About Shortcuts
To the editor:
I am responding to the column, “Who Cuts the Corners?” (Onsite Installer, December 2009). As an installer for more than 25 years, I have seen many jobs where not only were corners cut but outright fraud was practiced by installers. I could list all the shortcuts taken, from shortened trenches, to missing rock depth, and many more, but I am sure everyone knows them and has run into the shoddy workmanship practiced by some unscrupulous individuals within our industry.
Yes, the homeowner is one party involved in the Cheap Charlie jobs. When bids on work come within a couple hundred dollars, there may not be much difference in the finished job if all things are balanced. But when jobs vary by $500 to $1,000, there has to be something missing.
Here, the first red flag should go up, but when price is the only consideration, and not long-term performance of the system, who is to blame if later the system fails? On all designs I do, I also include an estimated bid form listing all materials needed: risers, drop boxes, type of pipe, drainfield material used (chambers, rock, graveless tube, fabric, insulation on pipes) in the system.
I tell the homeowner to be sure to give the copy (one without price) to anyone else who they may have bid on the job, to be sure any other bids they get include those same items, and to compare the bids completely.
New rules that require the installer to follow the design can help, but then the final inspection needs to be checked against the design. Also, the designer’s plans need to be followed, and any changes must be reviewed and approved by the designer and the inspector. The reputation of the installer, and his willingness to own any changes made without authorization, needs to be questioned by the final inspector and the homeowner.
I have inspected systems at the time of sale where I wonder how they were ever approved. On comparing the system to the as-built drawing filed with the local unit of government, only some similarities were present. Systems where there should have been risers added to the tank were found to have none. Drainfield inspection wells that should have been present were not.
I have gone back to systems I designed and bid, but where I did not get the job, only to find many things changed: parts missing (risers, drop boxes, tanks size changed) or other modifications made. I have also seen where pumps have been downsized from high-capacity to just the standard unit, or pumps replaced with a big-box sump pump rather than effluent pump.
On talking to government inspectors on some of the problems, the standard answer seemed to be a shrug of the shoulders and a, “Well, when I inspected, it wasn’t finished, and I didn’t go back.” Here the blame can be put on the contractor as well as the inspector for short-changing the homeowner.
To be a solid industry where the public health comes first, we need cooperation beween the contractors and the inspectors — not as adversaries but working together to install a system that will meet the needs of the homeowner and the public for many years.
In addition, every system should consider the cost ratio. Systems should meet the demands placed on them, but also give performance at the lowest cost. Why price systems with items that are not needed just to increase income, when we will eventually run into the argument the “big pipe” municipal system is cheaper that an onsite system?
I have done site evaluations on property for prospective buyers where I have estimated the cost of system against certain locations. I have told individuals where to site the house to get a proper gravity system. I have also advised against a given lot because of cost of mound or other alternative system where poor soil conditions will not allow a low-priced system. I tell the prospective owner to take the extra thousands of dollars it will cost for a septic system and invest it in a different property.
Orin Koeckeritz
Afton, Minn.
On Target
To the editor:
I agree 100 percent with this article (“Who Cuts the Corners?” Onsite Installer, December 2009). I am an onsite installer from Minnesota. Recently, our license fee increased from $100 to $200 per year. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency enclosed a comment form with my license renewal.
I replied that I felt the fee increase was good — if there were more teeth in enforcing the rules. In my opinion, if a licensed business does not follow the rules (for example, they bypass inspections, or move the drainfield away from the designed area), their license should be revoked immediately.
We all attend the same schools and we all know the rules. The guy who doesn’t follow the rules is the same guy who works the cheapest. It gets old bidding against him. I believe tougher enforcement would make the “cheap Charlies” go away. I do enjoy reading Onsite Installer.
Don Ramberg
Ramberg Excavating
Pine City, Minn.
Another Culprit
To the editor:
I think you left someone out of the argument of who is responsible for cutting corners (Onsite Installer, December 2009). What about the less-than-reputable builders — the ones who get the homeowner to tell the health department they are building a two-bedroom house with no garbage disposal, only to build a four-bedroom with disposal?
Then, when the house is built and they are ready to install a septic system, the builder tells the homeowner I am trying to sell him a more expensive system than he needs, just to make more money. I would bet from my experience that the builder of the new house in your article probably told the homeowner not to get the health department involved, but he wasn’t the one the health department had to battle.
What about the builder who builds on to a house to add bedrooms for the new owners because there are more people living in the house now and they need more room? Then when that system fails, was that the original installer’s fault? Or the regulator’s? Or the homeowner who did not get good advice because he trusted a builder who did not care about the septic system failing after he had his money and was gone?
Of course you can argue that the homeowner should have educated himself so he could make better decisions, and if so, it’s the homeowner’s fault. We also need to educate the builders on the importance of the septic system.
Perhaps the question is: Should we do as the electric utilities do with their Energy Star certification? They have guidelines the builder must meet to be able to advertise Energy Star homes. It does a good job of educating homeowners on the importance of spending a little money now to get a more efficient home to save them money in the future on utility bills.
With the green building movement, should we be doing a better job of teaching about our importance in protecting the environment? I have found that most people I have put in systems for are glad to have someone explain how they can help the environment by maintaining that system. It is a lot easier to get people to do the right thing in regard to their systems when they are educated about the impact their decisions have on the environment.
Maybe we should do a better job on a national scale of getting a brand that builders could use to sell their homes. If we can help builders have something to differentiate themselves from the competition, then we have an ally in getting homeowners to understand the importance of septic systems.
Should we be selling systems on lot-by-lot basis? Or should we be selling the environmental importance? I am trying to figure out a way for my business to separate itself from the other installers here. I want to be a business that not only puts in systems but also helps homeowners understand that when you do not live on sewers, you are in control of your environmental impact.
Jeff Harrod,
president and owner
Harrod Excavation Inc.
Salvisa, Ky.
What About the Building Administrator?
To the editor:
I read with much interest your article, “Who Cuts the Corners?” (Onsite Installer, December 2009). Of particular interest was your example of a homeowner who considered himself above the law or not subject to it.
I have been a regulator for over 30 years, working for county health departments. I have seen many instances where homeowners have tried to repair or install an onsite system themselves. Sometimes the system works very well, sometimes not so much. In the end, most homeowners realize the importance of having a professional install the system, especially if it requires anything more than a septic tank and gravity drainfield.
That being said, the homeowner in your story hired a contractor who had the same mindset. Neither was interested in maintaining a healthy environment, nor were they much concerned with the health of the neighbors or of the homeowners’ own family.
In any case, you missed the real reason this problem exists, and you did not identify who is really to blame for these situations. The National Building Code requires that before any building permits are issued, all environmental permits must be obtained.
Therefore, in your example, the blame does not lie with the homeowner, who can always claim ignorance of the health regulations. It does not lie with the installer (although if he is competent, he should not take the job, as you pointed out).
The blame here really lies with the building administrator (BA), assuming the homeowner had a building permit. Before issuance of the building permit, the BA should have a copy of all environmental permits on his desk. That may include a sewage permit, well permit, soil erosion permit, and possibly others.
We have had a great deal of success in opening the lines of communication with township building officials throughout the county. They have risen to the challenge presented by homeowners who may feel that they can get away with something.
I do not mean to infer that there are no dwellings built today that have not gone through the regulatory gauntlet. But the numbers have dropped immensely. Thirty years ago there may have been 30 to 40 homes constructed in any year without health permits. I would doubt this occurs even once a year now.
It has been very clear that as regulators, reaching out to other regulatory offices, local or state, has a tremendous impact on the quality of the various programs and also on the public’s view of these programs and the benefits of orderly and proper installation of wastewater treatment facilities.
We have been working side by side with the excavators in our county for many years, and I can say with some pride that getting to know these folks has been a pleasure. I would hope it has also improved the final product that we are all responsible for. Thanks for tackling the tough questions!
John Johnson
registered sanitarian III
Allegan County (Mich.)
Health Department
About Regional Codes
To the editor:
I read the article, “Regional Codes Have Merit” (Onsite Installer, October 2009) and Paul Miller’s letter to the editor in response, and I have a comment on enforcement.
States and counties can get around the issue of having to enforce the regulations on watertight vessels and onsite water tests with county personnel by requiring the designer to write a final letter indicating that the tanks have been tested for watertightness, and that a representative of the designer has witnessed the test and accepted that the tank is watertight.
The state and county can make it a policy that no site is approved until the final designer’s letter is received. This achieves three outcomes. First, it relieves the counties of having their personnel run around to sites to witness watertightness tests. Second, it makes the designer responsible to ensure that the tank is tested. If the tank leaks in the future, at least the owner has someone to question and possibly retrieve costs from.
Third, if the county withholds a certificate of occupancy or a final county approval for the system until the designer’s letter is received, the designer has a hold over the client to get paid for the design and inspection work in a reasonable time.
Bob Wright, P.E.
onsite wastewater system design engineer
Lakewood, Colo.
