Why So Many Differences?

NOWRA explores the feasibility of regional codes to make system requirements more uniform and less confusing from county to county and state to state

Picture this: Two homesites on opposite sides of a river that forms a state border. The proposed homes are about the same size with the same number of bedrooms. Soil and site conditions are nearly equivalent.

And yet, for the purpose of onsite system design and installation, the sites are very different. The two states define “bedroom” in different terms. Daily flow requirements are not the same. Neither are required setback distances. A brand of treatment unit that is allowed on one side of the river is not permitted on the other. And so on.

It’s actually not necessary to imagine this scenario: It exists all over the country. Onsite regulations can differ significantly, not just across state borders but across a highway that separates two counties.

Why should this be? Why should onsite regulations be based on political divisions instead of pure science? The National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association (NOWRA) is asking those questions as a committee of members explores the feasibility of a Midwest Regional Code for onsite systems that would cut across state boundaries.

Seems like common sense

The regional code concept was the subject of a special forum on April 9 as part of the 2009 NOWRA Technical Education Conference in Milwaukee, Wis. A roundtable of industry experts looked at the issue from a variety of angles.

NOWRA’s reasoning is simple: Regulatory programs have the identical goals of protecting human health and water quality. And the disparity between state onsite rules in the Upper Midwest seems greater than the science would justify.

Differences in the codes burden designers, installers and treatment equipment manufacturers, with little or no apparent benefit to homeowners or the public. Onsite professionals who work across borders have to attend repetitive training events and take multiple exams.

Individual state approvals of new products and models make it harder for the manufacturers to be successful and slow the adoption of better equipment and more effective treatment technologies. NOWRA asks: Why should a homeowner be denied a better system based solely on the jurisdiction where he or she lives?

The NOWRA roundtable examined all these concerns and explored whether it would be feasible or practical for Midwest states to collaborate on a common code for onsite and cluster systems. Participants were:

• Michael Corry, past chair, NOWRA Model Code Com-mittee, Madison, Wis.

• Tony Smithson, chair, Model Code Committee, and director of environmental health services in Lake County, Ill.

• Roman Kaminski, Privately Owned Wastewater Treatment Systems program manager, Wisconsin Department of Commerce.

• Mark Wespetal, Wastewater State Revolving Fund and Water Policy, Minnesota Pol-lution Control Agency.

• Daniel Olson, senior environmental specialist, onsite wastewater, Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

• Mark Wieser, Wieser Concrete, Maiden Rock, Wis.

• Brian McQuestion, Hoot Systems, Wauwatosa, Wis.

• Dick Otis, wastewater engineer and roundtable moderator, Madison, Wis.

The critical question

Perhaps the thorniest question the group dealt with was: What are the barriers to collaborating on technical requirements, licensing programs, and product approvals between states, and how can these barriers be overcome?

The biggest and perhaps most obvious barrier is the autonomy of the state regulatory agencies. Let’s face it: Government agencies like to do things their own way. Getting agencies from, say, half a dozen Midwest states to agree on one set of regulations would be tricky at best.

Perhaps the good news is that it’s hard to envision many other substantial barriers. Logistics, procedures, coordination, yes, but in all those cases, where there’s a will there’s a way. Cost? That’s a barrier in the development phase, but a regional code could well save money down the line.

So let’s leave aside the really tough question — whether representatives from the states can set aside pride of authorship — and look at the reasons to make an effort toward a regional code. Here are insights from some roundtable participants:

Smithson observed, “Everything we (regulators) do discourages innovation.” He said his state’s rules do not serve the public well and referred to an evaluation he performed that showed $7 million per year in unnecessary costs to homeowners to build excess capacity into their systems to meet inflated design flows based on bedrooms.

Wespetal stated that Minne-sota is sensitive to local control and treats the state code as the “people’s code.” He said past practices persist because of practitioners who believe that “what worked before should work now.”

Kaminski observed that onsite technologies are advancing just as state programs are downsizing in the face of reduced budgets. Though change is difficult and takes time, he said now is an opportune time to develop a regional program.

McQuestion noted that technologies are improving rapidly and the rules are not keeping up. He sees distrust of manufacturers by the regulatory community as impeding approvals. In his view, a regional approval process would save time and reduce cost.

Wieser said his company ships tanks across many state and county borders and must deal with different standards. The status quo limits value-added features and services because strict, prescriptive rules discourage innovation. He believes a universal quality-assurance program would overcome that problem.

Taking the next steps

The roundtable ended with an action plan for what NOWRA could do to encourage regional codes. The group agreed to start small and to target product approval protocols first, since that is an area where states and counties would find it easiest to consider regionalizing. The group aims to develop an acceptable product approval process by the end of 2010.

If you want to follow this initiative or take part it in, or if you have comments or questions, you can contact Dick Otis at think@nowra.org. In the meantime, you can get regular updates through the NOWRA e-News.

Onsite Installer in interested in comments on this issue from industry professionals. Please share your ideas by contacting me at editor@onsiteinstaller.com. We’ll publish interesting comments as space permits.



Discussion

Comments on this site are submitted by users and are not endorsed by nor do they reflect the views or opinions of COLE Publishing, Inc. Comments are moderated before being posted.