What’s Buried in Your Backyard?

New technologies handle wastewater better

By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI staff

George Loomis knew he was in trouble when the homeowner had no idea where in his backyard his septic system was buried.

“I’ve been here for thirty years and never had to do anything with it,” the man proudly told Loomis.

Loomis, the program director for the University of Rhode Island Onsite Wastewater Training Center has uncovered septic system tanks so full of solids that a 30-pound crowbar placed in the middle was able to stand up straight.

It takes a long time to pump out one of those tanks. It’s also a sure sign the system has failed and its drain field is damaged.

The self-described “wastewater geek” gets that sort of response or finds that kind of problem far too often when he visits private properties to conduct inspections, demonstrations or trainings.

“Unfortunately, for a very long time now, septic system management policy has been total neglect,” he said.

Loomis and his colleagues at URI’s Cooperative Extension are working on helping Rhode Island homeowners and municipal officials develop new wastewater management practices.

They spent seven years — 2000 to 2007 — working with residents and officials in Charlestown, New Shoreham and South Kingstown to create onsite wastewater management programs that feature mandatory septic system inspections, pump-outs and maintenance, replacement of failed systems and scheduled removal of cesspools.

The goal was to improve wastewater management, especially in areas vulnerable to public-health and environmental risks.

In Charlestown, for example, the phase-out of cesspools begins next year and ends in 2014.

Forty percent of Rhode Islanders get their drinking water from groundwater sources or from small local reservoirs, according to the URI Cooperative. Outdated cesspools and failing septic systems are a major source of pollution to these water supplies.

The three communities recognized that a town-wide wastewater management plan could help them keep drinking-water supplies safe, protect coastal waters and guide future growth. The URI Cooperative Extension, along with government, academic and community partners, provided the towns with training, guidance and funding.

In fact, the cumbersomely titled report “The Block Island/Green Hill Pond Watershed Wastewater Demonstration Project” that came out of all that work helped nudge lawmakers into adopting a statewide cesspool phase-out law, which went into effect last year.

Rhode Island banned cesspools in new construction in 1968, but there are an estimated 50,000 still functioning, including a few thousand in high-risk areas.

Since the report came out in 2007, seven other Ocean State communities have adopted a Department of Environmental Management-approved onsite wastewater management program.

But Rhode Island’s communities still have a long way to go to make up for their longtime hands-off approach to onsite wastewater management.

Rhode Islanders generate more than 150 million gallons of wastewater daily, according to the Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency. In many areas of the state, wastewater is collected at 19 municipally owned treatment facilities and purified before it finds its way back into the Ocean State’s waterways.

But nearly a third of the state’s households dispose of sewage and wastewater into septic systems and cesspools buried under their own backyards, often on property that also contains well water for drinking and bathing. And many of the systems used by those 135,000 or so households are either inadequate or failing.

The standard septic system design first appeared in the 1950s, and by 1970 many states, including Rhode Island, had adopted minimum septic system design standards.

Repairs to these antiquated systems are costly; properly replacing a failing system or phased-out cesspool can be difficult on small lots; and sewers are no longer considered the most environmentally sound solution to getting rid of wastewater, as growth attracted by the system’s capacity brings polluted runoff.

New technologies that focus on treating wastewater better are the latest tool in fighting groundwater pollution.

Today’s conventional septic systems, which are similar to the 1950s model, remain the simplest and low-cost choice for low-density development with good soils and favorable site conditions, according to Lorraine Joubert, the program director for the Cooperative Extension’s Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials.

For different and/or sensitive sites, including places where there are site constraints or critical water resources, high-tech wastewater systems provide alternatives to homeowners and developers.

These advanced onsite treatment systems, unlike conventional systems, in which wastewater receives no extra treatment before it leaches into the drain field, offer numerous treatment options and often are the most sustainable from both an economic and environmental perspective, Joubert said.

According to Joubert, about 30 percent of permits approved annually in Rhode Island are for advanced onsite wastewater treatment systems, which feature a separate unit installed after the septic tank that treats sewage pollutants, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, that impair water quality before the effluent is discharged into the drain field.

“After the effluent has been treated by one of these systems, it looks and smells like tap water,” Loomis said.

Loomis — Joubert referred to him as a “wastewater guru” — has installed about 50 advanced onsite treatment systems in the past decade, for demonstration and training purposes. He said these systems need to be pumped out less frequently than conventional systems, but noted that they require one to two annual maintenance visits a year. Each maintenance visit costs about $350 and can last up to two hours.

“If one of these systems fail, it can be pricey to repair,” he said. “But if they are properly maintained, they are cost-effective systems that are environmental friendly.”

Advanced onsite treatment systems typically cost between $25,000 and $30,000.

What’s in Our Water?

URI professor looking for emerging pollutants

By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI staff

This much already is known: industrial products used as flame-retardants can have adverse, long-term effects on wildlife and humans. Now, a professor at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography wants to find out how much of these compounds are in the Narragansett Bay watershed.

Rainer and Graduate School of Oceanography student Victoria Sacks started the two-year study last fall. Lohmann is sure there are flame-retardants, which have routinely been added to plastics and polyurethane foam for several decades, in the watershed, but he wants to find out in what concentration and where they are entering.

“There’s no reason why certain chemicals are still being used today,” Lohmann said. “The compounds in flame-retardants can potentially mess up hormonal systems. Fertility rates are down across most industrialized countries and there is a link to compounds of widespread use. It’s difficult to say which compound is doing what, but there are documented concerns with flame-retardants.”

Flame-retardants that feature these harmful chemicals, which are added to computer plastics, foam mattresses, upholstery, children’s pajamas and commercial textiles to slow the spread of fire, have been banned in Europe, and no new production is allowed in the United States.

While momentum is building to reduce and eliminate the use of these compounds, about 100,000 tons are still produced worldwide every year, according to Lohmann.

Some states, including Maine and California, have banned the sale of products containing the most dangerous of these compounds, but most states, including Rhode Island, have not taken such steps.

These flame-retardant compounds have been found in house dust, sewage sludge, fish, birds, mammals and human breast milk.

The study also is looking at the concentration levels of two other emerging pollutants in the bay watershed.

While the Narragansett Bay watershed has a long history of exposure to potential contaminants, from industrial operations to agriculture to coastal development, a new list of pollutants is emerging as the understanding of how human-made compounds react in the environment increases.

Certain contaminants, such as petroleum products and PCBs, have long been recognized as detrimental to the environment. However, compounds that are used in personal-care products and detergents are now proving to be of some concern when they find their way into the environment.

Personal-care products comprise a broad and diverse collection of thousands of chemical substances, including perfumes, cosmetics and sunscreen lotions.

Sewage treatment plants are not engineered for the removal of personal-care products, and most of their by-products are pumped with treated effluent into waterways.

“They might have an impact down the road because there is such a huge production volume,” Lohmann said.

Lohmann, who has a Ph.D. in environmental chemistry, however, is more concerned about the chemicals widely used in detergents and their impact on the environment.

“Society uses a lot of products that the planet wasn’t made to handle,” he said. “There’s fifty to one hundred thousands chemicals registered for production and we know a few hundred are bad. There’s a big gray zone and we’re trying to figure out ways to catch the most likely compounds of concern. The bay has thousands of chemicals in it and the impact of one is difficult to determine.”

Lohmann and Sacks are testing various areas throughout the Narragansett Bay watershed to determine the chemical concentration levels of flame-retardants, personal-care products and detergents. They hope to publish the results of their study by the end of next summer.

Composting Toilets Eliminate

Flushing of Good Water

By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI staff

It’s not quite like going to the bathroom outside, but it’s close.

Composting toilets aren’t the equivalent of an outhouse in your living room and they don’t look that much different than your current commode, but they do save water for drinking and showering.

The average single-family home in the United States uses nearly 70 gallons of water a day, and about 30 percent of that is flushed down the toilet, according to the American Water Works Association.

“People are beginning to question the use of potable water to flush away our wastes,” said Ben Goldberg, who has been selling and installing Phoenix composting toilet systems in private residences, businesses and public facilities across New England since the 1980s. “Treating human waste with conventional septic systems or sewage treatment plants is costly in energy and resources, and contributes to soil and water pollution. As the human population increases, dealing with our waste products becomes more of a challenge. The notion of converting human waste to a usable resource is not a new one.”

The Apeiron Institute for Environmental Living on Hammet Road in Coventry features a composting toilet.

“Composting toilets save an incredible amount of water. You don’t need flush good water literally down the toilet,” Goldberg said. “Asian, European and Latin cultures have been using these methods for centuries. One of the major hurdles to composting toilets in the U.S. is that regulations are geared toward the more conventional flush systems.”

Composting toilet systems — sometimes called biological toilets, dry toilets or waterless toilets — contain and control the composting of excrement and toilet paper. And, unlike a septic system, composting toilets rely on aerobic bacteria and fungi to break down wastes, just as they do in a yard-waste composter.

Systems range if price from less than $1,000 to $7,000 or more, according to Goldberg.

“They work like a compost pile — an indoor compost pile,” he said. “There’s an ecosystem of organisms that decompose the waste. Add some pine shavings after each use and you will have nicely balanced compost.”

Such systems, however, only treat black water — feces and urine — so a separate greywater system, either a septic tank or sewer hookup, is needed to handle dish washing, laundry and bathing. Greywater comprises 50 percent to 80 percent of residential wastewater.

Composting toilets also are difficult to retrofit and are more suitable for new construction. They come in many shapes and sizes depending upon the number of users. They can be homemade or manufactured.

The most important thing when selecting such a toilet, Goldberg said, is to choose a system that adequately meets your needs. Selecting a smaller unit for full time use for a family of 12 will keep you busy emptying under-treated waste, he said. But he noted that smaller systems are terrific for an individual or small family or for weekend or seasonal use.

Larger-storage composting toilets are good choices for continuous year-round use for families or at public facilities, Goldberg said.

A storage tank, where the actual composting takes place, sits in the basement and is usually made of fiberglass or plastic. Wastes are stored and composted within, sometimes for years, virtually eliminating the need for handling partially decomposed waste. Some use small amounts of electricity for venting, some styles use minimal amounts of water, and regular management of most composting toilet systems requires adding carbon-based bulking material such as pine shavings, straw or saw dust.

Most systems are designed to hold waste for 12 to 14 months, after which the composted material can be added to an existing compost pile outside or on flowerbeds, Goldberg said.

“Composting toilets don’t appeal to everyone,” he said. “Taboos still flourish within our culture that prohibit interacting with our waste. Keeping in mind that a century ago, it was considered taboo to go to the bathroom inside the house, we know that taboos can also be transient. (But) in our contemporary world, it’s crucial that we learn to practice conservation of resources and energy.”

Lawn chemicals need not apply

Pesticides and fertilizers degrade water quality

 
By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI staff

For decades, lawn-care professionals and amateur green thumbs have dumped pesticides and fertilizers on lawns in hopes of creating lush, green carpets of neighborhood envy.

After these dousings, companies often stick yellow or white flags into the grass to warn people that dangerous chemicals have been sprayed to kill bugs and weeds.

There’s a good reason these warning signs are posted. Of the 30 commonly used lawn pesticides: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens; 13 are linked to birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects and 26 with liver or kidney damage; and 16 are toxic to birds, 24 are toxic to fish and 11 are deadly to bees, according to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides.

Suburban lawns and gardens on average receive more pesticide applications per acre (3.2 to 9.8 pounds) than agriculture (2.7), according to the aforementioned coalition against pesticides.

This heavy reliance on pesticides and fertilizers has turned neighborhood soil into de-facto dumping grounds for lawn-care chemicals that threaten the public health and its water supply. Toxins from synthetic lawn fertilizers and pesticides eventually make their way into nearby waterways — because thick, lush lawns are slightly less impervious than asphalt and concrete— where they cause algae blooms, deplete oxygen and harm aquatic life.

“People really need to be careful of what they apply to their lawns,” said Jennifer West, the coastal training program coordinator for the Prudence Island-based Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. “A huge percentage of Rhode Island’s wetlands are on private property. All these lawn fertilizers and chemicals homeowners are using to grow green lawns end up in our waters.”

Once deposited into streams, rivers, lakes and the ocean via sewers as stormwater runoff or as overflow from overburdened wastewater treatment facilities, these lawn chemicals are joined by similar nitrogen and phosphorus-filled runoff from farms and then mix with other pollutants in the water to create a host of environmental problems, ranging from oxygen-depleted “dead” zones to contaminated fish and shellfish.

Still, Americans spend $40 billion annually on the upkeep of their lawns, with much of that money spent on the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides. Herbicides account for the highest usage of pesticides in the home and garden sector, with more than 90 million pounds applied to lawns and gardens annually, according to the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides.

In total, pesticide sales average $9.3 billion a year, as 78 million households in the United States use lawn and garden pesticides.

Counting farmers and exterminators, roughly 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States to eliminate weeds and insects.

There are better ways to grow green lawns, according to local environmental advocates.

The easiest, safest and cheapest solution is to avoid synthetic chemicals and use alternative lawn-care methods, West said.

West mentioned using organic fertilizers, composting, cutting down on watering — “lawns only need an inch of water weekly,” she said — limiting the amount of impervious surfaces on your property and installing rain barrels to catch roof runoff, which can be used later for watering.

The University of Rhode Island graduate also said to help cut down on the amount of chemicals carried away by surface runoff from lawns, homeowners should replace some of their grass with native plants, which have adapted to this climate and are more pest resistant. She suggested adding plants that attract insects, such as dragonflies and ladybugs, that feed on pests.

“You save money on fertilizers and pesticides and native plants don’t require as much water,” West said.

Instead of using lots of fertilizer and pesticides, Bob Stankelis, manager of the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, throws lots of grass seed.

“I reseed like hell, especially in the fall and spring,” Stankelis said. “You’re not going to get a nice Astroturf lawn with reseeding, but you avoid using a bunch of chemicals.”

West also recommended using vegetative plantings or crushed stone to create buffers and borders along buildings, driveways, streets and waterways to capture rainfall and filter surface runoff.

Newport Considers Zapping Away

its Contaminated Stormwater

Ultraviolet treatment plant planned for Easton’s Beach

By FRANK CARINI/ecoRI staff

Newport’s proposed ultraviolet light treatment facility would zap polluted stormwater runoff in the Easton’s Beach moat before the water is discharged into Easton’s Bay. The facility would be built across the street from Easton’s Beach and across the way from Middletown’s Wave Avenue pump station. (Frank Carini/ecoRI staff)NEWPORT — Twenty-eight times during the past five summers, Easton’s Beach, one of the most popular summertime attractions in Rhode Island’s tourism capital, has been ordered closed by state health officials because spiked pollution levels made its waters unsafe for swimming.

State and local officials, Newport residents and City-by-the-Sea visitors are all frustrated by and concerned with this public health hazard that also impacts the local economy.

In an attempt to stop the flow of polluted water from the stream that runs between the Atlantic Beach Club in Middletown and the Newport line and empties into Easton’s Beach, city officials have plans to zap the contaminated water with ultraviolet light (UV).

The proposed UV disinfection system would cost nearly $5.5 million, according to the project engineer, Providence firm Fuss & O’Neill Inc.

Ultraviolet disinfection kills microorganisms, from bacteria and viruses to algae and protozoa, in a particular environment. The technology is used in air and water purification and to treat sewage. UV treatment is capable of disinfecting water faster than chlorine without retention tanks and harmful chemicals, according to industry experts.

But the somewhat unconventional idea has its share of detractors.

“I want to know where there is a similar plant that has been built on a saltwater barrier beach,” said Peter Fagan, co-executive director of the Aquidneck Island Watershed Council. “Are there any prototypes in this type of setting?”

He is concerned that the moat’s often stirred-up waters will sometimes render this UV technology useless. Turbidity, according to industry experts, can shield microorganisms from UV light.

If the Easton’s Beach project is approved, the system would be the first application of UV treatment on stormwater runoff applied at a beach in New England, according to a report presented by Diane Mas, a senior environmental engineer at Fuss & O’Neill’s West Springfield, Mass., office, at the April 2009 National Beach Conference in Huntington Beach, Calif.

One of the most common uses of ultraviolet sterilization is the disinfection of domestic water supplies resulting from contaminated wells. Ultraviolet technology also is used in other places: schools, hospitals, restaurants, breweries, laboratories, wineries, dairies, farms, fish hatcheries and in bottled-water plants.

A water treatment facility in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., which serves a community of nearly 80,000, draws water from the Hudson River and uses six UV disinfection systems to treat its drinking water supply.

Both Fagan and lifelong Newport resident Marty Grimes have few doubts about the technology, but question spending several million dollars to install such a system as an end-of-pipe solution to a complex problem.

“It’s very effective in killing bacteria in the right place,” Fagan said. “But in this setting it would be nothing more than an experimental mechanism. Even if it works and works well, it won’t deal with the whole problem.”

After it rains, stormwater runoff collected from miles away rushes down a manmade stream that locals call the “moat” and contaminates Easton’s Bay with bacteria from animal waste and other sources. In fact, the pollution woes at Easton’s Beach contributed to a federal lawsuit brought against the city last year by two environmental groups and some local residents, including Fagan.

“Until Newport has a firm scientific grasp on exactly where the pollution is coming from, a major investment is far from warranted,” Grimes said. “No matter how much money is spent on the UV plant, the problem will never go away. We will always be chasing the problem instead of taking care of it in the best manner possible. Mitigation efforts must be made upstream towards the sources of the pollution, not at the end of the line at the moat.”

However, Newport alone isn’t responsible for the contaminants that are discharged into Easton’s Bay. Both Middletown and the state have outfall pipes that contribute greatly to the amount of polluted runoff that makes its way into local waters.

Like its neighbor Easton’s Beach, Atlantic Beach in Middletown has had its share of summer swimming days wiped out. Since 2005, state health officials have made the popular hotspot off-limits to swimming 70 times.

Middletown Town Administrator Shawn Brown said the town is committed to keeping the beach open and the bay’s water clean. Brown said Fuss & O’Neill determined that Middletown’s Esplanade outfall pipes could not be tied into the proposed UV treatment facility because it would cause flooding in the stormwater collection system. He said the town is willing to continue to work with Newport on the problem and, since part of the UV plant would be built on Middletown property, pay for any survey work needed.

“The moat is a unique beast,” Brown said. “It was meant to keep runoff out of a public drinking water supply. It’s a complex problem.”

About a foot deep in dry weather, but swelling to several feet during heavy rains, the moat flows south beneath a small bridge at Memorial Boulevard and out to Easton’s Beach.

In September 2006, after Easton’s Beach had been closed 12 times that summer because of contaminated swimming waters, the Newport City Council hired Fuss & O’Neill to study the area’s stormwater runoff problem. That work included an assessment of the Easton’s Pond dam and an evaluation of the drainage moat, which runs around the perimeter of the built-up earthen sides of Easton’s Pond.

A year later, from September to October, Fuss & O’Neill operated a pilot ultraviolet disinfection system. The system was truck mounted and capable of treating up to 3 million gallons of water per day. The on-site pilot program confirmed that UV disinfection could significantly reduce bacteria loadings being discharged from the moat, according to the firm’s 2007 Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Pilot Study.

This March, the City Council awarded a $478,000 contract to Fuss & O’Neill that included completing the final design of the UV plant. Acting upon the recommendation of the firm, Newport officials have proposed building the multimillion-dollar ultraviolet disinfection system to reduce bacteria loadings and improve water quality at Easton’s Beach.

The facility would be built across the street from Easton’s Beach and across the way from the Wave Avenue pump station on the Middletown side of the moat. Plans call for a gate to automatically drop down into the moat, on the reservoir side of Memorial Boulevard, during heavy rains. The stormwater runoff that typical swells the moat will then be pumped through an uncovered concrete channel. A screen will remove any large objects, and then the water will flow under a bank of UV lights before being discharged into Easton’s Bay.

The facility will be able to handle 1.2 inches of rain in a 24-hour period, or 93 percent of all storms, according to Fuss & O’Neill reports.

Those against the UV plant, however, say such a facility and its technology haven’t proven they can handle New England’s wicked weather.

“When there’s heavy rains, strong winds and a hard surf, water explodes back up through the moat. It’s a harsh environment,” said Grimes, a certified erosion, sediment and stormwater inspector who has surfed Aquidneck Island waters for decades. “This system won’t be able to stop a tide surge coming in from the ocean and what impact that may have on the system. What about blowing sand and flooding? During bad hurricanes, (Memorial) boulevard is underwater.”

During the month-long pilot program in 2007, tidal action did not adversely affect UV disinfection of the moat’s stormwater runoff, according to the Fuss & O’Neill study. However, “large debris and floatables caused blockages on the inlet screen, pump internals and UV reactor screen throughout the study,” according to the report. The study identified this material as sea grasses, seaweed, bivalves, a rat, textiles, plastics and shoes. These materials either flowed down the moat or were pushed up the stream from the bay by the tide and/or winds.

In fact, when high or storm tidal conditions reverse flow in the moat, sand and debris flow in from the shore, according to the firm’s study. During one of the sampling events, significant quantities of sand were drawn into the pilot plant, according to the report, and interfered with instruments.

An important aspect of final design of the full-scale system will be to minimize the amount sand and debris that gets into the system. One option could be to locate the inlet to the full-scale UV system as far as possible up the moat, according to the 2007 study.

Besides concerns about the sturdiness of UV technology at this site, those against its use have little confidence the city will be spending its money wisely. It’s a pattern, they say, that has become all too familiar in Newport. They said the recent purchase of a $325,000 seaweed harvester, when working, has done little to combat the seaweed problem at Easton’s Beach.

Fagan said the microstrainer installed at the Wellington Avenue combined sewer overflow facility was considered revolutionary technology, but “everyone acknowledges that it never really worked.”

Fagan, Grimes and others believe the storage of stormwater runoff should be the city’s preferred method, such as the systems they said are operating successfully in Providence and Fall River, Mass.

“I’m biased toward natural filtration because it treats the whole system,” said Fagan, a 3-yer resident of Newport. “We all know the natural way of cleaning water works best — filtering water through land.”

Soils in the area are not very permeable and would make underground filtration impractical, according to Fuss & O’Neill.

Opponents also call the plan an “energy hog.” With the specter of climate change and a carbon tax on the horizon, Fagan said, it doesn’t make sense to build a plant that uses enormous amounts of electricity.

“Most of the electricity that will be used to run this facility will be supplied by the burning of fossil fuels,” he said. “We’ll be adding tons and tons of CO2 to the environment.”

The UV facility will cost between $200,000 and $400,000 a year to operate, most of which will be spent on electricity to power the UV lights, according to Fuss & O’Neill estimates.

Phone messages left for City Manager Edward Lavallee and Director of Utilities Julia Forgue were not returned.

The DEM awarded Newport a $2.5 million grant for the UV project in March that the city will match with a low-interest loan from the state’s Clean Water Finance Agency, if the project is approved.