Separation Distances

To the Editor:

Many of us enjoy learning from others’ mistakes: it is better than learning from our own errors. In your December article (“Where the Works Gets Done”) about the fundamentals of onsite treatment, the main photo of the trench (and tree) caught my eye. I was thinking perhaps the article would tell of a failure scenario.

The picture reminded me of the visual puzzles I would see as a kid: What is wrong with this picture? I looked at the tree abutting the trench and envisioned difficulties in years to come: tree root damage, the tree coming down at an inappropriate time, the uprooted tree causing damage to the drainfield, or tree root intrusion into the drainfield, causing premature failure.

In a nutshell, separation distances to features other than water need to be considered. Some states have 10-foot standard separation distances to trees. Tree drip line plus five to 10 feet would also be an acceptable separation.

I have been told that when installing utility mains near large trees that need to be saved, it is better to tunnel directly under the tree rather than cut off half its root system by trenching next to the tree. While I have never seen this done for onsite systems, I imagine one could tunnel beneath a tree and discontinue the gravel/perforated section using a solid pipe with compacted soil backfill within the above separation distances, and continue the drainfield on the far side.

I imagine future articles will address separation from such things as structures, septic tanks, pump pits, vegetation, and water bodies. One item I think gets too little consideration is the proper separation distance to gravel drains based on soil conditions and slope. Another item where I have never found a standard: separation distance from cemeteries with or without vault interment. Anyone ever encounter this one?

Jay Hodgens, P.E.Hodgens Engineering ServiceHudson Valley Region, N.Y.

A Service for the Industry

To the Editor: 

Your “Breaking Ground” article in the January 2012 issue of Onsite Installer (“What’s Buildable?”) was excellent. It should be sent to the onsite regulators in every state and, in California, every county. 

You have taken the leadership for the onsite wastewater industry and should be joined by NOWRA and the onsite wastewater recycling association in every state. You have done a great service for the industry.

Joseph Glasser

Eljen Corporation

Minnesota Credentialing: Clarification

To the Editor: 

In your January 2012 issue of Onsite Installer, you have an article titled, “Straddling Borders.” It states:

“Each year, Minnesota requires installers to perform a minimum number of installations to keep their installer credential. At this time, Minnesota does not recognize the work done by a Minnesota-licensed installer in any other state. As a result, Gonsorowski’s company was not able to maintain its Minnesota license.”

 This is an error. There is a requirement of 15 installations done under a mentor program when you first become certified. You work under a restricted license until those installations are completed, and then the restriction is lifted. After that, you only have to fulfill the continuing education requirements to maintain that certification. Every three years you have to take required continuing education classes. That’s it!

If Gonsorowski’s company lost its certification/license because of lacking number of installations, then he was in the mentoring part of becoming certified and was never fully certified or licensed to begin with. In a nutshell, Minnesota does not require installers to perform a minimum number of installations to keep their installer credentials.

 Cheryl Brown

Brown’s Sep-Tech Services

Pine River, Minn.