose systems are deemed to comply, and
guess what? They're not complying," he says, adding that systems
can be installed under prescriptive regulations, but they
should all be tested to performance standards to make sure
they're performing to the environment's needs.
Stuth's company, like other manufacturers and service providers,
offers a wide variety of management services to the market.
There is a debate in the industry over whether management
contracts alone are sufficient. While some say "yes," many
practitioners want management contracts to be tied into some
sort of operating permits, so that compliance is ultimately
enforced at the regulatory level. For example, Stuth's commercial
management program, which is focused on the restaurant industry,
ties onsite monitoring into discharge or food user permits.
Aqua Test will conduct inspections every three months to monitor
compliance. An annual report is sent to the health department
to verify that the system is meeting the performance claim,
and each year the facility's discharge permit must be renewed.
In some states, the onsite permit is tied into a food user
permit. "If an onsite permit isn't up to date, then a food
permit will not be issued. It's a way to guarantee that the
system will be operable," says Stuth, who stresses that until
government entities step up to enforce the performance levels
they've chosen, little will change. "Governments should set
the standards, and let the engineering community figure out
how to get there," he says.
Barriers to Performance
 |
| This home site on a hill in northern California forced designers to come up with an innovative solution for its onsite wastewater system. |
The barriers to effective performance-based management programs
are many. EPA guidelines suggest the following as just a few
of the obstacles:
- insufficient funding;
- lack of public involvement;
- weak compliance and enforcement programs;
- regulatory constraints and prescriptive requirements;
- liability laws that discourage innovation;
- grant guidelines, loan priorities, and other financial
barriers; and
- lack of training and educational programs.
Richard Otis, of the engineering firm Ayres Associates, is
one of the lead authors on a recent EPA wastewater treatment
manual. His experience in pioneering a performance-based code
in Minnesota suggests that insufficient funding and a lack
of public involvement are the top obstacles. As early as 1995,
Otis was asked to assist the Northern Minnesota Wastewater
Technical Committee to investigate a performance-based management
approach in an environmentally sensitive, 10-county lake and
resort region. "Our objective was to develop our concept of
the ideal program, one based upon risk. As the risks increase,
you would have increased management controls to bring the
risks down," says Otis.
After the performance code was developed, it was brought
to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to "ground it in
reality," says Otis. After all was said and done, some of
the counties picked up portions of the code, but none adopted
it in full. Otis does, though, point to the following positive
outcomes:
- Participants gained a better understanding of the issues
and problems surrounding prescriptive codes.
- Public health officials learned the importance of new
roles in educational outreach and enforcement.
- Funds were allocated toward the creation of an automated
permit tracking system.
- The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has included the
new code in its recent revisions. There is still some intent
in various counties, and in time, some may adopt it.
So what prohibited further success? Otis said they had developed
a public information campaign, but that it lacked leadership
and funding. Also, certain homeowners and especially resort
owners faced financial hardships should they be forced to
comply. "Everybody who worked on the code liked what was produced,
but it was in the implementation that it was difficult to
sell, because you have to convince the public first. Even
though we started so many years ago, you have to bring the
public and the county boards along as you go. That would have
helped—but that didn't happen," Otis says.
Another downside occurred in some counties that adopted "parts"
of the code. Otis says that several counties decided to use
operating permits as a way to control commercial establishments,
but that they lacked the administrative infrastructure necessary
to track and enforce those permits. "After a couple of years
these counties lost all control and stopped using the program.
It just takes more forethought. Today I tell counties that
the first three years after code enactment are going to be
a nightmare. When the rules change, you will have frustrated
practitioners and property owners. You must have the fortitude
to last through those initial years, or it will not work,"
he says.
To those counties that are currently examining performance
codes, Otis suggests that they pick the management model they
wish to have, and then select only those features of the performance
code that would be appropriate for that model. "That way,
they would have a better shot at getting things in place,"
he says.
Signs of Progress
 |
| A MicroFAST system at the Horizon Camp and Retreat Center in Arkansas City, KS. |
"While mandatory performance requirements are still the exception
and not the rule, there are some counties, especially certain
upscale suburban areas, where the management infrastructure
is in place," says Craig Goodwin, general manager of Washington-based
NCS Wastewater Solutions.
In fact, Goodwin outlines an example in his home state. Washington's
Kitsap County has nearly 50,000 septic systems in the ground.
Of these, he says, approximately 2,500 are classified as "alternative
systems," for which homeowners are required to have management
service contracts in place. Aerobic treatment units and sand
filters are the most common of these alternative systems.
Recognizing the importance of tracking these systems and
educating homeowners about the need, Kitsap dedicated significant
resources to the program. The Department of Health assigned
one full-time person to the task and invested in the computer
database systems required for efficient tracking. As to enforcement,
for homeowners who do not have management contracts in place,
regulations call for warning letters followed ultimately by
issuance of a "ticket" for noncompliance. Additionally, civil
infraction citations may be given, with a possible penalty
of $475 per day if ordered by a judge.
But most counties are not like Kitsap, Goodwin admits. "It
takes significant political will to overcome objections to
more government regulation. Based upon the nation's current
lack of enforcement, it will take a sea change in attitude
for effective enforcement of performance requirements to become
a health department mandate and practice. Despite all our
progress, the toughest climb is yet ahead," he says.
Author CAROL WASSON is a freelance construction industry
writer and owner of JCL Marketing, Inc.
OW
- September/October 2005
|
