An interview with the experts who designed an efficient and affordable wastewater system for a small community in Cuyler, New York.

Q: What industry developments are increasing the availability of low-cost, efficient solutions to individual or community wastewater disposal problems?

Jim Feuss: There have been many developments. New materials for construction are available, as well as devices for minimizing the discharge of solids in the effluent.

Peter Rykiewicz: Also, plastic ball valves are available today, which are much easier to operate and maintain than the gatevalves we used in Cuyler.

Paul Farrell: Something else that affects the availability of low-cost, efficient solutions to wastewater disposal problems is the very high cost of conventional "big city" solutions to such problems. High cost makes these solutions completely unattainable in many rural and suburban locations, which is driving the public to demand something else - so many innovative proposals are being advanced. I believe some of the efforts to achieve successful onsite treatment are ill-advised and doomed to ultimate failure for both technical and economic reasons. This is an area where pressure sewers powered by grinder pumps can make a real contribution because they offer a low-cost, environmentally-friendly solution to this ubiquitous need. Cuyler is to me the epitome of this approach: toward the low end of community size, very low per-capita income, a local health department which wouldn't take "no" for an answer and set out to search for an innovative (affordable) solution, and local citizens who were willing to at least listen to the idea of something new - and who ultimately donated their personal time, effort, and professional skills to make it happen.

Q: What changes in the wastewater industry would make this project more or less likely to work again? How pressing is the need for similar systems in small communities in the U.S. or in other parts of the world?

Paul Farrell: What made the Cuyler project work in the first place was Jim Feuss' determination. This project could be replicated thousands of times all around America, but such success requires a "spark plug" personality who is determined to succeed and won't take "no" for an answer. In Cuyler, Jim Feuss was that person - were it not for his dedication, determination, and sustained leadership, I'm certain that Cuyler would still be suffering from malodorous septic tank overflows, obvious threats to public health, and continuing economic decline.

Peter Rynkiewicz: Another thing is that funding is more difficult to find for alternative designs, or for that matter, any new wastewater treatment systems. But this may force other communities to use treatment systems similar to Cuyler's because of the low operation and maintenance costs. The funding issue cuts both ways.

Jim Feuss: I agree with Peter, and thanks lot the compliment, Paul. Much research is now being conducted to find low technology systems such as sand filters, aquaculture, and package plants that will function with a minimum of maintenance.

Also, locating effluent discharge points may become more difficult in the near future. In the case of Cuyler, we are upgradient from a wetland, minimizing (indeed eliminating) any adverse environmental impacts.

Another major change in the industry is the Internet. I certainly wish it existed 25 years ago. It is just amazing to me how much and how fast we can get information today.

Regarding the need for similar systems in other small communities, I don't really know - but through the work I've done with Rotary, I know that around the world people are looking for inexpensive, low technology treatment and disposal techniques. In many cases they do not have electricity.

Peter Rynkiewicz: Yes, and the only electricity used in this treatment system is a tiny battery on the dosing counter.

Q: How much did the community partnership have to do with the project's success?

Paul Farrell: This was an absolutely essential ingredient for success. The town and village officers were willing to be creative in defining responsibilities and relationships. The health department enlarged the scope of the public health engineer's job description. Local professionals provided engineering and legal services at cost or below. The highway department's chief engineer served as "Clerk of the Works," and both job corps volunteers and students from a nearby college performed most of the manual labor. This was truly a "self-help" project a decade before that term came into vogue.

Jim Feuss: I agree that community partnership was absolutely essential. The project was subject to a permissive referendum. The problem had to be defined and optional solutions outlined in some detail. The consequences of doing nothing also had to be understood by the affected individuals and the Cuyler Town Board.

Peter Rynkiewicz: Yes, as I recall from reviewing notes, the vote on the referendum was 52 in favor and 4 against.

Q: How can such teamwork be encouraged in communities where it seems to be lacking? What advice would you give to communities in similar situations?

Jim Feuss: Encouraging teamwork is where a local health department can play a major role. Repairing the failing sewage systems on the sites of the individual houses was impossible. The health department could and did suggest that the town hire a professional engineer, but there was no local authority for this. The county health department could have taken action against the individual homeowners and essentially made their homes valueless. Rather than wasting a lot of effort in enforcement, we channeled our effort into technical assistance. We found grant funds. We assisted with the preparation of the grant applications. We looked at various options. We worked with the town board. We called upon several agencies for physical assistance. In essence, we used the carrot-and-stick approach.

Paul Farrell: The keys to encouraging teamwork are open-mindedness, persistence, careful study of alternate proposals, critical judgment, and communication, communication, communication! I'm not advocating blind acceptance of every new thing that comes along, because obviously different innovations have different merits, but community members should not assume that new ideas are second-rate to established ways of doing things.

Jim Feuss: As far as what advice I'd give to communities in similar situations, I would suggest going to the local or state health department, presenting them with a copy of this paper, and calling the U.S. EPA for at least technical assistance.

Peter Rynkiewicz: I really think developing local resources is the key. During our recent work, working with suppliers of materials was very rewarding. When they understood that their products could be tested, they were very willing to supply materials, labor, and consultation about new products on the market.

Q: As leachfields "rest," how is their biological capacity restored?

Paul Farrell: I'm not a sanitary engineer, but I've worked alongside them for many years and read a lot in the literature, and from that I'm under the impression that when a tile field clogs, it's almost all right at the liquid-soil interface. If the soil clogs, then a portion of the distribution field becomes submerged or flooded, and the "smutzdeck" goes anaerobic, slimes are formed, and this essentially surface-filter becomes blinded or clogged. If allowed to "rest" (or receive no effluent) for six months or more, the naturally vented underground distribution system becomes aerobic again, and most of the clogging mat is gradually decomposed and the absorptive capacity of the soil interface is significantly restored.

Jim Feuss: The soil clogging is related to mat growth of the organisms providing the biological treatment. When the system is allowed to rest, the organic matter in the mat growth becomes the food for other soil organisms. Recovery after resting has been reported to be as high as 90%, however, it is dependent upon the inorganic constituents of the waste, particularly iron.

Q: How is the biological restoration of a leachfield measured?

Paul Farrell: The effectiveness of this process can best be determined by observing the time required for a known volume of effluent to subside in a measuring well or distribution box.

Jim Feuss: In our case, it was theoretically going to be a period of time between failures. The Cuyler system was designed to fail and then be switched to the restored or resting fields.

Peter Rynkiewicz: I was just thinking minutes per inch.

Jim Feuss: Yes, that is how it is measured, and in the future we will also be looking at the materials at the interface of the leach wall.

Q: How often are the observation wells examined or sampled?

Paul Farrell: Currently the monitoring wells are being observed about weekly. Unfortunately, there was a period a few years ago when the underground absorption system was ignored completely. This led to the absorption field problems mentioned briefly at the end of our paper. A new tile field, dosing siphon, flow meter, filters and more observation wells have recently been installed. Operation is again being closely observed and hopefully those findings will be published after an appropriate study period.

Jim Feuss: I'd say the monitoring wells are observed at least once every-other week, weather permitting, and sample analysis is now on a monthly basis.

Q: How has groundwater quality been impacted?

Paul Farrell: There is a small creek about three-tenths of a mile away from the project. Based primarily on observation of monitoring wells located on the lower apron of the absorption system, there is no indication that surface water quality has been degraded.

Jim Feuss: This was studied in some detail by Roy F. Weston, Inc., under contract with the U.S. EPA. There is some evidence of increased chlorides, however, other biological parameters were difficult to assess because of the past and present use of the area for the grazing of cows.

Q: Have any new cost studies as to overall project savings been completed?

Jim Feuss: Not since the 1993 study represented in our paper.

Q: What has been the actual cost associated with the tile field line cleaning?

Jim Feuss: With the assistance of volunteers, Sunnycrest, Inc. of Auburn, New York, and Hancor Pipe of Findley, Ohio, four new fields were placed above the existing fields to allow them time to rest after being flushed out. The total cost to the town for labor and backhoe was approximately $6,000, and many of the materials were donated.

Peter Rynkiewicz: But it was actually a little more than that because the cost for some of us who were not volunteers was not included in that figure.

Q: Peter, I understand you are working on a new paper about the Cuyler system - is that correct?

Peter Rynkiewicz: Yes, I am hoping to examine the performance of the gravelless leachpipe and the Zabel filters. Of course, part of the study involves the impact of resting on the tile fields. We are still in the data-gathering stages. Meanwhile, the older system is getting a chance to rest, although we could use it right now as a back-up if we needed to.

Q: What did you learn from the process?

Peter Rynkiewicz: We learned that buried gatevalves needed much more maintenance than they received. We also should have built in a system to make sure that the valves were closed when we thought they were closed - it wasn't obvious just by looking at them.

Jim Feuss: Perhaps the most important thing we learned was that the work of Dr. P. H. McGaughey of the University of California at Berkeley was right-on. He believed that the side wall area of the leaching trenches was much more significant than the bottom area, which was totally inconsistent with most of the codes in existence at the time the system was designed. We would now recommend that valves be minimized where possible. It is relatively easy to obtain specially designed "distribution boxes" which can replace the valves. That is, the pipes can actually be inserted into the distribution boxes end-capped so that we know which lines are in operation and which lines are closed off. Where valves are necessary, plastic ball valves have worked fairly well thus far.

Q: Looking back, what would you do differently?

Jim Feuss: We would have required the operator to submit monthly reports to the town board and the county health department. The treatment system was out-of-sight and rapidly became out-of-mind.

Peter Rynkiewicz: We should also have a different method of grounds maintenance. Our system, cow grazing - while picturesque was a little rough on our observation wells, and also particularly on our dosing counter. As mentioned before, we have recently installed four additional fields over the existing system and the cows are no longer allowed on the site.

Paul Farrell: Perhaps in hindsight we could have sped up the review and approval process a bit - on the other hand, the idea of pressure sewers was just being introduced to the profession in 1973, so there was a lot of "selling" to do. I have mixed feelings about regulatory plan review and approval of new things. On the one hand, as an innovator I am anxious to gain acceptance of new ideas which will benefit the public. On the other, as the son of a state sanitary engineer and lifelong friend of some outstanding local sanitarians, I understand the urgency of protecting the public health and avoiding embarrassing failures of new and untried things. It's a built-in conflict, and it puts the approval people in a tough situation. We must work together, keep our good humor, and turn this natural tension into progress for the public.

Editor's note: NEHA sincerely thanks these three gentlemen for their time and willingness to participate in this interview. We hope that both their paper and interview provide you, the reader, with practical and useful information.