susan rask barnstable county department of health and environment

Projected Use of Projected Use of Innovative/Alternative Innovative/Alternative

On-site Sewage On-site Sewage Treatment Systems in Treatment Systems in

Eastham, Eastham, Under Current Under Current

Regulations and PoliciesRegulations and Policies

Susan RaskSusan Rask

Barnstable County Barnstable County

Department of Health and EnvironmentDepartment of Health and Environment

Project funded by Project funded by Barnstable County Barnstable County

Wastewater Implementation Wastewater Implementation Committee (WIC)Committee (WIC)

Project GoalsProject Goals

Examine existing regulations and Board of Examine existing regulations and Board of Health policies that require or encourage Health policies that require or encourage use of I/A systemsuse of I/A systems

Use this information to project how many Use this information to project how many I/A systems might be installed over next I/A systems might be installed over next 20 years, and where these might be 20 years, and where these might be installedinstalled

Provide information about initial and long Provide information about initial and long term costs of I/A systems, so these can be term costs of I/A systems, so these can be compared to other alternativescompared to other alternatives

Project MethodologyProject Methodology

6152 lots in Eastham6152 lots in Eastham Could not examine on case-by-case Could not examine on case-by-case

basisbasis Use of reasonable assumptions to Use of reasonable assumptions to

compensate for missing informationcompensate for missing information Use of GIS to analyze parcels and Use of GIS to analyze parcels and

graphically show resultsgraphically show results Analysis linked to Eastham drinking Analysis linked to Eastham drinking

water quality databasewater quality database

Criteria for Installation of I/A Criteria for Installation of I/A

Criteria 1: Board of Health policyCriteria 1: Board of Health policy– For new construction or upgrades For new construction or upgrades

of existing systemsof existing systems When SAS < 100 ft. to any drinking When SAS < 100 ft. to any drinking

water wellwater well When SAS < 75 ft. to edge of wetland When SAS < 75 ft. to edge of wetland

resourceresource

Criteria for Installation of I/ACriteria for Installation of I/A

CriteriaCriteria 2: Public Water supplies2: Public Water suppliesA public water supply is any well that A public water supply is any well that serves more than 25 people for more serves more than 25 people for more than 60 days per yearthan 60 days per year

In Eastham, most are Transient, Non-In Eastham, most are Transient, Non-Community wells at restaurants and Community wells at restaurants and motelsmotels

39 in Eastham, primarily on Rt. 639 in Eastham, primarily on Rt. 6

Criteria for installation of I/ACriteria for installation of I/A

Criteria 3: Title 5 requirementsCriteria 3: Title 5 requirements I/A required I/A required

– For NEW CONSTRUCTION on residential For NEW CONSTRUCTION on residential lots with well and septic, if design flow lots with well and septic, if design flow exceeds 440 gpd/acreexceeds 440 gpd/acre

Title 5 and DEP policy that BOHs consider Title 5 and DEP policy that BOHs consider requiring I/A requiring I/A – For existing systems at time of upgrade, For existing systems at time of upgrade,

if design flow > 440 gpd/acre and if design flow > 440 gpd/acre and nearby wells showing elevated nitratesnearby wells showing elevated nitrates

Criteria 1: Board of Health Criteria 1: Board of Health policypolicy

When SAS <100 ft to any drinking water When SAS <100 ft to any drinking water wellwell– Could not be directly determined, due to Could not be directly determined, due to

lack of information on septic and well lack of information on septic and well locations locations

– Surrogate: Surrogate: All parcels <10,000 s.f. were likely not to be able All parcels <10,000 s.f. were likely not to be able

to meet 100 ft setback, and were projected for to meet 100 ft setback, and were projected for I/AI/A

Parcels > 20,000 s.f. were assumed to generally Parcels > 20,000 s.f. were assumed to generally be able to fit well and septic be able to fit well and septic

Parcels >10,000 but <20,000: examined wetland Parcels >10,000 but <20,000: examined wetland coverage on parcel, size of surrounding parcels, coverage on parcel, size of surrounding parcels, bedroom density, and well water quality and bedroom density, and well water quality and made decision on lot-by-lot basismade decision on lot-by-lot basis

Criteria 1: Board of Health policyCriteria 1: Board of Health policy When SAS <100 ft to any drinking water When SAS <100 ft to any drinking water

wellwell

RESULTS:RESULTS: I/A projected onI/A projected on Parcels <10,000 s.f. =Parcels <10,000 s.f. = 276 I/A projected 276 I/A projected

Shown in pink on Map 2Shown in pink on Map 2

Parcels >10,000 but <20,000 s.f. :Parcels >10,000 but <20,000 s.f. : == 282 I/A 282 I/A projected projected Shown in blue on Map 2Shown in blue on Map 2

Parcels Parcels >> 20,000 s.f. = 0 I/A projected 20,000 s.f. = 0 I/A projected but these parcels were examined under but these parcels were examined under Criteria 3 to see if they met 440 gpd/acre Criteria 3 to see if they met 440 gpd/acre standard standard


When SAS <75 ft from edge of wetlandWhen SAS <75 ft from edge of wetland– Could not be directly determined, due to Could not be directly determined, due to

lack of information on septic and house lack of information on septic and house footprint footprint

– Surrogate: For each parcelSurrogate: For each parcel Mapped wetland coverage Mapped wetland coverage Mapped 75 ft buffer zone beyond wetland Mapped 75 ft buffer zone beyond wetland

boundary (BOH setback criteria)boundary (BOH setback criteria) Mapped 10 ft property line offsetMapped 10 ft property line offset Knew house foundation size from assessor Knew house foundation size from assessor

datadata Created “House Footprint” by adding Created “House Footprint” by adding

foundation size plus a 20 ft border around foundation size plus a 20 ft border around foundation, to meet septic setbacksfoundation, to meet septic setbacks


When SAS <75 ft from edge of When SAS <75 ft from edge of wetlandwetland

Area available for SAS = Total lot Area available for SAS = Total lot size –(area of “House Footprint” + size –(area of “House Footprint” + area covered by 75 ft wetland buffer area covered by 75 ft wetland buffer + area covered by 10 ft lotline + area covered by 10 ft lotline setback)setback)

If Area available for SAS < 3000 s.f., If Area available for SAS < 3000 s.f., projected I/A projected I/A


When SAS <75 ft from edge of When SAS <75 ft from edge of wetlandwetland

RESULTS: I/A projected = 482RESULTS: I/A projected = 482– Shown in green on Map 1Shown in green on Map 1

– Recognize that some of these are likely Recognize that some of these are likely all wetland and unbuildable, more all wetland and unbuildable, more realistic number is probably 382realistic number is probably 382

Criteria 2: Public Water Criteria 2: Public Water suppliessupplies

Regulated by 310 CMR 22.00—Regulated by 310 CMR 22.00—Drinking Water regs Drinking Water regs

Zone I: area immediately surrounding Zone I: area immediately surrounding a wella well– For small volume wells, is minimum 100 For small volume wells, is minimum 100

ft radiusft radius IWPA: “zone of contribution”, land IWPA: “zone of contribution”, land

area that may contribute water to wellarea that may contribute water to well– For small volume wells, is minimum 400 For small volume wells, is minimum 400

ft radius around wellft radius around well


310 CMR 15.00—Title 5 requires I/A 310 CMR 15.00—Title 5 requires I/A – When design flow >2000 gpd and septic When design flow >2000 gpd and septic

system will be located in IWPA or Zone II system will be located in IWPA or Zone II of public drinking water supply well of public drinking water supply well

– When septic system is in IWPA and When septic system is in IWPA and design flow exceeds 440 gpd/acre design flow exceeds 440 gpd/acre

– For upgrades of existing systems, when For upgrades of existing systems, when septic components cannot be located septic components cannot be located outside Zone 1 of the welloutside Zone 1 of the well


Most businesses with a public water supply Most businesses with a public water supply well are located on relatively small parcelswell are located on relatively small parcels

400 ft IWPA radius usually covers most or 400 ft IWPA radius usually covers most or all of the parcel, making it difficult to all of the parcel, making it difficult to locate septic outside this radiuslocate septic outside this radius

Most have septic design flows > 440 Most have septic design flows > 440 gpd/acregpd/acre

Most businesses will fit into one of the Most businesses will fit into one of the categories in previous slidecategories in previous slide

All are projected to have I/A systems All are projected to have I/A systems installed = 39. installed = 39. Shown in blue on Map 1Shown in blue on Map 1

Criteria 3: Title 5 requirementsCriteria 3: Title 5 requirements

I/A required I/A required – For NEW CONSTRUCTION on residential For NEW CONSTRUCTION on residential

lots with well and septic, if design flow lots with well and septic, if design flow exceeds 440 gpd/acreexceeds 440 gpd/acre

DEP and Title 5 suggest that BOHs DEP and Title 5 suggest that BOHs consider requiring I/A consider requiring I/A – For existing systems at time of upgrade, For existing systems at time of upgrade,



On residential lots with well and On residential lots with well and septic, Title 5 allowsseptic, Title 5 allows

440 gpd/acre = 4 bedrooms/acre440 gpd/acre = 4 bedrooms/acre

or 2 bedrooms/0.5 acre, etc. or 2 bedrooms/0.5 acre, etc.

i.e. 1 bedroom per 10,000 s.f. lot i.e. 1 bedroom per 10,000 s.f. lot sizesize

Criteria 3: Title 5 Criteria 3: Title 5 requirementsrequirements

Why does Title 5 limit septic design flow Why does Title 5 limit septic design flow to 440 gpd/acre in areas served by to 440 gpd/acre in areas served by private wells?private wells?– Nitrogen loading model predicts that 440 Nitrogen loading model predicts that 440

gpd/acre results in groundwater nitrogen gpd/acre results in groundwater nitrogen concentration of 7.1 mg/L on lot-by–lot basisconcentration of 7.1 mg/L on lot-by–lot basis Protective, based on human health standard of Protective, based on human health standard of

10 mg/L nitrate in drinking water10 mg/L nitrate in drinking water Does not address N loading to coastal Does not address N loading to coastal

embaymentsembayments

Criteria 3: Title 5 requirementsCriteria 3: Title 5 requirements I/A required for NEW CONSTRUCTION on I/A required for NEW CONSTRUCTION on

residential lots with well and septic, if residential lots with well and septic, if design flow exceeds 440 gpd/acredesign flow exceeds 440 gpd/acre– Installation of these systems is usually Installation of these systems is usually

voluntary, i.e. owner wants more bedrooms voluntary, i.e. owner wants more bedrooms and is willing to install I/A system and is willing to install I/A system

– Not predictable, so unable to projectNot predictable, so unable to project– Could result in a significant number over timeCould result in a significant number over time

Note: New Construction = addition of new design Note: New Construction = addition of new design flowflow


DEP and Title 5 suggest that BOHs DEP and Title 5 suggest that BOHs consider requiring I/A consider requiring I/A – For existing systems at time of upgrade, For existing systems at time of upgrade,



To approach this problem, we To approach this problem, we mapped:mapped:– Most recent water quality data for each Most recent water quality data for each

lotlot– Bedroom density on each lot Bedroom density on each lot

Equivalent to 4,5,6,7,8+ BR/acreEquivalent to 4,5,6,7,8+ BR/acre

Shown on Map 3Shown on Map 3

Criteria 3: Title 5 requirementsCriteria 3: Title 5 requirementsBedroom density and nitrate levelsBedroom density and nitrate levels

Results: Map 3Results: Map 3– Lots showing elevated nitrates (Lots showing elevated nitrates (>> 2 mg/L) 2 mg/L)

are widespread, esp in northern end of townare widespread, esp in northern end of town– Number of water samples showing nitrates Number of water samples showing nitrates

>> 2 mg/L constitute 50.4% of all samples 2 mg/L constitute 50.4% of all samples– Bedroom density is not directly correlated Bedroom density is not directly correlated

with nitrate level on its own lotwith nitrate level on its own lot– Wells showing nitrate Wells showing nitrate > > 5 mg/L are likely 5 mg/L are likely

due to “short circuiting”due to “short circuiting”

NO3

Nitrate

Downgradient well

Leach field

Drinking wells intercepting plume at different distances from plume source and therefore showing different concentrations of nitrate


““Short circuiting” is occurring due to Short circuiting” is occurring due to small lot size and large number of small lot size and large number of wells and septic systems; wells and septic systems;

High number of samples > 2mg/L High number of samples > 2mg/L validates that entire groundwater validates that entire groundwater system is showing nitrogen impacts system is showing nitrogen impacts from septic systemsfrom septic systems

Nitrate Nitrate Level, mg/LLevel, mg/L

Number of Number of SamplesSamples

% of % of TotalTotal

Degree of N Degree of N impactimpact

<1<1 10591059 26.426.4 unimpactedunimpacted

1-5.991-5.99 25592559 6464 moderately moderately impacted impacted

6-9.996-9.99 293293 7.37.3 significantly significantly impactedimpacted

>10>10 9191 2.32.3 Above safe Above safe drinking limitdrinking limit

TOTALTOTAL 40024002

Current Eastham Drinking Well Results

Historical Trend of Nitrate levels in Wells, Historical Trend of Nitrate levels in Wells,

1981-20061981-2006 shown as percent of total samplesshown as percent of total samples

Nitrate Nitrate range, range, mg/Lmg/L

Current Current Data, 2003-Data, 2003-20062006

1987-1987-19961996

1981-1981-1986 1986 Nauset Nauset LensLens

<1<1 2626 39.439.4 61.861.8

1-2.991-2.99 4040 36.136.1 24.324.3

3-4.993-4.99 1919 12.312.3 6.76.7

5-9.995-9.99 12.412.4 8.98.9 5.15.1

>>1010 2.32.3 3.43.4 22

Nitrate Levels in Eastham Residential Wells, Showing Percent of Total Samples in Each Range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

<1 1-2.99 3-4.99 5-9.99 ≥ 10

Nitrate Range, mg/L

Per

cent

of

Sam

ples Current Data 2003-2006

1987-1996

1981-1986 Nauset Lens


Results: Map 3Results: Map 3– Lots showing elevated nitrates (Lots showing elevated nitrates (>> 2 mg/L) 2 mg/L)

are widespread, esp in northern end of are widespread, esp in northern end of towntown

– Lots showing nitrates > 5 mg/L appear to Lots showing nitrates > 5 mg/L appear to be randomly distributedbe randomly distributed

– Bedroom density does not appear to be Bedroom density does not appear to be correlated with nitrate level on its own lotcorrelated with nitrate level on its own lot

– Many lots exceed 440 gpd/acre Many lots exceed 440 gpd/acre


How to deal with this information?How to deal with this information?

Developed scenarios for installation of Developed scenarios for installation of I/AI/A– Lots with Lots with >>6 BR/acre and nitrates > 5 6 BR/acre and nitrates > 5

mg/Lmg/L147 lots shown in 147 lots shown in light blue on Map 4light blue on Map 4– Lots of 10-20,000 s.f. with > 4 BR/acre Lots of 10-20,000 s.f. with > 4 BR/acre

and nitrates > 3 mg/Land nitrates > 3 mg/L

90 lots shown in 90 lots shown in pink on Map 4pink on Map 4


Results in very random distribution of I/A Results in very random distribution of I/A systemssystems

Not recommendedNot recommended way to use these way to use these systems becausesystems because– Does not address groundwater N loading in a Does not address groundwater N loading in a

coherent waycoherent way– Will likely not solve problem of lots with Will likely not solve problem of lots with

elevated nitrateselevated nitrates– Expensive for homeownersExpensive for homeowners– Management issues with single family I/A sManagement issues with single family I/A s

Bedroom DensityBedroom DensityBedroom Bedroom Equivalency per Equivalency per AcreAcre

Number Number of of ParcelsParcels

% of Total % of Total Number of Number of Parcels in TownParcels in Town

<<44 23312331 3838

55 12561256 2020

66 625625 1010

77 393393 6.56.5

8+8+ 524524 8.58.545% of total parcels in town exceed 4 BR/acre or 440 gpd/acre guideline (this doesn’t include analysis of commercial flow vs. lot size)

Criteria 3: Density vs. lot Criteria 3: Density vs. lot sizesize

45% of total parcels in town exceed 4 BR/acre or 440 gpd/acre guideline

If 440 gpd/acre = 7.1 mg/L N in If 440 gpd/acre = 7.1 mg/L N in groundwater, its not surprising that groundwater, its not surprising that Eastham has a number of lots Eastham has a number of lots showing elevated nitratesshowing elevated nitrates

Unlikely that groundwater quality will Unlikely that groundwater quality will improveimprove

Summary of Projected I/AsSummary of Projected I/As 9393 Currently permittedCurrently permitted 276276 Criteria 1A: parcels <10,000 s.f.Criteria 1A: parcels <10,000 s.f. 372372 Criteria 1B: insufficient setback to Criteria 1B: insufficient setback to

wetlandswetlands 3939 Criteria 2: public water suppliesCriteria 2: public water supplies 9090 Criteria 3: parcels 10-20,000 s.f. Criteria 3: parcels 10-20,000 s.f.

with > 4BR/acre and with > 4BR/acre and nitrates>3 nitrates>3 mg/Lmg/L

147147 Criteria 3: parcels with >6 BR/acre Criteria 3: parcels with >6 BR/acre and and nitrates >5 mg/Lnitrates >5 mg/L

10171017TOTALTOTAL

Summary of Projected I/AsSummary of Projected I/As

10171017 Projected Projected Shown on Map 4 Shown on Map 4 Randomly distributed around townRandomly distributed around town Random distribution will do little to Random distribution will do little to

address groundwater nitrogen in a address groundwater nitrogen in a coherent waycoherent way

I/A Systems: ConsiderationsI/A Systems: Considerations

Perception that I/A systems are quick Perception that I/A systems are quick and inexpensive fix and inexpensive fix

Not TrueNot True– Costly over life of systemCostly over life of system– Stringent O&M and sampling Stringent O&M and sampling

requirements when used for nitrogen requirements when used for nitrogen reductionreduction

– Variable performanceVariable performance– At best, remove 50% of nitrogenAt best, remove 50% of nitrogen– Impose management burden on townImpose management burden on town

I/A Systems: EconomicsI/A Systems: Economics

Individual I/A on-sites are not Individual I/A on-sites are not inexpensiveinexpensive

Installation cost: $10,000 above cost of Installation cost: $10,000 above cost of Title 5 systemTitle 5 system

Significant Annual CostsSignificant Annual Costs Operation and Maintenance contract ($1200)Operation and Maintenance contract ($1200) Electricity costs ($350)Electricity costs ($350) Effluent Sampling ($400, included in cost of Effluent Sampling ($400, included in cost of

O&M)O&M)

Total annual cost to operate= $1550Total annual cost to operate= $1550

I/A Systems: EconomicsI/A Systems: Economics Present value cost of I/A systemPresent value cost of I/A system

Present value analysis brings all costs Present value analysis brings all costs associated with system installation, associated with system installation, maintenance and operation of the maintenance and operation of the system, over the entire life of the system, over the entire life of the system, into present dollarssystem, into present dollars

i.e. How much money would I have to i.e. How much money would I have to set aside today to cover all costs set aside today to cover all costs associated with the system over it’s life associated with the system over it’s life span?span?

I/A Systems: EconomicsI/A Systems: Economics Present value cost of I/A systemPresent value cost of I/A system

Assumptions:Assumptions:– Installation cost $10,000Installation cost $10,000– Annual O&M contract $1200/yrAnnual O&M contract $1200/yr– Electricity to operate $350/yrElectricity to operate $350/yr– Quarterly inspection and effluent samplingQuarterly inspection and effluent sampling– 20 year life of system20 year life of system– 5% interest rate5% interest rate

Yields present value of roughly Yields present value of roughly $35,000.$35,000.

I/A Systems: EconomicsI/A Systems: Economics Present value cost of I/A system Present value cost of I/A system

including Title 5 componentsincluding Title 5 componentsInitial costs:Initial costs:

I/A unit $10,000I/A unit $10,000

Title 5 components $10-20,000Title 5 components $10-20,000

Brings total initial cost to $20-30,000Brings total initial cost to $20-30,000

Brings present value cost to $45-Brings present value cost to $45-55,00055,000

Economics of I/A systemsEconomics of I/A systems

Assume present value for each I/A Assume present value for each I/A system is $45,000 system is $45,000

Use conservative assumption of 1000 Use conservative assumption of 1000 I/A installedI/A installed

Total projected wastewater Total projected wastewater infrastructure cost present value infrastructure cost present value =$45,000,000.=$45,000,000.

Is this the best use of $$$?Is this the best use of $$$?

Economics of I/A systems vs. Economics of I/A systems vs. sewering to small collection sewering to small collection plantplant Falmouth New Silver Beach Project:Falmouth New Silver Beach Project:

– 220 homes, gravity collection system to 220 homes, gravity collection system to small treatment plant; plant and effluent small treatment plant; plant and effluent disposal on town owned property disposal on town owned property

– Total cost estimate: $12.2 millionTotal cost estimate: $12.2 million– Per home cost: $55,000Per home cost: $55,000

Payable as betterment over 20 years at 5% Payable as betterment over 20 years at 5% interestinterest

I/A Systems I/A Systems Individual Residential Use Individual Residential Use

PerformancePerformance Most I/A systems remove nitrogen Most I/A systems remove nitrogen

and organic matter (BOD) from and organic matter (BOD) from wastewater, but are only somewhat wastewater, but are only somewhat effective in removing pathogens, effective in removing pathogens, unless additional components—such unless additional components—such a UV treatment—are used.a UV treatment—are used.– I/A systems are not a substitute for I/A systems are not a substitute for

meeting Title 5 setback requirements.meeting Title 5 setback requirements.

I/A Systems I/A Systems Individual Residential Use Individual Residential Use

PerformancePerformance How well do various systems work?How well do various systems work?

– Only 2 technologies have been granted Only 2 technologies have been granted General Use Approval for nitrogen General Use Approval for nitrogen reduction by DEP— recirculating sand reduction by DEP— recirculating sand filters (RSFs) and RUCK systemsfilters (RSFs) and RUCK systems

– 2 technologies (Bioclere, FAST) that had 2 technologies (Bioclere, FAST) that had Provisional Use Approval for nitrogen Provisional Use Approval for nitrogen reduction may no longer be installed reduction may no longer be installed and DEP has not granted them General and DEP has not granted them General Use Approval for nitrogen reduction.Use Approval for nitrogen reduction.

I/A Systems Individual I/A Systems Individual Residential Use PerformanceResidential Use Performance

At present, only 2 technologies may At present, only 2 technologies may be installed, under Piloting Use be installed, under Piloting Use Approval, for nitrogen reduction—Approval, for nitrogen reduction—Amphidrome, Waterloo Biofilter. Amphidrome, Waterloo Biofilter.

Only a small number of these Only a small number of these systems will be allowed, per the systems will be allowed, per the terms of Piloting Approvalterms of Piloting Approval


To keep costs low and to keep To keep costs low and to keep maintenance minimal for homeowners, maintenance minimal for homeowners, most are designed to be as simple and most are designed to be as simple and as passive as possibleas passive as possible

Gravity flow where possibleGravity flow where possible Water flows through system by Water flows through system by

hydraulic displacement hydraulic displacement i.e. Water In = Water Outi.e. Water In = Water Out


No Surge Capacity results in varying No Surge Capacity results in varying amounts of residence time and amounts of residence time and therefore treatment of individual therefore treatment of individual “slugs” of water“slugs” of water

Results in inconsistent levels of Results in inconsistent levels of treatmenttreatment

I/A Systems Individual I/A Systems Individual Residential UseResidential Use Performance Performance

Residential Wastewater is highly Residential Wastewater is highly variable in strength and compositionvariable in strength and composition– From residence to residenceFrom residence to residence– From hour to hour and day to day within From hour to hour and day to day within

one residenceone residence

– Results in inconsistent levels of Results in inconsistent levels of treatment treatment

Total Nitrogen Results 172 Capt. Nickerson Rd., Yarmouth

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sample event

TN, m

g/L Nitrate (effluent)

TKN (effluent)

Total Nitrogen(effluent)

Effluent Total Nitrogen, Residential Provisional Systems,

2000-2005, Start-up Data Excluded

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 100 200 300 400 500

Sample Number

To

tal N

itro

ge

n, m

g/L

Series1

Average TN=18.4 median=15.2 mg/L

66% of samples met 20 mg/L limit but 33% did not

I/A Systems for Individual I/A Systems for Individual Residential UseResidential Use Seasonal UseSeasonal Use

Seasonally occupied homesSeasonally occupied homes– All technologies work by biological All technologies work by biological

treatment of wastes. It takes at least 4-treatment of wastes. It takes at least 4-6 weeks after start up to bring the 6 weeks after start up to bring the bacterial populations that digest the bacterial populations that digest the sewage up to effective levels.sewage up to effective levels.

– Full nitrogen reduction is not achieved Full nitrogen reduction is not achieved until 4-6 weeks after seasonal start-up.until 4-6 weeks after seasonal start-up.

Management IssuesManagement Issues

Homeowners resist paying annual Homeowners resist paying annual costs, so maintenance contracts lapse, costs, so maintenance contracts lapse, O&M and sampling are not performed O&M and sampling are not performed

People want to put these systems in People want to put these systems in the ground and forget about them, the the ground and forget about them, the way we’ve always been able to do way we’ve always been able to do with our Title 5 systems.with our Title 5 systems.


– Owners have financial incentives to turn Owners have financial incentives to turn systems off and to discontinue O&M systems off and to discontinue O&M contracts.contracts.

– Many systems do not always operate Many systems do not always operate optimally and, unless followed up by optimally and, unless followed up by Health Dept. staff, many operators seem Health Dept. staff, many operators seem to show little interest in re-visiting a to show little interest in re-visiting a system to “tweak” its performance.system to “tweak” its performance.

– Extra visits by the system operator to Extra visits by the system operator to “tweak” the system cost homeowners “tweak” the system cost homeowners extra operator and laboratory fees.extra operator and laboratory fees.


I/A treatment systems are I/A treatment systems are performance basedperformance based

EPA recommends that performance EPA recommends that performance based systems be managed by based systems be managed by Responsible Management Entity (RME)Responsible Management Entity (RME)

RME can be RME can be – Town wastewater district Town wastewater district – Municipal operatorsMunicipal operators– Regional wastewater district Regional wastewater district

Bigger Picture ConcernsBigger Picture Concerns

Installation of I/A systems may Installation of I/A systems may preclude better wastewater preclude better wastewater solutionssolutions

– Once owners have spent the money to Once owners have spent the money to upgrade their system to I/A, they are upgrade their system to I/A, they are unlikely to support cost of sewering their unlikely to support cost of sewering their neighborhoodneighborhood

Bigger Picture ConcernsBigger Picture Concerns

How do I/A systems fit in with larger How do I/A systems fit in with larger water and wastewater planning efforts water and wastewater planning efforts in town?in town?– Comprehensive Wastewater Facilities PlanComprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan– Where will I/A systems fit in this plan?Where will I/A systems fit in this plan?– From management and financial From management and financial

standpoint, a planned approach is more standpoint, a planned approach is more effective than installing systems randomly effective than installing systems randomly all over town.all over town.

susan rask barnstable county department of health and environment

Documents