Intermountain States On-Site Wastewater
Treatment Forum
July 27-28, 1999
Utah State University
The Utah On-Site Wastewater Treatment Training Center at the Utah
Water Research Laboratory (UWRL),
in partnership with the Huntsman
Environmental Research Center and Utah
State University, sponsored the first-ever on-site wastewater
treatment forum for representatives from the states of the Intermountain
West. The two-day forum, held at Utah State University in late
July, 1999, brought together over 40 on-site wastewater professionals
from Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah,
and Wyoming to discuss common on-site issues. The goal of the forum,
according to Dr. Ronald Sims, Director of UWRL and Session 1 facilitator,
was to establish a communications network so that states in the
Intermountain West could exchange information, develop collaborative
opportunities, and learn about on—site wastewater treatment
advances in other locales. The forum focused on on-site wastewater
resources, on-site policies and regulations, the role of outreach
and technology transfer, and on-site educational and research programs.
Sims discussed the history of the Utah On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Training Center, its relationship to UWRL, and introduced Steve
Iverson, the forum coordinator and Training Center manager.
A number of nationally recognized on-site wastewater experts addressed
the issues of availability of resources, information, and organizational
support on the national level. Their overall emphasis was on the
advantages of networking and communications among on-site practitioners–from
the engineer to the installer to the homeowner.
Keynote speaker, Dr. Mike Hoover, Director of the National Training
Center for Land-based Technology and Watershed Technology at North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, highlighted the need for networking
and communication. He emphasized his belief that the rapid growth
seen in the western United States means water will be a key issue
because growth can only be sustained by sustaining water quality
and quantity. He encouraged forum participants to think of water
in broad terms, looking toward at least a 20-year level of sustainability.
He also lamented the fact that on-site wastewater treatment has historically
been given short shrift in college engineering classes, which means
many engineers are not as prepared to deal with on-site issues as
they should be. He noted that he had a number of concerns, most notably
on-site treatment systems installed in poor soils (e.g., fractured
shale within a foot of the surface), the lack of understanding of
soil development processes, reliance on percolation tests without
a clear understanding of soil morphology, and planners and engineers
forced to choose between implementing a poorly maintained individual
system or a highly technical (and costly) public one. Hoover expressed
hope that communities can be provided a wastewater "menu" so they
have a choice of options and stated his support for the concept of
centralized management of decentralized systems.
Dr. Richard Phalunas, professor, West Virginia State University,
and associate manager of the Environmental Services Training Division
of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy, represented
the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities
(NETCSC) and the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC). Phalunas
explained his involvement in four national programs: NSFC, two
EPA-sponsored programs–one an on-site demonstration program,
the other a training center dealing with solid waste and drinking
water issues–and a national drinking water clearinghouse.
All offer information, technical assistance, training, and training
assistance–for example, developing model curricula–and
they sponsor demonstrations that cover technology transfer and
educational management. The programs target consultants, engineers,
regulators, waste treaters, local officials, operators, and city
planners, and all collect information that they process, store,
and disseminate. He pointed out their services are in great demand:
monthly they receive over 2,100 telephone calls, get more than
1,400 web-site hits, and receive over 10,000 product information
requests.
Phalunas also explained the three-step program used to develop "non-site" demonstration
programs: selecting communities for installing proven/appropriate
technologies, developing monitoring programs by forming management
systems, and emphasizing technology transfer by creating communication
networks. The collective goal of these programs is to provide demonstration
projects in all 50 states, with a focus on under-served areas, such
as reservations, border communities, and underfunded counties. Phalunas
pointed out that concern is warranted: there were 26 million septic
tanks in use in 1990 (24% of households). By 2020, there will be
37 million. About one in ten will not be functioning properly, and
that presents a significant problem that will need addressing. He
concluded by giving the web site address where attendees could find
statistics, i.e., state averages, increasing/decreasing percentages
of use, highest/lowest uses, on septic tank usage in the Intermountain
West (www.estd.wvu.edu).
Bill Gregory of AIM (Association of Installers and Manufacturers)
presented a history of the origins of AIM, its membership growth
since its inception in January 1999, and its goal of reaching between
50,000 to 70,000 installers in North America. He cited an article
written by Theo Terry for the association magazine that states economics,
not the site itself, is the limiting factor for on-site waste management
systems; if enough money can be put into the project, most sites
can meet performance guidelines. Gregory also emphasized that AIM
provides educational opportunities for installers, including newsletters
and conferences. AIM’s purpose is to train installers and to
advise them on how to grow their businesses. He noted the organization
has dues ($15 annually) and provides benefits (e.g., an insurance
plan) and various support services to on-site personnel, homeowners,
and state associations.
Mike Hoover, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, returned
to the podium to discuss the Consortium of Institutions for Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment, a group that was formed about five years
ago at a meeting with the National On-Site Wastewater Recycling
Association (NOWRA). The impetus behind the consortium came from
community activists, installers, on-site people, and developers
who felt the nearly $40,000 per lot it may take to sewer a community
was too much. This group decided that a partnership between the
public and private sectors was needed to protect public health
and the environment. Their goal was to bridge gaps among professionals
involved in on-site treatment and to foster communication across
disciplines and state boundaries. With "we can’t sewer up
the world" as its motto, the consortium works for technologically
sound on-site systems that are permanent solutions for wastewater
treatment. Members come primarily from universities and colleges,
both regular and land grant, as well as community colleges. The
consortium is composed of four committees (research, university
curricula, practical training/training centers, and legal/political
issues), and its initiatives include working toward a national
decentralized water resources capacity development project, risk-based
decision-making for on-site wastewater treatment, funding for rural
areas, and collaboration with NETCSC to network training centers.
Ted Loudon, President of NOWRA, described NOWRA’s beginnings
in 1992 as a private sector group that wished to enhance the science
and practice of on-site wastewater treatment. Its other goals include
fostering education and enhancing the perception of the unsewered
infrastructure, bringing regulators, academicians, and the private
sector together, setting performance standards, educating homeowners,
fostering unbiased product testing, and providing membership benefits
as well as an industry "umbrella." Loudon said NOWRA’s latest
initiative is a model "framework" document that addresses the unsewered
wastewater infrastructure and lays out what the on-site industry
should do in the future. The framework document is composed of seven
elements that cover performance requirements protecting human health
and the environment; compliance monitoring and enforcement; technical
guidelines for site evaluation, design, and construction; education
and training for practitioners; certification and licensing; and
program reviews. An action plan will eventually accompany the framework
document, said Loudon. NOWRA’s address is P. O. Box 647, Northbrook,
IL, 60065-0647; its web address is [http://www.nowra.org].
Dave Lenning, Director of the Northwest On-Site Wastewater Treatment
Training Center, adjunct professor at the University of Washington,
and secretary/treasurer of NOWRA, spoke on the vital role that training
centers play in fostering partnerships and developing educational
curricula. He noted that an international training center exists
in El Paso and explained that the objectives of training centers
are to increase everyone’s knowledge and promote an objective
environment for fostering cooperation, training an "army" of public
educators, and working toward installing adequate, environmentally
sound systems. Lenning also stressed that training centers have the
advantage of being able to teach the "right way" from the beginning,
though they can provide "re-learning" training when needed. They
are also especially useful in forming partnerships that eliminate
barriers to cooperation and help professionals establish issue priorities.
He hopes that partnerships can be formed at the national level, using
instate or regional training centers as the impetus, as is the case
with the regional training center in Randall Center, Vermont, which
serves the Northeastern States. That center is trying to develop
a joint standardized curriculum for all the states in the region,
but which still allows the use of local illustrations, local regulations,
and location practitioner examples. The regional center relies on
principles of adult education, works to develop partnerships among
the states, develops comprehensive training tools, and acts as a
public health advocate to change attitudes about on-site wastewater
treatment.
Next followed a panel discussion and question-and-answer period
during which Peg Cashell of the UWRL pointed out the difference between
the Intermountain West and the East or Midwest where site and soil
conditions and population densities are different. Systems are usually
designed elsewhere, she said, for different conditions, and they
may not work here in the Western states. Yet, since little research
has been done, she felt we do not have a clear idea whether or not
they work or under what conditions. She expressed concern we might
be bringing other regions’ biases to the Intermountain West,
and, if so, wondered if we can meet our region’s needs. She
especially was concerned about the use of deep on-site system trenches,
stating that research on these types of systems has not been conducted.
Ted Loudon said that in his opinion, the use of 14 foot deep trenches
results in wastewater disposal and not treatment; however, if groundwater
is 1,000 feet beneath the surface, these systems may be alright for
use. He urged communities and associations to require "treatment
first." He suggested that forum attendees work at educating the general
public to come around to understanding the need for treatment.
Mike Hoover responded by urging the group to help public officials
and legislators understand that on-site systems are as viable and
dependable as centralized systems, but require management. He felt
the key is networking and collaboration in order to obtain research
funding; also he said to aim for that "teachable moment," the moment
when the audience is "ripe" to hear our message. Bill Gregory felt
it was necessary to bring the manufacturers in more, and Lenning
agreed that all groups with interest in on-site issues need to be
involved.
General discussion continued on the question of whether states can
be made to incorporate technologically sound ideas into their statues.
Hoover said it looks promising in that North Carolina’s legislature
convened to regulate the management of more advanced systems, which
produced a call for operational permits and operator certification.
This, in turn, led to more acceptance of alternative systems. The
lesson: Instituting some level of management helps gain acceptance
for the use of on-site treatment.
Loudon noted this concept is gaining in strength: Ohio now wants
to look at implementing the NOWRA framework for defining management
approaches. Lenning said that in January 2000, all systems in Washington
are to be part of a monitoring program. There will a comprehensive
database at NSFC for all types of monitoring approaches. The NSFC
will also issue a guide that will include copies of all states’ regulations.
Phalunas believes that if locales are permitting and regulating,
then they are managing. A final question was raised about why there
exists a dichotomy between governmental agencies/entities that
train centralized wastewater treatment operators but do not afford
the same status to on-site operators, since septic treatment systems
may result in potential public health and environmental problems.
Ted Loudon facilitated the second session, which dealt with policy
and regulations. Policy and regulatory status appear to vary widely
throughout the Intermountain West, and while several states have
strong regulations in place, the majority are struggling to push
for more formal regulations than the loose compilation of policy
guidelines under which they are currently operating.
Jay Pitkin, Manager of the Engineering and Water Quality Management
Branch, Division of Water Quality of the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (UDEQ), gave a history of the UDEQ and noted Utah has an
alternative system program in place that allows the use of three
alternative technologies, including at-grade, earth fill, and mound
systems. However, as of July, 1999, only two health departments
in Utah have applied for this alternative program. He explained
that in Utah, it is up to local jurisdictions to do percolation
tests and soil evaluations; the state does not permit the use of
any conventional system based solely on soil classification. Many
localities ignore soil evaluations and rely solely on perc tests.
He feels the biggest need is to convince them to rely mostly on
soil morphology data, but he conceded that the morphological approach
requires staff and university-assisted training, which cost money.
Dennis McKenna, Supervisor of the Subdivision Section, Water Protection
Bureau. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), explained
that nitrates, and their impact on groundwater quality, are an important
issue in Montana. A lack of manpower (and money) to measure background
nitrate levels means Montana takes a rule-of-thumb approach, and
because of the variability of nitrate levels, usually an average
is used. Assessing the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface
waters is also an issue. The state takes a proactive approach in
looking at accumulative effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on communities.
At this point there are not much data, but it appears nitrogen levels
have increased about 30—40 percent in the last 5 years.
Another Montana concern are pathogens in the water supply, including
viral contamination. Failures are commonly due to poor site characteristics,
though good data on failures are hard to come by. The MDEQ would
like to have dependability of on-site systems without many operation
and maintenance requirements. The MDEQ is planning on concentrating
on site characteristics at the beginning of the permitting process:
they want improved soil descriptions; they want to know where bedrock
is; and they want to know where the water table is (and the effects
of irrigation, if any), so all this information can be used in
conjunction with perc testing.
Bob Erickson, Senior Environmental Health Specialist with the South
Central District Health Department in Hailey, Idaho, reported that
Idaho has seven local health districts, and each serves about five
counties, which assures that all counties have a least some public
health services. These local health districts are responsible for
site evaluations, issuance of permits, and enforcement, e.g., field
people checking the water tightness of tanks, etc. Erickson then
gave a brief history of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s
(IDEQ’s) on-site regulations, noting that any new regulations
up for adoption require negotiations, public hearings, the publication
of draft rules, sending packets to the board for adoption, and a
final approval from the legislature, which may take a year or more.
Thus, new rules/additions are difficult to implement, and the process
is costly and time-consuming. However, because of the dynamic and
complex nature of on site systems, Idaho uses a Technical Guidance
Manual (TGM) to provide guidelines on the use of both standard and
alternative systems. Guidelines are developed for inclusion in the
manual by an Individual and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Committee,
composed of three District Health Department Environmental Health
Specialists, a member of the State’s Division of Environmental
Quality, a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Idaho,
and a septic tank system installer. The TGM has chapters dealing
with soils and ground water investigations, standard and alternative
systems, operation and maintenance, approved installers and suppliers,
and rules and regulations. It is IDEQ’s hope that this TGM
will make updating regulations easier to accomplish.
Chuck Graf, Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), noted that Arizona is revising its
on-site wastewater rules and state water permitting rules. While
the percentage of on-site systems is small, it is growing fast. The
current on-site program is patchwork of rules, but it does emphasize
aquifer protection. In Arizona, the state delegates oversight of
conventional on-site treatment to the counties, but it retains oversight
of alternatives (which comprised about half of the systems); this
results in overlapping authority and poor enforcement. Graf also
noted that technical standards for aquifer protection guidance are
arbitrary and inconsistent and are in need of revision. Arizona needs
to rescind many of its rules, eliminate duplication, update its reuse
guidelines, and put in place a modern program that facilitates enforcement–under
one unified system, such as the Aquifer Protection Program (APP).
A unified program like APP has the advantage of providing an underlying
authority to protect public health and enables the overhaul of the
permitting process by incorporating technical standards into the
rules/regulations. Graf feels that Arizona also needs a unified permitting
approach and believes requirements do improve effluent quality. Deficiencies
in the program include poor variance provisions, limited provisions
for pilot projects, no product approval provisions, poor guidance
for alternative systems, and poor system selection criteria.
Currently Arizona is involved with enabling legislation for on-site
wastewater treatment and is in a major rule development mode for
drafting on-site guidelines and recommendations. A document has been
put together by an on-site wastewater advisory committee, which recommends
incorporating universal plumbing code standards for conventional
on-site wastewater treatment and listing approved residential suppliers.
There exist challenges for this new approach, however. These include
the length of the permitting process; whether to require the use
of a professional engineer and/or certification; system selection
criteria; site characteristics/criteria; soil characteristics vs
perc testing; balance of design and performance standards; determination
of satisfactory septic tank densities; development of good variance
procedures; and fees–whether they should be flat or scaled.
Graf concluded by discussing the usefulness of GPS techniques for
soil evaluation.
Ron Ewald, Environmental Senior Analyst, Water and Wastewater Section/
Water Quality Division, Southeast District, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ), explained that the WDEQ covers a myriad
of other duties beyond wastewater management, including spills, permitting,
etc. He felt the biggest challenge Wyoming faces is getting public
officials to focus on on-site wastewater treatment–especially
when wastewater management is not even on the "radar screen," and
permitting is not taken seriously. For example, Wyoming, rather than
requiring a registered engineer to design new or upgraded systems
for single-family homes, allows the dissemination of a "cookbook" packet
that homeowners can use to design their own systems (fortunately,
he noted, duplexes and businesses must still use a registered engineer).
Still, because there is very different geology between eastern and
western Wyoming, he feels the use of the "cookbook " approach is
unwise. Asked about soil composition and groundwater levels in Wyoming,
Ewald responded that the state’s sparse population has been
forgiving, but now subdivisions are going in, which are beginning
to burden the system. This has resulted in legislation for reviewing
the subdivision process at the beginning of the approval process
in Wyoming, which has effectively eliminated subdivisions of between
1500—3000 square foot lots. Ewald favors design and construction
standards with regard to ground water levels, separation distances,
etc., being set at the state level; he said that implementing this
system would appear to eliminate "reduction" calculations, which
tend to be abused. He noted that Wyoming has no state licensing or
training for installers, though some counties do. He concluded by
stating that his biggest problem was outreach to the Wyoming public.
The head of the University of Wyoming’s Department of Civil
and Architectural Engineering, Dr. Victor Hasfurther, noted that
Wyoming does not like regulations, period. He showed a number of
slides of systems specially constructed for the Forest Service that
were designed to reduce BOD, total coliforms, etc. His on-going research
initially looked at a mound-system approach, and he has done a number
of studies looking at sizing equivalents, costs comparisons, etc.
He has also studied pulsating systems, but is currently looking at
leach field failures, the quality of water from these failing systems,
and the likely causes of the failures. His new area of research is
wellhead source water protection.
Lloyd Walker, Agricultural Engineering Specialist with Colorado
State University Cooperative Extension and a member of an Issues
Review and Task Force for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS),
said that a large group of people working in the mountainous areas
of Colorado are developing an ISDS document. The group includes
people from basin and watershed groups, health departments, regulatory
and governmental entities, councils, water quality associations,
and universities. Because Colorado is mostly composed of mountainous
locales, these groups are concerned about urban locales in the
mountains, inadequate soil treatment, and failing systems. In Colorado,
subdivisions must adhere to the 35-acre rule. While this appears
to be a low-density level, it has the unintended consequence of
breaking up ranches into 35-acre tracts, which adversely affects
the ranching culture. Some of the other consequences include pathogenic
contamination of drinking water, high levels of nitrates in the
ground water, and phosphorus traveling through soil toward lakes,
possibly resulting in eutrophication. Addressing these concerns
is somewhat constrained, however, by existing subdivision landscape
position, the difficulties of restructuring land use based on wastewater
quality; the lack of scientific data on the effects of densities
of individual sewage disposal systems; and a cyclical interest
in water quality–usually based on land booms. The state has
established "mini" standards for ISDS, i.e., a small ISDS (<2,000
gallons per day) requires no state permit, and each county has
developed and adopted its own rules. Walker discussed a number
of other difficult issues, including how to better define a water
body edge to establish setbacks for wetlands, reevaluating criteria
for alternative systems, establishing watershed development/carrying
capacity by looking at zoning/densities, and determining nutrient
mass balances based on geology and soil conditions. He thought
research is needed in a number of areas, including whether E. coli
an be used as an indicator organism, rises in groundwater levels
in shallow aquifers caused by on-site systems, measuring phosphorus
movement, establishing performance criteria for alternative technologies,
and defining watershed carrying capacity. Colorado has begun targeting
audiences for its educational programs. These include homeowners
and homeowner associations, installers and pumpers, inspectors,
public health officials, engineering firms, realtors, lending organizations,
and watershed associations. Walker suggested ways to reach these
audiences, including holding workshops and handing out fact sheets.
He also emphasized that homeowners have responsibilities, such
as regularly pumping their septic tank, locating and marking their
tank risers, keeping records, and responding quickly to failing
systems. Commercial pumpers, too, have responsibilities, including
educating the homeowner about a system’s operation and maintenance
requirements, establishing a marker system for tank risers, inspecting
systems regularly, and keeping good records.
At the conclusion of the session, there was a panel discussion
and question-and-answer period during which were discussed soil
evaluation vs percolation testing for site investigations, and
how states differed in addressing the issue of reducing the size
of drain fields for the disposal of gray water. There was also
some discussion about what is "failure," with most states agreeing
that it includes nitrate and pathogen contamination of ground water.
State representatives also agreed that they usually delegate on-site
oversight to the county level.
Final discussion centered on how comparable are the wastewater statistics
that have traditionally been used to derive wastewater generation,
e.g., a 3-bedroom house produces 450 gallons/day (150 gallons/day
for each bedroom). Most Intermountain West states use this estimate,
but it was pointed out that there are regional differences in water
use habits that could affect the use of these numbers. Also discussed
was whether it was reasonable to continue to have the same rules
across differing climatic zones even in one state, i.e., should states
be considering rainfall, cloud cover, etc.
A major outcome of the regulatory and policy session was a summary
list of the Intermountain states’ top priorities for on-site
wastewater programs, many of which were similar. Density and its
cumulative effects topped the list, along with providing more effective
educational outreach, performing better site characterization,
improving operation and maintenance, achieving better monitoring
of complex treatment systems, and determining loading rates. Percolation
testing and its value and reliability were also cited as an on-going
concern. While most states shared these as priority issues, several
others had unique concerns, such as the abundance of specific nutrients
(mainly nitrates and phosphorus) in their ground water, licensing
and certification issues, persuading legislatures to turn "guidelines" into
rules, and the regulatory problems associated with sparsely populated
locales.
Outreach, research, and education were the focus of the forum’s
second day session, facilitated by UWRL’s Darwin Sorensen.
Roy Mink, Director of the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute
(IWWRI), noted that after the rush of on-site activities in Idaho
in the late 70s and early 80s, the big issue is now hazardous waste
remediation, so on-site issues have not been the focus of much research.
He also faulted academicians for not providing enough curricula in
these areas–as a result IWWRI has helped with training. The
original emphasis of IWWRI on-site activities was working with agricultural
extension, but now it is increasingly working with semi-suburban
areas. The IWWRI sponsors lectures at community colleges, Rotary
meetings, etc., and helps professors get "in front of" community
leaders. The IWWRI is also interested in reaching out to technical
schools and community colleges, and Mink says his own personal goal
is to focus more on reaching installers and septage haulers. The
institute has initiated K through 12 programs, especially the Water
Education for Teachers (WET) program. This program for teachers stresses
a "how to think," not "what to think" approach. The WET program uses
multi-disciplinary tools/supplies, and its goal is to have teachers
and students make informed decisions regarding water resources. The
teachers use small models, e.g., of an artesian well, subsurface
disposal methods, etc., so students can see better understand the
educational concepts being presented. The program also recommends
that teachers use such local resources as public health officials,
extension personnel, and field trips to local water treatment plants.
WET also stresses environmental management, asking students to look
at environmental management in their own homes and to do an inventory
of individual systems. By leveraging these "home" issues into the
community and state consciousness, WET hopes to teach the students
that they can make a difference. The program also holds workshops
for teachers and provides them continuing education credit for attendance.
Gretchen Rupp, Extension Environmental Engineer and faculty member
in the Civil Engineering Department at Montana State University in
Bozeman, noted that Montana is "Montana-centric" in its research,
preferring to investigate the use of potential treatment systems
under Montana conditions, rather than relying on information generated
in other states. She summarized one project showing how well nitrogen
could be removed from a system and cited several others,including
analysis of the performance of alternative systems, especially in
cold climates, where the functional design was examined as well as
the role of installation and maintenance. In another project, system
performance of various alternative systems, such as the aerated package
plant, sawdust used for denitrification, and a recirculation trickle
filter, was investigated. In a third project, investigators examined
the kinds of technical assistance needed for a water district’s
septic system assessment program. County data on soils, geology,
wells, septic systems, etc., have been put in a GIS format. Then
queries can be made regarding vulnerability of receiving waters to
contamination from on-site systems, and whether a system is appropriate
for a large development. Rupp acknowledged there are still areas
needing research, such as determining what is a reasonable and representative
monitoring scheme to define performance of alternative systems and
how to test for long-term reliability of innovative systems.
Montana also has a K through 12 program for educational outreach.
There is a Montana WET program in place in the upper elementary
levels, and though there is a fledgling university program (one
class in environmental engineering), so far no class is directed
at vocational/technical training in on-site wastewater treatment.
Outreach in Montana is conducted through the Montana Environmental
Health Association, which sponsors an annual conference with educational
speakers, publishes periodic newsletters, and sponsors speaking events.
Extension activities involve fostering the development of libraries,
research, and continuing education–mostly aimed at environmental
engineers.
Ron Sims, director of the Utah State Water Research Laboratory,
noted that in the 1980s, USU had included on-site wastewater treatment
in a graduate level course, but is no longer doing so. USU is now
using senior environmental engineering design teams to develop demonstration
training models for the Utah On-Site Wastewater Treatment Training
Center. The 1997-98 team developed models of pilot-scale gravity
and pressurized distribution systems; the 1998-1999 team developed
pilot-scale mound system demonstration models; and the 1999-2000
senior design team is preparing a web site for the training center,
as well as developing the layout for a physical demonstration site.
Sims said that the Training Center has also partnered with the USU
College of Business, whereby graduate level business students conducted
surveys of outreach needs, thus learning about the business aspects
of engineering issues they may confront. On the K through 12 front,
Utah is working to obtain federal funding through the U.S.EPA 319
non-point source pollution program to develop educational materials
for elementary and high school students. For outreach activities,
the Center periodically publishes a newsletter concerning on-site
wastewater treatment issues, including a spotlight on regulatory
issues, UDEQ updates, current event calendars, and Internet resources.
USU’s research thrust includes development of a GIS-based
database system for on-site systems and investigation of source water
protection (under the USGS–104 program), non-point source assessment
(TMDL issues), and other watershed management tools. Its outreach
program consists of workshops taught through the On-Site Wastewater
Treatment Training Center by soil scientists Peg Cashell and Judy
Sims of the UWRL on basic site evaluation techniques, on-site wastewater
treatment system fundamentals, and perc testing methods.
Adrian Hanson, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
at New Mexico State University, in a talk entitled, "Academic On-site
Wastewater Treatment System Activities," addressed the problem
of poverty in his state, where a serious lack of resources means
homeowners are sometimes unable to put in even the simplest of
conventional systems and maintain them properly. He noted that
New Mexico’s regulators are frustrated because on-site guidelines
are generally unclear and ill defined. One county, Bernallia, is
the most advanced in the state as far as implementing regulations,
and its insistence on regulatory adherence is actually "trickling
up" to the state level. The down side, however, is that all the
other counties are largely "third world" in their attitude, resources,
and knowledge, but the state regulates them as if they were "first
world." New Mexico’s Department of Environment calculates
that septic tank effluent into the substrate accounts for the largest
source on non-point pollution in New Mexico, and this is especially
true in the "colonias," areas lacking in roads and other infrastructural
amenities. Hanson said academics in New Mexico hope to improve
the situation and are currently involved with a modeling program
called DRASTIC, which is a septic risk assessment model that uses
ArcInfo overlays to determine the septic tank density with reference
to groundwater aquifers. They are also involved in ordinance development
and an outreach program that includes a visiting school program,
as well as in preparing "how to" manuals and videos on applying
for permits and constructing conventional systems. They have carried
out surveys of installers, and have evaluated a variety of systems,
all in attempt to urge the state to consider requiring tougher
certifications for professional engineers and installers; they
also want to increase ongoing training and education program, encourage
membership in professional organizations, and develop a qualification
system for manufacturers.
Paul Trotta, an engineering professor at Northern Arizona University
(NAU), and Justin Ramsey, design engineer, facility coordinator,
and instructor at the Northern Arizona Treatment Center (NATC) at
NAU, gave a brief history of the concept, design, and construction
of the NATC in which they outlined the pitfalls encountered trying
to make the treatment center a reality. Though the center is up and
running and serves as a successful engineering tool for students,
Trotta advised would-be on-site educators to think twice before attempting
such a project in the middle of an existing university campus. Still,
he noted, the existence of the NATC at NAU means on-site wastewater
treatment has an institutional presence in academia and is the source
of a large educational and training outreach effort. Further efforts
at outreach and education include the expansion of the NATC training
program, the addition of more operational features, implementation
of water quality monitoring, development of more field classes, and
increased cooperation with state and country environmental departments,
the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, and with the Yuma
Community College.
The forum concluded with the attendees agreeing to continue developing
the communication network that was begun at this forum.