New Standards for Drip, Secondary Treatment and-in tank ATUs

[Stuart Meade]

The Indiana State Department of Health recently (Dec 2, 2009) adopted new standards and requirements for the use of:
Secondary Treatment Devices
Drip Irrigation

[Toxic Avenger]

I like the whole idea of secondary treatment, for sure.  However, drip systems, to me, will never become a big seller.  The ONLY time I would even think a drip system would be the BEST alternative is on a site where the slope of the land exceeds 15%.  In Indiana, conventional septic systems are not allowed on slopes more than 15%, whereas drip systems can be installed on slopes up 25% at least. 

[LM Excavating]

We have installed 3 drip systems 2001, 2002, 2003 and all work great with the exception of 2 being slightly undersized but buying the neighbors house just to add on wasn't an option  so you use the space you have. I happen to love the drip tubing and the Gravel filters have been bullet proof, I have had issues with the SJE/Zoeller control panels and would never use them again in that configuration.

So bottom line we have 2 sites that are a little damp but the smell is at least gone due to the RGFs. Neither site was even close to being large enough for a standard system, the one is a 40' x 40' drip bed.

I'm not sure what issues you may have with drip tube but I have lived with these 3 systems servicing twice a year and not seen one issue other than an idiot Realtor assigned septic inspector ignoring my strict orders to not "probe" in the front yard, well when 30 psi hits a hole in drip tube made by a probe rod it make a nice fountain and then said idiot says he didn't probe there.

[Toxic Avenger]

I don't like them for several reasons, first and foremost because they are only installed 6 inches below grade, and we get AT LEAST 6 inches of frozen soil every winter in my county.  Tell me, how does effluent flow through a solid chunk of frozen soil?  Also, there were NO set standards on drip systems back in the early 2000's and therefore those sites you refered to SHOULD have gone through ISDH for approval.  Drip systems are now being looked at a lot closer by ISDH and counties, and from what I've seen, they just aren't affordable for 95% of the general public for residential use.  And the best system for the lowest price is what most installers strive for...hopefully.   

[LM Excavating]

All did go through ISDH and are still actively monitored by ISDH (Debbie Barnhizer)

The depths have changed or at least subject to change, from experience I will be at 10" - 12" on any new systems but freezing has not been an issue for us even with 2 weeks at single to neg digits we never had issue.

Now if the system were in very low use you may see some issues, normal use keeps things active enough to not freeze.

As for pricing for me anyway 3 bedroom yes more expensive, 4 bedroom worth the additional cost, 5 bedroom may be cheaper than standard systems.

The main determining factor is your choice of 2ndary treatment, we use RGFs which are the most affordable and IMHO the best choice at any cost.
Washington State has them as standard installation and they even have a decent PDF on installing them.

2 of our systems were "last resort" choices and one went in on new construction to avoid a huge mound system in the front yard, this one has performed FLAWLESSLY as we had plenty of space for it and could have used more space but ISDH wanted to keep it at "sizing", the drip field on this 6 bedroom home is 20' x 130' (1300' of tubing) and works perfect. It was sized slightly lager than prescribed at the time but is smaller than prescription by today's numbers (should be about 1675' of tubing)

I love drip with the proper control panels and proper 2ndary treatment.

[Toxic Avenger]

There is no way, on even a 5+ bedroom site, that a gravity feed system is going to be more expensive than a drip system.  Just the cost of the ATU and the subsequent minimum  maintenance contract of 2 years (required by NSF 40 standard) would lead me to believe a drip system will always be more expensive than a gravity feed system.  Now, if the site would require a mound, then maybe, just maybe a drip system would be worthwhile.  But I'm far from convinced.

[LM Excavating]

There is no way, on even a 5+ bedroom site, that a gravity feed system is going to be more expensive than a drip system.

Hey can't help how my pricing works out but that's how it works out

Just the cost of the ATU

We use RGFs that are quite affordable (pic on one on home page of my website)

and the subsequent minimum  maintenance contract of 2 years (required by NSF 40 standard)

We service ALL of our systems annually anyway but YES service is more expensive on the drip systems

would lead me to believe a drip system will always be more expensive than a gravity feed system.

Check your ISDH Rule book, gravity is not allowed on 4 - 5 bedroom systems,, price jumps substantially with that dosing chamber.



So Yes over time the maintenance will keep nibbling away at the wallet but so far I have had no complaints, the owner's like the idea that they don't have to worry about the system.

BTW,, our TDS and BOD were consistently below 8 when they were being sampled that in it's self is a huge value.

[Toxic Avenger]

Check your ISDH Rule book, gravity is not allowed on 4 - 5 bedroom systems,, price jumps substantially with that dosing chamber.

I must correct you on that point.  No where in the ISDH Rule 410 IAC 6-8.1 does it make any statements about not allowing gravity-feed systems on homes with over 4-5 bedrooms.  It does state a subsurface gravity feed trickly flow system may be constructed if "the absorption field...is designed with a total absorption trench length which does not exceed five hundred (500) lineal feet."  Sec. 50(a)4, page 22

It is actually allowed per Rule 410, to have a 7 bedroom house connected to a gravity feed system if you have a soil load rate of 0.75 and trenches are 36 inches wide.   See the equation on page 25, Rule 410 Sec. 52(a)(4).  

150g x number of bedrooms/loading rate = area

If we have a 7 bedroom house, and a 0.75 load rate (sandy)........

150g x 7/0.75 = 1400 sq. ft.  


If trenches are 36 inches wide......

1400/3 = 466.67 lineal feet, which falls under the maximum allowed of 500 lineal feet as stated in the Rule, and is therefore allowed.  


My boss tells me that she has even heard a certain ISDH employee say the same thing that you did, and maybe that is where you got that in your head too, but it is NOT in writing in the Rule.  

[LM Excavating]

Yes I know all the equations and I also know It's rare for me to have even a .5 soil where I'm at.

We pretty much operate at .3 all the time even if we do see a rare .5

So at least in my installations the book does say I can't gravity 4 bedrooms.

[Toxic Avenger]

Yes, it all depends on load rate. 

That is the "benefit" of being where I am...I get to see the entire range of soil, from heavy clay down to course sand, depending on which part of the county you're in.  The only thing we don't get up here is shallow depth to bedrock.  Instead, we have glacial till. 

[LM Excavating]

Yeah we are in the glacial fallout zone you might say,,,

We do have sandy soils just no septics in them and there are more sandy soils outside of my work area.

To be honest we installed one sysytem (in 22 years) that was in sand in Vanderburgh county, it was in a dead spot where Newburgh Sewer and Vanderburgh Sewer start meeting up and there are a few homes that were left out with no intentions of extending to them.

So for the most part all my sand has sewer.

We run into some bedrock but generally several feet down, I have had it become an issue while setting tanks but that's it.

Alford and Hosmer are 90% of what I see.