19th Annual
On-site Conference 2003
Reliability of OSWWS
OCTOBER 21-23, 2003
Jane S. McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing
Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Proceedings of the
19th Annual
On-site Conference 2003
Reliability of OSWWS
October 21-23, 2003
Well
Aerobic Aerobic
soil
zone
Groundwater
Jane S. McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing
Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Edited by David Lindbo
2
Agenda
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
System Performance and Reliability
David Lindbo, Moderator
730-900 REGISTRATION
815-830 Welcome and Introduction David Lindbo, NCSU
830-930 An evaluation of long term reliability of Dave Lenning, Alternatives
several systems in the Pacific Northwest Northwest
930-1000 Long term assessment of advanced systems Larry Hepner, Delaware
at Delaware Valley College (part 1) Valley College
1000-1030 BREAK
1030-1100 Long term assessment of advanced systems Larry Hepner, Delaware
at Delaware Valley College (part 2) Valley College
1100-1200 Long-term Treatment Performance of George Loomis, URI
Alternative Onsite Wastewater Systems
1200-130 Luncheon and Awards Master of Ceremonies;
Gene Young, NCDENR
Breakout Session 1
Planning Issues that relate to reliability
Diana Rashash, NCSU, CE Onslow Co.
130-200 Big pipe vs small system: What are the Larry Hepner, Delaware
choices? Valley College
200-300 How do OSWW compare to POTW Sarah Liehr, NCSU,
Bob Rubin, NCSU
300-330 BREAK
3
330-400 Reliability and Regulation: Selling OSWW Dave Lenning,
systems to the public Alternatives Northwest
400-430 Planning the Perfect Subdivision: A Jim Beeson, Soil and
Consultant‟s View Environmental Consultants
Breakout Session 2
How systems are chosen:
Getting what is wanted vs needed.
Dr. Bob Uebler, NCDENR, OSWW
130-200 State wide comparison of system use Kae Arrington, NCDENR,
OSWW
200-400 Panel Discussion Coastal Plain:
Mark Muroski, Craven Co.
Break at HD
230 Robert Swift, RC Land
Design
Mountains:
Jim Boyer, Transylvania
Co. HD.
Paul Higdon
Piedmont:
Tom Konsler, Orange Co
HD
Cory Brantley
400-430 What factors influence choice? Consultants‟ John Williams, LMG.,
view Allen Hayes, Southeast Soil
Science.
4
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Breakout Session 3
System Performance based on field
surveys and failure rate studies
Scott Greene, Guilford Co.
830-900 WADE program observations on system Peter Whitaker, NCDENR
reliability OSWW
900-930 Results of the Ashe/Allegany straight pipe Gerald Elliot, Ashe Co HD
elimination program
930-1000 A survey of systems up to 20 years old in E. Lynn, Wake Co., EHS
Wake Co.
100-1030 BREAK
1030-1100 Shellfish Sanitation‟s shoreline survey J. D. Potts, Shellfish
Sanitation
1100-1130 Nags Head Septic Health Initiative Todd Kraft, Nags Head
1130-1200 Performance/failure studies across the Mike Hoover, NCSU
country
Breakout Session 4
Sampling and Case Studies
Barbara Grimes, Moderator
830-900 Sampling protocol Maren Roush, NSF
900-930 Using Recycled Tire Chips as Aggregate in Clifton Roberts, Retired SC
Septic Systems EHS
930-1000 Physical reliability of tanks Doug Lassiter, Lassiter
Enterprises and Tricia
Angoli, NCDENR, OSWW
1000-1030 Neighborhood survey focusing on effluent Tom Konsler, Orange Co.
filters or screens HD
5
1030-1100 BREAK
1100-1200 Panel Discussion Joe Pearce, NCDENR,
OSWW
Rob Crawford, Dare Co.
HD
Steven Berkowitz,
NCDENR, OSWW
Bruce Withrow, Brunswick
Co. HD
Robert Swift, Land Design,
Inc.
Maren Roush, NSF
Emerging issues related to system
reliability
Joe Lynn, Moderator
130-200 Using Risk-based Watershed Planning in George Loomis, URI
Treatment System Selection
200-230 Can environmental modeling be related to Ken Pohlig, NC DWQ
system performance? Construction Grants and
Loans
230-300 Can systems success be predicted through Ed Andrews, Edwin
modeling? Andrews and Associates.
300-330 BREAK
330-400 Hydraulic assimilative capacity and Aziz Amoozegar, NCSU
system reduction
400-430 Use of Redoximorphic Features in Site Dave Lindbo, NCSU
Evaluation
430-500 Relating reliability to Authorized Onsite Don Alexander, VaDEH
Evaluators as experienced in Virginia
6
Table of Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................10
Hall of Fame Inductees ..................................................................................................................11
An evaluation of long term reliability of several systems in the Pacific Northwest
Dave Lenning, Alternatives Northwest..............................................................................16
Long term assessment of advanced systems at Delaware Valley College
Larry Hepner, Delaware Valley College ...........................................................................25
Long-term Treatment Performance of Alternative Onsite Wastewater Systems
George Loomis, David Dow, Gary Blazejewski, Mark Stolt, Linda Green,
Elizabeth Herron, and Arthur Gold, URI ...........................................................................32
Big pipe vs small system: What are the choices?
Larry Hepner, Delaware Valley College ...........................................................................33
How do OSWW compare to POTW
Sarah Liehr and Bob Rubin, NCSU ...................................................................................34
Reliability and Regulation: Selling OSWW systems to the public
Dave Lenning, Alternatives Northwest..............................................................................36
Planning the Perfect Subdivision: A Consultant‟s View
Jim Beeson, Soil and Environmental Consultants .............................................................42
State wide comparison of system use
Kae Arrington, NCDENR, OSWW ...................................................................................43
What factors influence choice? Consultants‟ view
John Williams, Land Management Group Inc. ..................................................................55
Allen Hayes, Southeast Soil Science .................................................................................58
WADE program observations on system reliability
Peter Whitaker, NCDENR OSWW ...................................................................................62
Results of the Ashe/Allegany straight pipe elimination program
Gerald Elliot and John Alley, Ashe Co HD .......................................................................64
7
Wake County Field Performance and Operation & Maintenance Survey
of Systems Installed 1982-2002
Everette Lynn, Wake County Env. Services, Mike Hoover, NCSU, Suzanne Harris,
Wright Lowery, Steve Bristow, Kent Daeke, Wake County ,
and Tricia Angoli, Currently with OSWS, NCDENR .......................................................68
Shellfish Sanitation‟s shoreline survey
J. D. Potts, Shellfish Sanitation..........................................................................................73
Nags Head Septic Health Initiative
Todd Kraft, Town of Nags Head .......................................................................................74
Performance/failure studies across the country
Mike Hoover, NCSU .........................................................................................................77
Sampling protocol
Maren Roush, NSF.............................................................................................................78
Using Recycled Tire Chips as Aggregate in Septic Systems
Clifton Roberts, Retired SC EHS.......................................................................................79
Physical reliability of tanks
Doug Lassiter, Lassiter Enterprises and Tricia Angoli, NCDENR, OSWW .....................82
Neighborhood survey focusing on effluent filters or screens
Tom Konsler, Orange Co. HD ...........................................................................................86
Using Risk-based Watershed Planning in Treatment System Selection
George Loomis and Lorraine Joubert, URI .......................................................................89
Can environmental modeling be related to system performance?
Ken Pohlig, NC DWQ Construction Grants and Loans ....................................................90
Can systems success be predicted through modeling?
Ed Andrews, Edwin Andrews and Associates. ..................................................................91
Hydraulic assimilative capacity and system reduction
Aziz Amoozegar, NCSU ....................................................................................................93
Use of Redoximorphic Features in Site Evaluation
Dave Lindbo, NCSU ..........................................................................................................94
Relating reliability to Authorized Onsite Evaluators as experienced in Virginia
Don Alexander, VaDEH ..................................................................................................102
8
Speaker List .................................................................................................................................103
Vendor List ..................................................................................................................................107
9
Introduction
On-site wastewater systems are and will continue to be a major part of the entire wastewater
treatment field but how reliable are they? This question is often foremast on the minds of the
homeowner, regulator and, increasingly important, the planner/politician. Understanding and
evaluating the reliability of new and existing technologies is critical for our field to grow. We are
increasingly faced with trying to find the best solution for the least cost that will last the longest.
These decisions can only be made with a full understanding of case studies of the longevity of
systems. System reliability by itself is only one aspect of the onsite system. Additional information
regarding the reliability of siting is also needed. In order to keep up with changing technology and
scientific information, siting BMPs need constant updating and analysis. With the increased use of
computer modeling these models will also need to be update and analyzed for their accuracy. Our
goal in this conference is to present the most up to date information on system performance and
reliability. We will also present information on several siting BMPs in hopes to give you, our
audience the tools and information you need to make the best and most informed decisions possible.
Our invited speakers all come with expertise in this field of science, management, and system
evaluation. Don Alexander (VA DEH) returns to our conference to give his perspective on
privatization and the current state of the art in Virginia. Don is nationally recognized as an expert
regulator and has a wide range of knowledge in all aspect of OSWW. Several years ago Larry
Hepner of Delaware Valley College presented a well received presentation discussing his evaluation
of several advanced systems. Mr. Hepner returns with more data and analysis of how these systems
are functioning after five years. Likewise, George Loomis, URI will present information on how
several systems are working over the long term. Mr. Loomis is also nationally recognized for his
work with towns etc. in planning for use onsite systems and will discuss some of his experiences.
David Lenning is an independent consultant working in the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Lenning comes
to the field with a background as an educator, regulator and researcher and as well as discussing
system performance will also discuss how onsite systems can be used in an integral part of land use
planning.
The speakers for this conference have been brought in as part of an EPA 319 (h) grant for
which we are truly grateful.
10
Hall of Fame Inductees
Letter of nomination for Nancy Deal
Dear Mr. Jeter and members of the On-Site Hall of Fame Committee,
I have worked directly with Nancy Deal for the past four years, and have known her as an
Environmental Health specialist for over 8 years. I am pleased and proud to have the opportunity to
nominate Nancy to the North Carolina On-Site Hall of Fame for the invaluable contributions she has
made to the field of on-site wastewater treatment and dispersal in North Carolina and the US.
When I first meet Nancy she was running the PPCC Health District Management Entity
program. I soon found out how difficult a job this was as I conducted a door-to-door survey of
residents that were part of this program. The residents were not universally in favor of the program.
Despite this feeling the residents that had had direct dealings with Nancy had nothing but praise for
her professionalism and compassion. One resident in particular could not praise Nancy‟s efforts to
solve his drainage problems enough. He admitted that although he did not like the program he felt
Nancy was an asset and was glad to have met her. It was also during this survey that I was
impressed by Nancy‟s ability to teach relatively inexperienced personnel the art of system
inspection. Nancy spent several days with the survey teams showing them what to look for during
an inspection and how to interpret the results. She also demonstrated these techniques in such a way
as to make system inspection truly enjoyable.
Nancy eventually moved on from PPCC to Pitt Co. Environmental Health Dept. and then
worked in private practice for a consultant. It was during this time that I was able to first hire her as
a part time and then as a full time employee. She started working for me on several short-term
projects involving the evaluation of spray fields. As I was further reminded of her abilities during
these projects I was able to secure grants to expand our training facilities in the state. I persuaded
Nancy to oversee the construction of the newest training center in Fletcher NC as well as the
continued upgrade of the facilities in Bolivia and Plymouth. She has been relentless on making
improvements and in getting assistance from manufacturers, consultants, and local health depts.
With out her tenacity and knowledge our most recent efforts in Fletcher would not be successful.
She is now working with others to update the Subsurface Operators School. In addition she is
working to improve NCSU‟s operator refresher course. Both of these efforts were beyond my initial
hopes for her in this position.
Currently, Nancy is working as the Program Manager for a national curriculum development
project funded by EPA and Congress. This is a difficult job as it entails getting over a dozen PhD‟s
in the onsite wastewater field to work together and stay on deadline. Nancy has handled this well
with a wonderful mixture of humor, arm-twisting, threats etc. So far she has maintained her
professionalism with those involved and has been able to get this diverse group to continue to move
forward. Here early experiences with homeowners in the PPCC District trained her well in how to
get individuals to do things they don‟t want to do but have to do with out blaming her.
In the end I can think of no individuals that are better suited for this year‟s Hall of Fame
inductee. For her contributions through educational activities at all levels, for the positive changes
she has made to homeowners, for her activities nationally, and for her devotion to the field, I am
honored to place Nancy Deal‟s name before you today.
Sincerely;
David Lindbo, PhD
Associate Professor, Soil Science
13
Letter of nomination for Everette Lynn
I would like to personally submit and endorse Waylon Everette Lynn, Jr. as a nominee for induction
into the North Carolina On-Site Systems Hall of Fame. The information contained within this
correspondence and the application packet constitutes an overwhelming justification for the
professional acknowledgement of Mr. Lynn‟s contributions to soil science, regulatory issues, public
service and public health. Mr. Lynn‟s nomination is supported not only by my office, but the entire
staff of ake County‟s Department of Environmental Services and many other Environmental Health
Professionals throughout the State. Please give every consideration to Mr. Waylon Everette Lynn as
our nominee for the Hall of Fame.
It is evident from the background information that has been supplied that Mr. Lynn‟s career spans
over thirty (30) years of service. His professional career also reflects a steady progression of
responsibility and influence related to public health and the advancement of onsite wastewater
regulation. Everette‟s participation in codifying soil criteria guidelines into the wastewater rules
represented a tremendous initial step for our current regulatory structure. His efforts insured that
science and objective observations became fundamental elements of the evaluation process still used
today. It is incredible to realize that much of this initial work still stands after twenty (20) years.
Mr. Lynn advocated for the creation of a local onsite wastewater ordinance in Wake County shortly
after beginning employment there. Wake County was attempting to deal with overwhelming
development pressures in rural areas and the local rules facilitated a more reasoned process for the
creation of large subdivisions that were to be supported by onsite systems. Sustainability and
adherence to public health principles were key elements represented in this local version of rules.
On several occasions, components of Wake‟s local ordinance have been incorporated into the State
rules in one form or another. This regulatory initiative demonstrates Mr. Lynn‟s commitment to
public health and the need to be proactive regarding one‟s profession and responsibilities.
Other accomplishments include formulating and contributing to the “Soil Scientist Statute” – NCGS
Chapter 89F; leadership roles with the Soil Scientists Society and the North Carolina Board of
Licensed Soil Scientists, membership on the I & E Review Committee and various community
service roles including Deacon of his local church. All of these various contributions attest to the
professionalism and tireless dedication that Everette demonstrates each and every day.
Ultimately, I believe that Everette‟s reputation as an individual may outweigh all of his notable
achievements. His consistency, expertise and straightforward approach to issues have earned the
respect of many senior officials, organizations and stakeholders throughout the State and the entire
Country. He is a resource and ally for those within the profession and continues to exemplify what
“doing the right thing” is all about. There are many unknowns ahead for the onsite wastewater
industry and public health, but there is one thing that I do know for sure……
“You and I will not soon see someone of this stature pass this way again”. I hope you will agree that
Mr. Lynn represents the very best of the onsite wastewater profession and will support his induction
into the Hall of Fame.
I am available if you have any questions concerning the information contained within this letter.
14
Regards,
Mr. Richard K. Rowe, R.S.
Director – Wake County Department of Environmental Services
15
Long-Term Reliability of Several Systems in the Pacific Northwest
David Lenning, Alternatives Northwest
This paper will briefly summarize two on-going studies of on-site sewage systems that are occurring
in the Pacific Northwest. Neither study has been underway long enough to provide information on
the long-term reliability of the systems being studied as the neither study has more than five years of
data and observations. Hopefully, the information presented on different technologies that have
been observed for 2-5 years will be of interest.
The bulk of this paper will present information on a study of systems and technologies in Burnett,
Washington as part of Phase II of the National Onsite Demonstration Project (NODP). A very short
time will be spent presenting some summary information on a project in LaPine, Oregon as
presented at the 12th Northwest On-site Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Equipment
Exhibition in Seattle, Washington on September 22, 2003.
The objectives of this paper are to:
Briefly describe each community being studied
Present the objectives of each study
Briefly discuss the actions that have been taken
Describe the technologies being studied
Summarize the results of the studies through this last summer
Discuss what we‟ve learned from the Burnett, Washington project
BURNETT, WASHINGTON
Background Information
Burnett, Washington is a small, unincorporated, rural community located southeast of Tacoma,
Washington, just a few miles from the northwest entrance to Mt. Rainier National Park. The
community dates from the mid to late 1800‟s when it got its start as a coal mining town. Numerous
mines shafts and tunnels still exist. While located in a beautiful setting, most of the community‟s
population has a relatively low family income.
Approximately 50 homes still occupy the community. About 30 residences are above the 100-150
foot bank that borders the south side of South Prairie Creek, one of the state‟s prime steelhead
streams and an important salmon spawning stream. The remaining 20 homes are located on the
flood plain along the creek, downstream from the main part of the community.
Most homes in the community were/are served by individual on-site sewage systems. Many of the
systems were failing, a number of them thought to drain into mine shafts and then into ground or
surface water. Nine of the homes were served by a 100 year old sewer line that carried raw sewage
to the bank of the creek.
16
Primarily because of its wastewater problems, it was difficult to obtain both permits and financing
for any new construction or for home improvements. The community was under order from the state
pollution control agency to resolve its wastewater. Initial investigations revealed that sewers were
financially unfeasible.
The community had formed a task force to review their options and had obtained a $25,000 block
grant to assist them. This was when the Washington On-site Sewage Association (WOSSA) became
involved and when planning for a cooperative project began.
A town meeting was held in May 1997 with representatives from WOSSA and local government to
discuss options and to hear what WOSSA was contemplating. WOSSA suggested that a study of
the sub-drainage basin and each of the community‟s lots was needed. Interest was sparked, which
eventually led to a proposal being submitted to NODP and the granting of a $95,000 grant in
October 1998.
Project Objectives
To identify and correct the causes of problems
To eliminate risks to both public health and the environment
Top facilitate and promote the use of effective alternative wastewater treatment and dispersal
systems
To educate the citizens of the community
To establish and demonstrate the importance of proper operation, monitoring (inspection)
and maintenance
Actions
Shortly after the initial town meeting, the county concluded that the block grant monies could be
used to fund the surveys WOSSA suggested. In early 1998 a survey of the community and its lots
was conducted, after groundwater monitoring ports had been installed. Following is a summary of
the survey‟s findings:
The area was a very wet area with a high winter water table throughout much of the
community.
At least 15 of the 50 homes were served by systems that were failing or malfunctioning.
Others systems were “suspicious.” The owners of the homes served by “suspicious” systems
were not willing to participate in the project.
Of the 15 lots found with problem systems:
o Eight were 0.27 to 0.3 acres in size, with the rest larger than one acre.
o The high water table ranged from 11 to 34 inches from the surface, with seven of the lots
having between 11 and 21 inches of unsaturated soil.
o One lot right on the bank of the creek in the flood plain flooded most winters.
o Slopes ranged from 1 to 6 percent for all but one parcel which had a 10 percent slope.
WOSSA subsequently formed a steering committee consisting of personnel from both local and state
health departments, as well as WOSSA representatives. They evaluated the survey results, rated
each lot with a failing system as to its public health and environmental risk (all ranked high), and
17
suggested technologies for each parcel, understanding that some systems would not meet current
local or state regulations. Concurrently, a request went out to manufacturers and representatives for
equipment, either as a donation or at a reduced cost. Some of the system choices were certainly
influenced by what technologies were offered.
The steering committee also recommended that the homeowners participate financially. This
recommendation eventually boiled down to a $15 monthly fee to be paid by each homeowner. This
fee was to pay for an annual inspection and any maintenance that needed to be done. WOSSA
agreed to provide the inspection and maintenance services, to include some sampling, and to turn the
systems over to the homeowners in a properly operating fashion after the five-year study was
completed.
WOSSA knew it didn‟t have enough money to install 15 repairs, even after the donated or reduced-
cost equipment was considered. One homeowner opted out of the study indicating he was going to
install a pressure distribution system as he had sufficient soils to do so. There still were insufficient
monies for the project. WOSSA members agreed they would donate the necessary equipment, staff,
time and energy to see that the systems were designed and installed. Of the total $215,000 cost to
get the systems installed, over $40,000 was in the form of donated time, equipment and materials.
Designers and installers either donated design or installation work or did it for a reduced fee. The
local health jurisdiction provided temporary certification to those outside their county to do the
work. Designers were given design packets designed by the steering committee to help assure each
system was designed to facilitate inspections and that ground water monitoring ports would be
designed and installed in a consistent fashion. Sampling ports were to be placed after each
individual treatment component.
Installation services included getting the plumbing stub-outs and electrical connections arranged so
the new systems could be reached. This created numerous problems and extra costs. System
construction started in mid-November 1998 (unfortunately at the beginning of the wet season) and
each system was running by the end of the year. The local health jurisdiction helped minimize costs
by waiving all permit fees.
The first sampling period was conducted during the spring of 1999. The systems were sampled at
most, only annually after that. Also, inspections occurred either annually or when homeowners
called for assistance or to say they were having a problem (an alarm going off, for instance).
The systems are currently in the process of being transferred to the homeowners as the five-year
study has run its course. Attempts are being made to find funds to at least continue sampling of the
systems.
Technologies Being Used
Ten of the systems were designed, due to site constraints, to meet a standard at the point of discharge
to the soil dispersal system. This standard was 30 mg/L BOD5, 30 mg/L TSS and 200 fecal
coliform/100 ml. These systems consisted of the following:
18
Septic tank (all are 2-compartment), recirculating gravel filter, ultraviolet disinfection, pump
chamber, subsurface drip system.
Septic tank, fixed-film aerobic treatment unit in the second compartment of the tank,
ultraviolet disinfection, pump chamber, subsurface drip system.
Small trash tank, suspended-growth aerobic treatment unit, ultraviolet disinfection, pump
chamber, modified at-grade system.
Septic tank, pump chamber, foam-based media filter, chlorinator/dechlorinator, gravity
parallel soil dispersal field.
Trash tank, suspended-growth aerobic treatment unit, effluent screen, pump chamber,
subsurface drip system.
Septic tank, pump chamber, peat filter (one module for a 2-bedroom home),
chlorinator/dechlorinator, gravity parallel soil dispersal field.
Septic tank, pump chamber, modified mound.
Septic tank with its second compartment being used as a recirculating-mixing chamber,
recirculating textile filter, fine sand filter, gravity serial dispersal field.
Septic tank, pump chamber, stratified sand filter
Septic tank, pump chamber, anaerobic up flow biofilter with overflow to sand apron.
The other four systems were designed to provide pretreatment sufficient so that the soil could
provide the balance of the treatment to protect ground and surface water. These consisted of:
Serving two homes: two individual septic tanks, a single dose/equalization/pump chamber,
subsurface drip system..
Septic tank, two at-grade fields connected by a flow splitter.
Septic tank with a screened pump vault in second compartment, a flow-distribution valve,
pressure distribution soil dispersal field.
Septic tank, constructed wetland, ultraviolet disinfection, gravity parallel soil dispersal field
with gravelless chambers.
Results
According to the project manager, with the exception a couple of the systems using ultraviolet
radiation for disinfections, all the components that were designed to meet the secondary standard
met the standard. Problems with the couple ultraviolet units included power failures, other electrical
problems, or light burnouts. The four systems using the original soil as the chief treatment means
have functioned properly with no elevated ponding levels noted in the soil dispersal fields.
Following are some specific comments on the systems and components:
There have been no hydraulic breakouts in any of the systems.
With the limited sampling, no elevated pathogen or nutrient levels have been measured in
groundwater monitoring ports downgradient from systems. Water in the monitoring ports
was only noted during the wet season when the samples were taken; thus, dilution was
affecting the samples.
19
Daily flows were not determined after the first round of sampling. During the first round of
sampling, three of the systems were receiving hydraulic loading equal to or greater than the
design flow.
Some of the ATUs did pass digested sludge. It‟s difficult to meet the standards 24-7.
The wetlands system had some problems early on, primarily to its wintertime construction.
Plant growth could not be started. Later, the second bed of the wetland was found to have a
leak in the liner. This bed was taken off line.
A couple of the ultraviolet units have not been used, nor have the bulbs been changed.
Fats, oils, and grease (FOG) concentrations were what one would expect for residential
wastewater. No plugging problems due to FOG were found.
Where the ultraviolet units were functioning properly, fecal coliform counts were below
20/100 ml.
Systems without chlorine or ultraviolet disinfection showed variability in their reductions of
fecal coliform. Some units showed more consistency after a couple years of use.
The anaerobic up flow filter showed consistent fecal coliform numbers below 10 mg/L.
Five of the secondary treatment units developed an aerobic slime build-up on components.
All five had dissolved concentrations over 5 mg/L. Thus far, the slime has not created any
plugging problems.
In a recent site visit, the owner of one of the systems indicated unhappiness with his system,
saying he needs to periodically pump it. There is no indication he has called the person
responsible for inspections, nor is there any indication of such information in project reports.
The anaerobic up flow filter indicated high BOD5 and TSS. After in-depth homeowner
interviews and troubleshooting, the conclusion was reached that something toxic had reached
the system. This was explained to the homeowner and the problem was resolved shortly
thereafter
What have we learned?
This project has been a good example of public and private sector personnel working together for the
common good of all. The community has benefited. The county and state have been able to take
one of their problem communities off their list. WOSSA has grown as an organization. This project
provides a long-list of lessons for all of us. The lessons include:
An organization of on-site wastewater professionals can plan and implement important
projects to help small communities and units of government. The organization needs to
assure it has the resources to do the job and to keep a steering committee involved
throughout the project so a number of individuals know what‟s happening. Proper funding
for on-going inspections, sampling, and maintenance secured for the duration of the project
prior to commencement of the project is necessary.
If a project wants to implement a project to measure on-going performance and reliability, it
needs to build more sampling and inspections into the process.
Homeowners in such a project need to participate financially in the initial construction,
especially in getting the plumbing and electrical connections to the system site.
There must be assurance the homeowner understands the terms of the contract and his/her
responsibilities.
20
Some homeowners just don‟t care.
When constructing a number of systems in a small area, an area big enough to store
materials and equipment is necessary. This project was fortunate that the owner of a vacant
lot allowed this to be done on that lot.
Having a single, knowledgeable person responsible for the sampling and inspections is
desirable.
Alternative system can successfully treat and discharge effluent to the subsoil environment
in a way that minimizes risk to public health and the environment.
A project such as this can increase the pride in one‟s community, as well as increase the
willingness of permitting agencies to issue permits and financial institutions to issue loans
for new construction or home improvements. This has occurred in Burnett. It is becoming
a very nice looking community.
Health department personnel should be intimately involved throughout the entire project.
Community education and participation are mandatory. Homeowners should be given the
opportunity to be part of the steering committee and be part of the project committee
throughout the project. At a minimum, the community needs to be given status reports on a
consistent basis.
The more complex a system is and the higher its initial cost, the cost of on-going
inspections tends to increase. For some systems this may be quite high and impractical for
the homeowner.
Repair costs are 30-40 percent higher than costs for new construction. This is primarily due
to electrical upgrades and accessibility, relocating plumbing stub-outs, redirecting drainage,
replacing landscaping and driveways, limited availability of construction pathways, the
existence of in ground utilities and properly functioning system components, and the
existence of saturated and contaminated soils due to a failure.
Components need to be easily accessible for inspections and maintenance. In this project,
there are still some valves and filters not accessible because they are covered with dirt.
Inspections must occur regularly and noted problems must be fixed. Recently, a ponded
peat filter module was observed. Ponding had also been noted 18 months earlier during a
site visit by another person.
Keep the system as simple as possible. Some of the systems in Burnett had numerous
components, as one of the objectives was to try different technologies. This increases the
complexity and cost.
While the project intended to show treatment efficiencies and reliability for the systems and
their components, it‟s impossible to do with sampling occurring annually at best. It‟s also
difficult to draw conclusions without ongoing information on actual hydraulic flows.
Knowledgeable, professional site evaluators, designers, installers, regulators, and
monitoring/sampling/maintenance personnel are critical to projects such as this.
21
LA PINE, OREGON
Background
The La Pine region is an area of about 125 square miles approximately 25 miles south of Bend,
Oregon in Central Oregon. With an average elevation about 4,200 feet above sea level, the region is
located in the rain shadow of the Cascade Mountains giving the area a high desert climate.
The area has a population of approximately 12,000 people. Most of the residents are of low or fixed
income. There are two major unincorporated communities in the study area (Sunriver and La Pine),
both of which are served by their own sewer system. Except for a couple of other subdivisions, the
rest of the homes and other structures are served by on-site systems.
The area has approximately 13,000 lots, many of which were platted back in the 1960‟s and 1970‟s
prior to the states land use planning laws in 1974. Many of those lots are as small as ½ acre. 6,000
of those lots are improved, most being served by on-site sewage systems. About 7,000 existing lots
are currently vacant, but many will be improved in the coming years based on the county‟s growth
data. Since the 1990 census, growth in the county has increased 35 percent.
A significant part of the area has shallow groundwater with many of the individual wells drawing
water from 50 feet or less. Permeable pumice soils, together with the shallow water table and
relatively high development densities, have resulted in nitrate concentrations approaching the
drinking water standard (10 mg/l) in several of the most densely developed areas. Modeling
predicted nitrate concentrations in groundwater will exceed the federal maximum contaminant levels
within 10 to 20 years. Thus, the county, working with the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality and the USGS, decided to proactively deal with the issue. They secured 5.5 million dollars
from the National Community Decentralized Wastewater Demonstration Project to fund this study.
Project Objectives
The primary intention of this demonstration project is to protect the area‟s aquifer by finding ways to
reduce nitrate from on-site sewage systems. The specific objectives that are noted in the work plan
include:
Field-testing the performance of various promising technologies for removing nitrates.
Establish an on-site sewage disposal maintenance structure.
Increase groundwater monitoring and modeling in the area.
Develop a funding program to assist in the provision of low-interest loans for repairs or
replacement using new nitrate reduction technology.
Actions
After developing a comprehensive work plan, manufacturers and designers of innovative
technologies from across the United States were sought. These technologies will be installed on
properties of volunteer residents and studies intensively for a three year period. The first systems
were installed in the fall of 2000, with other technologies being installed as late as the spring of
2002. The results will be used to determine which technologies will be used in the area.
22
A performance standard for this area was established against which the equipment could be tested.
It consisted of:
Parameter Standard
BOD 10 mg/L
TSS 10 mg/L
TN 10 mg/L
Fecal coliform 2 log reduction from septic tank effluent
E. Coli 2 log reduction from septic tank effluent
Technologies Being Used
AX-20 and RX-30 (Advantex) – packed bed filter (textile) from Orenco
Amphidrome – sequencing batch reactor from F.R. Mahoney & Assoc.
Biokreisel – RBC from Nordbeton North America
Dyno2 – vertical flow wetland from Reactor Dynamics
EnviroServer – aerobic treatment process from MicroSepTec
FAST – aerobic treatment process from Bio-Microbics
Innovative trench design by local soil scientist/design professional – Wert & Assoc.
IDEA BESTEP – batch aerobic treatment process from Advanced Environmental Systems
Nayadic – aerobic treatment process from Consolidated Treatment Systems
NiteLess – nitrification/denitrification process from On Site Wastewater Management
NITREX – packed bed filter (foam) from University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Puraflo – peat filter from Bord na Mona
Summary Findings
Barbara Rich, the project coordinator, reported on this project at the 12th Northwest On-site
Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition in Seattle, Washington on September
22, 2003. Her presentation was a summary of what had been found to date. She reported only on
systems that were at least two years old and that have experienced at least one full cycle of seasons.
She reported only on the five systems that have been found to be the best for Total Nitrogen.
The findings included: (Rich, 2003)
EnviroServer and Nayadic “have had mixed results with neither system approaching a sand
filter or pressure distribution system in terms of overall BOD5, TSS, or bacteria reduction.
Both systems improve on a sand filter in terms of TN reduction. However, neither of the
systems consistently met the La Pine Project performance criteria although individual
systems approached the standard on some parameters. In general, the forced aeration
systems … appear to be sensitive to system use and mechanical upsets.”
Biokreisel “comes close to meeting the project criteria on BOD5, TSS and TN and meets the
criteria for bacteria reduction. This system also provides good treatment with the most
consistency and minimal maintenance. The rotating biological contactor has been a robust
performer regardless of flow rate.”
23
The AX-20 and NITREX systems (packed bed filters) “exhibit good levels of treatment
capabilities. The AX-20 systems meet the performance standards for BOD5 and TSS and
approach the standard for TN reduction but do not meet the bacteria standard. The NITREX
filter in combination with the lined sand filter is the most consistent performer and is the only
system participating to meet the project‟s performance standards.”
Sources of Information:
Burnett
“Demonstration of innovative treatment and disposal systems in the former coal-mining
town of Burnett, Washington. National Onsite Demonstration Project. Summary Report:
Phase II. West Virginia University
Bill Creveling, Tacoma-Pierce County Department of Health
John Eliasson, Washington Department of Health
Carl Garrison, AquaWorx Inc.
Rodney Ruskin, Geoflow Inc.
Jerry Stonebridge – Stonebridge Construction Company
Bill Stuth, Jr. – Stuth Company Inc.
Bill Stuth, Sr. – AquaTest, Inc.
La Pine
Rich, Barbara, Haldeman, D., Cleveland, T., Weick, R., and Everett, R. “Innovative Systems
in the La Pine National Demonstration Project. Presented at the 12th Northwest On-site
Wastewater Treatment Short Course and Equipment Exhibition in Seattle, Washington on
September 22, 2003.
Deschutes County Website for the La Pine Demonstration Project:
www.co.deschutes.or.us/CDD/EnvHealth/index.cfm?fuseaction=demoproj
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality website:
www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/LaPine.htm
USGS web site: www.oregon.usgs.gov/projs_dir/or186/index.html
24
Long term assessment of advanced systems at Delaware Valley College
Larry Hepner, Delaware Valley College
In 1994, the Department of Environmental Protection and the Agronomy Environmental
Science Department at Delaware Valley College formed the Research and Demonstration Center for
On-Lot Systems and Small Flow Technology.
Funded by the DEP, the objectives of the Center were as follows:
Consolidate data and information on systems used or under evaluation in other states and other
countries.
Establish technology priorities based on climate, geology, and soil conditions in PA where
current alternatives are not available or are too costly.
Construct six technologies and evaluate.
Develop a final report with conclusions on systems‟ applicability to PA.
As a first step, on-lot systems technology components in use or under evaluation were reviewed
nationally and internationally from published reports and direct contact with researchers,
regulators, and industry people. A data base was developed to organize, store and access this
information.
Three nationwide trends emerged from the review of existing research information, discussions
with regulatory people and discussions with industry people:
1. Place systems in the Bio-Active soil zone. The bio-active soil zone is the soil horizons close
to the surface, the A and B horizons. Traditionally, soil based systems (especially
conventional type systems) are placed in the C horizons beneath the bio-active zone. Most
renovation occurs in the bio-active zone.
2. Solids and BOD removal is needed to increase effluent infiltration rates of soil, especially
slowly permeable soil.
3. There is a need to attempt to determine the thickness of the soil required to adequately
renovate effluent. (Renovative Thickness)
Also, a Treatment Component Table was developed to organize information and aid in the
selection process.
TREATMENT COMPONENT TABLE
PRIMARY SECONDARY SOIL BASED
Septic Tank Intermittent Sand Filter Wetland
Aerobic Tank Recirculating Sand Filter Spray Irrigation
Peat Filters Low Pressure Pipe
Biological Filters Drip – Trickle
N – Removal At Grade
P – Removal Sand Mound
Disinfection
25
Selection criteria were established for choosing the combination of primary, secondary and
soil based components. The goal was to test technologies that would be applicable to the climate,
geologic, and soil conditions in Pennsylvania, or specific areas of Pennsylvania. The technologies
selected had the potentials to provide an alternative for those areas where no current alternative is
available, or provide additional cost effective alternatives for existing system types.
Six system technologies consisting of various primary treatment components, secondary
treatment components, and soil based components were chosen for study as a result of the selection
process. Full-scale models of these technologies were constructed for testing on the campus of
Delaware Valley College.
The technologies themselves were selected to fit as possible alternatives within the current System
Matrix (Figure 1).
480 GPD (excluding Permit, Construction
single-family residence) Authorization, and Operation
b. Septic system with Permit
single effluent pump
or siphon
c. Gravity fill system
d. Dual gravity field system
e. PPBPS system, gravity dosed
f. Large diameter pipe system
g. Other non-conventional
trench systems
___________________________________________________________________________________
Type IV a. Any system with LPP Improvement 3 yrs.
distribution Permit, Construction
b. System with more than Authorization, and Operation
1 pump or siphon Permit
___________________________________________________________________________________
Type V a. Sand filter pretreatment Improvement 12 mos.
The on-site wastewater activities monthly report form used by the local health departments and
submitted to the State On-Site Wastewater Section was updated to reflect these changes in July of
43
1998. The revised report form was deficient in that the information regarding which specific
systems were being installed was still not being collected. See Figure 2.
Figure 2.
MONTHLY REPORT
ON-SITE WASTEWATER PROGRAM
/_____
County Health Department Month Year
CODE * ON-SITE WASTEWATER PROGRAM No. (Total)
S-1 Site Visits (Includes all OSWW field activities)
S-2 Applications Received
S-3 Improvement Permits Issued - New w/ PLAT (Non-expiring)
S-4 Improvement Permits Issued - New w/ Site Plan (Valid 60 mos)
S-5 Improvement Permits Issued - Expansion of Existing System
S-6 Improvement Permits Issued - Repair Site
S-7 Improvement Permits Denied (Documented)
S-8 Construction Authorizations - New
S-9 Construction Authorizations - Expansions
S-10 Construction Authorizations - Repairs
S-11 Construction Authorizations Denied (Documented)
S-12 Authorizations - Mobile Home Parks
S-13 Authorizations - Existing System Reuse/Relocation
S-14 Inspection Reports Prepared (Table V or Migrant Housing)
S-15 Notices of Violation Issued
S-16 Legal Remedies (Rule .1967 or .1968)
S-17 Permits Revoked (Notice)
S-18 Permits Suspended (Notice)
Operation Permits System Classification
Issued I II III IV V VI
S-19a New (No.)
S-19b Expansions (No.)
S-19c Repairs (No.)
S-19 TOTALS
S-20 Training/Education (Contact hours - On-site Wastewater) (Hrs)
* The Code Nos. are optional and may be changed to meet local requirements.
COUNTY CONTACT: ____________________________________________________
A number of systems are lumped together under each classification, especially those categorized as
Type III, which includes single pump or siphon systems, fill systems, PPBPS systems, large
diameter pipe, and other non-conventional trench systems (E&I systems approved under Rule
.1969). The monthly activity report form does not break these Types down into the specific systems
being installed. Additionally, while the numbers of repair systems permitted and installed are
44
recorded on the monthly report, no information regarding the specific repair/replacement systems
installed, the specific systems that failed, or the age of the failed systems is gathered.
Since 1993 more than 40 innovative wastewater system approvals for 20 different products have
been issued by the Division of Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section. Additional
approvals have been issued for Experimental Systems and Controlled Demonstrations. If the current
trend continues, increasing numbers of approvals will be approved in the future. See Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Innovative System Approvals
9
8
7
# approved
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Prior to July 1998, our monthly report form did not include the breakdown of operation permits into
system types (and the program improvement team was not badgering the counties to get their
monthly reports submitted). Once use of the revised report form was instituted in mid-year 1998, 37
counties reported using the new format for 1998, 83 counties reported in 1999, 88 in 2000, 97 in
2001, and 100 in 2002. Based on data reported to the Section for the July 1998-December 2002
period, it could be seen that the percentage of Type lll systems installed was steadily increasing. See
Figure 4.
45
Figure 4.
Type III Systems as % of Total
45%
40%
35%
30%
25% new
20% all
15%
10%
5%
0%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
It was clear to the On-Site Wastewater Section staff that in order to fully evaluate system
performance more detailed information must be collected regarding both conventional systems and
the myriad of other systems approved for use in North Carolina. We needed to know how many of
what systems are being installed, where, and how long they were lasting. Toward that end, the
Section‟s Program Improvement Team was requested to conduct a survey of the 100 counties to
begin determining that information.
The Survey. All 100 county environmental health programs were contacted by mail and
email and requested to participate in four one-week surveys, one in each of the following four
quarters. For the one week period, each health department was asked to keep track of the numbers
of each specific system type that were installed as an initial or expansion system in their county.
They were also requested to separately keep track of each system installed as a repair/replacement
and the age & type of the failed system that was being repaired. Each county received a one page
survey form, an introduction and instruction letter, and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope.
The left half of the survey sheet contained a list of the various systems that may be permitted in
North Carolina and space to indicate how many of each type system were installed as an initial or
expansion system. The right half of the survey sheet contained three columns of blank cells. For
each repair system installed, one row will be filled out. The information requested was the specific
repair/replacement system installed, the specific system that failed, and the age of the failed system
in years. See Figure 5.
46
Figure 5.
County ___________________ Week of September , 2003
Initial Systems Repair Systems
Replaced System Type Age of
Number Specific Type Repair
System Type (ie the specific type of the system that Replaced
installed System Installed failed)
system
Conventional Gravel Trench Bottom
Depth ? 18" 1
Shallow Conventional Gravel Trench
Bottom Depth 3') 3
Infiltrator Chamber 4
Hancor Chamber 5
Cultec Chamber 6
BioDiffuser Chamber 7
EZ Flow 8
Large diameter pipe 9
Panel Block 10
LPP 11
PTI Multi-pipe 12
Brunswick Bed/Fill 13
Delta Subsurface Drip 14
Geoflow Subsurface Drip 15
PercRite Drip Irrigation 16
Pressure dosed Sand Filter 17
Pressure dosed intermittent sand filter 18
Ecoflo Peat Biofilter 19
PuraFlo Peat filter 20
Norweco Singular ATU/Sand Filter 21
Norweco Biokinetic System 22
Bioclere Modified Trickling Filter 23
Tire Chip Aggregate
How many of the above systems required
a pump?
How many of the above systems were in
new fill (a mound)?
How many of the above systems were in
existing fill?
47
Surveys were conducted in September and December of 2002 and April, August, and September of
2003. Due to inclement weather during specified survey weeks, the counties were requested to send
in data from a week during the month of the survey when systems were actually installed and an
additional week was added. The first survey took place the week of September 16-20, 2002 and the
fifth was scheduled a year later, for the week that Isabel hit the North Carolina coast as it turned out.
Preliminary findings.
Summary of Septic Systems Installation Survey During First Three Weeks Surveyed (through
April 2003):
New Systems
A total of 1583 new systems were reported as installed (or expanded) during the three weeks of the
survey, one week each in September and December 2002 and in April 2003. 77 counties responded
in September, 83 in December, and 67 in April. The number of systems installed, separated by
system type, is given in the table below.
Conv TB Conv TB
system type 18"+ 35%, sufficiently deep soils.
Systems: Two-foot system or large diameter pipe system. Where the contours are relatively
smooth, the two-foot systems work best because they generally offer the greatest trench bottom and
occupy less space. If contours turn abruptly, the LDP system may work best.
Situation 3: Slopes 24 inches of soil is available, LPP systems
may be used if properly engineered. LPP systems are also helpful where available space is a
problem. Finally, subsurface drip irrigation can be used where soil is 18 to 24 inches deep.
Situation 4: Slopes >35%, shallow depth to weathered bedrock.
Systems: Again, the system kind depends on the depth to weathered bedrock. Gravel and 25
percent systems are unavailable in this situation. If about 34 to 40 inches of soil is available, an LDP
is most likely. Where soil depth is >26 inches, LPP systems are possible. Again, LPP systems may
be used if properly engineered. If at least 18 inches of soil is available, subsurface drip irrigation can
be used.
Other general situations: Where there is sufficient soil depth but a lack of available space, the
Prefabricated, permeable block panel system (PPBPS) is recommended. If soil depth is insufficient
for the PPBPS, or if steep slopes and limited access make the PPBPS impractical, then an
appropriate conventional, two-foot system or LDP system with pretreatment may be an option.
Pretreatment allows for up to a 50 percent reduction in the drain line required for treating
wastewater. Determining Ksat for the soil is recommended when pretreatment is used to insure the
application rate does not exceed the hydraulic loading capacity of the soils.
Saprolite is commonly present in mountain soils. For every inch of soil below a trench
bottom, two inches of saprolite must be used. For example, if a trench bottom is entirely in saprolite,
the separation between the trench bottom and a restrictive horizon must be at least 24 inches.
Therefore, the presence of saprolite greatly affects the useable depth of material below a trench
bottom and must be taken into account when choosing a septic system.
59
The table below shows the minimum soil depths required for septic systems primarily used in
North Carolina. This kind of information is invaluable when deciding which system to use on a
given site.
References
1. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section. 1996. On-Site Wastewater Management:
Guidance Manual. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7687.
2. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Health, On-Site Wastewater Section. 1998. Laws and Rules for Sewage
Treatment and Disposal System. P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC, 27611-7687.
3. Ken Castelloe, Supervisor, Buncombe County Department of Environmental Health, personal
communication.
4. Phil James, Haywood County septic system installer, personal communication.
5. John Allison, President, Southeast Soil Science, Inc., personal communication.
60
Minimum Soil Depth Requirements for Given Septic System Types at Various Soil Slopes
System Kind/ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Slope
(in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (in.)
Gravel and
25% Reduction 30 33.6 37.2 40.8 44.4 48 51.6
Systems
at grade 24 27.6 31.2 34.8 38.4 42 45.6
Two-Foot 31 33.4 35.8 38.2 40.6 43 45.4
Systems
at grade 25 27.4 29.8 32.2 34.6 37 39.4
Large
Diameter
Pipe - LDP
10-inch 30 31.2 32.4 33.6 34.8 36 37.2
at grade 24 25.2 26.4 27.6 28.8 30 31.2
8-inch 28 29.2 30.4 31.6 32.8 34 35.2
at grade 22 32.2 24.2 25.6 26.8 28 29.2
Low
Pressure
Pipe - LPP
EZ 1203-LPP 30 31.2 32.4 33.6 34.8 36 37.2
at grade 24 25.2 26.4 27.6 28.8 30 31.2
LPP gravel 24 24.8 25.6 26.4 27.2 28 28.8
at grade 20 20.8 21.6 22.4 23.2 24 24.8
Block Panel 40 42.4 44.2 46.3 48.4 50.5 52.6
System
Subsurface 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Drip Irrigation
61
WaDE Program observations on System Reliability:
Survey data from 3,459 western North Carolina septic systems.
A comparison of the age range of septic systems, with current and past failure rates and septic
tank pump-out rates.
Peter Whitaker, NCDENR OSWW
This presentation analyzes surveys conducted in the past five years in six western North Carolina
counties of 5,023 existing on-site wastewater disposal systems. Of those systems inspected 3,240
owner / occupants answered questions regarding the age range of their septic systems.
The age range of the septic system and structure is compared with the owner / occupant‟s knowledge
of past septic system failure. Failure rates at the time of the survey and inspection are also
considered in terms of the age of the septic system and structure. For example, 13.2 % of the owner /
occupants had knowledge that their septic systems had previously failed and been repaired, including
9.9 % of septic systems installed between 1990 and 1995, of which 1.9 % had a surfacing failure at
the time of inspection. Overall 13 % of the systems had a current violation, and 2.6 % had a
surfacing failure.
The age range of the septic system and structure are also compared with the occupant‟s knowledge
of whether the septic tank had ever been pumped out. For example, for septic systems installed
between 1980 and 1989 only 35.9 % of the owner / occupants indicated their septic tanks had ever
been pumped out. For those systems installed between 1990 and 1995 only 22.8 % of the owner /
occupants indicated their septic tanks had ever been pumped.
Included in the presentation is data collected in Buncombe, Burke, Jackson, Macon, Watauga and
Wilkes Counties. The data presented was collected by Environmental Technicians working for the
Environmental Health Sections of County Health Departments, and the Wastewater Discharge
Elimination Program, On-site Wastewater Section, NC DENR.
Some of the data examined during the presentation is included in the table below:
62
Age Range of Septic System compared with Performance, Maintenance, Failure Rate, etc.
Age Range # in Has Septic Has Septic Was Current If Current Violation what Type
of Septic Cat. been Tank been Septic Violation? B/W to B/W to G/W to G/W to Failing to Failing to Unperm. Other
System Repaired Pumped Tank Yes Stream Surface Stream Surface Stream Surface Privy Violation
Located?
Yes
Yes No Ukn Inc Yes No Ukn Inc
Unknown 733 82 357 236 58 232 208 228 65 385 156 9 11 43 62 4 24 2 1
% 11.2 48.7 32.2 7.9 31.7 28.4 31.1 8.9 52.5 21.3
Prior 1972 473 116 315 22 20 280 156 22 15 325 99 6 1 24 48 1 19 0 0
% 24.5 66.6 4.7 4.2 59.2 33.0 4.7 3.2 68.7 20.9
1972 - 1979 471 83 333 31 24 217 206 23 25 305 62 4 1 17 27 1 9 0 3
% 17.6 70.7 6.6 5.1 46.1 43.7 4.9 5.3 64.8 13.2
1980 - 1989 563 71 452 21 19 202 322 28 11 374 47 1 2 15 19 0 10 0 0
% 12.6 80.3 3.7 3.4 35.9 57.2 5.0 2.0 66.4 8.3
1990 - 1995 425 42 353 14 16 97 290 18 20 285 23 1 2 3 8 0 8 0 1
% 9.9 83.1 3.3 3.8 22.8 68.2 4.2 4.7 67.1 5.4
After 1995 575 34 457 12 72 64 422 15 74 318 35 7 3 6 10 0 8 0 1
% 5.9 79.5 2.1 12.5 11.1 73.4 2.6 12.9 55.3 6.1
No Septic 219* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 48 14 3 2 1 0 0 12 16
% 21.9
TOTAL 3240 428 2267 336 209 1092 1604 334 210 1992 470 42 23 110 175 6 78 14 22
% 13.2 70.0 10.4 6.5 33.7 49.5 10.3 6.5 61.5 14.5 1.3 0.7 3.4 5.4 0.2 2.4 0.4 0.7
*Excluded Ukn = answer of "unknown" Inc = unanswered / incomplete data
Results of the Ashe/Allegany straight pipe elimination program
Gerald Elliot and John Alley, Ashe Co HD
THE PLAYERS
• APPALACHIAN DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
• APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMMISSION
• NC DEPT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE
• NC CLEAN WATER MANAGAEMENT TRUST FUND
• ASHE/ALLEGHANY CO GOV‟TS
• HIGH COUNTRY COG
THE MONEY
• ARC……………………………$400,000.00
• DIV OF COMM ASST……….$400,000.00
(DEFERRED LOANS- GRANTS)
• CWMTF……………………….$400,000.00
(LOW INTEREST LOANS)
TOTAL…………………………..$1.2 MILLION
Survey Work Begins
• 2 surveyors hired and trained
• Target area defined- New River watershed
• New River – 2nd oldest in the world
• Designated “Wild and Scenic River”
• One of 14 Heritage Rivers in US
PRIORITIES
• BLACK WATER TO STREAM
• GRAY WATER TO STREAM
• BLACK WATER TO LAND
• GRAY WATER TO LAND
1 & 3 CAN OFTEN BE CATEGORIZED WITH EQUAL PRIORITY
2 CAN BECOME PRIORITY 1 IN AREAS OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GRAY WATER
DISCHARGES
PRIORITIES
• BLACK WATER TO STREAM
• GRAY WATER TO STREAM
• BLACK WATER TO LAND
• GRAY WATER TO LAND
1 & 3 CAN OFTEN BE CATEGORIZED WITH EQUAL PRIORITY
2 CAN BECOME PRIORITY 1 IN AREAS OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GRAY WATER
DISCHARGES
PRIORITIES
• BLACK WATER TO STREAM
• GRAY WATER TO STREAM
• BLACK WATER TO LAND
• GRAY WATER TO LAND
1 & 3 CAN OFTEN BE CATEGORIZED WITH EQUAL PRIORITY
2 CAN BECOME PRIORITY 1 IN AREAS OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GRAY WATER
DISCHARGES
PRIORITIES
• BLACK WATER TO STREAM
• GRAY WATER TO STREAM
• BLACK WATER TO LAND
• GRAY WATER TO LAND
1 & 3 CAN OFTEN BE CATEGORIZED WITH EQUAL PRIORITY
2 CAN BECOME PRIORITY 1 IN AREAS OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL GRAY WATER
DISCHARGES
No Problems Found ?
• Most riverfront development began after 1970
• Asked for and received permission to survey New River tributaries
• Alas, the problem areas were found
Problems Found !!
• Violations found and documented
• Doorhangers left when no one home
• Follow-up letters sent to violators with explanation of funding options
• Surveying lasted 18 of 36 month project
• More than 600 violations found, classified and prioritized
Best Professional Judgement
• Dealt with small lots, steep slopes, poor soils and proximity to surface water
65
• Same factors were reason for straight piping in the first place
• Of more than 400 corrections only 10 had to have follow-up work done
The Correction Procedure
• Some gray-water discharges corrected by re-routing to existing septic system
• Others corrected by installing gray-water tank and drainfield
• Blackwater systems corrected by adding drainfield lines
• Complete new systems installed where necessary, including pump systems
The Correction Procedure
• Some gray-water discharges corrected by re-routing to existing septic system
• Others corrected by installing gray-water tank and drainfield
• Blackwater systems corrected by adding drainfield lines
• Complete new systems installed where necessary, including pump systems
• Homeowners below 80% of the median income would receive deferred loans
• Homeowners above 80% of median income would receive 3% loans for up to 10 years
• Rental properties would receive 5% loans for up to 10 years
• Homeowners below 80% of the median income would receive deferred loans
• Homeowners above 80% of median income would receive 3% loans for up to 10 years
• Rental properties would receive 5% loans for up to 10 years
Average Costs
• Typical Gray-water correction - $1200.00
• Typical Blackwater correction - $2100.00
• Expenditures over $3500.00 were secured by a “DEED OF TRUST”
• Many homeowners elected to self-correct their problems w/o use of our funds
The Results
• Violations Found – >600
• Funded Corrections:
– Grants: 287
– Loans: 38
66
• Self-corrections – 150
• Total corrections 5/00 thru 6/03 - 475
Statewide problem
• Statewide committee formed to develop guidelines for future projects
• Handouts available
• Consensus of the committee – Straight piping is statewide problem
• All areas along watersheds would benefit from this type project
The Future
• Revolving loan component provides a great benefit
• More than $50,000.00 will be paid back at 3-5%
• $$ will be re-loaned by ADHD
• Loans can now be issued as opposed to warrants
• Watauga and Wilkes counties now doing a straight pipe project
67
Wake County Field Performance and Operation & Maintenance Survey of Systems Installed
1982-2002
Everette Lynn, Wake County Env. Services
Mike Hoover, Soil Science Dept., NCSU
Suzanne Harris, Wright Lowery, Steve Bristow and
Kent Daeke, Wake County
and Trish Angoli, Currently with OSWS, NCDENR
Introduction
In NC approximately 50% of population served by septic systems
In Wake County there are approximately 55,000 to 60,000 septic systems (based on data from
CDM groundwater study), with the vast majority of the population within public water supply
watersheds utilizing septic systems
Wake County is located within the Outer Piedmont and Fall Zone Provinces of NC
Introduction
Soil systems include the felsic crystalline Piedmont, Upper Coastal Plain and Triassic Basin
Wake County employs soil scientists, environmental engineers and highly trained environmental
health specialists with many years of cumulative experience in on-site wastewater disposal
Wake County utilizes an extensive preliminary certification process involving NC Licensed Soil
Scientists
Introduction
Areas of concern relative to decentralized wastewater disposal:
• Must be sustainable, areas served by on-site systems do not facilitate future incorporation into
urban service areas.
• Potential adverse impacts from failing systems include negative impacts on Public Health,
potential contamination of groundwater and surface waters.
• Limited available information relative to system failure rates and maintenance.
Introduction
Wake County Watershed Management Task Force Recommendations (11/02, BOC adopted 2/03)
• Improve the data tracking system
• At the sale of a home provide education materials
• Promote certification system installers & home inspectors
• Develop a pilot study of systems
• Based on pilot study results, evaluate system management options
68
Purpose
The survey represents the implementation of the recommendation for a pilot study.
Note that recommendation of the Task Force and subsequent adoption by the Wake County
Board of County Commissioners provided impetus and a commitment to the study.
Purpose
Determine system failure rates in defined population
Determine the degree and type of maintenance provided to systems over the past twenty years
Provide scientific data relative to the need for enhanced system management
Based on results, evaluate failure rates, degree of operation and maintenance and management
options
Study Design
Development of design involved a collaborative effort between WCDES and Dr. Mike Hoover,
NCSU. Trish Angoli, OSWS, NCDENR and Dr. Larry King, Soil Scientist & Professor Emeritus
NCSU also participated.
Planning & study design took 6-7 months with numerous weekly meetings.
Utilize scientific approach for study design including problem definition, hypothesis
development, statistical tests, defined sample size, specified research protocol, taking measures to
minimize bias, characterization of the study population and sample selection.
Study Design
Population chosen was all facilities served by septic tank systems installed between 1982 and
2001 (Systems of this vintage were required to have access risers on tankage and were sited
utilizing uniform soil and site criteria)
County GIS databases were utilized to minimize bias and facilitate collection and refinement of
the study population
Database screening and refinement:
• CDM database utilized (developed as part of groundwater to identify sites served by on-site
systems)
• Year built date of structures 1982-2001
Study Design
Initial population within the selected age range of ~ 33,000 sites (out of ~ 59,000 total)
Selection of sample size to achieve a 95% confidence limit
Each of the 33,000 sites in the study population was assigned a unique number
Study Design
Then a random sample was selected utilizing Excel random number generation
This resulted in 450 sites selected from the study population
The number of sites were “over selected” to account for unusable sample sites
69
Study Design
Permit location and further sample refinement:
• A written protocol was developed for determination of permit location within 4 filing systems
utilized over the past 20+ years.
• ~Twenty staff members were each assigned 20+ sites for permit location.
• This required several weeks of rainy days to accomplish.
• A final search was made by staff to locate permits not found in initial search.
Study Design
Additional sample refinement, elimination of:
• Sites found to be served by sewer or community systems (18%)
• Sites for which permits could not be located (1%)
• One site that was outside the year built dates
• Resulted in a final sample of 323 sites
• Each sample site was assigned a unique sample identifier number to facilitate tracking, etc.
Study Design
Development of survey instruments:
• Literature reviews and brainstorming to establish sample observations and questions
• Refinement and ranking of O&M observations/questions
Production and further review of survey instruments (Refer to Field Survey Data and
Homeowner Interview, note that refinement of these documents continued up until the execution of
the survey).
Determination to conduct field assessment under the same weather conditions and to conduct a
wet season survey
Rainfall Conditions Prior to Field Performance Assessment (through 3/20/03)
Study Execution
Notification of elected officials, the public and those selected for survey
• Purpose, time and mode of execution to BOCC
• Press release, newspaper article and radio interview
• Letter of intent and postcard mailed to those selected for survey.
Study Execution
Assembly of survey packets by staff:
Copy of permit & associated information.
Orthophoto of site with land record information
Survey forms (field data and homeowner interview).
Letter of intent.
Division of packets into 9 survey districts utilizing GIS maps (based on desired 3 day time frame
of survey and projected number of surveys/team/day)
70
Study Execution
Survey teams made up of Wastewater/Technical Assistance staff member and at least one team
member from another program/cooperating agency (NCSU, DENR, LHD, Ag Ext., Wake S&E,
Wake Soil & Water, etc.)
Team members: Mike Hoover, Everette Lynn, Larry King, Bob Uebler, David McCloy, Trish
Angoli, Steve Bristow, Kent Daeke, Suzanne Harris, Ed Duke, Brett Martin, Glen Johnson, Vince
Manzi, Ron Dudley, Todd Becker, Everett Coates, Mitch Woodward, Quincy Adams, Tom Hill,
Maria Cox, Robert Brown, Chris Niewohner.
Study Execution
Consistency training:
• Addressed property access issues
• Review of survey instruments and addressed
interpretation issues
• Field practice
• For purposes of study, failure was defined as
evidence of sewage on soil surface, sewage surfacing with pressure from foot or straight pipe
Study Execution
Survey conducted April 1 – 4.
Common location for team staging morning of survey days, teams provided with GIS and detailed
street maps, dog treats, cameras, etc.
Team leader organized route and transported teams.
Utilization of survey instruments (mode of failure analysis and interviews)
309 out of 323 were field surveyed, 14 non-viable sites
Homeowner interviews conducted on 198 of sites
Study Execution
Quality Assurance/Quality Control:
• A sample of 27 survey sites were selected for QA/QC, 3 randomly selected from each survey
district
• These sites were revisited by team members Mike Hoover, Everette Lynn, Tom Hill, Steve
Bristow
(also during week of survey)
Photos were taken and areas located on the orthophotos of failure, past or present
Active Malfunction
Past Potential Malfunction
71
Data Analysis & Survey Results
Data analysis is currently in progress
Follow up visits by Everette Lynn, Steve Bristow and Mike Hoover were made to sites identified
as not failing on the day of the survey, but identified as possible or recent past failure
Data Analysis & Survey Results
Viable sites were reasonably distributed over four-five year time frames, 1982-1986, 1987-1991,
1992-1996, 1997-2001
A quantitative ranking was developed for maintenance observations and questions
• Point values were assigned to field observations, totally a possible 100 points
• Similar valuation for questions, with a possible 100 points
Data Analysis & Survey Results
Preliminary Results
72
Shellfish Sanitation’s shoreline survey
J. D. Potts, Shellfish Sanitation
73
Nags Head Septic Health Initiative
Todd Kraft, Town of Nags Head
Septic Health Initiative-
Outline
Overview- Why a Septic Program? Who started it? What does it consist of?
Inspection & Pumping
Repair Loans
Water Quality Monitoring
Promoting Septic Health
Decentralized Wastewater Master-plan
Survey
Septic Health- Overview
Why a Septic Program?
Density and growth
Septic systems very common in Nags Head
Some systems may need repair
Economy Based on Family Vacation Tourism
Our water resources are paramount
Septic Health- Overview
Who started it?
Local citizens
Committee gathered for three years looking at options
Reduce need for Central Sewage
Improve surface and ground water quality by improving Individual Septic System performance
Septic Health- Overview
What does it consist of?
Inspection & Pumping
2001- #219 inspections and #191 pump-outs
2002- #448 inspections and #370 pump-outs
2003- #344 inspections and #220 pump-outs
Per Season Average- #335+ inspections #260+ pump-outs
74
Septic Health-
Repair and Loans
Loan amount per fiscal year-
FY 2001-2002 ($18,427.32)
FY 2002-2003 ($31,902.12)
FY 2003-2004 ($3,550.00) to-date
Overall Totals ($53,879.44)
Loan Interest Rates- currently 2.5% available to qualifying property owners up to $3,000 for
repair or replacement of mal-functioning systems
Septic Health-
Repair and Loans
Majority of repairs are drain-field related
Failure rate- (6%) from (65/1011) inspections
Average age of repaired systems- 22 years old
($136.00 annual cost) Over 22 year time-frame using $3,000 as total maintenance & repair cost
Septic Health-
Water Quality Monitoring
Septic Health-
Water Quality Monitoring
Sampling ground and surface waters through-out Nags Head
Researching all data in development of a management plan
University Input
Results on web-site
Septic Health-
Water Quality Monitoring
Septic Health-
Education
Inspector, realtor, refund packets (information)
School program
UNC Internship
75
Septic Health-
Promoting Program
Town newsletter
Mass mailer
Government access channel
Participation signs
Civic functions (displays)
Area presentations
Septic Health-
Wastewater Master-plan
Septic Health-
Initiative Survey
Septic Health-
Survey Objectives
Gather feedback from the community
Evaluate the inspection/pumping program
Evaluate education efforts
Determine participant satisfaction
Septic Health-
Survey Design
2 versions of surveys
Participant
Non-participant
220 surveys were mailed (110 to each group)
Recipients were randomly selected from databases
95% Confidence Level
Confidence interval
Participants+/- 8.01
Non-participants +/- 9.15
Return stamped envelopes were included
All surveys were anonymous unless the respondent included his/her name voluntarily upon return
Septic Health-
Survey Response
78 Program Participants responded to survey – 70.91%
31 Non-program Participants responded – 28.18%
76
77
Performance/failure studies across the country
Mike Hoover, NCSU
78
Sampling protocol
Maren Roush, NSF
Sampling protocol description for numerous technologies and specific parameters can be found at:
www.nsf.org/etv
www.epa.gov/etv
79
Using Recycled Tire Chips as Aggregate in Septic Systems
Clifton Roberts, REHS (Retired)
South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
Horry County, South Carolina
Scrap Tires Generated
Over 260 Million per Year in U.S.
Approximately 800 Million in Stock Piles
Health Risks of Tire Piles
Fires
Mosquitoes
Typical Tire Composition
5 lbs. 30 different synthetic rubbers
4 lbs. 8 types of natural rubber
5 lbs. 8 types of carbon black
1 lb. Steel cord for belts
1 lb. Polyester and nylon
3 lbs. 40 chemicals, waxes, oils, etc.
1/3 solids accumulation
The Aftermath
Each Homeowner received an inspection report
Follow-up and corrections
Worked with builders and septic contractors
Water Softeners
Effluent Coming out of the risers
Premature Plugging of the Effluent Filters
No stratification of the septic tank contents
88
Renewed Emphasis
Properly Fitting Effluent filters – “secured in place”
Tank outlet pipes – supported on a firm base (unexcavated)
Tanks on firm foundation
Educate homeowners on water softeners
Future/ Present Needs
Certification, Training and Accountability of Septic system installers
Thoroughness of installation inspections
Improved and extended testing of new system components
Education of system owners
More survey information
89
Using Risk-based Watershed Planning in Treatment System Selection
George Loomis and Lorraine Joubert *
University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension
College of the Environment and Life Sciences
Department of Natural Resources Science
Abstract
Local onsite wastewater management regulations are expanding from an exclusive focus on safe and
sanitary disposal for public health protection to include a broader role in safeguarding environmental
quality. Controlling cumulative effects of onsite treatment systems to surface waters and aquifers
calls for a watershed approach. Simply put, this means looking beyond the wastewater treatment
and dispersal capacity of an individual lot in order to consider what level of wastewater treatment is
needed to achieve and/or protect local water quality goals. Appropriate wastewater technologies
capable of achieving established treatment performance standards can then be selected to guide
applicants for new system construction, upgrades and repairs. For most communities however,
departing from standard regulations is a challenge. Concrete examples are needed to demonstrate
how small communities with limited staff can develop and oversee an onsite wastewater
management program with specialized standards for local watersheds and aquifer recharge areas.
This presentation will review the process of selecting performance standards based on watershed and
aquifer features, addressing factors to be considered in adopting a risk-based approach to system
selection. We will focus on examples from Rhode Island communities, including three towns
participating in the EPA Block Island Green Hill Pond Watershed National Community
Demonstration Project to show how small towns can establish comprehensive wastewater
management programs with selective use of advanced treatment systems in areas of high pollution
risk. One community, the Town of New Shoreham, located on Block Island, adopted treatment
standards in 1996. In this talk we briefly review the process two other towns, South Kingstown and
Charlestown, are using to select site-specific treatment standards. In each town the resources of
concern include sole source aquifers, sensitive coastal waters, recreational waters and unique aquatic
habitat.
__________________________________________________________________
* Director, Onsite Wastewater Training Center; and Director, Nonpoint Education for Municipal
Officials Program, respectively.
90
Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport Modeling with Sensitivity Analysis for
Wastewater Disposal Systems
Kenneth O. Pohlig
Division of Water Quality
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1633
919-715-6221
Ken.Pohlig@ncmail.nc
Abstract
North Carolina Administrative Code 15A Subchapter (Groundwater) 2L specifies that for an
individually permitted wastewater disposal system, a compliance boundary is established around the
disposal system, and the same rule specifies the groundwater quality that must be met at the
compliance boundary. Groundwater contaminant modeling is often an essential component in
evaluating the performance of a surface or sub-surface wastewater disposal system to ensure
compliance with these Groundwater 2L rules. The soil and hydrogeologic investigations and
subsequent groundwater flow and contaminant transport modeling should be used by the design
engineer to ensure that the total system will not violate groundwater standards. Sensitivity analysis
can be a useful technique in optimizing wastewater plant design such that the expected system
performance is met. Examples are presented which document the inherent uncertainty associated
with the groundwater flow and contaminant transport models. The use of cross-sectional models is
highlighted here to demonstrate their usefulness in evaluating groundwater system performance.
The total system performance is broadly broken up into two components: the performance of the
wastewater treatment system and the performance of the soil/groundwater system. This presentation
focuses on the soil/groundwater performance. In these examples, first the groundwater flow system
is modeled, then the contaminant transport is modeled. The soils and hydrogeologic investigation
must be adequate enough to provide realistic estimates of the pertinent hydrogeologic parameters to
be used in the models. The aquifer saturated hydraulic activity, the aquifer thickness, and local and
outer boundary conditions are important parameters of the model. Other certain key parameters used
are effective porosity and the dispersion coefficient, which are estimated from the literature. Net
groundwater recharge is often overlooked; however, this is an important parameter used in the
calibration of the groundwater flow model. Properly used, sensitivity analysis is an effective tool to
be used by the modeler in studying the uncertainty associated with the field-measured parameters
and the literature assumed parameters.
91
Can systems success be predicted through modeling?
Ed Andrews, Edwin Andrews and Associates.
MODELING
CAN SYSTEM SUCCESS BE PREDICTED?
MODELING IS COMPLEX
SOME VARIABLES
• Hydraulic Conductivity X + Y + Z;
• Storage – Specific yield, effective porosity and total porosity;
• Water table aquifer dimensions;
• Creeks, rivers, lakes, ocean, other significant “sinks”;
• Rainfall (net) after runoff;
• Evaporation and transpiration;
• Leakage downward;
• Wastewater chemistry;
Hydraulic Conductivity
Horizontal; X and Y flow, varies with;
• Landscape position;
• Soil Type;
• Parent material;
• Rock float;
• Facies change;
Vertical; Z flow; varies with:
• Horizons;
• Cross bedding;
• Rock surfaces
• Confining layers.
FINITE DIFFERENCE EQUATION:
MODFLOW -
Basic partial differential equation describes non-equilibrium flow;
Finite difference method – the partial derivatives are replaced by terms calculated from the
differences in head values at discrete points.
WATER TABLE AQUIFER
THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER TABLE AQUIFER IS TYPICALLY ROCK OR CONFINING
BEDS OF CLAY;
THE TOP OF THE WATER TABLE AQUIFER IS DEFINED BY A WATER TABLE
CONTOUR MAP.
PREDICTION
THIS YEAR?
FLOYD, FRAN, ISABEL – WILL IT FUNCTION.
COMPACTION OVER TIME
HETEROGENEITY
92
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO OPTIMIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MODELS?
TWO TYPES OF CALIBRATION
1) STATIC
2) DYNAMIC.
VERIFICATION
IF WE CAN‟T PRECISELY PREDICT – WHY MODEL?
TO ASSIST WITH DESIGN TO COMPARE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES.
ESTIMATE MONTHLY AND ANNUAL FLUCTUATIONS.
DETERMINE REASONABLE IMPACTS;
IDENTIFY UNFORSEEN SITE LIMITATIONS.
Bibliography:
A Modular Tree-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model, by McDonald,
Michael G. and Harbaugh, Arlen W., Arlen W., U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 83 – 875, 1988.
Introduction to Groundwater Modeling Finite Difference and Finite Element Methods, by Wand,
Herbert F. and Anderson, Mary P. , W. H. Freeman and Company, 1982.
Groundwater, Freeze, R. Allan and Cherry, John A., Prentice-Hall, In. 1979.
Numerical Groundwater Modeling, Flow and Contaminant Migration, Walton, William C., Lewis
Publishers1989
93
Hydraulic assimilative capacity and system reduction
Aziz Amoozegar, NCSU
94
Use of Redoximorphic Features in Site Evaluation
Dave Lindbo, NCSU
Introduction
Siting and designing septic systems relies on the interpretation of soil morphology and site
evaluation. In much of the country one of the most critical uses of soil morphology is the
determination of soil wetness conditions (water table). It is generally acknowledged that the water
table fluctuates greatly over the course of the year with the highest levels (closest to the surface)
occurring in the winter or early spring. This phenomenon is referred to as seasonal saturation. By
rule in several states, the presence of low chroma colors (gray colors), mottles, and/or redoximorphic
features in the soil is used to identify seasonal saturation. There are two potential problems with this
method. First, there is no consensus on what morphology best represents short duration saturation
(21 days. The DRAINMOD simulation data was used to compute the number of
times per year the water table was above a given depth. Statistical analysis of the data showed that
redox depletions were significantly correlated to periods of >21 days saturation (R2 = 0.93). The
actual percentage of redox depletions increased each time the soil was saturated for >21 days.
Although these finding are important it must be noted that they are still preliminary and need to be
refined with data from additional sites. However, the implication from the data is that the common
or more (>2%) occurrence of redox depletions (low chroma colors) used in the rule can be correlated
to a saturation event of >21 days (Fig. 2).
90
80 30 cm
70 60 cm
Depletion (%)
60 90 cm
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
# of Events /10 yrs
Figure 2. Relation between frequency and abundance of redox deletions for saturation events > 21
days.
Relation of Morphology to Monitoring Interpretation
Simply using the first occurrence of low chroma colors in estimating seasonal high water table,
although generally accurate, does not address the duration or frequency of saturated and reduced
conditions. In addition, soils that have been drained are no longer in environmental equilibrium,
thus the morphology (color) does not represent present water tables. It may take years to decades for
the soil morphology to reflect the hydrologic alteration, thus an alternative method for evaluating
wetness conditions other than morphology may need to be refined. As drained land is under
97
increasing developmental pressure it is critical that a monitoring protocol for evaluating water table
well data be evaluated.
A study by Williams et al. (2001) suggested that an “equivalent standard” be used in evaluating
hydrographs. The premise is that the water table determined from the hydrograph should be
equivalent to the one determined by morphology on an undrained, unaltered site. Since it has been
shown that 2 chroma colors can be correlated to 21 days of continuous saturation, then the where
there is 21 days of continuous on the hydrograph in a normal precipitation period that should be used
for the water table.
References
1. Evans, C. V. and D. P. Franzmeier. 1986. Saturation, aeration, and color patterns in a
toposequence of soils in north-central Indiana. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:975-980.
2. Franzmeier, D. P., J. E. Yahner, G. C. Steinhardt, and H. R. Sinclair, Jr. 1983. Color patterns and
water table levels in some Indiana soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:1196-1202.
3. Hayes, A. and M. J. Vepraskas. 2000. Morphological changes in soil produced when hydrology
is altered by ditching. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
4. He, X., M. J. Vepraskas, R. W. Skaggs, and D. L. Lindbo. 2001. Adapting A Drainage Model to
Simulate Water Table Levels in Natural Landscapes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
5. Hunt, W. F., III, R. W. Skaggs, G. M. Chescheir, and D. M. Amatya. 2001. Examination of the
wetland hydrologic criterion and its application in the determination of wetland hydrologic
status. WRRI Report 333. 119p.
6. James, H. R. and T. E. Fenton. 1993. Water tables in paired artificially drained and undrained
soil catenas in Iowa. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:774-781.
7. Lindbo, D. L. 1997. Entisols-Fluvents and Fluvaquents: Problems recognizing aquic and hydric
conditions in young, flood plain soils. In M. J. Vepraskas and S. W. Sprecher (eds.) Aquic
Conditions and Hydric Soils: The Problem Soils. SSSA Spec. Pub. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA,
Madison, WI p.133-152.
8. Pickering, E. W. and P. L. M. Veneman. 1984. Moisture regimes and morphological
characteristics in a hydrosequence in central Massachusetts. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:113-118.
9. Veneman, P. L. M., D. L. Lindbo, and L. A. Spokas. 1998. Soil moisture and redoximorphic
features: A historical perspective. In M. C. Rabenhorst, J. C. Bell, and P. A. McDaniel (eds.),
Quantifying Soil Hydromorphology. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Special Publication No. 54, SSSA,
Madison, WI. p. 1-24.
10. Vepraskas, M. J. 1994. Redoximorphic features for identifying aquic conditions. NC Agric.
Res. Serv. Tech. Bull. 301, Raleigh, NC.
11. Vepraskas, M. J., X. He, D. L. Lindbo, and Skaggs. 2002. Predicting long-term wtland
hydrology from hydric soil field indicators. WRRI Report 342. 55p.
12. Vepraskas, M. J., J. L. Richardson, J. P. Tandarich, and S. J. Teets. 1999. Dynamics of hydric
soil formation along a created deep marsh. Wetlands 19:78-89.
98
13. Vepraskas, M. J. and L. P. Wilding. 1983. Aquic Conditions in soils with and without low
chroma colors. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:280-285.
14. Williams, J. P., D. L. Lindbo, and M. J. Vepraskas. 2001. A Suggested Water Table Monitoring
Method Based on Soil Color Patterns. In K. Mancl (ed.) On-Site Wastewater Treatment.
Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI p 97-105.
99
Table 1: Summary of state regulations using morphology for determining soil wetness.
State Morphology Monitoring or Other Data
AK Mottling 1) Direct observation between June 1 and Sept.
30.
2) Use of standing water bodies
3) Knowledge and experience of the engineer
AL Gray colors Consultation with CPSS or County Health Dept.
AR 5% distinct or 1) Direct observation during wettest part of the
prominent mottling that year
increases with depth 2) Well comparison (Frimpter, 1980)
MD Mottling USDA NRCS Soil Survey Data
ME 1) Soil color Weekly readings compared to USGS long term
(redoximorphic features) records. Highest level during wet season equals
2) Soil drainage class water table for design purposes.
MI (Bay Soil mottling
County)
100
MN 1) 5% distinct or 1) 2 years of bi-monthly readings correct for
prominent climate
redoximorphic features 2) USDA NRCS data
that increase with depth
NM Soil evaluation 1) Direct observation
2) Other acceptable sources
NV Soil Color
SC 18 inches at any time
2) For sites with 24” or more of naturally
occurring soil:
a) must be 6” below ground surface
b) shall not rise more than 6” above the critical
level for more than 10 days
c) shall not rise above the critical level for more
than 20 days.
102
Relating reliability to Authorized Onsite Evaluators as experienced in Virginia
Don Alexander, VaDEH
103
Speaker Addresses
104
Andy Adams Don Alexander
NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater Virginia Dept of Health
1642 Mail Svc Ctr PO Box 2448, Rm 117
Raleigh, NC 27699-1642 Main St. Station
Phone: (919) 715-7498 Richmond, VA 23218
Aziz Amoozegar, Dr. Edwin Andrews, III
NCSU, Soil Science Dept. Edwin Andrews & Assoc.
Box 7619 PO Box 30653
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619 Raleigh, NC 27622
Phone: (919) 515-7305 Phone: (919) 783-8395
Fax: (919) 515-7494 Fax: (919) 783-0151
Kae Arrington Jim Beeson
NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater S&EC
2877 Hwy 70 E 11010 Raven Ridge Rd.
Beaufort, NC 28516 Raleigh, NC 27614
Phone: (252) 504-3690 Phone: (919) 846-5900
Fax: (252) 504-3690
Steven Berkowitz Jim Boyer
NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater Transylvania County
1642 Mail Svc Ctr 203 E. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1642 Brevard, NC 28712
Phone: (919) 715-3271 Phone: (828) 884-3139
Fax: (828) 884-3140
Cory Jansen Brantley Robert Crawford
David Brantley & Sons, Inc. Dare County Environmental Health
37 Pine Ridge Road PO Box 1000
Zebulon, NC 27597 Manteo, NC 27954
Phone: (252) 478-3721 Phone: (252) 475-5089
Fax: (252) 478-4644
Gerald R. Elliott Scott Greene
Appalachian District Health Dept. Guilford County Health Dept.
PO Box 208 201 S. Eugene St.
Jefferson, NC 28640 Greensboro, NC 27402
Phone: (336) 246-7959 Phone: (336) 373-7613
Fax: (336) 246-8163 Fax: (336) 373-3730
Barbara Grimes W. Allen Hayes, Jr.
NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater Southeast Soil Science
1642 Mail Svc Ctr 10 Rhododendron Circle
Raleigh, NC 27699-1642 Asheville, NC 28805
Phone: (828) 299-4936
Fax: (828) 299-4936
105
Larry Hepner Paul C. Higdon
Delaware Valley College 5650 Upper Burningtown Rd.
700 East Butler Ave. Franklin, NC 28734
Doylestown, PA 18901-2697 Phone: (828) 369-5048
Fax: (828) 524-5316
Michael Hoover Tom Konsler
NCSU, Soil Science Dept. Orange County Env. Health
Box 7619 PO Box 8181
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 515-7305 Phone: (919) 732-8181
Fax: (919) 515-7494 Fax: (919) 644-3006
Todd Kraft Doug Lassiter
Town of Nags Head Zabel Environmental Technology
Box 99 500 Smithdale St.
Nags Head, NC 27959 Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Phone: (252) 441-5508 Phone: (800) 596-5501
Fax: (252) 441-4680 Fax: (336) 784-5311
David Lenning Sarah K. Liehr
Alternatives Northwest NCSU - Bio & Agri. Engineering
680 E. Island Lake Dr. NCSU, Box 7625
Shelton, WA 98584 Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone: (919) 515-6761
Fax: (919) 515-7760
David Lindbo
Soil Science Dept.
Box 7619, NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619
George Loomis Everette Lynn
University of Rhode Island Wake Co. Env. Svcs.
1 Greenhouse Rd. OWT Center PO Box 550
001 Coastal Institute Bldg Raleigh, NC 27602
Kingston, RI 02881 Phone: (919) 856-7461
Phone: (401) 874-4558 Fax: (919) 856-7407
Fax: (401) 874-4561
Joe Lynn Mark Murosky
NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater Craven County Health Dept.
6768 George Hildebran School Rd. PO Drawer 12610
Hickory, NC 28602 New Bern, NC 28561
Phone: (828) 397-5152 Phone: (252) 636-4936
Fax: (252) 636-1474
Joe Pearce Ken Pohlig
NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater NC DENR, DWQ
1642 Mail Svc Ctr Mail Service Center 1633
Raleigh, NC 27699-1642 Raleigh, NC 27699-1633
Phone: (919) 715-3270 Phone: (919) 715-6200
106
J.D. Potts Diana Rashash
Shellfish Sanitation NCCE
PO Box 769 604 College Street
Morehead City, NC 28557 Jacksonville, NC 28540
Phone: (252) 726-6827 Phone: (910) 455-5873
Fax: (910) 455-0977
Clifton Roberts Mauren Roush
1958 Jonestown Rd. NSF International
Galivants Ferry, SC 29544 PO Box 130140
Phone: (843) 358-0650 Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140
A. Robert Rubin, PhD Tom Stevens
NCSU - Bio & Agri. Engineering NSF International
NCSU, Box 7625 PO Box 130140
Raleigh, NC 27695 Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140
Phone: (919) 515-6791
Robert Swift Bob Uebler
RC Land Design and Maint. NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater
116 Coquina Dr. 1424 Carolina Ave.
Wilmington, NC 28411 Washington, NC 27889
Phone: (910) 686-4800 Phone: (252) 946-6481
Fax: (910) 686-5510 Fax: (252) 975-3716
Peter Whitaker John P. Williams
PO Box 927 Land Management Group, Inc.
Canton, NC 28716-0927 P.O. Box 2522
Phone: (828) 646-3663 Wilmington, NC 28402
Phone: (910) 452-0001
Fax: (910) 452-0060
Bruce Withrow Gene Young
Brunswick Co. Health Dept. NC DENR, On-Site Wastewater
PO Box 9 127 Creek Ridge Dr.
Bolivia, NC 28422 Lexington, NC 27295
Phone: (910) 253-2266
Fax: (910) 253-2388
107
Vendor List
108
William Anthony B. K. Barringer, Jr.
Advanced Drainage Systems Piedmont Design Associates
115 West Crown Pt. Rd. 125 E Plaza Dr., Ste 104
Winter Garden, FL 34787 Mooresville, NC 28115
Phone: (919) 796-9873 Phone: (704) 664-7888
Fax: (919) 786-4501 Fax: (704) 664-1778
Mike Barry David Bass
AQWA Xerxes/Shannon & Assoc.
2604 Willis Ct. 2609 Forestbluff Dr.
Wilson, NC 27896 Fuquay-Varina, NC 27526
Phone: (252) 243-7693 Phone: (919) 552-0048
Fax: (252) 243-7694 Fax: (919) 552-0058
Ben Berteau Dustin Calhoun
EZ Flow Rochester Rotational Molding
2175 Old Hendersonville Hwy 1952 E. Lucas St.
Brevard, NC 28712 Rochester, IN 46975
Phone: (828) 883-2130 Phone: (574) 223-8844
Fax: (828) 884-2438 Fax: (574) 223-8303
Wes Combs Robert Crissman
Premier Tech Environment, Inc. Bord na Mona
1 Premier Ave. PO Box 77457
Riviere-du-Loup G5R 6C1 Greensboro, NC 27417
Phone: (418) 867-8883 Phone: (336) 547-9338
Fax: (418) 862-6642 Fax: (336) 547-8559
Houston L. Crumpler Art Daube
Crumpler Plastic Pipe, Inc. Tuf-Tite
PO Box 2068 30 Sweetcake Mountain Rd.
Roseboro, NC 28382-2068 New Fairfield, CT 06812
Phone: (910) 525-4046 Phone: (203) 746-9492
Fax: (915) 525-5801 Fax: (203) 746-9492
109
William Fenner Craig Goodwin
CES Sales NCS - Wastewater Solutions
PO Box 69 PO Box 73399
Harbinger, NC 27941 Puyallup, WA 98373
Phone: (252) 491-5277 Phone: (253) 848-2371
Fax: (252) 491-5777 Fax: (253) 840-0877
Ford Goudey Todd Harrell
Infiltrator Systems, Inc. BB Hobbs, Inc.
6 Business Park Dr. PO Box 437
Old Saybrook, CT 06475 Darlington, SC 29532
Phone: (860) 577-7003 Phone: (843) 395-2120
Fax: (860) 577-7703 Fax: (843) 393-3595
Sonny Huguley Jay Johnson
Confederate Sales Plastic Tubing, Inc.
8205 Brooknell Terrace PO Box 878
Charlotte, NC 28270 Roseboro, NC 28382
Phone: (704) 542-7096 Phone: (910) 525-5121 x25
Fax: (704) 541-7288 Fax: (910) 525-4934
Tim Johnson Gary Koteskey
T & J Panels, Inc. GAG Sim/Tech Filter
269 Marble Rd. 06598 Horton Bay North Rd.
Statesville, NC 28625 Boyne City, MI 49712
Phone: (704) 924-8600 Phone: (888) 999-3290
Fax: (704) 924-8681 Fax: (231) 582-7324
Doug Lassiter Francis Lombardi
Zabel Environmental Technology FRALO Plastech Manufacturing
500 Smithdale St. 1 General Motors Dr.
Winston-Salem, NC 27107 Syracuse, NY 13206
Phone: (800) 596-5501 Phone: (315) 475-0100
Fax: (336) 784-5311 Fax: (315) 475-0200
110
Don Mizelle Patrick Mulhall
Sheaffer-Stafford Enterprises Polylok
PO Box 1360 173 Church St.
Holly Springs, NC 27540 Yalesville, CT 06492
Phone: (919) 577-6870 Phone: (877) 765-9565
Fax: (919) 577-6892 Fax: (203) 284-8514
Wayne Peyton Mike Stidham
Clearstream Wastewater Systems, Inc. E-Z Set Tank Co., Inc.
PO Box 7568 PO Box 176
Beaumont, TX 77726 Haymarket, VA 20168
Phone: (409) 755-1500 Phone: (703) 753-4770
Fax: (409) 755-6500 Fax: (703) 753-5043
Howard Tyndall Eric W. Valentine
Stay-Right Precast, Inc. American Manufacturing Co.
PO Box 58659 5517 Wellington Rd.
Raleigh, NC 27658 Gainesville, VA 20155
Phone: (919) 876-8600 Phone: (703) 754-0077
Fax: (919) 876-5625 Fax: (703) 754-0024
Chris Vanderzyden
Chandler Systems, Inc. (CSI Controls)
220 Ohio St.
Ashland, OH 44805
Phone: (800) 363-5842
111