Santa Cruz, CA:  Despite having many of the same climate, site, and soil conditions, along with identical program goals of protecting human health and water quality, the disparity between individual state onsite rules in the Upper Midwest of the United States is greater than what seems justified based on prevailing science. The impacts on the industry caused by the disparity in rules and practices are significant and they offer little or no value to system owners or the general public. As examples, new, but proven technologies and practices may be approved in one state but denied in another. Approvals of new products and new models slow the adoption of improved equipment and more effective technologies. Design parameters may differ even though conditions and applications are identical. Certification and licensing requirements mean that cross-border practitioners must attend repetitious training events and take multiple exams. And why should an owner be denied or rewarded better systems just because of the jurisdiction in which he or she lives? How do we justify any of this?
 
At NOWRA’s 18th Annual Technical Conference & Expo in Milwaukee, a Roundtable Discussion was convened to address these questions and to explore the feasibility and practicality of a regional, collaborative effort between states to develop a common code for onsite and cluster systems. State and local officials along with local manufacturers were invited to offer their perspectives on a variety of issues including:
·           How do disparate rules impact regulators, manufacturers, suppliers, designers, installers, and owners?
 
·           How is technical input utilized in rule revisions?
·           What holds our industry back from adopting science-based rules?
·           What are the barriers to collaborating on technical requirements, licensing programs, and product approvals between states; how can these barriers be overcome? Would overcoming them help or hurt?
·           What can NOWRA do to foment change?
 
Roundtable participants included:
·           Michael Corry, Past Chair, NOWRA Model Code Committee, Madison, WI
·           Tony Smithson, Director, Environmental Health Services, Lake County, IL and Chair of the NOWRA Model Code Committee
·           Roman Kaminski, POWTS Program Manager, Wisconsin Dept. of Commerce, Madison, WI
·           Mark Wespetal, Wastewater SRF and Water Policy, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN
·           Daniel Olson, Senior Environmental Specialist, Onsite Wastewater, Iowa Dept. Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA
·           Mark Wieser, Wieser Concrete, Maiden Rock, WI
·           Brian McQuestion, Hoot Systems, Wauwatosa, WI
·           Dick Otis, Wastewater Engineer, Roundtable Moderator, Madison, WI
 
The Roundtable began with opening statements from each of the participants. Mike Corry gave a brief background of NOWRA’s development of a model code framework based on performance. He opined that any effort to develop regional codes has to begin with participants who are comfortable with the concept and who trust their counterparts. He recommended that it would be best to start small with maybe only two to three states being involved. 
 
Tony Smithson said that "everything we (regulators) do discourages innovation." In his county, unwritten policy and variances are used as "work arounds" to the rules when the rules prevent development, rather than taking advantage of existing knowledge to change the rules. Regulators seem to have what Samuel Taylor Coleridge called a "willing suspension of disbelief" toward many rule constricts such as arbitrariness of setback distances or design flows and further, they pretend problems are few and small despite hard data. He said that the state rules did not serve the public well. He referred to an evaluation he performed that showed $7M per year in unnecessary costs to homeowners to build unneeded excess capacity into their systems due to inflated design flows based on bedrooms. Because onsite programs seldom require system inspections, problems go unnoticed giving the impression that the programs work well.  Consequently, it is difficult to convince local governments to support increased funding requests for program improvements. Tony added that this unwillingness to address our problems (by pretending we have no problems) diminishes our credibility on a national scale. By doing so, we contradict the notion that onsite systems are a key component of our wastewater infrastructure.  Funding is an issue locally, but this whole stage play spills over into how states distribute SRF funds, and other assistance.  Too often, the onsite regulatory community is like the King with no clothes.
 
Dan Olson of Iowa said that his state has a minimum code under which counties can be stricter. But these rules need better standards of practice for soils evaluation, treatment expectations and system approvals. The state does not have product approval, will not approve designs except for surface discharges under a general rule, or requires certification or licensing of practitioners because of liability concerns. These issues are left to the counties. He also noted that legislative involvement often limits what the state can do. The biggest barrier to change is the lack of resources.
 
Mark Wespetal stated that Minnesota is very sensitive to local control. The state accepts that the state code is the "people’s code". The public is who pays for it and therefore any rule changes must meet perceived needs. The state code is a minimum code that, as in Iowa, may be made stricter by the counties. The state establishes the environmental standards which system designs and treatment equipment must meet. The state is willing to look beyond its borders for better ideas such as they did for product approvals where they patterned their program after a Washington State procedure. Unfortunately, past practices persist because of the beliefs of practitioners that what worked before should work now. As a result, a regional code would be perceived as too costly largely because of the reluctance to change.
 
Wisconsin is the only state in the Upper Midwest with a uniform code that every county must strictly follow. Roman Kaminski said that Wisconsin moved to a uniform code in 1972 to establish a level playing field for practitioners. The code is revisited every two to three years and revised accordingly. This has worked well for all involved. However, Roman indicated that technologies are advancing just as state programs are downsizing their staffs due to reduced budgets. A regional product evaluation program is needed. Though change is difficult and takes time, he said that now is an opportune time to develop such a program.
 
Brian McQuestion made the point that the development of improved technologies is growing rapidly and that the rules are not keeping up. He stated that there seems to be distrust by the regulatory community of manufacturers, which further impedes approval. He contends that this distrust is unfounded.  Manufacturers want to do the right thing and have the same goals for protection of human health and water quality as the regulators. Product approval submittals are the same for each state, which offers no added value and lead to unnecessary cost increases for the system owner. In order to move forward, a regional process needs to be developed that reduces the amount of time and the repetitive cost of approvals. It is also time to agree on similar terminology of technologies to reduce confusion.
 
Mark Wieser said his company ships tanks across many state and county borders, and his company must deal with different standards. In Wisconsin, the uniform code avoids this issue. He offered that a universal quality assurance program should be developed to overcome this problem. What exists now limits value-added features and services because strict prescriptive rules discourage innovation.
 
An open discussion by the attendees and Roundtable members followed. At first, the many various rule requirements found between program rules were discussed. This included how bedrooms are defined and the many different daily flows per bedroom that are used to establish peak flows for design, setback distances, and maintenance and monitoring requirements and procedures.  It became clear that while differences in numbers can vary greatly, there was general agreement that it was hard to justify most of them, suggesting that a consensus could be reached for many.
 
The Roundtable concluded with the development of an action plan for what NOWRA could do to encourage regionalization of codes. The group agreed that starting small is appropriate and that state and county staffs will need to be sold on the idea along with funding for the effort. Product approval and licensing and certification are two areas that look the most promising because states and counties would find it the easiest to consider regionalizing. As such, the group decided that product approval protocols should be the first program to target. Finding states that are willing to champion the effort would also be needed. Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin agreed to be those champions. 
 
A plan outlining the scope and tasks will be developed before the actual work commences.  A target date has been set for June, 2009 for presenting the plan and for the end of 2010 for an acceptable product approval process. Mike Corry has agreed to develop "talking points" for selling the regional effort and Brian McQuestion volunteered to head the fundraising effort. 
 
If you would like more information, if you would like to participate, or if you have comments or questions, please contact Dick Otis at think@nowra.org. In the meantime, regular updates will be provided through the NOWRA e-News.
 
The National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA) is the largest organization within the U.S. dedicated solely to educating and representing members within the onsite and decentralized industry. The education and training programs provided to professionals in this industry, as well as to policy officials, the public, and system owners is the driving force of the organization. NOWRA headquarters are located in Santa Cruz, California, with constituent local groups throughout the U.S. and Canada.  To learn more about NOWRA, call 800-966-2942 or visit www.nowra.org.