Centralized Utility Management of Decentralized Wastewater Infrastructure

Kevin D. White, Ph.D., P.E.

Professor and Chair
Department of Civil Engineering
University of South Alabama
Mobile, AL 36609
kwhite@usouthal.edu

Definition
Traditionally, decentralized wastewater management is defined as the collection,
treatment, and disposal (or reuse where practical) of wastewater near its point of origin.
The concept, in reality, utilizes centralized management for a number of smaller,
decentralized treatment systems. Wastewater, as a whole, should be managed properly to
protect public health and the environment. Population density often dictates which of
many options is best suited for wastewater management. For example, rural single
family homes on large properties (i.e. farms) are best served by a septic tank and some
type of infiltration system (drain field). High population density urban environments are
in most cases best served by traditional gravity sewers, force mains, and complex
treatment systems. However, as development spreads to the fringe areas of urban
environments, smaller, simpler, and more localized treatment systems (decentralized
systems) become more cost-effective, while still protecting public and the environment.
It is important to understand that the decentralized concept embodies the organized
management of the overall wastewater management system. The system hardware is
decentralized, while the management system is centralized. Decentralized wastewater
systems should be considered a permanent part of the overall wastewater management
system (managed by a competent utility) that may include some or all of a) centralized
collection and treatment, b) decentralized collection and treatment, and even individual
onsite wastewater systems (septic tank/drain fields or small treatment units).
An obvious difference in the two strategies (centralized vs. decentralized) is that the
decentralized concept attempts to address problematic and costly components of the
traditional centralized sewer systemcollection system, solids transport, complex
treatment systems, solids/biosolids handling, effluent disposal, and permitting. The
decentralized concept is smaller (to minimize flows and collection system size), is more
watertight (minimizing infiltration and exfiltration), is used to transport liquids only, is
able to utilize simpler treatment technologies, and is better able to reuse treated effluent.
All of these strategies minimize both capital cost and operation and maintenance expense,
while protecting public health and providing property-value enhancing, managed sewer.
Minimization of the expensive conveyance system required in the traditional centralized
strategy is key. Decentralized systems often utilize effluent sewers, built watertight, to
transport liquid only. Liquid only transport systems can be smaller in diameter (<4
inches), more cost-effective to install, and with cleanouts instead of manholes, is much
more watertight. Additionally, by transporting liquid only, the treatment system can be

more focused on dissolved constituent removal, and biosolids handling (clarifiers,

digestors, hauling, etc.) is minimized (or eliminated). Simple, attached-growth treatment
systems, which produce small amounts of biosolids can be employed cost-effectively and
without need for daily oversight. The following table compares the BOD and TSS load
using effluent sewers versus other collection system types. Its quite obvious that the
lower loading can significantly impact the type of treatment system employed and the
amount of biosolids production.

Finally, treated effluents can be (and are encouraged to be) effectively reused locally.
Stream discharge of treated effluent is possible (and maybe preferable in some
situations), but is discouraged in this mode of treatment. On average, decentralized
systems utilizing effluent sewer and recirculating media filters can achieve effluent BOD
values of <10 mg/L, TSS values of <10 mg/L, and ammonia values of <2 mg/L. Because
decentralized treatment facilities typically handle flows of 20,000 to 200,000 gpd, these
volumes can be easily reused for (subsurface) irrigation (parks, walking trails,
landscaping, sod farms, plant nurseries, and other community amenities nearby).
Irrigation loading can be matched to vegetation uptake, so little or no hydraulic or
nutrient migration occurs. In-ground reuse (disposal) can be permitted as a UIC
discharge, with simpler permit application requirements, less frequent monitoring
requirements, and less impact to surface waters.
Decentralized System Benefits
Because decentralized systems are designed to address problematic and costly
components of traditional centralized systems, a number of benefits can be identified:

1. collection system minimization (small diameters and lengths)

2. no solids transport
3. no manholes
4. ability to utilize simple, attached-growth treatment technologies
5. no solids handling at treatment facilities (no clarifiers)
6. low power consumption at treatment facilities
7. no need for expensive lift stations
8. equipment easily standardized (1/2 hp, hp, or 1 hp turbine effluent pumps)
9. easily installed in phases (as capacity is needed)
10. in-ground reuse (or infiltration) for community amenities (irrigation)
11. No stream discharges
12. No NPDES permit required (UIC permits)
13. lesser monitoring frequencies
14. smaller, more standardized designs
15. low O&M
16. lesser capital costs (30-60% less costly than traditional centralized systems)
17. capital costs often shared with developers
18. allows development to occur in locations remote from traditional central sewer
19. allows communities to control growth by strategically locating managed sewer
20. centralized utility management
21. Developer buy-in because of increased property values
22. homeowner buy-in because of invisible managed sewer for a fee

Decentralized System Drawbacks

While there are many benefits to decentralized wastewater systems, there are some
drawbacks. These include:
1. large areas needed (not so much for treatment, but for in-ground dispersal or
reuse) for large flows (> 200,000 gpd)
2. in-ground infiltration systems can clog if not designed appropriately
3. collection system pretreatment necessary
4. homeowners discouraged from using garbage grinders
5. long-term septage management needed
6. long-term power outages impact effluent sewer systems
7. unfamiliarity (regulatory, engineering, and management)

Costs
Costs are distributed between capital costs to build a decentralized system and the costs
for operation and maintenance. Capital costs include the collection system, the treatment

system, and the in-ground disposal/reuse system. In general, costs can be broken down
as follows, based on recently installed systems:
Collection System (installed, per home)
1. onsite tank, pump, filter, and control panel
2. small diameter sewer main

$4200
$ 800

Community Treatment System (per home cost)

$3500

In-ground disposal/reuse

$1700

Capital costs are often shared between the utility and developers/builders/homeowners.
In some financing models, the developer pays for the sewer main, the first phase of
treatment and disposal up-front, so the system backbone is in place once housing is
constructed. Then, the builder/homeowner pays an onsite tap fee ($3500) to provide
the tank/pump etc. and connect to the sewer main. This tap fee is necessary only when
the home is built and ready for use.
EPA showed a capital cost example in their Response to Congress report on
decentralized wastewater that detailed connecting a fringe community to existing
gravity sewer (one-mile and five-miles away) versus providing a totally self-contained
decentralized cluster system onsite. Including O&M costs, this example showed that the
decentralized option was a more cost-effective solution for all cases considered. (see
below)
O&M costs for decentralized systems have been tabulated from 2 utilities in the Mobile,
AL area and then compared to some national databases. In all cases the monthly O&M
costs per home were less than $22. Decentralized system sewer fees charged to the
homeowner average $35-$40 per month, so there is ample room for capital recovery and
escrowing. These O&M costs include power, labor, routine maintenance, pump
replacement at 12 years, onsite tank solids pumpout every 7 years, and a 40% overhead
rate.