PLANNING GUIDE FOR WASTEWATER CLUSTER SYSTEMS IN ILLINOIS Document No. 84/01 ^gMsmmmm MEM— h— ■■■■■■i Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources James R. Thompson, Governor Michael B. Witte, Director Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois DEPOSITORY OCT 81984 UNlvtroin ur ILLINOIS M URBANA-CHAMPAIGN UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN STK Doc. No. 84/01 March 1984 The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN BANNING GUIDE FOR WASTEWATER CLUSTER SYSTEMS IN ILLINOIS by Richard Helm, James Quinn 2) Walter Zyznieuski ' 1) Project No. 84/2002 James R. Thompson, Governor State of Illinois Michael B. Witte, Director Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources D 2) Performed under contract with the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources as contract number WR 33 to Randolph and Associates, Peoria,. Illinois Contributing author with the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN STK Doc. No. 84/01 March 1984 PLANNING GUIDE FOR WASTEWATER CLUSTER SYSTEMS IN ILLINOIS by Richard Helm, James Quinn ' 2) Walter Zyznieuski Project No. 84/2002 James R. Thompson, Governor Michael B. Witte, Director State of Illinois Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources ^Performed under contract with the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources as contract number WR 33 to Randolph and Associates, Peoria,. Illinois 2 ' Contributing author with the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources NOTE This report has been reviewed by the Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) and approved for publication. Printed by the Authority of the State of Illinois Date Printed: March 1984 Quantity Printed: 300 One of a series of research publications published since 1975. This series includes the following categories and are color coded as follows Air Quality Water Environmental Health Solid and Hazardous Waste Economic Impact Study Noise Management Energy Information Services Prior to After July, 19 82 July, 1982 - Green Green - Blue Blue - White Grey - White Olive - Buff Brown - Buff Orange - Cherry Red - Canary Yellow Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources Energy and Environmental Affairs Division 325 West Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 62706 (217) 785-2800 li (^^r/^rvvw^ OCT 1* PREFACE This report has been prepared for the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources as Phase 1 of a wastewater cluster system study under Contract No. WR32 . The report was prepared by Randolph & Associates, Inc., with assistance by Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. Phase 2 of this project, model ordinances, was prepared under Contract No. WR33 and incorporated into this report as additional appendices . 1X1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to express their appreciation to all those who assisted in completion of this study. Special thanks are extended to Walter Zyznieuski, Project Officer for the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, and the other state liaisons for this project, Michael Bowers of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and David Antonacci of the Illinois Department of Public Health. Thanks are also expressed to all the members of the review panel listed in Appendix D who contributed valuable comments and corrections after reviewing preliminary drafts of this report. Recognition is also expressed to the subconsultants who assisted in this study. Patricia Deese, Susan Farrell, and Peggy Jensen of Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., completed the literature review and offered helpful review comments on the entire report. Michael Tibbs of Clem and Triggs, P.C., assisted in preparation of the model ordinances and review of the legal aspects of the ordinance. Stephen John is acknowledged for his efforts in preparing the research proposal for this project, and special thanks are expressed to Sandra Eberle for her patience in preparing the manuscript. xv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Definition of Clusters 1-3 1.2 Need for Clusters 1-4 1.3 Gaining Acceptance of Clusters 1-7 1.4 Study Objectives 1-9 2.0 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS 2-1 2.1 Environmental Protection Agency 2-2 2.2 Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act 2-4 2.3 Municipal Wastewater Disposal Zones Act 2-7 2.4 Sanitary District Acts 2-9 2.5 Public Water Districts Act 2-10 2.6 Clean Water Act and Amendments 2-11 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF CLUSTER SYSTEMS 3-1 3. 1 Source Control 3-1 3.2 Pretreatment 3-3 3.3 Collection 3-8 3.4 Treatment and Disposal 3-11 3.5 Total Systems and Applications 3-21 4.0 MANAGEMENT OF CLUSTER SYSTEMS 4-1 4. 1 Regulatory Agency 4-1 4.2 Financial Management 4-5 4.3 Management Agency 4-7 5.0 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CLUSTER SYSTEMS 5-1 5. 1 Engineering 5-1 5.2 Environment/Public Health 5-5 5.3 Economic 5-7 5.4 Legal/ Management 5-10 5.5 Land Use 5-15 LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDIX A Laws and Regulations ■ APPENDIX B Local Public Health Authorities APPENDIX C Identified Cluster Systems APPENDIX D Review Panel Members APPENDIX El Model Ordinances to Form a Municipal Disposal Zone APPENDIX E 2 Model Ordinance Regulating "Use of Public Sewers and On-Site Wastewater Systems APPENDIX E 3 Model Ordinance to Regulate Planned Cluster Systems v LIST OF FIGURES Number Page Figure 2-1 Illinois Department of Public Health - Regional Offices 2-8 Figure 3-1 Typical Trench System 3-13 Figure 3-2 Typical Bed System 3-13 Figure 3-3 Typical Seepage Pit 3-14 Figure 3-4 Typical Mound System 3-15 Figure 3-5 Typical Evapotranspiration Bed 3-16 Figure 3-6 Cluster Systems Utilizing Individual Pretreatment Units 3-22 Figure 3-7 Cluster Systems Utilizing Group Pretreatment Units 3-23 VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared to provide information which would assist regulatory agencies, planning agencies and developers in formulating policies and procedures for planning, managing and regulating wastewater cluster systems in Illinois. Cluster systems are an intermediate wastewater treatment option between individual on-site systems and conventional centralized collection and treatment systems. While conventional systems are usually cost-effective for large communities and individual on-site systems are cost-effective for isolated rural residences, cluster systems often are the best solution for situations in between such as small unsewered communities, urban fringe areas and low-density urban subdivisions. The report introduction defines cluster systems, discusses the need for cluster systems, and describes some of the problems which must be overcome in order for clusters to become a readily implementable approach for wastewater treatment and disposal. Chapter Two discusses the state laws and regulations which apply to cluster systems and describes the federal funding possibilities for certain cluster systems under the municipal wastewater construction grants program. Chapter Three describes the technology of cluster system components vix and how these components may be combined into a total system. A case history of a typical cluster system serving an Illinois community is also included. Chapter Four points out the importance of establishing authority for managing, financing and regulating cluster systems. Critical aspects of administering cluster systems were discussed along with optional approaches which have been utilized. Chapter Five presents some of the major issues associated with use of cluster systems. A review panel was formed to address these issues from different viewpoints. The review comments were then incorporated into the issue discussions, and recommendations for resolving the issues were developed. Model ordinances were developed as a guide for implementing and regulating cluster systems. The ordinances include a wastewater disposal zone ordinance, a cluster system sewer use ordinance, and an ordinance regulating construction of planned cluster systems. The model ordinances are presented in Appendix E and also are available separately from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency or Illinois Department of Public Health. In considering the potential needs, benefits or risks associated with cluster wastewater systems, the distinction between retrofit and planned cluster systems must be made. Retrofit systems are cluster systems which serve homes which are already in place. Planned systems are built for new developments. While both types of cluster systems utilize the same technology, the approach and procedures for viii implementation are different. Thus, in summarizing the major considerations for cluster systems, we have discussed each system separately. Retrofit Cluster Systems In assessing the desirability of cluster systems, consideration should be given to the following: Needs and Risks; Planning, Funding and Legal Issues; and Long-Term Economic/Land-Use Impacts. For retrofit systems, a need for wastewater improvements clearly exists if the existing wastewater facilities (usually on-site septic systems) are not performing adequately. In Illinois there are over 600 communities with populations under 1,000 persons. Many of these communities are unsewered or served by septic tanks discharging to field tiles. Often the on-site systems cannot be upgraded because of small lots or unsuitable soil conditions. For these small communities, conventional sewers and centralized treatment plants usually impose an unreasonable financial burden on the residents. This leaves cluster systems as the only cost-effective approach for these situations. Since cluster systems usually require a minimum of mechanical components, the risk of failure is generally less than with a conventional mechanical treatment plant, and if a problem does occur, it would affect only houses on that particular cluster rather IX than the entre community. Likewise, the level of operator attention and management effort for clusters is generally less than for conventional systems, although greater than that required for individual on-site systems. If a retrofit cluster system is demonstrated to be the most cost-effective wastewater alternative, then U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding under the municipal construction grants program is available to pay the majority of the construction costs. The planning should be done in accordance with EPA requirements for Facilities Plans, just as it would be for conventional wastewater facilities. Existing manuals and reports are available which provide detailed planning guidance for retrofit 54 57 80 cluster systems. ' ' All the required legal authority exists under current Illinois statutes and regulations to implement a retrofit cluster system. The retrofit systems approved to date in Illinois have been in small municipalities where municipal disposal zones have been established. Where portions of the service areas were outside municipal boundaries, additional easements have been obtained to assure rights of access to pretreamtent units located on private property. Sanitary districts or public water districts could be formed instead of municipal disposal zones provided that easements are obtained to assure rights of access. The major existing obstacle in implementing a retrofit cluster system results from the dual regulatory role of the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). Although there is a clear delineation of responsibilities based on flows and type of discharge, the design requirements of the two agencies differ. Depending on the type or combinations of cluster systems proposed, one community may be required to work with both agencies for different parts of its system, or the same treatment concept may be subject to different standards depending on the number of homes serviced. Recently, there have been some changes which would make the requirements more uniform (such as the IDPH proposed change in surface discharge limits). Still, differences remain in other key areas. In addition to differences in existing requirements, there is a lack of design standards for system components used in clusters as opposed to individual on-site systems or conventional systems. To resolve these problems and streamline implementation of cluster systems in Illinois, we recommend a joint panel be formed with representatives of IDPH, IEPA and consultants experienced in cluster system design. The goal of the panel would be to develop uniform policies and standards for approving and regulating cluster systems in Illinois. If a retrofit cluster system has been selected as the most cost-effective solution for serving a community or subdivision, the long-term economic and land use implications should also be considered. A retrofit system normally serves existing residential areas. Where anticipated growth is minimal, cluster systems should not pose any special limitations over other wastewater options; however, if a community is planning for substantial business or XI industrial growth, clusters may restrict development more than conventional systems. Where a small community is near an existing collection system, use of clusters could have a significant long-term land use impact. Extending the existing collection system to serve the community would accelerate development of open land along the connecting sewer, whereas a cluster system would not encourage that development. This impact can be viewed as either positive or negative depending on the land use goals of the communities involved. Planned Clusters The considerations discussed above are equally important for planned cluster systems, but the evaluation of these factors is substantially different in the context of planned clusters. The need for planned clusters is based more on optimum land use practices and developer preference rather than correction of existing water pollution or health-related problems. The review of specific planned cluster systems revealed none located in Illinois. This could suggest that a need for planned clusters has not been clearly demonstrated. On the other hand, if retrofit clusters appear to be the best solution for some existing situations, if would follow that planned clusters would have been a preferable wastewater approach at the time of initial development in those locations. Ultimately, the incentive for planned clusters rests with the developer. If the developer can enchance his profit potential or opportunities for a successful project, planned clusters will be a desirable alternative. XXI For example, smaller lot size could allow concentration of development in a portion of the site balanced by open spaces for cluster treatment, with a reduction in overall development costs. Or, where part of a development has steep wooded lots unsuited to on-site systems, cluster systems could allow better utilization of the entire site. The planning, funding and legal issues are more complex for planned clusters than for retrofit clusters. One major difference is funding. Since public monies cannot fund private development, no construction funding is available for planned clusters through the EPA construction grants program. Unlike individual systems which are funded by each homeowner at the time of construction, planned cluster systems must be funded by the developer at the time of initial development. This increases the initial investment required by the developer. The capital funding problem can be reduced somewhat by using smaller cluster systems installed in phases as the development progresses. Another problem in implementing planned clusters is establishing a management authority. If the new development is outside existing municipal or district boundaries, a municipal disposal zone, public water district or sanitary district cannot be formed because there are no existing residents. This leaves only the developer as a responsible party. Past experience with developer-operated treatment systems has made regulatory agencies reluctant to accept such an Xlll arrangement. This difficulty can be overcome if public health, pollution control, and local zoning and planning authorities work together to accomplish the following: 1. Develop uniform design and construction requirements for cluster systems. 2. Formulate policies and legal mechanisms which would provide an effective means to transfer the management, financial and legal • responsibility for planned clusters from the developer to a responsible management authority for financing and overseeing operation and maintenance of the system. While homeowners associations can fill this role, a public authority such as a sanitary district would be preferable. In terms of long-term land use Impacts, planned clusters could result in a higher population density than would occur with individual on-site systems. If this is considered undesirable, then overall density requirements could remain the same with smaller lot size offset by open space requirements. In summary, both retrofit and planned cluster systems provide a feasible wastewater alternative which is appropriate for intermediate situations where neither conventional centralized systems, nor individual on-site systems are ideal solutions. If the regulatory agencies and other responsible parties work together to overcome the xiv obstacles to cluster system planning and implementation discussed in this report, then both retrofit and planned clusters can be utilized where appropriate in Illinois. xv WASTEWATER CLUSTER SYSTEMS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Septic tanks and other individual on-site systems are generally considered the most appropriate technology for wastewater service to isolated residences or suburban subdivisions where conventional sewer systems are not available. However, due to unsuitable soil conditions or neglect by homeowners, many of these systems have eventually malfunctioned resulting in possible contamination of surface water or groundwater. Consequently, increasing efforts have been made by engineers, developers and regulatory authorities to serve these subdivisions and rural communities with conventional gravity sewer collection systems and centralized treatment plants wherever possible. This trend toward conventional systems was further encouraged by the construction grants program and other federal funding programs which did not allow funding for on-site systems. In recent years, this trend has begun to reverse, and the widespread belief that conventional sanitary sewers could and should be constructed in nearly every rural community and suburban subdivision has given way to a recognition that decentralized wastewater systems, in some instances, may be preferable in both economic and environmental terms. The Clean Water Act Amendment of 1977 and subsequent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations defined individual systems serving single homes or groups of homes as 1-1 alternative technology eligible for 85 percent construction grants under the innovative and alternative (I/A) program. U.S. EPA has actively promoted the appropriate use of small alternative wastewater systems (SAWS) by sponsoring research and demonstration projects, publishing planning and design manuals, and conducting technology transfer seminars. In December, 1980, U.S. EPA's Office of Water Program Operations published "A Strategy for Small Alternative Wastewater Systems" with the goal of developing "a comprehensive planning and management approach to promoting the use of and improving the performance of SAWS." The State of Illinois has been in the forefront of efforts to apply SAWS concepts to solve pressing water pollution and public health problems in small communities. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) developed guidelines for evaluating individual systems in wastewater facilities plans. Through both the Section 208 Water Quality Management Planning Program and the Section 201 Construction Grants Program, IEPA has explored the potential of small alternative systems for economically achieving water quality objectives. IEPA staff helped draft enabling legislation for formation of wastewater disposal zones in Illinois to facilitate implementation of SAWS projects. One SAWS concept which offers much potential for filling the gap between conventional systems and individual septic systems is the wastewater cluster system. 1-2 1.1 Definition of Clusters The term "cluster systems" encompasses a range of wastewater disposal options between individual on-site systems and conventional centralized collection and treatment. The exact definition of cluster systems varies from state to state. U.S. EPA defines cluster systems as "two or more users on one alternative system." The alternative systems generally involve expansion of traditional on-site wastewater technologies such as septic tank-soil absorption systems (ST-SAS) to handle more than one home simultaneously. For the purposes of this study, cluster systems are defined as systems that serve more than one residence or building and consist of either: (1) group or individual on-site pretreatment units followed by a common "alternative treatment" system such as subsurface disposal or submerged sand filters, or (2) individual on-site pretreatment units followed by an alternative collection system leading to any type of treatment system. An example of the first type of cluster system would be a group of homes all served by the same septic tank and soil absorption system. An example of the second situation would be individual septic tanks at each building connected by small diameter gravity sewers to a lagoon system for treatment. 1-3 An additional distinction is made between retrofit cluster systems which are either new or upgraded and designed for homes that are already in place and planned systems which are built with new residential development. Also inherent in the cluster concept is maintenance of the system by some responsible management entity other than an individual home owner. This may be a unit of government, an incorporated owners' association, or private utility. 1.2 Need for Clusters Cluster systems can be a cost-effective alternative to centralized wastewater treatment and disposal in small communities or small residential areas isolated from central facilities. Cluster systems also offer a potential solution for subdivisions which are too densely developed or where conditions prohibit individual on-site disposal systems on each lot. The need for cluster systems applies to both existing situations and future development. Currently, over half a million Illinois households are served by on-site private sewage systems. Many of these are in rural communities and urban fringe subdivisions. Many have failed seepage systems or illegal discharges creating nuisance conditions, health hazards, and pollution of surface and groundwater resources. During the past decade, concerted efforts have corrected many of these problems through sewer extensions or enforcement of private sewage 1-4 regulations. The remaining problems tend to be less amenable to these traditional solutions because of technical, economic and institutional constraints . For many of these existing problems, retrofit clusters may provide a practical solution. For example, in developed areas experiencing septic system failures, many of the on-site systems may function well. Some of the failures may be correctable on site by relatively inexpensive means, but a small percentage of the lots may be unsuitable, due to lot size or soils or both for on-site disposal. A wastewater cluster system serving these problem lots may eliminate the need to sewer the entire area. Future development must also be served by appropriate wastewater facilities. A 1980 ENR study estimated that 25,000 new on-site 35 systems are constructed each year in Illinois. Many more new buildings are served by extending interceptors and collector sewers. However, local conditions may rule out both on-site disposal and conventional sewerage. In unsewered areas, soil may be unsuited to subsurface disposal, or the desired development density may preclude use of individual septic systems. In sewered communities, sewering a particular development may be unfeasible or undesirable: unfeasible because of topography or overloading of existing facilities; undesirable because of adverse environmental, fiscal or land use impacts of sewer extension. The tightening of public health and water 1-5 pollution regulations in recent years has created conflicts among development interests, municipalities and regulatory agencies over wastewater and land use issues. Planned cluster systems could help resolve these conflicts. For example, in areas without public sewers, developers are often faced with a dilemma. Portions of a proposed subdivision site may have soils suitable for subsurface disposal, while other portions are marginal or clearly unsuitable. The developer could try to obtain local approval of on-site systems in the poor soils areas, leaving the lot buyers and health department to deal with premature septic system failures. In years past, a small package treatment plant might have been used in this circumstance; however, since 1980, IEPA regulations have disallowed use of package plants (under 0.25 MGD) because of problems with reliable operation and maintenance of these systems. As an alternative to these options, a cluster system could be constructed with multi-home seepage fields in the suitable soils. Since individual on-site systems are not used, lot sizes may be reduced allowing the same number or even more lots despite the land set aside as the cluster site. Furthermore, this site may provide recreational open space as well as wastewater disposal. Thus, there is a clear and pressing need for innovative techniques of wastewater management in unsewered areas, and wastewater clusters can help to fill this need. However, as the remainder of this discussion 1-6 will demonstrate, there are numerous technical, economic and institutional issues which must be addressed for clusters to become an implementable approach. 1.3 Gaining Acceptance of Clusters The widely held attitude that centralized collection and secondary treatment is the only permanent approach to wastewater management can be the biggest obstacle to planning a cluster system. Political leaders often make the assumption that economic development and "progress" are tied to centralized wastewater treatment. In some parts of Idaho for example, the county board of supervisors has made public statements against the long-term use of cluster systems. Regulatory agencies are often reluctant due to health and safety concerns. If agencies do allow on-site disposal, they will often prohibit cluster systems or any alternative technology such as aerobic pretreatment for fear the systems will not work due to improper design 174 175 or inadequate maintenance. ' Another obstacle is that engineers in the area may have limited experience with cluster system design and 59 do not consider clusters as an alternative. Finally, citizens may object to maintenance requirements of cluster systems. Education can overcome these obstacles. Past experience has shown that citizens will accept cluster systems when they learn about the 59 159 163 170 comparative cost savings. * * ' Regulatory agencies will allow clusters in appropriate applicatons if competent designers work 1-7 closely with staff members to address their concerns and help develop design guidelines. ' ' * ' This occurred in Idaho as well as Birmingham, Alabama, and Downington, Pennsylvania. Another aspect which can impact the acceptance of retrofit cluster systems is the distribution of costs and benefits among the participants. Some community members might reject the cluster system if they see that more money is being spent on their neighbor's homes than their own. For example, septic tank effluent pumps in Cuyler, New York, were designed for 220 volt electrical service. Some houses had to be rewired to provide this service. The majority of the community who was paying the same user fee but not getting the free rewiring objected to the unfair distribution of benefits, and almost rejected the system. They agreed to accept it after realizing that inequities also existed in other less obvious areas such as the length of collection system to each house. A similar situation arose in Cromwell, Minnesota, when some residents complained about not getting 159 new septic tanks. Gaining homeowners' acceptance of planned systems is usually not a problem; however, it is essential that the homeowners are aware of 1 f\0 1 77 their wastewater management responsibilities. ' There have been cases where second owners of homes have balked at the idea of cluster systems and the need to pay the fee. In one system in Boise, Idaho, the 0&M staff handled the problem by threatening to turn off the wastewater pump, and explaining that the homeowner's only other 1-8 1 ftp option was hiring a honey wagon daily. In other on-site management districts, the management agency has the power to shut off water to i.u u 76 the house. 1.4 Study Objectives The broad objective of this report is to improve the use of water and land resources in the State of Illinois by expanding the range of available wastewater management options to include wastewater cluster systems. Specific objectives of the study are to: 1. Review the existing Illinois laws and regulations which may affect the use of wastewater cluster systems. 2. Provide information on the current cluster system technology and identify potential applications of cluster systems in Illinois. 3. Discuss considerations related to the management of clusters and provide guidance for effective implementation and management of cluster systems. 4. Identify the key issues associated with the use of cluster systems and discuss approaches for resolving these issues and incorporating cluster concepts into wastewater and land use plans. 1-9 5. Develop model ordinances for use by local governments in regulating both retrofit and planned clusters. The ordinances will address the specific needs of IEPA for implementing cluster systems under the wastewater construction grants program. 1-10 ■ 2.0 APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS There are five major Illinois statutes which are applicable to wastewater cluster systems: 1. Environmental Protection Act 2. Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act 3. Municipal Wastewater Disposal Zones Act 4. Sanitary District Acts 5. Public Water District Act In addition to these state laws, the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 and 1981 are applicable for funding eligible cluster system projects. The Environmental Protection Act establishes the authority of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) and the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR). Under the Water Pollution Control Rules adopted by IPCB, the IEPA is responsible for issuing permits whenever the sewage flows exceed 1,500 gallons per day and there is a surface water discharge. For a private subsurface sewage discharge or anything under 1,500 gallons per day, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) is the responsible regulatory authority under the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act. 2-1 The Municipal Wastewater Disposal Zones Act is enabling legislation which allows the formation of on-site wastewater disposal zones within incorporated muncipalities. The Sanitary District Acts and Public Water Districts Act provide for the formation of public districts which have the authority to construct wastewater treatment systems. Unlike the municipal disposal zones, these public districts may include unincorporated areas. A source list of these acts and their related rules and regulations have been included for reference in Appendix A. The following paragraphs discuss each act in relation to cluster systems. 2. 1 Environmental Protection Agency On July 1, 1970, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act became effective. The Act "established a unified, state-wide program supplemented by private remedies, to restore, perfect and enhance the quality of the environment, and to assure that adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and borne by those who cause them." Under the Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) , the Pollution Control Board (IPCB) , and the Institute of Environmental Quality, now known as the Department of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR), were created. Section 4, Paragraph b, of the Environmental Protection 'Act states that the IEPA "shall have the duty to collect and disseminate such 2-2 information, acquire such technical data, and conduct such experiments as may be required to carry out the purposes of this Act, including ascertainment of the quantity and nature of discharges from any contaminant source and data on those sources, and to operate and arrange for the operation of devices for the monitoring of environmental quality." Section 5, paragraph b, states that the IPCB "shall determine, define and implement the environmental control standards applicable in the State of Illinois and may adopt rules and regulations in accordance with Title VII of this Act." The IPCB adopts rules and regulations pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 11 and 13 of the Environmental Protection Act which authorizes the Board to issue regulations "to restore, maintain and enhance the purity of the waters of this State in order to protect health, welfare, property and the quality of life, and to assure that no contaminants are discharged into the waters . . . without being given the degree of treatment or control necessary to prevent pollution;" to adopt water quality standards, effluent standards, standards for the issuance of permits, standards for the certification of sewage works operators, standards relating to water pollution episodes or emergencies, and requirements for the inspection of pollution sources and for monitoring the aquatic environment; and which directs the Board to adopt requirements, standards and procedures which will enable the state to implement and participate in 2-3 the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) established by the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.). The Illinois Water Pollution Control Rules were first adopted by the Pollution Control Board on March 7, 1972, and have subsequently been amended several times as of March 18, 1983. 2.2 Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act The IDPH is required under the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act (IL Rev. Stat. 1979, ch 111 1/2 sections 116.301 through 116.324) to license private sewage disposal contractors and to establish and enforce a minimum code of standards for design, construction, materials, operators, and maintenance of private sewage disposal systems for the transportation and disposal of wastes therefore and for private sewage disposal systems servicing equipment. Paragraph 116.307 in the Private Sewage Disposal Act gave IDPH the authority to specifically promulgate and publish a Private' Sewage Disposal Code. The following articles are covered in the Sewage Disposal Code: 1. Definitions 2. General Requirements 3. Approved Private Sewage Disposal Systems 4. Septic Tanks 5. Distribution Boxes 2-4 6. Subsurface Seepage System Requirements 7. Buried Sand Filters 8. Recirculating Sand Filters 9. Waste Stabilization Ponds 10. Aerobic Treatment Plants 11. Surface Discharges 12. Disinfection 13. Human Waste Disposal 14. Holding Tanks 15. Sanitary Dump Stations 16. Swimming Pool Wastewater 17. Servicing, Cleaning, Transportation, and Disposing of Wastes from Private Sewage Disposal Systems 18. Minimum Performance Standards for Private Sewage Disposal Contractors Rule 2.02 of the Private Sewage Disposal Code states that the use of a private sewage system to serve more than one property is prohibited except where a common property is provided uncter joint ownership of the users, or where the system is under public jurisdiction or arranged by a district established for the maintenance of such systems. This rule appears to allow the use of a wastewater cluster system if it is managed properly. Under the code, the following systems are approved for private sewage disposal when designed, constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with this code: 2-5 A. Septic tank or Imhoff tank followed by: 1. Subsurface seepage field 2. Seepage bed 3. Seepage pit 4. Sand filter (buried or recirculating) 5. Waste stabilization pond B. Aerobic treatment plant discharging to supplementary treatment or to the surface, as provided in Articles X and XI. C. Waste stabilization pond. D. Privies, chemical toilet, recirculating toilet, incinerator toilet, compost toilet. E. Any other system for which a variance in accordance with Rule 2. 10 has been issued or for which an experimental permit in accordance with Rule 2.11 has been issued. All other systems or components are not approved. Sewage sludge from septic tanks may be disposed of on land, in a municipal sanitary sewer system, in a sludge lagoon or drying bed, in an incinerator, or in a sanitary landfill. Rule 17.04 of the Private Sewage Disposal Code outlines and describes the required rules to be followed when septage is disposed of by any of these methods. Under Paragraph 116.309 of the Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act, the IDPH may designate and use full-time municipal, district, county or multiple county health departments as its agents in the administration and enforcement of this Act. In addition, this Act 2-6 does not prohibit enforcement of ordinances of local government which establish a system for regulation and inspection of private sewage disposal contractors and minimum standards for design and construction, provided such ordinances establish a system which is at least equal to state regulations. Figure 2-1 shows IDPH's Regional office locations. Appendix B lists the phone numbers and addresses of all units of local government in the state which administer a private sewage disposal program. 2. 3 Municipal Wastewater Disposal Zones Act IL Rev. Stat. 1979 chapter 24 paragraph 1402 describes the formation of an on-site wastewater disposal zone. Only corporate authorities of any city, village, or incorporated town may form on-site wastewater zones. The purposes of forming an on-site wastewater disposal zone are outlined in paragraph 1403: "An on-site wastewater disposal zone may be formed for the following purposes: (a) to collect, treat, reclaim, or dispose of wastewater; (b) to acquire, design, own, construct, install, operate, monitor, regulate, inspect, rehabilitate, modify, and maintain existing and new on-site wastewater disposal systems within the zone in a manner which will promote environmental quality, prevent the pollution, waste, and contamination of water, abate nuisances, and protect public health; (c) to conduct investigations, make analyses, and monitor conditions with regard to water quality within the zone; (d) to apply for, obtain, and utilize federal and State funds for any of the purposes specified in this Act; (e) to adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations necessary to implement the purposes of the zone. Such rules and regulations may be adopted only after the corporate 2-7 ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH Division of Engineering TELEPHONE OR ADORES INQUIRIES TO THE REGIONAL OFFICE SERVING YOUR AREA REGION 1 - Rockford Roger Ruden. R.E. III. Dept. of Public Health 4302 N. Main Street Rockford. IL 61 103 Phone 815 987-7511 REGION 2-Peona Frank F. Alai. R.E. III. Dept. of Public Health 5415 North University • Peoria. IL 61614 Phne 309/691-2200 REGION 3 - Springfield Mane L King. R.E. III. Dept. of Public Health 4500 S. Sixth Street Road Springfield, IL 62706 Phone 217786-6882 REGION 4 - Edwardsville Richard Arnoldi, R.E. III. Dept. of Public Health Cottonwood Road Edwardsville. IL 62025 Phone 618 288-5761 REGION 5 - Mahon Muri Teske. R.E. ill. Dept. of Public Health 2209 West Mam Street Manon. IL 62959 Phone 618/997-4371 REGION 6 - Champaign III. Dept. of Public Health 2125 South First Street Champaign. IL 61820 Phone 217 333-6914 REGION 7 - West Chicago Robert Flygare. R.E. III. Dept. of Public Health 245 Roosevelt Rd. Bldg. #5 West Chicago. IL 60185 Phone 312293-6800 REGION 8 -Berkeley Paul Levin. R.E. III. Dept. of Public Health 5813 Elm Avenue Berkeley. IL 60163 Phone 31 2, 449-2777-9, 2870 CENTRAL OFFICE III. Dept. of Public Health Office of Health Regulation Division of Engineering 535 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62761 Phone 217,782-5830 IDPH Regional Office Local Health Department Administering a Private Sewage Disposal Program Other Local Authority For the^rivate Sewage Disposal Program Figure 2-1 Illinois Department of Public Health - Regional Offices 2-1 authorities conduct a public hearing after giving public notice in a newspaper of general circulation within the municipality; (f) to contract for the exercise of any of the aforementioned powers even if any such contract shall extend for longer than one year; and (g) to impose a tax upon all real property located in the zone for the purpose of retiring bonds issued pursuant to Section 6 of this Act, paying the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of the wastewater disposal system, and to impose a user charge to defray the costs of routine operation and maintenance." For all muncipalities requesting construction grant funds for a retrofit cluster system, public ownership of property or sufficient rights of access must be provided to assure undisturbed use and operation for the estimated life of the project. To meet this objective, the IEPA normally requires the formation of an on-site wastewater disposal zone. The main reason for this rule is so that the municipality can retire bonds, pay the costs of construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of the wastewater disposal system, and impose a user charge to defray the costs of routine operation, maintenance and replacement. 2.4 Sanitary District Acts Beginning with the Chicago Sanitary District Act of 1889 up through the Metro-East Sanitary District Act of 1974, several different sanitary district acts have been approved by the State of Illinois for regulating the formation of these districts under different situations. Over 30 such districts have been established under the provisions of those statutes. Most of the existing districts were formed under the Sanitary District Act of 1917 (111. revised Statutes, Chapter 42, paragraph 298.99 through 319). 2-9 Paragraph 299 of the Sanitary District Act of 1917 provides that whenever any area of contiguous territory containing part (or all) of one or more incorporated municipalities, situated such that a common sewage treatment plant or drainage outlet could serve the area, a sanitary district may be established. A properly executed petition signed by 100 legal voters within the proposed district will put the issue on the ballot, and if the majority of the votes cast are in favor, the district is formed. The existing districts range in size from 750 persons served to over 5,000,000 served. Thus, it appears that a sanitary district could be formed to construct and operate a wastewater cluster system serving a fairly small geographic area. However, because of the requirement for existing residents to petition for formation, it might be impracticable to establish a sanitary district to provide cluster systems for planned, new developments. For an existing subdivision desiring cluster wastewater treatment, formation of a sanitary district could provide the means for implementing the required planning, construction and operation of a cluster system. 2.5 Public Water Districts Act The Public Water Districts Act (Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 111-2/3, paragraphs 188 through 212.16) was approved by the legislature on July 25, 1 9^5, to provide for the formation of districts to provide a public water supply to serve the districts. The requirements for forming a public water district are similar to 2-10 those of a sanitary district except that the district boundary does not need to include any portion of an incorporated municipality. Added by amendment to the Act in 1951, Paragraph 210 authorizes every public water district to acquire or construct and to operate and maintain "sewerage properties" in addition to water systems. The term "sewerage properties" is defined to include treatment plants, sewers, drains, combined sewers, force mains, pump stations, and all other appurtenances necessary for collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and industrial wastes. Thus, where there is a need to provide both water and sewer services, formation of a public water district may be an appropriate mechanism to implement a wastewater cluster system. A public water district could be established in a rural subdivision which could not establish a sanitary district because no part of the district lay within an incorporated municipality. As with sanitary districts, a public water district may be impracticable for planned new developments since it must be formed by existing residents. 2.6 Clean Water Act and Amendments The Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et.seq.) first established a provision for funding Innovative/ Alternative (I/A) Technology projects at a higher level than conventional technology, defined I/A technology to include on-site treatemnt systems, and required a set-aside of 2 percent of each state's allotment be used to 2-11 increase the federal share from 75 percent to 85 percent for I/A projects. The 1981 Amendments (P.L. 97-117) extended the construction grants program through September 30, 1985, with the federal share remaining at 85 percent for I/A projects through September 30, 1984, then dropping to 75 percent after that date. Additional changes in the 1981 Amendments which provided further incentives for I/A projects included: 1. Funding for conventional projects was reduced to 55 percent after September 30, 1984; 2. Funding of collector sewers was eliminated after September 30, 1984; 3. The mandated I/A set aside was increased to a minimum of 4 percent of each state's allotment. In general, federal funding is not available for planned cluster systems to service future developments; however, if a retrofit cluster system is used to correct existing wastewater problems, federal construction grant funds may be utilized. Thus, retrofit cluster systems are generally eligible for U.S. EPA innovative/ alternative technology grants at 85 percent of eligible construction phase costs through September 30, 1984, and at 75 percent of eligible costs after that date. Within the Construction Grants program, it is important to distinguish 2-12 between those provisions that affect alternative technology, and those that affect individual treatment systems, and how both of these affect the various kinds of cluster systems. STEP, grinder pump and small-diameter gravity collection are all considered alternative forms of collection. As such, they are eligible for 85 percent federal funding, and may be selected even if 15 percent more expensive than the most cost-effective conventional collection system. In U.S. EPA regulations and guidance, cluster systems consist of alternative collection systems with treatment only by subsurface disposal. Within this limited definition, they are considered to be a unitary form of treatment and not subject to separate priorities for collection and treatment. Within the regulations and guidance, individual treatment systems are defined as privately-owned systems serving permanent residents. An individual septic tank and filter field would be an example of such a system. Associated with the funding of such system are certain requirements for access, control and maintenance. Although cluster systems may use various forms of on-site pretreatment (septic tanks, STEP or grinder pumps) this does not mean that those 2-13 systems are subject to various requirements for individual treatment systems. Clusters are considered to be intrinsically publicly owned, so that service even to seasonal residents is an allowable cost. 2-14 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF CLUSTER SYSTEMS The discussion that follows will be organized according to cluster system component parts: 1) source control, 2) pretreatment , 3) collection, and 4) treatment. Following the description of cluster components, there is a discussion of total systems and potential applications . While the literature on the design of individual on-site systems is 2,3,15,18,19,21,22,23,31,47,120.. .. .. ... . copious, ' ' ' there is limited published material on scaling up individual system design standards to handle clusters. Therefore, existing clusters using the different technologies are the best source of design data. A summary of existing cluster systems is shown in Appendix C. 3. 1 Source Control The average daily flow from a typical housing unit is approximately 45 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Although water usage varies from household to household, the maximum flow rate is normally less than 75 gpcd. Wastewater modifications at the source can be used to reduce wastewater flow and strength. Methods of wastewater modification include elimination of non-functional water use and utilization of water savings devices and wastewater recycle/reuse systems. Various 3-1 water conservation methods are described in the EPA process design manual . Elimination of non-functional water use can be accomplished by altering personal habits (such as toothbrushing with the water running), improving plumbing (such as fixing leaking faucets), and maintaining non-excessive water supply pressure. Water saving devices can include toilets, shower heads, faucets, washing machines and others . Most recycle systems process only the wastewaters discharged from bathing, laundry and bathroom sink usage and restrict the use of 44 recycle water to flushing toilets and lawn irrigation. Several methods are also used to reduce pollutant loading on cluster systems. These methods include improved user habits, elimination of garbage disposals, and segregation of toilet water containing human excretion (blackwater) . Blackwater control strategies include compost toilets, low volume flush toilets, closed loop recycle toilets, and incincerator toilets. Wastewater modification can have a significant effect on the design of cluster system components. Some potential benefits are increased service life, reduced frequency of septic tank pumping, reduced O&M costs, reduced size of infiltration area, and reduced component sizes. Wastewater modification should be considered during the planning phase for cluster treatment systems. 3-2 3.2 Pretreatment The four pretreatment options found in cluster systems across the country are individual septic tanks, common septic tanks, individual aerobic tanks and common aerobic tanks. All pretreatment systems must have access ports to facilitate inspection and maintenance. When individual systems are used, it is critical to place the tanks so that the maintenance and inspection agency can have ready access. In Boise, Idaho, shared septic tanks are placed at the street rather than near the house. 3.2. 1 Septic Tanks Septic tanks are buried anaerobic treatment units designed to separate solids from domestic wastewater, to provide limited digestion of organic matter, to store solids, and to discharge partially-clarified effluent for further treatment. The septic tank is the most widely used on-site wastewater treatment system used in the United States. Currently, 25 percent of the new homes being constructed in the United States utilize septic tanks prior to disposal of domestic 44 wastewater. As can be seen in Appendix C, the majority of cluster systems for single family homes use septic tanks. There are several recent design 16 2*5 ?fi ?0 ^fi 44 manuals that describe septic systems. ' ' ' The latter is the most extensive. The merits of baffled septic tanks at reducing 3-3 1 32 solids or grease carryover was recently reviewed. Two-chambered septic tanks have a similar advantage and are recommended for cluster 44 systems. In Illinois, septic tank design features and capacity requirements are regulated by the IDPH Private Sewage Disposal Act and Code. Minimum requirements are specified for tank material and strength, depth, inlet and outlet baffles, access provisions, and capacity. For tanks serving single family homes, the minimum required capacity is 750 gallons for a home with two bedrooms or less and an additional 250 gallons for each additional bedroom beyond two. If garbage grinders are used, approximately 50 percent additional capacity is required with a minimum of 750 gallons. Other requirements are specified for tanks serving multi-family dwellings, mobile home parks, schools, commercial, industrial, and recreational facilities. For flows between 1500 gallons per day (gpd) and 14,500 gpd, the required tank volume is 1125 gallons plus 75 percent of the daily sewage flow. If the design flow exceeds 1350 gpd, two or more tanks in series or a multi-compartment tank is required. Flow estimation and septic tank sizing is particularly important with septic tank design because excess flows or sudden peaks can cause solids and grease to wash out of the tank and either clog the collection lines or become deposited in and clog the soil absorption 17 44 system. ' Too short a residence time also means that the BOD is not reduced. According to a study in Washington State, septic tanks for cluster systems were commonly undersized and resulted in frequent 3-4 1 f\1 Soil Absorption System (SAS) failures. History with cluster systems, particularly mobile home parks, indicates this problem may .. 158,163,167,179,180 occur frequently. When Septic Tank Effluent Pumps (STEP) are used, it is important to have a two-chambered septic tank with at least a one-day storage ... .. r ,, 115, 126 capacity in case the pumps fail. Common septic tanks are simply larger versions of individual tanks and are found frequently in mobile home parks or condominiums. Septic tanks have been identified serving from 2 (Ranch Village Mobile Home Park) to 225 (Brooke Hollow Estates in Ada County, Idaho) residences. Large septic tanks or Imhoff tanks are currently serving entire communities in Bluford, Cisne and Thompsonville in Illinois. 3.2.2 Aerobic Units As an alternative to septic tanks, aerobic units may be used for pretreatment . Aerobic units are treatment units designed to separate settleable solids from domestic wastewater, to aerobically convert dissolved and colloidal organic matter to cell mass and carbon dioxide, to provide storage for settled sludge, and to discharge clarified effluent to another location for final treatment and/or disposal. 3-5 Aerobic units may be classified into two basic configurations - suspended-growth systems and fixed-film systems. Suspended-growth systems have been more widely used as on-site treatment units. These systems normally use the extended aeration variation of activated sludge whereby a high concentration of biomass is maintained in an aerated chamber of wastewater, followed by a solids separation step. Air is supplied by a mechanical device such as a blower which requires electrical power and generates some noise. Suspended-growth aerobic units may be designed for either continuous or batch operation. In the continuous mode, waste is treated and discharged as it is generated. In the batch mode, wastewater is collected and treated for a period of time (typcially one day) then settled and discharged at the end of the cycle. Fixed- film systems also utilize bacterial decomposition of the organic wastewater solids, but in this case, the biomass is attached to an inert media such as stone or plastic. The wastewater can flow past the media (trickling filter) or the media can move through the wastewater (rotating biological contactor). Fixed-film systems have been widely used in full-scale municipal wastewater treatment, but are still in the developmental stage for use in on-site applications. Although they still require some mechanical components such as motors or pumps, they generally require less energy and maintenance than the suspended-growth aerobic treatment units. The design of these aerboic systems is described in several documents 25 44 and is available from manufacturers. One advantage of aerobic 3-6 units over septic tanks is that they are capable of removing a greater portion of the BOD and aerating the effluent. For these reasons, some states require less absorptive area in the SAS and allow SAS's in clays that are not generally suited to septic tank effluent; however, there is currently some disagreement regarding justificaton for a 170 decrease in the required disposal area. In Illinois, the IDPH regulations require all aerobic treatment units to meet the requirements of NSF Standard HO and to be officially approved by the Department. Approved units are classified into two groups based on effluent quality. Those with Class II effluent (BOD -60 mg/1, S.S. -100 mg/1) are required to be followed with a full-sized SAS or a sand filter reduced in area by 50 percent. Following units with Class I effluent (BOD -20 mg/1, S.S. $HQ mg/1), the SAS area may be reduced by 33 percent and sand filter area reduced by 50 percent. There is no relaxation on percolation requirements for soils used in SASs . Although aerobic units work well when operating properly, they are subject to upsets and operating problems due to failure of electrical and mechanical components. Regular maintenance programs are required 74 91 177 178 to ensure properly operating systems. ' ' ' One manufacturer will not sell the systems unless there is an authorized maintenance 177 person within two hours travel time. No examples of cluster systems were identified with individual aerobic units (although these are in relatively common use for individual 3-7 on-site disposal). However, Downington, Pennsylvania; LeRicheleiu Townhouses, Birmingham, Alabama; and Country Times Mobile Home Park, Porter, Texas, have common aerobic units ranging in capacity from 3 residences at LeRichelieu Townhouses to 17 residences at Country Times Mobile Home Park. Providing there are arrangements for routine and 177 emergency maintenance, performance has been excellent. 3.3 Collection In addition to conventional sewage collection systems, there are two main types of alternative sewer systems used with cluster systems. Pressure sewers are used in conjunction with effluent pumps or grinder pumps, while Small Diameter Gravity Sewers (SDGS) rely on gravity flow from the septic tank to the common treatment system. Since the septic tanks remove the bulk of the suspended solids and grease from the wastewater, SDGS have greater design flexibility than conventional 109 sewers. Vacuum sewers have also been used on a very limited basis. 3.3.1 Pressure Sewers Pressure sewers are used with either septic tank effluent pump (STEP) systems, aerobic unit effluent pumps, or grinder pump (GP) systems. Grinder pumps are used to grind and pump raw wastewater at each home or a cluster of homes. The ground wastewater is then transported to a multi-house pretreatment unit or directly to the point of final treatment and disposal. STEP systems utilize a pumping vault downstream of the septic tank to transfer septic tank effluent to the 3-8 location of final treatment and disposal. Aerobic units may also require effluent pumps and pressure sewers to transport the wastewater to the point of final disposal. Pressure sewers are very small diameter (2"-4") pipes installed similarly to conventional water main installation (just below the frost line and following grade contours) . No manholes or cleanouts are used, but air release valves are installed at high points in the line to prevent build up of gases. Check valves to prevent backflow are included in each STEP or grinder pump unit. Pressure system design parameters are found in several , 98,109,110,114,127,128,136,152 B . - references. Such sewers are being found in increasing numbers. One of the largest systems has been in operation over five years at Glide, Oregon. The system includes a STEP system serving 1,740 persons and a GP system serving 40 persons. Two of the oldest systems are in Port Lucie and Port Charlotte, Florida. The most common problems to date have been pump failure, corrosion, and odors. ' Designers have since realized that clean water equipment and materials cannot be used with septic tank effluent, and have successfully identified suitable substitutes. Odor problems have been managed by improving the seal on the tanks and, in 1 of\ some instances, blowing air into the sewer lines. Other problems have occurred in northern climates. In Cuyler, New York, the lines were not placed deep enough into the ground, and they ^.-i 160 subsequently froze. 3-9 Another design issue involves pump design and valving. Rags, rocks, sticks, diapers, etc., may find their way into the pumps, and can clog and destroy them. For this reason, centrifugal pumps and compressors are preferable to progressive cavity or positive displacement pumps for STEP systems. It is also important to provide valving which will maintain pressure in the line, prevent air bubbles, and allow the 4 sewer authority to shut off particular sections for repair. 3.3.2 Small Diameter Gravity Sewers (SDGS) 11ft SDGS are 3"-6" sewers usually made of PVC pipe. These sewers are relatively easy to place in the ground and less expensive than conventional sewers. In addition, because the bulk of the solids have been removed from the sewage, researchers are investigating the feasibility of variable grade SDGS without the danger of 170 obstruction. A variable grade SDGS has been operating successfully 37 in Mt . Andrew, Alabama, since 1975. Others have been installed in Westboro, Wisconsin, Badger, South Dakota, and at various sites in Shoshone County, Idaho. SDGS cluster systems in Illinois include 124 144 Waynesville and LaMoille (in design). One major issue with these systems is determining appropriate design requirements for flow, slope and velocity. Widely accepted design 170 values have not yet been firmly established; however, some 17 143 164 recommendations have been developed. * ' Since these sewers are subject to less infiltration/inflow and since flow peaks are dampened within the pretreatment units, reduced design flows are appropriate. 3-10 Suggested design flows range from 0. 1 to 0.4 gpm per house 143 connection. Also, since the heavier wastewater solids have been removed in the pretreatment units, conventional scouring velocities are not required. The U.S. EPA Region 3 office recommends a minimum velocity of 1.0 ft/sec when flowing full. Current Illinois EPA policy limits sewer size to a minimum of 4" diameter and requires a minimum 164 velocity of 1.5 feet per second. 37 170 Experience with SDGS systems has been good. ' Some designers feel that manholes are not desirable because they' introduce an opportunity for dirt, debris and extraneous flows to enter the sewers. If manholes are not used, cleanouts should be installed at all bends, junctions and regular intervals along straight sections. The Illinois EPA currently requires manholes at all junctions and bends and 164 cleanouts at 400 to 600 ft. intervals. 3. 4 Treatment The major categories of treatment facilities consist of Soil Absorption Systems (SAS) , sand filters and lagoons. Existing package treatment plants, land treatment and aquaculture systems used in conjunction with individual on-site pretreatment or common septic tanks were not found in the literature. 3-11 3.4. 1 Soil Absorption Systems (SAS) Subsurface application of effluent is the technology most commonly found in planned and retrofit cluster systems. Partially treated wastewater is discharged below the ground surface where it is absorbed and treated by the soil as it percolates to the groundwater. Travel through 2 to 4 feet of unsaturated soil is necessary to provide adequate removal of pathogenic organisms and other pollutants from the wastewater before it reaches the groundwater. Subsurface Soil Absorption Systems can be subdivided into five major types: 1) Trenches (Rochester, Vermont), 2) Large Beds (Hyde Park, Vermont, Westboro, Wisconsin, and Avery, Idaho) , 3) Deep Seepage Pits (Maple Hills Subdivision, Ada County, Idaho, and Montecido Verde, Nipomo County, California), 4) Mounds (Ranier, Minnesota, and La Crosse, Wisconsin), and 5) Evapotranspiration Beds (Badger, South Dakota) Several references discuss design criteria for these SAS .„«*— a 16,20,25,33,34,38,41,43,44,45,113,142,140 systems . Trench and bed systems (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) are most commonly used for cluster wastewater treatment and disposal. These are shallow perforated pipe distribution systems laid in crushed rock and 3-12 backfilled to grade. Both the bottoms and sidewalls of the trenches are infiltrative surfaces. A typical bed will include several distribution pipes, while trench systems include one pipe per trench. Absorption Field (Trench) Distribution Box Septic Tank Gravel or Crushed Rock Figure 3-1 Typical Trench System Abtorpnon Fieto 'Bedl 42 Figure 3-2 Typical Bed System 42 The IDPH regulations require subsurface disposal to be by trench or bed systems in most instances. The required seepage area is determined by soil percolation rate and quantity of wastewater (based on number of bedrooms or design flow rate) . Other requirements on design features place limitations on distribution boxes, trench width, depth and slope, distribution lines, bedding, and backfill configurations, and locations. Subsurface systems are not allowed in Illinois if the water table is within four feet below the bed or if the percolation rate is too low or_too high. Seepage pits (Figure 3-3) are deep excavations in which porous walled chambers allow pretreated wastewater to seep through a crushed rock layer and into the natural soil. Seepage pits are not allowed in Illinois except where the top four feet of soil are too impermeable for seepage fields or beds and there is sufficient depth of permeable 3-13 soil beneath the top four feet.. Seepage pits are not allowed within 100 feet of water wells or if the seasonal high water table or limestone strata is within 14 feet of the ground surface. Figure 3-3 Typical Seepage Pit 42 A mound system (Figure 3-4) is a soil absorption system that is elevated above the natural soil surface in a suitable fill material. Mound systems are used in situations where soil conditions (such as slowly permeable soils and permeable soils with a high ground water table) prohibit the use of trench or bed systems. Mound systems are 44 generally effective; however, problems have occurred with breakouts on 159,160 M iding. Mound system desigi 14,24,44,103,106,108,123,148,153 the sides due to erosion or overloading. * Mound system design is discussed in several references. IDPH has recently published design~requirements for mounds used in Illinois. 154 Although mound systems are not normally necessary in Illinois, this method has been used for at least one Illinois cluster 124 project. In Waynesville mounds were selected for the following reasons: 1. Soil compaction during construction is minimized by use of a sandfill above the natural grade. 3-14 2. The fill allows placement of the absorption bed on a sloping site. 3. The fill provides a uniform, permeable media that can be loaded at a higher rate than fine textured soils (although the mound base area must be sufficient to allow percolation of the entire flow with no seepage out the side of the mound) . 4. Corrective action may be easier and less expensive if problems do develop. Vegetation _ ,, Perforated Pipe , Absorption Fietd Diagram Tank 6 Siphon or Pump Rocky or Tight Soil or High Ground Wate Figure 3-4 Typical Mound System 42 Evapotranspiration (Figure 3-5) is limited to warm, dry areas and small quantities of wastewater and would not be appropriate for use in Illinois. Evapotranspiration beds can be used to dispose of wastewater to the atmosphere so that no discharge to surface or ground 44 water is required. The bed consists of a sand bed with an ** impermeable liner and wastewater distribution piping. Several references discuss design information on evapotranspiration beds# M,98,95,122,134.146 3-15 Perforated Pipe Inlet Pipe From Septic or Aerobic Tank •■••••^••Av:\<.-- •••,■■': ••-.•v.' •:;»•■• :•:••: \S^. ■ •". .■■".• -V. ■.*■'■.■ " ■, 8 .'*' T ' '.•«••■ ~ x '" 6* t " .V * *,."J * Lo '—-PHI Soil Existing Soil ^Waterproof Liner Figure 3-5 Typical Evapotranspiration Bed SAS Problems and Solutions History with soil absorption systems indicates that the two most frequently encountered problems involve sizing and site evaluation. Historically, these systems, particularly beds, have failed because of undersizing. Experience has indicated that the sidewall area is an important part of the absorptive surface, and larger systems should be scaled up on the basis of sidewall and bottom area, not just bottom 113,156,167,170 ... . . . .. . _ area. Another concern is to make the system large enough to handle expected growth in the number of residents it serves. This problem has been encountered frequently in mobile home parks where the owner installs more trailer pads than the system was 1 t%ft 1 7fi 1 7Q designed to handle. * ' Similarly, some community systems have commercial or restaurant users. These users can place strain on the SAS and should be required to install more extensive pretreatment , such as a grease trap in some instances. A grease trap failed in Quail Lodge in Monterey County, California, and caused the SAS to . ., 161 fail. 3-16 Large SASs have a much greater impact on groundwater flows. They result in considerably more and higher mounding which can slow absorption from the bottom and sidewalls, and may also result in 1175 inadequate treatment Because of their greater hydraulic impact, it is important to obtain a much more detailed geohydrological profile before installing such a system. The Rochester, Vermont, system failed largely because of inadequate understanding of the deep 171 geohydrology. This also occurred in California when unexpected 179 clay lenses disrupted the effectiveness of the systems. In Illinois, IDPH reglations base SAS area requirements on the results of soil percolation tests. At least two test holes 4" to 6" diameter and 24" to 36" deep are required. The percolation rate is the time required for the last six inches of water to seep out of the hole after the hole has been saturated and kept full for at least four hours immediately preceding the test. This test provides a reasonable basis for individual systems, but for larger cluster systems a simple percolation test does not provide enough information on the absorptive capacity of the soil, and a number of factors can cause the test to 141 give misleading results. Hydraulic conductivity tests should be conducted, and the soils analysis should extend below the seepage field depth. Furthermore, groundwater flow patterns must be categorized more extensively. A new device is available which 1 fiR provides information on both groundwater flow direction and rate. 89 One article describes the information required for site analyses. SASs, regardless of design, have limited life spans — eventually a 3-17 go clogging mat develops and retards infiltration. Various methods prolong system life. These include periodic dosing rather than continuous distribution (Shiloh Village in Billings, Montana), uniform 105 139 low pressure distribution (Madison Project in Pine Hill Burrough, New Jersey), and diversion valves to allow the SAS to rest for a given part of the year (Cuyler, New York, and Maplewood Sanitary 44 District in Door County, Wisconsin). The U.S. EPA Design Manual discusses the procedures for designing these systems. Another way to prevent drainfield clogging is now being tested in Illinois. This technique utilizes a bubbler hose placed within the drainfield along with an aeration or ozonation system. On test systems in Lake and Cook Counties, aeration has restored percolation of clogged beds .... , 167 within days. Because of the threat of ultimate failure, state and local agencies often require that space for a replacement SAS be available. SASs should be designed with observation ports to facilitate evaluation of the clogging mat. It may be advisable to meter the flows in order to 77 1 f\ 1 evaluate when beds should be switched. 3.4.2 Sand Filters In areas where soil absorption systems are unacceptable due to low permeability soils or high ground water tables, sand filters are 3-18 commonly used to provide additional treatment following pretreatment in septic tanks or aerobic units. This situation exists over much of Illinois . Sand filters are beds of granular material 2 to 3 feet deep with a pipe distribution system on the upper surface and pipe collection system within a gravel bed below the sand. In addition to removal of solids by straining, the filters have an active biological growth which removes organics and converts ammonia to nitrate. Filters may be either open or buried and intermittent or recirculating. Buried filters are vented to the atmosphere and are commonly used for on-site systems to improve appearances and reduce odors. Since buried filters require excavation in order to perform any maintenance, they are not as appropriate as open filters for large cluster systems. Intermittent filters are dosed intermittently either by the natural variations in the wastewater discharge from pretreatment units or by special dosing systems using siphons or pumps and designed to flood the entire filter at least twice a day. Recirculation is used only, with open (or free access) filters and requires a recirculation tank between the filter and pretreatment unit. Pretreated wastewater and filter effluent both flow into the recirculation tank. At regular intervals, the mixture is pumped onto the filters. This allows greater volumes of better quality wastewater to be applied to the filter at regular intervals and, in some cases, improves final effluent quality. More detailed filter design information is 44 129 130 131 presented in the U.S. EPA Design Manual and elsehwere. * 3-19 In Illinois, the IDPH regulations allow either buried filters or recirculating open filters following pretreatment in septic tanks or aerobic units for systems serving up to 1,500 gallons per day. In either case, a surface discharge of effluent is required. For systems larger than 1,500 gallons per day, the Illinois EPA does not allow use of buried filters. This is due to the inaccessibility for fitler 19 maintenance noted by Lombardo and several others. However, if properly designed, buried filters can operate successfully for extended periods without maintenance. 3.4.3 Other Treatment and Disposal Systems Although much less common than soil absorption systems and sand filters; lagoons, land application, and aquaculture are also utilized for final disposal of pretreated cluster system wastewater. Lagoons have been used in Mt . Andrew, Alabama, and Bottle Bay, Idaho. 36,41,42,118, Several references describe lagoon system designs. 135,137,138,145,147 One problem associated with lagoon systems is that they often do not provide effluent that meets NPDES or state standards. In this case, lagoons may be followed by sand filtration. For LaMoille, Illinois, this combination was found to be more cost-effective than direct 3-20 144 filtration of septic tank effluent. Odor problems at lagoons following septic tank pretreatment may be reduced by use of multiple 1 f\R inlet points around the lagoon periphery. Land application can also be used in conjunction with lagoons that do not meet NPDES standards. In Grantfork, Illinois, Fillmore, Illinois, and Shallothe, North Carolina, land application is used following septic tank pretreatment and lagoon secondary treatment. Land 14 4.4 - a—* : 4 . 4 . A . 40,46,48, application design practice is discussed in many sources. 49,50,51,52,92,93,96,104,119,121,150 Aquaculture technology has been used in Newcastle, Viginia, and Woodstock, New York, and also has been discussed in several - 102, 107, 112, 125 references. 3.5 Total Systems and Applications 3.5.1 Combinations of Cluster Components Figures 3-6 and 3-7 are graphical representations of potential combinations of cluster components. Figure 3-6 outlines different combinations of pretreatment, collection, and treatment alternatives, where individual pretreatment units are followed by group final treatment units. These systems are commonly used for retrofit clusters where existing pretreatment units are incorporated into the cluster system. Figure 3-7 outlines cluster systems that utilize 3-21 SOURCE PRETREATMENT COLLECTION i TREATMENT & DISPOSAL LEGEND H - HOUSE S - SEPTIC TANK A - AEROBIC UNIT GP - GRINDER PUMP STEP - SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP SDGS - SMALL DIAMETER GRAVITY SEWER PS - PRESSURE SEWER SAS-SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM SF-SAND FILTER L- LAGOON Figure 3-6 Cluster Systems Utilizing Individual Pretreatment Units SOURCE PRETREATMENT COLLECTION 1 s TREATMENT & DISPOSAL LEGEND H - HOUSE S - SEPTIC TANK A - AEROBIC UNIT GP- GRINDER PUMP STEP - SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP SDGS - SMALL DIAMETER GRAVITY SEWER t PS - PRESSURE SEWER SAS-SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM SF-SAND FILTER L- LAGOON Figure 3-7 Cluster Systems Utilizing Group Pretreatment Units group pretreatment systems. Often a cluster system is composed of group pretreatment units which are routed to one or more final treatment systems. Cluster systems can also be composed of a combination of individual and group pretreatment units. Several factors influence the decision of which cluster components are used and how they are combined into a total system. Some of these factors include: 1) population, 2) acreage served, 3) existing problems, 4) soil type, 5) topography, 6) groundwater table, and 7) construction and operating costs. Technical factors such as soil type, topography, and groundwater table may be used to eliminate some alternatives, and the remaining alternatives can be compared based on cost and reliability. Appendix C identifies actual cluster systems and indicates which combinations of components have been utilized in existing systems. Most cluster systems installed to date involve a combination of septic tanks and soil absorption systems of various types. 3.5.2 Applications for Cluster Systems There are numerous potential applications for cluster systems in Illinois. Cluster systems can be built to correct existing problems (retrofit clusters) or to serve new developments (planned clusters). Usually, the cluster system is built either because soil characteristics are unsuitable at individual home sites, lot size is too small to allow individual SASs , or because costs for individual 3-24 septic and SAS systems are too high. Cluster systems are also gaining favor in situations where conventional collection and treatment systems would have been used previously. Instead of building conventional sewers, pressure and small diameter gravity sewers are being used to transport effluent from septic tanks to a soil absorption system or a conventional secondary treatment system. In addition to serving new developments, these systems have been used to upgrade areas where public health problems exist due to inappropriate siting of Septic Tank - SAS systems. Potential applications of wastewater clusters in Illinois are listed below. The potential applications are not necessarily mutually exclusive; that is, a particular situation may be viewed as a potential cluster application for more than one reason. Also, one project may include both retrofit and planned clusters. Separate lists of retrofit and planned cluster applications are presented to emphasize the differing planning, economic and management considerations in each case. A pplication RETROFIT CLUSTERS: (1) Rural unsewered communities (2) Urban fringe areas, incorporated Comments Generally involves EPA grant or FmHA funding; may be mixture or onsite and cluster systems; municipal disposal zone most likely management entity. Similar to (1); secondary impacts of interceptor extensions important in comparing sewer vs. cluster alternatives. 3-25 (3) Low-density urban areas (4) Urban areas with topographic or geological constraints (5) Rural lake areas, unicorporated (6) Other unincorporated areas Where sewer length per connection is very high, clusters (or alternative collection systems such as pressure sewers) may be cost-effective even if interceptors are available. Steep slopes, natural or manmade obtacles such as streams or major highways, or geological conditions may make clusters more cost-effective than sewer extensions. Extensively studied by EPA Region 5; properly designed clusters may protect water supplies and avoid eutrophication; management entity requires special consideration since, under present Illinois law, only muncipalities may establish disposal zones. Similar to (5); performance standards for clusters may be somewhat less stringent than (5) since pathogen and nutrient removal may be less critical for discharge to streams rather than lakes. PUNNED CLUSTERS: (1) Rural Unsewered communities (2) Urban fringe areas, incorporated Communities establishing disposal zones for onsite/ cluster approaches under the grants program will need to provide for future development; most likely applications will be small cluster subdivisions with municipal management . Developers of land beyond existing sewers may be given the option of installing clusters or paying entire cost of interceptor extension; management entity may be homeowners association, private utility or municipality; design should consider possibility of abandoning cluster disposal and connecting to sewers when contiguous development reaches site. 3-26 (3) Urban fringe areas, unincorporated but within 1.5 miles of incorporated municipality (4) Large lot developments in urban areas Illinois law gives municipalities zoning powers up to 1.5 miles beyond the corporate limits; may want to encourage or require clusters to reduce likelihood of residents demanding sewers upon annexation once corporate limits reach the development; management entity may be homeowners association or private utility. Large lots may make sewers expensive, but onsite systems may create buyer resistance in expensive developments; in this situation, the developer may request city permission to install clusters rather than sewers. (5) Urban areas with topographic or geological constraints (6) Urban areas with overloaded wastewater facilities (7) Rural lake areas, unincorporated As in (4) , developer may initiate request for cluster approval in these situations; city may approach request from fiscal impact perspective and negotiate on both design standards and management arrangements. Communities with collection or treatment facilities at or exceeding capacity may be unable to obtain IEPA permits for sewer extensions to serve new developments; municipalities may encourage or require developer-built clusters as an alternative to relief sewers or treatment plant expansions. Clusters permit small lakefront lots, if desired, with disposal in multiple-use open space; management by homeowners association or private utility possible; pressure sewers to land treatment or subsurface disposal away from lake may be appropriate alternatives . (8) Other unincorporated areas Similar to (7); performance standards may be less stringent for discharge to stream; 3-27 (9) Large-scale planned unit Similar to other potential developments applications except that larger development size may make planned wastewater reuse (e.g. golfcourse watering, agricultural irrigation) feasible; Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are typically designed with open space which may be suitable for subsurface disposal; PUDs often have owners associations to own and manage open space and recreational facilities; they may also manage wastewater clusters; constructing clusters in phases as development proceeds may be advantageous to developer in comparison with large initial cost to extend interceptors to site. A typical example of a cluster system application in Illinois is the 124 Village of Waynesville. Waynesville fits in the first category of retrofit cluster applications - rural unsewered communities. A household survey conducted in this village of 560 persons showed that approximately 45 percent had individual ST-SASs which were in general conformance with IDPH requirements, 25 percent had septic systems for toilet wastes with direct discharge of "gray water," 27 percent had direct discharge of septic tank effluent, and the other 3 percent had cesspools. A cost-effectivenss analysis conducted in accordance with U.S. EPA Construction Grants requirements showed that the most cost-effective alternative was to utilize on-site ST-SASs where lots were suitable and to provide clusters elsewhere. The final design included a cluster ST-SDGS-SAS (mound) system serving 51 buildings on the east side a cluster ST-SDGS-SAS (seepage field) system serving 4 homes on the south end, and upgrading the remaining individual on-site systems as required. 3-28 The estimated monthly cost per residence was $7.40 for the cluster system plan, less than half the cost of a centralized system using conventional gravity 3ewers and lagoon treatment. The project was funded by an 85 percent U.S. EPA construction grant and a Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) loan for the local share. The project is now nearing the completion of construction. 3-29 4.0 MANAGEMENT OF CLUSTER SYSTEMS There are three key aspects of effective management of wastewater cluster systems. First, regulatory authority must be clearly established for developing design standards, reviewing plans, authorizing construction and operation, verifying that local ordinances are acceptable, and enforcing the treatment system performance requirements. Second, there must be a mechanism established for financing the construction, operation, and maintenance of the treatment system. Finally, there must be a designated management agency responsible for directing the planning, design, installation, and on-going operation and maintenance of the system. 4. 1 Regulatory Agency As discussed in Section 2.0, the regulatory authority for cluster systems in Illinois may rest potentially with several different state and local agencies including IEPA, IDPH, local health departments, and other local units listed in Appendix B. If more than one agency is involved, there should be a clear delineation of responsibilities. Currently, the IEPA is responsible for regulating systems with flows over 1,500 gallons per day which have a surface discharge and for approving all retrofit clusters funded under the U.S. EPA Construction Grant Program. For smaller systems or those with subsurface discharge, IDPH is the responsible regulatory agency. The IDPH also 4-1 has the authority to designate local health authorities to act on their behalf. These designated local units are indicated by an asterisk in Appendix B. When local units are not so designated, requirements of both the local unit and IDPH must be satisfied. The role of the regulatory agency begins early in the planning process. In Illinois, a developer or municipality planning a cluster system is required to submit plans and specifications to IEPA or IDPH (whichever applies) for their review and approval prior to issuing a permit for construction and operation. Seeking regulatory input during the development of plans will increase the likelihood of an approvable system and avoid the cost of major revisions and re-submittals. This early and frequent contact with regulatory agency works well where there is adequate staff to provide quick, informal responses. If not, problems will develop. For example, in Missouri the state agency is so understaffed that many developers are reluctant to follow the regulations. In the absence of a strong regulatory presence, many poorly designed and maintained systems exist, and some - ,, . 165 are failing. Another role of the regulatory agency is to verify that the required legal liabilities and mechanisms are in place prior to approving a cluster system. In retrofit cluster systems, ordinances are usually used to establish the legal mechanisms. For planned systems, homeowners' agreements are often used to assign legal responsibility. 4-2 In Downington, Pennsylvania, all of the following separate agreements exist : - homeowner-developer - homeowner-town - homeowners association-town - homeowners association-developer - developer- town - town-county In this way, should any party default on his or her responsibility, there is redress. The major legal considerations which must be established include: 66 ' 68 - 71 ' 80 - 82 1. The respective financial and legal responsibilities of the homeowner, management agency, regulatory agency and developer throughout system life for design, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring and replacement. A particular concern for planned systems is the transition between developer and homeowner responsibility. In Brainerd, Minnesota, the failing system was replaced at county expense because something had to be done, and the developer refused to fix the system. The county is now suing to recover their costs. In Downington, Pennsylvania, and Boise, Idaho, the 4-3 developer is legally obliged to be responsible for the system should it fail. 2. Legal enforcement mechanisra3 and procedures for insuring that assigned responsibilities are carried out and fees collected. The proper mechanism depends on the function. For example, in Boise, Idaho, the county health department can insure adequate O&M by administrative orders to the homeowners' association to hire better maintenance personnel. Alternatively, court orders or fines (Marin County, California) , the legal right to perform the work and bill the homeowner (Boise, Idaho), property liens for unpaid bills (Boise County, Idaho), or renewable occupancy permits that must be valid particularly upon sale of a residence (Rothsday Camp, Minnesota, and Marin County, California) can be used to make sure that the developer or homeowner builds and maintains the on-site portion of the cluster system properly. While one time occupancy permits (Fairfax County, Virginia) or building permits (Boise, Idaho, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, El Dorado County, California) can insure that the system is designed and installed properly. 3. The legal means to assure access to the parts of the system on private property. This may be accomplished through deed restrictions (Port Lucie, Florida, Port Charlotte, Florida, Rothsday Camp, Minnesota), easements (Cuyler, New York), local ordinances (Lake Mead, Pennsylvania), or service agreements (Port Charlotte and Port Lucie, Florida) . 4. Easements and rights-of-way for common collection sewers or treatment systems across private property (Cuyler, New York). This process may be more difficult than expected, particularly in rural areas or vacation areas with absentee landlords. In Iselin Township, Pennsylvania, the cluster system plan had to be abandoned because of legal fees involved with tracking down landlords and gaining easements so that adjacent houses could share a common leach field. Frequently, neighboring houses 5 were separated by an empty lot owned by a third party. 4.2 Financial Management The second major component for successful cluster system management is providing adequate financial support for the systems and procedures for collecting the funds. Some of the financial responsibilities are established by the legal mechanisms discussed above. Different financing approaches may be used for construction than for operation 4-5 of a cluster system. In general, the construction cost of planned or retrofit clusters may be financed in any acceptable, legally-authorized way. Optional approaches include the following: — bonds (Cuyler, New York) — general taxes (Fairfax County, Virginia) — one-time assessments (a fee whenever a house is sold in Port Charlotte and Port Lucie, Florida; an initial connection fee in Georgetown Divide Public Utility District) — homeowner or developer financial responsibility (initial installation in Boise County, Idaho) Financing the operation, maintenance and replacement of a cluster system may also be done in a variety of ways. If the system is a retrofit cluster funded under the U.S. EPA Construction Grants Program, then the grantee must demonstrate that an equitable user charge system is in place which distributes fees in proprotion to the service actually received. This may be done using an ad valorem tax or, more commonly, using a user fee based on water consumption. Financing options for operations, maintenance, and replacement of cluster systems include: user fees (Georgetown Divide Public Utility District in Eldorado County, California, Port Charlotte and Port Lucie, Florida homeowner or developer financial responsibility (initial installation in Boise County, Idaho) 4-6 4.3 Management Agency Establishing a management agency responsible for overseeing design, construction, operation and maintenance is probably the most critical component for insuring successful performance of a wastewater cluster system. One of the major fears of regulatory agencies is that cluster systems require operation and maintenance and money to operate properly, yet there will be no one person responsible for operation 156 and finances. This results in two serious problems. There is no one to see that routine maintenance gets done and no one to make sure that major failures or problems are corrected. Past experience has shown this to be the case. For example, an apparently well-designed system in Cuyler, New York, that used grinder pumps, a group septic tank and a dual bed soil absorption system (SAS) with a diversion valve to allow for resting had no designated authority responsible for operation and maintenance. As a result, the diversion valve was not switched in three years. There are numerous reported instances where systems failed because they were not designed or installed with adequate supervision. These include the Damsite Subdivision in 165 157 Missouri, North Long Lake in Brainerd, Minnesota, and various 1 7Q 1 80 mobile home parks in California. ' Similarly, in Boise, Idaho, one developer hired a poorly qualified operater who failed to do his job properly. The area health district was forced to hold an administrative hearing and order the developer to hire a better 1 ft? person. There have been no problems with the system since. 4-7 It is essential to identify a competent management entity responsible for overseeing the design, installation, and on-going operation and maintenance of these systems early in the planning period. Management agencies can be new or existing: — Homeowners* associations as found in Downington, Pennsylvania, Birmingham, Alabama, and Boise, Idaho; — Sanitary districts or public utility districts as found in Madison Project, New Jersey; — Government agencies such as a city or county public works or sanitation agency as found in San Luis, Obispo County, Califonia, and Shiloh Village in Billings, Montana. In some instances, the responsibility may be divided among a number of organizations. Several references discuss the different ...,. v . 66,68,71,80,82 possibilities. Once the planning has been completed, the need for cluster system management continues with the following activities: - Overseeing design and construction - Operation and maintenance - Inspections - Monitoring - Collecting User Fees - Enforcement - Record keeping In many instances, different agencies or organizations will have responsibilities for these different aspects of cluster system 4-8 management. Three documents in particular discuss the management of on-site systems and cluster systems in detail and include several case fifi ftn fl"3 studies. Englehart and Ward describe a computerized model for 69 - estimating management efforts for cluster systems. There are several additional informative articles on cluster system man ag em en 85,86,87 t ^26, 27, 28, 60, 61 , 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 81 , 84 An important distinction that must be made in the management of on-site systems is the difference between who performs the work and 80 who is 'responsible for seeing that the work gets done. In many instances, the mangement agency will contract with the private sector to complete the work; or, the homeowner may have the option to use either the management agency's services or contract for their own expert. For example, the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District will design a treatment system for a house or group of houses, or allow the homeowners to hire their own engineer.. Finally, the homeowners may be responsible for some activities entirely on their own, as in Fairfax County, Virginia, where the homeowner is responsible for obtaining inspections. Maintenance is the most pressing role of a cluster system manager. This includes routine maintenance for pump servicing, septic tank inspections and pumping, aerobic tank cleaning, SAS inspections, SAS valve diversions, and emergency maintenance for faulty pumps, tanks, and line replacement. 4-9 Experience with existing systems has revealed several important aspects of on-site system management. Whenever a pump is used in any part of the cluster system that is on the homeowner's property, warning lights that indicate pump failure should be installed in a location that the homewoner is likely to see. These must also be 70 tamper proof. When pump failures occur, spare parts and pumps must *70 lie 1 O f\ be on hand to insure that replacement is easy. ' Staff must be experienced and an operation and maintenance manual should be 1 ft? available in order to ensure that the correct maintenance occurs. A record should be kept on each system to ensure that the maintenance go gets done on schedule, that a history of maintenance is available 1 ft? for enforcement purposes, and that a new maintenance person can take over. 4-10 5.0 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CLUSTER SYSTEMS Many of the key technical and management issues have been brought out in the previous discussions. In this section, the major unresolved issues are summarized under five categories: 1) engineering, 2) environment/ public health, 3) economic, 4) legal /management , and 5) land-use considerations. In order to evaluate these issues from different perspectives, a panel of experts from different backgrounds was formed. Panel members are listed in Appendix D. Each panel member was sent a draft copy of Chapters 1 through 4 of this cluster system report and was asked to comment on the issues discussed below. Opinions of the panel members were then used to help formulate recommendations for resolving the issues. 5. 1 Engineering 5. 1.1 Design Flows IDPH standards base design of on-site residential systems on number of bedrooms. IEPA uses actual measured flows, if available, or per capita estimates. The IDPH method will generally result in much higher design flows than the IEPA method. A uniform method of determining design flow for multi-building clusters is needed. Also, consideration of safety factors should be explicit rather than concealed in design rules of thumb. 5-1 Since IDPH criteria are based on safe-guarding against poorly maintained systems, they are probably overly conservative for regularly maintained cluster systems. Where retrofit clusters are proposed, there may be actual water use records which could be used to develop a design flow, including an allowance for infiltration and future growth. Experience with small communities in Illinois indicates that actual water consumption is typically about 40 gallons per person per day in residential areas. For planned clusters and retrofits where no water flows are available, wastewater design flows should be based on population projection and per capita flows, including an allowance for future growth. 5.1.2 Site Evaluation and Performance Monitoring When the soil is an integral part of the treatment process for large clusters, more detailed site evaluation may be needed than for individual on-site systems. In addition to percolation tests, a brief geologial evaluation should be performed including at least one shallow boring and a characterization of the shallow groundwater in the area. If the site evaluation is favorable for SAS, then groundwater monitoring (level and quality) should be performed at regular intervals, including at least two background samples collected prior to construction. 5-2 The frequency of monitoring and the site evaluation criteria should depend on the size of the system and distance to nearest water supply well. As the risk of water pollution increases, the monitoring effort should also increase. 5.1.3 Special Design Features for Scaling-up On-Site Systems • Clusters may use seepage fields or other systems most often used with single family systems. The new IDPH rules permit clusters, but do not impose any additional design requirements. If additional requirements are too conservative, then cluster systems will no longer be cost-effective compared with individual on-site treatment and disposal. As a minimum, duplicate units for filtration or seepage fields should be required with provisions for controlled dosing of either unit. Some reserve absorption area should also be required on SASs. Other features, such as two-compartment septic tanks, which could improve the system reliability with little added cost, should also be considered. 5.1.4 Risk Assessment, Innovative Designs, and Experimental Permits In general, cluster technologies involve heavy reliance on land-based treatment processes with relatively little operator control. This does not imply that cluster systems result in greater risk than conventional systems. Actually, cluster systems which are properly designed should pose an intermediate level of risk - greater than 5-3 individual systems because of the larger wastewater quantities of one location, but less than conventional systems because of reduced reliance on mechanical components which are more prone to failure. The key to minimizing risk is to design with adequate operational flexibility rather than more conservative design features. The U.S. EPA grants program contains explicit recognition of risk/benefit considerations for innovative technologies, and both IEPA and IDPH have provisions for experimental permits. Under the federal criteria, cluster systems are generally considered as alternative technology, but certain components of clusters, such as variable grade small diameter sewers, are considered innovative technology. In either case, if the project were funded from the federal Wastewater Construction Grants program, it would be eligile for 100 percent replacement cost funding to correct deficiencies if failure occurred within the first two years. In order to minimize the chances of failure, the state agencies (IEPA or IDPH) should use professional judgement in reviewing the design to verify that the basis of design is reasonable; however, they cannot guarantee success. The public should be willing to accept some risk in order to advance the limitations on cluster system technology. If a cluster project is constructed with private funds, the developer would be required to post a performance bond for up to five years in order to receive a permit for construction. This would provide an incentive for the job to be done right and a source of revenue for correction should problems arise. 5-4 5.2 Environment /Public Health These issues are discussed at length in relation to on-site systems in IINR Document No. 80/1 9 , On-Site Waste Water Treatment and Disposal 15 Systems (Environmental and Health Effects). Cluster systems will have similar effects except for differences due to the larger scale of clusters compared with individual on-site systems. Issues related to secondary environmental impacts such as induced growth are discussed under Land Use. 5.2.1 Surface Discharges from Clusters Surface discharges under IEPA regulations generally must meet at least a 10/12 standard (B0D_ and suspended solids in mg/1) for discharge to low flow streams or 30/30 where stream dilution of five times or greater is available. Under circumstances described in IPCB regulations, a 30/37 standard may be permitted for lagoons. IDPH requirements for surface discharge are currently 20/40, but a proposed rule change will modify that requirement to 30/30. Representatives of IEPA and IDPH have indicated that their standards are both appropriate for clusters, depending on which is applicable for a particular system. That is, systems over 1,500 gpd with surface discharges must meet IEPA requirements, while smaller systems are governed by IDPH standards. There is some logic to this approach 5-5 since larger systems have greater potential for environmental consequences. Nevertheless, there should not be an incentive to construct two different 1,500 gpd systems when a single 3,000 gpd system could do just as well at lower cost. For this reason, it would seem more logical for a single standard to apply to all cluster systems employing a particular technology. If necessary, a reasonable upper flow limit such as 150,000 gpd could be established, above which conventional IEPA standards would apply. A cluster system employing third-stage lagoon(s) for final treatment should qualify for lagoon exemptions described above under the same circumstances as a conventional system. There is no authority for IEPA to extend this exemption to other treatment process configurations. To confirm that plant performance is meeting applicable effluent standards, some routine monitoring is required. Effluent monitoring requirements should vary depending on the size of the system, with quarterly monitoring for large systems and semi-annual monitoring (once in summer and once in winter) for smaller systems. 5-6 5.2.2 Clusters with Land Treatment Land application of wastewater effluents includes overland flow, slow rate infiltration or irrigation, and high rate infiltration. Each of these processes could be applicable to cluster systems. The IDPH regulations do not allow land treatment systems as an approved technology. Conceivably, they could be permitted under the provisions for a variance or experimental use permit. IEPA regulations permit a 30/37 discharge from systems with a lagoon exemption and employing overland flow treatment for effluent polishing. No discharge is allowed from either slow rate or high rate infiltration processes. If land treatment systems are only used for cluster projects over 1,500 gpd, the existing IEPA requirements would be appropriate and there would be no conflict with IDPH regulations. Limiting land treatment cluster systems to those over 1,500 gpd may be reasonable because of the additional operational needs of land treatment systems compared with seepage fields, filters or lagoons. 5.3 Economic 5.3.1 Grant Considerations Cluster systems for upgrading on-site systems in small, unsewered communities or in urban fringe areas are eligible for Innovative/ Alternative grant funding under the Federal Construction Grants Program. In fact, the regulations specifically require that 5-7 clusters or other small alternative wastewater systems be evaluated for these situations. As administrator of the federal program, IEPA will certify such projects for funding if they are demonstrated to be cost-effective, long-term (at least 20-year) solutions. Although cluster systems may in some cases be the best technology for interim sewer service in a new subdivision which cannot be served by existing conventional systems, the EPA grants program would not fund these projects. Recent changes in eligible funding categories may result in a significant shift toward cluster system solutions. After October 1, 1984, the only form of grant eligible sewer collection systems will be pressure, vacuum, and small diameter gravity sewers used in cluster systems. This is because these pipes connect on-site pretreatment units to final treatment and disposal sites. Thus, they are considered as a component of the treatment process and are included in 35 Funding Category I, Secondary Treatment. 5.3.2 User Charge Systems for Publicly Managed Clusters If a cluster project is funded under the Construction Grants Program, it is subject to the same requirements for equitable user financing as would be a conventional treatment system. In brief, this means capital funding for construction can be arranged in any satisfactory 5-8 manner desired by the local grantee. Funding for operation, maintenance, and replacement must be equitably distributed among system users based on actual use or service provided. If the project is not funded under the Construction Grants Program, many different funding options are possible depending on the responsible public agency. For example, if a Sanitary District is formed, the revenue requirements spelled out in the Illinois State Statutes for Sanitary Districts would be applicable. 5.3.3 Requirements for Planned Clusters Comparison of clusters with other wastewater alternatives in terms of project profitability and marketability of finished lots is a developer's concern. Costs to the developer and buyers will be affected by the position of local government on design standards, mandatory dedication, performance bonds or other guarantees, special provisions for "temporary clusters" where future interceptor extensions are planned, inclusion in or exclusion from sanitary districts and sewer-related property taxes, etc. In most cases, planned clusters will be funded by private developers. In order for clusters to remain cost-effective compared with individual systems, it is important that local government regulatory and planning agencies establish reasonable policies for design standards, performance bonds and other concerns mentioned above. 5-9 5.4 Legal/ Management 5.4.1 Management Entities IDPH code only allows clusters "under joint ownership of the users" or "under public jurisdiction to ensure there is a responsible party for maintenace and repairs." We have interpreted the former as principally referring to incorporated owners or condominium associations. Present Illinois law only permits municipalities to establish on-site disposal zones; however, for planned clusters, such zones may be unnecessary since septic tanks or other appurtenances may be placed on dedicated easements or right-of-ways, eliminating the need for a legal right of access to private property. Municipalities, townships, counties, and special districts could all be responsible management agencies for cluster systems in Illinois if they are authorized to own and operate public sewerage facilities under the Illinois State Statutes. EPA construction grants are normally awarded to municipalities or sanitary districts, but are also available to townships and counties. Many of the review panel suggested that special districts such as sanitary districts would be the most appropriate public management choice because they are special purpose districts with one primary goal. Also, the need for clusters normally does not coincide with municipal or other governmental boundaries. 5-10 Whether the management entity is a public authority or a private homeowners' association, the most important consideration in determining the responsible management entity is that there be legal authority established which provides all the rights and powers needed to successfully own and operate the wastewater system. 5.4.2 Public Acceptance and Participation For planned clusters, buyer acceptance or resistance may be assessed by the developer using standard market research techniques. For retrofit clusters, the grants program requires public participation in facilities planning to assure that there is adequate public awareness and support for the project. For cluster systems, public involvement and support for the project from the initial stages is crucial to the success of the project. Although active participation does not necessarily result in public acceptance of the final plan, lack of participation clearly reduces the chances for success. One question which is related to public participation involves the possible requirement for all homeowners to be included in a municipal disposal zone or special district regardless of whether their on-site system is failing. The consensus of the review panel was that the same legal authority that require hook-ups should exist for clusters as for conventional sewer systems. The Illinois statute on municipal disposal zones allows for zone boundaries not including all of the 5-11 municipality, but requires everyone within the boundary to participate. Some lawyers have expressed concern that common law precedents regarding private property rights may override such a requirement; however, a recent court case in Riverwoods, Illinois, found that a municipality has the authority to declare a private system is a nuisance... "unless its judgment and discretion is clearly 80 erroneous." One benefit of mandating full participation in areas where some individual systems appear to work right and others do not is that the systems still functioning may be expected to cause problems at some point in the near future. 5.4.3 Regulating Publicly-Owned Clusters As with a conventional sewer system, regulations which limit dicharges are required for cluster systems to operate properly. In general, all the same restrictions such as limitations on pH, temperature, flammables, toxics and storm drain or sump pump connections would still apply. In addition, other special requirements such as mandatory septic tank cleaning at specified intervals, use of water conservation devices, or prohibition of garbage grinders may be appropriate, depending on the cluster technology employed. Responsibility for enforcement and compliance of these sewer use regulations would normally rest with the management agency. Cooperation could be improved by public education explaining why each restriction is important and by including fines, fees and other enforcement provisions in the regulations. 5-12 One potential problem regards access to system components (e.g. septic tanks) located on private property. The Illinois Disposal Zone Act provides the authority to ensure adequate access, but easements may be desirable to reduce the potential for legal challenges. Also, design considerations such as location of on-site components and access hatches will minimize problems associated with on-site components. Wherever possible, on-site components should be publicly-owned. If privately-owned components are included in the cluster system, user adherence to the established regulations should be a mandatory requirement for the privilege of being served by the cluster system. 5.4.4 Regulating Privately -Owned dusters Where cluster systems are privately-owned, local government does not have the authority to directly regulate the clusters; however, municipalities would have the authority to require zoning and planning approvals and to pass ordinances which are designed to protect the health and welfare of the residents. The latter regulatory role could be vested in the local health department (if within a municipality) or the Township Board of Health or County Health Department in unincorporated areas. 5-13 5.4.5 State Role in Cluster Regulation By definition, clusters combine elements of on-site and centralized technology. In this situation, is it better to assign the primary regulatory responsibility to IDPH (which regulates principally on-site systems) or to IEPA (which regulates principally centralized systems)? As discussed previously, the present division of responsibility is current based on flow and type of discharge, with systems over 1,500 gpd and having a surface discharge under IEPA jurisdiction and smaller systems or systems with subsurface discharge under IDPH jurisdiction. An additional requirement is that all systems funded under the construction grants program are subject to IEPA approval. This division of responsibility between the two agencies may be appropriate, but there should be consistency established for design standards and effluent requirements such that a given cluster system technology has the same requirements for flows above or below 1,500 gpd. Currently, IDPH and IEPA requirements do differ, but a joint regulatory panel could be formed to develop consistent requirements for cluster systems. 5.4.6 Intergovernmental Agreements, Contracting for Services In implementing cluster systems, municipalities or other responsible managing agency may arrange for local health departments or other agencies to perform some functions. Advantages of this approach are that the existing expertise of the health department can be utilized and requirements for additional staff can be reduced. These 5-14 advantages should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing some control over the system and a possible conflict between management and enforcement roles. Where cluster systems serve more than one municipality, regionalization may be accomplished with each municipality forming a disposal zone and then contracting with a county or other regional body for management services. This would make good use of existing resources, but would be difficult to implement. Formation of a sanitary district would probably be preferable in this situation. Once a cluster system is in operation, it may be preferable to contract out for some services. Typically, routine services such as septic tank cleaning are contracted to a private hauler, while monitoring and normal maintenance are performed by regular employees. In some instances, the entire operating responsibility may be contracted to a private concern. This approach is gaining popularity with conventional wastewater plants and could be equally desirable for cluster systems. 5.5 Land Use 5.5.1 Lot Size, Open Space and Development Density IDPH codes do not specify the minimum lot size for use of on-site systems, but do set forth seepage areas, separation distances, reserve areas, etc. In general, a lot size of about one-half acre is required 5-15 to meet these requirements. Local ordinances often set a specific minimum lot size for the approval of on-site systems. A cluster system using on-site pretreatment units should not necessarily be required to meet these lot size restrictions. 5.5.2 Effect on Overall Development Pattern In general, use of cluster systems can result in a higher density development than with individual on-site systems; however, subsequent growth may be restricted by the design capacity of the cluster system. This could result in no growth or in growth "spurts" associated with the addition of a new cluster system serving the new development. If several potential cluster treatment and disposal sites exist in a particular area, it may be preferable to add future cluster systems to parallel the growth demand rather than design the initial system for "ultimate" growth. 5.5.3 Timing of Development and Corporate Control In contrast to development served by conventional sewer systems, development with cluster systems can occur in non-contiguous areas. Thus, allowing one new development with a cluster will not necessarily encourage other development in intervening space as would a new sewer. This may be desirable or undesirable depending on the long-range community plans. The appropriateness of clusters vs. sewer extensions should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In cases where eventual connection to a conventional sewer appears probable, clusters should 5-16 be designed to provide flexibility for future connection to the sewers . If a proposed cluster development is within 1.5 miles of a municipality, state statutes provide legal authority for the municipality to approve the development plan. The considerations discussed above should apply equally whether the development is within the 1.5 mile limit or not. 5.5.4 Use of Clusters to Preserve Desired Land Resources Where the undeveloped land between a potential cluster (retrofit or planned) and presently sewered areas includes prime or unique farmland, parks, natural areas, or other environmental resources, clusters can be used to help avoid additional development pressure on those land resources. However, zoning or establishing designated parks, etc., should be the principal method of controlling development in these areas. Even where planned clusters may help achieve public goals, public funds should not be used to subsidize their construction directly. Under certain circumstances, publicly-backed low-interest loans could be used to assist in construction of a cluster system. Such loans would parallel similar loans used to spur industrial development. Direct public funding of planned clusters would be contrary to fundamental principles of the free-enterprise system. For retrofit clusters, public funding is appropriate to alleviate an existing water 5-17 pollution problem or health threat, just as construction grants funding is appropriate for upgrading conventional municipal wastewater systems . 5-18 LIST OF REFERENCES GENERAL INFORMATION AND IDENTIFIED CLUSTER SYSTEM SOURCES 1 Abney, Jack L. "Evaluation of 19 On-Site Waste Treatment Systems in Southeastern Kentucky," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/2-80-101. 2 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Board, Alternatives to Sewers: A Summary of Innovative and Alternative Systems, The 208 Central Office, Middleton, CT, November, 1979. "3 Boyle, William C. and Richard J. Otis. "Onsite Alternatives for Treatment and Disposal," J. WPCF , Vo.. 55, No. 6, pp. 642-644. 4 Clark, Robert M. "Small Water Systems: The Role of Technology," J . Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE (1980). 5 Diodato, F.D. "Community Onsite Disposal Systems - The Iselin Demonstration Project, "McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1980). 6 Dubois and King, Inc., "Addendum to Subsurface Disposal System Evaluation Report: Site No. 1," Randolph, Vermont, November, 1977, 13 PP. 7 Dubois and King, Inc., "Subsurface Disposal System Evaluation Report: Site No. 1," Randolph, Vermont, February, 1977, 17 pp. 8 Dufresne-Henry Engineering Corporation. "Environmental Assessment for a Municipal Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facility," Fire District No. 2, Town of Ryegate, Vermont, EPA Project No. C500088, North Springfield, Vermont, May, 1975, 14 pp. 9 Dufresne-Henry Engineering Corp. "West Dover Vermont: Interim Report on Recommended Spray Field Alterations," D-H 19-0054, North Springfield, Vermont, April 1976, 15 pp. 10 El Dorado County Health Department, Septic Tank Maintenance District Implementation, El Dorado Irrigation District, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, January 3» 1972. 11 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., "Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for Small Communities," for National Utility Contractors Assoc, Arlington, Virginia (1979). 12 Feuss, James F., Charles Feiszle, John S. MacNeil, Wayne Smith. "Cuyler Sewage Project - A Case Study in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Jospeh, Michigan (1982). 1 13 Frederickson, David W. "The Wisconsin Experience with Alternative Private Sewage Systems," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1980). 14 Hantzche, N.N. and N.J. Fishman . "Mound Systems for Cluster Development," in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc . Agric. Eng . , St. Joseph, Michigan (1982). 15 Ingham, Alan T. , P. E. Residential Greywater Management in California. Prepared for State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Planning, Sacramento, CA, January, 1980. 16 Iowa State University, Onsite Domestic Sewage Disposal Handbook, NWPS-24, 1982. 17 John, Stephen F. and Thomas M. Allen, "Issues Concerning Design Criteria for Small Alternative Wastewater Systems," Randolph 4 Associates, Inc., presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Illinois Water Pollution Control Federation, May, 1981. 18 Kolega, John J., Arthur W. Dewey, Benjamin J. Cosenga, and Robert Leonard. "Treatment and Disposal of Wastes Pumped from Septic Tanks," NTIS PB-272 656, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio (1977). 19 Lombardo, Pio . "Alternative Wastewater Management Systems and Their Applicability to Arkansas," The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1979. 20 Machmeier, Roger E. Town and Country Sewage Treatment . Extension Bulletin 304, Revised 1979. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota, 1979. 21 Michigan Environmental Health Association. "Report on Study of Alternative Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems," Lansing, Michigan, December, 1981. 22 Middlebrooks, E. J., et.al., "Energy Requirement for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, J. WPCF, 5 3 , 1172 (1981). 23 Mitchell, D. "Improving Design Criteria for Septic Tank Systems." PD-262 006, Water Resources Research Center University of Arizona, Fayetteville, Arizona, August, 41 pp., (1976). 24 Mott, T. D., et.al. "Flow Calculations for Household Effluent Disposal in Elevated Sand Mounds," J. Environ. Qual., 10, 311 (198). 25 National Environmental Health Association, State of the Art Manual of On-site Wastewater Management, Denver, Colorado, 1979. 26 Neihus, Don C. On-Site and Alternative Wastewater Systems Management, Bibliography. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Training Seminar for Wastewater Alternatives for Small Communities, August, 1978. 27 New Castle County, Areawide Waste Treatment Management Program, Septic Systems; A Case Study , Pennsylvania, August, 1977. 28 Oliver i, A.W., et.al. "Guidelines for Control of Septic Tank Systems," J. Environ. Eng. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 107 , 1025 (1981). 29 Otis, R.J. An Alternative Public Wastewater Facility for a " Small Rural Community, Small Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1978. 30 Otis, R.J. and W.C. Boyle. "Performance of Single Household Treatment Units," J. Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE. 31 Otis, R.J. and W.C. Boyle. Alternative Wastewater Facilities for Small Unsewered Communities in Rural America, Small Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, July, 1976. 32 Purdue University, Agronomy Department, "Waste Disposal Project," On-Site , Issue VIII, West Lafayette, Indiana, January, 1983. 33 Rubin, A. R. and B. L. Carlile. "Large-Scale On-site Systems" in "Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems — Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference 1981," L. Waldorf and J.L. Evans (eds.), Nat. Sanit. Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1982). 34 Sabey, B. R. et al . "Soil Filtration of Sewage Effluent of a Rural Area," EPA/600/52-81-151, Kerr Env. Lab., September, 1981. 35 Schmidt, C.L. and J.W. Patterson, On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (Environmental and Health Effects), Illinois Institute of Natural Resources, Document No. 80/1 9, December, 1980. 36 Simmons, John D., Jerry 0. Newman, and Franklyn W. Adams. "On-Site Septic Tanks and A Community Lagoon for Rural Sewage Disposal," in "On-Site Sewage Treatment - Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan ( 1 982 ) . 37 Simmons, J.D. , J. 0. Newman, and C.W. Rose. "Small Diameter, Variable-Grade, Gravity Sewers for Septic Tank Efflunet," in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan (1982). 38 Small Scale Waste Management Project, Management of Small Waste Flows, Small Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA-600/2-78-173, September 1980. 39 Stone, Ralph and Company, Inc. Evaluation of Alternatives to Conventional Treatment for Small Communities, Draft Final Report, Los Angeles, CA . Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC, February 23, 1979. 40 U.S. Corps of Engineers. "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," EPA-625/1 -77-008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 7-53 (1977). 41 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems: 1-0n-Site Disposal/ Septage Treatment Disposal," EPA 625/4-77-011, Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1977, 90 pp. 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Alternative Systems for Small Communities and Rural Areas , Small Wastewater Systems, Office of Water Program Operations, FRD-10, January, 1980. 43 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Alternative Waste Management Techniques or Best Practicable Waste Treatment," EPA 43-/9-75-013, Washington, DC, October 1975, 71 pp. 44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Design Manual Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems EPA 625/1-80-012 MERL Cincinnati, Ohio, August, 1980. 45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Efficient Treatment of Small Municipal Flows at Dawson, Michigan, RW-68. 46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Evaluation of Land Application Systems," EPA -430/9-75-01, Washington, DC, March, 1975, 182 pp. 47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual , Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC, MCD-53, February, 1980. 48 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents: Design Factor -1," EPA -625/4-76-0 10, Cincinnati, Ohio, January, 1976, 49 pp. 49 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents: Design Factor - II," EPA -625/4-76-0 10, Cincinnati, Ohio, January, 1976, 79 PP . 50 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents: Case Histories," EPA -625/4-76-0 10, Cincinnati, Ohio, January, 1976, 79 pp. 51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," EPA-625/1 -77-008, Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1977. 52 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," EPA-625/1 -81 /01 3, Cincinnati, Ohio (1981). 53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Process Design Manual for Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Sewered Small Communities" EPA 625/1-77-009 MERL Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1977. 54 WAPORA, Inc., Planning and Management of Wastewater Facilities for Rural and Developing Communities, Chevy Chase, MD, 1980. PUNNING 55 Barror, R.F., et.al. "Integrated Planning: The key to Implementing On-site Technology," in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc . Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan (1982). 56 Barror, Richard E. and George Tchobanoglous . "Effective Wastewater Management Planning for Small Communities: Parts 1 and 2," P ublic Works , 1 11 (8)( :76-79, 1 11 (9 ): 125-127, 170, 172, 174 (1980). 57 Deese, P. L. and Hudson, J.F. Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small Communities, MERL Cincinnatti, Ohio, EPA-600/8-80/030, August, 1980. 58 Krause, Alfred E. , Gerald 0. Peters, Jr., and Dennis Sebian. "Wastewater Facilities Planning and Private Sewage Disposal," Fourth Annual Illinois Private Sewage Disposal Conference, Champaign, Illinois, Feb. 26-28, 1979. 59 Miller, Zane R. "Obstacles to Acceptance and Effective Utilization of Alternatives and Innovations Under the Clean Water Act," McClelland, N. I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. MANAGEMENT 60 Batz, M.R. "Operation and Maintenance of an Onsite Wastewater Management District," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, proceedings of the Sixth National Conferenace, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979. 61 Beck, Robert E. "Onsite Wastewater Disposal Zones," EPA, Illinois EPA Grant //P005740-01, October 24, 1980. 62 California Office of Appropriate Technology, Qn-Site Wastewater Management District (OSWMD) , Governor's Office, State of California, Sacramento, CA, February 23, 1977. 63 Calechman, R. S. "Septage Management: One Town's Experience, Action, Mass.," in "Individual On-site Wastewater Systems — Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference 1981," L. Waldorf and J.L. Evans (eds.), Nat. Sanit. Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1982). 64 Carr, A., et .al . "Alternative On-Site Waste Management Systems," Marketplace Manufacturers, Compost Science , 20 , 2, 8, 18 (1979). 65 Ciotoli, P. A. "Issues and Steps in Developing Management Programs," in "Individual On-site Wastewater Systems — Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference 1981," L. Waldorf and J.L. Evans (eds.), Nat. Sanit. Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1982). 66 Ciotoli, Peter A. and K.C. Wiswall. "Management of Onsite and Small Community Wastewater Systems," MERL, ORD, EPA-600/8-82-00 9, July, 1982, Cincinatti. 67 Culp/Wesner/Culp - Clean Water Consultants. Management of Small-to-Medium Sized Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants , El Dorado Hills, CA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC, EPA/430/9-79-01 3, June, 1979. 68 Dean, Lillian F. Institutional Alternatives for Septic System Maintenance District in Southeast Michigan, Draft Report. Prepared for the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, MI, September, 1980. 69 Englehart and Ward, "Technical Management Needs for Small Flows Technology," Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Treatment, ASAE Publication 1-82. 70 Fancy, John. "Individual Aerobic Plant O&M," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979. 71 Flowers, John E. , Management of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan ( 1 982 ) . 72 Harris, G. R. et.al. "The Role of Lakeshore Homeowners Associations on Environmental Management," Environmental Management, 3, 195, 1979. 73 Lenning, D.A. and R. E. Herraanson. "Management Guidlines for Onsite Sewage Systems," Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1978, ASAE Publication 5-77. 74 Mance, K. , C. E. Beer, and S. Patterson. "A Case Study of the Lake Panorama Management District," Onsite Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Treatment, ASAE, Publication No. 1-82. 75 Niehus,- D. C. "Institutional Arrangements for the Management of Onsite and Alternative Systems," Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Illinois Private Sewage Disposal Conference, Champaign, Illinois, Feb. 26-28, 1979. 76 Palsgaard, Jeff, "Formation and Operation of Maintenance Districts for Sewage Disposal," in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc . Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan (1982). 77 Prince, N., et al . "Design and Installation Supervision by an Onsite Management District, McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979. 78 Staats, E. B. "Public Management Makes Septic Systems Viable," Water and Sewer Works , 126 , 90, 1979. 79 Stryker, Barry W. and W.T. Steele. "Management of Rural Septic Systems Utilizing the Natural Resource Conservation District Specialist Program," NSF National Conference, Individual On-Site Wastewater Systems, Ann Arbor, Volume IV, pp. 85-117, August 1977. 80 Urban Systems Research and Engineering Inc., Managing Small and Alternative Wastewater Systems, a Planning Manual for an EPA Workshop on SAWS Management. May, 1983. 81 Ward, R. C. and J.D. Englehardt. "Maintenance: A New Role in On-site System Management," in "Individual On-site Wastewater Systems — Proceedings of the Eight National Conference 1981", L. Waldorf and J. L. Evans (eds.),Nat. Sanit. Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1982). 82 Weston, Roy F. Inc. "Management of Onsite and Small Community Wastewater Systems, Interim Report, USEPA MERL, M687, Cincinnati, Ohio, Nov., 1979. 83 Weston, Roy F. , Inc. "Management of On-site and Small Community Wastewater Systems," Management Practices Documentation: General Discussion and Case Study Summaries. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, OH, M687, November, 1979. 84 Wheeler, G. and J. Bennett. "Onsite Wastewater Management Districts in California," Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Illinois Private Sewage Disposal Conference, Champaign, Illinois, Feb. 26-28, 1979. 85 Wheeler, Gil and Jim Bennett. On-Site Wastewater Management Districts in California , California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, CA. Presented at Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems Workshop, Champaign, IL, June 12-13, 1979. 86 Wilson, George E. , J. Y. Huang, G. Tchobanoglous , Members, ASCE, and G. Wheeler. "Managed On-Site Disposal in Unsewered Areas," Journal of The Environmental Engineering Division , 4619, EE3, p. 583-596. 87 Wiswall, K. C. and P. A. Ciotoli. "Management Alternative Systems: Issues Problems Constraints and Opportunities," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the 6th National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979. CONSTRUCTION 88 Bucha, Paul A. "Training of System Installers for Onsite Wastewater," McClelland ed., Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the 7th National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. DESIGN 89 Anderson, J. L. , R.B. Grossman, K. A. Healy, W. Skaggs. "Site Testing for the Design of Septic Systems," Onsite Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the 2nd National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Treatment, ASAE. 90 Anderson, J. L. , R. E. Machmeier , and M.J. Hansel, Long Term Acceptance Rates of Soils for Wastewater, in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc . Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan (1982). 91 Asbury, R. and C. Hendrickson. "Aerobic Onsite System sStudies in New Mexico," J. Env. Health, 45 , 86, 1982. 92 Aspler, E. Wayne. "Evaluation of Domestic Waste Disposal by Bermed Infiltration Ponds," 1971-1975, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Division of General Sanitation (1976). 93 Barbarick, K. A., et.al. "Application of Wastewater Effluent of a Rural Community to a Mountain Meadow, "J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 54, 70 (1982). 94 Beck, Arthur F. "Evaporation Bed Design," J. Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE 105(EE2):411-415 (1979). 8 95 Bennett, Edwin R. and K. Daniel Linstedt . "Sewage Disposal by Evapo transpiration," EPA -600/2 -7 8-1 63, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio (1978). 96 Bonwer , Herman, R.C. Rice, J. C. Lance, and R. G. Gilbert. "Rapid Infiltration Research at Flushing Meadows Project, J. WPCF, 52(10)2457:0-2470. 97 Bowne, W.C. "Experience in Oregon with the Hines-Favreau Recirculating Sand Filter," in "Presentation of Northwest States Conference on On-site Sewage Disposal," August, 1977. 98 Bowne, W.C. "Pressue Sewers," in "The U.S. EPA Training Session for Wastewater Alternatives for Small Communities," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, August, 1978, 27 pp. 99 Bowne, W.C. "Wastewater Characteristics of the Glide, Oregon, Pressure Sewer System," 0RENC0 Systems Corporation and BHW Engineering Corporation, Roseburg, Oregon, February, 1982. 100 Boyle, W.C. and R. J. Otis. "Treatment of Small Wastewater Onsite with Intermittent Sand Filters," Water and Wastes Engineering in America, Proceedings of the Sixth WEDC Conference, Pickford J. and 5. Ball (eds.) , Loughborough University of Technology, Loughborough, 6, 174 (January, 1981). 101 Brandes, Mark. "Effect of Precipitation and Evapo transpiration of a Septic Tank Sand Filter Disposal System," J. WPCF , 52(1):59-75 (1980). 102 Bryan, Edward H. "The Potential Role of Aquaculture in Management of Wastewater," McClelland, ed., Individual On-Site Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the 7th National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1980). 103 California Mound Company. "California Mound Research Project - Part II: A Step by Step Description from Initial Application to Installation," Sabastopol, California, July, 1978, 3 PP • 104 Cassell, E.A. and D.W. Meals, Jr. "Spray Application of Wastewater Effluent in West Dover, Vermont: An Initial Assessment," P.O. No. DACA -89-77-1 360, University of Vermont, Vermont Water Resources Research Center, Burlington, Vermont, September, 1977, 67 pp. 105 Cogger, C. , et.al. "Design and Installation of Low-Pressure Pipe Waste Treatment Systems," University of N.C. Sea Grant College Publ. UNC-SG-82-03 (1982). 106 Cogger, C. , et.al. "Design and Installation of Mound Systems for Waste Treatment," University of N.C. Sea Grant College Publ., UNC-SG-82-04 (1982). 107 Coleman, M.S., J. P. Henderson, H.G. Chichester, and R. L. Carpenter. "Aquaculture as a Means to Achieve Effluent Standards, Wastewater Use in the Production of Food and Fiber," in "Proceedings of Conference at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma," EPA-660/2 -74-04-041. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C, June, 1974. 108 Converse, James C. "Design and Construction Manual for Wisconsin Mounds," University of Wisconsin, Small Scale Waste Management Project, Madison (1978). 109 Cooper, I. A. and J.W. Rezak. Vacuum Sewer Technology, Rezek, Henry, Meisenheimer & Gende, Inc., Libert yville, IL. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer Seminar Program on Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, 1977. 110 Cooper, I. and J.W. Rezak. "Investigations of Existing Pressure Sewer Systems," (Draft), EPA Contract #68-03-2600, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1978). 111 DeWalle, Foppe. "Failure Analysis of Large Septic Tank Systems," J. Environ. Eng. Div. , Proc. ASAE, 107, Feb., 1981, p. 229. 112 Dinges, R. "Water Hyacinth Culter for Wastewater Treatment," Texas Department of Health Resources, Division of Wastewater Technology and Surveillance, Austin, Texas, 143 pp. (1976). 113 Dix , S. P. "Siting and Sizing Leach Fields in Larmier County," in "Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems — Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference," McClelland, N.I. and J.L. Evans (eds), Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1981). 114 Elben, Jessie E. and Lloyd K. Clark. "Pressure and Vacuum Sewer Demonstration Project: Bend, Oregon," EPA -600 -2 -78- 16 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio (1978). 115 Farrell, R. Paul. "Operating Experience and Costs for Some Grinder Pump Pressure Sewer Systems," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. 116 Fay, Robert T. "Cost Minded Community Chooses Small Diameter Gravity System," Water and Sewage Works , 125(6), p. 58-61 (1979). 117 Fielding, M.B. , Groundwater Monitoring under Leaching Beds in "On-Site Sewage Treatment — Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual Small Community Sewage Treatment," ASAE Publication 1-82, Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Michigan (1982). 118 Gloyna, E. F. and L. F. Tischler. "Recommendations for Regulation Modifications: Use of Waste Stabilization Pond System," J. WPCF, 53 1559, 1981. 10 119 Henrichs, Daniel J., Justine Faisst, David A. Pivetti, Edward D. Schroeder . "Assessment of Current Information on Overland Flow Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," EPA-430/9-80-002, EPA CWPO. 120 Hill, D. E. and C. R. Frink. "Septic System Longevity Increased by Improved Design," J. WPCF , 52(8): 2199-2203 (1980). 121 Hoyle, Tanner and Associates, Inc. "Wofeboro, New Hampshire — Spray Irrigation Facilities," April 1, 1975. 122 Ingham, Alan T. "Guidelines for Evapotranspiration Systems," SWRCB, Sacramento, Calif. 1980. 123 Ingham, Alan T. Guidelines for Mound Systems SWRCB, Sacramento, Calif. 1980. 124 John, S. F. "Wastewater Clusters: A Case Study of Waynesville, Illinois" Illinois Environmental Health Journal , 8 (3). July-August, 1980. ~ 125 King, Darrell L. and Thomas Burton. "A Combination of Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems for Maximal Reuse of Domestic Wastewater," in "Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium," Washington, D.C., 25-30, March, 1979. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, Vol. 1:714-726 (1979). 126 Kloser , Paul C. and Harold E. Schmidt. "Tne Operation and Maintenance of the Suburban Septic System," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1979). 127 Kreissl, J. F. , and I. A. Cooper. "Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems (Pressure Sewers/Vacuum Sewers)," EPA-625/477-011, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer Series #2, October, 1977. 128 Kreissl, J. F. "Status of Pressure Sewer Technology," prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer Design Seminar for Small Flows, Cincinnati, Ohio, pp. 14-18, August, 1978. 129 Kristiansen, R. "Sand-Filter Trenches for Purification of Septic Tank Effluent: I. The Clogging Mechanism and Soil Physical Environment," J. Environ. Qual., 10, 353 (1981). 130 Kristiansen, R. "Sand Filter Trenches for Purification of Septic Tank Effluent: III. The Microflora," J. Environ. Qual., 10, 361 (1981). 131 Kristiansen, R. "Sand-Filter Trenches for Purification of Septic Tank Effluent: II. The Fate of Nitrogen," J. Environ. Qual., J0_, 353 (1981). 11 132 Laak, Rein. "Multi -Chamber Septic Tanks , J. Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE 106 (EE3): 539-546 (1980a). 133 Lee, M.K. "Design and Installation of Small Community Systems,* 1 McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Cnsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedigns of the Sixth National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1979). 134 Lomax, K.M., P.N. Winn, Jr., M.C. Tatio, and L. S. lane. " Ev a po transpiration Methods of Wastewater Disposal," University of Maryland, Horn Point Environmental Laboratories Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Cambridge, Maryland, 244 pp. 135 Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. "Evaluation of Domestic Waste Disposal by Bermed Infiltration Ponds," Baltimore, Maryland, July, 1976, 15 pp. 136 Mekosh, George and D. Ramos. Pressure Sewer Demon s tration at the Borough of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, Washington, DC, EPA -R 2-73-270, July, 1973. 137 Middlebrook3, E. J., D. H. Falkenborg, and R.F. Lewi3. Performance and Upgrading of Wastewater Stabilization Ponds, Proceedings of a Conference at Utah State University. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, OH, EPA -600/9-79-011, May, 1979. 138 Middlebrooks , E. J. , D. H. Falkenborg, R.F.Lewis, and D.J. Ehreth. Upgrading Wastewater Stabilization Ponds to Meet New Discharge Standards , Proceedings of a Symposium held at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, August 21-23 t 1974. Sponsored by Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, and Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, PRWG159-1, November 1974. 139 Otis, R.J. "Pressure Distribution Design for Septic Tank Systems," J. Envirn. Eng. Div. , Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 108 , 123 (1982). 140 Parker, D. E. , J. H. Lehr , R. C Roseler, R. C. Paeth. "Site Evaluation for SAS," Onsite Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second National Sumposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Treatment, ASAE. 141 Peterson, M.E. "Soil Percolation Tests," J. Environ. Health, 4_2, 182, 1980. 142 Pound, C. E. and R.W. Crites. "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application: Volume II," EPA -6 60/2 -73 -006b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. , August, 1973. 249 PP. 12 143 Pycha, C. J. "Design Parameters of Septic Tank - Small Diamter Gravity Sewers," USEPA Region V Internal Memorandum, June 25, 1982. 144 Randolph & Associates, Inc., Village of LaMoille Facilities Plan , December, 1982. 145 Reynolds, James H. , E.J. Middlebrooks , C.H. Middlebrook. "Lagoons for Small Wastewater Flows," McClelland, N.I., (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978. 146 Rowe , R.K. "Evapotranspiration Experiment in South Caroline: 1972-1974," in "Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems — Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference," McClelland, N.I. and J.L. Evans (eds.), Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 147 (1981). 147 Russell, J.S. , E.J. Middlebrooks, and J.R. Reynolds. "Wastewater Stablization — Lagoon Intermittent Sand Filter System," EPA-600/2-80-032 (1980). 148 Simons, A. P. and F.R. Magdoff. "Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent in Mound and Sand Filter-Trench Systems on a Clay Soil," Journal of Environ. Qual. , Vol. 8, No. 4, p. 469-473, 1979. 149 Triangle J Council of Governments, Low-Pressure Pipe Distribution Systems for Residential Septic Tank Effluent, Individual Wastewater Project, Triangle J Council of Governments, Research Triangle Park, NC, September, 1979. 150 Tucker, D.L., and N.D. Vicado. "Design of Overland Flow System," J. WPCF, 52 :559 (1980). 151 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Eligiblity of Pressure/Vacuum Systems after September 30, 1984," Internal Memorandum from Henry Longest to Regional Water Division Directors, April 6, 1983. 152 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems: 2-Pressure Sewers/Vacuum Sewers," EPA -625/4-77-01 1, Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1977, 97 pp. 153 New Mexico Health and Environmental Department, Wastewater Disposal by Sand Mounds, Technical Manual Series, Liquid Waste Disposal, State of New Mexico, February, 1981. 154 Illinois Department of Public Health, Requirements for the Design of Wisconsin Mounds in Illinois , 1983. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Name Organization 155 Jack Abney Parrot Ely and Hurt, Lexington, KY, May 14, 1981. 13 156 Gene Barnett 157 Tom Barthell 158 Ed Casne 159 Archie Cloud 160 Jim Feuss 161 Al Fredericks 162 Nancy Goodell 163 Steven John 164 Saeed Kahn 165 Steve Kintner 166 Jerry Kobb 167 Ben Kor 168 Alfred E. Krause 169 Vincent Mattera 170 Dick Otis 171 Rich Phillips 172 Mike Preston 173 Frank Rozich 174 Otto Schalow Texas Division of Sanitation, Austin, TX, May 13, 1981. Koochiching County Mn . Sanitarian, September 1, 1983. Montana Water Quality Bureau, Helena, MT, May 13, 1981. Ellison Philstron, St. Paul, MN, May 14, 1981. Public Health Dept., Cortland, NY, September 1, 1981. Monterey County Environmental Health Dept., October 23, 1981. Central Health District, Boise, ID, June 14, 1983. Environmental Planner, Decatur, IL, frequent contacts. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, IL, September 8, 1983. Missouri Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Springfield, MO, May 11, 1981. Panhandle Health District, ID, October 21, 1981. Sonoma County Health District, ID, September, 1981. U.S. EPA Region V, Chicago, IL, September 23, 1983. Rhode Island Land Resources Dept., September 17, 1981. Rural Systems Engineering, Madison, WI, frequent contacts. Vermont AEC, May, 1981. JUB Engineers, Boise, ID, May 14, 1981. Colorado Department of Public Health, May 12, 1981. Crow Wing County Sanitarian, MN, August 21, 1981. 14 175 Gene Schuman Schuman Associates, LaCrosse, WI, September 29, 1981. 176 Wayne Thomas Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control, May 13, 1981. 177 Herschel Trimm Trimm Building Corp., Birmingham, AL, December, 1982. 178 Allan Young Chromoglass Corporation, June 21, 1983. 179 Hal Wilkinson An Luis Obispo County Engineering Dept . , CA, September 17, 1981. 180 Teresa Wistrura Central Water Quality Control Board, CA, September 29, 1981. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES OF INTEREST American Clean Water Association, The Friday Morning Letter, Washington, DC, April, 1982. Babiarz, Paul S. , Robert D. Honnigan, and Kevin J. Pilon, eds. "Wastewater Systems for Private Homes and Small Communities: Proceedings of the 1977 Conference, Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board (1978). "Barnstable County 208 Wastewater Management Program," Preliminary Draft Chapter 5 Land Use and Non-Point Sources of Pollution , Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission, December 9, 1977. Barshied, Robert D. , M. Hassan, and Eli Barondi "Physical Chemical Treatment of Septic Tank Efflunet," J. WPCF, 46(10):2347-2354 (19 ). Bennet, Stephen M. , James A. Herdman, and James F. Kriessl. "Feasibility of Treating Septic Tank Waste by Activated Sludge," NTIS PB-272 105 (1977). Camp, Dresser & McKee. Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Sewered Small Communities, Process Design Manual, Boston, MA. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Information Center, Technology Transfer, EPA-625-1 -77-009, October, 1977. Cartwright, K. and F. B. Sherman, Jr., "Assessing Potential for Pollution from Septic Systems," Ground Water , 12(4), 1974. Oliver, D.0. "Wastewater: Emergent Environmental and Health Issues," in "Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems — Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference 1981." L. Waldorf, and J.L. Evans (eds.), Nat. Sanit. Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1982). 15 Connecticut Department of Environmental, The Establishment and Administration of a Municipal and Town Sewer Avoidance Program, a report to the Joint Standing Committee on the Environment, January, 1978. Cooper, IA. and J.W. Rezak. "Treatability of Pressure Sewage," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1978). DeWalle, Foope and russell V. Schaff. "Groundwater Pollution by Septic Tank Drainfields ," J. Environ. Eng. Div., ASCE 106 (EE3): 631-646 (1980). Duda, A.M. and K.D. Cromartie. "Coastal Poolution from Septic Tank Drainfields," J. Environ. Eng. Div., Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 108 , 1265 (1982). Enviro Control, Inc., "Establishment of a Small Wastewater Flows Clearinghouse, Appendices A through M from Final Report, Rockville, MD, January 8, 1979. Gray, G.C., "Environmental Constraints Challenge Designers of Shoreline Community near Kansas City, Missouri," Professional Engineer , 45(6) 42-44, 1975. Hagedorn, C. , et.al. "The Potential for Ground Water Contamination from Septic Effluents," J. Environ. Qual. 10, 1 (1981). Harr, C. "Present Technolgy in Northern Europe on Wastewater Treatment Plants for Small Flows," in Alternative Wastewater Treatment — proceedings of the Oslo Conference on Low Cost Small Systems, Reasearch and Development, "A.S. Eikum, and R.W. Seabloom (eds.), D. Reidel Publ. Co., Boston, Mass. (1982). Hauber, A.F. and R.C. Bolinger. "Novel Methods and Materials of Construction," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-600/2-79-079. Hendricks, Gerald F. and Stepehn M. Rees. "Economical Residential Pressure Sewer Systems with No Effluent," NTIS PB249 195, Seiled, Inc., for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio (1975). Hutzler, Neil J. and William C. Boyle. "Wastewater Risk Assessment," J. Envion. Eng. Div., ASCE 106(EE5 ) : 91 9-993 (1980). Irvin, Robert L. , Gregory Miller, and Ajit Bhamrak. "Sequencing Batch Treatment of Wastewater in Rural Areas," J. WPCF , 51 (2): 244-254. 16 Jones, R. C. and G. F. DenBentsen.? "Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems for Small Communities," McClelland, N.I. (ed.), Individual Cnsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference, NSF, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1979). Jones, Rebecca A. and G. Fred Lee. "Septic Tank Disposal Systems in Phosphorus Sources for Surface Water," J. WPCF, SI (11) 2464-2775 (1979). Kesurck, Bruce R. and Charles P. Gerba. "Viruses in Groundwater," ES&T , 14 (11 ): 1290-1297 (1980). Klassen, Clarence, D. Swoboda, and S. Cautine. Water Quality and Public Health: Interim Report. Franklin County Septic Tank Management, the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis Missouri . Koon, John H. , G.M. Davis, R. K. Genung, and W.W. Pitt. "The Feasiblity of an Anaerobic Upflow Fixed-Film Process for Treating Small Sewage Flows," Associated Water and Air Resources Engineer and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Presented at Energy Optimization of Water and Wastewater Management for Municipal and Industrial Applications Conference, New Orleans, LA, December, 1979. Lapping, Mark and Sharon D. Meyers. "Legal and Institutional Perspectives on Septage Management in Vermont," Septage Management Strategies for Vermont, Project Report No. 3 Vermont Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. A report submitted to the Vermont State 208 Board, April, 1978. Main, Kathleen E. and Robert T. O'Brien. "The Survival of Enteric Viruses in Septic Tanks and Septic Tank Drainfields," Partial technical completion report, Report No. 108, New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, Las Crucs, New Mexico (1979). Missouri Department of Natural Resources, On-Site Waste Disposal (Septic Tank) Education and Management Project, Phase I Report, Springfield, Missouri. * National Small Flows Clearinghouse and Cooperative Extension Service, "Summary of State Guidelines and Regulations for Small Wastewater Flows," Clean Waters , Bulletin AP-774, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, December, 1982. Old Colony Planning Council, "Alternative to Sewers: A Conference Sponsored by Old Colony Planning Council and the Environmental Protection Agency," Conference Proceedings, Brockton, Massachusetts, December 2-3, 1976. Pennsylvaia Department of Environmental Resources, Sewage Needs Determination and Analysis , Bureau of Community Environmental Control, Harrisburg, PA. 17 "Progress Report for NSF Project on Management of Decentralized, Ch-Site Systems for Treatment of Domestic Wastes," Colorado State University, Department of Agricultural and Chemical Engineering, January 28, 1981. Scalf, M. R. and W.J. Dunlap. "Environmental Effects of Septic Tank Systems," EPA -600/3 -77 -09 6, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada Oklahoma, August, 1977, 34 pp. SCS Engineers. Advanced Wastewater Treatment Techniques and New Equipment, Wastewater Management for New Housing Development, Long Beach, CA. Prepared for Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, January, 1977. SCS Engineers. Treatment and Disposal Alternatives for Domestic Sewage Management, Wastewater Management for New Housing Development, Long Beach, California. Prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, April, 1977. Small Scale Waste Management Project, Publication List of the Small Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, April, 1980. Swoboda, Dale P. and Harland, Bartholomew & Associates, Inc. Exiting Conditions and Problem Evaluation: Interim Report. Fr an kl in County Coordinating Council, St. Louis, Missouri, April, 1981. Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, On-Site Sewage Disposal Pollution Abatement , Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Toldeo, OH, August 14, 1980. Triangle J. Council of Goverments, Task E and F Report: Regulation and Management of Septic Systems, Region J, North Carolina, Individual Wastewater Project, 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Program, August, 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, A Strategy for Small Alternative Wastewater Systems , Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC, December, 1980. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Communities," National Conference, Reston, VA, Aprila 12-14, 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Small Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Design Seminar Handout, Environmental Research Information Center, Technology Transfer, Cincinnati, Ohio, July, 1979. University of Vermont Extension Service, Conference Proceedings, "Are There Alternatives to Sewers for Vermont Towns?", a conference sponsored by Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation, Vermont 208 Water Quality Planning Program, University of Vermont Water Resources Research Center, and University of Vermont Extension Service, Fairlee, Vermont, November 2-3, 1977. 18 Virarag haven, T. "Effects of Septic Tank Systems on Environmental Quality," J. Environmental Mangement, 15, 1, 63 (1982) Vivona, M.A. and W. Herzeg "The Use of Septage Lagoons in New England," Sludge 3, 2, 27 (1980). Wehrmann, H. A. Potential Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater in the Rosecoe Area, Winnebago County, Illinois, State Water Survey Division, Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, SWS Contract Report 325, Champaign, Illinois, August, 1983. 19 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Laws and Regulations APPENDIX B Local Public Health Authorities APPENDIX C Identified Cluster Systems APPENDIX D Review Panel Members APPENDIX E Model Ordinances APPENDIX A APPENDIX A LAWS AND REGULATIONS Illinois Laws and Regulations 1. Environmental Protection Act, Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 111 1/2. Paragraph 1001-1051, as amended through January 1, 1983, available from Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, Illinois. 2. Water Pollution Control Rules, Illinois Pollution Control Board, Title 35, Subtitle C, Chapter 1, as amended through December 1, 1982, available from Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield, Illinois. 3. Private Sewage Disposal Licensing Act and Code, Illinois Department of Public Health, Illinois Revised Statutes Chapter 111 1/2, Paragraph 116.301-116.324, 1982 Edition, available from Illinois Department of Public Health, Springfield, Illinois. 4. Municipal Wastewater Disposal Zones Act, Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 1401-1422, as revised through 1981. 5. Sanitary District Acts, Illinois Revised Statutes, Chapter 42, Paragraphs 247-381, as revised through 1981. 6. Public Water Districts Act, Illinois Revised Statutes Chapter 111 2/3, Paragraph 188-212.16, as revised through 1981. Federal Laws and Regulations 1. Clean Water Act Amendments of 1981, P.L. 97-117, and Environmental Protection Agency Rules and Regulations, Federal Register , 47 (92) , May 12, 198 2. APPENDIX B APPENDIX B LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES Addresses and phone numbers of each unit of local government which acts as the IDPH agent, and each unit of local government which administers its own private sewage disposal ordinance. Region 1 BOONE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Courthouse Belvidere, IL 61008 815/544-2951 OGLE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 106 South Fifth Street Oregon, IL 61061 815/732-3201 DE KALB COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 2337 Sycamore Road DeKalb, IL 60115 815/758-6673 STEPHENSON COUNTY HEALTH D EPARTMENT 15 North Galena Avenue Freeport, IL 61032 815/235-8271 JO- DAVIESS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 311 South Main Street Galena, IL 61038 815/777-0263 WHITESIDE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Route #2 Morrison, IL 61270 815/962-5092 LEE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 144 North Court Dixon, IL 61021 815/284-3371 WINNEBAGO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 401 Division Street Rockford, IL 61108 815/962-5092 •Designated Agents of the State Region 2 FULTON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 700 E. Oak Street Canton, IL 61520 309/647-1134 PEORIA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 2116 North Sheridan Road Peoria, IL 61604 309/685-6181 HENRY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT* R.R. #4 Geneseo, IL 61254 309/944-2167 ROCK ISLAND COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.* 2116 - 25th Avenue Rock Island, IL 61201 309/793-1955 KNOX COUNTY ZONING DEPARTMENT Knox County Court House Galesburg, IL 61401 309/343-3121 TAZEWELL COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT R.R. #1 Tremont, IL 61568 309/925-5511 LA SALLE CO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 827 Columbus Street Ottawa, IL 61350 WOODFORD COUNTY ZONING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 81 Eureka, IL 61530 309/467-3023 *Designated Agents of State Region 3 ADAMS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 333 North Sixth Street Quincy, IL 62310 217/222-8440 MACOUPIN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 209 E. 1st Street Carlinville, IL 62626 217/854-5761 CALHOUN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 75 Hardin, IL 62047 618/576-2428 MONTGOMERY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 2605 Main, Box 128, 2nd Floor, Courthouse Hillsboro, IL 62049 217/532-6138 CHRISTIAN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Courthouse Taylorville, IL 61568 217/824-4113 MORGAN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 466 East State Street Jacksonville, IL 62650 217/245-5111 JERSEY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 213 East Spruce, P.O. Box 69 Jerseyville, IL 62052 618-498-9565 PIKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 218 North Memorial Pittsfield, IL 62363 217/285-4407 ♦Designated Agents of State SPRINGFIELD DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH 1415 East Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 61703 217/789-2182 Region 4 BOND COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT* 503 South Prairie Greenville, IL 62246 618/664-1442 MONROE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 224 East Third Street Waterloo, IL 62298 618/939-8681 EAST SIDE HEALTH DISTRICT 638 North 20th Street East St. Louis, IL 62205 618/939-9111 RANDOLPH COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 590 Chester, IL 62233 618/826-5007 FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, CITY OF 10025 Bunkum Road, Box 3127 Fairview Heights, IL 62208 618/397-9111 ST. CLAIR LAND DEVELOPMENT DEPT . 10 Public Square Belleville, IL 62220 618/277-6600 MADISON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT 219 North Main Edward sville, IL 62025 618/692-4564 •Designated Agent of the State Region 5 EFFINGHAM COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT* 901 West Virginia, P.O. Box 685 Effingham, IL 62401 217/342-9237 JACKSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 342A North Street Murphysboro, IL 62966 618/684-5143 EGYPTIAN HEALTH DEPARTMENT** Route 45 Eldorado, IL 62930 618/273-3326 LAWRENCE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT* Courthouse Lawrenceville, IL 62439 618/943-3302 +Gallatin County +Saline County ♦White County PERRY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 102 South Walnut Pinckneyville, IL 62274 618/357-9631 FRANKLIN-WILLIAMSON BI-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 217 East Broadway Johnston City, IL 62951 618/684-3143 SOUTHERN SEVEN HEALTH DEPARTMENT * R.R. #1 Ullin, IL 62992 618/634-2297 ♦Alexander County +Hardin County +Johnson County ♦Massac County ♦Pope County +Pulaski County +Union County *Designated Agent of State Region 6 COLES COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 825-1 Oth Street Charleston, IL 61920 217/348-0530 MACON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1085 South Main Street Decatur, IL 62521 217/423-6988 DEWITT COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 122 East Main Street Clinton, IL 61727 217/935-3427 MC LEAN COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 905 North Main Street Normal, IL 61761 309/454-1161 DOUGLAS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT County Courthouse Tuscola, IL 61953 217/253-4137 PIATT COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 122 East Main Street Clinton, IL 61727 217/935-3427 FORD-IROQUOIS PUBLIC HEALTH DEPT . 123 North Eighth Watseka, IL 60970 815/432-2483 VERMILION COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT R.R. #1, Box 12 B, Til ton Road Danville, IL 61832 217/446-4536 LIVINGSTON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT R.R. #4 Pontiac, IL 61764 815/844-7174 ♦Designated Agent of the State Region 7 GRUNDY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT* 1340 Edwards Street Morris, IL 60450 815/942-0333 LAKE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 3010 Grand Avenue Waukegan, IL 60085 312/689-6700 KANE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 719 South Batavia Avenue Geneva, IL 60134 312/232-8018 WILL COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT 501 Ella Avenue Joliet, IL 60433 815/727-8480 KENDALL COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 549 Yorkville, IL 60560 312/533-5216 Region 8 COOK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT* 1500 South Maybrook Drive Maywood, IL 60153 312/865-6100 PALPS PARK, VILLAGE OF 8901 West 123rd Street Palos Park, IL 60464 312/448-2700 ♦Designated Agent of the State APPENDIX C 03 to >* tn O X ^ PS u E-l co s u a u H Cm o JS o C z tN a tH •H id r-l 2 1 i-4 ^ CO 3 « CO aj < •O 3 CO •O ■H H CO CO m -H CO 0) 4J CD — 4J CO CN l > *i TJ 1 C & C CN H •H •o •H CD K c § CO -H ft (0 T3 c c .o H id t-t T> -P ft CO C 3 3 r> CO rH CO CO 4J 0) -H % c B- fH 4J •»-l O ■a 2 04 1 CD 09 oj W r-( id LQ ■H f r-l CD ■• rH £. rN -o H tn •H CO u r-l a •H c CO M CD r-l <0 o •0 CO 03 O c a C id a. CD > 3 4J 4J 1 3 g c 0) 4J c 3 a 3 fH e« •a •H r- 09 O AJ 2 3 U -H flj a) » \D o CO •O CO i-( CO 3 o o O O C u r> u VD H Cn o rH c CO 1 < iH r-l SJ o E fH 3 &« r-l a CM CO fH • tn CN m r-l -H CN IN CO u i PC c c W • K ft o •H •* u O H GO C c 3 ft -H o M •* « 0» > P •o a. 3 •H Q 00 id % & c CD o •H • .o O c 03 fH 4J 0) •H ^ *H rO tn CO O CO tj) - % 2 u CD aj 0* *» X 4J 4J t CD c e C <8 fl C *-l CD o % o -H id c ■H c »a t-i tn u O 3 (0 tJ^ M ■H 4J B O CD .u C CD > CD •H >1 CO -U c u O -H r-t S-l 4J CO M CO c s o •H ■H a > 3 u TJ r-l JC •a i> «4 r-4 »5 •p c Q u c r-l en c iH r-H X 10 i 4J 3 fH C id t! X -G -4 •H -H g id G a a H 3 5 U & pa O J= CD u V PS o 4J 5 •o CO CO X r-l M 0» G 0) c h fl E M <0 c J= O > id u CD o CD id E- X Ut C3 id c PS o >i - 8 id 4J C o 3 ■» M o M C SB S 0) o g PS o ft ■« > ■H M CD CO PS OS -o % % O 00 en o id h c s a c en u CD •H c % ^H 4J tJ u r-l -H TJ Q c 5 u tH ■ rl G a tH O 5 -H 04 V fH PS H h pa CO n H CO •H CO CD rQ fH h O •H CJ s 10 O < rl 0» fl tv» id h en tH CD id X « tH > fH rl X •H •H tH id Id > X •H 04 > CD r3 rC tn g o C X £ fH ■H O 3 «H rl C X rQ jB O4 3 CO X X < CD P c D U 5 (0 CO 03 « CO < o o h (U 6 in V. rH -P u BO OJ u m 0J «o iH CO % •h m a tj j CN in Eh CO CO 3 3 trt 3 C ^3 03 4J o XI •H c V. *» CO rt "S. O CO •<* CO •H x: a (0 P CO c EH c o e H co 3 C u •*. +> -H •» •H CO •» 0) 3 © -ri c 00 o «. C CO o XI XI A 04 (0 O > •H 01 3 O C > 3 *i O 4J 3 P 4J c E iH .x 1 p »H J M OJ c Cn H m OJ c H P S3 OJ E «o 2 OJ 00 •H O po tS cS « % «% <% J! 4J en en en en 3 CD CJ 0» c c c c a l-i 2 c •^1 •H •H -H • •H u r4 p u * 2 TJ 4J ■o OJ 0J 0J 0J en S iH CO iH 0J OJ 0J OJ c ■H c ■H c s c c ■H » 3 3 3 ■H •H •H ■H U ^ n CO en Cn en en 3 c c c c «. efl 0) •H S H w w w oo a •^ C g p 5 C «H CO pa pa pa rH • ■ ♦J a) rJ E-« B R O P fc> CO c "H 1 c c c c o u h 00 0J ■H tr> a +J 4J p ■p TJ rH C N CO 00 00 03 00 •H X c 4J #-4 0J OJ OJ OJ > OJ 3 4J 0J •o •-. u h u (0 s PSJ x: ^ a a a a Q o (0 ^ rM •o 00 x: OJ 0J 0J OJ c o 3 0J u CJ j< jx .¥ ^: x; 3 Jp i-i OJ -H ■H •H ■H ■h ^6 a a s a S £ 2 z - XJ CO a O M Ktl a a M % •k g S Mt] > >i >i § z a « m <% 4J ■P *J c c X >1 c C C « * % E* 4J 3 3 3 03 c c •H « ^ * c 3 cS s cS (d a: 5 00 0J c c m O 0J c «l •H -H CO o OJ 03 03 M CO u c 3 1 tJ (0 0) 00 •H 0) •H (0 x: CO «J •H p •o O O O a 3 < s o pa to a 00 3 a o < a 0J n a CQ H x: a «H *t 00 x: X) 10 0J o § o s 00 4J (0 z w P 01 00 t> 00 OJ > c o 00 W 0J p o 3 E ^ o CO •H c (0 TJ 0J -H M iH •H 00 c p ra «H IV J? rH iH -H -H (O CO 0J OJ H a •H > (0 g w s X 03 X! O 4-> E s s OJ -H 2 «H > *J OJ rH & 3 ■H c 3 O X 8 ■H 3 a co 2 c 3 =3 00 S3 x: 00 o cS u «j 3 « M 3 «J /- a s CO CJ CO CJ a rH & 3 & r-t & (0 & a A3 •o ia 3 «J 3 «J 9 TJ ■H »o T3 •a ■o •o •O C > c ■jH c •H c CO ■H •H o > o > o 4J > u •o u •H o •H u •H •H cu c CD X) V •o co c •D (D ■H a c CO c CO D C 1 ^ l •H I ■H 1 p 9 (0 5 c 3 CO I c 3 (0 I | 9 i CO u 1 CO .-H \ «0 CO o 1 CO 2 O E- M fH E-> P E- 1-1 o e- 1-1 \o W ■P vO co +» •H W ■p VO en p >1 ■P ■H u CO h 9 CD C •H o» C W •M OS CO OS fc° 3 » 4J »C C C CO co U O 4J D ^ -P fa C CO «. 6 -h £ e o a •H -H 0, S CO a a cu m c c tx» CD C a w 3 J b 4J C * CO -H • e e o a, % CO «. X PS Q co ■H o u tt i-t CO 4J k a co CO CO H c i c CO -H a CO C (7i h cr> CD C nj 5 U Cd cu h3 J Cu fa OS * * •O o CD ■H ■p ■H •*H CD 4J S £ c ■P iH ►J CD o JJ Vt tH -H 3 «J • «o •p (0 n 6 4J to 1 o j< CD PJ a t t! •a ■H rH r-l OS n Cu Cu C3 O CO CO >< CO OS w E'- en u Q u H i, ■ .c •0 O i CO c 1 c 0) CO H 1 2 2 u P 2 « 0* f fH CO 03 CO '3 IS CO CO a 4-> -0 ft 3 1 -H m -H iH •O •H CO C > 1 •H CO 1 iH U-i 6« c n •H •0 •o fH E* 1 CO «H 3 CO > — 1 c 3 c •H 1 CO F» u in % a TJ O c CO JS a ai C E ft a 1 p M «H CO g iH rH c «H 04 2 p 9 •H 3 a c fe •H cu a % 2 P CO 3 •o CO C 0* CO ^-l +1 c P 3 u P C -4 o ■H ( 0) o -H 9 C o C o 'O •a o c 3 ■H CO 3 01 in c c 0^ 3 \D « CD w t ■H 3 IS c • • •H p p c h 0» CO CO 10 9 c 4J >i © •H «*> ft CQ i-t c •H u e o c r u ■H 0> c w 4J 0) ff C w -P 00 fH ■H u p a fH •H V4 a fc. V a a ■H x PS O c w •H J= a m 14 a JC P4 c o CO •H fH «H « 04 c o co •H iH fH W Stensatter Missoula CO < CO Eh CO CO p c 3 2 CO Eh CO CO 4J •H c 3 r» CO CO CO P •H C 3 ro CO < CO v.. Eh CO CO P c 3 o O u E « J£ c ■w tr iH •H fH O 03 ■H 0) s a V o cs o •a c CQ PS O 4J O -H U 04 J* u Q H >l n 4J ■P O a 3 O iH o U u 8 u o f4 •H c A) OS >1 4J c 3 O CJ c o CO E-i m u P c 3 O z < o u 0) i-i Eh JJ C 3 s O c •H o ■H c < s u fH 4J 00 a f4 E^ P C 3 O c •H o -H T3 C < 1 1-t p CO o u E- P C 3 P »o iH o Ja 3 < x o co <: co I Eh CO 4-> •H C 3 o m P r-H US fH p N C C 3 •H O 3 O P co o f4 Eh >- P C 3 u < tJ . o 2: >i p c 3 O u 00 • 04 04 P 04 • • • o p • X 04 X 0» 00 •H X • • • a p »H • X X X r-l c o X • fH c M •o £ M X o >H >1 -H r^ 0« •H > > X P o zt c « U p n fH a 3 P •H U iH U •H •H <* c C S > o . c o M S rH • •H c X -H fH i ■H CO 04 s tH a fH P i •H M o P • •o *H e •H P o c u c •H X N 3 •O » ■H o fH « a ■H •a • o c OS X 03 u PS S ►4 w rj X H PS M Eh ,fl ». u E- c X •0 CD CD . 1 M «N Cn H JJ 03 ■ 10 to ■H 2 X i X u co a CO -w < CO •M CO IT) CO CD 2 <-i J2 co •H (0 < 2 r-( CD X •H § I C (0 CO CD n CO E D CN 3 CO fc \ n J= X ro CO CO to iH tr> CN ta O CN (J CO «H m V m JJ xi CM n •H to r-t ^ to rH w-K fc r-t Wl rH CO < 3 * % O m 03 CO a % 09 ft » CO 2 CO CO ■J 4J 00 ■U 0) CU «H 09 00 JJ a E 09 JJ JJ 00 •H Zt JJ ■rH u U 4J 4J -H JJ a jj n •H ■H JJ C CD ■H C r- '« •H •H c «H ■H e C ■H 3 -rH c 3 "0 m CO c c 3 C 2 C - 3 3 c T3 3 c ^T g 3 3 3 3 CO 3 T 0) 1 E Jj CN CO JJ m ID O -H r* O u O tH CJ» ■rH n O ro — in CO 10 akasha 1 b ■H • c H •H • ■U id X * C r* c? ■H M IT c •H M a CD M rH n U •H CM r» a Cn c SB to 00 c oj CD C CD C JJ a rH rH -H >H to H H •H •H C a 0) JJ u D> Cn •o JJ 0) 0) m C c z c c c >- JJ •H cn to X X id «4 4J « O c CO to X z Cn •H ■H O ■H J< & cr 03 c U O 00 V4 «^ u » to X V P g P 00 CO a CO a CD Cn er a g 3 3 3 a < 4 u a c c -H ■H C -r» c CO -H -rH jj JJ 4J < •a c •H ^ Cr» xi Cn Xi •H K CO « X fu GO 00 00 C -H cn > 41 4J O Cn X ,9 ° •H «H ■H fl c c c c ■a 1 u 3 - » S JJ w •0 00 CO w CD 00 iH -H 03 c £ •H z ■H C r-i -»H id id id JS 1-1 U 00 CO 3 3 h 00 03 AJ 3 so 0) O X u OJ 00 rJ 00 »J •H CD Wl tJ 00 i 0) JZ J= CD CD jj j? U JJ »4 h iH OJ rH 5 TJ u 4J P c P C 00 UH c c 0) 0) a> . "H CD c id S CD" 3" 3 CD tr« E- E- s hmawk G N < 03 5 > Eu M ^ CO •^ X X O O CJ CO CO i 4) CO T-l CO CD cr C id «H C rH • Ss 5* H +1 JJ jj s M SI c C c 04 3 c 3 8 3 3 3 to a, ct X to < 1! to < o e . 4J l< < T-i CJ » jj 1-1 a id fH « C u u id ij id •■ JJ c tJ ti c .c iH x: 3 > % Cn 03 «J «H Cn •H CP to % CD jj >i U O > c X 3 O r-* Cn 00 X 03 O fi 2 z ■H ■H E E CD id OJ O ►J •o H J* 0) u M a r-t JJ JJ c 1-1 rH «H O c u a a r-H 00 00 V < 0) < 2d 3 3 < •H 3 •H •H 3 — < id 3 z u D U CO X A- cu X O X X > X X • h 0* • cr rH • H 04 ■H X ■H • XI • a X • 4J 4J O 2 u • a. • O 0) C £ •0 00 c E X T-l a co CD M <1) ■p C • X E > CD . •O •H en u :* ■H O cn CD X i-t X h a « X X > CO •H CM 3 CO fH • • rH * OJ JJ •0 rH rH OS GO 10 CO % % rH Ifl •» & 4J Vl < ft E" GO 0> 09 «H OJ CO 03 CO £ CO V ft •VI o % c id < JJ CO CO Eh O •H o Ei 3 CO •H < \o ■H iH 3 CO 00 O a m CO ft C CO JJ (0 O JJ O * u o CM a ft n 3 X rH ■H % r» r-i •H a cm E* JJ T3 10 & CM o> m 9} X 2 CO % iw CO CO ag •H CN Vl r-i (0 »-» U o » 2 ■o * > N, OJ a 09 0J Vl CO E^ E-> rH a ■H E-< > 0» Eh a) E-» 4J > 0J t CO CO p XI «1 >a CO 0) (0 CO 0) CO ■H OJ ■0 EH 1 0) h 3 c GO a 09 Oi 09 CO CO 00 Eh XI 01 < CM a JJ •0 -H r-i ft 0) 0J co m •H a) ft 4J ^ fe JJ CO 3 CO Mi •H •. ft « 00 09 % rH ft o» 09 o, ft CO c i* Z a C a 03 09 OS J-> 03 09 a -P 00 JJ 3 00 ^ JJ 3 JJ T3 JJ t3 -P •c ^H o 4J ft ■VI a fH 0J JJ •H JJ •rt X ■H 0) ■H V •H 4) c rH •H 03 ■rH 0J c Oi •H c a C •rH ft c o u C X C X C X 3 C a C OJ 3 « C CO 3 o c £-• 3 ^ c 3 3 3 * 3 -H 3 CO a 3 < rH o 3 CO 1 0) CO CO CO CM •V Vi o OJ CO o 1 Oi o\ o Vl 00 «t ro rt *» < iH V r* V CM m m 0J o CT> O fl IT) CM tn «n JJ «n co CM CO iH CO r-i X VO CO CO rH r-i 09 <*) r-i rH r> rH CM c «p ft l 1 < s s Oi c e £ £ 0» Vl OJ c ■H •o C (0 C 03 c (0 c OJ Vl 09 •H rH U M X O X o X •H 0J 0J 0J Vl M <£ 0) ■H Vl ■H P. ■H Vl Vl c 4J JJ 0J 9 E c 4J Q) j-i a) -P OJ 1 JJ Oi C C7 ft 09 a ' 03 s u u * VI * 0) c a) c 0J c u Vl < Oi V c rs ID O 3 o 3 U 3 a 0J a 0} p c X ! •H 0) P. O $8 M 4J 03 i 03 0J 3 n -H CJ t! « 4J 3 U 3 o (0 ■H •H c Vi Vl Vi r-i ■rH t-t fl O 10 X Di X ■H JJ OJ 0J fa M ■H ■H 00 « to a) 10 0) o 4J o 0» oo ■u OJ » E 0) O a) r-t 0J r-* OJ •H o c c ■H 5 c z a a ft (0 PS (0 09 09 u 2 (0 tH T3 M u CO E- E- E* rH •H £ t4 Vi Oi •H OJ z 09 cS ia cB 0) 3 3 Vl <0 o c > JJ < Vl u u Vl r- 09 J 0] w 10 ■ c TJ V T3 0) •O 3 CO Vl X JJ •H E CO OJ c Ifl s Vi to cu o •o X z tH OJ r-i >. 5 X JJ 3 o CO c 0) Vl Vl Ifl JJ c 3 o u Oi c o Vl u 00 OJ OJ .J E o y rH Ifl £ 00 •o -H a a X c « u oj z ft z X 00 JJ OJ 5 OJ OS rH e Oi Vl ^ a c ■ Vi X JJ a h) CO 04 Vl ■ X X o •o r-i ti tl >, 5 X z z 0J 0J s o y rH 0J O Vl Q j«: X A3 O 5 0J ft 0) r-i >1 — OJ X. •»H X Q •O y X it! OJ c a rH £ a •H z (9 O CO X "■— C9 jz < >l OJ Vi 03 JJ c o z X u c 10 ft 10 y OJ co « c 10 t-3 >1 JJ c 3 o u o c ■H u ■H c 0J < z u vT Vl to r9 >1 3 o u 0J c o X 03 o x a co h ft X • z JJ 3 X rH Vi 3 X 0J Vi o 5 o X 10 •o M c o 00 -H Vl IH a X OJ > < 00 p C o p 1) •o P b* 1 2 p 1 t CO i h r-l -*4 -p I u o o 8 o o o D Q -P E* Q Q CO >1 a D Q CO to c CO >, CO 4J CO a CO co 1 CO CO CO CO 1 1 « ( « 1 J 1 E" E 1 i » 1 E- E-» r-t »^ E« E E-" C *j E« E" CO r-> H E-" E- E- co co a r-i co *- CO 0) £ CO CO «H CO CO co co « >. •P •j c » » p c » 4J » ■H •j •j o c fe % «. fc o a c C a s c -u ■ to P •H ■ ■ o p P •H -P *~ 4J w ^~ 3 4J *i •H ■p •H 4J 4J p P ■H It .P •h e r-l •H ■H c •H -H c P ■H ~-t •H «4 c a C JJ C -P o c c 3 Cn c c c C 3 3 « p 9 C 3 C c m >1 3 3 -r» P 3 3 3 3 p •H r» r-t •H o g o o* o l-l a lO H ■ CM ^» CO ■H ■H ■H CM iH CM r-l >1 4J u D» CP o» o> o> C c c c c -H -H -H •H «H U p M m V4 o ■p c c C c c •H -H •H ■H •H •H o« 0> D> Cn o» a c c C c c w w H H w o >1 >1 >. >< (I n p P p p 2 4= 4= X s: 45 c < c c c c o o o O 3 3 3 3 1-1 r-» ■H iH fH r-( ■ •o O 3 3 ■H •p c u CO 2 3 s s 3 3 5 r-l .H rH r-l (4 •o T3 ■o •o •O •H -H •H •H -H ■H -H •H ■H c > > > > > 43 c tl P tJ tl E •H ii a a a a a O X. U P P P P •H • * • • • o C^ 4J P P u > > > > > s M o o o w 03 o c o ■p u o IJ M U u U M •a r-i E O E O i ! i 3 1-1 5 •J O o o o ■H M E E E E er & & cr & O s O u O O o M M w h n •H l-t iH 1-) 3 3 •J pa s £ £ >. >1 >i >1 >i p p 4J AJ P o c c c C c t3 T3 •a •O 3 3 3 3 3 ■H •H ■H •H cS o u 3 O a 3 PS a PS a PS c c c c c c c c c 4= 4= 4= 4= 4= o o u u o o -H •H ■H ■H o o O o ■H rH r-t r-l X. Q x. a 4= a 4= Q 4= a z 2 z CO M CO M CO M CO M CO M P* X o> S 04 £ a. 4<: 3 E 2 4= U c o o £ 4= U •H 3 C3 p O u u CM o\ U u 2 •k >1 4= % p 4J > ■o o •o C 4= 4= iH C X P c3 o K » PS > c 8 c > > a z 3 a £ p o «-f c •a P >a c P p •H CO ►J u z u f-l 0) 0) & .C -H P tn ■H CO CO >i tH I CO CO 1 1 ■P tH "O •o Eh CO 1 Eh 1 Eh Eh CO Eh CO ■H Wl C •3 c e c CO CO 3 P C 3 4 r-l i-i r^ g r-t 10 e to 10 rH rH g -H 09 i g 8 CO 1 3 <0 10 3 3 O «M I CO I 13 CO •3 3 3 •O "O O 8 o CO c* o -H •D c •O •H ■H T3 o a CO •o a Wl Q > tH •H > > •> C co CO % rH o» CO •H > •H > tH ■H i i 1 #«-» 1 •o tH -u •H •O T3 U H H i Eh CO CO 5 0) Eh g c T3 (0 •o c C CO CO CO g O c CO ■H C Wl c •H •H 5 » © < rH tH J ■H CO ■H u. * tk M CO CO CO iH « CO % 10 % ** c CO o 3 U) X) CO < CO tA Ik O *i 4i P +J H a 41 CO -P 00 •o 4J •P p tH •H iH • H 1 4J rs Wl •H Wl 1 •H -u a> •P ■H •H Wi c C 3 2 tH tH 3 C CO 2 c -H •o ■H C C 3 O 3 3 U 3 C ^» a 3 P 3 C c C 3 3 -H a CO 3 a rH CO 3 3 P o o §. Q I O CO O tH 1 O « vO CN a m o O Eh r-l o Wl O «M Eh CN m rH m CO Wi CN m a H CO n vo a ■H CO r-l r^ rH c a 10 P Ik •H ■H Wl Wl i-H a) 00 -H •H CP tH CP © -u 3 c (0 U O c c CJ c c « a 00 10 rt g w w o c •H c .K ■H ca •H tH C o cB rH ■o -U m ■o •P 0» tH CJ a <0 < < c 10 < c a c £ CO ■U CO (0 u t9 <0 Wl w •3 < u rH CO % CO CO •• ca 1 CO ►3 Wl CP -rl ^ (X ■H m * 0) 0) •a CO CO CO 00 .c CO Wi c o» u D» 3 a 3 Q p u c 4J u Wl 4J cu CO CO w c c o Q ■H tH < ■H tH H © -H c l-l Cd rH ft u u Wi o > Wl c — O 5 *0 Wi e T3 r4 tH tH o> N c . o CO CO (0 4J C3 • < 3 • < 3 S-i 0) CO Wl CO 3 10 c £ c ■H PS rH ■H a • O • O < ca Ui <: CO (X b a- w 2 Q 3 a J o ^ u M U u 3 O u o JZ u u ^3 o 2. o c5 c D> fa c c a Wl c Wl z c 3 5 a o a Wl 5 "0 > >^ a 2 ■p c c •H B ca s 2 JJ i >H O o a n ►J ,5 z , tH H 3 M pj a O P 4J M rH « x: tH t* *i r« tH < CP .c c >. >, > t« M- c p >o 3 .e XI P s % •H e 3 M ca XI ■H % rH 3 c O 2 •a u • rH « Wl CO h o H i-t CO r-i ■H O Wl •« C CJ oc r-i u P > Wi •3 u m o o «» •M O 5 5 •o tH Wi c a jB X c ■H % tH o P C p p o» Wl a •o rH •H § 3 >i o • 3 Wl •o Wl o c rH o P tH cS 8 o a z S s £ CO ■ £ (Q s ca * Eh CO p H c 3 p 2 c e *0 (0 1 (0 p p a> p. >. c J3 -o p « > V p P V «a i TJ c V p ■ I CD P e a -a 1 S 1 (0 a 0) E 9) ■ o S-. V c c (0 10 ~ CQ § 0) P ^ -H e a E c «J P 2 in P 3 r^ P (0 u ■H •H >1 a OJ OJ to o — ■ >. P « a •H X ■H (0 p p a 3 •» a M JQ TJ E P r-t C ^ CO .* p r-t P *^* > O -h p a fH •H iH u •H fH (0 c JS Q) c 2 p r-t CO fH «0 « P >> p •H

- « p &• P P fH 10 c •o c en p 04 p o ■ to c cr •H ■H ■H c i •o c r-1 p p •H >l CO c IM P CO c •H 3 x: •H p o o to u p <0 •0 ^^ p a 3 a -H a P u p 0J •H c n ■H c a E a S p OJ * c »o a> P to 03 to 10 p p & p 0) CD 3 (0 p CO g c CO « JM p £ T3 p u cu >^ a m CO .X p V Hi! id p C «. c C p a) <0 9 « P c E 0) E o a :*. p a) p a <0 a a CQ ^E a CD ^E * © <0 a P iH P o p •H p P p m <*-t P P P % «H -H p « T3 to ^» p r* *-* *H r-t *-* •o © E c 3 •H A •H V r-t p OJ Ifl •o P OJ (0 3

. 3 (0 E c CU rH P ar- p CO 3 fH •H 5 r-l £ TJ a 3 p a H >. 10 a) O il ■H J 4) •H ■H P •H •H o ■H 0) ■ o 1 E U 09 CJ a CO u c CO 1 p H J B p c tr H CO c o H P u X >J X X X P p U p u p p c c o o X >* SH >♦ >* c C fl 1 5 y > 3 r« .0 s £ > > 2 2 a •H ' 2 2 2 J= p n P c ,2 fp i ti p P Q fr CO i 1 > P ^r r-» 01 fH GO fH fH N tP > H 2 e> ? P fH H a: *P «P IH •H u 3 r-l •O >. - r< P P c p a > CO § % i i p c 3 3? •o P IP c o o o cS c o E- H e trt u 2 > to 2 1 c N h - o U JJ c M 1 » D n> t a* o ■H X u • •H g H 1 4J % B 5 C JJ * JJ o 3 H -P 3 frfc A «h to J? H U «-» «. o M g a m n § Qt X O V •H s § >, « 3 C jj O JJ JJ JJ g 3 GO O VJ-1 a a) a ■H U >, £ -H * JJ JJ c c JJ 4-> 4J T3 ■H C C JJ ^ -° £. c •o c JJ X o ■H JJ ■H a 09 -H JJ -H c lb c C c SO 1-1 >i~ >. > JS • r-l tr 3 > H ■H >1 iH >. >1 jj s -H V 0) rH OS (0 iH •H •H TJ iH a JJ c >t 3 "O a <0 M g uj U m •H g £ U-l H U O C iH 0* JJ g 09 «— iu Oi O O rH g jj a r-t g UJ g 0) a -H JJ -H to Vj C a a rH 00 r-l r-l O to c •H JJ a ^" u a 4J O % 4J * i-» » g rJ ^ U g a jj r-t 4) h (0 flj >i OB •H -H — * JJ i a tj CO 4J C JJ C 09 c 00 c M >i jj a c 2 4J GO JJ JJ -H 4J c JJ -*H JJ JJ JJ jj o o Sh -H rt »o *-» - ■H •O UJ u >i -rl >, -■ ■H ■H -rH a Q c C 2 a u i-l u 0) g 4J o H U g JJ JJ o JJ JJ c u T3 JJ ■H 3 -a JJ r-t o (0 •H rJ 4J ■H r-l 3 a •H ■H •H -H JJ 3 JJ * 4) c >1 g U) •-( JJ c 4J U JJ r-H 00 JJ JJ > 1-1 JJ > 1-1 ■H g u a 10 E JJ 3 10 O a 3 Qi J3 a o a 00 g O i a X j< JJC X X J* M M rl iH Vt rl rH •H O O O c >* >" >« *H }H > h) en VJ » » s J 5 9 r« •H as S5 SB 2 2 2 2 > c Jj a rC o r~ E- rH M rH -H 5 > t-H TJ C a — o c c rj en » H 5 m to c o 0) •a >i iH rH r-l «rJ S -H o -H > •S en a §* •H 3 O E- 2 OS OS E- CO 0} 4J c 3 «M o p 4J JS 4J a> >i i-H >. o a o § 0J a) a jj iH -p -a P a p c E g ■P. , •H o ■p J5 3 o >1 4J m a ! -^ E a I -P to g r-l •P V V 4J T3 <-l >i H 4J 5 o 3 3 -rH J c a iH H u c I u 3 2.2 •P 0> P rH a « e c CU c

i 4J ^ <7>

1 a to 00 ID k e 4J 01 . u 00 P O M 14-1 -p

c 4J «— -^ ^* T! rH c 4J r* 9 «H x a> x «P .* i rH .* 03 a tP rP •0 C rH c c a> CO c (0 c 03 00 g c I -P •P C «3 ■H P «3 a C « p a c a c P -o p c o p 4J o «j 03 P o -p p ■H ■P ■P — o p Q. p ■H >fi p «-» p ■H OJ rC "O •p % •p •P P P >. p •o o 4J -u o iH 3 O ■P o -p CO 0] n p o % c 4J 3 p -P ■H IC ■H 0) a CO -P <0 •H a; o p •H P •P 03 o >1 TJ U) -r< a r-l -P > u 4J r-l c CO 4-1 P 4J g a 0) ■P p 4J O. P C to > r- a o O, r-l a) a, a) Cu 3 00 § * a P en p ■P « >1 4-> p c tr> ■H o c o p u o H "" c ■H ■P ■H rH c C o p ■H > rH > iH J? $ o C >i >i o o ^H 3 3 JZ o» c c 4J 4J tJ p c c C s ■H o > Pi a |2 M rS c ■H r-l O P U o rS o c c 4J 4J rP 4J c iH O 3 & PS r-l rC CO a 3 a c c iH «*: -h -H •H «w o rC 4J > o 4J P o c 4-> 4J Hi c •H c O »H 3 •O 3 P a o 1 O o o 3 &« IP CO tv. >1 4J C 3 cS c ■p c 4J 4J -? «p r4 (0 JJ c 9 u >1 TJ h u OJ u aj & H E C % OJ JJ -U jj <8 g e id 0) TJ jj C OJ j? 0J a 3 £ to » h c 0J OJ i E n •a jj 03 *H co o «J g JJ OJ 18 -iH ■** •O AJ Cn .* JJ CO 2 (Q JJ -Q •H % JJ •H bJ8 > * r-t u c c o -H T» •o c O •O *H 0) OJ •H « «H 3 •o g 4J O c •o o H ^ iH JJ JJ rH IB OJ •H 3 .a CO O rH O rH JJ C E U-l H i-l « il 0) 0J 0J j5 rH 0J c rH Cn >. rH Cn -rl 0) S3 rH o o «o rH 4J 18 (8 18 18 C 41 C C u 3 •HO JJ M (0 c >1 E i-t e g rH <» a •H U JJ 4J » O 1 O >. fl *H M U a V4 c c O a CO E m - (8 e oo rl V OJ ■H c 0J 0J o jj o >, - c u Cn * U > % U E a> J SH x. 3 •H U rH x 3 rH rH X 3 rH GO © •o 0J g M 10 <8 •h E « E » JJ c a «3 s c a a ih w c ■a E c 10 m (8 JJ c 10 00 C (0 a o c o a 3 -i ft 3 -H O 4J w O JJ l-t rH o 4J •O o JJ -rl 3 •o o •r) fl "D "O O ■H «H >. 3 ■H ^H >i c ■H >i jj -rH O •-! & I E u J-l -H V U 4J O 00 JJ O JJ O r-l JJ 0J •8 •rl rl ifl -H -r-l rl (8 •H •H rH ■8 -H ■h Cn <0 JJ •H «H JJ JJ J-l ■riH 4 41 rl -P 0J M 4-1 > ■H •a iH JJ > M rl JJ > -H iH a 'o « jj 4 00 f> o •O IB rl rH OJ a 5 OJ a «J o c 0J a 18 a> 0J a « u aj V c 3 E >i -H a C E 0J -H a 0J 0J a 0J ^ 0J (0 a OJ U > cu 0J u u a (0 « •O c W CO MH M CO 18 IH O to a o CO Cn rl CO to Cn O CO Cn -H o JJ U u v c Cn •H 03 OJ o c o -rl JJ (8 O o c CO o c o c OJ E (0 Z > 00 0J c « 3 jj u a j= o OJ <3J ffl o CO J= 53 00 (0 0J c c 0J 2 0) u o E fe o JJ c 2 o Cu 01 01 I) Q o* H c CO M P p c Ol ■P •a i i-t 0) *H JJ P •H •O ^H c •o P P a a) 0) C c c E H P P o> rH ■H MH CO O CO (0 js (0 •a 1 <9 3 ■*H U P a k a) V 0) to 3 t u s o -H O •H tJ c r-\ c .* c N J* a rH a M •u P P •p •P c ■H 3 3 c JJ c a p C p -H o r-( o %i ■H a CO CO «0 JJ rH O 01 Ji r-( i P p u 0) JO. p c JJ M 3 •a P c .-1 0) •H P T3 « •o 01 3 c rH c > g O p b n o ■H •o a •H H ^» •»H (0 to u ■ to a JJ c h p S JJ 01 •D E t-i P E M c % P o a % O a. a -H £ C "S a ^ P -^ a 0) p a> CO Q> CO 0) »— » o

r-K C — ' •0 i a a a Sp rH c >n c c p >! w-t B P p P •p p 4J p 4J -r-< P Ol JJ -H ■H 3 P P G >n •H ■H S -H o ■H u < O C >4H JJ c fr P ■H u c >M JJ -H tH o c 3 c 3 > -rt a 3 c a JJ > Ol -p P P > Ol >n g •H P c -H g ■H P g a u >H P ■ •p k a p rH V a p g CO Ou •*■ g g a E V •o a E I ai h c •H Ck Ol P c E o 0) p P p a - a c 01 % p a CO 0» -H «P CO tP -H o •a CO CT -O o •o o o o M o u •a c p •H CJ c r3 "H c c c p o> Oi &« a -H iH •H -C J= x. c o o c 3 E a ■H -C CO p o c c p o CO C C P a •H -H C ^5 J= p c CO § p • > g a E P Eh > p o rH U -H P •H a f* &* J= CT> PC ■H p o 5 & r-\ rJ £ 3 P F o P > i 3 O P IT c p •H (0 •H tH (3 p s e £ £ (0 a a u u I o ■h c >. ih a -h e to "— g go a M a ■ «-> >: ^ r-l c o m to o c 4J O >i-H O JJ 4J •H -ri «J JJ > ^ a « © a) V4 o, to o>o s * c 10 «3 CP GO ■H ■H S c M % jj JJ «_ ■H C j= c v 4J JJ TJ a >1 «H a 5h o > Q) ■ c c C a) co 4J 9 jj JJ JJ •p 3 u j? OJ 4) 3 a tj •H a -H ■H •H rH 0) 3 3 O r-l »-. > ^ * H u > -o > UH ? rH rH e in « iH tO c ■H id JS (0 JS «U 4) jj <4H OJ M-l 0) -H 10 M « 8 JJ w e M 0) to «M J3 MH * 4J <4-l c 0> JJ tP JJ a D> o t* c OJ 03 jj CO c a o a> ■H JJ JJ ■> 4) JJ •H 3 -H ■H 14 o JJ c a in JJ u o 00 rJ >1 u iH C r-t « JJ OJ •H a OJ •0 c V c E 9 10 i «-» a JJ •o *-• JJ <»~ OJ CO e *-* JJ <— • JJ g ■o kt 4) a SO iD rH jj OJ •H r*1 iH OJ >1 i-H JJ (0 -^— rH 03 >1 rH 4) E f-l o> E 4) B 10 <0 p X 03 10 £ 10 «0 CO 4) 03 P 10 03 E tO T3 a 03 33 «• *•—•> c JJ 3 Js c 5 e c >1 M jj C 3 s c (0 u 3 C o «H jj •rH •H ••* CO a c ■H «- o ■H •O « TJ %l c a> •H r-H •o •A ■H •o •H 4) «H •0 •H »o *> •H 9) CD 4) rH JJ ■H CO c JJ ai JJ o « E JJ E 4J E > CO J3 •H >-i 3 O ■tl ja rH u o 83 rH M 93 -H CO JJ 03 rH 4) (0 rH OJ -t a: •-I V rH -H in (0 r-l OJ O in r-l OJ iH JJ a «3 M rH JJ VJ rH JJ ■o c JJ « * «4H -C a> j= S3 S D> OJ 10 5 OJ a £ 0) 10 00 OJ 10 CO c a i a> q-i a> 04 a> s OJ a a p aj a OJ 3 a i > a E ts M JJ c m CJ > a CO CO rH o to 00 CO a -p CO O CO 0) c ■H « JJ JJ (0 CO 43 ►J C c « JJ o CD OJ c c C OJ •H TJ C H CO (0 CO c <0 u < u 3 o CD CD 10 JJ o J* id Q O 2 « jj c 3 O Cu c to X o iH c o z o J»t o .J c to E Jj ■2 to c (0 >1 JJ o to JJ o (0 o o 2 (0 3 >. «»H o o 10 JJ o X 10 a o 3 T3 iH o U-l <4H § o a C o u OJ » •H >N E « «-h fi JJ 3 -H o a c •H a «W h •H 3 C C J= >. -p 4J -O * •h 3 4J O a> % o ia 4J c a ■H 00 -H 0) e c iT3 N CO -H >. u > r-t o> at > .* a ■ E » a) 3 Ou -p JJ & 4J k -H 3 a — i c a •H O 3 rH 10 p Q< •H ■H ■ »M h ■H •o -o « -H 1 O r-i a 3 oj > > 1 3 U-l k c c •n e ■ "«H >. 0J a CO a] •> « •o O ««-l -H 3 ■ c •» <4-t JJ u £ N E kt tj c %4 OJ o u c a) •O 0) -H a 41 « C7> 0J CJ» X «0 V k E •H (0 H ^H C C TJ ^i > a U K a .u 09 JJ U «J 0) - 3 M a) C JJ u CO h ft 0> ►. o e H a 4J -H B e 01 3 3 O o >1 « o» tu 4J a> c f» oj fl v 4J <4-t 0) E u iH O c ^ 4J CO jj 0. c V r-4 4J 3 CO CO * ■H £ 4J O OJ <«H E iH 0) 4) H •H E co £ c >, 0) T3 •D •o C O CO o P «M >, <0 p c E H 4J 0) 0) » r-l >. rH 3 •3 >. 3 a >i RJ c H -»H •H 6 03 •* . -H o 4J U a 3 0} i ia e c a « 3 E - OJ ta f-t m <0 3 o 0) E l O (0 a OJ ^H J-i o a> 9 ■H « 4J B o « a E o -H E 0) 0) *J U 4J CO o •a O t-( 04 HUB) CO CO o JJ CO u •o CO to M CO u 4J u a, co i +J > 4J O CJ O •H •H C CO C Ih 03 •H u 3 JJ a •H •D « P a (0 rH |4 ai E ■H SB -H <0 CO a > c u Hi CO h « at >. M 4) rS 03 rH O pa ■u rH •H M rH c -H > 0) >i c 3 c h en 10 a 8 03 0J •O E" CO £ CO W c 1-1 03 O >i 4J C s a a as rH c rH O <4H 03 CJ C u (0 u c 2 u 3 4J c 2 c 3 u 2 z ■p c V 3 rH «M i •P ■H C 3 0) « C 0) A. S-i