1SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

Volume 11Number 2Spring 1997

HelpingAmerica’s smallcommunities meettheir wastewaterneeds

NA

TIO

NAL SMALL FLOW

S

CL EA R INGHOUS

E

Sm

all Flow

s

sewage sludge (soo’er sluj) n.

Continued on page 2

Continued on page 3

Vermicomposting Biosolids with Earthwormsby Jeremy CanodyNSFC Staff Writer

Editor’s Note: This article servesonly as an overview of thevermicomposting process—not asa how-to guide. Much researchmust be completed beforevermicomposting municipalbiosolids can be considered aviable option for small treatmentworks. The intent of this article isto introduce the vermicompostingprocess as a possible emergingtechnology.

In an effort to utilize inexpensive/low-technology waste disposalalternatives, some communitiesare considering various forms ofvermicomposting to be a beneficialand low-maintenance method fordisposing of biosolids (sludge).

Vermicomposting is the practice ofproducing a compost using a highconcentration of earthworms tobreak down the organic matter in

the applied biosolids. Researchersare finding that as the worms di-gest and aerate the waste material,they significantly reduce pathogenlevels. The worms excrete a highnutrient fertile matter, called cast-ings, that is similar to soil.

Process Similar to CompostingWastewater treatment plants inCalifornia, Florida, and Texas haveimplemented vermicompostingprojects that place thousands ofearthworms in windrows, or nar-row composting piles, of partiallytreated municipal biosolids and letthem go to work.

What is it exactly that the earth-worms do?

Clive Edwards, professor of ento-mology at The Ohio State Univer-sity, explains in his paper, “TheCommercial and EnvironmentalPotential of Vermicomposting,”that the principle behind the

vermicomposting process is rela-tively simple and similar to that oftraditional composting.

Certain species of earthworms,including the red worm or manureworm (Eisenia foetida), areresponsible for the mechanicalbreakdown and organic mixing ofthe compost pile. Edwardsexplains that the worms willconsume the wastes rapidly andfragment them into fine particlesby passing them through theirgrinding gizzards (stomachs).

Once the worms have consumedthe biosolids, the compost consistprimarily of the worm castings andsome decomposed materials. Thecastings tend to have a highernutrient quality than traditionalcompost and can be used as aneffective fertilizer for gardeningand other soil enhancements.

Research conducted in the early1980s by the National Science

Foundation produced 90 tons ofearthworm castings over a five-year period by vermicompostingthe biosolids from the San Jose andSanta Clara wastewater treatmentplants in California. The castingsharvested from that project helpedplants grow four times faster thansimilar plants grown in regulartopsoil.

Florida Project DemonstratesBenefitsAs part of a vermicompostingpilot project at the Ocoee, Florida,wastewater treatment plant, 50pounds of red worms consumeda 20-foot by 30-foot (two-feethigh) plot of wastewater biosolidsby the 69th day of a 90-daytest—quicker than expected.The pilot was conducted underan experimental permit by U.S.Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).

Treatment Critical To Curbing Waterborne Diseaseby the NSFC staff

Wastewater treatment and drinkingwater treatment combined arecritical to improving public health.In fact, cholera, typhoid, and dys-entery have been dramaticallyreduced in the U.S. and otherdeveloped countries.

This is not the case in the develop-ing countries, where wastewatertreatment and drinking water disin-fection are inadequate or nonexistent.

“Almost half the world’s popula-tion suffers from diseasesassociated with insufficient orcontaminated water and is at riskfrom waterborne and foodbornediseases, of which diarrhoeal dis-eases are the most deadly,” according

to a World Health Organization(WHO) report. “They causedover 3 million deaths in 1995, 80percent of them among childrenunder age five.”

Citing WHO figures, The Wash-ington Post recently reported thatdiarrhea kills more than 500,000children in India every year. Thenewpaper mentioned the lack ofproper wastewater treatment inmost cities and the country’s popu-lation density as factors.

This is not to say that the U.S. isfree of waterborne illness.Individual cases and occasionaloutbreaks continue to be reported,most notably the 1993 crypto-sporidiosis outbreak in Milwaukeethat was linked to 104 deaths and

illnesses in an estimated 403,000people. Cryptosporidiosis is causedby the Cryptosporidium parasitefound in water contaminated byhuman or animal feces.

And experts warn that with theprevalence of air travel, a diseaseoutbreak in another part of theworld can quickly pose a threat toU.S. residents.

The challenge for the U.S. is to en-sure that we continue efforts to prop-erly treat wastewater and drinkingwater, while not becoming compla-cent about our advances to date. Theoutbreak of cholera in Latin Americain the early 1990s is a good exampleof the resurgence of a disease if safe-guards are not maintained.

Death Rate Declining in U.S.In addition to the diseases men-tioned above, other waterborneillnesses include giardiasis, hepati-tis, and viral gastroenteritis, amongothers. These diseases are theresult of a variety of bacteria,viruses, and protozoa that can findtheir way into the drinking watersupply or contaminate the foodswe eat. Some general symptoms ofwaterborne disease include fever,abdominal discomfort, diarrhea,and vomiting.

During the past century, the num-ber of reported outbreaks and

deaths in the U.S. linked to thesediseases has dropped considerably.Between 1920 and 1991, therewere 1,087 deaths associated withwaterborne diseases, according tothe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Of those deaths, 83percent occurred before 1936 andless than 1 percent occurred after1970.

However, mentioning specificnumbers when talking about water-borne diseases can be tricky.Symptoms can be mild, and theymay not occur until many daysafter the exposure. Most cases arenever reported to health officialsand, therefore, are not linked towaterborne sources.

Even when illnesses are reported,the pathogen responsible is identi-fied only about half of the time. Infact, some experts believe that only10–20 percent of cases are everreported. Thus, the exact numberof cases cannot be determined.

Why We Treat Wastewater“The reduction in fatalities andnumber of outbreaks indicates thatprogress has been made in theprevention of certain waterbornediseases,” according to the EPA.“Much of the progress has been theresult of increased implementationof important treatment practices.”Properly treating wastewater is one important step in protecting our

communities from waterborne diseases.

2 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

Continued from page 1

Treatment Critical To Curbing Waterborne Disease

Pathogen Disease Survival Time

Cryptosporidium spp. oocyst Cryptosporidiosis 18 months+ (at 4˚C) 2–6 months, moist

E. coli Colitis 10–45 days

Entamoeba histolytica Amebiasis 1 month

Giardia lamblia cyst Giardiasis 1–2 months, up to 4

Salmonella paratyphi Paratyphoid fever 60–70 days

Salmonella typhi Typhoid fever 1 day–2 months 8–23 days

Hepatitis A Hepatitis 1+ year at 4˚ C in mineral water,

Vibrio cholerae Cholera 5–16 days*

*longer in certain conditions

Sources: Joseph A. Salvato, Environmental Engineering and Sanitation, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

If not removed or destroyed during the wastewater treatment process, wastewater pathogens can survive forextended periods in water—possibly long enough to enter the drinking water system of a neighboring commu-nity or residence. This chart gives some idea of how long certain bacteria and viruses can survive. Survivaltimes are influenced by soil type, temperature, pH, and other variables.

Wastewater Pathogens

bacteria in Surface Water in Ground Water

viruses

300+ days at room temperature

The role wastewater treatmentplays in disease reduction isn’talways apparent. Inadequate treat-ment can reduce the effectivenessof drinking water treatmentsystems downstream and cancontaminate the groundwater andnearby wells.

Poorly treated effluent from waste-water systems discharged intorivers and lakes can also be a di-rect health hazard to swimmersand water skiers and threaten com-mercial fishing. It can even causethe degradation or even death ofbodies of water that become over-loaded with nutrients. For thesereasons, it is essential to properlytreat and dispose of our wastewater.

How We Treat Pathogens:Treatment WorksIn densely populated areas, centralcollection and treatment of waste-water with direct discharge to awaterbody is usually the mosteffective and economical methodto deal with wastewater.

The treatment plant normally hasa number of treatment stepsdesigned to reduce the oxygendemand of the influent sewageand, most importantly from a pre-ventative standpoint, remove asmany solids as possible. Removingsolids not only helps to eliminatesome pathogens directly from thewastewater stream, but alsoensures that the effluent is bestprepared for the final treatmentstep—disinfection.

Disinfection, the process of reduc-ing or totally destroying patho-genic organisms, is most effectivewhen the concentrations of sus-pended solids in the wastewater isat a minimum.

Chlorine is the most commondisinfectant presently in use. It is achemical disinfectant, as are ozoneand bromine chloride. Ultravioletlight is coming into increasing useas a disinfectant, as it has the ad-vantage of not requiring the han-dling of potentially dangerouschemicals.

How We Treat Pathogens:Onsite SystemsIn less populated areas, where lotsizes are large and homes arespread apart, onsite wastewatertreatment with subsurfacedischarge is generally the mostpractical option for wastewater

disposal. This generally—but notalways—involves the use of aseptic tank and drainfield.

A septic tank is normally designedto retain wastewater for at least24 hours. This retention periodpromotes the settling of solids andthe floating of grease and otherlighter materials.

The rest of the onsite treatmentsystem (i.e., the distribution field)ensures the removal of the remainingpathogens as the septic tank efflu-ent moves through the drainfieldand the soil. Insects, bacteria, andvarious organisms already presentin the soil digest the organismsand other materials present in theeffluent.

This degradation process along withthe filtration of the effluent as itpasses through soil, complete thetreatment of the septic systemeffluent.

System Failures Can SpellTroubleBoth treatment plants and onsitesystems can have problems rang-ing from poor design or installa-tion, inadequate maintenance orprocess control, to insufficientcapacity or aging equipment.

For community treatment works, ifthe design and construction areadequate, poor maintenance orprocess control may result ininadequate treatment. Wastewatertreatment plants are usually notdesigned to completely remove allpathogens, but to reduce the con-centration of indicator organismssignificantly—from millions tohundreds. Passage through adrinking water plant—can easilydeal with the remaining pathogens.

Problems can arise if the requiredreduction in organisms does nottake place at the wastewater treat-ment plant, thus putting an extraburden on the other steps in thetreatment chain. And there may bereal problems if one of the steps,such as the drinking water plant, isnot performing adequately.

For onsite systems, problems canoccur due to poor site evaluation,design, installation, or maintenance.Usually the above factors contrib-ute to drainfield failure. This cantake the form of discharge togroundwater without adequatetreatment (e.g., through limestoneor fractured bedrock) or surfacingdue to tight soils or solids buildup,which can result in direct runoff orponding.

Such conditions can pose athreat to wells or, in the case ofrunoff or ponding, a health threatthrough potential direct contact byhumans. Ponding can also provide abreeding ground for disease-carry-ing insects.

The key to the prevention of water-borne disease is vigilance, includingthe maintenance of all of ourprotective mechanisms. More oftenthan not, preventing waterbornedisease starts with the propertreatment of wastewater.

EndnotesCooper, Kenneth J. 1997. Human

Waste Overwhelms India’s Waron Disease. The WashingtonPost. February 18. p. A27.

Salvato, Joseph A. 1992. Environ-mental Engineering andSanitation. New York: JohnWiley & Sons, Inc.

Tchobanoglous, George andFranklin L. Burton. 1991.Wastewater Engineering:Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse.New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). 1993. Prevent-ing Waterborne Disease. EPAOffice of Research and Devel-opment. EPA640/K-93/001.

3SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

technologyContinued from page 1

“Our ultimate goalis to submit our

project to EPA to beconsidered asan alternativetechnology.”

Bruce Eastman,Orange County (FL)

environmentalcoordinator

Samples of the residuals and theworms were then tested for patho-gen reduction. Researchers re-ported that a complete reductionof all pathogens was indicatedfrom the pilot project. The testresults showed that the wormsachieved significant reduction tomeet Class A level—the highestreduction level defined underEPA’s Part 503 biosolids rules.Fecal coliforms were still presentin the biosolids, but in significantlylower amounts after the wormsconsumed the compost.

“We’re very excited about theresults from the pilot project,” saidBruce Eastman, Orange County,Florida, environmental coordinator.

Eastman said the pilot project wasa cooperative effort of OrangeCounty, the American EarthwormCompany of Orlando, and thecities of Kissimmee and Ocoee. Hesaid the purpose of the project wasto study how well earthwormscould reduce fecal coliform, Sal-monella, Helminth ova, and entericviruses in biosolids. Initially, re-searchers wanted to test if theworms were capable of producingreduction of at least Class AAlevel, a slightly lower reductionlevel than Class A.

Eastman explained that the pilotproject involved inoculating, orinjecting, biosolids from the treat-ment plant’s clarifiers with highlevels of pathogens and viruses totest how well the worms couldreduce the harmful contaminantsunder extreme conditions.

He said they inoculated the residu-als because publicly owned treat-ment works (POTWs) generally doa good job of cleaning up biosolids.He added that biosolids from theutility already met Class A or AArequirements before adding theworms.

“We felt the need to look at low-cost methods and low-technologyalternatives as the regulations weregetting tighter,” Eastman said. Headded that the vermicompostingproject appeared to be a feasibleand more-economic biosolid dis-posal option than land application.

“When comparing the two, landapplication is more expensive dueto limited land availability in thearea, transportation costs, and theenergy and equipment required forland application,” Eastman added.

Due to the success of the pilotproject, team members are nowseeking a two-year permit fromEPA to establish a larger compost-ing project at two other sites inFlorida. The proposal is for a full-scale operation that wouldvermicompost all the biosolidsfrom wastewater treatment plantsat two separate sites, each of whichgenerates approximately 1 milliongallons of wastewater per day.

Eastman said EPA’s Region 4office has shown interest in theproposal and is willing to issue thepermit after seeing the results fromthe pilot.

Much like the pilot project, EPArequests that the biosolids takenfrom the treatmentplants be inoculatedafter passingthrough the clarifi-ers. Details on thelevels of contami-nants to be injectedare currently beingdiscussed. EPA hasassigned PhillipKane of the FloridaDepartment ofEnvironmentalProtection to beproject inspector.

The AmericanEarthworm Company will preparethe grounds for the project as wellas finance the daily operation ofthe site. The cities of Ocoee andApopka will provide the land andall of the biosolids for the opera-tion. A final plan proposes to sellthe worms to local bait shops. Thecastings will be held until the con-clusion of the project.

“Our ultimate goal is to submit ourproject to EPA to be considered asan alternative technology.”Eastman said.

A Low-Tech ProcessThe actual process of vermi-composting biosolids is a relativelysimple one. A POTW wanting tovermicompost its biosolids willneed a few acres of land, a canopystructure to cover the windrows, aspreader, and a water wagon (toprevent drying), according toEastman.

To start a vermicomposting opera-tion, a treatment facility wouldneed to set aside enough land andworms to allow the project to growas residuals increase in volume. Asresiduals increase, a worm opera-tion can easily be expanded by

Vermicomposting Biosolids with Earthwormssimply adding more worms andspace for additional compost piles.

Eastman explained that for theOcoee project workers prepared a20–foot by 30–foot plot by scrap-ing the ground level and installinga one-inch layer of impermeableclay for the base of the windrow.They then added a layer of sand toabsorb any leachate. The windrows(dewatered to approximately 20percent solids) were covered witha canopy to keep them from be-coming too moist and to preventexcess leachate. It should be notedthat no leachate was produced.

Eastman said that for the pilotproject they placed 50 pounds ofworms at the bottom of a five-foot

by 30–foot windrow,24 inches deep. Hesaid for the nextproject, the wormswill be placed at thebottom of a six-inchlayer of biosolids.Once the worms eattheir way to the top,another six-inchlayer will be addeduntil the compostpile reaches 18inches in height.When the entire pileis consumed by theworms all that is left

will be the castings.

Once vermicomposting is com-pleted in a windrow, a new pilecan be placed directly beside it andthe worms will migrate over to thenew pile and begin eating theirway up. As a general rule, biosolidlayers should never exceed sixinches in depth, Edwards added.

Dried biosolids, containing 15–30percent dry matter, can be com-posted in windrows. Layers of sawdust must be added to biosolidswindrows with lower percentagesof dry matter.

Unlike traditional organic com-posting, the vermicompostingprocess does not rely on heat torapidly decompose the compostpile; the earthworms and microor-ganisms assume that role. Earth-worms cannot survive in the hightemperatures that traditional ther-mophilic composts generate.

However, much like the traditionalcomposting methods, vermi-composting piles must remainaerobic throughout the pile tobreak down the organicmatter.

“In vermicomposting, the earth-worms, which survive only underaerobic conditions, take over bothroles of turning over the waste andmaintaining it in an aerobic condi-tion, thereby lessening the need forexpensive engineering,” Edwardssaid. A windrow compost pile willoccasionally need to be rotated,either by hand or mechanically, toensure that the entire compost heapis evenly aerated throughout thepile. This is why having a tractorand manure spreader is necessaryfor large-scale operations.

An emerging technology?The idea of vermicomposting isnot a new one. The application ofearthworms in organic and evenanimal waste processing has beenpracticed for years. However,vermicomposting human biosolidsis still an innovative technology.

In the absence of an abundance ofexperimental data, researchers areuncertain on what scale thevermicomposting process will bemost successful. According toRaymond Loehr of the Universityof Texas at Austin, an increase inthe interest of large-scale vermi-composting has put forth someserious efforts to improve thetechnology and build it on a soundscientific basis. Loehr has spentyears studying vermistabilizationresearch and applications and otherbiosolids management technologies.

“We know very well how the processworks and generally get the resultswe expect to get, however, as aproven technology there haven’tbeen enough field studies done tosay if this process will be benefi-cial as an alternative technology,”Loehr said.

According to Bob Bastian withEPA’s Office of Wastewater Man-agement, there are no guidancedocuments regulating the vermi-composting process, and EPA hasjust recently begun to show inter-est in testing the idea.

For more information on vermi-composting, contact Edwards at(614) 292-3786. For informationon the Orange County Vermi-composting Project, contactEastman at (407) 836-7424. Also,Worm Digest on the Internet athttp://www. applied3d.com/wormis a good resource.

4 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

NS

FC

new

s NSFC Aids Development of Onsite Training CenterA planned onsite wastewater train-ing center at Vermont TechnicalCollege will provide valuableinstruction for wastewaterprofessionals.

In addition to Vermont, the North-ern New England WastewaterTraining Center will serve Maine,New Hampshire, and possiblyparts of neighboring states.

“There has been a great need fortraining in Vermont and thesurrounding area for a long time,”said Jeff Higgins, head of technologyextension at Vermont TechnicalCollege. “In our preliminarydiscussions with professionals inthe field, they have been veryexcited about the opportunitiesthey are going to get at thetraining center.”

Last year’s federal budget included$50,000 to develop the onsitetraining center, and the NationalSmall Flows Clearinghouse

(NSFC) was designated as themanaging entity because of itslong involvement and expertise inonsite wastewater issues, accord-ing to Mike Aiton, NSFC specialassistant.

“NSFC encourages these kinds ofprojects, and we want to help en-hance onsite training efforts andinfrastructure around the country,”Aiton said.

Training Needs To Be Studied“We are going to spend the next10 months in the planning phase,assessing the training needs ofonsite technicians and engineers,”Higgins said.

“We hope to find out what typeof skill enhancement practitionerswant for the future,” he added.“Our assumption is that area con-tractors, technicians, engineers,

and health officers all want a placeto get training and skill enhance-ment. We want to get these groupstogether to identify their needs sowe will be ready to offer assistancein 1998.”

Higgins said the training centeralso will initiate a plan to take oversoils training and testing in Vermontwithin the next 10 months. Heexplained that currently site techni-cians are required to be state certified.

“It’s a good way to work as part-ners with the state on this wholeprocess. It will make it easier forpractitioners. We will be able tooffer courses more often than thestate,” he said. “It will be better forthe state too. They don’t have theresources to do the training andtesting like we do.”

For more information, contactHiggins at the Northern New En-gland Wastewater Training Centerat (802) 234-9279, or Aiton at theNSFC at (800) 624-8301 or (304)293-4191.

New Issue of The Small Flows Journal Is AvailableThe National SmallFlows Clearinghouse(NSFC) has recentlypublished the thirdissue of The SmallFlows Journal—ajuried technicaljournal devotedspecifically tosmall communitywastewater issues.

Articles in this new issue (Item#SFJRNL03) include a case studyof an innovative wastewater sys-tem designed for a small residen-tial development in California and

a follow-up to a study published inthe previous issue on the perfor-mance of shallow intermittent sandfilters. The new research examinesthe filters’ performance regardingmicroorganism removal.

In addition to the study on shallowintermittent sand filters, the previ-ous issue of the journal (Item#SFJRNL02) featured an articleproposing a new strategy for man-aging onsite system maintenanceby offering special homeownerinsurance for onsite systems.

The first issue of the journal (Item#SFJRNL01) included case studiesand research regarding toxicsource reduction strategies andpollution prevention for smallcommunities, a small communitysystem using pressure sewers and aseptic system, and scum control inseptic tanks.

Subscriptions to The Small FlowsJournal are free for U.S. residents.International subscriptions are$3.50 per year. The Small FlowsJournal is also available online atthe NSFC’s Web site at http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu.

To subscribe or to request a copyof the current or previous journalissues, contact the NSFC at (800)624-8301 or (304) 293-4191, orwrite to NSFC, West VirginiaUniversity, P.O. Box 6064,Morgantown, WV 26506-6064.

For information on submitting amanuscript for The Small FlowsJournal, contact Cathie Falvey,editor, at the number or addresslisted above.

ETI Fact Sheets Summarize Innovative TechnologiesThe National Small Flows Clear-inghouse (NSFC) is currentlyresearching information oninnovative wastewater technolo-gies used in projects that werefunded through the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency’s(EPA’s) former ConstructionGrants Program.

This information, part of the Envi-ronmental Technology Initiative(ETI) project, will be used to de-velop fact sheets that summarizeinnovative technologies or recent

developments in conventionaltechnologies.

Two versions of the technologyfact sheet are being created for thedifferent target groups to helpthem select technologies appropri-ate to their needs. A technicalversion will be available tomanufacturers, regulators, andconsulting engineers, while a lesstechnical version will be availablefor elected officials and thegeneral public.

Four technical fact sheets arecurrently being finalized for peerreview and will then be madeavailable for distribution. Threeof the fact sheets deal with disin-fection—ultraviolet irradiation,ozonation, chlorination—and thefourth discusses fine-bubblediffusers. The fact sheets includeprocess description, design/systemspecifications, cost, and otherrelevant information.

The ETI project is expected tocontinue until September, 1997,

producing 10 to 15 fact sheets bythat time. In addition, informationabout all of these innovative tech-nologies will be housed in theNSFC’s Facilities Database.

For further information about theETI project, call Clement Solomon,NSFC senior technical assistancespecialist, at (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191, or access theNSFC’s Web site, http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu.

NA

TIO W

S

C

L E A R I N G H O

US

E

SMALL FLOWS

A collection of

professional papers on

the study of onsite and

small community

wastewater issues

Volume 3, Issue 1, Winter 1997

Journal

NA

TIO

NAL SMALL FLOWS

C

L E A R I N G H O

US

E

FlowsFlowsSmallSmallThe

The Northern NewEngland WastewaterTraining Center, beingdeveloped by VermontTechnical College,will help contractors,technicians, andother wastewaterprofessionals honetheir skills.

Vermont Technical College, Randolph Center, VT

ME

NH

VT

5SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

EPA Watershed Academy Offers Training Coursesby Natalie Eddy

NSFC Staff Writer

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has initiated a Wa-tershed Academy to explain “wa-tershed approach” management tolocal, state, federal, and NativeAmerican tribal officials.

A watershed is defined as an areaof land where all water runningoff of it drains to a given point.Taking a “watershed approach”involves considering the health ofan entire watershed in additionproblems at specific locationswithin the watershed.

The Watershed Academy providestraining courses based on water-shed managers’ experiences main-taining and restoring healthy eco-systems during the past decade.

In addition, the academy providesshort courses and related EPAreference materials about water-shed processes, functions, andmanagement techniques.

“We’ve been working on gettingthe Watershed Academy estab-lished as an entity for more than ayear,” said Doug Norton, an envi-ronmental scientist with the Water-shed Branch of EPA’s Office ofWater. “People are always askingabout training in the watershedapproach. We’re doing our best toaddress their interests by providingwhat they need when they need it.”

“That’s a huge job. We’re trying tobe creative beyond our own re-sources for training,” he added.

This means stretching a smalltraining budget to offer the Water-shed Academy’s own core courses,co-sponsor special course offeringswith others, maintain a catalog ofEPA and non-EPA course listings,develop watershed reference mate-rials, and maintain a Web site fordistance learning.

The program’s message andcourses center on those elementsof the watershed approach thathave been important to thesuccessful management of a water-shed, according to Norton. Thesegenerally can be grouped as com-munications-related, scientific,and organizational managementelements.

Norton added that as new water-shed issues emerge, the academywill try to incorporate those topicsinto the training curriculum.

Courses OfferedThe academy currently offers fourcourses. Norton stressed that theWatershed Academy is still growing,adding that one additional courseis under development and may beoffered in the next several months.

Current offerings include:• The Statewide Approach to Watershed Management, a two-

day course is the academy’smost-requested;

• Executive Overview of the Wa-tershed Approach, a one-half toone-day course for senior man-agement;

• Principles of Watershed Protec-tion and Management, a one- totwo-day course that attempts toserve as a broad-scale introduc-tion to working in watersheds;

• Getting in Step: A Pathway toEffective Outreach in Your Wa-tershed, concentrates on thesocial and communications-oriented elements of the water-shed approach that complementthe scientific and managementaspects covered in the othercourses; and

• Watershed Management Tools,currently under development butnearing completion. This two- tothree-day course will introduceseveral of the most useful tech-niques for watershed analysisand management.

In addition to its own courses, theacademy maintains an InternetCatalogue of Watershed TrainingOpportunities that contains infor-mation about dozens of other wa-tershed-oriented training coursesoffered by local, state, and federalagencies and private organizations.

“Our catalog has 70 courses; manywe don’t offer personally, but wewant to make the public aware thatthey are available,” Norton said.

The courses sometimes can bealtered to meet special training needs.Training courses are offered sev-eral times a year, as funding permits,usually in EPA regional officecities and other central locations.

“Generally speaking, we try toreach states and localities by offer-ing courses in a regional city,”Norton said. “We rotate and try tovary which regions we offer thingsin. However, if someone has a verycompelling reason to want a course,we try to accommodate them.”

“We have some courses we’vebeen offering for a year. The diffi-culty is that we don’t have the type

of budget where we can be on callwhenever anyone has an interest ina course,” Norton added.

Target AudienceThe target audience includes waterresource/watershed managers andtechnical staff in local, state, andfederal agencies; tribes; EPA re-gions; and other public- or private-sector practitioners of watershedmanagement.

“Our audience is ultimately anyoneinterested in watershed manage-ment. More specifically, we tendto cater to a technical audienceranging from local to regional tonational,” Norton said.

Training groups typically involve40–60 participants. Norton notedthat there are limited openings inmost courses and that a local con-tact person coordinates placement.

Distance LearningNorton said plans are underway fora distance learning program calledAcademy 2000, which will providean opportunity for any watershedmanager or interested party withInternet access to participate in anacademy workshop.

The proposal calls for 20–50modules, each requiring one to twohours to run. The planned formatincludes a class lecture with visu-als and an accompanying narrative.

Norton said the distance learningprogram is needed due to the highdemand for information aboutwatershed management nation-wide. “We are looking at ways ofreaching a broader audience thanwe can reach by live trainingcourses,” said Norton. “Live

courses are very expensive. Thisway we can reach a broader audi-ence by having people browse theInternet.”

He added that there are many ad-vantages to having a distancelearning program. Academy 2000will allow EPA to avoid duplica-tion and involve national experts inwatershed training by hiring themto produce single modules in theirareas of expertise.

Norton said the academy hopes tohave a Web site with five modulesoperational by mid-year and 20modules by the end of the year.

Other ActivitiesIn addition, each year the academyalso co-sponsors special trainingevents on different aspects of thewatershed approach as resourcespermit.

It is also involved in an ongoingeffort to establish the InteragencyWatershed Training Cooperative.The idea is to make better use ofthe resources available for trainingby jointly developing courses andsharing scientific expertise, facili-ties, and other resources.

Initial efforts have involved theEPA, Forest Service, Bureau ofLand Management, Natural Re-sources Conservation Service,Army Corps of Engineers, andFish and Wildlife Service.

For more information, visit theWatershed Academy’s Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy.htm or writeto Watershed Academy, U.S. EPA(4503F), 401 M. Street SW,Washington, DC 20460.

watersheds

The conference will include oralpresentations, interactive discus-sions, posters, exhibits, andtours.

Abstracts (300–500 words, onepage, single spaced) must bereceived by June 16, 1997. Theymay be mailed to: TechnicalPrograms—Abstracts, WaterEnvironment Federation, 601Wythe St., Alexandria, VA22314.

For a complete listing of topicsand for additional information,contact WEF at (703) 684-2400.

The Water Environment Federation(WEF) is sponsoring a specialtyconference on watershed manage-ment in Denver, May 3–6, 1998.

WEF is encouraging interestedpersons to submit abstracts onmany watershed-related topics,including:• sustainable watershed

protection,• watershed management

approaches,• coordinating efforts,• total maximum daily loads, and• effectiveness of best manage-

ment practices.

Call for Papers: Watershed Management

6 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

Continued on next page

“. . . with the focuson other types ofwater pollution,

we want to empha-size that SRF money

can be used fora wider rangeof projects.”

Kevin Rosseel, SRFprogram analyst

Nonpoint, Alternative Projects TargetedEPA Urging New Emphasis for Clean Water SRF Loans

by P.J. CameonInterim Small Flows Editor

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) is placing newemphasis on using loans from itsclean water state revolving fund(SRF) to address the most urgentpollution problems.

Since its inceptionin 1988, the cleanwater fund has beenused primarily tofinance municipalsewage system im-provements.

EPA officials arenow stressing theneed for states touse SRF funds toaddress “expandedeligibilities,” includ-ing projects thataddress nonpointsource pollution,estuary manage-ment, wet-weather impacts, andprojects that involve the use ofalternative wastewater treatmenttechnologies. (See article at rightfor more on eligible projects.)

Targeting expanded eligibilities ispart of EPA’s effort to direct SRFloans toward problems that posethe greatest impact to the nation’swaters, according to KevinRosseel, SRF program analyst.

“This new effort should be of greatinterest to Small Flows readers,”Rosseel said. “They may be awareof a range of nonpoint source pol-lution problems and estuary man-agement efforts that could receiveSRF assistance.”

He added that many small commu-nities might also be interested inalternative treatment systems thatcould be eligible for funding, espe-cially if the community cannotafford a conventional wastewatertreatment plant.

To ensure such projects are consid-ered for funding, interested localofficials and citizens are encour-aged to communicate their needsto their state SRF coordinators.Since the program is managedlargely by the states, project eligi-bility varies according to eachstate’s program and priorities.

SRF Evolved from GrantsProgramIn the early 1970s, EPA started itsConstruction Grants Program tohelp municipalities construct andimprove wastewater treatmentfacilities. When the grants programwas formed, the most pressingwater quality issue facing the

country was theamount of un-treated outflowsfrom municipalsystems, accordingto Rosseel.

In 1990, the Con-struction GrantsProgram wasended. The SRFprogram, with itsuse of loans tosystems instead ofgrants, was createdto fill the void.

Each state, withguidance from

EPA, operates its own SRF pro-gram. The states receive annualfunding from EPA, called capitali-zation grants, which are partiallymatched by the states. This fund-ing is used to provide loans forvarious wastewater projects. Asloans are repaid, that money be-comes available to fund otherprojects.

With income from loan repay-ments, the SRF programs couldeventually be self-sustaining, pro-viding project funding indefinitelyinto the future.

New Concept for SRF LoansThrough the Construction Grantsand clean water SRF programs,billions of dollars in federal assis-tance have been targeted to mu-nicipal sewage systems over thepast 25 years. Today, a largerpercentage of Americans areserved by municipal systems, andthose systems are dischargingfewer dangerous pollutants, ac-cording to the EPA.

Rosseel explained that when theSRF program started, EPA made apriority of funding municipalprojects that were left over fromthe Construction Grants Program.The bulk of SRF funding to datehas been used for the planning andconstruction of publicly ownedsewage treatment works.

EPA officials and state SRF man-agers now want to see more SRFfunding directed toward solvingother high priority water qualityproblems.

“We’ve been successful with theSRF program as far as fundingmunicipal sewage projects,”Rosseel said. “And now with thefocus on other types of water pol-lution, we want to emphasize thatSRF money can be used for awider range of projects.”

Rosseel added that the expandedscope of projects funded are gener-ally not as capital intensive asmunicipal system projects, andmay have a greater environmental“bang for the buck.”

EPA officials are also stressingintegrated management efforts inwhich water quality issues areapproached across entire water-sheds. This, too, involves greateremphasis on expanding the kindsof projects eligible for funding.

Interested Parties Need ToGet InvolvedFor a project to receive clean waterSRF funding, it must be includedin a state’s intended use plan, inwhich the state outlines whichprojects are to be funded.

“The more people who get in-volved in the planning process, themore effective it will be,” Rosseeladded. Applicants for SRF fundingcan be local governments, indi-viduals, nonprofit groups, andcitizens’ groups.

People interested in accessing SRFfunding for these expanded eligi-bilities should contact the SRFcoordinators in their states.

For the number of the SRF contactin your state, contact the NationalSmall Flows Clearinghouse at(800) 624-8301. SRF contact in-formation is also available at thefollowing EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/srfcon.htm.

Clean Water SRF:Expanded EligibilitiesThe U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency is stressingthe use of clean water staterevolving fund (SRF) loans fora broad range of high-prioritywater-quality projects. Theseprojects are referred to as “ex-panded eligibilities.”

Types of projects that may beeligible for SRF funding include,but are not limited to, the following:

Wastewater treatment(including alternativetechnologies)• Publicly owned municipal

wastewater treatment facilities;• Alternative wastewater treat-

ment technologies (e.g., con-structed wetlands; repair orreplacement of failed onsitesystems; decentralized treat-ment systems, communitymounds, or cluster systems;evapotranspiration treatmentbeds; and sand filters);

• The treatment and managementof biosolids.

Expanded eligibility projectsinclude the following:

Nonpoint source pollution controlProjects that a state has identifiedin its nonpoint source manage-ment plan (control of runoff fromagricultural lands or nonpointsource control best managementpractices; storm water and otherrunoff abatement in urban areas;soil erosion control; streambankbuffer zones; and corrective actionfor landfills or underground stor-age tanks).

Estuary managementThese are activities included instates’ Comprehensive Conserva-tion and Management Plans(CCMPs). This includes all of thefollowing activities and projects:restocking fish; restoration ofwildlife habitats; marine sewagepump-out facilities; wetlands forecological protection and restora-tion; and development and imple-mentation of CCMPs.

fin

ance

Project eligibility varies according to each state’s program and priorities.

7SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

finance

Hardship Grants Available for Rural CommunitiesIn conjunction with the clean waterstate revolving fund (SRF), a $50million pool of funding is currentlyavailable to help rural communitiesfund wastewater projects.

The Hardship Grants Program canassist “disadvantaged” rural com-munities through a combination ofgrants and/or technical assistance.

A rural community may be eligiblefor the Hardship Grants Program ifit has:• fewer than 3,000 people;• no access to centralized waste-

water treatment or collectionsystem, or if it needs improve-ments to its existing onsitewastewater treatment system;

• a per capita income rate that is

less than 80 percent of thenational average; and

• an unemployment rate thatexceeds the national average byone percentage point or more.

Stephanie vonFeck, an EPA envi-ronmental protection specialist,explained that the $50 millionresulted from a one-time appro-priation from Congress intendedto assist rural communities.

Hardship funding will be distrib-uted among the states based on aformula that considers the numberof rural communities that lackaccess to centralized wastewatertreatment and the rural per capitaincome in each state. States are

now working with communities toidentify eligible projects.

Communities should initially applyfor clean water SRF loan fundingfor their projects. Communitiesthat meet the criteria for the Hard-ship Grants Program could receivea combination SRF loan and Hard-ship grant.

VonFeck explained that mostHardship grants will be coupledwith SRF loans, although stateshave the discretion to issue 100-percent grants for some projects.

As part of the Hardship GrantsProgram, states may choose tocommit a portion of their federal

appropriation to fund technicalassistance to rural communitiesconcerning the operation andmaintenance of wastewatersystems.

VonFeck said local officials whofeel their communities may beeligible for the Hardship GrantsProgram, should contact the pro-gram coordinator in their states.

For the name and number of theHardship Grants coordinator inyour state, contact the EPA at(202) 260-2268. This phone num-ber is dedicated to answeringquestions concerning the SRF andHardship Grants programs.

ALABAMA ..................................... $7,039,300ALASKA ........................................ $3,767,700ARIZONA ...................................... $4,252,000ARKANSAS .................................. $4,118,100CALIFORNIA .............................. $45,024,100COLORADO ................................. $5,035,600CONNECTICUT ............................ $7,712,200DELAWARE .................................. $3,090,500DIST. OF COLUMBIA ................... $3,090,500

FLORIDA .................................... $21,250,000GEORGIA ................................... $10,643,900HAWAII ......................................... $4,875,700IDAHO ........................................... $3,090,500ILLINOIS ..................................... $28,471,700INDIANA ..................................... $15,171,800IOWA ............................................ $8,520,100KANSAS ....................................... $5,682,400KENTUCKY .................................. $8,012,200LOUISIANA ................................... $6,920,400MAINE ........................................... $4,873,200MARYLAND ................................ $15,225,900MASSACHUSETTS .................... $21,373,900MICHIGAN .................................. $27,068,700MINNESOTA ............................... $11,570,900MISSISSIPPI ................................. $5,671,800MISSOURI .................................. $17,451,800MONTANA .................................... $3,090,500NEBRASKA .................................. $3,219,900NEVADA ....................................... $3,090,500NEW HAMPSHIRE ....................... $6,291,100NEW JERSEY ............................. $25,725,400NEW MEXICO .............................. $3,090,500NEW YORK ................................ $69,486,400NORTH CAROLINA .................... $11,361,600NORTH DAKOTA ......................... $3,090,500OHIO ........................................... $35,440,100

OKLAHOMA .................................. $5,086,100OREGON ...................................... $7,111,500PENNSYLVANIA ........................ $24,936,800RHODE ISLAND ........................... $4,227,100PUERTO RICO ............................. $8,210,800SOUTH CAROLINA ...................... $6,449,200SOUTH DAKOTA .......................... $3,090,500TENNESSEE ................................ $9,145,100TEXAS ........................................ $28,773,600UTAH ............................................ $3,317,100VERMONT .................................... $3,090,500VIRGINIA .................................... $12,883,600WASHINGTON ........................... $10,947,700WEST VIRGINIA ........................... $9,813,600WISCONSIN ............................... $17,019,200WYOMING .................................... $3,090,500

Funding has also been allotted to:AMERICAN SAMOA ........................ $565,200GUAM .............................................. $409,000N. MARIANAS .................................. $262,700TERRITORY OF PALAU ................. $225,800VIRGIN ISLANDS ............................ $328,000INDIAN TRIBES ............................ $3,125,000

TOTAL ALL FUNDS ................. $625,000,000

Report Lists Federal Assistance for Water QualityA report by the U.S. GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) identifies72 federal programs and initiativesthat help states, municipalities, andindividuals protect groundwaterand surface water threatened bypollution.

These agencies estimated that theyspent at least $4.6 billion on theseprograms in fiscal year 1995. Thereport includes programs and

initiatives designed specifically toaddress water quality concerns aswell as others that have differentprimary missions, but indirectlybenefit water quality.

Some of the assistance identifiedin the report is financial, providedas grants or loans. Other types ofhelp listed include technical assis-tance, planning or advisory services,studies, and education.

Each entry cites the agency thatadministers the program, theprogram’s authorizing legislation,the types of assistance and limita-tions, the eligibility requirements,and the offices that potential pro-gram recipients need to contact toapply for assistance.

To order a free copy of the June1996 report, call GAO at (202)512-6000, and request Water

Quality: A Catalog of RelatedFederal Programs, documentnumber GAO/RCED-96-173. Thereport can also be viewed ordownloaded via the World WideWeb at http://www.gao.gov/AIndexFY96/abstracts/rc96173.htm.

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency has allotted the followinggrants to help states “capitalize”their clean water SRF programs.This federal seed money—alongwith matching portions provided bythe states—is used to issue low-interest loans for local wastewaterprojects.

As local governments repay theirloans, that money is used toprovide loans for other projects.

1997 Clean Water SRF Allotments

8 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

Onsite Experts To Gather at NEHA ConferenceAn experienced group of onsitewastewater system experts willgather this summer as part of theNational Environmental HealthAssociation’s (NEHA) 61st An-nual Educational Conference andExhibition.

This year’s conference, June 28–July 2 in Washington, D.C., fea-tures keynote speaker Audrey F.Manely, deputy surgeon generaland acting surgeon general forthe U.S. Public Health Service’s

Department of Health and HumanServices.

The centerpiece of the onsitewastewater systems (OSWS)session, which begins July 1, willbe a plan review skills trainingsession featuring top experts in thefield. Topics will include new,state-of-the-art, and alternativetechnologies and a discussion ofperformance data. In addition, afull-day field trip to OSWS sites isplanned for those interested.

Internet Offers Wastewater InformationThere are many wastewater-relatedsites on the Internet. The siteslisted below are a small sampling.Additional wastewater-related sitesmay be found by using a searchengine or by browsing throughdifferent sites and their links.

Please note that the National SmallFlows Clearinghouse does notendorse any particular Web sitesand reminds readers that informa-tion available at these sites is notguaranteed to be accurate. Theaddresses and descriptive informa-tion below were correct at the timeof publication.

Project Wet—Water Educa-tion for Teacherswww.montana.edu:80/wwwwetProject Wet works to promoteawareness, appreciation, knowl-edge, and stewardship of water.This site offers a history of theorganization and a list of contacts.

The CSO Partnershipwww.csop.comSponsored by the CSO (combinedsewer overflow) Partnership, thissite offers information on EPApolicy and guidelines, a questionand answer forum, and a calendarof conferences and meetings.

EPA Offers NPDES andWatershed Products

Field trip participants will seeinstallations of OSWS using ad-vanced technologies, including aburied and recirculating sand filter,shale filter, slate filter, Waterloobio-filter, and peat filter.

National Small Flows Clearing-house staff will attend the confer-ence and present information aboutthe National Onsite DemonstrationProject. (See related article onpage 20.)

OSWS participants also will havethe opportunity to learn how tointerpret soil investigation reports,select proper onsite wastewater

systems, evaluate site topographyand drainage, and submit OSWSpermits.

Other workshops and discussionsthat will be featured at the NEHAconference include environmentalhealth management, career ad-vancement, environmental healthtechnology applications, indoor airquality, hazardous materials andwaste, emerging pathogens, andgeneral environmental healthdiscussions.

For more information about theconference or to register, callNEHA at (303) 756-9090.

reso

urce

s

Three new National PollutantDischarge Elimination System(NPDES) products are availablefrom the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA).

To order any of the products be-low, call the EPA Office of WaterResource Center at (202) 260-7786and mention the item numberlisted.

NPDES Permit Issuance Flexibil-ity Policy in Watershed Permitting(EPA item #833R96007) addressesthe need for flexibility in meetingpermit issuance requirements dur-ing the transition to a watershedapproach. NPDES Permit is afollow-up on the NPDES Water-shed Strategy issued March 21,1994.

Interim Permitting Approach forWater Quality-Based EffluentLimitations in Storm Water Per-mits (EPA item #833D96001)provides questions and answers onflexibility in NPDES permit issu-ance during the transition to theWatershed Protection Approach.

Statewide Watershed ManagementCourse (EPA item #833R96006)is designed to integrate naturalresource programs into a compre-hensive watershed managementapproach. The document draws onthe experience of several statesthat are implementing or develop-ing a statewide approach. Examplesare provided.

North Carolina State Universityplymouth.ces.state.nc.us:80/pro-grams/content.htmlThis site consists of a series ofreports from the 11th AnnualOn-Site Wastewater TreatmentConference held at North CarolinaState University in October 1996.

PIPES–Point Source Informa-tion and Provision Exchangepipes.ehsg.saic.com/pipes.htmPIPES now has a new address onthe Web. Users can view thePIPES library and connect to thebulletin board system from this site.

Electronic LOW-COSTSEWERAGE NetworkUsers can become members of thisnetwork focusing on low-costsewerage by sending the followinge-mail message to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk: join lcseweragefirst name last namestop

Note that “stop” must be on thesecond line of the message. Pleaseleave the subject area blank.

Delaware residents planning tobuild a new house or replace anexisting septic system should firstperuse a copy of Simply Septics: AGuide for Delaware HomeownersAbout On-Site Wastewater Dis-posal Systems.

This 15-page brochure describesseven different septic systemsavailable for use in Delaware, thecare and maintenance of each, aswell as graphic depiction.

Simply Septics offers step-by-stepinformation explaining how tohave a site evaluation performed,how to have a system designed andinstalled, and how to obtain apermit. Other useful informationincludes how to prolong the life ofyour system, how a septic systemworks, and a form to keep track ofyour system’s pumping andinspection schedule. This brochurealso contains information on theDelaware Department of Natural

Care and Maintenance Outlined inDelaware Septic Brochure

Resources and EnvironmentalControl’s (DNREC) low-interestloan program for replacing mal-functioning systems.

Simply Septics is available fromDelaware Realtors, private soilscientists and septic systemscontractors, and at DNREC’soffices in Georgetown and Dover.Bulk copies are available to peoplewilling to distribute them toDelaware customers.

For more information, contactJack Hayes of the DNREC at (302)739-4761.

9SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

WINTER 1991 & 1993

REPRINTS

Small Flows is printedon recycled paper.

The National Small Flows Clearinghouse,established by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency under the federal CleanWater Act (CWA) in 1977 and located at

West Virginia University, gathers anddistributes information about small

community wastewater systems. SmallFlows is published quarterly.

Small FlowsSponsored by:

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySteve Hogye, Project OfficerMunicipal Support Division

Office of Wastewater ManagementWashington, D.C.

National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia University

John L. Mori, Ph.D., Manager,WVU Environmental Services

and Training DivisionPeter Casey, P. Eng.

NSFC Program CoordinatorDiana Knott, Acting Publications Supervisor

P.J. Cameon, Interim EditorJeremy Canody, Staff WriterNatalie Eddy, Staff Writer

Daniel Gloyd, Graphic Designer

International Standard Serial Number1060-0035

Article SubmissionsSmall Flows welcomes letters to the editor,articles, news items, photographs, or othermaterials for publication. Please address

correspondence to:

Editor, Small FlowsNational Small Flows Clearinghouse

West Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064

Morgantown, WV 26506-60641-800-624-8301 or

(304) 293-4191

ReprintsFor permission to reprint information

appearing in Small Flows, please send aletter of request to the editor.

Small Flows is funded by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.

The contents of this newsletter do notnecessarily reflect the views and policies

of the Environmental Protection Agency,nor does mention of trade names or

commercial products constitute endorse-ment or recommendation for use.

L E T T E R S T O T H E E D I T O R

viewpoint

Editor’s Note: The following lettersdo not necessarily represent theviews of the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency or the NationalSmall Flows Clearinghouse. Theyare printed in an effort to facilitatedialogue on issues important topeople in the wastewater industry.

Recordkeeping Folder a Hit;Group Omitted from Onsite List

Dear Editor,We appreciate the fact your publi-cation developed and ran a story in

its Winter 1997 issue on page 12about the septic system record-keeping files folders produced byour organization and that of theNational Onsite Wastewater Recy-cling Association.

We would point out that in a shortfew weeks we distributed morethan 10,000 copies of this filefolder in the coastal towns and citiesof Massachusetts, New Hampshire,Maine, New Brunswick, and NovaScotia. Printing and distributionwas made possible in part from agrant from the Gulf of MaineCouncil on the Marine Environment.

We would also point out we havejust recently been given anothergrant from the New HampshireCoastal Program of our Office ofState Planning to print and distrib-ute another 5,000 copies of thefolder, this time concentrating onadditional distribution here in NewHampshire and particularly in ourcoastal communities.

We were disappointed, however, tosee our organization was notincluded in the list of “State OnsiteWastewater Associations” on page3 of the Winter issue. We havebeen organized since the mid1980s and have more than 400septic system designers, installers,pumpers, and state and local offi-cials here in New Hampshire andneighboring states as dues-paidmembers. When printing the listagain, please include us.

We enjoy reading your publication.

Sincerely yours,

Richard H. Clough, CAEExecutive DirectorGranite State Designers andInstallers Association

Editor’s Response: We apologizefor omitting your association, andat least two other groups, from thelist of onsite wastewater associa-tions. We’ve printed an addendumto the list at right.

Reader Backs Preformance-Based Codes

Dear Editor,The article, “A Prescription forPerformance-Based Codes”(Fall1995 Small Flows) hit the nail onthe head!

My mother is 102 years young,and our new residence was readythree years ago. But for the pastthree-and-a-half years we havebeen unable to get an onsite sew-age design permit approval, eventhough it is designed by a Wash-ington State registered professionalengineer.

I have had several joint conferenceswith a Washington state electedofficial and the state and localcounty environmental health agen-cies, but still no final resolution.

I spent two years with the stateenvironmental health agency try-ing to get an experimental permit.The local county regulator claimedonly the state agency could handlesuch a request for an aerobic treat-ment system not approved by thisstate.

Then I decided to try to get anotherpermit at the local county levelwith a state-approved, NSF Inter-national-tested aerobic treatmentsystem. But here again, there weremany questions on loading rate,drainfield sizing, and disinfection.

Here in Washington state our rulesand regulations for onsite sewagetreatment are probably among themost restrictive and backward intechnology. California has beenrecycling graywater and wastewa-ter for several years.

Prescriptive rules are self serving,dictatorial, and have no soundscientific basis! It takes on differ-ent meanings by the differentcounty regulators and results incostly expensive systems to theproperty owner. Prescriptive rulesdo not allow for new technologyfor alternative systems, and re-stricts growth. Installation only ofa sand mound filter system coststhe owner $16,000.

There have been several courtcases because of prescriptive ruleviolations. In fact, a regulatorcomplained to the State Profes-sional Engineering Board becausean engineer did not design in ac-cordance with the state prescriptiverules, but did follow the federalEPA rules.

People are not against good envi-ronment, but they are against highcost without any alternative forlower cost wastewater treatmenttechnology. The homeowner hasno choice or options because ofthese existing rules.

The prescriptive rules must bechanged to performance rules,which would allow a professionalengineer to design a cost-effectivewastewater treatment system basedon the final output of the system.

Additional Onsite Associations ListedGranite State Designers andInstallers Association76 South State St.Concord, NH 03301-3520(603) 228-1231

PennsylvaniaGil Longwell, AdministratorPennsylvania Association ofSewage Enforcement OfficersP.O.Box 7096Mechanicsburg, PA 17055(717) 761-8648

ConnecticutWilliam Hall, PresidentConnecticut Sewage DisposalAssociationP.O. Box 366Westbrook, CT 06498(203) 838-7000

A list of 18 state onsite wastewaterassociations was published in theWinter 1997 issue of Small Flows.

Since that newsletter was pub-lished, we received informationabout three more state associa-tions. They are listed below.

Small Flows apologizes for anyinconvenience caused by theseomissions.

If you know of additional stateorganizations, contact the SmallFlows editor at (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191.

New HampshireRichard H. Clough, ExecutiveDirector

Continued on page 15

10 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

Septic Tank Additivesrejuvenate a clogged soil absorp-tion system. However, it should beunderstood that, in most cases, thepurpose of using an additive is todigest or “liquefy/gasify” thesolids in a septic tank, rejuvenatestressed bacterial populations inthe septic tank, or increasesettleability of solids in the septictank.

The are two distinct categories ofadditives used in a septic system:1) chemical, includes inorganicand organic compounds; and 2)biological, includes yeast, bacteria,and enzymes. There are about1,200 additive products on themarket today, many of whichcontain enzymes that can bepurchased through septic tankpumpers, discount stores, andchemical companies.

Is there research on septicsystem additives?Over the past 40 years, there havebeen several studies conducted onseptic tank additives; however,there is still some debate on theireffectiveness. Part of the problem

stems from the number of addi-tives that are marketed and the lackof an established standard testingmethod for all additives.

Complicating this situation is thedebate between additives manufac-turers and independent researchersregarding which effects aredeemed beneficial and which aredeemed detrimental. Currently,there is contention as to whether ornot increasing the friability, orbreakup, of the scum layer or

enhancing the anaerobic decompo-sition process is beneficial in septicsystems.

Notable studies conducted includeuniversity research by WilliamSack, Ph.D., John T. Winneberger,Ph.D., and Rein Laak, Ph.D., aswell as manufacturer research byL&F and INTERBIO. Severalother research studies on additiveswere also conducted and are dis-cussed in the following sections.Recently, an independent fieldstudy was conducted by the Na-tional Association of Waste Trans-porters (NAWT) on 12 septic tanksusing additives. The data collectedfrom this study are currently beinganalyzed, and the results should beavailable soon.

What are the beneficial ordetrimental effects of addi-tives from various researchstudies conducted?The beneficial effects of biologicaladditives on the septic system arestill being debated, but two ben-efits may ultimately be identified.Based on available literature,

enzymatic products might have theability to reduce the amount of oiland grease in the septic tank. Sec-ond, under septic tank bacterial“die-off” conditions, slight reduc-tions in the amount of effluentsolids have been achieved by usingadditives.

A research study by Mark Gross,Ph.D. has shown that septic tank“die off” conditions occur whenthe bacteria in a septic tank aredestroyed due to the presence of

toxic substances. Die-off condi-tions were observed when adding aconcentration of 1.85 gallons ofliquid bleach, 5.0 gallons of liquidLysol cleaner, or 11.3 grams ofDrano drain cleaner to a standard1,000-gallon septic tank. Otherfactors that can cause die-offinclude the use of anti-bacterialagents, and, in certain cases, medi-cations taken by the homeowner.

However, research conducted byWinneberger, et.al., suggests thatsome biological additives mayincrease the biological activity tothe point where excess solids canbe carried into the soil absorptionsystem. This occurs when anaero-bic decomposition of solids causesthe formation of methane gas. Asthey rise, bubbles push solids upfrom the settled portion of theseptic tank. Ultimately, this maylead to solids “carryover” to thesoil absorption system where clog-ging can ensue.

Contrary to the ability of enzy-matic products to reduce scum, theeffects of degradation in the scum

layer are believed to be detri-mental to a soil absorptionsystem. The scum layer“holds” fats, grease, andfloatables, preventing theirescape to the soil absorptionsystem. Enzymatic productscan “break up” this scumlayer and increase its mobil-ity, allowing it to enter thesoil absorption system.

Some chemical additives thathave been used in septicsystems include hydrogenperoxide, sulfuric acid, form-aldehyde, baking soda, andalum. J. Harkin proposed thathydrogen peroxide could beused to restore the infiltrativecapacity of a failed or clogged

soil absorption system. However, itwas also reported from anotherstudy that hydrogen peroxide couldagitate soils containing fines(clayey and loamy soil), destroyingthe soil structure, thereby decreas-ing the soil’s permeability.

A number of products sold over-the-counter for soil absorptionsystems and clogged drain pipescontain sulfuric acid which is

Q&Aad

vice

Continued on next page

Editor’s Note: The followingquestions are based on callsreceived over the National SmallFlows Clearinghouse’s technicalassistance hotline. The informationwas compiled by Todd Olson andClement Solomon of the technicalassistance staff. If you have aquestion, call (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191.

How does my septic systemwork?Household wastewater flows intothe septic tank, where it is collectedto separate the solids—both float-able and settleable—from theliquid portion, called the “effluent.”During a retention time of 24–48hours, settleable (heavier) solidscollect in the bottom of the tankto form a sludge layer. Floatablesolids, such as greases, oils, andfats, collect at the surface to forma scum layer. The partiallyclarified effluent empties into thesoil absorption system.

The purpose of the soil absorptionsystem is to further treat andprovide final disposal of the septictank effluent. As the wastewaterflows through a soil absorp-tion system, it is treated bynatural processes (physical,chemical, and biological) inthe soil. This is how a septicsystem works in treatingwastewater through naturalprocesses with minimal humanintervention.

As with most processes foundin nature, man has attemptedto mitigate the natural treat-ment process found in a septicsystem to enhance the effi-ciency and capability of thesystem or correct a malfunction.This has resulted in the manu-facture and marketing of septictank additives to solve everypossible problem a septic systemmay encounter.

What are the different typesof septic tank additives?Recent interest in wastewatertreatment and disposal has led tothe use of additives, stimulators,or enhancers for a septic system.It has been suggested thatadditives can be used in a septicsystem to accelerate digestion ofbiosolids, break up scum, improvesettling through coagulation, or

Scum Layer

Effluent

Septic TankDrainfield

Sludge

Septic System

NSFC Hotline

11SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

regulations

highly corrosive in concentratedform. This could affect the micro-bial population in the septic tankand soil absorption system, andcontribute to structural weaknesswhen applied directly to a concretetank. The use of sulfuric acidmight result in severe burns if itcomes into contact with human skin.

It should be noted that the federalgovernment does not control theuse and disposal of hazardoussubstances in small quantitiespurchased from supermarkets.Additives used to control odor bycontrolling excessive anaerobicgrowth may contain formaldehyde,paraformaldehyde, quarternaryammonium, and zinc sulfate asactive ingredients. Although thesechemicals are biodegradable withdilution; they are biocidal at fullstrength.

Organic chemicals used in addi-tives include organic solvents orsurfactants that have been reformu-lated to make the product safe forthe environment. Even at theseapproved safe levels, napthalenes,alkanes, and benzenes sometimesused as ingredients in portabletoilet cleaners and deodorizers aresignificant pollutants, and shouldnot be added to a septic system.

Do I need to use an additivein my septic system to keep itworking?A homeowner does not need toadd a stimulator or an enhancer toa septic tank that is designed, oper-ated, and maintained properly—naturally occurring bacteria arealready present within human fecalmatter. Contrary to popular belief,yeast, dead chickens, possums, orraw hamburger do not need to beadded to the septic tank.

Chemical additives, such as caustichydroxides and sulfuric acid,should never be added to a septicsystem. Adding these products willdestroy the bacterial population inthe septic tank, change the perme-ability characteristics of the soilabsorption system, and may causegroundwater contamination. Often,manufacturers of biological addi-tives market their use to restore thebacterial balance in a septic tankon a monthly basis as part of aroutine maintenance program. Thisis not necessary because these bac-teria already reside in human feces.

There are special instances whenthe use of a biological additivemay be warranted, such as whenhomeowners take antibiotics orother prescription medications.However, it should be noted thatresearch is still needed in this area.

Claims made on the effectivenessof additives to either eliminate

Communities Use Ordinances for Pollution Preventiondevelopment in the prime aquiferareas.

“It is much easier to prevent acontaminant from going into thewater source than cleaning it uponce it’s in there,” Wozniak said,adding that officials are seeingsome contamination in one ofMountain Lakes’ wells.

Wozniak said the ordinances wereenacted to restrict industrial andcommercial uses, private welldrillings, and the density of onsitewastewater systems in the primeaquifer areas.

“Land development is basicallyavailable for light business and

small commercial use, but othertypes of industry are restricted,”Wozniak said. “We are more con-cerned with spills and groundwatercontamination on a large scale—the types that can occur throughheavy industrial action.”

Onsite Systems RestrictedIn Montville, the density of onsitesystems permitted in the primeaquifer area is somewhat restrictedor reduced. In this area, septicsystems that are permitted havestricter requirements than those inthe rest of the community.

The community permits septicsystems based on minimum stan-dards. But within the prime zones,

by Natalie EddyNSFC Staff Writer

Two New Jersey communitieshave taken steps to protect theirdrinking water supplies by enactingordinances that prohibit certainland uses that may affect ground-water.

Montville Township and nearbyMountain Lakes Borough in Mor-ris County, New Jersey, have en-acted similar zoning laws, called“overlay ordinances,” to provide abuffer zone and prevent pollutionfrom reaching the area’s drinkingwater sources.

Mountain Lakes has identified onezone in the community to be cov-ered by the restrictions, whileMontville has a three-tiered systemwith varying degrees of restrictionsin each zone.

The area is especially susceptiblebecause of its high groundwatertable and vast underground aquiferthat supplies drinking water to theestimated 25,000 residents. Al-though some homes in the areahave private wells, the majority ofthe residents’ drinking water issupplied by three wells fed by theaquifer.

John Wozniak, the health officerfor both municipalities, said theordinances restrict certain types of

the ordinance further limits thenumber of systems or requires ahigher quality effluent discharge.

All homes and businesses inMontville are currently served byonsite septic systems. Recently,however, local officials haveimplemented plans to connect two-thirds of the community to a sewersystem within the next five years.

Wozniak said property ownersmust have their septic tankschecked for failure and must havethe tanks pumped at least onceevery three years.

“The overlay ordinances haveprovided us with a simple andeffective tool for land-use planningand pollution prevention,” Wozniaksaid. Now that the communitieshave greater control over futuredevelopment in the area, it ishoped that there is less likelihoodof groundwater contamination.

Wozniak added that he has heardfew citizen complaints about thenew ordinances.

For more information on the over-lay ordinances, contact Wozniak at(201) 331-3300, or write to him atMontville Township, 195Changebridge Road, Montville, NJ07045-9498.

Continued from previous page

Septic Tank Additives

Prime Aquifer

Restricted Area

Mountain Lakes, NJ

Montville, NJ

pumping of a septic tank or restorepermeability of the soil absorptionsystem are unsubstantiated. Noproduct will allow a homeowner toescape a regular septic tank pump-ing and maintenance schedule.

The debate on the issue of using anadditive can be resolved onlythrough a cooperative researcheffort from independent/unbiasedresearchers (such as universitiesand research centers) and additivemanufacturers to determine theirtrue effectiveness and reveal theirlimitations.

The NSFC offers a package ofinformation of septic tank additives(Item #WWPCGN66). The cost is$10.95, plus shipping and han-dling. To order call NSFC at (800)624-8301 or (304) 293-4191. Seepage 7 of the products insert in thecenter of this newsletter for moreinformation.

12 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

Onsite Projects Tackle Wastewater Problemsby Jeremy CanodyNSFC Staff Writer

Efforts to solve wastewater prob-lems in six environmentally sensi-tive communities are being evalu-ated in the first National OnsiteDemonstration Project (NODP).

Administered by the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA),

the four-year project is designed toevaluate environmentally soundand economically viable solutions.The NODP assists each commu-nity in selecting, developing, in-stalling, and monitoring new and/or alternative methods of wastewatertreatment that best suit its needs.

Alternative technologies have beeninstalled, and researchers and regu-latory agency personnel are nowmonitoring and evaluating systemperformance. This process willprovide personnel with valuableinformation concerning systemperformance under various geo-logical and climatic settings.

This, in turn, will help other com-munities make environmentallyand economically sound choicesabout their wastewater treatment.

NODP Funding, AdministrationThe NODP is funded under a $1.5million cooperative agreementbetween EPA and the NationalSmall Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC).The projects are administered byEPA and coordinated by NSFC.

Under the terms of the agreement,NODP’s technical assistance staffestablishes and maintains a work-ing link among all organizations

and individuals involved in theproject. NODP’s duties includevisiting the sites, reviewing pro-posals, and overseeing the workdone at the project sites. It alsoensures that the monitoring beingdone at each site is in accordancewith scientific methods and thateach community incorporates apublic education component in itsprogram.

A monitoringprotocol has beendeveloped to en-sure that commonminimum param-eters are regularlymeasured for eachof the 40 or soindividual systemsinstalled in the sixcommunities.

A national panelwith expertise inalternative waste-water treatmenttechnology as-sisted NSFC withselecting andimplementingwastewater treat-ment methods forthe communities.The panel is also

assisting in reviewing the monitor-ing data collected.

Participating CommunitiesThe six participating communitiesin the NODP were selected bycongressional representatives ei-ther because the communities hadbeen identified as having an urgentneed for wastewater treatment, orbecause they or their representa-tives have expressed an interest insmall and appropriate wastewatertreatment systems.

Onsite systems were constructed inthese demonstration communitiesin 1994, 1995, and 1996. Monitor-ing of these systems will continuethrough this year.

Anne Arundel County, MarylandThe Anne Arundel Countyproject’s main environmentalobjective is to prevent furtherpollution of the Chesapeake Bayand its shoreline. Alternative treat-ment systems have been installedin new and existing housing devel-opments.

To alleviate the pollution problemcaused by high amounts of nitro-gen, phosphorous, and pathogensentering the Bay’s waters, projectofficials are evaluating all existing

recirculating sand filters in thecounty. In addition, the followinghave been installed and are beingmonitored: a peat filter, a filter/pump chamber, an expanded shalefilter, a drip disposal system, ashallow pressure-dosed trench, andgravelless trench systems.

Anne Arundel County’s publiceducation is focusing on develop-ing presentations for sanitariansand contractors in the ChesapeakeBay region and other counties inMaryland.

Gloucester, MassachusettsThe main environmental concernat the Gloucester project site ispreventing more of the pollutionfrom failing onsite systems thathas already shut down the area’sshellfishing beds. A high ground-water table and shallow, glacialsoils are also site constraints insolving the area’s pollution problem.

A second objective is to show thatdevelopment (and rehabilitation)can proceed in lower-density areaswithout the need for expensiveconventional sewers.

Gloucester’s onsite systems includea foam biofilter, a high-rate inter-mittent sand filter with gravellesstrench, and a recirculating tricklingfilter with a sand-lined trench.

This project’s public educationcomponent targets local contrac-tors, regulators, and policy makers.

Benzie County, MichiganThe Benzie County demonstrationproject includes seven waterfronthomes located along the shores ofthree nutrient-sensitive lakes inwestern Michigan.

This resort area, with numerouslakes, sandy soils, and many sea-sonal residents, has experienceddegradation of its groundwater.County health officials observedthat the seasonal fluctuations in thelakefront population, relying onconventional septic systems, resultedin phosphorus loading and subse-quent increases in algae growth.

Benzie County is in the process ofinstalling and monitoring a sandfilter, foam biofilter, upflowbiofilter, and several modules andtrenches with iron-bearing me-dia—all are designed to removephosphorous. Representatives ofMichigan State University areworking cooperatively with thecounty on all phases of the project.

Educational programs are targetingregional sanitarians and systeminstallers.

Monongalia County, WestVirginiaThe concerns in this area are shal-low and impermeable soils andregulatory considerations thatcurrently limit extensive use ofalternative onsite systems.

Removal of nutrients is not a majorissue in this region of high rainfall.A major concern, however, is theeffective removal of pathogens atrelatively low cost in difficult,steep-slope terrain.

A large demonstration facility hasbeen established at a county parkwhere a variety of onsite technolo-gies can be evaluated.

The technologies at the site includea contour disposal system, a

Craig Jowett , Ph.D., P.Eng.Research Associate ProfessorUniversity of Waterloo, OntarioCenter for GroundwaterResearch

Karen Mancl , Ph.D.Associate Professor of Agricul-tural EngineeringThe Ohio State University

Richard A. Otis , P.E.Vice President of Environmen-tal ManagementAyres AssociatesMadison, Wisconsin

A.R. Rubin , Ph.D.Extension Specialist and Asso-ciate ProfessorNorth Carolina State University

George Tchobanoglous ,Ph.D., P.E.Professor of Civil EngineeringUniversity of California at Davis

David Venhuizen , P.E.Private Engineering ConsultantAustin, Texas

David Pask , P.Eng.NODP Technical Coordinator

NODP Expert Panel

Continued on next pagetech

nolo

gy

Workers prepare the drainfield for a wastewaterproject in Benzie County, Michigan.

13SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

low-pressure dosed system, agravelless trench system, a dripsoil absorption system, a recircu-lating sand filter, a constructedwetland, and a home aeration unit.

The educational component of theproject includes exhibits and inter-pretive programs intended to edu-cate park visitors, school children,and professionals interested inalternative wastewater treatmentmethods.

Waquoit Bay, MassachusettsThe major concern at Waquoit Bayand many other areas of Cape Codis high-density residential develop-ment affecting shallow, environ-mentally sensitive embayments.

Septic systems in the area havecontributed to increased nitrate

levels, causing numerous algaeblooms. This has adversely af-fected the ecology of area bays,which are important breedinggrounds for commercial and otherfish species. Most homeownersand businesses surrounding the bayrely on septic tank soil absorptionsystems for wastewater management.

This demonstration project in-volves using different treatmentmethods in combination with indi-vidual septic tanks. The treatmenttechnologies installed here includea synthetic foam filter, a denitrify-ing biological filter, a sequencingbatch reactor, and a denitrifyingbarrier. The project will also evalu-ate the efficiency of shallow ab-sorption trenches, and gravellesstrenches.

Waquoit Bay’s educational pro-grams are targeting local officials,

design professionals, andhomeowners.

Paradise, CaliforniaThe environmental concerns inParadise are the removal of nitratesand pathogens through soil absorp-tion to meet stringent state stan-dards for groundwater protection.

A variety of methods are beingused to help achieve these stan-dards, including sand filter pre-treatment. Monitoring methods arealso being developed to determinethe efficiency of treatment thatoccurs in subsurface absorptiontrenches of different dimensionsand depths. In addition, a subsur-face trench has been designed tomaximize removal of nitrogen andpathogens.

Paradise’s plan for public educationinvolves obtaining the assistance

of secondary school students andundergraduate engineering stu-dents.

Results SharedMonitoring of all six demonstra-tion projects is expected to becompleted by the end of Septem-ber 1997. Plans for a detailed tech-nical report on each project andinformational materials for thegeneral public are scheduled to bepublished by NSFC later this year.

Additionally, NODP’s technicalstaff plans to share informationgathered from the NODP effort attechnical and educational confer-ences. Progress reports will also beprovided in Small Flows.

For further information about theNODP and its progress, contactDavid Pask at (800) 624-8301 or(304) 293-4191.

Onsite Projects Tackle Wastewater Problems

Operator Training Packages Available from NETCSCWastewater operatorsin need of treatmenttraining materials maybe interested in threetraining packagesoffered by the Na-tional EnvironmentalTraining Center forSmall Communities(NETCSC).

Developed as intro-ductory training mate-rials, these packagescover the basics of wastewatertreatment and include two parts:the trainer’s portion, which guidesthe user in teaching the course toothers, and the student’s manual,which explains the subject matter.Each package also includes quiz-zes, slides, and a narrative scriptthat illustrates key concepts pre-sented in the materials.

The packages were developed forNETCSC by Linn-Benton Com-munity College in Oregon.

“Lagoons: Facultative andAerated” (Item #TRTPEP10—$88)is a two-part lesson covering theoperation and maintenance of bothfacultative lagoons and aeratedlagoons. Course materials (includ-ing 70 slides) can be presented tooperators in approximately threehours.

The facultative ponds section ex-plains biological theory, includingthe relationship between algae and

the beneficial bacteria. Theimportance of water balance foroptimum plant performance isstressed, and operational processcontrol tactics are outlined.

Additionally, the section discussesstructure and design, lagoon com-ponents, factors affecting treat-ment, start up and maintenance,and lagoon troubleshooting.

The aerated lagoon section coversthe plant configuration requiredand mechanical aeration equipmentneeded for this type of system.Biological aeration requirementsfor horsepower and cost are alsodiscussed as well as factors affect-ing treatment.

The last section in the modulecovers effluent disposal options,including irrigation and directdischarge. Additional items dis-cussed include monitoring andreporting, effluent impact on the

receiving stream, recordkeeping,and groundwater monitoring andsampling.

“Concepts of Biological Treat-ment” (Item #TRTPEP04—$117)is a three-part module coveringbasic biological treatment systems.Estimated delivery time is threehours and includes the presentationof 93 slides.

The “microorganisms” modulegives a summary of the bacteria,protozoa, viruses, fungi, and algaehard at work in a biological treat-ment system. The “environmentalfactors” module discusses themany factors affecting microor-ganisms, including organic matter,growth phases, oxygen require-ments, temperature, and pH condi-tions. The module on “populationdynamics” covers the interrela-tionships among groups ofmicroorganisms.

“Activated Sludge”(item #TRTPEP01—$120) is a five-lessonpackage describing theoperation of the acti-vated sludge secondarytreatment process. Onehundred slides supple-ment the materials. Thelecture and slide presen-tation can be completedin three hours.

The lesson called “re-view of concepts and components”examines various aeration equip-ment, diffusers, and clarifiers.“Operation variations and modes”explores the four variations thatcan be used in activated sludgefacilities—high rate, conventional,contact stabilization, and extendedaeration.

The “biological nature of activatedsludge” lesson discusses bacteria,oxidation pressure, microorgan-isms, contact stabilization, and flocformation. “Sludge quality” furtherexamines oxidation pressure aswell as aeration tanks, sludge colorand odor, secondary clarifiers, andsettleometer and centrifuge con-trol. The “process control calcula-tions” lesson is designed to helpplant operators monitor and controlthe activated sludge process.

To order any of these trainingcurricula, contact NETCSC at(800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191,and request the curriculum by itsitem number.

Lagoons:Facultative andAerated

Sponsored by:The National EnvironmentalTraining Center for Small CommunitiesWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064(800) 624-8301

Developed by:Linn-Benton Community CollegeWater and Wastewater Technology6500 S.W. Pacific Blvd.Albany, OR 97321

NA

TIO

NAL ENVIRONM

ENTA

L

TR

A IN IN G CENTER

Trainer’s Guide andParticipant Materials

For Wastewater Operators

Activated Sludge

Developed by:Linn-Benton Community CollegeWater and Wastewater Technology6500 S.W. Pacific Blvd.Albany, OR 97321

Sponsored by:The National EnvironmentalTraining Center for Small Communities (NETCSC)West Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064(800) 624-8301

NA

TIO

NAL ENVIRONM

ENTA

L

TR

A IN IN G CENTER

Trainer’s Guide andParticipant Materials

For Wastewater Operators

NA

TIO

NAL ENVIRONM

ENTA

L

TR

A IN IN G CENTER

Concepts ofBiologicalTreatment

Trainer’s Guide andParticipant Materials

Developed by:Linn-Benton Community CollegeWater and Wastewater Technology6500 S.W. Pacific Blvd.Albany, OR 97321

Sponsored by:The National EnvironmentalTraining Center for Small Communities (NETCSC)West Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064(800) 624-8301

For Wastewater Operators

Continued from previous page

14 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

If your organization is sponsoring an event that you would like to have promoted in thiscalendar, please send information to the Small Flows editor.

S M T W T F S

1815

22

29

2916

23

30

310

17

24

714

21

28

613

20

27

512

19

26

411

18

25

Calendar of Events

even

tsMAYEvent: Compost Facility Operator

TrainingBy: Louisiana State University

Agricultural CenterDate: May 13–16Place: Baton Rouge, LAPhone: (504) 388-5920

Bill Carney

Event: Effective MaintenanceManagement: Tools ToImprove Productivity,Reliability and CostControl

By: University of WashingtonCollege of Engineering

Date: May 14–16Place: Seattle, WAPhone: (206) 543-5539

Event: Wastewater TreatmentBy: American Society of Civil

EngineersDate: May 14–16Place: San Diego, CAPhone: (703) 295-6007

Jane Herbstreit (Note: This course is also scheduled for June 11–13 in Raleigh/ Durham, NC.)

Event: Negotiating EnvironmentalAgreements

By: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology

Date: May 15–16Place: Cambridge, MAPhone: (617) 239-1111

Carol Sloane

Event: Second Biennial GreatLake Student Summit:Exploring OurWatersheds

By: Erie County Departmentof EnvironmentalPlanning, Erie CountyEnvironmentalEducation Institute, EPAGreat Lakes NationalProgram Office, BuffaloPublic Schools, BuffaloState College, New YorkSea Grant, East AuroraUnion Free Schools, andU.S. Fish and WildlifeServices

Date: May 15–16Place: Buffalo, NYPhone: (716) 858-6370

Tina Preston

Event: Environmental GIS:Applications toIndustrial Facilities

By: University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Center forContinuing EngineeringEducation

Date: May 15–16Place: Milwaukee, WIPhone: (414) 227-3173

Steven Helminiak

Event: 8th Global WarmingInternational Conference

By: Columbia University andSUPCON International

Date: May 26–29Place: New York, NYPhone: (630) 910-1551

Dr. Sinyan Shen

Event: Municipal Storm WaterManagement

By: American Society of CivilEngineers

Date: May 29–30Place: Chicago, ILPhone: (703) 295-6007

Jane Herbstreit

Event: Great Lakes UnitedAnnual Meeting

By: Great Lakes UnitedDate: May 30–June 2Place: Bolton, Ontario, CanadaPhone: (716) 886-0142

JUNEEvent: Minnesota Onsite Sewage

Treatment Workshop:Design

By: University of Minnesota,Minnesota ExtensionService, and MinnesotaPollution Control Agency

Date: June 2–4Place: Eveleth, MNPhone: (800) 955-8636

David Cloud (Note: This course is also scheduled for July 7–9 in Fergus Falls, MN.)

Event: New York State’s 10thAnnual Pollution Preven-tion Conference

By: New York State Depart-ment of EnvironmentalConservation PollutionPrevention Unit, TheBusiness Council of NewYork State, Inc., and TheEnvironmental BusinessAssociation of New YorkState, Inc.

Date: June 3–4Place: Albany, NYPhone: (518) 457-2553

Dottie O’Hare

Event: Onsite Wastewater Dis-posal Systems (three-dayclass)

By: Rutgers University CookCollege of ContinuingProfessional Education

Date: June 4, 11, and 18Place: New Brunswick, NJPhone: (908) 932-9271

Claudia Pensak

Event: Working with theNational Flood InsuranceProgram

By: American Society of CivilEngineers

Date: June 5–6Place: Baltimore, MDPhone: (800) 548-2723 (Note: This course is also scheduled for June 19–20 in Cincinnati, OH; September 11–12 in Atlanta, GA;and September 25–26 in NewOrleans, LA.)

Event: Minnesota Onsite SewageTreatment Workshop:Pumpers

By: University of Minnesota,Minnesota ExtensionService, and MinnesotaPollution Control Agency

Date: June 5–6Place: Eveleth, MNPhone: (800) 955-8636

David Cloud

Event: First Symposium onMarine ConservationBiology

By: Society for ConservationBiology

Date: June 6–9Place: Victoria, British Columbia,

CanadaPhone: (250) 721-8470

Pat McGuire

Event: New England WaterEnvironment AssociationSpring Meeting

By: New England WaterEnvironment Association

Date: June 7–11Place: Portsmouth, NHPhone: (508) 658-4048

Elizabeth Haffner

Event: Minnesota Onsite SewageTreatment Workshop:Basic

By: University of Minnesota,Minnesota ExtensionService, and MinnesotaPollution Control Agency

Date: June 9–11Place: Fergus Falls, MNPhone: (800) 955-8636

David Cloud

Event: American Water WorksAssociation’s Annual(AWWA) Conference andExposition

By: AWWADate: June 15–19Place: Atlanta, GAPhone: (303) 347-6195

Rick Harmon

1 9 9 7

15SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 2

1 9 9 7Calendar of Events

Event: Minnesota Onsite SewageTreatment Workshop:Soils

By: University of Minnesota,Minnesota ExtensionService, and MinnesotaPollution Control Agency

Date: June 19–20Place: Austin, MNPhone: (800) 955-8636

David Cloud (Note: This course is also scheduled for June 25–26 in St. Cloud, MN; July 10–11 in Marshall, MN; July 17–18 in Bemidji, MN; and July 24–25 in Grand Rapids, MI.)

Event: The U.S. EnvironmentalLaws and RegulationsCourse

By: Government InstitutesDate: June 23–25Place: Albuquerque, NMPhone: (301) 921-2345

Jesus Ferro(Note: This course is also scheduledfor July 23–25 in Chicago, IL andAugust 11–13 in Hilton Head, SC.)

Event: National EnvironmentalHealth Association’sAnnual Conference

By: National EnvironmentalHealth Association

Date: June 28–July 2Place: Washington, DCPhone: (303) 756-9090(See article on page 8.)

Event: UCOWR ’97 and WaterResources, Education,Training, and PracticeJoint Meeting

By: University Council onWater Resources andAmerican Water Re-sources Association

Date: June 29–July 3Place: Keystone, COPhone: (703) 904-1225

Ken Reid

Regulators should be required toattend courses annually on reliabil-ity and new technology of waste-water treatment.

A major step by EPA would be torequire all states to allow any newand successfully demonstratedsewage system funded by EPAwhenever the same conditionsexists.

Only objective performance rulesand regulations, based on the finalsystem output measured by a certi-fied laboratory analysis will allow

LETTERS . . . continued

new, low-cost technology for alter-native wastewater treatment systems.

Such a change will help protect theenvironment, reduce costly andunnecessary litigation, and reducethe credibility gap of the regula-tors. This would allow the propertyowner the freedom of choice ofcost-effective systems.

Sincerely,Bert W. KutyM.B.A., M.S.M.E., J.D.P.O. Box 1258Centralia, WA 98532

Water, Sewage QuestionsDropped from CensusThe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and other governmentagencies have expressed concernover the decision to drop drinkingwater and wastewater questionsfrom the year 2000 U.S. Census.

The Census is conducted every 10years, and topics to be coveredmust be submitted to Congressthree years in advance.

In previous decades, Census formsasked residents to identify thesource of their drinking watersupply and the type of wastewatertreatment for their households.

The questions were dropped aspart of an overall effort to reducethe number of questions posed toresidents, according to a U.S. Cen-sus Bureau official. The 2000Census will contain only thosequestions the bureau is required ormandated to ask by law.

The bureau had asked for com-ments from government agenciesand others who might be adverselyaffected by the decision to cut thedrinking water and wastewaterquestions.

In its response, the EPA stated thatit would be less able to assess the

potential impact of environmentalpolicy. EPA expressed additionalconcern that it might be forced tocollect this information on its ownat an added expense and poten-tially with less accuracy.

As an example, Sylvia Bell, EPAprogram analyst, referred to the$50 million in funding the agencyis distributing to states as part ofthe Hardship Grants Program forRural Communities. To allocatefunding to the states, EPA usedwastewater data collected in the1990 Census.

“The Census data was the onlysource of reliable and consistentinformation from which an alloca-tion formula could be developed,”Bell said.

Health and Human Services ex-pressed similar concerns about thepotential expense of having tocollect data on its own. Concernswere also raised by the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, the Veter-ans Administration, and Housingand Urban Development.

Prior to the 1990 census, decisionsto drop questions were reversedafter public concerns were raised.

JULYEvent: Collection Systems Reha-

bilitation and Operationand Maintenance:Solving Today’s Prob-lems and MeetingTomorrow’s Needs

By: Water EnvironmentFederation

Date: July 13–16Place: Kansas City, MOPhone: (703) 684-2400

Event: The Clean Water InstituteBy: Government InstitutesDate: July 21–24Place: Hilton Head, SCPhone: (301) 921-2345

Jesus Ferro

Event: 51st Interstate Environ-mental Health Seminar

By: Alabama EnvironmentalHealth Association

Date: July 23–25Place: Gulf Shores, ALPhone: (334) 275-4177

Jackie Holliday

Event: Soil and Water Conserva-tion Society’s 52ndAnnual Meeting

By: Soil and Water Conserva-tion Society

Date: July 23–26Place: Toronto, CanadaPhone: (515) 289-2331

(800) THE-SOIL

Event: 1997 AdirondackWaterfest

By: Warren County (NY) Soiland Water ConservationDistrict, GreaterAdirondack RC&D

Date: July 25Place: Lake George Village, NYPhone: (518) 623-3090

Marc Usher

http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu

Visit our Web site forinformation on theNational Small FlowsClearinghouse and oursister organizations, theNational EnvironmentalTraining Center forSmall Communities andthe National DrinkingWater Clearinghouse.

16 SMALL FLOWS -Spring 1997; Vol.11, No. 1

NA

TIO

NAL SMALL FLOW

S

CL EA R INGHOUS

E

National Small Flows ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

14

Also in this issue

Small FlowsVolume 11, Number 2, Spring 1997

61012

Vermicomposting Biosolids withEarthworms

NSFC Aids Development of OnsiteTraining Center

EPA Urging New Emphasis for SRF

Q&A: Septic Tank Additives

Onsite Projects Tackle WastewaterProblems

Treatment Critical to CurbingWaterborne Disease see page 1

NONPROFITORGANIZATIONU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 34

MORGANTOWN, WV