Site and soil evaluation

[jmenchhofer]

I have to agree with what was said in the design thread about engineered drawings being unneccesary.  That being said, what about site and soil evaluations?  When Ohio's statewide rules took effect in January 2007, they did not require a certified soil scientist to perform site and soil evaluations.  I had one experience with an individual who had some sort of credentials as a geologist, and he had to submit his site and soil evaluation report three times before it was acceptable.  At that point, I wasn't sure that he didn't just take most of his information from the soil survey.  I have heard of other similar experiences from some of my counterparts in Northwest Ohio. 

In July 2007 when the statewide rules were repealed, my county adopted several new local rules.  One of those rules required that site and soil evaluations be performed by ARCPACS certified soil scientists.  So far this has worked well, and I'm comfortable with it.  We may be excluding someone who would be capable of doing the work, but I have a much higher confidence level in the information that I'm getting from the people who have the education and experience to achieve certification.  We have a limited track record with true onsite (soil absorption) systems in our area, and I feel that we must have the most accurate information possible when designing these systems, most of which are installed on poorly drained soils with at least 40% clay. 

I'm not trying to "Ohioize" the forum, I just needed to give some background information as to where I'm coming from on this topic. 

[Stuart Meade]

This is a good topic to discuss!

Indiana County Health Departments make their own decision, like you do, regarding the soil scientists.
Some Counties do their own soil borings and some only accept reports from certified soil scientists.  Michigan, on the other hand,  sometimes will accept a soil report from a surveyor, REHS certified person or a professional engineer!  None of these folks are certain to have received soil training, so why let them do the soils evaluation?  This makes no sense to me. 

This again goes back to my complaint about some counties requiring a professional registered engineer to do design work.  Some of these registered engineers are septic professionals with vast knowledge of septic systems but most of them know little or nothing about septics.  So, why would a county accept (or require) septic plans from someone with a title rather than real life experience and know how?  Anyone who is capable of compiling comprehensive and accurate design work should be welcome to participate.  The industry really needs their skills.  We should not exclude them because they don't have an often unrelated title!

Some Indiana Counties do their own borings for repair situations while requiring a soil scientist report for all new construction.  I think they do this as a “money saver” for homeowners.  Most that do their own borings make sure that if the error, that they error on the conservative side.  “Is this a sandy loam or a sandy clay loam soil?  Hmm I’ll call it the heavier sandy clay loam.” 

While I have not personally seen a problem arise with a few counties doing their own borings, I think that requiring a soil scientist on all sites is the best policy.

Stuart

[Toxic Avenger]

Well, I'm in a county that does require soil scientists for ALL sites, whether a new construction or replacement system.  The best example I can give for why a licensed soil scientist be required is this....soil evaluation is a SCIENCE, which means a person must be educated in that science to know what they are doing.  Taking a couple classes here or there is not sufficient to do soil evaluations for something like septic systems.  We are talking about public health, and why would anyone want to put their faith in someone that is not a certified professional, other than cost of the service.  My county requires three soil borings minimum per property for septic evaluations.  The cost of this service by a professional soil scientist is at the very most $300.  That is insignificant when you consider if a person is not evaluating the soil correctly, it can lead to the early failure of that system costly several more thousands of dollars that may not have even been necessary if someone fully qualified had done the soil analysis.  In the end, you are relying on someone's word, and I for one don't play the cost game when it comes to things like that.  I took soil classes in college and I have years of experience looking at soils, but I wouldn't even trust myself to properly evaluate the soils in my own yard for a septic system.  Why would I trust someone else that isn't licensed?

[LM Excavating]

I would NEVER install a system without a soil report from someone I TRUST, so far I can think of 4 people that we accept reports from.
Even certified reports have problems, it's like this, if you have a room full of soil scientists they are NOT equal, one is the best and one is the worst and all others fall someplace in between.
True fact of life and same rule follows for everything.

[Toxic Avenger]

Yes, some certified soil scientists are "better" than others, but they are all liable for false reports because they are licensed.  We have a list of about 12 guys in my county that are licensed and approved to do borings.  I would trust all of them to be honest, but that doesn't mean they are all at the same educational and/or experiece level at soil evaluation. 

[jmenchhofer]

I would NEVER install a system without a soil report from someone I TRUST, so far I can think of 4 people that we accept reports from.
Even certified reports have problems, it's like this, if you have a room full of soil scientists they are NOT equal, one is the best and one is the worst and all others fall someplace in between.
True fact of life and same rule follows for everything.

Agreed.  If you put three soil scientists in the same pit, you just might get four opinions!  I think a lot of the time they'll be debating small academic details that go beyond the scope of information that is needed for onsite design, though.  I have actually worked with three different soil scientists in my county, and I trust them all infinitely more than the one non-soil scientist who did an evaluation before we required soil scientists to do them.

[Stuart Meade]

J,

Are the soil scientists working in your Ohio County from Indiana?

[Toxic Avenger]

There has got to be a joke in here somewhere the starts out, "Three Soil Scientists walk into a bar....."   

[jmenchhofer]

J,

Are the soil scientists working in your Ohio County from Indiana?

One is from Decatur, the other two are Ohio guys.

[jmenchhofer]

CORRECTION

It has been brought to my attention that I didn't accurately reference my own rules in my original post. 

We do not limit site and soil evaluations exclusively to ARPACS certified soil scientists.  Here is what our rule actually says:

"(E) The detailed site and soil evaluation required under the previous section shall be performed by a soil scientist certified by a recognized state or national soils professional organization."  (emphasis added)