sneapa 2013 friday g4 1_45_don't_feelflushed

Don’t be Left Feeling Flushed

Moderator—Virgil J. Lloyd, PE Speaker—M. James Riordan, AICP, LEED AP

Speaker—Kurt A. Mailman, PESpeaker—Gary R. Crosby, AICP

• 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

Session OverviewSession Overview

• Wastewater management is critical to our society– Clean drinking water

– Safe treatment of wastewater

BackgroundBackground

The ProblemThe 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

Wastewater Management PlanningWastewater 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

Public Health Code – Conventional Septic SystemPublic Health Code – Conventional Septic System

House

SepticTank

LeachingTrenches

Minimum VerticalSeparation Distance

Required - Varies by State

Groundwater

Existing Grade

Septic SystemEffluent

Minimum VerticalSeparation Distance

Required – Varies by State

ImperviousFormation

18-inch separation distance to groundwater is an important Health Code requirement for wastewater treatmentTakeaway: Treatment of effluent occurs in the soil, not the groundwater

~

Wastewater Management PracticesWastewater Management Practices

• Decentralized: On-site treatment– i.e., septic systems

– Discharge to ground

– Capacity of soil is limiting


• Decentralized - Advanced Treatment– “Mini” treatment plants at

each home

Textile Filter Trickling Filter

Aerated Media Filter


• Decentralized - Advanced Treatment– Ground discharge

(dispersal)

Bottomless Sand Filter Recirculating Sand Filter

Shallow Narrow Drainfield*

* Shallow Narrow Drainfield Figure Courtesy of URI

Low Profile & Mound SystemsLow Profile & Mound Systems• Proprietary leaching products

• Shallow narrow drain field

• Bottomless sand filter

• Mounded Systems

Low profile leaching system

Bottomless Sand Filter

Mounded System

Bacteria, Nutrient, Phosphorus ReductionBacteria, Nutrient, Phosphorus Reduction• Aeration Systems

• Textile Filters

• Peat

• Shallow Narrow Drainfields

• Sand Filters, etc.

• UV disinfection

• Community system– Essentially a large septic system with or without

treatment

– Normally with discharge to ground

– Capacity is limited by soil

– Needs larger area


Why Community Systems?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)


• Treatment plant with point source discharge– aka “sewers”

– Capacity is independent of soil

Decision Making Info You NeedDecision 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

How Will You Allocate Capacity?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

OPTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE & MANAGEMENT

OPTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE & MANAGEMENT

Typical Funding

Capital (Infrastructure) ImprovementCapital (Infrastructure) Improvement

• Property Owners

• Local Bonds

• State Revolving Fund

• Grants and Earmarks? (Scattered opportunities at best—Not like in days of yore!)

State Revolving FundState 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)

SRF in SNESRF in SNE

State Typical Rate Available Money Comments

Massachusetts 2%$300 – $350M

annually

• OWTS loans available

• Some 0% loans

Rhode Island1/3 off the market

rate (~0 – 4%)

$945M in 23 years ($40 – $50M

annually)

• Over $9M in OWTS loans

• Some 0% loans

Connecticut 2% $489M in FY13

• CT X10 overmatches the cap grant

• Grants of 20% or more

How to Get SRF FinancingHow to Get SRF Financing

Priority Listing of Conceptual Projects

Technical Approval

Financial Approval

Loan/Grant

Wastewater Facilities or Onsite

Wastewater Management Plan

Develop Loan Agreement and Local Bonding

Operations FinancingOperations 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

WHO’S DECISION IS THIS, ANYWAY?WHO’S DECISION IS THIS, ANYWAY?

Common Regulatory Frameworks

State and Local PermittingState and Local Permitting

Federal Guidance

State Authorities

Regulated Community (Sewers & Lg. Systems)

Local Authorities

Regulated Community (OWTS)

RIDEM

GU

IDA

NC

E

Innovative

Systems

Zoning & Land Use

State and Local O&MState and Local O&M

Federal Guidance

State Authorities

Regulated Community (Sewers & Lg. Systems)

Local Authorities

Regulated Community (OWTS)

WWMDsGU

IDA

NC

E

Innovative

Systems

CASE STUDIESCASE STUDIESWastewater Decision

Case Study: Portsmouth, RICase Study: Portsmouth, RI

Local decision-making is

highly political in nature

and is fundamentally

unresponsive to big

picture environmental

issues such as

wastewater treatment

• 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

Set the StageSet the Stage

Set the StageSet 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

DEM PositionDEM 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

• Portsmouth is responsible for what comes out of the storm drain outfalls.

The Legal HookThe Legal Hook

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.

The Sweet IronyThe 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

The Grand ArgumentThe 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.

Decision-makers decided to conducta Town-wide citizen survey

Decision-makers decided to conducta 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.

2005 – TMDL Issued by DEM2005 – TMDL Issued by DEM

Recommended:

• Illicit Discharge Detection

• Education program

• Completion of a comprehensive community-wide 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.”

Town ResponseTown 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

The dreaded

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

September 2010September 2010

Notice of ViolationNotice 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

NOV cont.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”

April 2013April 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

ConclusionsConclusions

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

Chester CT Wastewater PlanningChester CT Wastewater Planning

• Area specifics– Quaint Hamlet-style

Main Street

– Built-out

– Nearby Chester Creek

– Commercial center

– Small existing sewer system to OWRS


• Wastewater issues– Existing OWRS

hydraulically & nutrient overloaded

– Consent Order

– Financial & development concerns

– Sensitive receptors

– Dug wells

– Failing septic - Health Care Facility


• Study area desktop analysis– Poor soils

– Shallow depth to groundwater

– Densely developed

– Self-reported problems• Chesterfields failure

Chester Wastewater PlanningChester Wastewater Planning

• Wastewater alternatives– Upgrade existing

OWRS

– Evaluate alternative OWRS location

– Sewer to adjacent Town

– Do nothing


• Upgrade Existing OWRS– Nutrient removal

problems

– Hydraulic problems

– Bacteria die-off and virus inactivation problems


• Develop alternative OWRS site– Chesterfield Fairgrounds

– Hydraulic capacity and cost issues


• Connection to sewer in adjacent Town– Inter-municipal negotiations

– Development concerns

– Costs vs “do-nothing” approach

– Public awareness campaign


• 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


• 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

Old Saybrook Wastewater PlanningOld 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


• Decentralized solution– Engineering report

– Ordinance

– Mediated decisions

– $41M upgrade program

– Collaborative workshop approach

– 8 year Implementation Plan


• Decentralized solution– 1,900 properties

– 15 focus areas

– 250 - 300 AT systems


• Technical aspects– Mediated technical

decisions

– All cesspools removed

– PHC repairs except:

– If not, then AT (IA) required


• Non-conventional upgrades– Clustering or Community

systems • Handle storm surges and

climate change• AT systems dispersal


QuestionsQuestions

Footer goes here

NOW IT’S YOUR TURN!NOW IT’S YOUR TURN!Village of Easttuxet, Pawchuham, 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

Town of Easttuxet, SNETown of Easttuxet, SNE

• 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

Area 1: Main Street downtown areaArea 1: Main Street downtown area

• 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

Area 2: Lakefront neighborhoodArea 2: Lakefront neighborhood

• 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

Area 3: Large residential areaArea 3: Large residential area

• Consider challenges now and future (e.g. development)

• Subsurface criteria influences choices

Exercise GuidanceExercise Guidance

Easttuxet, SNEEasttuxet, SNE

Area 1: Main Street downtown areaArea 1: Main Street downtown area

Area 2: Lakefront neighborhoodArea 2: Lakefront neighborhood

Area 3: Large residential areaArea 3: Large residential area

Footer goes here

DISCUSSION OF EXERCISE RESULTSDISCUSSION OF EXERCISE RESULTS

Town of Easttuxet, SNE

• 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

Closing Remarks & TakeawaysClosing Remarks & Takeaways

sneapa 2013 friday g4 1_45_don't_feelflushed

Real Estate

inadequately

failing septic

island park

wastewater

storm drains

local decision

site treatment

planning process