A septic system contractor friend told me about his experience installing an uncomplicated, standard gravity system in a county in Oregon. The installation went well, and when finished he called in for the pre-cover inspection.
Upon inspection, the regulator informed him that the distance between two of the drainfield lines, in two points, had only 7 1/2 feet of undisturbed soil between them rather than the 8 feet required by the Department of Environmental Quality rules. The four drainfield lines installed had an overall 30-foot width between the outside lines, centerline to centerline, meeting code, but those two pesky short segments were a bit too close. The remedy, the inspector said, was to replace the entire drainfield with one that met the rules.
Well, obviously a bit of a discussion ensued, and the negotiation ended with the installer adding a 100-foot line as penance for his transgression. Would the functioning of this system be negatively affected by his oversight? I seriously doubt it. Would it have been a better solution for the regulator to put a short note on the inspection report pointing out the problem, advising him to pay a bit more attention to this in the future? Probably.
No magic in it
Many people new to the onsite industry seem to think Moses came down off the mountain holding stone tables etched with the DEQ onsite rules. It also seems to be the notion of many that these standards have mystical significance and that, if they are not met, the system flat won’t work.
Don’t get me wrong — rules are absolutely necessary for a program to work. But we need to understand a bit about which deviations from the rules will truly negatively affect the functioning of an onsite system, and about cases where a deviation can actually make a better installation. We need to be able to put the onsite rules in some sort of perspective and occasionally think out of the box.
With this in mind, and being a curious fellow, I did an online search of several other states’ onsite rules. I was wondering just how much significant variation there is. It is interesting to see what differences there are state to state. I was more interested in system construction standards than in the siting criteria of systems, so I focused on that.
One set of rules I downloaded was from Washington, our northern neighbor. Washington has climate and geography similar to Oregon’s, and its rules were written by knowledgeable industry professionals just like ours. Many rules differ from Oregon’s — some less restrictive, others more.
Rules that differ
To illustrate some of the differences, we can look at the table of required setbacks. These are not just esoteric points, as these differences can make a parcel developable, or not.
An example of the differences is with property line setback requirements. Oregon requires 10 feet minimum from the edge of the drainfield to the property line, but the septic tank and distribution network can be as close as five feet.
Washington’s standard setback is five feet for all portions of the septic system, but the local health officer may allow a reduction to as little as two feet if the property line is upslope from the disposal trench. This reduction can also be made with the building foundation setback, again if it is up-gradient. Before Oregon’s 1995 rule changes, a 10-foot property line setback was required from all portions of the system. That was relaxed to five feet for all components except the drainfield.
Another example is that Wash-ington requires a 30-foot setback from a disposal trench to a down-slope groundwater interceptor, building foundation drain, or drainage ditch. Oregon requires a 50-foot setback. That is a significant difference. Why do things seem to work in Washington with a 30-foot setback but not in Oregon? Do they just know less than we do?
Minnesota rules require a 20-foot setback from a building to a drainfield trench where Oregon requires 10 feet. Where do these numbers come from? How come 10 feet works here but not in Minnesota? Washington and Colorado (and possibly many others) require a two-compartment septic tank, where Oregon requires only one. Are they right and we wrong?
Colorado requires a minimum of six feet of undisturbed soil between the drainfield trenches where Oregon requires eight feet. Will six feet not work here? I don’t know. I could go on and on. My point is that rules are necessary guidelines, but we must realize that many of these are more “common sense” numbers and that we should not necessarily read more into it than that.
Help for small lots
With the forgoing illustrations in mind, drainfield repair on a small lot provides an example of where strictly following the Oregon code might negatively affect system installation and performance. Many old lots don’t have enough space to install a reasonable amount of drainfield unless a little fudging is allowed.
Some places we might fudge could be with the property line or foundation setbacks. Washington evidently has found that a 5-foot (or less) property line setback doesn’t create a problem, so maybe in some cases, such as these difficult repairs, strict compliance could be overlooked.
Another place we could fudge might be on the spacing of the drainfield lines. If Colorado and others have had success with less than our 10-foot-on-center spacing requirement, maybe by relaxing this we could get in an additional line or two. If our goal is to get enough additional drainfield trench installed to avoid a public health threat and build a functioning system, occasionally we need to be able to think creatively and use the experience of others, especially with difficult situations.
Knowing that other states have had good experience with some of these different standards and regularly use them, we may feel confident in relaxing some rules when necessity arises.
A consequence of rules that are burdensome or impractical is found in the January 2008 issue of the Onsite Installer magazine. An article cited two states where grassroots efforts have overridden state guidelines. According to the article, after homeowner complaints, several counties in Texas passed local rules overriding the state rules.
The major issues resulted from the requirements of three-times-per-year inspection of existing systems, inspection costs, maintenance fees, and reporting requirements, and from claims that service companies were doing shoddy work.
Impact of variations
In Ohio, a group created a bill that suspended the state’s current onsite rules until July 2009. This group is rewriting legislation to mandate sophisticated and costly onsite systems. Advocates are seeking new rules to protect the environment without causing severe financial burden to property owners. This group cited more than 1,000 cases where onsite rules were causing economic hardships to landowners. In some cases, the group said, the new systems cost more than the homes being served.
The moral of this story is that we need to better understand the importance of various code requirements and the relative impact of occasional variations. What is taboo in Oregon may be within the standard code in other states, and vice versa. With these code differences, one would have to conclude that the jury is still out as to what is absolutely right and wrong.
Zan Ewing is a registered environmental health specialist with 34 years of experience in the onsite industry as a regulator, consultant, and installation contractor. He is past-president and current vice president of the Oregon Onsite Wastewater Association. He can be reached at ewingzan@aol.com or 503/364-1052.
