Septic system management plant prescribes changes to cut nutrients

#1 from Scott on February 13, 2012

I estimate that 75% of the systems I inspect need at least minor repair, such as sealing inlets and out lets. 25 -30% are in need of major repair/replacement and judged to be unsatisfactory.

#2 from Orin Koeckeritz on February 12, 2012

As Washington Co in MN has a similar ordnance yet many systems still fail due to negligence I would put the % at over 15 per 100 on systems built or installed after 1985.
This would be for systems installed since new ordnances were put in place on design and inspection. The amount of work done that was suppose to be up to code but was passed, allowing design changes not specified in original design.
Things like no inspection wells in drain-field, no risers on tanks, grading to allow ponding of surface runoff on drain-field, grading to allow surface water to run into tanks.
  If you are saying what systems do not meet present code or which systems fail from neglect owner maintain are different issues. Pumping is not the cure as I have seen many systems where pumping was done through the 4” pipe and no effort was made to clean the tank of solids.
One commercial establishment I repaired had a 5,000 gal main tank and two 1,500 gal tanks after it. (They had the tank pumped on a regular basis before large events.) From there the system drained into two laterals from distribution box, each lateral being 100 ft long. Soil type perc rate of .83 sandy soil.
On opening the tank it was found all pumping had been done through a 6” pipe into tank. The tank was 3/4 full of solids. Tank 2 was full of solids, tank 3 was 1/2 full of solids.(tank 2 and 3 had no openings except a 4” exposed.
As this was a dance hall as well as food licensed place the tanks had drink mixing plastic sticks as part of solids as well as many other such items not meant to be in septic systems distribution box also contained many of these items. The first 10 ft of distribution pipe was also 1/2 full of sludge and these plastic sticks.
The same pumper who had a service contract for regular pumping was called to pump tank before work was started and on opening the tanks after he left the above is what i found. He was called back to complete the job after a heated argument that his job was not done right. It took local inspector to call him to return he decided to come back.
Drain-field runs had a berm placed on top of them by State when they did road work and as a separation from roadway . This amounted to 6 ft of mixed material being placed drain-field allowing for no trasp-evaporation from system.
To rectify system all tanks were cleaned to bare concrete, new distrubution box installed, first 20 ft of both runs replaced, at the 50 ft distance another box was placed to allow full loading of the first 50 ft of both runs. All material was removed from top of fields to a depth to rock layer and replaced with sand and 4” of topsoil.
In areas beyone 40 ft of both runs no biomat was found in system and most had never been used as failure of first design prevented flow to system.
  A pumper who only removed liquid over many years was one problem, no overall inspection of system design or changes was made. The owner relied on so called experts to rectify his problems and they failed him.
Education of homeowners is the first part of solving system failures. Design is another, maintenance of system to codes is another and pumpers who do the proper job of pumping through manhole to make sure tank is clean and not just empty of liquid is the most important job after the other parts are right.
Tanks can not be cleaned in 15 minutes on the site and through the inspection pipe. Baffles that are knocked off when pumping need repair not cover-up of the problem.

#3 from Rex Burton on February 11, 2012

We are looking for a large scale municipal membrame solution to help us meet EPA standards. We are Highland, Indiana (46322) and we have an I/I problem that causes our sanitary volume to go from 3MM GMD to 15MM GPD during a heavy storm when the soil is saturated.

We send our sanitary water to a regional processing center that has a limit of 7.5MM GPD. When this overflow occurs we have no option but to dump the sanitary water into the Little Calumet River on the north end of town and file a report with the EPA.

Do you have or know of companies that make small footprint membrane type systems that a town like ours could install near our primary pump station that could clean 7.5MM GPD of sanitary water that is 95% storm water. The plant must be fast startup (3hrs) and would be used about 4 times/year, so it needs to be easy to maintain.

Suggestions would be appreciated.

Rex Burton
Highland Sanitary Board

#4 from js on February 10, 2012

Great article!

http://packagedwaterplants.blogspot.com

#5 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 20, 2012

  “...where the environment is more sensitive the consequences of failure are greater”?

  Come on Ted, and most of the rest of the current writers, when did the public health consequence stop being a primary concern?

  In theory at least, onsite wastewater disposal systems, situated in “approved soils”, can be expected to provide adequate and reliable “treatment” of wastewater, such that risk of adverse health consequence from inadvertent exposure to that wastewater, is minimized. Even (or perhaps especially) in the absence of routine maintenance.

  “Black box” mechanical treatment units can do as much, but only if kept in proper working order via a stringent preventative maintenance regime.

  And that is the rub. Where there is sufficient local political interest and understanding of that point, to allow an effective enforcment machanism for such O & M to be established, then it seems reasonable that many of the regulatory impediments against use of such treatment systems should be eliminated.

  But where such local enforcment mechanisms are not in place, (and that is just about everywhere in this country) then I’d say advocates for building lot approvals based on use of treatment units alone, are just (please excuse the euphemism) “singing” in the wind.

#6 from Alan ("Chip") Hassett on January 16, 2012

JAN 2012

If the saturated soils beneath that “unbuildable lot up north” would be otherwise suitable, the NoMound(R)Onsite System is a proven solution which will control the water table and allow the drainfield to function properly.

You are correct that regulators and regulations can trump innovation. 

I suggest you can also include the anti-development “conservationists” as a major influence in retarding any progress in this areana.

#7 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2012

excellent “product neutral” discussion.
thank you

#8 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2011

What volume of bio-solids does the Orenco AX-Mobile produce?  What is the unmentioned cost in money and pollution for wasting, treatment and energy of these bio-solids?  How is efficiency determined without the issue of primary treatment and bio-solids considered?  It seems to me this issue of bio-solids creation through the requirement for primary treatment, that passively removes 70 to 90 percent of the organic load prior to these polishing systems, makes their efficiency very poor and costly.  Considering bio-solids production, these polishing systems are no more efficient than an anaerobic septic tank.  What is the true cost of these systems?

#9 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2011

Trials of Technology - I agree.  In Environmental Health we accept everything else NSF says at their word, it should be the same as long as they publish performance standards of each treatment unit.

Local Control - I believe the more consistency, the better.  However, I was trained as an EH Specialist in a county dominated by a large city that was regulation happy.  This mindset was not spared on wastewater regulation, and they had their own (strict) rules.  The citizens of that county apparently were OK with that. 
When I moved back to my home (rural) county it was pretty obvious that regulations were not viewed quite as enthusiastically, and we enforce only the state minimum.  However, wastewater regulation is very effective in each county and suits each county’s needs.

Credentialing Hodgepodge - I wish our state would adopt a national standard instead of a state standard.

#10 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2011

Another redundant subject I’ve experienced a few years ago here in Madison County, Indiana: BONDING (state required for installers): our county (Madison) has one bond for every kind of installation ($5,000.00). That would not even cover the cost of some of the simplest systems, let alone dose or mound!! Notwithstanding that, the bond doesn’t mean a thing anyway! A local resident took the health department to task on a system I investigated that the original installer severed a 6” agricultural tile that ran beneath the laterals and I found he purposely lowered the (uphill side) of the perimeter drain to drain into the tile, to drain beneath the laterals!! It gets even worse: the outlet of the tile was into a pond he excavated to create fill for around the home and on top of the laterals!! Upon heavy rains and the pond filling up, it back up into the perimeter drain, flooding the entire system…The homeowner had discussed his plans to stock and fish the pond for consumption. On the home end of the pond, he was building a dock and swimming area!! The local health department was contacted to take the installer to task and make claim on his bond. The department determined that the bond only covered installation (which was approved) and NOT performance…the issue had to be resolved and the expense was on the homeowner for the repairs to the system (no other area on the property was suitable). I excavated the tile on both ends, filled with flowable fill to plug it, and excavated back 15 feet upstream and rerouted the tile around the laterals and into a trunk line (tile) downstream from the lateral area…I exposed both ends of all the laterals to check for level; thankfully,they were. The ends of the laterals leached through the soil and into a swale that was cut around the system for surface water, and the leaching eventually stopped and has not appeared again.
This was new home construction and I felt the health department had some liability issues, the least of which was to demand the 1st installer to correct the blatant installation himself, or make claim on the bond for repairs!!

Regards,
Rick Wood
dba EarthWorks!!
Alexandria, Indiana

#11 from David Reid on December 13, 2011

I admire the thoughts, however the national standards among states may be an uphill climb of unpresident resolve. In South Carolina we have no association to assist in driving change. I do believe that poor performers in our industry do need to be weeded out. We at our company are dedicated to quality service.

#12 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 11, 2011

The disparity among onsite wastewater programs is largely due to the absence of a national regulatory framework, such as that of the Federal Clean Water Act, and the differing approaches of state statutes.

Further, the onsite industry has long been a cadre of local regulators and suppliers, ensuring that others will be welcomed with innovative obstacles.

#13 from Thomas J. Kallenbach, P.E. on December 09, 2011

Bob:
Thanks for the positive comment regarding my patented, “powerful program”, which I call “Squirt.”  One point of correction however; I have never charged for the program and have always distributed it for free.

#14 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2011

Jim and Dave:

Your column is a very good explanation of the treatment process of sewage tank effluent by suitable soils.

I was pleased to see that you emphasized that a trench having ponded effluent has not “failed” as so many in charge of State Codes seem to believe.

#15 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2011

Bob—- I strongly agree with your reasoning here.  If we need to use a pump anyway (and always on larger or elevated systems) we always use pressure distribution.  Back in the 1980s we actually developed a user-friendly spreadsheet ourselves (using Lotus, for readers old enough to remember)to do the sizing calculations in minutes. We have since upgraded it to an Excel-based tool, and sell it to others at a nominal price.  It is something we use ourselves for every pressure-dosed system we design.  Good article.

Larry

#16 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 07, 2011

Can I obtain further information on this subject from Anderson or Gustafson? Thank you Gail Meads
Georgia Certified Soil Classifier #141

#17 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2011

In the article it says “Rubber connectors with SS bands are NOT appropriate for quick disconnects in pressure situations” I agree, but in the picture of a supposedly “quality” installation it shows a what? A rubber connector and wiring that is not neatly routed. A schedule 80 union would be a better choice.
I wolehearted agree that electrical connections be made “outside” the dose tank. In the picture it shows a junction box with alarm, but shouldn’t the conduit be connected to the box? Exposed wiring is a hazard. I personally use Septronics pedestals,various manufacturers make good products for this purpose.All wiring above ground should be in conduit. Anyone who performed work like is in the pictures for me would have to redo it.

#18 from Mark Reynolds on October 11, 2011

Problem:

Home owner in Reading, PA had a mound system that had failed. The problem was the system was installed prior to new septic site regulations. The costs of a new system was around $ 25,000.00 if they could replace the system.

Solution:

PW Essiq Plumbing had been using a sodium bicarbonate based product in past the with very limited success so they decided to give Septic Drainer a try. After jetting the lines they introduced Septic Drainer to a semi-full leach line and within a short period of time Scott Fick of PW Essiq Plumbing saw the field start to drain again.

Looking Back:

This homeowner’s system is operating properly nearly one and half years later.

#19 from lisanne on October 07, 2011

Agreed. Looks like a great award to receive.

#20 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 19, 2011

The comment/clarificatiion from Scot above about Pennsylvania is a point well taken. The article did not mean to imply that the state has an officially sanctioned protocol; only that one exists and is being used.

#21 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 18, 2011

Your article says that states, “such as Pennsylvania and Alaska have established protocols…”
I don’t know about Alaska but I’m in Pennsylvania and these “protocols” that you are mentioning were developed by a club and are not approved or endorsed by PA Department of Environmental Protection.  The club does claim that they are the industry standard but by no means are their standards employed by all inspectors for all inspections in the state.  Just as any other state in the union, there is still a lack of agreement about how inspections and hydraulic OVERload testing is to be accomplished.

#22 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 17, 2011

I once had a similar issue after installing a new septic system at a home. They began calling within a week of the install reporting a sewage smell in the house, particularly in one room - a basement bedroom on an outside wall.
I visited the home a couple of times and resolved that the problem was NOT my installation - but took a bit longer to find the culprit. I hadn’t thought of your novel solution.
I ultimately figured out that the room adjoined the garage; the common, interior wall was furred out for insulation. I went into the garage an noted two 1/2” copper pipes stubbed out of the wall about five feet from the wall juncture, and also noted that there was no drain/outlet pipe stubbed out at the site. I asked about it and they said they planned for a sink there but never got around to installing it.
I opened a small hole in the wall, about where I would expect the drain to be and found an open 1-1/2” waste tee that was not finished or plugged. It was the source of their problem.
Persistence and familiarity with buildings, construction and plumbing paid off. I had a happy customer who was amazed that I figured out the problem when they just knew it was my fault.

#23 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2011

I am standing on my office chair cheering! 
  First I am in complete agreement with your -to the point comment.  Second, I can tell you know what you are doing because you are right on re.your comment ie surge test for a normal operating system -proves or disproves not much of anything, just needlessly introduces water. In the newer systems we have inspection ports at the end of fields and if there is any effluent in them some inspectors here fail the system-causing a great deal of needless anxiety and often needlessly spent money. 
  Ed Swanson retired head of the water quality division of ADEQ here in Arizona told me that effluent in the laterals is not a sign that the system is not functioning properly. Sorry to say we have distribution boxes and not sequential distribution.  Our POS inspection form has a place to document inspection ports at the end of fields.
  As for unoccupied and foreclosed properties, the 100 gallon test that NAWT suggests is a moot issue for these properties.  It would likely take 100 gallons if it has been unused several days and surely it would if it has been vacant for several weeks, thus rendering the test useless.  In fact these foreclosed properties are inspected by our company with “fear and trepidation”. I inspect every system performing the inspection in the same order each time, but always looking for something that is out of the norm in these foreclosed properties. 
  You can open a tank take a picture of the initial water line and then watch it as it pumped down, and look again-take a picture at the water line. You can tell if it has ever overloaded in the past or present.  If we suspect a problem, I first introduce my video camera into the field, if I suspect a problem, then at same time perform a hydraulic load test, but it seems that 2,000 gallons is an unnecessary use/waste of water if an inspector knows what to look for in evaluating a system. Is it recommended to run 2,000gal. or designed daily flow through an alternative system. To what lenghts do we want to go to and how much money is warranted to perform the “basic steps” listed in the above article.
  If I suspect a problem with the field that I cannot diagnose, I recommend further evaluation by a licensed installer.  This has worked great several times.
  Yes, the inspector needs to make sure that effluent is flowing through a system. That is fundamental-isn’t it.
  I know first hand that NAWT offers a most comprehensive and up to date training program, but before anything is standardized more thought and comment need to go into this.

  Although every system operates on the same principal, every system is different, usage soil, installation, maintenance, just to name a few , so I don’t come on the property with any preconceived notions, just as a flow test does not necessarily need to be performed routinely on all onsite systems.

#24 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2011

When I went through the NSF traing, written and field tests to become a certified septic systeh inspector, a surge test was never discussed.  I am in Virginia where we use distribution boxes and not sequential drop boxes and there are not usually any inspection ports.  We uncover boxes, video inspect the laterals and evaluate the soil and if suspicious the biomat.  I can see where a surge test might identify a problem in a system that is already stessed or under loaded but if a system is operating under a normal load I dont think a surege test proves or disporves much of anything. 

My real question is what to dom with unoccupoied or foreclosed poroperties that havent been occupioed for more than 90 days sometimes two years.  You could probably put 2,000 gallons in one of these and it would tell you anything.

I would hate to have to defend a surge test in court.

Mike Lynn

#25 from .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 22, 2011

Fantastic!! Any and all events to improve upon our skills to be the best at what we do, is Outstanding!!
We in the school bussing industry have our own Road-E-O…best training anyone can go through
Congrats to everyone who participated, especially the top three winners…thumbs up!!

#26 from Dendra Best on June 02, 2011

Many thanks to Ted and the great folks at Onsite Installer for helping to publicize this event. There’s no charge to attend but you must email or call me to reserve a seat.

#27 from mike geary on May 30, 2011

An interesting benefit to award. Definitely one which will arouse interest.