Greywater Policy Packet

Greywater Policy Packet
© 2005 Oasis Design
Introduction
Greywater is water that has been used in the home, except water from toilets. Dish, shower, sink,
and laundry water comprise 50-80% of residential "waste" water. This may be reused for other
purposes, especially landscape irrigation.
It's a waste to irrigate with great quantities of drinking water when plants thrive on used water
containing small bits of compost. Unlike a lot of ecological stopgap measures, grey water reuse is
a part of the fundamental solution to many ecological problems and will probably remain
essentially unchanged in the distant future.
However, laws governing greywater vary widely between jurisdictions. This packet is a printer
friendly version of the information in the Greywater Policy Center
(http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law). It includes the complete text of greywater laws for
several states, as well as analysis of the laws, and a wealth of resources to help you design and
install safe, legal, greywater systems.
Table of contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
Table of contents .......................................................................................................... 1
Greywater Policy Center ............................................................................................. 3
Builder's gray water action summary ........................................................................ 9

Greywater collection & stubouts .............................................................................. 10
Greywater Builder's Guide........................................................................................ 13
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Count .................................................................................. 16

Spreadsheet comparing health threats from different waters................................ 19
The World Health Organization on pollution plumes from dry pit toilet............ 20
Removal rates of land treatment facilities ............................................................... 21
The World Health Organization on pollution plumes from pit toilet in
groundwater flow ...................................................................................................... 22
Application depth vs. treatment effectiveness ........................................................ 23
Rincon oceanfront septic tank pollution study ....................................................... 24
Greywater Factsheet .................................................................................................. 28
Arizona law overview ............................................................................................... 30

Arizona law text ......................................................................................................... 53
Arizona rule clarification........................................................................................... 54
New Mexico law text ................................................................................................. 56

How to Craft the Best Greywater Rules for New Mexico ...................................... 59
Meeting with New Mexico Dept. of Environment Greywater Committee........... 61
California law text...................................................................................................... 64
1 of 88
How to improve California greywater law ............................................................. 76
California greywater study ....................................................................................... 78
How to improve IPC greywater law ........................................................................ 84
Massachusetts law ..................................................................................................... 85
Jordan Greywater Guidelines ................................................................................... 86
Other resources you may find useful:

• Greywater Central
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/index.htm
• Indoor greywater reuse
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/indoorreuse.htm
• Water CASA greywater booklet
http://www.watercasa.org/pubs/Graywater%20Guidelines.pdf
• CA greywater guide
http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/graywater_guide_book.pdf
• New York greywater law
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/grnbldg/gbprop.pdf
2 of 88
Gray Water Policy Center 8/15/05 16:46
H o m e | Products | E c o l o g i c a l ! s y s t e m s ! d e s i g n | W a t e r ! c e n t r a l | G r e y ! w a t e r ! c e n t r a l | S h o p p i n g ! c a r t
G r e y ! w a t e r ! c e n t r a l | Common!grey!water!mistakes | Grey!water!policy!center | Indoor!grey!water!reuse | Create an Oasis with Grey
Water (book) | Branched Drain Grey Water Systems (book) | Builder's Grey Water Guide (book) | Wild!Water!Wisdom!(article) | Grey water
Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Greywater policy center
Gray Water Policy Center

Policy examples
Summary: A compilation of grey water laws, suggested
improvements to gray water regulations, legality & greywater policy Arizona grey water law - the model to emulate
considerations, sample permits, public health considerations, Uniform Plumbing Code
studies, etc. International Plumbing Code
California
For regulators, inspectors, elected officials, building departments, Malibu, California
health departments, builders, and homeowners. Connecticut
Colorado
New Jersey
New Mexico
On this page: New York
Massachusetts
Oregon
Policy resources Texas
Utah
Grey water policy packet Washington
Guidance for regulators Vermont
Treatment effectiveness references Australia
General references, studies Jordan
Grey water policy packet

We are considering offering a packet for regulators which contains all this information in convenient PDF format, for a small fee. If you're interested, let us
know. It would include:
Full text of all grey water laws

Suggested improvements by grey water law
Information on studies and purification effectiveness
Contact information
Advantage: saves several hours of time to assemble all this information.
Guidance for regulators

My advice to regulators is simple: Copy Arizona. Don't copy California, the Uniform Plumbing Code, or anyone else. The Arizona law could use a tune up,
the other laws need overhaul or scrapping.
New Mexico has copied Arizona, and Texas is considering it.
Testimony to the New Mexico state legislature Water and Environment Committee on desirability and characteristics of good grey water laws
Material for a meeting of the New Mexico Department of Environment Grey Water Committee (word document focusing on quantitative, comparative
health threats)
Spreadsheet comparing health threats from different waters (Excel spreadsheet including two graphs and a page of calcs-see tabs on bottom)
Treatment effectiveness references

Coliform bacteria measurements and standards: how to understand them and relate them to the real world
The World Health Organization on pollution plumes from dry pit toilet (CIF graphic, large file)
The World Health Organization on pollution plumes from pit toilet in groundwater flow (CIF graphic, large file)
Removal rates of land treatment facilities (CIF graphic, large file)
Application depth vs. treatment effectiveness (jpeg graphic, 300k).
Rincon oceanfront septic tank pollution study response
General references, studies

Grey water central
Indoor grey water reuse
Builder's Grey Water Guide (book)includes laws and treatment effectiveness info)
Builder's action summary
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse (Packet of regulations from state laws, assistance with on-site treatment)
Water CASA residential grey water study
California study (pdf)
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power grey water study
Arizona grey water law

This is the model to emulate. Their three tiered system makes so much sense it is hard to justify regulating grey water any other way.
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/ Page 1 of 6
3 of 88
My testimony to the New Mexico state legislature explaining why they should copy Arizona.
Arizona Gray Water Lawcopied from the official site to ours September 2002. This presents just the three grey water sections, clearly labeled as
such, without having to sort through dozens of pages of unrelated regulations.
Arizona grey water code from official site (scroll on page or search to section R18-9-711)
R18-9-714. Type 1 - RECLAIMED WATER GENERAL PERMIT: GREY WATER Arizona tier 1 greywater law on Water CASA site.
Arizona brochure (pdf)Very succinct, two page overview of the key features of the law from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. This
copy was placed on our server September 2002.
Arizona greywater study
Water CASA grey water page
Water CASA greywater booklet (PDF, 800k)
Water CASA grey water brochure (PDF, 180k)
Arizona takes a three tiered approach to scrutinizing grey water systems:
1) Systems for less than 400 gallons per day that meet a list of reasonable requirements are all covered under a general permit without the builder
having to apply for anything.
With this one stroke, Arizona has raised their compliance rate from near zero to perhaps 50%.
And, homeowners are more likely to work towards compliance for the informal systems that still fall short.
What's more, the door is now open for professionals to install simple systems.
2) Second tier systems process over 400 gallons a day, or don't meet the list of requirements, as well as commercial, multi-family, and
institutional systems.
They require a standard permit.
3) Third tier systems are over 3000 gallons a day. Regulators consider each of them on an individual basis.
In Arizona, regulators apply oversight to grey water systems in rational proportion to their possible impacts.
Another wise feature of the AZ law: ... It does not proscribe design specifics.
Instead, regulators require that systems meet performance goals. They don't care how the system is built. They just want it to function well. This is the
preferred approach. It creates a favorable climate for innovation. Technical progress is not likely to quickly outdate the law.
The final idea I suggest you copy:
They have a short, simply worded law and a longer explanatory booklet.
The booklet can be more easily updated than the law.
For more see links above.

Here's the law for tier one systems:
R18-9-711.!Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit for Gray Water
A.!A Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit allows private residential direct reuse of gray water for a flow of less than 400 gallons per day if all the following conditions are met:
1.!Human contact with gray water and soil irrigated by gray water is avoided;
2.!Gray water originating from the residence is used and contained within the property boundary for household gardening, composting, lawn watering, or landscape irrigation;
3.!Surface application of gray water is not used for irrigation of food plants, except for citrus and nut trees;
4.!The gray water does not contain hazardous chemicals derived from activities such as cleaning car parts, washing greasy or oily rags, or disposing of waste solutions from home photo labs or similar
hobbyist or home occupational activities;
5.!The application of gray water is managed to minimize standing water on the surface;
6.!The gray water system is constructed so that if blockage, plugging, or backup of the system occurs, gray water can be directed into the sewage collection system or onsite wastewater treatment and
disposal system, as applicable. The gray water system may include a means of filtration to reduce plugging and extend system lifetime;
7.!Any gray water storage tank is covered to restrict access and to eliminate habitat for mosquitoes or other vectors;
8.!The gray water system is sited outside of a floodway;
9.!The gray water system is operated to maintain a minimum vertical separation distance of at least five feet from the point of gray water application to the top of the seasonally high groundwater
table;
10.!For residences using an onsite wastewater treatment facility for black water treatment and disposal, the use of a gray water system does not change the design, capacity, or reserve area
requirements for the onsite wastewater treatment facility at the residence, and ensures that the facility can handle the combined black water and gray water flow if the gray water system fails or is not
fully used;
11.!Any pressure piping used in a gray water system that may be susceptible to cross connection with a potable water system clearly indicates that the piping does not carry potable water;
12.!Gray water applied by surface irrigation does not contain water used to wash diapers or similarly soiled or infectious garments unless the gray water is disinfected before irrigation; and
13.!Surface irrigation by gray water is only by flood or drip irrigation.
B.!Prohibitions. The following are prohibited:
1.!Gray water use for purposes other than irrigation, and
2.!Spray irrigation.
C.!Towns, cities, or counties may further limit the use of gray water described in this Section by rule or ordinance.
4 of 88
Notes from/ about the Arizona experience
It has been pretty quiet in the field.
Some health service people hate the new law, but they can't demonstrate that anyone is getting sick, which is the only real concern.
Environmentalists upset that grey water + composting toilets are not allowed has been the main feedback coming back to the Department of
Environmental Quality (see the department's clarification, PDF, 12k).
AZ DEQ is planning to revise the rules in 2003. They are considering allowing kitchen sink water if a grease trap is used, and kitchen sink water is applied
subsurface. This would solve the composting toilet issue, as kitchen sink water wouldn't be left out in its own, awkward third system.
Phoenix is not interested in grey water. Rural areas and Southern Arizona are very interested (13% were already reusing grey water in Southern Arizona
prior to the law change, according to a Water CASA study).
Builders of new homes in Southern Arizona are open to the extent that they are considering embracing a law which requires dual plumbing in new
construction.
The big missing link is qualified retrofit installers.
Note on the Arizona greywater study kitchen sink fecal coliform levels
Much has been made of the fecal coliform levels in kitchen sink water in the Water CASA study. The 88,400 fecal coliforms/ 100 ml level was used to
justify excluding kitchen sink water from the law. This equates to nearly a gram per day of mammalian fecal matter going down the kitchen sink, which
defies common sense (more on understanding Fecal coliform measurements).
This high reading is most likely caused by indicator organisms growing in the plumbing due to the nutrients in the food bits in the sink. Does this mean
pathogens also breed? If so, extra caution is warranted, if not, then not.
This question can and should be resolved by comparing indicator to pathogen levels at different points in the plumbing; the sink, the trap, the outlet.
Even if pathogens do breed in the kitchen sink plumbing, the levels are still 98% less than the 5,000,000 typical fecal coliform level in raw sewage, so the
kitchen sink water could reasonably be handled by a more stringently designed greywater system.
Contacts
Greg Brown manager of engineering approvals unit 602 -771-4697
Chuck Graff 602-771-4661 deputy director for water quality, developed grey water guidelines.
The Water Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona provided the impetus behind the rationalization of grey water laws in Arizona.
More Arizona grey water links:
Update Program for Onsite Systems Rule: http://azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/index.html#update

Rule Clarifications for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
This covers the composting toilet/ kitchen sink and greywater issues.
Presale Inspection Program Information and Forms: http://azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/wastewater.html#new
Compliance and Enforcement Handbook: http://azdeq.gov/lead/osc/handbook.html
ADEQ Website: http://azdeq.gov
Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) grey water model code

It's like the California grey water law, which it is patterned after, except worse.
How to improve CA grey water law includes notes about the UPC.
Builder's Grey Water Guide (book) contains the complete text of the California law, extensively annotated, including most all differences with UPC and
what they mean.
International Plumbing Code (IPC) grey water model code

How to improve IPC grey water law
California grey water law

California grey water law (pdf)
California Graywater Guide (pdf)
How to improve CA grey water law
Builder's Grey Water Guide (book) contains the complete text of the California law, extensively annotated.
How to inspect or construct legal stub outs for a future grey water system in California
CA Department of Health Services Guide to the Safe Use of Grey Water
Malibu, CA grey water law

Malibu has there own innovative greywater law. You can call them at 310 456-2489 and ask for a copy. The mulch basins are a good feature.
Connecticut
Committee Bill 6414- 2001- AN ACT CONCERNING A MUNICIPAL PILOT PROGRAM
FOR GRAY WATER- establishes a pilot program for the use of gray water from
publicly owned treatment works. As part of the pilot program, the
department may approve the use of such treated gray water in public schools
5 of 88
and municipal facilities in manners determined by the

department, provided such uses do not negatively impact public health.
Colorado grey water law

(This is a message from a visitor to the Oasis web site) Colorado needs some help too! Can only use the grey water for below ground use, in other words
make a leach field as the only accepted use.
More rumors, from various sources, indicate fairly liberal attitudes by Colorado inspectors in practice. Anyone able to shed light on this apparent
contradiction?
(Another visitor message) Colorado Health Department (State) is UNsympathetic. We need a new state law. Individual counties are usually sympathetic to
grey water, but don't want to violate state law.
Best method is to plumb the house as if recycling grey water, install a "Y" valve going to the septic tank, and after Certificate of Occupancy is issued,
divert the flow to wherever you want. Inspectors don't care.
Obvious drawback is one has to build a septic system.
New Jersey
(This is a spurious entry included because it is an interesting case of lawmakers confusing the definitions of reclaimed water and grey water.)
Senate Committee Approves Business = Tax Benefits for Water Conservation-
Businesses that undertake certain large-scale water conservation projects would get substantial tax benefits under NJBIA-backed legislation released by
the Senate Budget and Appropriations
Committee on February 26. The bills, A-2380/A-2381 (Bagger, Suliga) , are aimed at helping companies capture, treat and use "gray water" in their
production processes. "Gray water" is treated effluent that is normally discharged into waterways by local sewage-treatment facilities. By capturing it,
treating it further, and using it for non-drinking water in their factories, businesses can conserve millions of gallons of potable water suitable for drinking.
A-2380 would provide a 20 percent investment tax credit against the corporation franchise tax for purchase of equipment used to treat effluent from a
wastewater treatment system. A-2381 would exempt the purchase of this equipment from the sales and use tax.
New Mexico
Old New Mexico grey water law considered greywater as part of septic system law—a bad idea.
New greywater law based on Arizona model—a much better approach—signed March 11th 2003:
HB114 -- Facilitating Gray Water Use in NM Landscapes
See summary below or go to http://legis.state.nm.us/ then search 114 in the Bill Finder.
Rep. Mimi Stewart was the bill's lead sponsor.
3/8/03--We did it! HB114 that allows us to use gray water for residential landscapes passed the Senate yesterday with only two senators voting against
35 others who voted in favor!
Thanks to everyone who called, emailed and testified over the last weeks. Your efforts made a real difference!
Also, since the bill has an emergency clause tacked on to it, the bill will go into effect immediately
--instead at the beginning of the fiscal year in July.
This will be great for New Mexico!
Thanks, Melissa McDonald
What would HB114 do?
HB114 simplifies state code so that gray water can be used safely in the landscape. Currently state code does not differentiate between black and gray
water (defined below). This makes gray water re-use prohibitively expensive. By making the necessary distinction and creating safe guidelines, we will take
an essential step in conserving New Mexico’s most valuable resource for future generations. With essentially no expense to the state, the positive effect of
HB114 would be immediate.
HB114 would NOT undermine any local ordinances, because it allows for towns, cities, and counties to be more restrictive when it comes to gray water
reuse
What is Gray Water?
Technically, gray water is untreated household wastewater that has not come in contact with toilet waste (black water). Primarily, gray water includes
waste water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks, and clothes washing machines. HB114 also stipulates that wastewater from kitchen sinks,
dishwashers and the washing of material soiled with human excrement to be "black water".
Is Gray Water Safe?

Yes. When handled properly, gray water is safe. HB114 includes best management practices developed to protect public health and water quality. Arizona
and Texas already have gray water regulations similar to HB114. Many of the rules in Arizona are based on an extensive study conducted in Tuscon, which
can be found at http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER.
What does HB114 require?
1. Every gray water distribution system must provide for overflow into the sewer;
2. Gray water storage tanks must be covered;
3. Systems must not be sited in floodways;
4. Gray water must be stored at least five feet above the ground water table;
5. Pipes must be clearly identified;
6. Gray water must not run out of a homeowner’s property;
7. Contact with people or domestic pets must be minimized;
8. Ponding of gray water is prohibited;
9. Spraying of gray water is prohibited;
6 of 88
10. Gray water must not be discharged to a watercourse;

11. Use of gray water must comply with local ordinances ; and
12. No more than 250 gallons of gray water can be used in a given day.
Some of the benefits of this new Gray Water Reuse Legislation:
Conserves Water
Beautifies Communities
Saves money on water bills
Supports water efficient homes
Saves water for future generations
Reduces demand on water systems
Creates plumbing and landscaping jobs
If you would like more information on this bill, please contact:

Melissa McDonald 424-4444
Paul Paryski 660-4077
Representative Mimi Stewart 986-4341
New York
A11028-2002- To encourage water conservation by requiring the Department of Environmental Conservation to promulgate regulations regarding the use
of reclaimed wastewater and gray water. - passed Assembly, sent to Senate 4/02.
Green building tax credit includes "alternate supply water:" gray water, rainwater, runoff, and groundwater which enters basement pumps.
Full text of law from state web site (PDF, 269k, 156 pages). Greywater info is in definitions and on pages 95-98.
Tax credit info from state web site.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts grey water bill text
Massachusetts grey water bill history
Oregon
HB3320- 1995- Requires Department of Environmental Quality to establish guidelines for use of grey water and to seek approval of United States
Environmental Protection Agency for guidelines.
A visitor from Corvalis, OR shared the following perspective:

Current law allows such minimal and restricted greywater use that changes should be made legislatively. Past attempts have failed, but have been only
loosely organized.
Texas grey water law

(This is a message from a visitor to the Oasis web site) FYI - I was told from the On-Site Sewage Facility (OSSF) Designated Representative at the
Springhills Water Management District (regulates building permits based on septic system design), that the State of Texas currently only permits the use
of washing machine water in grey water systems. The state governing agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), formally known as
the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC), requires kitchen and bathroom basin water as well as bath and shower water to be
treated in a septic system. Blackwater obviously has to go to the septic system, but composting toilets are allowed. The installation of a composting toilet
will allow a slight reduction in required size of the drainfield, but never for the elimination of the septic tank. TCEQ regulations are found on their
website http://www.tceq.state.tx.us but I have not yet found the exact chapter and verse regarding Texas grey water prohibitions.
Utah
Utah Blows it on New Greywater Reg
Despite having excellent examples to follow in its neighbors Arizona and New Mexico, Utah has instead followed in California's footsteps to enact a law which
is worse than useless. It actually outdoes California in making virtually no practical greywater installation legal, with this section:
(ii) Surge tanks shall be:

(A) at least 250 gallons in volumetric capacity to provide settling of solids, accumulation of sludge and scum unless justified with a mass balance of inflow
and outflow and type of distribution for irrigation...
Anyone who makes the mistake of believing the law's implication that a tank of this large size is in any way advantageous will end up convert innocuous
greywater to festering, anaerobic blackwater.
This provision illustrates two basic greywater errors:
Storage of grey water

Blackwater designs used for grey water
The prohibition of sub-mulch irrigation is the nail in the coffin for all greywater technologies other than branched drain to infiltrators or subsurface drip
irrigation, both a stretch for single family homes.
The provision that local jurisdictions have to request certification and demonstrate that they have the resources to process greywater permits is a novel
one. Not a bad idea if there was any reason whatsoever to build a greywater system with a permit, but just a bad joke considering that there isn't.
Predicted result: Less than ten permits will be pulled for greywater systems under this law in the next five years. Illegal installations will continue
unabated, and professionals will not be able to get involved in installing sensible systems due to their illegality.
Washington State
7 of 88
Washington State grey water factsheet (PDF, 450k)
Vermont
H301: This bill proposes to require the use of gray water for toilet water in state buildings. DID NOT PASS
Australia
There is information on greywater in Australia in the Builder's Grey Water Guide (book).
Jordan
Jordan is working with people from Arizona on a new greywater policy. They've issued a report, as well.
See also: Builder's Grey Water Guide (book)
^ Top!of!page ^ Browse | Products • www.oasisdesign.net • Copyright Art Ludwig ©1997 -2005
8 of 88
Builder's Gray Water Action Summary 8/15/05 16:59
Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Builder's Grey Water Guide (book) > Builder's action summary
Builder's Gray Water Action Summary

An excerpt from the Builder's Grey Water Guide (book)
Do's
For all new residential construction, plumb gray water and toilet lines separately, joining them downstream from the future gray water diversion
point.
The one thing you can do in all new construction and remodeling; this is legal everywhere under existing building codes and the word "gray water" need
not ever be mentioned.
Gray water reuse will likely become much more widespread (or even mandated) over the life of structures you are building today. Entombing combined
gray water and blackwater lines under a cement slab, particularly, is foreclosing on the possibility of using a valuable resource.
Some pointers
Vent the toilets separately or tie the black and gray water vents together 12" below the spill point of the highest fixture.
Don't squander fall Keep the gray water lines heights possible to maximize future options for distributing it by gravity. This cannot be stressed enough.
I've had to re-plumb entire houses just to raise the plumbing a few inches.
If you can, anticipate the design of the future gray water system so you know it will all hook up nicely.
For legal systems with small gray water flows and irrigated area downhill from gray water source, try to spec Branched Drain to Mulch Basins.
This is a very simple system which should be permissible under any reasonable gray water law. See page 9 Builder's Grey Water Guide (book)and
the Branched Drain Grey Water Systems (book).
For new construction and remodeling with high gray water generation and irrigation need in areas where gray water is legal, the budget is low, try
the Earthstar or ReWater systems.
See page 6, and check our Links page for possible new suppliers.
For new construction and remodeling with high gray water generation and irrigation need, or the sites with failing septic systems or difficult
conditions, and the budget is high, use the Orenco system.
This system is capable of handling very large flows and can handle blackwater as well as gray water (see page 15).
Make sure unpermitted retrofit systems will work safely and satisfactorily, by checking out the designs and tips in Create an Oasis with Grey Water
(book).
Don't commit these Common!grey!water!mistakes:

Out of context design
Overly complex, delicate and/or expensive systems with negative net benefit
Excessive storage of gray water
Treatment before irrigation
Distribution of gray water through perforated pipe or other system where you don't know where the water is going
Gray water to drip irrigation
Automated systems for toilet flushing in a residential context
Use of government agencies or established trade organizations or engineering firms for info on or construction of simple residential gray water
systems
Don't do the legal mini-leachfield system in the CA gray water law
Discharge of gray water directly into natural waters or hardscapes
CA gray water law held up as example to copy
Cavalier disregard for legitimate public health concerns, and/or excessive paranoia about negligible health concerns
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/buildersguide/actionssummary.htm Page 1 of 1
9 of 88
Graywater Stub Outs: Construction and Inspection Points 8/15/05 17:18
G r e y ! w a t e r ! c e n t r a l | Common!grey!water!mistakes | Grey!water!policy!center | Indoor!grey!water!reuse | Create an Oasis with Grey Water (book) | Branched
Drain Grey Water Systems (book) | Builder's Grey Water Guide (book) | Wild!Water!Wisdom!(article) | Grey water Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Stub outs
Graywater Collection Plumbing and Stub Outs

Homeowners: How to construct them correctly
Regulators: How to inspect them
Based on the California Plumbing Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code,

Create an Oasis with Grey Water (book)and the Builder's Grey Water Guide (book)
Graywater collection plumbing is the plumbing inside the house to either the surge tank if there is one, or a point a few feet outside the house (depending on how you define it).
Stub outs are greywater collection plumbing which dead ends at a cap. They provide for for easy diversion of graywater to a future graywater system to be made during the
construction of a house, without having to install the complete graywater system.
In states which follow the Arizona greywater regulatory model the collection plumbing may be the only part of the system which needs inspection, however there isn't much
guidance on how this should be done.
Stubbing out the graywater collection part of the system without the graywater distribution part of system has several advantages:
Foremost, the graywater distribution system must be installed concurrently with the landscaping for best results. Often, the landscaping won't happen until months or years
after the structure is completed and inspected.
Deferring the construction of most of the system until after occupancy lowers the economic hurdle which must be cleared to attain occupancy.
Graywater systems are rapidly evolving. Even if no currently available graywater system meets the owners requirements, it makes sense to stub out graywater lines in
anticipation that new system types will become available over the long life of the house. Lines entombed under a slab without stub outs are lost to reuse forever.
Since they are a subset of builder's considerations, we'll look at graywater collection/ stub out requirements from the inspector's viewpoint first, then we'll look at the additional
considerations for builders.
For Regulators: How to inspect graywater collection plumbing/ stub outs

TheArizona Gray Water Lawhas only this to say about collection plumbing:
6."The gray water system is constructed so that if blockage, plugging, or backup of the system occurs, gray water can be directed into the sewage collection system or onsite wastewater treatment and
disposal system, as applicable.
In the California Plumbing Code there is only one sentence on stouts, reproduced here in context (it's in bold at the end):
G-5 Inspection and Testing.

(a) Inspection
1. All applicable provisions of this Appendix and of Section 103.5 of the UPC shall be complied with.
2. System components shall be properly identified as to manufacturer.
3. Surge tanks shall be installed on dry, level, well-compacted soil if in a drywell, or on a level, three inch concrete slab or equivalent, if above ground.
4. Surge tanks shall be anchored against overturning.
5. If the irrigation design is predicated on soil tests, the irrigation field shall be installed at the same location and depth as the tested area.
6. Installation shall conform with the equipment and installation methods identified in the approved plans.
7. Graywater stub-out plumbing may be allowed for future connection prior to the installation of irrigation lines and landscaping. Stub-out shall be
permanently marked "GRAYWATER STUB-OUT, DANGER - UNSAFE WATER."
Not much to go on, is it? (the UPC is totally silent on graywater stouts).
Here's our checklist for inspection of collection plumbing/ stub outs:

Required for appendix G:
Stout is permanently marked “GRAYWATER STUB-OUT, DANGER - UNSAFE WATER" as per appendix G, section G-5
(a)-7 (above)
Required elsewhere in plumbing codes:
Pipes slope 1/4" per foot minimum in all flow directions entering and leaving the diversion (the only way to do this with
currently available 3 way valves is to tweak the pipes in the hubs, which do not provide for slope).
Cleanouts are present every 270° of aggregate bend.
Not mentioned in code but should be required in inspection:
Diversion is downstream from vents and traps, so they will perform their function in either graywater or septic/sewer
modes.
In the case of a stub out, valve is in sewer position and stub out pipe to future graywater distribution system is securely
capped.
Other considerations
Three way valves which have a removable cover plate can function as cleanouts in all three directions.
"Jandy" three way valves, the most common type, can work equally well in all orientations, however check that the builder has
positioned the movable "inlet" designation on the valve cover to the port which is receiving the inlet water.
Not to belabor the obvious, but confirm that no toilet is connected upstream of the graywater diversion (downstream is OK,
upstream connection through vent pipe connected 12" above spill point of highest fixture is allowed).
Check valve could be added with stub out or (more commonly) later with graywater system.
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/stubout.htm Page 1 of 3
10 of 88
Note: check valves are not required for any other type of waste plumbing, are a source of clogging, and they form an effective trap to prevent plumbing snakes from being
retracted. In practice, the check valve requirement is widely ignored by inspectors of full graywater systems for these reasons, and is rarely if ever called for during inspection of
stub outs.
One main diversion valve -or- multiple diversion valves to multiple outlets are both valid approaches. If your system includes kitchen sink water, this should be separately
divertable.
For Builders: How to design & construct collection plumbing and graywater stub outs
(There is much more on collection plumbing in Create an Oasis with Grey Water.)
One outlet or many?
Your first critical decision is to bring all the graywater together to one point, then divert it through one valve and distribute it from there, OR, divert graywater at multiple points
with multiple valves and start with it already somewhat distributed. Once you plumb it one way or the other, you are committed. All the considerations for making this
decision are covered in Create an Oasis with Grey Water.
Outlet(s) as high as possible
The next critical design issue is to get the outlet(s) from the house as high as possible. While this can involve extra work, the value of having the outlets high can't be stressed
enough. This is also covered in Create an Oasis with Graywater.
Valve handle(s) accessible
Ideally the position of a diversion valve can be seen while using or on the way to use a fixture, its position can be changed while using the fixture or without going far from the
fixture, and it's position can be locked against meddling by children and curious guests. Sometimes this can be achieved with valve handle extensions, but often there isn't any
alternative to slithering through a crawl space to change the position.
Valves serviceable
I suggest installing the valves with no-hub connectors (which use removable clamps instead of glue) so that you can remove the entire valve for service or replacement without
sawing up any pipes. If there is no space (e.g., street angles plugging right into the valve), you can use silicone sealer in place of ABS glue. This makes a watertight seal, but the
fitting can easily be removed.
Valve sources
11 of 88
I prefer using Jandy three way diverter valves, not least because the inlet can be moved to any of the three ports. Ortega and other three way valves also work fine. Using a tee or
wye with two ball valves is commonly done, but less advisable. If the valves are seldom operated, crud can accumulate in the short dead end before the shut valve and congeal the
passage shut. If you must do two ball valves, provide access for cleaning out the dead ends.
Professional installation
I counsel greywater system do-it-yourselfers to hire a plumber to either do the collection plumbing, or check the design and your installation. There are several reasons for this.
1. Apart from the special considerations above, plumbers already know how to do collection plumbing, so you might as well take advantage of their expertise (they are generally
clueless about distribution plumbing).
2. Much drain/ waste/ vent plumbing behavior is counterintuitive and hard to anticipate from common sense alone. Furthermore, there are real health issues with cross-
connections and waste flowing in unexpected directions, more so indoors than out.
3. Collection plumbing is less apt to be changed in the future and is a longer term investment than distribution plumbing.
4. Seeing an impeccable installation of the collection plumbing (which they can understand) will reassure inspectors that the rest of your system (which they probably won't
understand) is well-thought out and executed. The converse is even more true; forget passing inspection if you've done a schlock job of the collection plumbing.
12 of 88
Builder's Greywater Guide (book) 8/15/05 15:22
Water (book) | Branched Drain Grey Water Systems (book) | Builder's Grey Water Guide (book) | Wild!Water!Wisdom!(article) | Grey water Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Builder's Greywater Guide (book)
Builder's Greywater Guide

Installation of Greywater Systems in New Construction and Remodeling
Includes text of new greywater law

A supplement to the book "Create an Oasis with Greywater"
By Art Ludwig
On this page:
About the book

Excerpts
"The best guide for actual hands-on greywater system construction available. Contractors need this book, do it yourselfers will simply love it.
Time saving tricks, traps to avoid, flowcharts for system selection, user education, it's all here in plain English with an easy reading style."
-Doug Pratt, Technical Products Developer, Real Goods Renewable Energy Division
"Any contractor, architect or homeowner interested in sustainable architecture would do well to buy and study a copy of this book."
-Chris Prelitz, Seacrest Builders, Laguna Beach, California
"Extremely helpful for interpreting the arcane language of the plumbing code for the uninitiated. Without it, many pitfalls await the unwary."
-Bahman Sheikh , Director, City of Los Angeles Greywater Pilot Project
The Builder's Greywater Guide, a supplement to Oasis's book Create an Oasis with Grey Water (book), will help building professionals or homeowners work
within or around building codes to successfully include greywater systems in new construction or remodeling, even if they have little prior greywater
experience.
Topics include: Special reasons for builders to install or not install a greywater system, flow chart for choosing a system, suggestions for dealing with
inspectors, legal requirements checklist, detailed review of system options with respect to the new laws, latest construction details and design tips,
maintenance suggestions, equations for estimating irrigation demand, and the complete text of the new California greywater law with annotations from
Oasis (the California greywater law is very similar to the greywater appendix in the Uniform Plumbing Code, which may apply in all of the US west of the
Mississippi and several Eastern States). Author: Art Ludwig, published by Oasis Design. 1995-2004. 8.5 x11, 46 pages, 9 figures. ISBN 0-9643433-2-0.
$14.95 Create an Oasis with Grey Water (book) is required in order to use the builder's guide.
Excerpts
Choosing a system
…The question is, "what greywater system can best match greywater sources to the irrigation demand?' The flow chart (Figure 1, page 4) will yield a good
answer in most situations.
Realize that it is all but impossible to come up with a greywater system which is simultaneously inexpensive, ecological, easy to use, legal, and efficient.
However, by sacrificing some of these parameters, the others can be satisfied. There are a large number of possible combinations of benefits and
drawbacks, one or more of which will likely be a good fit for a particular situation. Your task is to determine the best fit options, decide if any of these are
good enough to build, and then build the best one…
Branched drain to mulch basins or mini-leachfields
For ideal situations with continuous downhill slope from the points of greywater generation to the points of irrigation need, this design promises inexpensive,
reliable, efficient distribution WITHOUT FILTER CLEANING. It is critical that hard-plumbed lines have proper slope (at least 1/4" per foot)…
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/buildersguide/index.htm Page 1 of 3
13 of 88
One way to split the greywater flow to accomplish wider distribution is to not combine the flows in the first place; each fixture waters its own area.
Coordination with fresh water irrigation may be complicated by using this technique. It works best as primary irrigation, with each flow matched to an
appropriately sized, established tree.
Another way to split the flow is by using "double ells" (Figure 3, page 13). If there are ridges on the inside of these fittings they must be ground smooth-a
rotary file in a drill works well. The maximum number of splits is probably four, in "family tree" style. In theory, the water will split predictably so a single
irrigation zone sensor would get a representative reading off of any outlet. The double ell variation is a brand new Art Ludwig design. I would appreciate
hearing of your experiences with it. According to the folks in Sacramento, a local jurisdiction could interpret this system as conforming to the California
greywater law requirements for a mini-leachfield system, or the "other means of distributing greywater subsurface clause," providing you could
demonstrate that the effluent would not surface. As part of the inspection they might require you to run a surge into the system and check for surfacing
before giving final approval.
14 of 88
The Builder's Greywater Guide includes the entire text of California's greywater law, with extensive annotations added to clarify the implications and possible
ways to get a practical system through the cracks. It also includes UPC&CPC improvements and two pages of needed improvements to California's
greywater law.
The latest edition includes new information on treatment effectiveness vs. wastewater application depth (jpeg graphic, 300k).
15 of 88
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Counts: What They Really Mean About Water Quality 8/15/05 17:05
W a t e r ! c e n t r a l | Water!Storage!(book) |
Water!quality!testing!(download) | Fecal!coliform!measurements | Wild!Water!Wisdom!(article) | Rainwater!harvesting | Slow!sand!filters
You are here: Home > Water!central > Fecal coliform measurements
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Counts: What They Really Mean About Water Quality
On this page:
Summary: Alternative measurements of
bacteriological water quality can help you understand Few people understand the commonly used measurements for microbiological water quality
general and fecal coliform bacteria counts and relate Policy is being made and facilities built with incomplete understanding
them to the real world. Understanding water quality Alternative measurements that broaden understanding
can help you design and use systems better. Examples of using these units to understand reality better
Do your own tests
Unit derivation notes for the scientifically inclined
More information
Few people understand the commonly used measurements for microbiological water quality...
What the heck does it mean that there are "52 MPN fecal coliforms/100ml of water?
Is it good to drink? To wash dishes in? To bath in? Irrigate with?

The average person, or even engineers and scientists who don't have a public health or microbiology background wouldn't have a clue.
In fact, these units are so obscure that even people who work with them every day for years and make important decisions based on test results often have little sense of how to
relate contamination either to cause or effect in a quantitative way.
If a kid sneaks a swim in an un-chlorinated 50,000 gallon drinking water tank without wiping their butt, what is the likely level of contamination?
If there is a bear poop bleeding into the edge of a swiftly flowing river (250 gallons per minute), how likely are you to get sick from drinking the water?
If you irrigate your fruit trees with kitchen sink water, how likely is a kid to get sick from eating the dirt under the trees?
Most public health professionals would say that there would be a hazard. But they would be hard pressed to come up with an assessment of the size of the hazard that was accurate within a
factor of a hundred. Many would be off by a factor of ten thousand. (Read on and then see how these questions are worked out below).
Concentration blindness
Further obscuring the picture, almost all standards are expressed in terms of concentration, not total quantity of organisms.
A spokesman for the Santa Barbara sewage treatment plant once calmly explained that discharge of untreated sewage to the ocean during intense rainfall was not an issue, because "the dilution
factor is so great." This is an exceptionally clear case of "concentration blindness."
50,000 kilograms of fecal matter flushed to the ocean in a billion gallons of storm water is no less harmful to swimmers than 50,000 kilograms in a million gallons of sewer water. The amount of
water that carries it to the ocean is irrelevant considering the relative size of the ocean—what matters is how much feces are being added. If anything, feces delivered in a giant slug of fresh water
are worse, as the large flow of less dense fresh water might tend to float on the surface where exposure is more likely.
However, according to standards for effluent, which are based on concentration, the latter scenario appears a thousand times worse.
Indicator connection varies
General coliforms, E. Coli, and Enterococcus bacteria are the "indicator" organisms generally measured to assess microbiological quality of water. However, these aren't generally what get people
sick. Other bacteria, viruses, and parasites are what we are actually worried about.
Because it is so much more expensive and tedious to do so, actual pathogens are virtually never tested for. Over the course of a professional lifetime pouring over indicator tests, in a context
where all standards are based on indicators, water workers tend to forget that the indicators not the thing we actually care about.
What are these indicators?
General coliforms indicate that the water has come in contact with plant or animal life. General coliforms are universally present, including in pristine spring water. They are of little concern
at low levels, except to indicate the effectiveness of disinfection. Chlorinated water and water from perfectly sealed tube wells is the only water I've tested which had zero general coliforms. At
very high levels they indicate there is what amounts to a lot of compost in the water, which could easily include pathogens (Ten thosand general coliform bacteria will get you a beach closure,
compared to two or four hundred fecal coliforms, or fifty enterococcus).
Fecal coliforms, particularly E. coli, indicate that there are mammal or bird feces in the water.
Enterococcus bacteria also indicate that there feces from warm blooded animals in the water. Enterococcus are a type of fecal streptococci. They are another valuable indicator for
determining the amount of fecal contamination of water.
According to studies conducted by the EPA, enterococci have a greater correlation with swimming-associated gastrointestinal illness in both marine and fresh waters than other bacterial
indicator organisms, and are less likely to "die off" in saltwater.
The more closely related the animal, the more likely pathogens excreted with thier feces can infect us.
Human feces are the biggest concern, because anything which infects one human could infect another. There isn't currently a quantitative method for measuring specifically human fecal bacteria
(expensive genetic studies can give a presence/absence result).
Ingesting a human stranger's feces via contaminated water supply is a classic means for infections to spread rapidly. The more pathogens an individual carries, the more hazardous their feces.
Ingesting feces from someone who is not carrying any pathogens may gross you out, but it can't infect you. Infection rates are around 5% in the US, and approach 100% in areas with poor
hygiene and contaminated water supplies.
Keep in the back of your mind that the ratio of indicators to actual pathogens is not fixed. It will always be different, sometimes very different. Whenever you are trying to form a mental map
of reality based on water tests, you should include in the application of your water intuition an adjustment factor for your best guess of the ratio between indicators and actual pathogens.
"Best guess?!" I can imagine precision obessessed regulators cringing. Well, it can hardly be better to ignore the fact that the number and virluence of pathogens present in samples with the
same number of fecal coliform indicators can be different by a factor of ten to a hundred or more, simply because checking for the pathogens themselves is too cumbersome.
These are the factors to include in your mental indicator to pathogen adjustment factor:
Feces of non-human origin are of less concern to humans (this is why spreading manure on your vegee garden is not considered insane)
Feces from human populations with higher infection rates are of greater concern (a currently low rate is not a reason to condone a new fecal to oral disease transmission route—which will
raise the infection rate over time)
All treatment methods and environmental conditions affect pathogens and indicators differently. For example, chlorinated sewage effluent may have zero indicators and zero pathenogenic
bacteria, but be laden with nearly all its original viruses.
Pathogens (and indicators) can "hide" from treatment inside suspended solids. If treated water is turbid, the saftey of the water and the suspended solids can be very different. If the
samples don't capture the suspended solids, the reading will be low.
^ Top ^ Few understand units | Policy w/o understanding | Alternative measurements | Examples | Do your own tests | Unit derivation | Home
Policy is being made and facilities built with incomplete understanding of hazards
http://oasisdesign.net/water/quality/coliform.htm Page 1 of 3
16 of 88
Important public health and engineering decisions are often made with a fuzzy idea of the hazards.
There is a tendency to tighten policy and overbuild facilities until the number of coliforms per 100ml at some point in the process is zero. If the actual sense of the hazard is not in focus, seeking
the simple assurance of a zero reading is understandable.
However, this is a poor design guide compared to real understanding. Consider:
A sewage treatment plant which removes indicator bacteria may not remove viruses; it will test safe but not be safe in reality.
A beach front community with septics in Santa Barbara is being pressured to hook up to sewers, because a study found about 80 human fecal coliforms per 100 ml in the lagoon water.
Sounds awful, whatever it means. But what it means is there was a half-teaspoon of human feces in the 30,000 or so gallons of the lagoon. All the feces for the duration of the study could
have come from one disposable diaper, and not from the septics at all. Millions of dollars might be spent on sewer connections for no benefit.
A study which turned up 84,000 fecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml of kitchen sink water did not consider the possibility that indicators were multiplying and there wasn't really that much
feces (or pathogens) in the water. If they realized this equates to about a teaspoon a day of feces down the kitchen sink, they might have paused to consider if this much poop was really
being dumped in the kitchen sink. But based on this study, the law did not allow kitchen sink water greywater systems, but it might be OK in reality.
Alternative measurements that broaden understanding

In order to incorporate water quality considerations into my designs in a quantitative way, I first had to convert the measurements to units I could understand. Most other water quality
measurements are ratios: parts per million, or billion.
The beauty of this kind of measurement is that by multiplying the concentration by the volume of water it is possible to figure out how much actual stuff you're talking about, as in the kitchen
sink and beachfront septics examples above.
It turns out that one fecal coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters closely equates to one part per billion of feces, or one milligram per cubic meter (you can see how I did the conversion below).
One part per billion of fecal matter is an infintesimal amount of contamination; about a grain of sand in five 55 gallon drums, or about what someone drinks in three years. However, this is worth
worrying about; it fails the minimum standard for drinking water quality in most of the developed world, which is zero general coliforms per 100mL.
Converting to concentration and absolute quantities enables you to estimate what could account for a given level of contamination, or what level of contamination would result from a given action.
For example, a buttwipe (ahem) diluted in a swimming pool of water yields a feces concentration of about 1 part per billion.
Measuring organisms per 100 mL, you can't easily relate a case of contamination either to cause or effect in a quantitative way.
Without further ado, here is a table which shows conventional units and standards, and their conversion to parts per million, parts per billion, and the novice-friendly units of of buttwipes or turds
per swimming pool...
To find the conversion factor from any unit to any other, find the bold number 1's, then read across to the other column.
For example:
1 fecal coliform/ 100ml = 1 ppb = 0.001 ppm = 1 buttwipe per swimming pool = 0.001 buttwipe per bathtub
1 turd/ swimming pool = 10,000 mg feces/ m3
Examples of using these units to understand reality better

Back to the questions we opened with:
If a kid sneaks a swim in an un-chlorinated 50,000 gallon drinking water tank without wiping their butt, what is the likely level of contamination?
Layperson version: 50,000 gallons is twice as big as a swimming pool. One buttwipe per swimming pool is the drinking standard, so half a buttwipe per swimming pool does not exceed the
drinking standard.
Scientist version: 50,000 is about 200 m3. A buttwipe is about 100 mg. So there is about 0.5 mg per m3, which does not exceed the drinking standard.
Additional considerations: If the kid is known to have an infectious condition, the cause for alarm is greater. Also, the amount of fecal matter may not be average, it probably won't all come off in
the water, and the part of it that does will not be evenly distributed. Most likely, the particles will sink to the bottom or top. If the geometry of the inlets and outlets is designed optimally, almost
none of it will make it into the water distribution system.
If there is a bear poop bleeding into the edge of a swiftly flowing river (25,000 gallons per minute), how likely are you to get sick from drinking the water?
Layperson version: That's a swimming pool every minute. If The bear poop takes 1000 minutes, (16 hours) to dissolve, that's a thousandth of a turd per swimming pool - ten times the drinking
standard.
Scientist version: The bear bowel movement is 1,000,000 milligrams. The flow is about 100 m3 per minute, times 1000 minutes = 100,000 m3 of water. 1,000,000 divided by 100,000 is 10
mg feces/ m3 - ten times the drinking standard.
Additional considerations: A bear poop is probably bigger than a human poop. However, bear pathogens are less likely to infect humans. The swift flow will probably distribute the fecal matter
17 of 88
pretty evenly through the water column before long, without much settling. This illustrates a feature of rivers: while on average they are likely to be clean, infectious level pulses of pathogens are
likely to come through.
(Note: you can estimate flow by multiplying the width times the depth of the channel times half the speed of the surface. Ten meters wide, two meters deep on average and a meter per second is
about ten cubic meters per second)
If you irrigate your fruit trees with kitchen sink water, how likely is a kid to get sick from eating the dirt under the trees?
A risk assessment analysis of this scenario is viewable in the Arizona greywater study. Note that they assume from the high level of indicators that there is a level of pathogens in the water
corresponding to nearly a gram a day of fecal matter entering the kitchen sink. This could be accounted for by ten people wiping their butts with thier hands only and washing them off in the
kitchen sink—an unlikely scenario, I dare say. (If nothing else, few houses have ten people in them!) Also, note that they assume that 100% of the dirt the child eats will come from the
greywater-irrigated area, 365 days in a row.
Considering that even with these wild assumptions, the risk was on the order of 1 in 10,000 of the kid getting sick, the risk is probably not significant.
For more examples of water test results & interpretations see: Water test results- Maruata
!
Do your own tests

Much of what I learned about microbiological water quality came from doing hundreds of tests myself (seeWater quality testing (download)). I use coliscan plates and an chicken egg incubator.
What this system lacks in precision is made up for by the fact that you can afford to test many more samples, so you can begin to understand what is going on. (The total setup to do 100
coliscan "easy gel" tests costs less than $200, enough for only ten lab tests on a good day).
A primary goal in the testing I do is to refine my water intuition and understanding. I'm not so interested in knowing what the exact number of bacteria is at one point in the flow at that moment.
What I want to know is what is affecting bacteria levels and how they are changing with time or at different points in the flow.
Instead of grabbing one twenty dollar test from a water tank, I'll test the water the spring as far in as I can reach, at the outlet of the spring box, the bottom of the spring box, the inlet to the
tank, the outlet to the tank, the kitchen tap, and in a drinking glass.
If you picked a random rural home system and did this series of tests, you'd could easily find that the bacteria levels varied by a factor of ten. One costly, highly precise test from a certified lab—
the standard approach—lends a false sense of accuracy to the results. If you did two such tests a few hours or a few feet apart they could easily be out of agreement by a wide margin.
Numerous tests provide a rich information stream from which you can learn a lot about what makes bacteria levels rise and fall.
Once you know that, of course you can make a better system.
For potable water, the accuracy of results is more critical, and you need a more sensitive test. I use coliscan membrane filtration tests and Hach presence absence with MUG tests for design of
potable systems. Then, if I need certified results, I send one last sample to a certified lab.
Unit derivation notes for the scientifically inclined

The numbers were jiggled so the alternative units came out to be even orders of magnitude from the conventional units and each other.
In some cases the number used was close to the middle of the range, in others it is off the average by 30% or more. Overall, the alternative measures which are represented as equivalent on the
table are within a factor of two or three of actual equivalency.
This degree of precision is in line for this area of study.
The conventional measurements use indicator organisms. There is a few orders of magnitude difference in coliforms per gram of feces for different mammals, so the precedent for allowing
imprecision of a large order is well established.
Here's the assumptions and math:
These are typical numbers of fecal coliform bacteria per gram of wet feces: dog=23 million, human 13 million, pig 3.3 million, cow a quarter million)
Since human feces and easy math are of greatest concern, I assumed 10 million fecal coliform bacteria per gram. This assumption builds into the conversion an overstatement of a factor of
1.3 if the bacteria are of human origin.
Thus, one coliform bacteria weighs one ten millionth of a gram. Diluted in 100ml=100g of water, that's one part per billion.
100 m3 water per swimming pool (a typical swimming pool is more like 75 m3 or 20,000 gallons)
An average buttwipe is 0.1 gram (based on a few measurements which averaged 0.13 grams)
Bowel movement is 1000g (one source gave 1113g as the average daily production of feces)
A bath is 100 L; this is about 8" of water in an average bathtub. Full capacity is about twice this, depending on the displacement of the bather(s).
1 turd = 10,000 buttwipes =1,000 grams = 1,000,000 milligrams
1 swimming pool = 1000 bathtubs=100,000 bottles = 100 cubic meters = 100,000 liters
If you want to get into these numbers more deeply, seeWater quality testing (download), a download packet which includes the editable spreadsheet the calculations were done in.
See also:
Water!quality!testing!(download) a download packet on how to do your own simple, inexpensive water tests
Water!Storage!(book) designs for protecting water during storage
Water!Storage!Extras!(download) information on bacterial regrowth in water system
Water test results- Maruata test results from all kinds of water in a Mexican village, with discussion
Discussion of a study of lagoon contamination from septic tanks in a beach front community
Wild!Water!Wisdom!(article) describes how natural purification works in surface waters
Slow!sand!filtersfor potable water treatment
Arizona greywater study.
18 of 88
Relative Health Hazard of Different Waters
Absolute quantities of fecal matter

Location/source Feces per capita per day (mg)
In toilet 1,000,000 Average adult human production, from various studies

On toilet paper 100 Average, measured
Traces on clothes, hands 5 Estimate (high?)
Infant production 150,000 Calculated from adult production by body weight
Concentrations of fecal matter calculated and measured, allowed standards and calculated
Water Type MPN=PPB=mg/m3 feces
OK to drink 1 Standard in most of developed world is less than or equal to 1 mpn/100ml or 1 pbb (entered as 1 so log chart will work)
OK for surface water drinking supply 50 Common standard
OK to swim 400 Common standard for natural surface waters
Greywater w/ calculated trace 50 Calcuated from diluting traces above in 100 l (about 25 gallons) per capita per day of greywater
Greywater w/ calculated buttwipe 1,000 Calcuated from diluting (ahem!) buttwipe above in 100 l (about 25 gallons) per capita per day of greywater
Greywater average from study 4,500 Average from Arizona study
Greywater average of three above 1,850 Average of three above
OK for boating, fishing 4,000 Common standard for natural surface waters
Greywater (diaper laundry) 2,500,000 Diaper wash water 300 g feces (two days) in 120 l water
Combined sewage 5,000,000 Calculated from diluting average fecal production in 200 l (53 gallons) of combined wastewater
Toilet water 40,000,000 Calculated from diluting average daily fecal production in 25 l (6.6 gallons, or 4 low flow flushes) of toilet flush water
Ratios
Water 1/water 2 Numical ratio Comment
Average greywater/ Natural surface Diluting the amount of fecal matter expected to be shed into greywater by it's volume yeilds water that meets the
waters OK for swimming 0.13 swimming standard.
Natural surface waters OK for boating/
fishing/ Average greywater 2.16
Combined sewage/ greywater with
fecal traces 100,000
Combined sewage/ buttwipe with
greywater 5,000
Combined sewage/ average greywater 2,703

Toilet water/ average greywater 21,622 Greywater has five thousandths of one percent of the fecal matter that toilet water has.
Combined sewage/ diaper wash water 2
19 of 88
GroundwaterPlumeLatrine.gif 1200x877 pixels 8/15/05 17:06
http://oasisdesign.net/images/img_book/GroundwaterPlumeLatrine.gif
20 of 88 Page 1 of 1
OverlandFlowRemovalRates.gif 1203x1298 pixels 8/15/05 17:06
http://oasisdesign.net/images/img_book/OverlandFlowRemovalRates.gif
22 of 88
PollutionPlumesByDepth.jpg 1584x1224 pixels 8/15/05 17:08
http://oasisdesign.net/images/img_hires/PollutionPlumesByDepth.jpg
Why Sewering the Rincon Won't Improve Ocean Water Quality 8/15/05 17:08
W a t e r ! c e n t r a l | Water!Storage!(book) | Water!quality!testing!(download) | Fecal!coliform!measurements | Wild!Water!Wisdom!(article)
| Rainwater!harvesting | Slow!sand!filters
You are here: Home > Water central > Sewers & water quality
Rincon Oceanfront Septic Tank Study/

Ecological Design for Reducing Pollution
Letter in the Santa Barbara News Press
On this page:
Summary: A letter about misinterpretation of a
study of contamination from oceanfront septics, Full text of letter
and the inadvisability of sewering. References & further reading
Calculations
Copious
Full text of first letter: amounts
of bird
feces
Rincon Point and the Three Million Dollar Disposable Diaper around a
Rincon
storm
As an ecological systems designer specializing in water and wastewater systems, I’m pleased to see a drain
broad coalition rally to the clean water cause. Most of the content of the debate I agree with. However, at which
times it seems there Ian’t enough technical understanding to keep the discussion firmly anchored in leads
reality. Lest we find ourselves taking multiple steps back for each step forward, I’d like to share some directly
general ecological design principles, and use the question of how to improve water quality at Rincon to to the
illustrate their application. lagoon a
few feet
away.
A fundamental principle of ecological design is to Consider the Whole Picture This is
several
times the
The temptation to avoid the big picture is strong, because it is difficult. Of a hundred ways to make the amount
ocean cleaner, only a handful will make things cleaner overall. It is easiest to clean up an area by of feces
sweeping the impact somewhere else. But often the total impact is then greater, because of the added found in
impact of sweeping. the
lagoon
during
Heal the Ocean has done a service to the community by raising awareness of water quality problems so testing.
that everyone agrees that SOMETHING should be done. The water is dirty because of too much human Without
disturbance. Building systems to relocate the disturbance (e.g. a sewer line) creates an ecological soil to
disturbance of its own: the production of miles of pipe, pumps, filters, electronics etc., digging up purify
streets, sidewalks, gardens, and native burial grounds, and the ongoing consumption of electricity, them,
chemicals, and burned out pumps, forever. these
feces will
all end up
By removing the constraint of on site wastewater disposal from this area, the scale of and density of there.
development is free to attain a much higher level—with a sewer line, the sky is the limit. Reduction of an
ecological impact on water quality is being used to justify a system which has an extremely strong tendency to /increase/ ecological impacts of all kinds by
spurring development. If property owners want more development, they can and should do it without exporting their waste problem.
Ecological Designs are Context Specific
What is appropriate in one place is inappropriate in another—everything depends on context. Are sewers bad? Is pooping directly in the ocean bad? it
depends. Even on the high seas, flushing directly to the ocean sounds bad, but if you analyze it you’ll find that it is improbable the ocean could be affected.
Does this mean it is OK to dump DDT in the ocean? It would have the same dilution initially, but re-concentrate in the food chain—so no. Is it OK to poop
directly in the ocean when you’re in the harbor? No, the water is too confined. Pumping the sewage from the harbor to the treatment plant is better. Does
that mean that if you live by the beach, you should pump your sewage to a treatment plant? It depends. If you live in Florida or Hawaii, the answer is yes.
Florida has fissured limestone aquifers. The bedrock is a network of open, water filled caves which channel water rapidly without treatment directly to the
ocean. In Hawaii, it is the same except the pipes are lava tubes. If you live on the coast in Santa Barbara, the ecological solution is probably to use a septic
tank, because our climate and soil are optimal for septic systems. If the context is such that the septic tank is failing or likely to fail, it may need some help
in the form of reducing the flow or enhancements to its treatment capacity.
Santa Barbara just approved a new septic tank ordinance, citing studies from Florida and Hawaii and saying “we cannot assume Santa Barbara is any
different from the rest of the world.” But septic effluent which travels ten miles in a day in Florida might move a foot in Santa Barbara. Inspecting septic
tanks to make sure they are working optimally is a good idea. Hooking Santa Barbara houses to sewers because septics don’t work in Florida is not. Santa
Barbara would be bucking a promising national trend towards effective on-site treatment by supporting sewer conversion.
In Main’s Snits Beach, there is a half-mile long sand spit a hundred yards wide, with the Pacific on one side and an ecologically sensitive lagoon on the other.
It is all sand, and no point is even ten feet above the water. The spit is covered with large houses, all on septic tank/ sand mound systems, all inspected
annually, all working. This is a more appropriate inspiration for coastal problem areas in Santa Barbara.
http://oasisdesign.net/wastewater/sewer/beach.htm Page 1 of 4
24 of 88
The purification capacity of soil for fecal bacteria is astounding. According to tests by the World Health organization, you could fill a dry pit with feces and it
would not affect a creek or ocean twenty feet away—they found almost no lateral migration. The same studies showed maximum extent of bacterial plumes
from feces in flowing groundwater of forty feet. Tests of land treatment have found it to be effective against viruses, something treatment plants are not
very good at (references and the calculations behind the paragraphs below).
Over six hundred pounds of feces are treated by Rincon Point septic tanks every day. Using data from the Lower Rincon Creek Watershed Study by Santa
Barbara County Public Health and Heal the Ocean, I did a “back of the envelope calculation” to convert their findings on lagoon contamination from the
obscure units given (79 fecal coliform mpn/100ml) to the more easily grasped half-teaspoon of human feces in the 30,000 or so gallons of the lagoon. This
study produced no firm evidence that the septic tanks are contaminating the lagoon. It does show that IF they are, the maximum amount of contamination
is still well under the standard for swimming. Fecal matter would come out of failing septics in a fairly steady stream. The study noted that forty percent of
the human feces were from one sampling event—so it is possible that one casually tossed diaper is costing Rincon homeowners three million dollars..
Of the 74 septic systems at Rincon, If any are polluting the lagoon, it can only be a few partly failing systems. According to the sewer proponents’ own
study the amount of nasties entering the lagoon is at most /four thousandths of one percent/ of what goes into the septic tanks. If hooked to the sewer,
100% of the sewage would go into the ocean with enough chlorine to kill the fecal coliform indicator bacteria, but not enough to kill all the viruses. If there is
a very hard rain, power failure or pipe break once every eighty years, the sewage treatment plant will dump more raw feces from Rincon point into the ocean
than eighty years worth of the maximum contamination the septics could be causing. A sewer will also increase the amount of effluent, by removing
incentive for indoor water conservation and enabling more building. Not a great water quality improvement, and certainly not cost-effective at three million
dollars—to clean up at most a diaper a month worth of feces.
In literature supporting sewer conversion, Heal the Ocean states that “it’s like sweeping ones house—getting all the dirt and dust into one pile (getting the
septics into one disposal area) then picking it up into a dustpan (sewage plant).” They further state that the key to their program is their long term vision
that 100% of sewer effluent will be reclaimed.
The spirit is commendable but there are technical glitches. First, septic tank effluent is a special kind of “dust” which is harmlessly returned by soil to
nutrient and water cycles precisely if the concentration is not too great, as their study shows is happening now. Getting it all “into one pile, ” i.e., too
concentrated for soil to deal with, is exactly the wrong thing to do with a material of this type. Second, the vision of 100% wastewater reclamation (which is
still under investigation) could only be attained with aggressive sewer flow reduction. What are you going to do with several thousand acre-feet of reclaimed
water during the rainy season? Heal the Ocean’s goals would be better served by aggressively fostering effective on-site treatment wherever feasible—any
other approach is plain bad design.
Choose the Most Inherently Simple Solution and Implement It as Well as Possible
I was informed by Heal the Ocean that on-site treatment was probably ideal, but it would take too long to implement. The most simple, cost effective, and
immediate measure possible would be for Rincon homeowners to conserve water indoors, and divert greywater from their septic tanks. The load on Rincon
septic tanks could easily be reduced 80%. The impact on the ocean would be reduced more, say 90% (not only is the flow smaller, but the remaining flow
receives much higher treatment as it takes longer to pass through septic tank and soil). This would eliminate most capacity problems and could be done for
a few thousand dollars per house. Any water quality improvement would occur immediately. The techniques tend to be far simpler and cheaper, and
nothing begins to compare with flow reduction for improving overall impact.
This would increase the effectiveness of the systems from the 99.997% (minimum) measured by the study to perhaps 99.9997%. If the remaining
problem septic tanks (if any) were then identified, they could be improved with sand mound or other proven on-site treatment systems at a cost per house
which was substantially lower than the $40-$60,000 for hooking to sewer. The overall cost for the community would be dramatically lower—maybe
$500,000 instead of $3,000,000 plus. The contamination of the Rincon would be reduced without making someplace else dirtier, improvement could start
immediately, very little electricity and no chemicals would be required, roads would stay intact...
A colleague with extensive experience constructing wastewater treatment facilities says they are 10% technology and 90% politics. The intense desire to
DO SOMETHING about water quality may push Rincon Point sewerification onward. When Heal the Ocean finishes studying sewage reclamation and finds
out the amount of flow reduction required to make it feasible, that SOMETHING may turn out to be an expensive education in the way NOT to take care of
areas where septic tanks work fine with a little care.
Art Ludwig
References & further reading

Sewer battles in Bolinas and Monte Rio (a great, humorous article by Lloyd Khan)
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse (assistance with on-site treatment)
The World Health Organization on pollution plumes from dry pit toilet (CIF graphic, large file)
The World Health Organization on pollution plumes from pit toilet in groundwater flow (CIF graphic, large file)
Removal rates of land treatment facilities (CIF graphic, large file)
Rincon Point Sewer Calculations
5/20/99 30.7 Average Lagoon fecal coliform concentrations by date, mpn/100ml (from lower Rincon Creek watershed study
by SB Co. Health and Heal the Ocean)
5/24/99 60.6
3 5/25/99 35
5/26/99 110
25 of 88
5/27/99 102.4
6/1/99 144
6/4/99 72
a 79 Average Lagoon fecal coliform concentrations for all dates, mpn/100ml (calculated from data above)
b 20% Percent of (a) which is human (a guess, loosely based on the 20% human matches from study, which was
conducted in a way that does not give a direct quantitative relationship).
c 16 Average concentration of fecal coliforms of human origin mpn/100ml (a*b)
d 1 Approximate conversion factor from fecal coliform mpn/100ml to parts per billion of feces (see assumptions
below)
assumed:10 million coliforms per gram of wet feces (dog=23 million, human 13 million...)
assumed: 1000g feces/person/day (one source gave 1113g as the average daily production of feces)
e 16 Average concentration of fecal matter of human origin in ppb (same as mg/m3) (c*d))
32,076 gal f 122 Approximate volume of lagoon in m3. It was approximately 60m long, 4.5 m wide and .5 m deep, average at the
time of the study
g 1926 amount of human fecal matter in lagoon (mg) (f*g)
0.07 oz h 2 amount of human fecal matter in lagoon in grams (g/1000)
i 74 Number of houses (from study)
j 4 Average number of people per house (guess)
k 1000 Daily feces production per person, grams (one source gave 1113g as the average daily production of feces)
kk 20% Percentage of septic tank effluent which are closer to the lagoon than the ocean (guess)
131 lbs l 59200 Grams feces introduced into septic tanks near the lagoon per day (i*j*k*kk)
Assumption: the lagoon water is changed each day by flow (this is highly variable)
m 0.003253% Human feces in the lagoon as a percentage of human feces introduced to tanks per day (h/l)
n 99.996747% Minimum percentage effectiveness of septic tanks for preventing contaminated water from going into the
lagoon, assuming 100% of human feces in the lagoon ARE from septic tanks
o 99.999675% Postulated effectiveness of septic tanks if flow is reduced 80% (n *1/90%)
p 1 Approximate number of tightly rolled disposal diapers required to contaminate entire lagoon to this level
q 519 Approximate number of days one person's bowel movement could comtaminate the lagoon to this level
s 30743.64 Number of days of maximum septic tank contamination equalled by one day of 100% raw sewage flow (l/h)
t 84.23 Number of years of maximum septic tank contamination equalled by one day of 100% raw sewage flow (l/h)
u 3,000,000.00 Cost of project in dollars
26 of 88
v 30 Lifespan in years
w 21085.33564 Maximum grams of feces kept out of the lagoon in thirty years h*365*30
4,034 $/oz x 142.2789777 Dollars per gram u/w
27 of 88
Water Conservation
Using Greywater Wastewater Management
Program
FACT SHEET May 2005
Why conserve water? Conserving What is greywater? Greywater is waste-

our water resources is important in times of nor- water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks, wash-
mal rainfall, but even more so during periods of ing machines, dishwashers and kitchen sinks: any
extended drought. Our ground water and surface source in your home other than toilets.
water supplies can be emptied faster than they
It is important to understand that greywater
can be refilled with rain and snowmelt. By using
can contain harmful bacteria, viruses, and
water wisely now, you help to ensure that there
chemicals that pose a risk to public health
will be enough water for everyone in the future.
and the environment if mishandled.
If handled carefully, greywater can be used in
place of fresh water in subsurface irrigation
systems. However, using less water in the first
place is cheaper, easier, and safer than installing
a greywater system for irrigating your land-
scape, and…it’s something everyone can do!
What’s in Greywater?
Greywater Source Characteristics*
Clothes Washer.…....... Bacteria, bleach, foam, high pH, hot water, nitrates, oil and grease, salinity, soaps,
sodium and suspended solids
Bathtub and Shower…. Bacteria, hair, hot water, odor, oil and grease, soaps, and suspended solids
Sinks…………………. Bacteria, food particles, hot water, odor, oil and grease, organic matter, soaps,
high pH and sodium (from dishwasher), and suspended solids
* These characteristics make it necessary to handle greywater carefully.

Source: Adapted from Small Flows Quarterly, Winter 2001, Volume 2, Number 1
Did You Know………..?

!" Greywater makes up the largest portion Subsurface irrigation with greywater offers a way to
of wastewater from your home…up to 40 conserve water. However, greywater may not meet all
gallons per person each day. of your landscape irrigation needs all year round.
!" Greywater systems must irrigate below !" Some times of the year, your plants may need more
the ground surface by using a drainfield water than can be supplied by greywater irrigation
or a suitable drip irrigation system to …..other times of the year, your home may generate
reduce health risks. more greywater than your plants can use.
!" Greywater systems are usually cheaper !" Some chemicals in greywater can be harmful to plants.
and easier to install during construction (For information about suitable plants for greywater,
of a new home. Re-plumbing an existing please see Greywater Plant Choices at:
building can be expensive and may be http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/ww/greywater/
impractical. greywater-5.htm#plantchoices.
28 of 88
Greywater Fact Sheet
How can using greywater What else can I do to conserve

for irrigation help me water?
conserve water? !" " Install low-flow water fixtures and water
!" Greywater collected from sinks, tubs, efficient appliances.
showers, and clothes washing can be !" " Repair leaky plumbing fixtures.
used in place of fresh water to irrigate
trees, shrubs, and flowers. !"" Take shorter showers.
!" Sub-surface irrigation can place this !"" Choose landscaping that does not require
water source where your landscape large amounts of water.
plants need it…at the root zone. !"""Water landscapes before 10 AM or
after 7 PM.
How do I safely
install and use a
For your safety and the
greywater irrigation
system?
safety of others…...
Where can I
1 Contact your county health
agency for:
!" Wastewater Treatment
DO NOT drink greywater or
apply it on anything that may be
find more
information?
System permits (grey- eaten, including root crops like
! Water Conservation
water is wastewater), potatoes or carrots.
information is available
!" Design requirements, at the Washington State
!" A list of qualified DO NOT water lawns with Department of Health,
Designers and Installers. greywater using a sprinkler, or Office of Drinking Water
use greywater to wash patios, “Drought” website at:
2 Develop a design that

matches your specific needs
and options for greywater use.
walkways or driveways. http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/
dw/drought/droughthome.htm
!" For information about onsite wastewater treatment

The design of the system will depend on:
systems (septic systems), please visit the Washington
!" The source and characteristics of the
State Department of Health, Wastewater Management
greywater,
Section web page at:
!" The physical characteristics of the http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/waste.htm
site,
!" Local code requirements, !" The National Small Flows Clearinghouse provides
!" How, when, and where the greywater information on small community and individual
will be used. on-site sewage systems at: http://www.nsfc.wvu.edu
3 Apply greywater safely by:

!" Irrigating with greywater below the
surface of the ground,
Washington State Department of Health
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
!" Irrigating ornamental landscapes Wastewater Management Program
such as shrubs, trees, and flowers, Telephone: (360) 236-3062
!" Regularly checking your greywater E-mail: WastewaterMgmt@doh.wa.gov
system to be sure it is functioning DOH Pub 333-058 05/2005
properly.
29 of 88
Arizona Gray Water Law 8/15/05 16:47
Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Grey!water!policy!center > Arizona Gray Water Law
Arizona Gray Water Law

This document contains the three tiers of the Arizona Gray Water Law, as copied from the official web site in September 2002.
The advantage is that the three tiers do not appear together and are not all specifically labeled as gray water laws, so it is confusing to figure out which
sections apply. I recieved help from Greg Brown, manager of the AZ engineering approvals unit to figure out which sections were relevant.
Notes with highlight are comments from Oasis design and are not part of the original.
Authorization to discharge is allowed under a type 1 general permit, without the need to obtain project specific permission for projects up to 400 gpd for
systems which meet requirements. Could be multifamily if flow is small enough.
(Type 2 permit is reclaimed water, drywells, mining water...etc.)
Type three permit for larger gray water systems up to 3000 gpd. Have to obtain authorization to discharge via project specific permit. Notice of intent to
discharge, renew each 5 years.
(type 4 is conventional septic system)
Individual consideration of systems over 3000 gpd. Individual aquifer protection permit, DEQ can put in any conditions they like.
If you treat water to class A or A+ standards, then reclaimed water rules apply and many kinds of reuse are possible with relatively little restriction.
DEQ takes hands off on proscribing design, have to meet performance requirements only; this is the right way to do it.
On this page:
Contents listing of all of Title 18

Tier 1 Arizona Gray Water Law–Applies to systems under 400 gpd which meet
requirements below
Tier 2 Arizona Gray Water Law–Systems of 400 to 3000 gpd, or which don't
meet conditions for Tier 1 general permit
Tier 3 Arizona Gray Water Law–Systems Over 3000 gallons a day
!
Contents listing of all of Title 18
TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAPTER 9. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ARTICLE 7. DIRECT REUSE OF RECLAIMED WATER
Article 4 consisting of Sections R9-20-401 through R9-20-407 renumbered as Article 7, Sections R18-9-701 through R18-9-707 (Supp. 87-3).
Article 4 consisting of Sections R9-20-401 through R9-20-407 adopted effective May 24, 1985.
Former Article 4 consisting of Sections R9-20-401 through R9-20-408 repealed effective May 24, 1985.
Section:
R18-9-701. Definitions
R18-9-702. Applicability and Standards for Reclaimed Water Classes

R18-9-703. Transition of Permits
R18-9-704. General Requirements

R18-9-705. Reclaimed Water Individual Permit Application
R18-9-706. Reclaimed Water Individual Permit General Provisions
R18-9-707. Reclaimed Water Individual Permit Where Industrial Wastewater Influences the Characteristics of Reclaimed Water
R18-9-708. Reusing Reclaimed Water Under a General Permit
R18-9-709. Reclaimed Water General Permit Renewal and Transfer
R18-9-710. Reclaimed Water General Permit Revocation
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/arizona/index.htm Page 1 of 23
30 of 88
R18-9-711. Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit for Gray Water

R18-9-712. Type 2 Reclaimed Water General Permit for Direct Reuse of Class A+ Reclaimed Water
R18-9-713. Type 2 Reclaimed Water General Permit for Direct Reuse of Class A Reclaimed Water
R18-9-714. Type 2 Reclaimed Water General Permit for Direct Reuse of Class B+ Reclaimed Water
R18-9-716. Type 2 Reclaimed Water General Permit for Direct Reuse of Class C Reclaimed Water
R18-9-717. Type 3 Reclaimed Water General Permit for a Reclaimed Water Blending Facility
R18-9-718. Type 3 Reclaimed Water General Permit for a Reclaimed Water Agent
R18-9-720. Enforcement and Penalties
Tier 1 Arizona Gray Water Law–Applies to systems under 400 gpd which meet requirements below
ARTICLE 7. DIRECT REUSE OF RECLAIMED WATER
Historical Note
New Section adopted by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 758, effective January 16, 2001 (Supp. 01-1).
A.!A Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit allows private residential direct reuse of gray water for a flow of less than 400 gallons per day if all the
following conditions are met:
1.!Human contact with gray water and soil irrigated by gray water is avoided;
2.!Gray water originating from the residence is used and contained within the property boundary for household gardening, composting, lawn
watering, or landscape irrigation;
3.!Surface application of gray water is not used for irrigation of food plants, except for citrus and nut trees;
4.!The gray water does not contain hazardous chemicals derived from activities such as cleaning car parts, washing greasy or oily rags, or
disposing of waste solutions from home photo labs or similar hobbyist or home occupational activities;
5.!The application of gray water is managed to minimize standing water on the surface;
6.!The gray water system is constructed so that if blockage, plugging, or backup of the system occurs, gray water can be directed into the
sewage collection system or onsite wastewater treatment and disposal system, as applicable. The gray water system may include a means of
filtration to reduce plugging and extend system lifetime;
7.!Any gray water storage tank is covered to restrict access and to eliminate habitat for mosquitoes or other vectors;
8.!The gray water system is sited outside of a floodway;
9.!The gray water system is operated to maintain a minimum vertical separation distance of at least five feet from the point of gray water
application to the top of the seasonally high groundwater table;
10.!For residences using an onsite wastewater treatment facility for black water treatment and disposal, the use of a gray water system does
not change the design, capacity, or reserve area requirements for the onsite wastewater treatment facility at the residence, and ensures that
the facility can handle the combined black water and gray water flow if the gray water system fails or is not fully used;
11.!Any pressure piping used in a gray water system that may be susceptible to cross connection with a potable water system clearly indicates
that the piping does not carry potable water;
12.!Gray water applied by surface irrigation does not contain water used to wash diapers or similarly soiled or infectious garments unless the
gray water is disinfected before irrigation; and
13.!Surface irrigation by gray water is only by flood or drip irrigation.
B.!Prohibitions. The following are prohibited:
1.!Gray water use for purposes other than irrigation, and
2.!Spray irrigation.
C.!Towns, cities, or counties may further limit the use of gray water described in this Section by rule or ordinance.
Tier 2 Arizona Gray Water Law–Systems of 400 to 3000 gpd, or which don't meet conditions for Tier 1 general permit
Historical Note
A.!A Type 3 Reclaimed Water General Permit allows a gray water irrigation system if:
1.!The general permit described in R18-9-711 does not apply,
2.!The flow is not more than 3000 gallons per day, and
31 of 88
3.!The gray water system satisfies the notification, design, and installation requirements specified in subsection (C).
B.! A person shall file a Notice of Intent to Operate a Gray Water Irrigation System with the Department at least 90 days before the date the
proposed activity will start. The Notice of Intent to Operate shall include:
1.!The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;
2.!The social security number of the applicant, if the applicant is an individual;
3.!A legal description of the direct reuse site, including latitude and longitude coordinates;
4.!The design plans for the gray water irrigation system;
5.!A signature on the Notice of Intent to Operate certifying that the applicant agrees to comply with the requirements of this Article and the
terms of this Reclaimed Water General Permit; and
6.!The applicable permit fee specified under 18 A.A.C. 14.
C.! The following technical requirements apply to the design and installation of a gray water irrigation system allowed under this Reclaimed Water
General Permit:
1.!Design of the gray water irrigation system shall meet the onsite wastewater treatment facility requirements under R18-9-A312(C), (D)(1),
(D)(2), (E)(1), (G), and R18-9-E302(C)(1), except the septic tank specified in R18-9-E302(C)(1) is not required if pretreatment of gray water
is not necessary for the intended application;
2.!Design of the dispersal trenches for the gray water irrigation system shall meet the onsite wastewater treatment facility requirements for
shallow trenches specified in R18-9-E302(C)(2);
3.!The depth of the gray water dispersal trenches shall be appropriate for the intended irrigation use but not more than 5 feet below the
finished grade of the native soil; and
4.!The void space volume of the aggregate fill in the gray water dispersal trench below the bottom of the distribution pipe shall have enough
capacity to contain two days of gray water at the design flow.
D.!The Department may review design plans and details and accept a gray water irrigation system that differs from the requirements specified in
subsection (C) if the system provides equivalent performance and protection of human health and water quality.
Tier 3 Arizona Gray Water Law–Systems Over 3000 gallons a day

ARTICLE 1. AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMITS - GENERAL PROVISIONS
R18-9-101.!Definitions
In addition to the definitions established in A.R.S. § 49-201, the following terms apply to Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter:
1.!"Aggregate" means a clean graded hard rock, volcanic rock, or gravel of uniform size, 3/4 inch to 2 1/2 inches in diameter, offering 30% or
more void space, washed or prepared to be free of fine materials that will impair absorption surface performance, and has a hardness value of
three or greater on the Moh’s Scale of Hardness (can scratch a copper penny).
2.!"Alert level" means a numeric value, expressing a concentration of a pollutant or a physical or chemical property of a pollutant, that is
established in an individual permit and serves as an early warning indicating a potential violation of an Aquifer Water Quality Standard at the
applicable point of compliance or a permit condition.
3.!"Aquifer Protection Permit" means an individual or general permit issued under A.R.S. §§ 49-203, 49-241 through 49-252, and Articles 1, 2,
and 3 of this Chapter.
4.!"Aquifer Water Quality Standard" means a standard established under A.R.S. §§ 49-221 and 49-223.
5.!"BADCT" means the best available demonstrated control technology, process, operating method, or other alternative to achieve the greatest
degree of discharge reduction determined for a facility by the Director under A.R.S. § 49-243.
6.!"Daily flow rate" means the average daily flow calculated for the month that has the highest total flow during a calendar year.
7!"Design capacity" means the volume of a containment feature at a discharging facility that accommodates all permitted flows and meets all
Aquifer Protection Permit conditions, including allowances for appropriate peaking and safety factors to ensure sustained reliable operation.
8.!"Design flow" means the daily flow rate a facility is designed to accommodate on a sustained basis while satisfying all permit discharge
limitations and treatment and operational requirements. The design flow incorporates peaking and safety factors to ensure sustained, reliable
operation.
9.!"Direct reuse site" means an area where reclaimed water is applied or impounded.
10.!"Disposal works" means the system for disposing of treated wastewater generated by the treatment works of a sewage treatment facility or
onsite wastewater treatment facility, by surface or subsurface methods.
11.! "Drywell" means a well which is a bored, drilled or driven shaft or hole whose depth is greater than its width and is designed and
constructed specifically for the disposal of storm water. Drywells do not include class 1, class 2, class 3 or class 4 injection wells as defined by
the Federal Underground Injection Control Program (P.L. 93-523, part C), as amended. A.R.S. § 49-331(3)
12.!"Final permit determination" means a written notification to the applicant of the Director’s final decision whether to issue or deny an Aquifer
Protection Permit.
13.!"Groundwater Quality Protection Permit" means a permit issued by the Arizona Department of Health Services or the Department. before
September 27, 1989 that regulates the discharge of pollutants that may affect groundwater.
14.!"Injection well" means a well that receives a discharge through pressure injection or gravity flow.
32 of 88
15.!"Intermediate stockpile" means an accumulation of in-process material not intended for long term storage and in transit from one process
to another at the mining site. Intermediate stockpile does not include metallic ore concentrate stockpiles or feedstocks not originating at the
mining site.
16.!"Mining site" means a site assigned one or more of the following primary Standard Industrial Classification Codes: 10, 12, 14, 32, and 33,
and includes noncontiguous properties owned or operated by the same person and connected by a right-of-way controlled by that person to
which the public is not allowed access.
17.!"Notice of Disposal" means a document submitted to the Arizona Department of Health Services or the Department before September 27,
1989, giving notification of the discharge of pollutants that may affect groundwater.
18.!"Onsite wastewater treatment facility" means a conventional septic tank system or alternative system installed at a site to treat and dispose
of wastewater, predominantly of human origin, generated at that site. An onsite wastewater treatment facility does not include a pre-fabricated,
manufactured treatment works that typically uses an activated sludge unit process and has a design flow of 3000 gallons per day or more.
19.!"Operational life" means the designed or planned useful period during which a facility remains operational while continuing to be subject to
permit conditions, including closure requirements. Operational life does not include post closure activities.
20.!"Pilot project" means a short term, limited scale test designed to gain information regarding site conditions, project feasibility, or application
of a new technology.
21.!"Process solution" means a pregnant leach solution, barren solution, raffinate, and other solutions uniquely associated with the mining or
metals recovery process.
22.!"Residential soil remediation level" means the applicable predetermined standard established in 18 A.A.C. 7, Article 2, Appendix A.
23.!"Setback" means a minimum horizontal distance maintained between a feature of a discharging facility and a potential point of impact.
24.!"Sewage" means untreated wastes from toilets, baths, sinks, lavatories, laundries, and other plumbing fixtures in places of human
habitation, employment, or recreation.
25.!"Sewage collection system" means a system of pipelines, conduits, manholes, pumping stations, force mains, and all other structures,
devices, and appurtenances that collect, contain, and conduct sewage from its sources to the entry of a sewage treatment facility or onsite
wastewater treatment facility serving sources other than a single residence.
26.!"Sewage treatment facility" means a plant or system for sewage treatment and disposal, except an onsite wastewater treatment facility,
that consists of treatment works, disposal works, and appurtenant pipelines, conduits, pumping stations, and related subsystems and devices.
27.!"Surface impoundment" means a pit, pond, or lagoon with a surface dimension equal to or greater than its depth, and used for the storage,
holding, settling, treatment, or discharge of liquid pollutants or pollutants containing free liquids.
28.!"Tracer" means a substance, such as a dye or other chemical, used to change the characteristic of water or some other fluid to detect
movement.
29.!"Tracer study" means a test conducted using a tracer to measure the flow velocity, hydraulic conductivity, flow direction, hydrodynamic
dispersion, partitioning coefficient, or other property of a hydrologic system.
30.!"Typical sewage" means sewage in which the total suspended solids (TSS) content does not exceed 430 mg/l, the five-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) does not exceed 380 mg/l, and the content of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) does not exceed 75 mg/l.
31.!"Underground storage facility" means a constructed underground storage facility or a managed underground storage facility. A.R.S. § 45-
802.01(20).
32.!"Waters of the United States" means:
a.!All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all
waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
b.!All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
c.!All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate
or foreign commerce including any waters:
i.!That are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
ii.!From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii.!That are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
d.!All impoundments of waters defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
e.!Tributaries of waters identified in subsections (32)(a) through (d);
f.!The territorial sea; and
g.!Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in subsections (32)(a) through (f).
Historical Note
Adopted effective September 27, 1989 (Supp. 89-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 235, effective January 1, 2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-102.!Facilities to which Articles 1, 2, and 3 Do Not Apply

Articles 1, 2, and 3 do not apply to:
1.!A drywell used solely to receive storm runoff and located so that no use, storage, loading, or treating of hazardous substances occurs in the
drainage area;
33 of 88
2.!A direct pesticide application in the commercial production of plants and animals subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (P.L. 92-516; 86 Stat. 975; 7 United States Code 135 et seq., as amended), or A.R.S. §§ 49-301 through 49-309 and
applicable rules, or A.R.S. Title 3, Chapter 2, Article 6 and applicable rules.
Historical Note
R18-9-103.!Class Exemptions
Class exemptions. In addition to the classes or categories of facilities listed in A.R.S. § 49-250(B), the following classes or categories of facilities are exempt
from the Aquifer Protection Permit requirements of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter.
1.!Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and have been issued a permit or have interim status, under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580; 90 Stat. 2796; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended), or have been issued a permit according to
the hazardous waste management rules adopted under A.R.S. § 49-922;
2.!Underground storage tanks that contain a regulated substance as defined in A.R.S. § 49-1001;
3.!Facilities for the disposal of solid waste, as defined in A.R.S. § 49-701.01, that are located in unincorporated areas and receive solid waste
from four or fewer households;
4.!Land application of biosolids in compliance with 18 A.A.C. 13, Article 15.
Historical Note
Adopted effective September 27, 1989 (Supp. 89-3). Section repealed; new Section adopted by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 235, effective January 1,
2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-104.!Transition from Notices of Disposal and Groundwater Quality Protection Permitted Facilities
A.!A person who filed a Notice of Disposal or received a Groundwater Quality Protection Permit shall notify the Department before any cessation. The
Director shall specify any measure to be taken by the person to prevent a violation of an Aquifer Water Quality Standard at the point of compliance,
determined by the criteria established in A.R.S. § 49-244.
B.!A person who owns or operated a facility, for which a Notice of Disposal was filed or a Groundwater Quality Protection Permit was issued, or who
owns or operates a facility required to obtain an Aquifer Protection Permit shall, within 90 days from the date on the Director’s notification, submit an
application for an Aquifer Protection Permit or a closure plan as specified under A.R.S. § 49-252.
Historical Note
R18-9-105.!Continuance and Transition of Permits
A.!Continuance.
1.!Groundwater Quality Protection Permits.
a.!Subject to the other provisions of this Section, a Groundwater Quality Protection Permit issued before September 27, 1989 is valid
according to the terms of the permit.
b.!A person who owns or operates a facility to which a Groundwater Quality Protection Permit was issued is in compliance with Articles 1, 2,
and 3 of this Chapter and A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 3, if the person:
i.!Meets the conditions of the Groundwater Quality Protection Permit; and
ii.!Is not causing or contributing to the violation of any Aquifer Water Quality Standard at a point of compliance, determined by the
criteria in A.R.S. § 49-244.
2.!Notice of Disposal. A person who owns or operates a facility for which a Notice of Disposal was filed before September 27, 1989 complies with
Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter and A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 3 if the facility is not causing or contributing to the violation of an
Aquifer Water Quality Standard at a point of compliance, determined by the criteria in A.R.S. § 49-244.
3.!Aquifer Protection Permit application submittal. A person who did not file a Notice of Disposal and does not possess a Groundwater Quality
Protection Permit or an Aquifer Protection Permit for an existing facility, but submitted the information required in applicable rules before
December 27, 1989, is in compliance with Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter only if the person submitted an Aquifer Protection Permit
application to the Department before January 1, 2001.
B.!Applicability. Subsection (A) applies until the Director:
1.!Issues an Aquifer Protection Permit for the facility,
2.!Denies an Aquifer Protection Permit for the facility, or

3.!Issues a letter of clean closure approval for the facility under A.R.S. § 49-252.
C.!Transition.
1.!From individual permit to general permit.
a.!To qualify for a general permit established in Article 3, an owner or operator of a facility who applied for or was issued an individual permit
34 of 88
before January 1, 2001, or who operates a facility described in subsection (A) shall submit the information required by Article 3 and adhere
to all applicable general permit conditions.
b.!The facility’s individual permit is valid and enforceable until the date the Department receives Notification of Intent to Discharge, or until
the date the Director issues a written Verification of General Permit Conformance, if required.
c.!If the Director does not provide the required verification, the facility’s individual permit remains valid and enforceable until its stated date
of expiration, if any.
2.!Approvals to Construct.
a.!Any Approval to Construct a sewerage system issued under 18 A.A.C. 9, Article 8 before January 1, 2001 is valid until its stated date of
expiration.
b.!The Department shall accept the Approval to Construct instead of the design report requirements specified in R18-9-B202(A) if the
individual permit application is in process on January 1, 2001.
c.!The Director shall provide a Verification of General Permit Conformance under R18-9-A301(D), for an onsite wastewater treatment facility
with a flow of less than 20,000 gallons per day if the facility is constructed according to the specifications in the Approval to Construct.
D.! Monitoring. The Director may amend an individual permit to incorporate monitoring requirements to ensure that reclaimed water quality
standards developed under A.R.S. § 49-221(E) are met.
Historical Note
Adopted effective September 27, 1989 (Supp. 89-3). Amended effective November 12, 1996 (Supp. 96-4). Section repealed; new Section adopted
by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 235, effective January 1, 2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-106.!Determination of Applicability
A.!A person who engages or who intends to engage in an operation or an activity that may result in a discharge regulated under Articles 1, 2, and 3
of this Chapter may submit a request on a form provided by the Department that the Department determine the applicability of A.R.S. §§ 49-241
through 49-252 and Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter to the operation or activity.
B.!A person requesting a determination of applicability shall provide the following information:
1.!The name of the operation or activity;

2.!The location of the operation or activity;
3.!The names of the persons who are engaging or who propose to engage in the operation or activity:
4.!A description of the operation or activity;
5.!A description of the volume, chemical composition, and characteristics of materials stored, handled, used, or disposed of in the operation or
activity; and
6.!Any other information required by the Director to make the determination of applicability.
C.!Within 45 days after receipt of a request for a determination of applicability, the Director shall notify in writing the person making the request that
the operation or activity:
1.!Is not subject to the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252 and Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter because the operation or
facility does not discharge as described under A.R.S. § 49-241;
2.!Is not subject to the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252 and Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter because the operation or
activity is exempted by A.R.S. § 49-250 or R18-9-103;
3.!Is eligible for a general permit under A.R.S. §§ 49-245.01, 49-245.02 or 49-247 or Article 3 of this Chapter, specifying the particular general
permit that applies, provided the person meets the conditions of the general permit; or
4.!Is subject to the permit requirements of A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252 and Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter.
D.!If, after issuing a determination of applicability under this Section, the Department concludes that its determination or the information relied upon
for a determination is inaccurate, the Department may modify or withdraw its determination upon written notice to the person who requested the
determination of applicability.
Historical Note
R18-9-107.!Consolidation of Aquifer Protection Permits
A.!The Director may consolidate any number of individual or general permits into a single individual permit, if:
1.!The facilities are part of the same project or operation and are located in a contiguous geographic area, or
2.!The facilities are part of an area under the jurisdiction of a single political subdivision.
B.!All applicable individual permit requirements established in Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter apply to the consolidation of Aquifer Protection Permits.
Historical Note
35 of 88
2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-108.!Public Notice
A.!Individual permits.
1.!The Department shall provide the entities specified in subsection (A)(2), monthly written notification of the following:
a.!Individual permit applications,

b.!Temporary permit applications,
c.!Preliminary and final decisions by the Director whether to issue or deny an individual or temporary permit,
d.!Closure plans received under R18-9-A209(B),
e.!Significant permit amendments and "other" permit amendments,
f.!Permit revocations, and

g.!Clean closure approvals.
2.!Entities.
a.!Each county department of health, environmental services, or comparable department;

b.!An affected federal, state, local agency, or council of government; and
c.!A person who requested, in writing, notification of the activities described in subsection (A).
3.!The Department may post the information referenced in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) on the Department web site: www.adeq.state.az.us.
B.!General permits. Public notice requirements do not apply.
Historical Note
2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-109.!Public Participation
A.!Notice of Preliminary Decision.
1.!The Department shall publish a Notice of Preliminary Decision regarding the issuance or denial of a significant permit amendment or a final
permit determination in one or more newspapers of general circulation where the facility is located.
2.!The Department shall accept written comments from the public before a significant permit amendment or a final permit determination is
made.
3.!The written public comment period begins on the publication date of the Notice of Preliminary Decision and extends for 30 calendar days.
B.!Public hearing.
1.!The Department shall provide notice and conduct a public hearing to address a Notice of Preliminary Decision regarding a significant permit
amendment or final permit determination if:
a.!Significant public interest in a public hearing exists, or

b.!Significant issues or information have been brought to the attention of the Department that has not been considered previously in the
permitting process.
2.!If, after publication of the Notice of Preliminary Decision, the Department determines that a public hearing is necessary, the Department shall
schedule a public hearing and publish the Notice of Preliminary Decision at least once, in one or more newspapers of general circulation where
the facility is located.
3.!The Department shall accept written public comment until the close of the hearing record as specified by the person presiding at the public
hearing.
C.!At the same time the Department notifies a permittee of a significant permit amendment or an applicant of the final permit determination, the
Department shall send, through regular mail, a notice of the amendment or determination to any person who submitted comments or attended a
public hearing on the significant permit amendment or final permit determination.
D.!The Department shall respond in writing to all written comments submitted during the written public comment period.
E.!General permits. Public participation requirements do not apply.
Historical Note
2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-110.!Inspections, Violations, and Enforcement
A.!The Department shall conduct any inspection of a permitted facility as specified under A.R.S. § 41-1009.
36 of 88
B.!Except as provided in R18-9-A308, a person who owns or operates a facility contrary to a provision of Articles 1, 2, and 3 of this Chapter, violates a
condition of an Aquifer Protection Permit, or violates a Groundwater Quality Protection Permit continued by R18-9-105(A)(1) is subject to the
enforcement actions established under A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 4.
Historical Note
2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-111.!Repealed
Historical Note
Adopted effective September 27, 1989 (Supp. 89-3). Section repealed by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 235, effective January 1, 2001 (Supp. 00-4).
R18-9-112.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-113.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-114.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-115.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-116.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-117.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-118.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-119.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-120.!Repealed
Historical Note
Adopted effective September 27, 1989 (Supp. 89-3). Repealed effective July 14, 1998 (Supp. 98-3).
R18-9-121.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-122.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-123.!Repealed
37 of 88
Historical Note
Adopted effective September 27, 1989 (Supp. 89-3). Repealed effective November 15, 1996 (Supp. 96-4).
R18-9-124.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-125.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-126.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-127.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-128.!Repealed
Historical Note
Adopted effective September 27, 1989 (Supp. 89-3). Repealed effective November 12, 1996 (Supp. 96-4).
R18-9-129.!Repealed
Historical Note
R18-9-130.!Repealed
Historical Note
Appendix I.!Repealed
Historical Note
Appendix I repealed by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 235, effective January 1, 2001 (Supp. 00-4).
ARTICLE 2. AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMITS - INDIVIDUAL PERMITS

PART A. APPLICATION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
R18-9-A201.!Application
A.!Individual permit application.
1.!A person may submit an individual permit application that covers one or more of the following categories:
a.!Drywell,
b.!Industrial,
c.!Mining,
d.!Wastewater, or
e.!Solid waste disposal.
2.!The applicant shall provide the Department with:
a.!The following information on an application form:
i.!The name and mailing address of the applicant;

ii.!The social security number of the applicant, if the applicant is an individual;
iii.!The name and mailing address of the owner of the facility;
iv.!The name and mailing address of the operator of the facility;

v.!The legal description of the location of the facility;
38 of 88
vi.!The expected operational life of the facility; and

vii.!Any other federal or state environmental permit issued to the applicant.
b.!A copy of the certificate of disclosure required by A.R.S. § 49-109;

c.!Evidence that the facility complies with applicable municipal or county zoning ordinances, codes, and regulations;
d.!Two copies of the technical information required in R18-9-A202(A);

e.!The financial information required in R18-9-A203;
f.!The site-specific conditions specified in R18-9-A202;

g.!For a sewage treatment facility, a design report signed and sealed by an Arizona-registered professional engineer, containing the
information required in R18-9-B202;
h.!Certification in writing that the information submitted in the application is true and accurate to the best of the applicant’s knowledge;
and
i.!The applicable fee established in 18 A.A.C. 14.
3.!Special provision for underground storage facilities. A person applying for an individual permit for an underground storage facility shall submit
the information described in R18-9-A201 through R18-9-A203, except the BADCT information specified in R18-9-A202(A)(5).
a.!Upon receipt of the application, the Department shall process the application in coordination with the underground storage facility
permit process administered by the Department of Water Resources.
b.!The Department shall advise the Department of Water Resources of each permit application received.
B.!Pre-application conference. Upon request of the applicant, the Department shall schedule and hold a pre-application conference with the applicant
to discuss any requirements in Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter.
C.!Draft permit. The Department shall provide the applicant with a draft of the individual permit on or immediately before publication of the Notice of
Preliminary Decision specified in R18-9-109.
D.!Permit Duration. Except for a temporary permit, an individual permit is valid for the operational life of the facility and any period during which the
facility is subject to a post-closure plan under R18-9-A209(C).
E.!Permit issuance or denial.
1.!The Director shall issue an individual permit if the Director determines, based upon the information obtained by or made available to the
Department, that the applicant will comply with A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252 and Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter.
2.!The Director shall provide the applicant with written notification of the final decision to issue or deny the permit application within the overall
licensing time-frame requirements under 18 A.A.C. 1, Chapter 5.
3.!If the Director denies an individual permit application the Director shall provide the applicant with a written notification that explains:
a.!The reason for the denial with reference to the statute or rule on which the denial is based;
b.!The applicant’s right to appeal the denial, including the number of days the applicant has to file a protest challenging the denial and the
name and telephone number of the Department contact person who can answer questions regarding the appeals process; and
c.!The applicant’s right to request an informal settlement conference under A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.03(A) and 41-1092.06.
4.!Permit applications received before August 16, 1999, not subject to licensing time-frames, shall be issued or denied within 30 days after
close of public comment established in the public notice, or if a public hearing is held, within 45 days after the public hearing record is closed.
a.!The Director may extend the final decision deadline for not more than 90 days after the close of the public comment period, or, if a
public hearing is held, after the public hearing record is closed, if the Director determines that additional information is required to make
the decision whether to issue or deny a permit.
b.!The Director shall provide the applicant with written notification of a decision to extend the final decision deadline within 15 days after
the close of the public comment period or if a public hearing is held, within 15 days after the public hearing record is closed.
Historical Note
R18-9-A202.!Technical Requirements
A.! Except as specified in R18-9-A201(A)(3), an applicant shall submit the following technical information as attachments to the individual permit
application:
1.!A topographic map, or other appropriate map approved by the Department, of the facility location and contiguous land area showing the
known use of adjacent properties, all known water well locations found within 1/2 mile of the facility, and a description of well construction details
and well uses, if available;
2.!A facility site plan showing all known property lines, structures, water wells, injection wells, drywells and their uses, topography, and the
location of points of discharge. The facility site plan shall include all known borings unless the Department determines that borings are
numerous and the requirement may be satisfied by a narrative description of the number and location of the borings;
3.!The facility design documents indicating proposed or as-built design details and proposed or as-built configuration of basins, ponds, waste
storage areas, drainage diversion features, or other engineered elements of the facility affecting discharge. When formal as-built submittals are
39 of 88
not available, the applicant shall provide documentation, sufficient to allow evaluation of those elements of the facility affecting discharge,
following the demonstration requirements of A.R.S. § 49-243(B). An applicant seeking an Aquifer Protection Permit for a sewage treatment
facility shall submit design documents required in R18-9-B203;
4.!A summary of the known past facility discharge activities and the proposed facility discharge activities indicating all of the following:
a.!The chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of the discharge;

b.!The rate, volume, and frequency of the discharge for each facility; and
c.!The location of the discharge.
5.!A description of the BADCT to be employed in the facility, including:
a.!A statement of the technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives that will be employed to meet the requirements of
A.R.S. § 49-243(B), (G), or (P), as applicable. The statement shall describe:
i.!The alternative discharge control measures considered,
ii.!The technical and economic advantages and disadvantages of each alternative, and
iii.!The justification for selection or rejection of each alternative.
b.!An evaluation of each alternative discharge control technology relative to the amount of discharge reduction achievable, site specific
hydrologic and geologic characteristics, other environmental impacts, and water conservation or augmentation;
c.!For a new facility, an industry-wide evaluation of the economic impact of implementation of each alternative control technology;
d.!For an existing facility, a statement reflecting the consideration of factors listed in A.R.S. §§ 49-243(B)(1)(a) through (B)(1)(h);
e.!The above requirements do not apply if the Department verifies that a sewage treatment facility meets the BADCT requirements under
Article 2, Part B of this Chapter.
6.!Proposed points of compliance for the facility based on A.R.S. § 49-244. An applicant shall demonstrate that:
a.!The facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of the Aquifer Water Quality Standards at the proposed point of compliance, or
b.!If an Aquifer Water Quality Standard for a pollutant has been exceeded in an aquifer at the time of permit issuance, no additional
degradation of the aquifer relative to that pollutant and determined at the proposed point of compliance will occur as a result of the
discharge from the proposed facility.
7.!A contingency plan that meets the requirements of R18-9-A204;
8.!A hydrogeologic study that defines the discharge impact area for the expected duration of the facility. The Department may allow the
applicant to submit an abbreviated hydrogeologic study or, if warranted, no hydrogeologic study, based upon the quantity and characteristics
of the pollutants discharged, the methods of disposal, and the site conditions. Information from a previous study of the affected area may be
included to meet a requirement of the hydrogeologic study, if the previous study accurately represents current hydrogeologic conditions. The
hydrogeologic study shall demonstrate:
a.!That the facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of Aquifer Water Quality Standards at the applicable point of compliance; or
b.!If an Aquifer Water Quality Standard for a pollutant has been exceeded in an aquifer at the time of permit issuance that no additional
degradation of the aquifer relative to that pollutant and determined at the applicable point of compliance will occur as a result of the
discharge from the proposed facility;
c.!Based on the quantity and characteristics of pollutants discharged, methods of disposal, and site conditions, the Department may
require the applicant to provide:
i.!A description of the surface and subsurface geology, including a description of all borings;
ii.!The location of any perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral surface water bodies;

iii.! The characteristics of the aquifer and geologic units with limited permeability, including depth, hydraulic conductivity, and
transmissivity;
iv.!Rate, volume, and direction of surface water and groundwater flow, including hydrographs, if available, and equipotential maps;
v.!The precise location or estimate of the location of the 100-year flood plain and an assessment of the 100-year flood surface flow and
potential impacts on the facility;
vi.! Documentation of the existing quality of the water in the aquifers underlying the site, including, where available, the method of
analysis, quality assurance, and quality control procedures associated with the documentation;
vii.!Documentation of the extent and degree of any known soil contamination at the site;
viii.!An assessment of the potential of the discharge to cause the leaching of pollutants from surface soils or vadose materials;
ix.!Any anticipated changes in the water quality expected because of the discharge;
x.!A description of any expected changes in the elevation or flow directions of the groundwater that may be caused by the facility;
xi.!A map of the facility’s discharge impact area;

xii.!The criteria and methodologies used to determine the discharge impact area; or
xiii.!The proposed location of each point of compliance.
40 of 88
9.!A detailed proposal indicating the alert levels, discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, compliance schedules, and temporary
cessation, closure, and post-closure strategies or plans that the applicant will use to satisfy the requirements of A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2,
Article 3, and Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter;
10.!Any other relevant information required by the Department to determine whether to issue a permit.
B.!An applicant shall demonstrate the ability to maintain the technical capability necessary to carry out the terms of the individual permit, including a
demonstration that the facility will be operated by a certified operator if a certified operator is required under 18 A.A.C. 5. An applicant shall make the
demonstration by submitting the following information for each person principally responsible for designing, constructing, or operating the facility:
1.!Pertinent licenses or certifications held by the person;
2.!Professional training relevant to the design, construction, or operation of the facility; and
3.!Work experience relevant to the design, construction, or operation of the facility.
Historical Note
R18-9-A203.!Financial Requirements
A.!Cost estimates. A person applying for an individual permit shall demonstrate financial capability to construct, operate, close, and assure proper
post-closure care of the facility in compliance with A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 3; Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter; and the conditions of the
individual permit.
1.!The applicant shall submit the following cost estimates:
a.!Total cost of new facility construction;

b.!The operation and maintenance costs of those elements of the facility used to comply with the demonstration under A.R.S. § 49-243(B);
c.!The cost of closure, described in R18-9-A209(B), consistent with the closure plan or strategy submitted under R18-9-A202(A)(9); and
d.!The cost of post-closure monitoring and maintenance, described in R18-9-A209(C), consistent with the post closure plan or strategy
submitted under R18-9-A202(A)(9).
2.!The cost estimates for facility construction, operation, and maintenance shall be derived from competitive bids, construction plan take-offs, or
specifications, if available. The cost estimates may be prepared by an engineer, contractor, or accountant and shall be representative of regional
fair market costs.
B.! Financial demonstration. The applicant’s chief financial officer shall submit a statement indicating that the applicant is financially capable of
meeting the costs described in subsection (A).
1.!The statement shall specify in detail the financial arrangements for meeting the estimated closure and post-closure costs, according to the
plans or strategies submitted under R18-9-A202(A)(9).
2.!An applicant other than a state or federal agency, county, city, town, or other local government entity, shall further support the
demonstration of financial capability with at least one of the following:
a.!If a publicly traded corporation, the latest fiscal year-end copy of the applicant’s 10K or 20F Form filed under section 13 or 15(d) of the
federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
b.!If a non-publicly traded corporation, a report that contains all of the following:
i.!A brief description of the applicant’s status as a corporation;
ii.!A brief description of the applicant’s business;
iii.!Signed and dated copies of the applicant’s U.S. tax returns with all schedules from the two previous tax years and a copy of the
most recent year-end financial statement;
iv.!A brief description of any civil judgement exceeding $100,000 against the applicant during the last five years preceding the date of
the application;
v.! A brief description of any bankruptcy proceeding instituted by the applicant during the five years preceding the date of the
application; and
vi.!The names of the corporation’s executive officers and their dates of birth or ages.
c.!If the applicant is a partnership or limited liability entity, the name of any principal who owns more than a 20% interest in the business
entity;
d.!If the person is an individual, non-business applicant, a current financial statement and evidence of current personal income or assets.
C.!The Department shall consider an applicant unable to demonstrate the financial capability necessary to fully carry out the terms of the permit, as
described in subsection (B), and shall require the applicant to submit a financial assurance mechanism under subsection (D) if any one of the
following conditions exists:
1.!For a publicly traded corporation:
a.!The 10K Form or 20F Form indicates that the company received an adverse opinion, disclaimer of opinion, or other qualified opinion from
the independent certified public accountant auditing its financial statements;
41 of 88
b.!Standard and Poor’s or Moody’s Investors Service has assigned the applicant an unsecured debt rating less than investment grade.
Unacceptable ratings are Standard and Poor’s: BB, B, CCC, C, D or Speculative; Moody’s Investors Services: Ba, B, Caa, Ca C, or Speculative
or lack of an unsecured credit rating by Standard and Poor’s or Moody’s Investors Service; or
c.!Lack of assets in the United States equal to at least 90% of the total closure and post-closure care cost estimates.
2.!For a non-publicly traded corporation:
a.!Lack of a financial statement prepared by an independent certified public accountant, including all balance sheet notes and schedules;
b.!Lack of assets located in the United States equal to at least 90% of total assets or assets amounting to less than six times the costs of
closure and post-closure care; or
c.!Lack of net working capital and tangible net worth of at least six times the costs of closure and post-closure care.
D.!Financial demonstration option.
1.!Instead of the financial demonstration required in subsection (B), an applicant may submit evidence of one or more of the following financial
assurance mechanisms, listed in A.R.S. § 49-761(J), sufficient to cover the costs described in subsection (A). The applicant shall provide
written documentation demonstrating compliance with the listed requirements for each financial assurance mechanism.
a.!Performance surety bond.
i.!The surety is listed in Department of Treasury, Circular 570, as qualified in the state where the bond is signed; and
ii.!The surety’s underwriting limit is at least as great as the amount of the surety bond.
b.!Certificate of deposit.
i.!The Certificate of deposit is issued by a financial institution that is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or Federal
Savings and Loan Insurance corporation, and
ii.!The Certificate of deposit is assigned to the Director.
c.!Trust fund with pay-in period.
i.!The trustee is an entity who has the authority to act as a trustee, and
ii.!The trust operation is regulated and examined by a federal or state agency.
d.!Irrevocable letter of credit.
i.!The issuing financial institution has authority to issue letters of credit, and
ii.!The issuing financial institution is regulated and examined by a federal or state agency.
e.!Insurance policy.
i.!The insurer is licensed to transact the business of insurance or as an excess or surplus lines insurer in one or more states, and
ii.!The insurer is a non-captive insurer.
f.!Deposit with the state treasurer.

g.!Guarantee.
i.! A guarantor is the direct or higher-tier parent corporation of the owner or operator, a firm whose parent corporation is also the
parent corporation of the owner or operator, or a firm with a substantial business relationship with the owner or operator; and
ii.!A guarantor meets the requirements of subsection (D) and complies with the terms of the guarantee.
h.!One or more financial assurance mechanisms; or
i.!An additional financial assurance mechanism approved by the Director.
2.!A permittee may substitute one financial assurance mechanism for another with prior Director approval.
3.!A permittee shall hold the financial assurance mechanism for the duration of the permit or until the permittee is able to demonstrate the
financial capability under subsection (B) necessary to carry out the terms of the Aquifer Protection Permit.
E.!If, after issuing an individual permit, the Director determines that a permittee is not able to maintain the financial capability required in subsection
(B), the permittee shall provide evidence of a financial assurance mechanism within 90 days from the date on the Department’s notification.
F.!If the Director has reason to believe that a permittee will lose financial capability, the Director may request demonstration of financial capability no
more than quarterly throughout the duration of an individual permit. The permittee shall provide the information within 90 days from the date on the
request.
G.! If a person demonstrates that a financial capability requirement under this Article is duplicative of a financial capability demonstration already
made to the state and the Department has access to that information, the person is not required to resubmit that information.
Historical Note
42 of 88
R18-9-A204.!Contingency Plan
A.!An individual permit shall specify a contingency plan that defines the actions to be taken if a discharge results in any of the following:
1.!A violation of a permit condition,
2.!A violation of an Aquifer Water Quality Standard,

3.!An alert level is exceeded,
4.!A discharge limitation is exceeded, or

5.!An imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or the environment.
B.!The contingency plan may include one or more of the following actions if a discharge results in any of the conditions described in subsection (A):
1.!Verification sampling;
2.!Notification to downstream or downgradient users who may be directly affected by the discharge;
3.!Further monitoring that may include increased frequency, additional constituents, or additional monitoring locations;
4.!Inspection, testing, or maintenance of discharge control features of the facility;

5.!For sewage treatment facilities, pretreatment evaluation;
6.!Preparation of a hydrogeologic study to assess the extent of soil, surface water, or aquifer impact;
7.!Corrective action that may include any of the following measures:
a.!Control of the source of an unauthorized discharge,
b.!Soil cleanup,
c.!Cleanup of affected surface waters,
d.!Cleanup of affected parts of the aquifer, or

e.!Mitigation measures to limit the impact of pollutants on existing uses of the aquifer.
C.!Each corrective action proposed under subsection (B)(7) is subject to approval by the Department.
1.!Emergency response provisions and corrective actions specifically identified in the contingency plan submitted with a permit application are
subject to approval by the Department during the application review process.
2.!Corrective actions other than those already identified in the contingency plan may be proposed to the Department by the permittee if a
discharge results in any of the conditions identified in subsection (A).
3.!The Department shall approve a proposed corrective action if the corrective action returns the facility to compliance with the facility’s permit
conditions, A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2 and Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter.
4.!Approved corrective actions other than those already identified in the contingency plan may be incorporated by the Director into an Aquifer
Protection Permit.
D.!A contingency plan shall contain emergency response provisions to address an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the
environment including:
1.!Twenty-four hour emergency response measures;
2.!The name of an emergency response coordinator responsible for implementing the contingency plan;
3.!Immediate notification of the Department regarding any emergency response measure taken;
4.!A list of names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons to be contacted if an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health
or the environment arises; and
5.!A general description of the procedures, personnel, and equipment that will be used to mitigate unauthorized discharges.
E.!A contingency plan required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500; 86 Stat. 816; 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq., as amended), or the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580; 90 Stat. 2796; 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., as amended), may be amended to meet the
requirements of this Section and submitted to the Department for approval instead of a separate aquifer protection contingency plan.
F.!A permittee shall maintain at least one copy of the contingency plan required by the individual permit at the location where day-to-day decisions
regarding the operation of the facility are made. A permittee shall advise all employees responsible for the operation of the facility of the location of the
contingency plan.
G.!A permittee shall promptly revise the contingency plan upon any change to the information contained in the plan.
Historical Note
R18-9-A205.!Alert Levels and Discharge Limitations
A.!Alert levels.
1.!The Department shall establish alert levels in an individual permit. The alert levels shall be based on the site-specific conditions described by
43 of 88
the applicant in the application submitted under R18-9-A201(A)(2) or other information available to the Department.
2.!The Department may specify an alert level based on a pollutant that indicates the potential appearance of another pollutant.
3.!The Department may specify the measurement of an alert level at a location appropriate for the discharge activity, considering the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the discharge, the particular treatment process, and the site-specific conditions.
B.!Discharge Limitations. The Department shall prescribe discharge limitations based on the considerations described in A.R.S. § 49-243.
Historical Note
R18-9-A206.!Monitoring Requirements
A.!Monitoring.
1.!The Department shall determine whether monitoring is required to assure compliance with Aquifer Protection Permit conditions and with the
applicable Aquifer Water Quality Standards established under A.R.S. §§ 49-221, 49-223, 49-241 through 49-244, and 49-250 through 49-
252.
2.!If monitoring is required, the Director shall specify to the permittee:
a.!The type and method of monitoring to be conducted;

b.!The frequency of monitoring;
c.!Any requirements for the installation, use, or maintenance of monitoring equipment; and
d.!The intervals at which the permittee shall report monitoring results to the Department.
B.!Recordkeeping.
1.!A permittee shall make a monitoring record for each sample taken as required by the individual permit consisting of all of the following:
a.!The date, time, and exact place of a sampling and the name of each individual who performed the sampling;
b.!The procedures used to collect the sample;
c.!The date sample analysis was completed;

d.!The name of each individual or laboratory performing the analysis;
e.!The analytical techniques or methods used to perform the sampling and analysis;
f.!The chain of custody records; and
g.!Any field notes relating to the information described in subsections (B)(1)(a) through (B)(1)(f).
2.!A permittee shall make a monitoring record for each measurement made as required by the individual permit consisting of all of the following:
a.!The date, time, and exact place of the measurement and the name of each individual who performed the measurement;
b.!The procedures used to make the measurement; and
c.!Any field notes relating to the information described in subsections (B)(2)(a) and (B)(2)(b).
3.!A permittee shall maintain monitoring records for at least 10 years after the date of the sample or measurement.
Historical Note
R18-9-A207.!Reporting Requirements
A.!A permittee shall notify the Department within five days after becoming aware of a violation of a permit condition or that an alert level has been
exceeded. The permittee shall inform the Department whether the contingency plan described in R18-9-A204 has been implemented.
B.!In addition to the requirements in subsection (A), a permittee shall submit a written report to the Department within 30 days after the permittee
becomes aware of the violation of a permit condition. The report shall contain:
1.!A description of the violation and its cause;
2.!The period of violation, including exact date and time, if known, and the anticipated time period the violation is expected to continue;
3.!Any action taken or planned to mitigate the effects of the violation or to eliminate or prevent recurrence of the violation;
4.!Any monitoring activity or other information that indicates that a pollutant is expected to cause a violation of an Aquifer Water Quality
Standard; and
5.!Any malfunction or failure of a pollution control device or other equipment or process.
C.!A permittee shall notify the Department within five days after the occurrence of any of the following:
1.!The permittee’s filing of bankruptcy, or
44 of 88
2.!The entry of any order or judgment not issued by the Director against the permittee for the enforcement of any environmental protection
statute or rule.
D.!The Director shall specify the format for submitting results from monitoring conducted under R18-9-A206.
Historical Note
R18-9-A208.!Compliance Schedule
A.!A permittee shall follow the compliance schedule established in the individual permit.
1.!If a compliance schedule provides that actions are to be taken during a period that exceeds one year from the date of permit issuance, the
schedule shall establish interim requirements and dates for their achievement.
2.!If the time necessary for completion of an interim requirement is more than one year and is not readily divisible into stages for completion,
the permit shall contain interim dates for submission of reports on progress toward completion of the interim requirements and shall indicate a
projected completion date.
3.!Within 30 days after the applicable date specified in a compliance schedule, a permittee shall submit to the Department a report indicating
whether the required action was taken within the time specified.
4.!After reviewing the compliance schedule activity the Director may amend the Aquifer Protection Permit, based on changed circumstances
relating to the required action.
B.!The Department shall consider all of the following factors when setting the compliance schedule requirements:
1.!The character and impact of the discharge,

2.!The nature of construction or activity required by the permit,
3.!The number of persons affected or potentially affected by the discharge,
4.!The current state of treatment technology, and

5.!The age of the facility.
C.!For a new facility, the Department shall not defer to a compliance schedule any requirement necessary to satisfy the criteria under A.R.S. § 49-
243(B).
Historical Note
R18-9-A209.!Temporary Cessation, Closure, Post-closure
A.!Temporary cessation.
1.!A permittee shall notify the Department before a cessation of operations at the facility of at least 60 days duration.
2.!The permittee shall implement any measures specified in the individual permit for the temporary cessation.
3.!If the permit does not specify temporary cessation measures, the Department shall require the permittee to submit specifications for each
measure for approval by the Department.
B.!Closure.
1.!A permittee shall notify the Department of the permittee’s intent to cease operations without resuming an activity for which the facility was
designed or operated.
a.!The permittee shall submit a closure plan for Director approval within 90 days following the notification of intent to cease operations with
the applicable fee established in 18 A.A.C. 14. The closure plan shall describe:
i.!The approximate quantity and chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of each material to be removed from the facility;
ii.!The destination of the materials to be removed from the facility and documentation that the destination is approved to accept the
materials;
iii.!The approximate quantity and chemical, biological, and physical characteristics of each material that remains at the facility;
iv.!The method to be used to treat any material remaining at the facility;
v.!The method to be used to control the discharge of pollutants from the facility;
vi.!Any limitations on future land or water uses created as a result of the facility’s operations or closure activities;
vii.!The methods to be used to secure the facility;
viii.!An estimate of the cost of closure;

ix.!A schedule for implementation of the closure plan and the submission of a post-closure plan; and
x.!Any other relevant information the Department determines to be necessary.
45 of 88
b.!Upon receipt of a complete closure plan, the Director shall:
i.!Provide written notification of the closure as specified in R18-9-108, and
ii.! If the proposed closure plan does not achieve clean closure, publish a Notice of Preliminary Decision for a permit amendment or
issuance of an individual permit as specified in R18-9-109.
2.!Within 60 days of receipt of a complete closure plan, the Department shall determine whether the closure plan achieves clean closure.
a.!If the closure plan achieves clean closure, the Director shall send a letter of approval to the permittee;
b.!If the closure plan does not achieve clean closure, the permittee shall submit a post closure plan under subsection (C) and the following
documents within 90 days from the date on the Department’s notice or as specified under A.R.S. § 49-252(E):
i.!An application for an individual permit, or

ii.!A request to modify a current individual permit to address closure activities and post-closure monitoring and maintenance at the
facility.
3.!The Director shall require implementation of the closure plan as a permit condition.
C.!Post-closure. A permittee shall describe post-closure monitoring and maintenance activities in a plan and submit it to the Department for approval.
1.!The plan shall include:
a.!The duration of post-closure care;
b.!The monitoring procedures to be implemented by the permittee, including monitoring frequency, type, and location;
c.!A description of the operating and maintenance procedures to be implemented for maintaining aquifer quality protection devices, such
as liners, treatment systems, pump-back systems, and monitoring wells;
d.!A schedule and description of physical inspections to be conducted at the facility following closure;
e.!An estimate of the cost of post-closure maintenance and monitoring; and

f.!A description of limitations on future land or water uses, or both, at the facility site as a result of facility operations.
2.!The Director shall include the post-closure plan submitted under subsection (C)(1) in the individual permit.
D.!The permittee shall provide the Department with written notice that a closure plan or a post-closure plan has been fully implemented within 30
calendar days of completion.
Historical Note
R18-9-A210.!Temporary Individual Permit
A.!A person may apply for a temporary individual permit for either of the following:
1.!A pilot project necessary to develop data for an Aquifer Protection Permit application for the full-scale project, or
2.!A temporary facility with a discharge lasting no more than six months.
B.!The applicant shall submit a preliminary application containing the information required in R18-9-A201(A)(2)(a).
C.!The Department shall, based on the preliminary application and in consultation with the applicant, determine and provide the applicant notice of
what additional information in R18-9-A201(A)(2) is necessary to complete the application.
D.!Public participation.
1.!If the Director issues a temporary individual permit, the Director shall postpone the public participation requirements under R18-9-109.
2.!The Director shall not postpone notification of the opportunity for public participation for more than 30 days from the date on the temporary
individual permit.
3.!The Director may modify or revoke the temporary individual permit after consideration of public comments.
C.!A temporary individual permit expires after one year unless it is renewed. A permittee may renew a temporary individual permit no more than one
time.
Historical Note
R18-9-A211.!Permit Amendments
A.!The Director may amend an individual permit based upon a request or upon the Director’s initiative.
1.!A permittee shall submit a request for permit amendment in writing on a form provided by the Department with the applicable fee
established in 18 A.A.C. 14, explaining the facts and reasons justifying the request.
2.!The Department shall process amendment requests following the licensing time-frames established under 18 A.A.C. 1, Article 5.
46 of 88
B.!Significant permit amendment. The Director shall make a significant amendment to an individual permit if:
1.!Part or all of an existing facility becomes a new facility under A.R.S. § 49-201;
2.!A physical change in a permitted facility or a change in its method of operation results in:
a.!An increase of 10% or more in the permitted volume of pollutants discharged, except a sewage treatment facility;
b.!An increase in design flow of a sewage treatment facility as follows:
Permitted Design Flow % Increase

in Design
Flow
500,000 gallons per day or 10%

less
Greater than 500,000 6%

gallons per day but less
than or equal to five million
gallons per day
Greater than five million 4%

gallons per day but less
than or equal to 50 million
gallons per day
Greater than 50 million 2%

gallons per day
c.!Discharge of an additional pollutant not allowed by a facility’s original individual permit. The Director may consider the addition of a
pollutant with a chemical composition substantially similar to a pollutant the permit currently allows by making an "other" amendment to
the individual permit as prescribed in subsection (D);
d.!For any pollutant not addressed in a facility’s individual permit, any increase that brings the level of the pollutant to within 80% or more
of a numeric Aquifer Water Quality Standard at the point of compliance;
e.!An increase in the concentration in the discharge of a pollutant listed under A.R.S. § 49-243(I).
3.!Based upon available information, the facility can no longer demonstrate that its discharge will comply with A.R.S. § 49-243(B)(2) or (3);
4.!The permittee requests and the Department makes a monitoring change, not specified in the individual permit, that will reduce the
frequency in monitoring or reporting or that will reduce the number of pollutants monitored and the permittee demonstrates that the changes
do not affect its ability to remain in compliance with Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter;
5.!It is necessary to change the designation of a point of compliance;
6.!The permittee requests and the Department makes less stringent discharge limitations and demonstrates that the changes will not affect
the permittee’s ability to remain in compliance with Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter;
7.!It is necessary to make an addition to or a substantial change in closure requirements or to provide for post-closure maintenance and
monitoring;
8.!Material and substantial alterations or additions to a permitted facility justify a change in permit conditions.
C.!Minor permit amendment. The Director shall make a minor amendment to an individual permit to:
1.!Correct a typographical error;

2.!Change nontechnical administrative information, excluding a permit transfer;
3.!Correct minor technical errors, such as errors in calculation, locational information, citations of law, and citations of construction specifications;
4.!Increase the frequency of monitoring or reporting, or to revise a laboratory method;
5.!Make a discharge limitation more stringent; or

6.!Insert calculated alert levels or other permit limits into a permit based on monitoring subsequent to permit issuance, if a requirement to
establish the levels or limits and the method for calculation of the levels or limits was established in the original permit.
D.!"Other" permit amendment.
1.!The Director may make an "other" amendment to an individual permit if the amendment is not a significant or minor permit amendment
prescribed in this Section, based on an evaluation of the information relevant to the amendment.
2.!Examples of an "other" amendment to an individual permit include:
a.!A change in a construction requirement or operational practice, if the alteration complies with the requirements of Articles 1 and 2 of
this Chapter and provides equal or better performance;
47 of 88
b.!A change in an interim or final compliance date in a compliance schedule, if the Director determines just cause exists for changing the
date;
c.!A change in the permittee’s financial assurance mechanism under R18-9-A203(D)(2);
d.!Permit transfer under R18-9-A212;
e.!Replacement of monitoring equipment, including a well, if the replacement results in equal or greater monitoring effectiveness;
f.!Any increase in the volume of pollutants discharged that is less than that described in subsection (B)(2)(a) or (B)(2)(b);
g.!An adjustment of the permit to conform to rule or statutory provisions;
h.!A combination of two or more permits at the same site as specified under R18-9-107; or
i.!An adjustment of monitoring requirements to ensure reclaimed water quality standards developed under A.R.S. § 49-221(E) are met.
E.! The public notice and public participation requirements of R18-9-108 and R18-9-109 apply to a significant amendment. The public notice
requirements apply to an "other" amendment. A minor amendment does not require a public notice or public participation.
Historical Note
R18-9-A212.!Permit Transfer
A.!The owner or operator of a facility subject to the continuance requirements under R18-9-105(A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) shall notify the Department
by certified mail within 15 days following a change of ownership. The notice shall include:
1.!The name of the transferor owner or operator;

2.!The name and social security number of the transferee owner or operator, if the transferee owner operator is an individual;
3.!The name and location of the facility;
4.!The written agreement between the existing and new permittee indicating a specific date for transfer of all permit responsibility, coverage,
and liability;
5.!A signed declaration by the new permittee that the permittee has reviewed the permit and agrees to be bound by its terms; and
6.!The applicable fee established in 18 A.A.C. 14.
B.!A permittee may transfer an individual permit to a new permittee if the Director amends the permit to identify the new permittee and holds the
new permittee responsible for all conditions of the permit. The new permittee shall:
1.!Notify the Department by certified mail within 15 days after the change of ownership of the transfer and include a written agreement
between the existing and new permittee indicating a specific date for transfer of all permit responsibility, coverage, and liability;
2.!Submit the applicable fee established in 18 A.A.C. 14;

3.!Demonstrate the technical and financial capability necessary to fully carry out the terms of the permit according to R18-9-A202 and R18-9-
A203;
4.!Submit a signed statement by the new permittee that the permittee has reviewed the permit and agrees to be bound by its terms; and
5.!Provide the Department with a copy of the Certificate of Disclosure required by A.R.S. § 49-109.
C.! A permittee shall comply with the permit conditions specified under A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252, and Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter,
regardless of whether the permittee has sold or disposed of the facility, until the Director transfers the permit.
Historical Note
R18-9-A213.!Permit Suspension, Revocation, or Denial
A.!The Director may suspend or revoke an individual permit or a continuance under R18-9-105(A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) for any of the following:
1.!A permittee failed to comply with any applicable provision of A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 2, Article 3; Articles 1 and 2 of this Chapter; or any
permit condition.
2.!A permittee’s misrepresentation or omission of any fact, information, or data related to an Aquifer Protection Permit application or permit
conditions.
3.!The Director determines that a permitted activity is causing or will cause a violation of any Aquifer Water Quality Standard at a point of
compliance.
4.!A permitted discharge is causing or will cause imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or the environment.
B.!The Director may deny an individual permit if the Director determines upon completion of the application process that the applicant has:
1.!Failed or refused to correct a deficiency in the permit application;

2.!Failed to demonstrate that the facility and the operation will comply with the requirements of A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252 and Articles
1 and 2 of this Chapter. This determination shall be based on:
48 of 88
a.!The information submitted in the Aquifer Protection Permit application,

b.!Any information submitted to the Department following a public hearing, or
c.!Any relevant information that is developed or acquired by the Department.
3.!Provided false or misleading information.
Historical Note
PART B. BADCT FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES

R18-9-B201.!General Considerations and Prohibitions
A.! Applicability. The requirements in this Article, including BADCT requirements, apply to all sewage treatment facilities, including expansions of
existing sewage treatment facilities, that treat wastewater containing sewage, unless the discharge is covered by a general permit under Article 3 of
this Chapter.
B.!The Director may specify alert levels, discharge limitations, design specifications, and operation and maintenance requirements in the permit that
are based upon information provided by the applicant and that meet the requirements under A.R.S. § 49-243(B)(1).
C.!The Director may specify adherence to an operation and maintenance plan as an Aquifer Protection Permit condition, based on consideration of the
factors in A.R.S. § 49-243(B)(1).
D.!A person shall not install or maintain a connection between any part of a sewage treatment facility and a potable water supply so that sewage or
wastewater contaminates a potable or public water supply.
E.!A person shall not bypass untreated sewage from a sewage treatment facility.
F.! Reclaimed water dispensed to a direct reuse site from a sewage treatment facility is regulated under Reclaimed Water Quality Standards
established under A.R.S. § 49-221(E) and reclaimed water permit requirements under A.R.S. § 49-203(A)(6).
G.!The preparation, transport, or land application of any biosolid generated by a sewage treatment facility is regulated under 18 A.A.C. 13, Article 15.
H.!The Department shall not publish a Notice of Preliminary Decision to issue an individual permit or amendment under R18-9-A211(B)(2)(b) or an
amendment under R18-9-A211(B)(6) for a sewage treatment facility that is not in conformance with the Certified Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan and the Facility Plan.
I.! The owner or operator of a sewage treatment facility that is a new facility or undergoing a major modification shall provide setbacks from the
nearest adjacent property line using the following information:
Sewage No Noise, Full Noise,

Treatment Odor, and
Facility Design Odor, or Aesthetic
Flow (gallons Aesthetic Controls
per day) Controls (feet)
(feet)
3000 to less than 250 25

24,000
24,000 to less 350 50

than 100,000
100,000 to less 500 100

than 500,000
500,000 to less 750 250

than 1,000,000
1,000,000 or 1000 350

greater
1.!Full noise, odor, and aesthetic controls means that all treatment components are fully enclosed, odor scrubbers are installed on all vents, and
fencing aesthetically matched to that in the area surrounding the facility
2.!The owner or operator may decrease setbacks if setback waivers are obtained from affected property owners in which the property owner
acknowledges awareness of the established setbacks, basic design of the sewage treatment facility, and the potential for noise and odor.
Historical Note
49 of 88
R18-9-B202.!Application Requirements
A.! An applicant shall submit a design report sealed by an Arizona-registered professional engineer. The design report shall include the following
information:
1.!Wastewater characterization, including quantity, quality, seasonality, and impact of increased flows as the facility reaches design flow;
2.!The proposed method of disposal, including solids management;

3.!A description of the treatment unit processes and containment structures, including diagrams and calculations that demonstrate that the
design meets BADCT requirements and will achieve treatment levels specified in R18-9-B204. If soil aquifer treatment or other aspects of site
conditions are used to meet BADCT requirements, the applicant shall document performance of the site in the design report or the
hydrogeologic report;
4.!A description of planned normal operation;
5.!A description of operation and maintenance, an operation and maintenance plan, and a description of contingency and emergency operation
of the system;
6.!A description of construction management controls;
7.!A description of the system startup plan, including pre-operational testing, expected treated wastewater characteristics and monitoring
requirements during startup, expected time-frame for meeting performance requirements specified in R18-9-B204(C), and any other special
startup condition that may merit consideration in the individual permit;
8.!A site diagram depicting compliance with the setback requirements established in R18-9-B201(I);
9.!For a sewage treatment facility with design flow under one million gallons per day, a design report and engineering plans and specifications.
The Director may waive this requirement if the Director previously approved engineering plans and specifications submitted by the same owner
or operator for a sewage treatment facility with design flow of more than one million gallons per day;
10.!A certification by an Arizona-registered professional engineer that all other aspects of the design, including pipe coding, auxiliary power
sources, and separation requirements, comply with applicable statutes, rules, and codes.
B.! In addition to the technical and financial capability requirements specified in R18-9-A202 and R18-9-A203, the following requirements apply if
construction or expansion of a private sewage treatment facility has been approved for treatment of sewage from a subdivision under R18-5-402.
These requirements do not apply to a subdivision where each lot has an onsite wastewater treatment facility as defined in A.R.S. § 49-201 for sewage
disposal:
1.!If responsibility for operation of the private sewage treatment facility will be conveyed to a homeowner’s association or a private operator after
construction, the applicant shall demonstrate that the homeowner’s association or private operator is technically capable of carrying out the
terms of the permit and all treatment performance requirements specified in R18-9-B204.
2.!If responsibility for operation of the private sewage treatment facility will be conveyed to a homeowner’s association or a private operator after
construction, the applicant shall demonstrate that the homeowner’s association or private operator is financially capable of carrying out the
terms of the permit and all treatment performance requirements specified in R18-9-B204, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and assuring
that the system is under continuous operational control by the correct classification of a certified operator, as specified in 18 A.A.C. 5, Article 1.
Historical Note
R18-9-B203.!Application Review and Approval
A.! To ensure that BADCT requirements are met, the Department shall ask to review engineering plans and specifications for a sewage treatment
facility with a design flow of one million gallons per day or greater if:
1.!The design report required in R18-9-B202(A) fails to provide sufficient detail to determine adequacy of the proposed sewage treatment
facility design;
2.!The described design is innovative and does not reflect treatment technologies generally accepted as demonstrated within the industry;
3.!The Department’s calculations of removal efficiencies based on the design report show that the treatment facility cannot achieve BADCT
performance requirements;
4.!The design report does not demonstrate:
a.!Protection from physical damage due to a 100-year flood,
b.!Ability to continuously operate during a 25-year flood, or

c.!Provision for a standby power source.
5.!The design report shows inconsistency in sizing or compatibility between two or more unit process components of the sewage treatment
facility;
6.!The designer of the facility has:
a.!Designed a sewage treatment facility of at least a similar size on less than three previous occasions,
b.!Designed a sewage treatment facility that has been the subject of a Director enforcement action due to the facility design, or
c.!Been found by the Board of Technical Registration to have violated a provision of A.R.S. Title 32, Chapter 1.
7.!The permittee seeks to expand its sewage treatment facility and the Department believes that BADCT will require upgrades to the design
50 of 88
that have not been described and evaluated in the design report.
B.!The Department shall review engineering plans and specifications and a design report upon request by an applicant seeking a permit for a sewage
treatment facility, regardless of its flow.
C.!The Department may inspect an applicant’s facility without notice to ensure that construction generally conforms to the design report.
Historical Note
R18-9-B204.!Treatment Performance Requirements For New Facilities
A.!An owner or operator of a new sewage treatment facility shall ensure that the facility meets the following performance requirements upon release
of the treated wastewater at the outfall:
1.!Secondary treatment levels.
a.!Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) less than 30 mg/l (30-day average) and 45 mg/l (seven-day average), or carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) less than 25 mg/l (30-day average) or 40 mg/l (seven-day average);
b.!Total suspended solids (TSS) less than 30 mg/l (30-day average) and 45 mg/l (seven-day average);
c.!pH maintained between 6.0 and 9.0 standard units; and

d.!A removal efficiency of 85% for BOD5 CBOD5 and TSS.
2.!Secondary treatment by waste stabilization ponds is not considered BADCT unless an applicant demonstrates to the Department that site-
specific hydrologic and geologic characteristics and other environmental factors are sufficient to justify use of ponds or this method of
treatment.
3.!Total nitrogen in the treated wastewater is less than 10 mg/l (five-month rolling geometric mean). If an applicant demonstrates, using
appropriate monitoring that soil aquifer treatment will produce a total nitrogen concentration of less than 10 mg/l in wastewater that percolates
to groundwater, the Department may approve soil aquifer treatment for removal of total nitrogen as an alternative to meeting the performance
requirement of 10 mg/l at the outfall.
4.!Pathogen removal.
a.!A sewage treatment facility with a design flow of less than 250,000 gallons per day. A fecal coliform limit of 200 colony forming units per
100 ml (seven-sample median) and 800 colony forming units per 100 ml (single sample maximum) applies if:
i.!Depth to the seasonally high groundwater table is greater than 20 feet, and
ii.!The system is not located above karstic or fractured bedrock.
b.!Any other sewage treatment facility. A fecal coliform limit, using the membrane filter technique, of 2.2 colony forming units per 100 ml
(seven-sample median) and less than 23 colony forming units per 100 ml (single sample maximum), or equivalent numbers using the
multiple tube fermentation method, applies. Unit treatment processes, such as chlorination-dechlorination, ultraviolet, and ozone may be
used to achieve this standard.
c.!The Department may approve soil aquifer treatment for the removal of fecal coliform as an alternative to meeting the performance
requirement in subsection (B)(4)(b), if the soil aquifer treatment process will produce a fecal coliform concentration less than that required
under subsection (B)(4)(b) in wastewater that percolates to groundwater.
5.!Unless governed by A.R.S. § 49-243(I), the performance requirement for each constituent regulated under R18-11-406(B) through (E) is
the numeric Aquifer Water Quality Standard.
6.!The performance requirement for a constituent regulated under A.R.S. § 49-243(I) is removal to the greatest extent practical regardless of
cost.
a.!An operator shall minimize trihalomethane compounds generated as disinfection byproducts using chlorination, dechlorination,
ultraviolet, or ozone as the disinfection system or using a technology demonstrated to have equivalent or better performance for removing
or preventing triahalomethane compounds.
b.!For other pollutants regulated by A.R.S. § 49-243(I), an operator shall use one of the following methods to achieve industrial
pretreatment:
i.!Regulate industrial sources of influent to the sewage treatment facility by setting limits on pollutant concentrations, monitoring for
pollutants, and enforcing the limits to reduce, eliminate, or alter the nature of a pollutant before release into a sewage collection
system; or
ii.!Meet the pretreatment requirements of Section 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; or
iii.!For sewage treatment facilities without significant industrial input, conduct periodic monitoring to detect industrial discharge.
7.!A maximum seepage rate less than 550 gallons per day per acre for all containment structures within the treatment works. A sewage
treatment facility that consists solely of containment structures with no other form of discharge complies with this Part by operating below
the maximum 550 gallon per day per acre seepage rate.
B.! The Director shall incorporate treated wastewater discharge limitations and associated monitoring specified in this Section into the individual
permit to ensure compliance with the BADCT requirements.
C.!An applicant shall formally request and justify an alternative that allows less stringent performance than that established in this Section, based on
51 of 88
the criteria specified in A.R.S. § 49-243(B)(1), including in the justification a consideration of site-specific hydrologic and geologic characteristics and
other environmental factors, facility size, method of wastewater disposal or direct reuse, proportion of sewage to total industrial wastewater volume,
and the seasonality of the service area for the sewage treatment facility. If a request involves treatment or disposal works that are a demonstration,
experimental, or pilot project, the Department shall take into account the factors and may issue an individual permit that places greater reliance on
monitoring to ensure operational capability.
Historical Note
R18-9-B205.!Treatment Performance Requirements for Existing Facility

For an existing sewage treatment facility, the BADCT shall conform with the following:
1.!The designer shall identify one or more design improvements that brings the facility closer to or within the treatment performance
requirements specified in R18-9-B204, considering the factors listed in A.R.S. § 49-243(B)(1)(a) and (B)(1)(c) through (B)(1)(h),
2.!The designer may eliminate from consideration alternatives identified in subsection (1) that are more expensive than the number of gallons of
design flow times $0.05 per gallon, and
3.!The designer shall select as the BADCT for the facility a design that incorporates one or more of the considered alternatives by giving
preference to measures that will provide the greatest improvement toward meeting the treatment performance requirements specified in R18-
9-B204.
Historical Note
R18-9-B206.!Treatment Performance Requirements for Expansion of a Permitted Facility

For an expansion of a sewage treatment facility with a current individual permit, the BADCT shall conform with the following:
1.!New facility BADCT requirements of R18-9-B204:
a.!Continue to apply for the part of the facility that conformed to the BADCT requirements for a new facility at the last permit issuance;
b.!Apply to the addition of a process or major piece of production equipment, building, or structure that is physically separate from a
facility and causes discharge; and
c.!Apply to the part of the facility that has not been required to conform to BADCT requirements for new facilities, if a facility or part of a
facility has undergone or will undergo any change identified in R18-9-A211(B)(2).
2.!BADCT requirements for existing facilities established in R18-9-B205 apply to expansions not covered by subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), or (1)(c).
Historical Note
New Section adopted by final rulemaking at 7 A.A.R. 235, effective January 1, 2001 (Supp. 00-4). Amended to correct a manifest typographical error
in subsection (1) (Supp. 01-1).
52 of 88
TITLE 18. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAPTER 9. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
The specific authority for the rulemaking, including both the authorizing statute
(general) and the statutes the rules are implementing (specific):
Authorizing statute: A.R.S. § 49-203(A)(6)

ARTICLE 7. REGULATIONS FOR THE DIRECT USE OF RECLAIMED
WATER
Definitions given in R18-11-301 and applicable state statutes will apply to those words
and phrases when used in this Article. In addition, the following apply:
"Graywater" means wastewater that originates from residential clothes washers, bathtubs,
showers, and sinks, but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks, dishwashers and
toilets.
Type 1 - RECLAIMED WATER GENERAL

R18-9-714.
PERMIT: GRAYWATER
A. A Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit is established for

private residential direct reuse of graywater for a flow of less than
400 gallons per day provided all of the following conditions are
met:
1 Human contact with graywater and soil irrigated by graywater

should be avoided.
2 The graywater originates from the residence and is used and
contained within the property boundary for household
gardening, composting, lawn watering, or landscape irrigation.
3 Surface application of graywater shall not be used for irrigation
of food plants except for citrus and nut trees.
4 The graywater shall not contain hazardous chemicals derived
from activities such as cleaning of car parts, washing of greasy
53 of 88
or oily rags, or disposal of waste solutions from home photo labs
or similar hobbyist or home occupational activities.
5 Graywater systems which are used for disposal rather than
irrigation are prohibited.
6 Application of graywater shall be managed to minimize
standing water on the surface.
7 The graywater system is constructed so that in the case of
blockage, plugging or backup of the system, graywater can be
directed into the sewage collection system or on-site wastewater
treatment and disposal system, as applicable. The graywater
system may include a means of filtration to reduce the
opportunity for plugging and to extend the system lifetime.
8 Any graywater storage tank shall be covered to restrict access
and to eliminate habitat for mosquitoes or other vectors.
9 The graywater system is sited outside of any floodway.
10 The graywater system is operated so as to maintain a
minimum vertical separation distance of at least 5 feet from the
point of graywater application to the top of the seasonally high
groundwater table.
11 For residences using an on-site wastewater treatment facility
for black water treatment and disposal, the use of a graywater
system shall not change the design, capacity, or reserve area
requirements for the on-site wastewater treatment facility at the
residence, thus ensuring that the facility can handle the
combined black water and graywater flow if the graywater
system fails or is not fully used.
12 Any pressure piping used in a graywater system that might
be susceptible to cross connection with a potable water system
shall be clearly marked.
13 Graywater applied by surface irrigation shall not contain
water from a washing machine that is used to wash diapers or
similarly soiled or infectious garments unless the graywater is
disinfected before irrigation.
14 Surface irrigation by graywater shall be by flood or drip
irrigation only. No spray irrigation is allowed.
B. Towns, cities, or counties may further limit the use of graywater

described in this Section through passage of a rule or ordinance.
54 of 88
Water Quality Division
RULE CLARIFICATION
RC#: 012A Title: 18 Chapter: 9 Article: 3 Rule Citation: A.A.C. R18-9-701(4); R18-9-E303
Date Issued: 4/27/05 Supersedes Rule Clarification # 12, dated 5/11/01
Topic of Rule Needing Clarification:

Kitchen sink wastewater disposal for a single family dwelling using composting toilet technology for
managing all human excreta generated on the property.
Text of Rule Needing Clarification:

A.A.C. R18-9-701(4) “Gray water” means wastewater collected separately from a sewage flow that
originates from a clothes washer, bathtub, shower, and sink, but does not include wastewater from a
kitchen sink, dishwasher, or toilet.”
Questions Needing Clarification:

If a composting toilet and gray water system is proposed for installation to serve a single family dwelling,
how can the discharge from the dishwasher and/or kitchen sink be handled?
Clarification of Rule:
In some instances, a single family dwelling may be proposed for use with a composting toilet and a gray
water system. Since the definition of gray water does not include the wastewater from a dishwasher and/or
kitchen sink, additional treatment of this wastewater is required. However, the current general permit rule
for composting toilets, A.A.C. R18-9-E303, does not address the management of wastewater containing
flows from a dishwasher and/or a kitchen sink. One method of acceptable treatment is to route dishwasher
and/or kitchen sink wastewater through an interceptor to trap grease and solids, followed by routing to a
subsurface disposal works. This rule clarification provides criteria for two situations in which dishwasher
and/or kitchen sink wastewater is routed through an interceptor into a subsurface disposal works: 1) Gray
water is used at the property in accordance with the Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit for gray
water (A.A.C. R18-9-711), therefore only dishwasher and/or kitchen sink flows are routed through the
interceptor to subsurface disposal and 2) all non-toilet wastewater is combined and routed through the
interceptor to subsurface disposal (that is, gray water is not separately collected and reused under A.A.C.
R18-9-711). Review of the treatment and disposal works for the dishwasher and/or kitchen sink
wastewater will be done as part of the overall review of the Notice of Intent to Discharge for the 4.03
composting toilet general permit. The following applies.
A. Notice of Intent to Discharge. In addition to the Notice of Intent to Discharge requirements
specified in A.A.C. R18-9-A301(B), R18-9-A309(B), and R18-9-E303(D), the applicant shall
submit the following information:
1. The number of bedrooms in the dwelling or persons served on a daily basis, as applicable,
and the corresponding design flow of the disposal works for the wastewater;
2. The results from soil evaluation or percolation testing that adequately characterize the soils
into which the wastewater will be dispersed and the locations of soil evaluation and
percolation testing on the site plan; and
3. The design for the disposal works per subsection (B) of this rule clarification including the
location of the interceptor, the location and configuration of the trench or bed used for
wastewater dispersal, the location of connecting wastewater pipelines, and the location of
the reserve area.
Page 1 of 2
55 of 88
B. Design requirements for the wastewater disposal works.
1. Interceptor. An applicant shall ensure that the design complies with the following:
a. Wastewater passes into an interceptor before it is conducted to the subsurface for
dispersal;
b. The interceptor is designed to remove grease, oil, fibers, and solids to ensure long-
term performance of the trench or bed used for subsurface dispersal;
c. The interceptor is covered to restrict access and eliminate habitat for mosquitoes and
other vectors; and
d. Minimum interceptor size is based on design flow.
i. For a dwelling, the following apply:
Design Minimum Interceptor Size (gallons)

Flow Kitchen Wastewater Combined Non-Toilet
No. of Bedrooms (gallons Only Wastewater
Per (All gray water sources (Gray water is not
day) are collected and reused) separated and reused)
1 (7 fixture units or less)! 90 42 200
1-2 (greater than 7 fixture
180 84 400
units)
3 270 125 600
4 330 150 700
5 380 175 800
6 420 200 900
7 460 225 1000
ii. For other than a dwelling, minimum interceptor size in gallons is 2.1 times the
design flow from Table 1, Unit Design Flows.
2. Dispersal of wastewater. An applicant shall ensure that the design complies with the
following:
a. Wastewater is disposed into the subsurface to prevent any wastewater from surfacing.
b. A trench or bed is used to disperse the wastewater into the subsurface;
c. Sizing of the trench or bed is based on the design flow of wastewater as determined in
subsection (B)(1)(d) and an SAR determined under A.A.C. R18-9-A312(D);
d. The minimum vertical separation from the bottom of the trench or bed to a limiting
subsurface condition is at least 5 feet; and
e. Other aspects of trench or bed design follow A.A.C. R18-9-E302, as applicable.
3. Setback distances. Setback distances are no less than 1/4 of the setback distances specified
in A.A.C. R18-9-A312(C), but not less than 5 feet, except the setback distance from wells is
100 feet.
C. Operation and maintenance requirements. For a wastewater disposal works, a permittee shall:
1. Ensure that the interceptor is maintained regularly according to manufacturer’s instructions
to prevent grease and solid wastes from impairing performance of the trench or bed used for
dispersal of wastewater, and
2. Protect the area of the trench or bed from soil compaction or other activity that will impair
dispersal performance.
D. Information submittal, design, and operation and maintenance requirements for the composting toilet
portion of the facility are as specified in A.A.C. R18-9-E303.
E. If a flush toilet is installed on the property, a new Notice of Intent must be submitted per the
provisions of A.A.C. R18-9-A305(B).
Page 2 of 2
56 of 88
2003 House Bill text for hb0114 8/15/05 16:53
HOUSE BILL 114
46th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2003
INTRODUCED BY
Mimi Stewart
FOR THE WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
AN ACT
RELATING TO WATER QUALITY; PROVIDING FOR RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE USE OF GRAY WATER; AMENDING SECTIONS OF THE WATER QUALITY ACT.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. Section 74-6-2 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1967, Chapter 190, Section 2, as amended) is amended to read:
"74-6-2. DEFINITIONS.--As used in the Water Quality Act:
A. "gray water" means untreated household wastewater that has not come in contact with toilet waste and includes wastewater from bathtubs, showers, washbasins, clothes washing
machines and laundry tubs, but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers or laundry water from the washing of material soiled with human excreta, such as
diapers;
[A.] B. "water contaminant" means any substance that could alter, if discharged or spilled, the physical, chemical, biological or radiological qualities of water. "Water contaminant"
does not mean source, special nuclear or by-product material as defined by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954;
[B.] C. "water pollution" means introducing or permitting the introduction into water, either directly or indirectly, of one or more water contaminants in such quantity and of such
duration as may with reasonable probability injure human health, animal or plant life or property, or to unreasonably interfere with the public welfare or the use of property;
[C.] D. "wastes" means sewage, industrial wastes or any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance that may pollute any waters of the state;
[D.] E. "sewer system" means pipelines, conduits, pumping stations, force mains or any other structures, devices, appurtenances or facilities used for collecting or conducting wastes to
an ultimate point for treatment or disposal;
[E.] F. "treatment works" means any plant or other works used for the purpose of treating, stabilizing or holding wastes;
[F.] G. "sewerage system" means a system for disposing of wastes, either by surface or underground methods, and includes sewer systems, treatment works, disposal wells and other
systems;
[G.] H. "water" means all water, including water situated wholly or partly within or bordering upon the state, whether surface or subsurface, public or private, except private waters that
do not combine with other surface or subsurface water;
[H.] I. "person" means an individual or any other entity, including partnerships, corporations, associations, responsible business or association agents or officers, the state or a
political subdivision of the state or any agency, department or instrumentality of the United States and any of its officers, agents or employees;
[I.] J. "commission" means the water quality control commission;
[J.] K. "constituent agency" means, as the context may require, any or all of the following agencies of the state:
(1) the department of environment;
(2) the state engineer and the interstate stream commission;
(3) the department of game and fish;
(4) the oil conservation commission;
(5) the state parks division of the energy, minerals and natural resources department;
(6) the New Mexico department of agriculture;
(7) the soil and water conservation commission; and
(8) the bureau of geology and mineral resources at the New Mexico institute of mining and technology;
http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/03%20Regular/bills/house/HB0114.html Page 1 of 3
57 of 88
[K.] L. "new source" means:
(1) any source, the construction of which is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a standard of performance applicable to the source; or
(2) any existing source when modified to treat substantial additional volumes or when there is a substantial change in the character of water contaminants treated;
[L.] M. "source" means a building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of water contaminants directly or indirectly into water;
[M.] N. "septage" means the residual wastes and water periodically pumped from a liquid waste treatment unit or from a holding tank for maintenance or disposal purposes;
[N.] O. "sludge" means solid, semi-solid or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant or air pollution
control facility that is associated with the treatment of these wastes. "Sludge" does not mean treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant;
[O.] P. "substantial adverse environmental impact" means that an act or omission of the violator causes harm or damage:
(1) to human beings; or
(2) that amounts to more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) damage or mitigation costs to flora, including agriculture crops; fish or other aquatic life; waterfowl or other birds;
livestock or wildlife or damage to their habitats; ground water or surface water; or the lands of the state;
[P.] Q. "federal act" means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, its subsequent amendment and successor provisions; and
[Q.] R. "standards of performance" means any standard, effluent limitation or effluent standard adopted pursuant to the federal act or the Water Quality Act."!
Section 2. Section 74-6-4 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1967, Chapter 190, Section 4, as amended by Laws 2001, Chapter 240, Section 1 and by Laws 2001, Chapter 281, Section 1) is
amended to read:
"74-6-4. DUTIES AND POWERS OF COMMISSION.--The commission:
A. may accept and supervise the administration of loans and grants from the federal government and from other sources, public or private, which loans and grants shall not be expended
for other than the purposes for which provided;
B. shall adopt a comprehensive water quality management program and develop a continuing planning process;
C. shall adopt water quality standards for surface and ground waters of the state based on credible scientific data and other evidence appropriate under the Water Quality Act. The
standards shall include narrative standards and as appropriate, the designated uses of the waters and the water quality criteria necessary to protect such uses. The standards shall at a
minimum protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Water Quality Act. In making standards, the commission shall give weight it
deems appropriate to all facts and circumstances, including the use and value of the water for water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes and agricultural,
industrial and other purposes;
D. shall adopt, promulgate and publish regulations to prevent or abate water pollution in the state or in any specific geographic area, aquifer or watershed of the state or in any part
thereof, or for any class of waters, and to govern the disposal of septage and sludge and the use of sludge for various beneficial purposes. The regulations governing the disposal of
septage and sludge may include the use of tracking and permitting systems or other reasonable means necessary to assure that septage and sludge are designated for disposal in, and
arrive at, disposal facilities, other than facilities on the premises where the septage and sludge is generated, for which a permit or other authorization has been issued pursuant to the
federal act or the Water Quality Act. Regulations shall not specify the method to be used to prevent or abate water pollution but may specify a standard of performance for new sources
that reflects the greatest reduction in the concentration of water contaminants that the commission determines to be achievable through application of the best available demonstrated
control technology, processes, operating methods or other alternatives, including where practicable a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. In making regulations, the
commission shall give weight it deems appropriate to all relevant facts and circumstances, including:
(1) character and degree of injury to or interference with health, welfare, environment and property;
(2) the public interest, including the social and economic value of the sources of water contaminants;
(3) technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating water contaminants from the sources involved and previous experience with equipment and
methods available to control the water contaminants involved;
(4) successive uses, including but not limited to domestic, commercial, industrial, pastoral, agricultural, wildlife and recreational uses;
(5) feasibility of a user or a subsequent user treating the water before a subsequent use;
(6) property rights and accustomed uses; and
(7) federal water quality requirements;
E. shall assign responsibility for administering its regulations to constituent agencies so as to assure adequate coverage and prevent duplication of effort. To this end, the commission
may make such classification of waters and sources of water contaminants as will facilitate the assignment of administrative responsibilities to constituent agencies. The commission
shall also hear and decide disputes between constituent agencies as to jurisdiction concerning any matters within the purpose of the Water Quality Act. In assigning responsibilities to
constituent agencies, the commission shall give priority to the primary interests of the constituent agencies. The department of environment shall provide technical services,
including certification of permits pursuant to the federal act, and shall maintain a repository of the scientific data required by this act;
F. may enter into or authorize constituent agencies to enter into agreements with the federal government or other state governments for purposes consistent with the Water Quality Act
and receive and allocate to constituent agencies funds made available to the commission;
G. may grant an individual variance from any regulation of the commission whenever it is found that compliance with the regulation will impose an unreasonable burden upon any
lawful business, occupation or activity. The commission may only grant a variance conditioned upon a person effecting a particular abatement of water pollution within a reasonable
period of time. Any variance shall be granted for the period of time specified by the commission. The commission shall adopt regulations specifying the procedure under which
variances may be sought, which regulations shall provide for the holding of a public hearing before any variance may be granted;
H. may adopt regulations to require the filing with it or a constituent agency of proposed plans and specifications for the construction and operation of new sewer systems, treatment
works or sewerage systems or extensions, modifications of or additions to new or existing sewer systems, treatment works or sewerage systems. Filing with and approval by the federal
housing administration of plans for an extension to an existing or construction of a new sewerage system intended to serve a subdivision solely residential in nature shall be deemed
compliance with all provisions of this subsection;
I. may adopt regulations requiring notice to it or a constituent agency of intent to introduce or allow the introduction of water contaminants into waters of the state;
58 of 88
J. may adopt regulations establishing pretreatment standards that prohibit or control the introduction into publicly owned sewerage systems of water contaminants that are not
susceptible to treatment by the treatment works or that would interfere with the operation of the treatment works;
K. shall not require a permit respecting the use of water in irrigated agriculture, except in the case of the employment of a specific practice in connection with such irrigation that
documentation or actual case history has shown to be hazardous to public health or the environment; [and]
L. shall not require a permit for applying less than two hundred fifty gallons per day of private residential gray water originating from a residence for the resident's household
gardening, composting or landscape irrigation if:
(1) a constructed gray water distribution system provides for overflow into the sewage collection or on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system;
(2) a gray water storage tank is covered to restrict access and to eliminate habitat for mosquitos or other vectors;
(3) a gray water system is sited outside of a floodway;
(4) gray water is vertically separated at least five feet above the ground water table;
(5) gray water pressure piping is clearly identified as a nonpotable water conduit;
(6) gray water is used on the site where it is generated and does not run off the property lines;
(7) ponding is prohibited, application of gray water is managed to minimize standing water on the surface and standing water does not remain for more than twenty-four hours;
(8) gray water is not sprayed; and
(9) gray water use within municipalities or counties complies with all applicable municipal or county ordinances enacted pursuant to Chapter 3, Article 53 NMSA 1978; and
[L.] M. shall coordinate application procedures and
funding cycles for loans and grants from the federal
government and from other sources, public or private, with
the local government division of the department of finance
and administration pursuant to the New Mexico Community
Assistance Act."
- 11 -
59 of 88
How to Craft the Best Greywater Rules for New Mexico 8/15/05 16:54
Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Grey!water!policy!center > New Mexico Improvements
How to Craft the Best Greywater Rules for New Mexico

Testimony by Art Ludwig before the
New Mexico State Legislature Water and Natural Resources Committee
September 5, 2002
Ruidoso Convention Center, 111 Sierra Blanca Drive
Ruidoso, New Mexico
Definition of greywater
I define "greywater" as all household wastewater other than toilet water.
A "greywater system" is any system that handles greywater separately from toilet water.
A typical greywater system collects washwater from bathing and laundry and guides it to the yard for irrigation.
Benefits of reusing greywater

You can do more with less fresh water
Greywater can replace fresh water for many uses, saving money, and increasing the effective water supply.
Residential water use is almost evenly split between indoor and outdoor. All except toilet water could be recycled outdoors, achieving the same result with
significantly less fresh water supply.
Less strain on septic tank or treatment plant
Greywater use greatly extends the useful life and capacity of septic systems. For municipal treatment systems, decreased wastewater flow means higher
treatment effectiveness and lower operation and capital costs.
Highly effective purification

Greywater is purified to a spectacularly high degree in the upper, most biologically active region of the soil. This protects the quality of natural surface and
ground waters. In areas where groundwater is threatened with nitrate contamination from on-site systems, greywater reuse can help reduce this threat.
Improvement in on-site treatment performance at problem sites

For sites with slow soil percolation or other problems, a greywater system can be a partial or complete substitute for a very costly, over-engineered
system. For sites with slow soil percolation, fast percolation or other problems, a greywater system can decrease strain on critical blackwater treatment
facilities..
Less energy and chemical use

Less energy and chemicals are used due to the reduced amount of both fresh water and wastewater that needs pumping and treatment. Individuals
reusing water are less likely to dump toxic chemicals down the drain.
Why New Mexico should revise their greywater law

The current law essentially calls for another septic system.
Ideally, building codes provide useful guidance. The current greywater law is not reasonable. Homeowners are dismissing it as a source of guidance.
The illegality of simple, reasonable systems stops only one group of people from installing them: Building professionals, who have their licenses to worry
about.
A hundred thousand homeowners each making one system in isolation will not learn much. If greywater laws were friendlier, each building professional
would install many systems. Professionals would build experience, share it, and make innovations.
Conditions in New Mexico are uniquely favorable right now for crafting a superior greywater law
FIRST, general regulatory trends around the nation are going this direction.
SECOND, health risk, the only objection to greywater reuse, has proven to be a non-issue in practice.
THIRD, greywater systems are already widely used in New Mexico.
FOURTH, you are in a drought emergency, exacerbated by reductions in water supply.

If you act to increase the usefulness of the water you have, the public will get behind this action as justified, visionary, and positive.
FINALLY, Arizona, your next door neighbor, has done you the favor of providing excellent political cover.
They've stuck their necks out farther than anyone else’s with their new greywater regulations.
It's a visionary law, and provides New Mexico an excellent template to follow.
Improving greywater laws could save water, improve water treatment, and enable building professionals to add an important extension to their work.
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/improve/nmtestimony.htm Page 1 of 2
60 of 88
How to Craft the Best Greywater Rules for New Mexico 8/15/05 16:54
Specific suggestions for how to craft a superior greywater law for New Mexico
I suggest you generally follow the AZ greywater regulatory model, with a few improvements.
This will be less work and easy to justify.

They take a three tiered approach to scrutinizing greywater systems:
Systems for less than 400 gallons per day that meet a list of reasonable requirements do not require a permit.
With this one stroke, Arizona has raised their compliance rate from near zero to perhaps 50%.
And, homeowners are more likely to work towards compliance for the informal systems that still fall short.
What's more, the door is now open for professionals to install simple systems.
Second tier systems, are ones that process over 400 gallons a day, or don't meet the list of requirements, as well as commercial, multi-family, and
institutional systems. They require a standard permit.
Third tier systems are over 3000 gallons a day. Regulators consider each of them on an individual basis.
In Arizona, regulators apply oversight to greywater systems in rational proportion to their possible impacts.
Another wise feature of the AZ law: ... It does not proscribe design specifics.
Instead, regulators require that systems meet performance goals. They don't care how the system is built. They just want it to function well. This is the
preferred approach. It creates a favorable climate for innovation. Technical progress is not likely to quickly outdate the law.
The final idea I suggest you copy:
They have a short, simply worded law and a longer explanatory booklet. The booklet can be more easily updated than the law.
Both the full text of the Arizona greywater law and the full text of their greywater guidelines booklet are in your packets.
The Arizonans did excellent work, but they left some good opportunities for New Mexico to do better yet.
A New Mexico explanatory booklet should use updated drawings that show better designs and hardware choices.
Arizona allows lawns to be surface greywatered. I recommend against it. However, this is my most widely violated recommendation, and the violators are
not getting sick. You should think about whether you want to allow lawn greywatering in New Mexico or not.
New Mexico should allow the reuse of kitchen sink water if the builder can demonstrate that their system can handle it. Arizona is planning to add this
feature to their law.
I suggest New Mexico tighten restrictions on surface ponding of greywater.
A well-designed law in New Mexico would touch many of your constituents’ lives directly and immediately. Rather than label them as outlaws, it would
recognize and support an activity that benefits society and the natural environment.
More info
Health Threat
Health risk is the only real objection raised to liberalization of greywater reuse.
While this is a theoretical possibility, the actual threat seems to be very small or nonexistent.
Greywater systems just aren’t that dangerous. Systems that process toilet water, which contains 99% of the pathogens, are critical. Systems that
process greywater aren't.
As soon as people piped water indoors, they sent it back out in drain pipes that just dumped on the ground. Greywater use in systems no where near as
well-designed as the systems you could legalize has been widespread and long term. Still, there has not been a single documented case of greywater-
transmitted illnesses in the US.
How much water can we save?
For simple homeowner installed retrofit systems, 15% savings is realistic. Professionally installed systems in new construction can save 50%.
See also:
Grey water policy center
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/improve/nmtestimony.htm Page 2 of 2
61 of 88
Meeting with New Mexico Department of Environment Greywater Committee
9/6/2002 Santa Fe, New Mexico
Share backgrounds, experience
Value of work to safeguard public health
Much of the good health of our nation owed to our public health officials
Safeguarding drinking water supplies, ensuring that feces are handled safely and pathogens from feces are
removed before they enter water supply, Inspecting restaurants, and probably a bunch of other things I don’t
know about.
Thanks to public health officials, we all can look forward to living twice as long, and spending less time
running to the toilet.
Point of meeting: Given that it is likely that the legislature will move to make
to make greywater laws more friendly, should greywater be regulated as part
of the septic tank code, or get it’s own code?
That is, should greywater be regulated the same as sewage containing toilet water?
How does the pathogen loading of greywater differ from that of sewage?
Is greywater so different from toilet water that it is rational to consider different regulations to its handling?
Potential value of knowledge/perspectives of greywater experts and Arizona
public health professionals to Greywater law revision process in New Mexico.
Arizona is known for tight on-site rules. Are the new Arizona guidelines for type 1 systems anywhere near the
mark in terms of insuring that greywater does not pose a significant health hazard, relative to the rest of the
hazards in the environment?
(The second and third tiers of Arizona-Model greywater system regulation are probably less controversial and
will be considered only in passing).
1) Discuss pathogen loading in greywater and the relative significance of type 1 greywater systems as a
public heath threat.
2) Discuss Arizona tiered greywater regulation, and how (hypothetically) their model could be
improved/adapted to New Mexico.
The goal of having a hypothetical tiered New Mexico greywater regulatory approach is to be able to compare it
to the approach of regulating greywater as part of the septic tank code.
Assessment of relative risk of greywater
What distinguishes greywater from blackwater?
From Carl Lindstrom, greywater.com
Greywater(washwater) sources are found in the kitchen, the laundry, bathrooms/washrooms, sinks, and
showers. None of these sources carries water which is likely to contain disease organisms of anywhere the
same magnitude as those in toilet wastes. By far the greatest source of pathogens in wastewater is excrement.
Urine is sterile save in exceptional circumstances (e.g., grave urinary tract infections). In households with
infants in diapers, fecal matter can enter the laundry water, mainly through washing machines that has a
pathogen killing effect in themselves by breaking the encapsulation and exposing potential pathogens to
detergents.
Perhaps the most significant difference between blackwater and greywater lies in the rate of decay of the
pollutants in each. Blackwater consists largely of organic compounds that have already been exposed to one of
nature's most efficient "treatment plants": the digestive tract of the human body. It is understandable that the
by-products these processes do not rapidly further decompose when placed in water.
The relatively high numbers of indicator bacteria in greywater are probably related to the high bacterial growth
rate in the plumbing system itself. The human pathogens, as a rule, do not find growing conditions hospitable
outside the human body.
From Art: Indicator organisms apparently multiply in plumbing, as indicators suggest a fantastically high
amount of fecal matter in, for example, kitchen sink water. Measuring indicators and actual pathogens in a
greywater stream as it enters and progresses through plumbing would settle this question.
62 of 88
Points to consider
Type 1 greywater systems only expose people who are already visiting/ playing/ living/ changing diapers/
sleeping together. The point of interest is the significance of the additional exposure route via the greywater
system.
While public health is a key consideration, there are other “real word” considerations such as cost, use of
resources, and incorrigible human habits which prevent 100% perfect public health from being attained. These
tradeoffs result in targets such as a goal of one person in 10,000 getting sick in a year from a water treatment
facility, (as opposed to a goal of no one ever getting sick from a water treatment facility, which, while ideal is
not realistically attainable).
I think what we want is to apply limited resources to maximum benefit.
Buddhist saying: If you try and make things more perfect than they can be in this perfect world, you end up
making them less perfect.
It might be better to lighten restrictions on systems which provide relatively little threat and focus on systems
which provide more serious public health threat.
In fifteen years of working with all kinds of greywater connected people, including public health workers in
several states, I’ve not heard of one documented case of greywater transmitted illness in the US. The number
people living on parcels with “drain out back” greywater systems in the US is probably in the ten to twenty
million range, which suggests that greywater systems of the worst kind are still below the 1/10,000 threshold.
Spreadsheet, graph
Discussion of AZ rules
ARTICLE 7. REGULATIONS FOR THE DIRECT USE OF RECLAIMED WATER
Definitions given in R18-11-301 and applicable state statutes will apply to those words and phrases when used
in this Article. In addition, the following apply:
"Graywater" means wastewater that originates from residential clothes washers, bathtubs, showers, and sinks,
but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks, dishwashers and toilets.
R18-9-714. Type 1 - RECLAIMED WATER GENERAL PERMIT: GRAYWATER

A. A Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit is established for private residential direct reuse of graywater
for a flow of less than 400 gallons per day provided all of the following conditions are met:
1. Human contact with graywater and soil irrigated by graywater should be avoided.
2. The graywater originates from the residence and is used and contained within the property boundary for
household gardening, composting, lawn watering, or landscape irrigation.
3. Surface application of graywater shall not be used for irrigation of food plants except for citrus and nut
trees.
4. The graywater shall not contain hazardous chemicals derived from activities such as cleaning of car parts,
washing of greasy or oily rags, or disposal of waste solutions from home photo labs or similar hobbyist or
home occupational activities.
5. Graywater systems which are used for disposal rather than irrigation are prohibited.
6. Application of graywater shall be managed to minimize standing water on the surface.
7. The graywater system is constructed so that in the case of blockage, plugging or backup of the system,
graywater can be directed into the sewage collection system or on-site wastewater treatment and disposal
system, as applicable. The graywater system may include a means of filtration to reduce the opportunity for
plugging and to extend the system lifetime.
8. Any graywater storage tank shall be covered to restrict access and to eliminate habitat for mosquitoes or
other vectors.
9. The graywater system is sited outside of any floodway.
10. The graywater system is operated so as to maintain a minimum vertical separation distance of at least 5
feet from the point of graywater application to the top of the seasonally high groundwater table.
11. For residences using an on-site wastewater treatment facility for black water treatment and disposal, the
use of a graywater system shall not change the design, capacity, or reserve area requirements for the on-site
wastewater treatment facility at the residence, thus ensuring that the facility can handle the combined black
water and graywater flow if the graywater system fails or is not fully used.
12. Any pressure piping used in a graywater system that might be susceptible to cross connection with a
potable water system shall be clearly marked.
13. Graywater applied by surface irrigation shall not contain water from a washing machine that is used to
wash diapers or similarly soiled or infectious garments unless the graywater is disinfected before irrigation.
14. Surface irrigation by graywater shall be by flood or drip irrigation only. No spray irrigation is allowed.
63 of 88
B. Towns, cities, or counties may further limit the use of graywater described in this Section through passage
of a rule or ordinance.
Where to go from here?
64 of 88
Revised Graywater Standards
On March 18, 1997, the Building Standards Commission approved the
revised California Graywater Standards (attached Appendix G). The most
significant change in the standards is that gray water systems can now be used
in commercial, industrials, and multifamily projects, as well as single-family
residences.
Other changes include: (1) that only one irrigation zone is now required
(rater than the previous two); (2) filters are to be sized appropriately to maintain
the filtration rate rather than the previously prescribed 1-inch filter; and (3) a new
procedure for estimating gray water discharge has been added for commercial,
industrial, and institutional projects.
65 of 88
APPENDIX G
GRAYWATER SYSTEMS
Title 24, Part 5, California Administrative Code
G 1 Graywater Systems (General)

(a) The provisions of this Appendix shall apply to the construction, installation,
alteration and repair of graywater systems for subsurface landscape irrigation. The
graywater system shall not be connected to any potable water system without an air gap
(a space or other physical device which prevents backflow) and shall not result in any
surfacing of the graywater. Except as otherwise provided for in this Appendix, the
provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) shall be applicable to graywater
installations.
(b) The type of system shall be determined on the basis of location, soil type, and
ground water level and shall be designed to accept all graywater connected to the system
from the building. The system shall discharge into subsurface irrigation fields and may
include surge tank(s) and appurtenances, as required by the Administrative Authority.
(c) No graywater system, or part thereof, shall be located on any lot other than the
lot which is the site of the building or structure which discharges the graywater; nor
shall any graywater system or part thereof be located at any point having less than the
minimum distances indicated in Table G-1.
(d) No permit for any graywater system shall be issued until a plot plan with
appropriate data satisfactory to the Administrative Authority has been submitted and
approved. When there is insufficient lot area or inappropriate soil conditions for
adequate absorption of the graywater, as determined by the Administrative Authority, no
graywater system shall be permitted. The Administrative Authority is a city or county.
(e) No permit shall be issued for a graywater system which would adversely impact a
geologically sensitive area, as determined by the Administrative Authority.
(f) Private sewage disposal systems existing or to be constructed on the premises
shall comply with Appendix I of this code or applicable local ordinance. When
abandoning underground tanks, Section 722.0 of the UPC shall apply. Also, appropriate
clearances from graywater systems shall be maintained as provided in Table G-1. The
capacity of the private sewage disposal system, including required future areas, shall not
be decreased by the existence or proposed installation of a graywater system servicing
the premises.
(g) Installers of graywater systems shall provide an operation and maintenance
manual, acceptable to the Administrative Authority, to the owner of each system.
Graywater systems require regular or periodic maintenance.
(h) The Administrative Authority shall provide the applicant a copy of this Appendix.
G2 Definitions
Graywater is untreated waste water which has not come into contact with toilet waste.
Graywater includes waste water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom wash basins, clothes
washing machines, and laundry tubs, or an equivalent discharge as approved by the
66 of 88
Administrative Authority. It does not include waste water from kitchen sinks, photo lab
sinks, dishwashers, or laundry water from soiled diapers.
Surfacing of graywater means the ponding, running off, or other release of graywater
from the land surface.
G3 Permit
It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, install or alter, or cause to be

constructed, installed or altered any graywater system in a building or on premises
without first obtaining a permit to do such work from the Administrative Authority.
G4 Drawings and Specifications
The Administrative Authority may require any or all of the following information to be
included with or in the plot plan before a permit is issued for a graywater system:
(a) Plot plan drawn to scale completely dimensioned, showing lot lines and
structures, direction and approximate slope of surface, location of all present or
proposed retaining walls, drainage channels, water supply lines, wells, paved areas and
structures on the plot, number of bedrooms and plumbing fixtures in each structure,
location of private sewage disposal system and 100 percent expansion area or building
sewer connecting to public sewer, and location of the proposed graywater system.
(b) Details of construction necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of
this Appendix together with full description of the complete installation including
installation methods, construction and materials as required by the Administrative
Authority.
(c) A log of soil formations and ground water level as determined by test holes dug in
close proximity to any proposed irrigation area, together with a statement of water
absorption characteristics of the soil at the proposed site as determined by approved
percolation tests. In lieu of percolation tests, the Administrative Authority may allow the
use of Table G-2, an infiltration rate designated by the Administrative Authority, or an
infiltration rate determined by a test approved by the Administrative Authority.
(d) A characterization of the graywater for commercial, industrial, or institutional
systems, based on existing records or testing.
G5 Inspection and Testing
(a) Inspection
(1) All applicable provisions of this Appendix and of Section 103.5 of the UPC
shall be complied with.
(2) System components shall be properly identified as to manufacturer.
(3) Surge tanks shall be installed on dry, level, well-compacted soil if in a
drywell, or on a level, three inch concrete slab or equivalent, if above ground.
(4) Surge tanks shall be anchored against overturning
(5) If the irrigation design is predicated on soil tests, the irrigation field shall be
installed at the same location and depth as the tested area.
(6) Installation shall conform with the equipment and installation methods
identified in the approved plans.
67 of 88
(7) Graywater stub-out plumbing may be allowed for future connection prior to
the installation of irrigation lines and landscaping. Stub-out shall be permanently
marked "GRAYWATER STUB-OUT, DANGER UNSAFE WATER."
(b) Testing
(1) Surge tanks shall be filled with water to the overflow line prior to and during
inspection. All seams and joints shall be left exposed and the tank shall remain
watertight.
(2) A flow test shall be performed through the system to the point of graywater
irrigation. All lines and components shall be watertight.
G-6 Procedure for Estimating Graywater Discharge
(a) Single Family Dwellings and Multi-Family Dwellings

The Administrative Authority may utilize the graywater discharge procedure listed below,
water use records, or calculations of local daily per person interior water use:
1. The number of occupants of each dwelling unit shall be calculated as follows:
First Bedroom 2 occupants
Each additional bedroom 1 occupant
2. The estimated graywater flows of each occupant shall be calculated as follows:

Showers, bathtubs and wash basins 25 GPD/occupant
Laundry 15 GPD/occupant
3. The total number of occupants shall be multiplied be the applicable estimated

graywater discharge as provided above and the type of fixtures connected to the
graywater system.
(b) Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Projects
The Administrative Authority may utilize the graywater discharge procedure listed below,
water use records, or other documentation to estimate graywater discharge:
1. The square footage of the building divided by the occupant load factor from UPC
Table 10-A equals the numbers of occupants.
2. The number of occupants times the flow rate per person (minus toilet water and
other disallowed sources) from UPC Table I-2 equals the estimated graywater discharge
per day.
The graywater system shall be designed to distribute the total amount of estimated
graywater discharged daily.
G7 Required Area of Subsurface Irrigation
Each irrigation zone shall have a minimum effective irrigation area for the type of soil
and infiltration rate to distribute all graywater produced daily , pursuant to Section G-6,
without surfacing. The required irrigation area shall be based on the estimated
graywater discharge, pursuant to Section G-6, size of surge tank, or a method determined
by the Administrative Authority.
If a mini-leachfield irrigation system is used, the required square footage shall be
determined from Table G-2, or equivalent, for the type of soil found in the excavation.
68 of 88
The area of the irrigation field shall be equal to the aggregate length of the perforated
pipe sections within the irrigation zone times the width of the proposed mini-leachfield
trench.
No irrigation point shall be within five vertical feet of the highest known seasonal
groundwater nor where graywater may contaminate the groundwater or ocean water.
The applicant shall supply evidence of ground water depth to the satisfaction of the
Administrative Authority.
G8 Determination of Irrigation Capacity
(a) In order to determine the absorption quantities of soils other than those listed in
Table G-2, the proposed site may be subjected to percolation tests acceptable to the
Administrative Authority or determined by the Administrative Authority.
(b) When a percolation test is required, no mini-leach field system or subsurface drip
irrigation system shall be permitted if the test shows the absorption capacity of the soil is
less than 60 minutes/inch or more rapid than 5 minutes/inch, unless otherwise permitted
(c) The irrigation field size may be computed from Table G-2, or determined by the
Administrative Authority or a designee of the Administrative Authority.
G9 Surge Tank Construction (Figure 1)
(a) Plans for surge tanks shall be submitted to the Administrative Authority for
approval. The plans shall show the data required by the Administrative Authority and
may include dimensions, structural calculations, and bracing details.
(b) Surge tanks shall be constructed of solid, durable materials, not subject to
excessive corrosion or decay and shall be watertight.
(c) Surge tanks shall be vented as required by Chapter 9 of this Code and shall have
a locking, gasketed access opening, or approved equivalent, to allow for inspection and
cleaning.
(d) Surge tanks shall have the rated capacity permanently marked on the unit. In
addition, "GRAYWATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM, DANGER - UNSAFE WATER" shall be
permanently marked on the surge tank.
(e) Surge tanks installed above ground shall have an overflow, separate from the line
connecting the tank with the irrigation fields. The overflow shall have a permanent
connection to a sewer or to a septic tank, and shall be protected against sewer line
backflow by a backwater valve. The overflow shall not be equipped with a shut-off valve.
(f) The overflow and drain pipes shall not be less in diameter than the inlet pipe. The
vent size shall be based on the total graywater fixture units, as outlined in UPC Table 7-5
or local equivalent. Unions or equally effective fittings shall be provided for all piping
connected to the surge tank.
(g) Surge tanks shall be structurally designed to withstand anticipated loads. Surge
tank covers shall be capable of supporting an earth load of not less than 300 pounds per
square foot when the tank is designed for underground installation.
(h) Surge tanks may be installed below ground in a dry well on compacted soil, or
buried if the tank design is approved by the Administrative Authority. The system shall be
69 of 88
designed so that the tank overflow will gravity drain to a sanitary sewer line or septic
tank. The tank must be protected against sewer line backflow by a backwater valve.
(i) Materials
(1) Surge tanks shall meet nationally recognized standards for non potable water
and shall be approved by the Administrative Authority.
(2) Steel surge tanks shall be protected from corrosion, both externally and
internally, by an approved coating or by other acceptable means.
G 10 Valves and Piping (Figure 1)
Graywater piping discharging into a surge tank or having a direct connection to a

sanitary drain or sewer piping shall be downstream of an approved waterseal type
trap(s). If no such trap(s) exists, an approved vented running trap shall be installed
upstream of the connection to protect the building from any possible waste or sewer
gasses. Vents and venting shall meet the requirements in Chapter 9 of the UPC. All
graywater piping shall be marked or shall have a continuous tape marked with the words
"DANGER - UNSAFE WATER." All valves, including the three-way valve, shall be
readily accessible and shall be approved by the Administrative Authority. A backwater
valve, installed pursuant to this Appendix, shall be provided on all surge tank drain
connections to the sanitary drain or sewer piping.
G 11 Irrigation Field Construction
The Administrative Authority may permit subsurface drip irrigation, mini-leach field or
other equivalent irrigation methods which discharge graywater in a manner which
ensures that the graywater does not surface. Design Standards for subsurface drip
irrigation systems and mini-leach field irrigation systems follow:
(a) Standards for a subsurface drip irrigation system are:

(1) Minimum 140 mesh (115 micron) filter with a capacity of 25 gallons per
minute, or equivalent, filtration, sized appropriately to maintain the filtration
rate, shall be used. The filter back-wash and flush discharge shall be caught,
contained and disposed of to the sewer system, septic tank, or with approval of the
Administrative Authority, a separate mini-leach field sized to accept all the back
wash and flush discharge water. Filter backwash water and flush water shall not
be used for any purpose. Sanitary procedures shall be followed when handling
filter back-wash and flush discharge of graywater.
(2) Emitters shall have minimum flow path of 1200 microns and shall have a
coefficient of manufacturing variation (Cv) of no more than seven percent.
Irrigation system design shall be such that emitter flow variation shall not exceed
plus or minus ten percent. Emitters shall be recommended by the manufacture for
subsurface use and graywater use, and shall have demonstrated resistance to root
intrusion. For emitter ratings refer to: Irrigation Equipment Performance Report,
Drip Emitters and Micro-Sprinklers, Center for Irrigation Technology, California
State University, 5730 N. Chestnut Avenue. Fresno, California 93740-0018.
70 of 88
(3) Each irrigation zone shall be designed to include no less than the number of
emitters specified in Table G-3, or through a procedure designated by the
Administrative Authority. Minimum spacing between emitters is 14 inches in any
direction.
(4) The system design shall provide user controls, such as valves, switches,
timers, and other controllers as appropriate, to rotate the distribution of
graywater between irrigation zones.
(5) All drip irrigation supply lines shall be polyethylene tubing or PVC class 200
pipe or better and schedule 40 fittings. All joints shall be properly solvent-
cemented, inspected and pressure tested at 40 psi, and shown to be drip tight for
five minutes, before burial. All supply lines will be buried at least eight inches
deep. Drip feeder lines can be poly or flexible PVC tubing and shall be covered to
a minimum depth of nine inches.
(6) Where pressure at the discharge side of the pump exceeds 20 pounds per
square inch (psi), a pressure reducing valve able to maintain downstream
pressure no greater than 20 psi shall be installed downstream from the pump and
before any emission device.
(7) Each irrigation zone shall include a flush valve/anti-siphon valve to prevent
back siphonage of water and soil.
(b) Standards for a mini-leach field system are:
(1) Perforated sections shall be a minimum 3-inch diameter and shall be

constructed of perforated high density polyethylene pipe, perforated ABS pipe,
perforated PVC pipe, or other approved materials, provided that sufficient
openings are available for distribution of the graywater in the trench area.
Material, construction and perforation of the piping shall be in compliance with
the appropriate absorption field drainage piping standards and shall be approved
(2) Clean stone, gravel, or similar filter material acceptable to the Administrative
Authority, and varying in size between 3/4 inch to 2 inches shall be placed in the
trench to the depth and grade required by this Section. Perforated sections shall
be laid on the filter material in an approved manner. The perforated sections
shall then be covered with filter material to the minimum depth required by this
Section. The filter material shall then be covered with landscape filter fabric or
similar porous material to prevent closure of voids with earth backfill. No earth
backfill shall be placed over the filter material cover until after inspections and
acceptance.
(3) Irrigation fields shall be constructed as follows:
71 of 88
Minimum Maximum
Number of drain lines per irrigation zone 1 ---
Length of each perforated line --- 100 feet
Bottom width of trench 6 inches 18 inches
Total depth of trench 17 inches 18 inches
Spacing of lines, center to center 4 feet ---
Depth of earth cover of lines 9 inches ---
Depth of filter material cover of lines 2 inches ---
Depth of filter material beneath lines 3 inches ---
Grade of perforated lines level 3 inches/100 feet
G 12 Special Provisions
(a) Other collection and distribution systems may be approved by the Administrative
Authority as allowed by Section 301 of the UPC.
(b) Nothing contained in this Appendix shall be construed to prevent the
Administrative Authority from requiring compliance with stricter requirements than those
contained herein, where such stricter requirements are essential in maintaining safe and
sanitary conditions or from prohibiting graywater systems. The prohibition of graywater
systems or more restrictive standards may be adopted by the Administrative Authoriy by
ordinance after a public hearing.
G 13 Health and Safety
(a) Graywater may contain fecal matter as a result of bathing and/or washing of
diapers and undergarments. Water containing fecal matter, if swallowed, can cause
illness in a susceptible person. Therefore, graywater shall be not be contacted by
humans, except as required to maintain the graywater treatment and distribution system.
(b) Graywater shall not include laundry water from soiled diapers.
(c) Graywater shall not be applied above the land surface or allowed to surface and
shall not be discharge directly into or reach any storm sewer system or any water of the
United States.
(d) Graywater shall not be used for vegetable gardens.
72 of 88
Table G-1 Location of Graywater System.
Surge Tank Irrigation

Minimum Horizontal Distance (in feet) From (feet) Field (feet)
Buildings or Structures (1) 5ft (2) 8ft (3)
Property line adjoining private property 5ft 5ft (4)
Water supply wells (5) 50ft 100ft
Streams and lakes (5) 50ft 50ft
Seepage pits or cesspools 5ft 5ft
Disposal field & 100% expansion area 5ft 4ft (6)
Septic tank 0ft 5ft (7)
On-site domestic water service line 5ft 5ft (8)
Pressure public water main 10ft 10ft (9)
Water ditches 50ft 50ft
Notes: When mini-leach fields are installed in sloping ground, the minimum horizontal
distance between any part of the distribution system and ground surface shall be fifteen
feet.
(1) Including porches and steps, whether covered or uncovered, but does not include car
ports, covered walks, driveways and similar structures.
(2) The distance may be reduced to zero feet for above ground tanks if approved by the
(3) The distance may be reduced to two feet.
(4) For subsurface drip irrigation systems, 2 feet from property line.
(5) Where special hazards are involved, the distance may be increased by the
(6) Applies to the mini-leach fields type system only. Plus two feet for additional foot of
depth in excess of one foot below the bottom of the drain line.
(7) Applies to mini-leach field only.
(8) A two foot separation is required for subsurface drip systems.
(9) For parallel construction or for crossings, approval by the Administrative Authority
shall be required.
73 of 88
Table G-2 Mini-Leach Field Design Criteria of Six Typical Soils.
Minimum sq. ft. of

irrigation area per 100 Maximum absorption
gallon of estimated capacity, minutes per
graywater discharge inch of irrigation area for
Type of Soil per day a 24-hour period
1. Coarse sand or gravel 20 5
2. Fine sand 25 12
3. Sandy loam 40 18
4. Sandy clay 60 24
5. Clay with considerable
90 48
sand or gravel
6. Clay with small amount
120 60
of sand or gravel
Table G-3 Subsurface Drip Design Criteria of Six Typical Soils.
Maximum Minimum number

emitter of emitters per
discharge gpd of graywater
Type of Soil (gal/day) production
1. Sand 1.8 0.6
2. Sandy loam 1.4 0.7
3. Loam 1.2 0.9
4. Clay loam 0.9 1.1
5. Silty clay 0.6 1.6
6. Clay 0.5 2.0
Use the daily graywater flow calculated in Section G-6 to determine the number
of emitters per line.
74 of 88
Figure 1-Graywater System Single Tank-Gravity (conceptual)
75 of 88
76 of 88
Figure 2-Graywater System Irrigation Layout (conceptual)
Graywater Law in California & Uniform Plumbing Code: Needed Improvements 8/15/05 16:51
Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Grey!water!policy!center > UPC&CPC improvements
Needed Improvements to California's Greywater Law

Summary: California's new greywater law is an important step and certainly as well done as was politically possible. However, it's a step not quite in the
right direction, which is unfortunate as it is being emulated all over the US and the world.
Here's a list of needed improvements, excerpted from the Builder's Greywater Guide, which also includes the full text of the law with annotations directly in
the text describing the implications of each section.
Please help distribute this information as widely as possible.
California is about to revise their greywater law as a consequence of the recent passage of Assembly Bill 313. This is an important opportunity to update
this groundbreaking legislation. The current law, by mandating design specifics which eliminate every theoretical vestige of risk in every scenario, has
greatly increased the public health threat from greywater systems. Santa Barbara, for example has issued approximately 10 permits for greywater
systems since greywater was legalized in 1989b12. This is in an area with 200,000 people, as many as 40% of whom were using greywater in the last
drought!b13 So many requirements are obviously overkill that the entire law, including some very sensible provisions, is dismissed as a source of design
guidance. A more reasonable regulatory stance would lead to greater participation and a reduction in risk from the perpetuation of unregulated systems.
As California's law is being taken as a model for other states and countries this is all the more vital.
Direct your comments to the State Department of Water Resources-and be nice. These people have worked very hard to get this law in place against
considerable resistance.
In general
Take a tiered approach to regulating greywater like Arizona and New Mexico, with no permit application required for first tier, small residential systems
that meet a list of requirements.
Wherever appropriate, require achievement of goals (e.g., ecologically and biologically safe treatment of wastewater), with explicit designs as options,
rather than specifying mandatory techniques to be used.
Be more realistic about the quantitative health threat from greywater systems. There is a long history of surface greywater reuse (with systems far, far
less safe than those specified in the current law) which has not produced a single documented case of greywater-transmitted illness in the United States.
In Australia greywater is legally distributed through sprinklers with 6 foot throw. The City of Los Angeles Greywater Pilot Project showed that dog feces
were a far greater contributor to pathogens in soil than greywater irrigation. Even the worst illegal greywater systems don't stand out among myriad
sources that besiege our bodies with pathogens in the course of ordinary life. The actual health threat is small enough to include ecological and practical
considerations along with public heath considerations.
Consider exposure from required maintenance in comparing the relative health risk of systems.
Local jurisdictions should consider the effect of high permit fees on participation in the legal process. In our area a greywater permit costs $75, increasing
the attractiveness of simple, illegal systems, which already have dramatically superior cost/benefit ratios to currently legal systems in most situations.
Change the Uniform Plumbing Code to require greywater and blackwater to be plumbed separately for all new construction of single family homes on 1/4
acre or more. The lines should be joined after all the fixtures and vents and at or after a convenient future greywater diversion point.
Specific suggestions
J-1-a Allow commercial and multifamily systems (this change is already approved). This is a serious problem with the current law.
J-1-f Allow reduction in size or elimination of septic/sewer system at the discretion of the Administrative Authority, if the alternative waste disposal
system(s) are capable of handling all wastes as well or better. There are sites and regions where currently mandated treatment technologies cause more
ecological and health problems than proven alternatives.
J-2 Redefine kitchen sink and dishwasher effluent as "difficult to handle greywater" (rather than blackwater) and allow its use the discretion of the
Administrative Authority, if the hardware is demonstrably able to handle it. This high solids water is a (solvable) hardware design problem, not a soil or
public health problem.
J-7 Allow greywater systems in areas with high groundwater at the discretion of the Administrative Authority (a proper greywater system design can
provide better treatment and protect groundwater better than currently mandated systems).
J-7 Eliminate the requirement for two irrigation zones which are each capable of accepting the entire greywater flow, if there is a disposal alternative. This
ill-thought through requirement eliminates the possibility of meeting all the irrigation needs of an area with greywater, whether it makes sense or not. It
effectively mandates the installation of a redundant freshwater irrigation system, which would severely undermine the economics of some systems,
particularly commercial or multifamily systems. High end greywater systems are capable of distributing freshwater as needed for supplemental irrigation
without wasteful hardware duplication. This is a serious problem with the current law.
J-7, J-8, Table J-2, Table J-3 Explicitly allow reduction in system design loads with water conserving fixtures. The current language allows local discretion in
this area but the possibility is not obvious.
J-8-b Allow greywater systems across a wider range of percolation rates. Greywater systems can be safer at percolation extremes than septic systems.
J-9-e Delete the requirement for a gravity drain for surge tanks. A gravity drain is a nice convenience but it is a practical impossibility for many
installations. Note that current law does not require a gravity drain for underground greywater surge tanks, septic tanks, or sewage ejector pump tanks.
This is a serious problem with the current law.
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/improve/cpcupc.htm Page 1 of 2
77 of 88
Graywater Law in California & Uniform Plumbing Code: Needed Improvements 8/15/05 16:51
J-9-h Require below grade tanks to be anchored against popping to the surface if conditions indicate this may be a problem. Unlike septic tanks,
greywater surge tanks are often empty and experience tremendous buoyant lift under saturated soil conditions.
J-11-a-2 Modify the requirement that "system design shall be such that emitter flow variation shall not exceed plus or minus 10%" with the phrase "in
instances where greater variation could result in flows high enough to produce per emitter ponding in the soil in question."
J-11-a-6 Change wording from "pressure at pump shall not exceed 20 psi" to "pressure at any emission device not exceed 20 psi." The current wording
effectively precludes irrigation with adequate pressure at a location significantly higher than the pump.
J-11-a-5, J-11-b-2 Explicitly allow greywater to be distributed and emitted through lines covered by mulch at the discretion of the Administrative
Authority.
J-11-b-1 Allow smaller diameter pipes in mini-leachfields, allow half-pipes in mini-leachfields.

Table J-1 Allow installations on steeper slopes where environmental conditions are such that the water will not surface.
Explicitly describe "Infiltration beds," "Leaching Chambers," "Box Troughs," (see Create an Oasis with Greywater"), and "hard plumbing to mini-
leachfields" (see pages 11-14) as allowed system examples.
Figures: Show a greywater surge tank rather than a sewage ejector pump tank in figures.
Allow the use of swing check valves instead of expensive backwater valves.
Allow greywater surge tank to be vented back through the house vents (as is done with all septic tanks and sewers) as an alternative to a vent at the
tank.
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/improve/cpcupc.htm Page 2 of 2
78 of 88
Monitoring Graywater Use: Three Case Studies in California 8/15/05 16:53
You are here: Home > Frequently!asked!questions > response to question
1/17/99
Reprint
Monitoring Graywater Use: Three Case Studies in California
Alison Whitney, Water Conservation Specialist
City of Santa Barbara, Public Works Department
Santa Barbara
Richard Bennett, Water Conservation Administrator
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland
Carlos Arturo Carvajal, Land and Water Use Analyst
California Department of Water Resources
Sacramento
Marsha Prillwitz, Environmental Specialist
United States Bureau of Reclamation
Sacramento
Background
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) with the City of Santa Barbara and East Bay Municipal Utilities District initiated the Graywater Study in the
spring of 1996. Graywater is untreated waste water which has not come into contact with toilet waste. The purpose of the study was to collect data at single-
family sites to determine the benefits, costs, and impacts of graywater. The project was modeled after the 1992 City of Los Angeles Office of Reclamation’s
Graywater Pilot Project. It was hoped that there would be ten sites throughout the State to participate in this two-year project. While initial interest was great,
only three sites in the cities of Santa Barbara, Danville (Contra Costa County), and Castro Valley (Alameda County) were able to obtain local permits and meet the
other requirements of the study.
Because of the limited number of sites, this should not be considered a comprehensive, definitive report on graywater, either extolling or discouraging its use.
Rather, it is a valuable case study with observations of the operation of these three legal graywater systems over a two-year period.
Soil and Water Quality Results

Sampling and Testing Procedures
DWR provided specific sampling procedures and basic instructions to the participating agencies. Soil samples were taken from within six inches of the subsurface
irrigation line. An Oakfield stainless steel tube was used to take several soil cores to seven inches deep, discarding the top one inch. The soil cores, constituting of
at least 500 grams of soil, were deposited into a ziploc plastic bag.
Water samples were taken from an outlet of the surge tank and deposited directly into a sampling tube, then poured into a one-quart polyethylene container.
Samples were labeled; packed in a cooler and iced to maintain the temperature at 4 degrees Celsius for 25 hours; and sent in overnight delivery to the DWR
laboratory in West Sacramento.
The water samples were analyzed immediately upon receipt at the lab. The soil samples were dried, then weighed out to 50 grams of soil. Then 500 milliliters of
de-ionized water was added to the soil, and extracted after 48 hours. Finally, the water was filtered from the soil and analyzed.
The soil and water samples were tested for Boron, pH, Sodium, Chloride, Calcium, Magnesium, Specific Conductivity, and calculated Sodium Adsorption Ratio.
These chemical parameters indicate conditions of the soil that may affect plant growth directly or indirectly.
Laboratory Results and Observations
The chemical composition of graywater varies greatly based on numerous factors including the original quality of the water coming to the home; personal habits
of the family members; which plumbing fixtures are connected to the system; and usually most importantly, the laundry soaps used. While samples taken from
the graywater tank provide important reference data, samples from the soil are better indicators of the potential effect on the soil and plants. Therefore, the
following observations are based primarily on the soil-based samples.!
See Table A for a complete tabulation of the laboratory reports. The laboratory reports were reviewed in terms of ranges of values of chemical parameters for
http://oasisdesign.net/faq/SBebmudGWstudy.htm Page 1 of 6
79 of 88
plant growth conditions; upward trends over the two-year period; and obvious spikes of chemical concentrations. There were no significant, consistent upward
trends or spikes in chemical concentrations from the soil samples in any of the constituents tested. However, at the Castro Valley site, there was a temporary
increase in salinity in both the graywater storage tank and the soil from July 1996 until the end of 1996 (see Specific Conductance, SC.) The value of 1060
micromhos/cm indicates that salt had accumulated in the soil to a potentially lethal level for plants. Presumably, either supplemental irrigation with potable water
or rainfall between November 1996 and April 1997 leached the salts from the soils.
pH (acidity/alkalinity)
The normal range for pH is from 6.5 to 8.4. Measurement of pH of less than 7 indicates an acidic soil; 7 is neutral; and greater than 7 indicates an alkaline soil.
Sodium, Potassium, and Calcium are alkaline chemicals. Lab reports from all except one sample for all three sites showed that pH exceeded 7.1, indicating alkaline
soil conditions. This supports the recommendation that gardeners avoid planting acid-loving plants such as azaleas, gardenias, camellias, and rhododendrons in
landscapes irrigated with graywater.
Also, pH can be an indicator of the potential for drip irrigation emitters to clog. The combination of high pH and high Calcium can cause potential clogging
problems due to a build up of precipitated lime in the emitters. According to Pestcod (FAO 47, Wastewater treatment and use for agriculture, 1992):
Degree of Restriction of Use
None!Slight-Moderate!Severe
pH!<7.0!7.0-8.0!>8.0
Based on these criteria, pH was slightly to moderately problematic in terms of clogging emitters at all sites.
Hardness (Dissolved Hardness as CaCo3 )
The concentration of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) is an indication of the capacity of water to precipitate soap (form a lather). For irrigation equipment purposes,
soft water is preferred over hard water. The lower the concentration of CaCO3, the softer the water:
Concentration of CaCo3 (mg/L) Description
75. soft
150. moderately hard
300. hard
300 and up!very hard

(from the Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. E.P.A., 1986)
Three of the soil samples were in the "moderately hard" range while all the rest were in the "soft " category.
Sodium (Na)
High levels of Sodium can degrade the soil’s physical condition and contribute toward an alkaline soil condition. In addition, high Sodium can be toxic to certain
plants and disrupt the Calcium nutrition of the plant. UNFAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization Publication #29: Water Quality in Agriculture)
indicates "no problems" at levels less than 69 mg/L, "increasing problems" between 69 and 207, and "severe problems" at greater than 207. Neither the Santa
Barbara nor Danville sites registered Sodium readings from the soil samples that would cause problems. Castro Valley registered three readings in the "increasing
problems" category, and one indicating potentially "severe problems." (Based on the soil samples being multiplied by 25 to estimate the concentration as a
"saturated paste," the scientific standard by which potential plant effects are based.)
Specific Conductivity (SC)
The specific conductivity (SC) or electrical conductivity (EC) of the water is an indicator of the salinity hazard. It is a measure of all dissolved salts in the water.
The higher the concentration of salts and minerals, the greater the potential for adverse impacts on the soil and plants. The standard classification of soils from
the National Soil Survey Handbook, NRCS, 1993, related to salinity is:
Class Specific Conductivity (Ece)
0. non saline!0-2,000 micromhos/cm
1. very slightly saline!2,000-4,000

2. slightly saline!4,000-8000
3. moderately saline!8,000-16,000
4. strongly saline!> 16,000
None of the samples exceeded 2,000 micromhos/cm, indicated that non saline conditions exist in all cases tested. In nearly all cases, the EC was near or below 1
dS/m, and does not pose a salinity hazard (SP/1000=Ds/m, multiplied by 24 for an estimated EC.) In one case in Castro Valley, the EC increased in the tank to
1.9 Ds/m, but later decreased to 0.4. Should the EC in the water increase to this level on a frequent basis or remain at this level for a prolonged period of time,
certain sensitive plants could suffer salt injury.
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)
The Sodium Adsorption Ratio is an important parameter because, in combination with SC, it can indicate whether a water source will reduce the infiltration rate of
water into the soil. SAR is calculated from the concentrations (in milliequivalents per liter, meq/L) of Sodium, Calcium, and Magnesium. High Sodium Adsorption
Ratios reduce the infiltration rate of water into the soil. Soils with values for Sodium Adsorption Ratios of 13 or more may result in soils with reduced permeability
and aeration, and a general degradation of soil structure (according to the National Soil Survey Handbook, NRCS, 1993). All SAR readings in this study were well
below 13.
A look at the combined effect of SAR and EC also indicates that graywater at these three sites would not create an infiltration or permeability problem. This is
based upon the following criteria from Dr. Jim Oster, Soil Specialist for the University of California Riverside Cooperative Extension:
When SAR is:!Potential infiltration problem is:
80 of 88
Unlikely if EC is: Likely if EC is:

0-3!>0.7!<0.3
3-6!>1.0!<0.4
6-12!>2.0!<0.5
12-20!>3.0!<1.0
20-40!>5.0!<2.0
Calcium (Ca)
In proper amounts, Calcium is an important micronutrient for plants. In excessive amounts, Calcium could clog the emitters of a sub-surface drip irrigation
system, such as is often used with graywater systems, if not properly filtered. High levels of Calcium could contribute toward an alkaline soil. The measurement of
Calcium levels is used to determine Sodium Adsorption Ratios, and has no established specific level of concentration that would be damaging to the soil or plants.
Magnesium (Mg)
In proper amounts, Magnesium is also an important micronutrient for plants. Likewise, in excessive amounts, Magnesium could clog the emitters of a subsurface
drip irrigation system, such as is often used with graywater systems, if not properly filtered. The measurement of Magnesium levels is used to determine Sodium
Adsorption Ratios, and has no established specific level of concentration that would be damaging to the soil or plants. Magnesium levels are relatively low and are
not problematic.
Chloride (Cl)
This element can cause toxicity to plants at very low concentrations. UNFAO indicates "no problems" at levels less than 142 mg/L, "increasing problems"
between 142 and 355, and "severe problems" at greater than 355. Chloride measurement from the soil samples at all three sites were within the "no problem"
category.
Boron (B)
This element can also cause toxicity to plants at very low concentrations. UNFAO indicates "no problems" at levels less than 0.75 mg/L, "increasing problems"
between 0.75 and 2.0, and "severe problems" at greater than 2.0. All sites recorded less than 0.1 mg/L of Boron from the soil samples tested. This is well within
the "no problem" range.
Conclusions
Based on the samples taken, there appear to be no problems related to hardness, SAR, Chlorine, or Boron. The pH was routinely alkaline. Specific conductivity
results indicate non saline conditions. Sodium was slightly high in the Castro Valley site, highlighting what could be the greatest concern for the use of
graywater: transient salinity conditions, especially in systems which use subsurface drip irrigation. Winter rains or occasional leaching of the soil would usually
take care of this problem.
City of Santa Barbara’s Perspective

Background
Both the City and County of Santa Barbara developed a permit system for the use of graywater during the last California drought to provide citizens a legally
recognized way to use graywater to keep their landscapes alive. At that time, the City of Santa Barbara only allowed the use of graywater during a "drought
emergency" condition. Many homeowners that used graywater during the drought expressed interest in using graywater after the drought was over. However,
even after the State approved graywater standards in 1994, staff found problems in the process to permit and install a legal graywater system as only three
permits for graywater systems had been issued by the City of Santa Barbara Building and Zoning Division since 1990. One of the City’s reasons for participating
in the DWR study was to develop methods for increasing graywater use with legal permitted systems.
Site Characteristics
The study site is a single-family residential lot on the west side of the City of Santa Barbara. The property is 6,900 square feet with a 1,100 square foot home.
The home has one bathroom. The home was torn down and rebuilt by the homeowners in 1992. The landscape consists of a vegetable garden, fruit trees, and
low-water using plants. There are two large landscaped areas in the front of the house separated by a central path. Additionally there are small landscaped areas
on the sides and back of the house. The homeowners are organic gardeners and therefore use only organic products on their landscaping. The landscape is
heavily mulched and the soil is in excellent condition.
Description of Graywater System
Connections to the graywater system are made from the bathtub/shower, bathroom sink and clotheswasher. This is a gravity-feed system requiring no filtering
and no tank. Graywater drains through 2" ABS pipe at a slope of a minimum of _" per one foot allowing debris to be flushed through. Infiltration is switched
between two zones every 2-3 weeks to allow the soil to rest and dry out. Each zone splits the water numerous times as it flows to supply water to numerous fruit
trees. Splitting is achieved through precise leveling of "T" fittings. Infiltration occurs through reservoirs consisting of buried perforated five-gallon buckets
surrounded by wood chips.
81 of 88
The two zones are in the large landscaped area in the front of
the house that irrigates a mixture of citrus, stone fruit and other fruit trees. Zone 1 is 52 square feet and irrigates six fruit trees and Zone 2 is 44 square feet
and irrigates four fruit trees. See diagram below of the graywater irrigation system.
The homeowners use Oasis laundry soap (1/16 — 1/8 cup per load of laundry) in the washing machine which appears to have no negative affects on the majority
of the fruit trees. Only the guava tree seemed stressed by the use of graywater. In April 1998, homeowners began using Ultra 7 enzyme cleaning solution, a
soapless water treatment disk, in the laundry. They use Oasis soap periodically with the disk. Since the use of the disk, homeowners state that the guava tree
appears to be doing better.
System Costs
When the homeowners rebuilt their home, they plumbed the home with the intention of installing a graywater system. Capital costs of the graywater system
were low because of this foresight. The home has a raised foundation that made the plumbing changes much simpler than if the home had a slab foundation.
The total materials cost of the system was $781, with $212 for the graywater system and $569 for the irrigation system. The homeowners installed the system
themselves, thus reducing the labor costs substantially. The only labor costs were $350 for plumbing work. Because of the relatively basic nature of this type of
system, the capital costs are significantly lower than for other types of graywater systems.
Operating costs are minimal due to the very simple, gravity system that was installed. The homeowners estimate that one hour per month is spent on
maintaining the system.
Graywater Use and Potable Water Savings
Homeowners irrigate Zone 1 for 2-3 weeks and then switch to Zone 2 for the same period of time. A separate meter measures the graywater use to evaluate the
potable water saved. Because the site has a gravity graywater system, it was necessary to use a meter that could operate at atmospheric pressure. A tipping
bucket meter is used to measure the graywater that works by filling and tipping every 1.5 gallons and then records the tips on a digital counter. The
homeowners kept a monthly log which included recording the readings of the graywater meter. The first winter the homeowners turned the graywater system
off for most of January and February. From November 1996 to March 1997 the total graywater use was only 3.5 hundred cubic feet (hcf). The 1997 spring/
summer graywater use (April 1997 to October 1997) was 12 hcf. From November 1996 to June 1997 there were three people living in the home, after that time
there were only two people living in the home.
Graywater use for the second winter of the study was minimal. For November and December 1997 the graywater use was only 1 hcf. The graywater system was
turned off for January through the end of March 1998 due to heavy rainfall. The 1998 spring/summer graywater use (April 1998 to September 1998) was 8 hcf.
Because the homeowners were continuing to landscape their property with additional plantings irrigated with potable water during the study, one cannot
compare the historical potable water use of the property to calculate potable water saved. However, it is the assumption of the author that a significant
percentage of the graywater used offset potable water use that otherwise would have been necessary to irrigate the fruit trees.
Benefit/Cost Analysis
Based upon an estimated life of the graywater system of 20 years, the total water savings is approximately 190,740 gallons. This is equal to 0.6 acre feet or 255
hcf. At an average cost of $3.50 per hcf in the City of Santa Barbara service area, the customer water savings is $893. Since the cost of the system was $1131,
the net cost to the homeowner over 20 years would be around $238.
Since there are only two people living in the home, the amount of graywater produced was just enough for the fruit trees on the system. However, this type of
system could be expanded to irrigate larger landscaped areas with more graywater at a home with an increased number of residents, which would increase the
cost effectiveness of the system.
82 of 88
Homeowners Acceptance and Observations
Overall, the homeowners are very happy with their graywater system. The homeowners are organic farmers with a strong conservation ethic and had a positive
attitude towards graywater. Installation of the gravity run system was somewhat difficult because the slope of the system had to remain at _" drop per 1 foot.
However, once installed the simple nature of the system allowed it to be basically maintenance free.
The homeowners were pleased with the health of their fruit trees. The only problem they had was with the large amount of slugs that congregated in the
reservoirs. Due to the set up of the system, fruit trees are irrigated for 2-3 weeks in Zone 1 and then graywater is switched to Zone 2. The homeowners noticed
that the citrus trees appeared to do well with the continued watering for 2-3 weeks without a drying out period, however the stone fruit trees seemed to be
slightly stressed by the long irrigation periods.
Experience with Regulatory Agencies
Permitting of the graywater system by the local regulatory agencies was a lengthy process mainly due to a lack of knowledge on the graywater standards. When
the homeowner and the author first approached the City of Santa Barbara Building and Zoning Division (Building Division) with a request for a graywater permit,
the inspectors had no knowledge of the California Graywater Standards. There was also confusion on who had jurisdiction to permit a graywater system. The
Building Division referred us to the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Department, who after having the plans for six weeks, informed us that they had
no jurisdiction for review. Once this confusion was cleared up, the permit process was resumed at the Building Division and went very smoothly, as we then
received the permit in three days. The cost of the permit was $80. The study site permitting process was an educational process for the regulatory agencies in
Santa Barbara and they now know how to handle graywater permits.
General Observations
The type of graywater system at the City of Santa Barbara site works well for that particular size of property and the type of landscaping that is irrigated with
graywater. It is a small system with low capital costs. Installing the system was simplified because this site was pre-plumbed for graywater when it was rebuilt.
Homeowners completed the majority of the installation of the system themselves which reduced the labor costs substantially.
It is the author’s opinion that until the permitting process with the regulatory agencies is streamlined and uniform for the State, it will deter citizens from
permitting their graywater systems. Because of the confusion and lack of knowledge of the regulatory agencies, the permitting process delayed the installation of
the graywater system at the study site by almost two months. A simple, straight-forward process will encourage citizens to apply for a permit.
East Bay Municipal Utility District’s Perspective

Background
A mailing was sent to 500 randomly selected East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) single family customers seeking participation in the graywater study.
The mailing included a qualifying survey whereby participants had to have at least four members in the family and be living in a dwelling with a raised foundation.
Two sites were selected from 15 site inspections.
Site Characteristics
Both of the selected sites involved two story detached single-family dwelling with approximately 10,000 square feet of irrigated landscaping. Both sites also have
four family members, three bathrooms, a clothes washer, and an automated irrigation system.
Description of Graywater System
The installed graywater systems both included the following components:
1/2 horsepower submersible pump

55 gallon surge tank
50 pound filter and sand
Subsurface drip system
Water meter
Plumbing connections
Connections to the graywater system in both residences are made from the clothes washer, and two out of three of the bathrooms. All three bathrooms are full
bathrooms, in that they contain a wash basin and either a bath or shower. The reason one bathroom at each site was not connected to the graywater system
was due to cost concerns. Adding the remaining upstairs bathroom to the graywater system would have involved extensive work to get into the walls to make
the plumbing changes.
At one site, the graywater irrigation system is used to irrigate a lawn area and at the other site a sloped shrub area is irrigated.
Capital, Installation and Operating Costs of System at Residence
The capital cost for each graywater system was $1250, which included the cost of plumbing connections. The labor cost for the two sites averaged $4150 each.
Approximately $1,000 of the installation cost was for the installation of the irrigation system, which was required to be buried to a depth of about 9 inches in
a 17 inch trench. Irrigation lines needed to be 14 inches apart and cover approximately 1200 square feet. The installation of the graywater systems was labor
intensive due to the difficulty incurred in making the drain line plumbing connections from the various household fixtures. The total system capital and
installation cost averaged $5400 for each site.
Landscape Quality
The quality of the landscape was reviewed monthly during the study and no noticeable negative impacts were noted. At one home, where the graywater irrigation
system irrigated a lawn area, supplemental water was needed on occasion.
Graywater Use and Potable Water Savings
The estimated per capita flow from the graywater system was expected to be around 30-35 gallons per person per day or about 50% of indoor use. A water
meter was installed on the graywater line running to the landscape to measure water flows from the graywater system. The average annual discharge to the
landscape at one home was 74 gallons per day and was 89 gallons per day at the other home for a per capita annual average of 20.4 gallons per day. One
obvious reason that the measured use was lower than expected could be due to the fact that one bathroom was not connected to the graywater drain line
system in both of the homes.
83 of 88
Benefit/Cost Analysis
Based upon an estimated life of the graywater system of 15 years, the total water savings is about 446,200 gallons. This is equal to 1.37 acre feet or 596 hcf. At
an average cost of $1.50 per hcf in the EBMUD service area the customer water savings is $895. Since the cost of the system was $5400, the net cost to the
homeowner over 15 years would be around $4500. The energy cost to operate the pump was not calculated but would add to the total cost. The cost for water
to back-flush the filter system (six times a year and for 10 minutes each time) over a 15 year period was calculated to be around $20.
Homeowner Responsibility/Acceptance
Homeowners were required to maintain a monthly log and note any maintenance problems or absences from the site of several days or more. Study participants
were satisfied with the graywater systems and incurred no maintenance problems during the study period. Both homeowners plan to keep using the graywater
system. However, they also indicated that they would not be willing to pay for these systems without a significant financial incentive.
Experience with Regulatory Agencies
The permitting and inspection process was somewhat involved at the two permitting agencies: the Town of Danville and the County of Alameda. The Town of
Danville permit cost $140 and the County of Alameda permit cost $125. Neither agency was excited about permitting a graywater system. However, after several
letters and several telephone calls, both agencies issued permits. Both agencies were concerned about the proper venting of the drain line system, the plumbing
of an overflow return line from the surge tank to the sanitary sewer system, and the proper drain line connections. Neither agency, on the other hand, inspected
the irrigation system. The County of Alameda also required that the surge tank be strapped down in case of an earthquake. Both agencies required proper
labeling of the waste stream which involved a note that said "Danger- Graywater- Do Not Drink". Both agencies required a site plan showing the layout of the
drain lines and the irrigation system.
General Observations/Comments
The following comments are offered based upon observations of the author made during this graywater study:
The permitting of graywater systems can be troublesome for the permitting agency the first time around. The permitting agencies appeared most
concerned about the proper venting of the graywater system.
The drain line connection and venting costs can increase significantly when retrofitting two story homes.
Every site has unique issues that need to be addressed for proper system installation.
The required depth of the irrigation system makes its use impractical for many lawns and adds considerably to the expense of a contracted installation.
It is easier to plan for the irrigation layout if the homeowner does not have an automatic irrigation system since the area to be irrigated by the graywater
may not match the area irrigated by a given valve (station).
The use of graywater did not appear to have any negative impact on the plant material.
Graywater systems appear to require little maintenance.
Graywater systems are more cost-effective investments for retrofitting in existing homes where the family size is large, the dwelling is single-story with a
raised foundation, and where pumping is not required (sloped lot). These qualifications limit its widespread practical use.
Graywater drain lines can be most cost-effectively installed during the construction of a dwelling. This is especially necessary for homes with slab
foundations.
Soil and Water Quality Results
The graywater study concludes in November 1998. Soil and water quality analysis are forthcoming and will be presented at the Conserv ’99 Conference.
Recommendations for Promoting Graywater Use
Drawing from the results of the study, the following recommendations are proposed to promote the use of graywater in California: 1. Provide the public with
information on the different types of systems and their associated costs and potential benefits; 2. Improve the graywater permitting process — establish
statewide guidelines that will streamline the process for a homeowner to obtain a permitted legal system; 3. Provide incentives for residences to use graywater,
including dual plumbing in new construction; and 4. Encourage graywater system manufacturers to work with large hardware stores to have training on
graywater systems for customers.
Acknowledgement
Special thanks to Stephen Grattan, Plant and Water Relations Specialist at the Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources of the University of California, Davis
who contributed generously to the design and analysis of this project.
84 of 88
Greywater Regulations in International Plumbing Code: Needed Improvements 8/15/05 16:51
Q&A
You are here: Home > Grey!water!central > Grey!water!policy!center > IPC improvements
Needed Improvements to the

2000 International Plumbing Code, Appendix C:
Gray Water Recycling Systems
See also Needed Improvements to California's Gray Water Law for more general comments on gray water laws.
Based on 2000 IPC, appendix c, page 101:

c101.1 Differentiate between allowable uses for treated and untreated gray water. As it stands, reuse for toilet flushing is allowed with disinfection only,
which may not be satisfactory if BOD remains high ° toilet tanks may become foul and anaerobic with stored, putrefying water. Treated gray water could
be reused for other non-potable uses besides those listed, laundry for example.
Irrigation should be specifically allowed, not just as an exception.
c101.2 Expand definition to include all domestic wastewater other than toilet water. Exclusion of kitchen sink water leaves this particular wastewater flow
in awkward limbo in facilities which have a gray water system and composting toilets. Instead, give performance requirements for dealing with high SS,
BOD water.
c101.4 Reservoir. The reservoir should be optional, as storing gray water is not required for all system types and is undesirable. The not less than 50
gallons and not more than 72 hours retention requirements are potentially at odds with each other. 24 hours maximum retention is a better design goal,
with the tank size left up to the designer.
c101.6 Disinfection. Disinfection should not be required for irrigation reuse.

c101.7 Makeup water. Should be optional depending on reuse. Toilet flushing requires makeup water for public health, irrigation does not.
c101.8 Overflow. Overflow pipe should be the same size or greater than the influent pipe. Allow possibility of connecting to alternate overflow as an
exception, in order that facilities with composting toilets and gray water systems have the option of adding redundancy and safety features to these
systems instead of a sewer hookup or septic system, or that if a septic system is required it may be downsized.
http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/improve/ipc.htm Page 1 of 1
85 of 88
CHAPTER 176 OF THE ACTS OF 2002 8/15/05 16:56
Chapter 176 of the Acts of 2002
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER REUSE AND GREYWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. The department of environmental protection shall develop a comprehensive greywater reuse management plan that pertains to the discharge and reuse of greywater from
residential, commercial and public buildings and facilities. For the purposes of this act, the term "greywater" shall mean putrescible wastewater discharged from domestic sinks, hand
washing and custodial water use at public and commercial facilities and buildings, washing machines, showers, bathtubs, dishwashers and other sources as identified by the department
in regulations promulgated under this act. Greywater shall not include putrescible wastewater discharged from toilets, urinals and drains equipped with garbage grinders.
As part of the greywater reuse management plan and within 3 months of the effective date of this act, the department shall conduct a review of the scientific and engineering literature,
in conjunction with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, pertaining to the discharge and reuse of the different types of greywater, including the effects that the reuse of
greywater has on groundwater and surface water, and including a review of the experience of other states with greywater management and reuse. The review shall include
recommendations on the course of action to be taken by the department concerning the reuse of the different types of greywater. Upon completion of the review, the department shall
prepare a report, which shall be submitted to the chairs of the joint committee on natural resources and agriculture and the chairs of the house and senate committees on ways and
means.
SECTION 2. (a) The department shall issue draft regulations not later than January 1, 2003 pertaining to reuse and discharge of greywater created by hand washing and custodial water
use at public and commercial facilities and buildings. The department shall promulgate final regulations on such reuse and discharge not later than June 1, 2003.
(b) The department shall issue draft regulations not later than January 1, 2003 pertaining to reuse and discharge of greywater from sources other than hand washing and custodial water
use at public and commercial facilities and buildings including, but not limited to, the reuse and discharge of residential greywater. The department shall promulgate final regulations
on such reuse and discharge not later than June 1, 2003.
SECTION 3. Where self-contained, zero-discharge, stand-alone, composting toilets are to be utilized by state agencies, political subdivisions of the commonwealth or private
organizations, the applicable state agency, political subdivision or owner of the property on which the toilets are to be installed need not demonstrate that a system in full compliance
with regulations promulgated pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A of the General Laws could be installed for wastewater discharged from toilets, urinals and drains.
Approved July 26, 2002.
Return to:
List of Laws passed in 2002 Session
General Court home page, or
Commonwealth of Massachusetts home page.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw02/sl020176.htm Page 1 of 1
86 of 88
Graywater Guidelines 8/15/05 16:58
!
!
Preliminary Guidelines for Using Graywater for Irrigation
! Read the Arabic Version of this Page
back to table of contents for CSBE Graywater Project

!
download text-only version of the guidelines
! !
These guidelines are part of the CSBE Graywater Reuse project, a project funded by the Enhanced Productivity
Program at the Jordanian Ministry of Planning.
! !
Graywater is the output from bathtubs, showers, sinks, floor drains, and washing machines, which although soiled, is not
as contaminated as toilet water, and therefore may be used for irrigation of plants with little or no treatment, provided
! ! some simple safeguards are met.
! !
! !
! !
!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
When reusing graywater, a number of issues need to be taken into consideration. The system should be as simple and
easy to use and maintain as possible. The system also should minimize risks to human health, either by providing for
! adequate treatment of the graywater, or by minimizing contact between the graywater and humans (and animals). The
system also should minimize the risks to plants, which may arise from some of the constituents of the graywater,
particularly chemicals from soaps or detergents (such as boron, bleach, and sodium), which could adversely affect plant
! health.
The following are basic, preliminary guidelines for the development of graywater irrigation schemes.
!
Sources of Graywater
!
1. ! In order to reuse graywater from a particular building, a ‘dual plumbing’ system is required to separate the usable
graywater from the more contaminated ‘blackwater.’ The outputs from toilets, bidets, and kitchen sinks are not
! suitable for use in irrigation without proper treatment, and should be taken to the foul sewer or the septic tank.
Only wastewater from ‘cleaner’ sources, such as baths, showers, hand basins, and floor drains should be included in
the graywater system.
!
2. Care should be taken to limit the release of inappropriate substances into the graywater system. Heavily soiled or
bloodstained clothes, diapers, animals, etc should not be washed in sinks draining to the graywater system.
! Chemicals such as bleach, cleaning agents, paints, etc should not be disposed of into the graywater system, nor
should any substance that may cause blockage, or detrimentally affect the plants to be irrigated with the graywater.
Detergents (like those used in washing machines) have a detrimental affect on some plants because of their
contents of sodium compounds. Consequently, if laundry wash water is to be used for irrigation, a degree of
! treatment or occasional irrigation with cleaner water may be required (this is the subject of further investigation). If
possible, environmentally friendly soaps - such as those made of potassium or magnesium compounds - should be
used in order to minimize the amount of sodium applied to the plants. These do not harm the plants, and even
provide them with a source of nutrients. **
3. When designing a graywater system, an estimate of the size of the graywater resource should be made. How much
! graywater is produced in one week, and how is this distributed? A dwelling that receives municipal water for 1 day
each week and has a 1 cubic-meter storage tank will produce most of its graywater during the day when the
municipal water supply is on, and will produce relatively little graywater during the remaining days. Users
! therefore may wish to store the graywater to ensure a more even distribution. On the other hand, a house that
receives municipal water a few days each week, and/or has a large underground tank, will produce graywater
more evenly during the week. The graywater demand should be estimated (i.e. the amount and type of plants to be
irrigated) to ensure that the demand and supply are reasonably well matched.
4. It is recommended that each household use its own graywater for its own purposes, rather than sharing graywater
with other households. This avoids potential conflicts, and increases confidence over the quality of the graywater.
! continue »»
!!!
home
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
http://www.csbe.org/graywater/guide1.htm Page 1 of 1
87 of 88
Graywater Guidelines 8/15/05 16:58
!
!
Preliminary Guidelines for Using Graywater for Irrigation -- continued --
! Treatment of Graywater
5. Relatively clean graywater needs little treatment if it is to be used simply to irrigate trees or shrubs via a sub-
! surface irrigation system – in other words, if the likelihood of human contact is low. Such graywater may be
released directly into the irrigation network. If there is a chance of a sudden release of graywater (for example
from a bath being drained, or a washing machine being emptied), then the system should be designed to handle
! such surges to avoid ponding on the soil surface. This can effectively be achieved through the use of a small
surge tank.
!
6. Graywater that contains lint, hair, or other solid material may cause periodic clogging of the irrigation system. A
simple filter may be required – for example a screen mesh in the surge or storage tank. This filter may need
periodic cleaning.
!
7. Graywater should not be applied directly to plants if it is hot. If hot laundry wash water is to be used, means to
! store the graywater temporarily, in order for it to cool, should be provided.
8. Graywater may be stored, if desired. However, this may give rise to unpleasant odors. The storage tank
therefore should be covered to prevent the escape of odors to areas where they would cause annoyance, but
also should be vented appropriately to allow odors to escape to the atmosphere, away from areas frequented
by people (for example to the roof). It should be possible to completely drain storage tanks every now and then
to avoid pooling of graywater and possible contaminant buildup. If no filter is used, the outlet pipe should be
located higher than the base of the tank to allow solid material to settle.
9. All pipes containing graywater should have a slight gradient to prevent graywater from lying in the pipes, and
should be designed to avoid traps where graywater can lie.
10. Means of diverting the graywater to the sewer system or septic tank should be provided, in case of accidental
release of harmful substances (bleach, nappy rinse, etc) into the graywater system. This will prevent
contamination of the graywater irrigation system.
11. If a potable water supply is to be included (in order to dilute or supplement the graywater supply), there should
be no risk of cross-contamination between the potable water and the graywater. If a potable input pipe is
included in a graywater storage tank, a minimum air gap of 300mm should be maintained between the potable
water pipe and the maximum level of the graywater. A non-return valve should be provided in the potable
water pipe as secondary protection to prevent accidental return flow into the potable water supply. The potable
water supply could be governed by a level-sensitive valve to cut off the flow of potable water when it is not
required. An overflow pipe also should be provided.
! Use of Graywater
12. Graywater is best suited to the irrigation of plants, trees, and shrubs. Ideally, the area to be irrigated should be
at a lower level than the graywater outputs so that the entire system can operate by gravity, and the need for a
pump is avoided.
13. Drip irrigation hoses with small holes may clog due to the presence of solid material in the graywater, or
following the growth of algae in the hose. Therefore, holes of at least 3mm diameter should be provided.
14. For untreated graywater, the possibility of human contact should be avoided. Graywater therefore should not be
used for the irrigation of lawns, unless they are for ornamental purposes only and are not used by children or
household animals, or are irrigated by sub-surface irrigation systems, which reduce the risk of human contact.
However, surface irrigation is permitted provided the user is careful to avoid contact with the graywater.
Irrigation by sprinkler should not be used.
15. Irrigation of ornamental and fruit trees is permitted. Irrigation of vegetables that will be cooked before they are
eaten is also permitted, provided the graywater makes no contact with the vegetable. However, irrigation of
vegetables that have contact with the ground (such as potatoes) or that are likely to be eaten raw (such as
lettuce, carrots, and tomatoes), should be avoided, as should irrigation of leafy edible plants (such as mint and
parsley). Graywater is best suited for the irrigation of mature plants (not saplings), which have considerable
tolerance to salinity, sodium compounds, and high pH levels. A list of such plants is being prepared by CSBE.
!
These guidelines have been developed in accordance with advice and practice in other countries. The CSBE
Graywater Reuse Project eventually will provide enough information to develop guidelines that are specifically
! appropriate to Jordan. Although provided in good faith, these guidelines should be regarded as preliminary.
January 2003
Notes
! For additional information on using graywater for irrigation, see Val Little, Graywater Guidelines (Tucson: Water
Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona, 2002). This document is available online through the Water CASA web site.
Also see the Oasis Design web site, which has extensive information on the subject of graywater.
* image courtesy of Water CASA.
** The Inter-Islamic Network on Water Resources Development and Management (INWRDAM), an Amman-based
autonomous intergovernmental organization, has developed environmentally friendly soaps and has initiated their
production. For information concerning these soaps, please contact INWRDAM (tel. (06) 533 2993; fax.
(06) 533 2969; inwrdam@nic.net.jo; www.nic.gov.jo/inwrdam)
! ! «« previous ! !!
! ! ! home ! !
http://www.csbe.org/graywater/guide2.htm Page 1 of 1
88 of 88

Greywater Policy Packet

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Greywater Policy Packet

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Greywater Policy Packet

© 2005 Oasis Design

Builder's gray water action summary ........................................................................ 9

Fecal Coliform Bacteria Count .................................................................................. 16

Arizona law overview ............................................................................................... 30

New Mexico law text ................................................................................................. 56

California law text...................................................................................................... 64

How to improve IPC greywater law ........................................................................ 84

Massachusetts law ..................................................................................................... 85

Jordan Greywater Guidelines ................................................................................... 86

Other resources you may find useful:

Gray Water Policy Center

Grey water policy packet

Full text of all grey water laws

Advantage: saves several hours of time to assemble all this information.

Guidance for regulators

New Mexico has copied Arizona, and Texas is considering it.

Treatment effectiveness references

General references, studies

Arizona grey water law

Arizona takes a three tiered approach to scrutinizing grey water systems:

They require a standard permit.

The booklet can be more easily updated than the law.

For more see links above.

R18-9-711.!Type 1 Reclaimed Water General Permit for Gray Water

8.!The gray water system is sited outside of a floodway;

13.!Surface irrigation by gray water is only by flood or drip irrigation.

B.!Prohibitions. The following are prohibited:

1.!Gray water use for purposes other than irrigation, and

Notes from/ about the Arizona experience

It has been pretty quiet in the field.

The big missing link is qualified retrofit installers.

Greg Brown manager of engineering approvals unit 602 -771-4697

More Arizona grey water links:

Update Program for Onsite Systems Rule: http://azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/index.html#update

Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) grey water model code

International Plumbing Code (IPC) grey water model code

California grey water law

Malibu, CA grey water law

and municipal facilities in manners determined by the

Colorado grey water law

Obvious drawback is one has to build a septic system.

What would HB114 do?

What is Gray Water?

Is Gray Water Safe?

10. Gray water must not be discharged to a watercourse;

Some of the benefits of this new Gray Water Reuse Legislation:

If you would like more information on this bill, please contact:

A visitor from Corvalis, OR shared the following perspective:

Texas grey water law

(ii) Surge tanks shall be:

This provision illustrates two basic greywater errors:

Storage of grey water

Washington State grey water factsheet (PDF, 450k)

See also: Builder's Grey Water Guide (book)

^ Top!of!page ^ Browse | Products • www.oasisdesign.net • Copyright Art Ludwig ©1997 -2005

Builder's Gray Water Action Summary

Don't commit these Common!grey!water!mistakes:

^ Top!of!page ^ Browse | Products • www.oasisdesign.net • Copyright Art Ludwig ©1997 -2005

Graywater Collection Plumbing and Stub Outs

Based on the California Plumbing Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code,

For Regulators: How to inspect graywater collection plumbing/ stub outs

G-5 Inspection and Testing.