[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                                                                  FY 1992 FINAL PRODUCT Task 34
                                                                                                Technical Assistance
























                        An Investigation of the Feasibility
                               of Testing One or More
                        Alternative On-Site Sewage Treatment
                           Systems in the Richmond -Region




                                 Prepared by the
                 Richmond Regional Planning District Commission

                                  November, 1993



















         A Report of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's
                Coastal Resources Management Program pursuant to
             National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award
                                No. NA27240Z0312-01
     
                This paper is funded in part by a grant from the
                National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
			The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not
			necessarily reflect the view of NOAA or any sub-agencies.
                
                      











         








                       An Investigation of the Feasibility
                              of Testing One or More
                   Alternative On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems
                               in the Richmond Region


              According to a report issued by the Task Force on Septic
        Regulations, 650,000 year round housing units in Virginia use on-
        site sewage disposal systems.    That represents slightly over one
        third of all housing in Virginia. In rural areas, more than 70*1 of
        all households and most businesses depend on on-site systems.'

              1@y far, the vast majority of households served by on-site
        systems are served by conventional septic tank/drainfield systems.
        These systems represent a safe, cost effective way of treating and
        disposing of household and small business sewage. Properly sited,
        designed,2installed and maintained, such systems can last for up to
        50 years.

              Unfortunately the conditions necessary for such long term
        service are not always available. Some home owners have difficulty
        finding a site suitable for a septic system on their property. In
        addition, septic systems sometimes fail, that is, stop operating
        properly.   In fact, it is reported that one half of all septic
        systems in the United States fail after only 15 to 20 years.   3

              The problems associated with the installation of new septic
        systems and the failure of exiting systems are found here in the
        Richmond region.    Installation can be difficult due to poorly
        drained soils and high water tables, especially in the coastal
        plain. These same factors can also lead to septic system failure.
        As development continues to occur in the coastal plain, finding
        sites that meet the requirements of the property owner and the
        Virginia State Board of Health, the agency that regulates septic
        systems, may become more difficult.

              The purpose of this report is to examine the issue of
        household wastewater and how traditional septic systems work. The
        report also examines factors that limit the location of septic
        tanks and what causes these systems to fail.



              'Re-oort of the Task Force on Septic Regulations, Institute for
        Environmental      Negotiations,     University     of      Virginia,
        (Charlottesville, Virginia, July 1991), p. 4.

              2Kathryn 0. Sevebeck and Carolyn J. Kroehler, A Guide to Septic
        .Systems and Alternatives,     Virginia Water Resources Research
        Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
        (Blacksburg, Virginia, 1992), p. 1.

              31bid.









             The report then examines alternatives to traditional systems.
        Three alternative systems are discussed along with the strengths
        and weaknesses of each system.

             The report then discusses the need for more information
        concerning alternative sewage treatment systems. It examines how
        such information could be gathered.    Finally, the likelihood of
        conducting such an examination in this region is examined.

             During the course of this investigation, RRPDC staff members
        talked with many individuals familiar with traditional septic
        systems and alternative sewage treatment systems. Individuals for
        the Virginia Department of Health and Virginia Polytechnic
        Institute and State University were interviewed. Also interviewed
        were individuals involved in the distribution of equipment used to
        construct alternative systems and persons involved in the
        installation of on-site waste water systems.    A complete list of
        those that helped with the preparation of this report is included
        in the acknowledgement section.

        WASTEWATER CONTAMINANTS

             Wastewater treatment is necessary because of the many
        contaminants found in the water.       While sewage entering the
        traditional septic tank is 9901 water, it contains biological,
        physical and chemical contaminants.        Following is a brief
        description of these contaminants taken from The Systematic
        Evaluation and Re-pair of Failing Drainfields in the Coastal Zone
        Area of Virginia, published by the Department of Health  .4

        Biological Contaminants

             Domestic sewage contains bacteria and viruses. Some of these
        organisms can cause disease. The presence of these contaminants is
        measured indirectly by testing for fecal organisms such as fecal
        coliform and fecal streptococcus bacteria.      These are used as
        indicators to determine the presence of sewage in water.

             The septic tank itself provides little wastewater treatment.
        It is the conditions found in the drainfield that reduce the
        bacteria in the wastewater. Simply put, the purpose of the septic
        tank drainfield is to reduce or eliminate these bacteria as the
        water seeps through the soil beneath the drainfield. This happens
        as the bacteria competes with native soil bacteria and organisms in
        the drainfield trench, as the wastewater is filtered by the soil


             4Donald J. Alexander, M.S., Calvin Jones, and Paul Sandman,
        M.S., The Systematic Evaluation and Repair of Failing-Drainfields
        in the Coastal Zone Area of Virginia, Virginia Department of
        Health, Division of Onsite Sewage and Water Services, (September
        25, 1992).

                                         2










         and as the bacteria die off due to time and hostile environmental
         conditions.


               Viruses in the wastewater are treated in a different manner.
         They are adsorbed by the soil due to the difference in electrical
         charges between the negative charge of the soil and the positive
         charge of viruses.    As it turns out, clayey soils have a higher
         ability to adsorb viruses than sandy soils.

         Physical and Chemical Contaminants

               One element used to evaluate wastewater is biochemical oxygen
         demand (BOD).    A f ive day biochemical oxygen demand test (BOD.)
         measures how much oxygen must be consumed to biologically digest
         and chemically stabilize the organic components of wastewater.
         While BOD is not a contaminant, it does provide a way to determine
         the characteristics of wastewater.

               Another contaminant  is suspended solids. These are materials
         such as filamentous material, hair and biological wastes. These do
         not always settle in the septic tank. High suspended solids can
         clog pumps and other machinery in a treatment system as well as the
         soil pores in the absorption field.

               A final contaminant is nitrogen, considered by some to be the
         most  important chemical constituent in wastewater.           Nitrates,
         forms of nitrogren which come from urin, are highly soluble in
         water and do not bind to soil.       Nitrates can cause both public
                                              5
         health and environmental problems.

         HOW A SEPTIC TANK/DRAINFIELD SYSTEM WORKS

               The traditional septic system is rather simple in design. It
         works totally on gravity and has no moving parts. A septic system
         consists of the septic tank which collects the wastewater and
         solids, a distribution box which splits the wastewater (effluent)
         evenly among a series of drain pipes and an absorption field     6 which
         allows the wastewater to percolate (seep) into the ground.

               Treatment of household sewage begins when it enters the septic
         tank.   Here heavy solids sink to the bottom.        These solids are
         acted on by bacteria through a process of known as anaerobic
         (without oxygen) decomposition.      This process creates a material
         called sludge which sinks to the bottom of the tank and must
         periodically be pumped out of the tank. The liquid from the tank
         floats to the top. Grease and light particles remain in the tank



               'Alexander, Jones and Sandman, pp 3-6.

               6Sevebeck and Kroehler, p. 3.

                                            3









        due to an outlet tee.         Wastewater is transported to the
        distribution box and to a series of perforated pipe or open jointed
        drain tile buried in the ground.      There the wastewater passes
        through a layer of coarse gravel and then enters the soil in the
        absorption field. Bacteria and oxygen in the soil help treat the
        liquid. Eventually the treated water reaches the groundwater.'

              While the process of wastewater treatment in a septic system
        is biologically complicated, the system itself is relatively simple
        from an engineering point of view. In addition, it is relatively
        inexpensive to build and maintain. In 1991, it was estimated that
        the average cost of installing a septic tank was between $3,000 and
        $4,000, depending on location, size, engineering and other
        variables. Maintenance is usually limited to the periodic pumpout
        of the tank.8

              A variety of factors are examined to determine if a particular
        site is appropriate for a septic tank system.         These f actors
        include topography, available area, soil type and depth, slope of
        the land, depth to water table, proximity to drinking water
        supplies, bodies of water and shellfish areas, and the ability of
        the soil to absorb moisture (percolation rate).9

              The installation of a septic system, and all other types of
        on-site, non-discharging systems is governed by regulations issued
        by the Virginia State Board of Health. These regulations detail
        the requirements for the siting and installation of septic
        systems.10






              7Small Wastewater Systems:    Alternative Systems for Small
        Communities and Rural Areas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        Office of Water Program Operations, (Washington, DC, January 1980),
        no page number.

              8Peterson, Craig E. and Thomas W. Simpson, Alternative On-site
        Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, Department of Crop and
        Soil Environmental Sciences and Virginia Cooperative Extension
        Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia
        Polytechnic Institute and State University, (Blacksburg, Virginia,
        1992), p. 9.

              'Peterson and Simpson, p. 10.

              "Regulations governing discharging wastewater treatment
        systems are governed by the Water Division of the Department of
        Environmental Quality.     Those systems and regulations are not
        discussed in this paper.

                                          4










        LIMITATIONS TO THE USE OF TRADITIONAL SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS

              The low cost and ease of installation of a traditional septic
        system, plus the minimal maintenance requirements make this type of
        system very attractive. And for a great majority of homeowners and
        businesses, this type of system is the best and most economical way
        to deal with wastewater.

              There are some areas, however, where the installation of a
        traditional sept.ic system may present problems.           This was
        discovered in work done by the Richmond Regional Planning District
        Commission.    The Commission assisted both New Kent County and
        Charles City County with the preparation of their land use plans.
        In each case, the RRPDC worked with representatives of the U.S.
        Soil Conservation Service, the Virginia Department of Health,
        Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and each county
        to determine the suitability of soil types for on-site sewage
        treatment.   Conditions such as soil permeability, depth to water
        table, slope and existing Department of Health regulations were
        examined to determine the potential for installing conventional
        septic systems. In both counties, it was determined that over 60%
        of the generalized soil types in each county had severe limitations
        for the installation of on-site wastewater treatment systems,
        especially septic systems.       The predominant reason for this
        determination was the presence of wet soils that could not
        adequately absorb wastewater from a septic system.

              This does not mean that development is at a stand still in
        these two counties. Houses are being built and septic systems are
        being installed on a regular basis. It does mean, however, that
        siting septic tanks is difficult at best. It also means that some
        land that is desirable for development is not being developed.

        SEPTIC TANK FAILURES


              Septic system failure can be an inconvenience. They can also
        be a potential threat to the homeowner and the general public.
        Liquid waste can back up into the residence or business. Liquid
        waste can also pond on the property creating a health hazard due to
        viruses and bacteria and providing breeding places for mosquitoes
        and other insects.

              Equally important, a failed system can contaminate ground and
        surface water. Improperly treated wastewater can allow bacteria,
        viruses, detergents and a variety of potentially toxic chemicals
        found in household cleaners to enter ground and surface water.
        This type of problem may be more difficult to detect since
        contamination can occur to groundwater without any outward signs."
        According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, septic


              I'Sevebeck and Kroehler, p. 15.

                                          5









        systems are the most frequently reported sources of groundwater
        contamination in the nation.   12

              There are four primary reasons for the failure of a septic
        system.   These are hydraulic overloading, failure of a physical
        component due to stress or deterioration, landscape problems and
        unsuitable soil conditions. The following discussion is taken from
        the aforementioned Systematic Evaluation and Re-pair of Failincr
        Drainfields in the Coastal Plain Area of Virginia.

        Hydraulic Overload

              Hydraulic overload occurs when more effluent (wastewater) is
        applied to the drainfield than can be absorbed by the drainfield.
        This can occur periodically or, in some instances, can occur all
        the time.    According to some sources, excessive overload of the
        drainfield may be the leading cause of drainfield failure.
        overloads can be caused by several factors.

              One possible cause is water usage in excess of the designed
        capacity of the septic system.       A growing problem is increased
        water usage.     This can come from such varied sources as the
        addition of a hot tub, a home occupation such as a beauty shop or
        a hobby such as photography. Any of these factors can add extra
        flow which may exceed the capacity of the drainfield to absorb the
        wastewater.

              Another problem is leaking fixtures. A small leak can add the
        equivalent of an additional bedroom to the daily wastewater flow.
        A severe leak or leaks can double the estimated wastewater flow.

              Another problem stems from the design of the traditional
        septic tank system.      As discussed above, the system contains a
        distribution box to equalize the flow to the drainfield.           Equal
        distribution among the drain lines is difficult to achieve. The
        uneven flow may not cause a problem in flat terrains. However, in
        sloping terrains, problems can develop, especially if downhill
        lines receive added flow.      This problem can be increased if the
        distribution box was not properly installed.

        Physical Failures

              One problem associated with a conventional drainfield is tree
        roots.   Water loving trees such as maples can send roots out to
        drainfields, even when located 100 feet or more away. These roots
        can enter the drainfield, grow back to the distribution box and
        septic tank and block the flow of wastewater.




              12 Sevebeck and Kroehler, p. 1.

                                            6








              Some failures are caused as materials used in the system wear
         out.   Some older materials such as piping and some concrete
         products have a history of early failure. Some modern materials,
         such as plastic pipe, tend to not deteriorate, but are subject to
         stress. Some failures of materials are caused by operating heavy
         machinery over the drainfield.

              Another cause of failure associated with older systems or ones
         that are not well maintained is clogging or organic mats. A mat
         forms at the interface between drainfield lines and the soil. This
         is normal. However, there are activities that cause this mat to
         clog the system.      The use of garbage disposals increases the
         organic loading placed on the system. Compounds such as cellulose,
         which are difficult to breakdown in the septic tank, can also cause
         problems. A third problem is related to the excessive water flow
         caused by hot tubs which increase the loading on the system.

         Soil Related Failures

              one soil related problem can be a high seasonal water table.
         These high water tables usually occur due to site or soil
         conditions that do not allow the adequate disposal of precipitation
         falling or flowing onto the site. Wastewater disposal adds to the
         problem. Treatment efficiency is reduced due to an increased need
         for time and distance to adequately treat wastewater.

              Another problem is slow infiltration rates for soils. That
         is, the soil is very slow to allow water to pass through it.            In
         these types of soils, treatment and disposal is directly related to
         rainfall.    When rainfall is high, normally spring and fall,
         treatment will be lessened.       The ability of soils to transport
         rainwater and wastewater is important due to the heavy load a
         septic systems places on the soil. While rainfall in Virginia is
          ypically 40 inches per year, adding a drainfield adds the
         equivalent of 120 additional inches of rain per year.
         t


              High shrink-swell soils, soils which contain active clays,
         generally have difficulty providing treatment for wastewater. These
         soils expand when they    are wet and shrink when they are dry. The
         addition of wastewater    to these types of soils causes the soil to
         swell shut, leading to    system failure.

              A final problem      area is soils that have what is called
         restrictive horizons,     or barriers in the soil which slows the
         downward flow of water. These soils may also contribute to what is
         called "perched" water    tables which, due to soil conditions, limit
         the downward flow of water. The closer this restrictive layer is
         to the drainfield and the less the permeability (ability to pass
         water) of the soil, the greater the problem."


              "Alexander, Jones and Sandman, pp. 7-12.

                                             7










        ALTERNATIVE ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS

             Alternative wastewater treatment systems were developed to
        address the limitations of conventional septic systems. That is,
        these alternative systems were designed to work where traditional
        septic systems cannot work.     Furthermore, they are designed to
        address conditions which may lead to the failure of a traditional
        septic system.

             There are a variety of these types of alternative systems.
        Many of them inc*(orporate the traditional septic tank, but use a
        variety of means to dispose of the wastewater.     Each system was
        designed to overcome one or more conditions        that limit the
        installation of a traditional system. Each system has its pros and
        cons as well as its proponents and detractors.

             After conversations with many people   ' RRPDC staff selected
        three systems which appear to address some or all of the
        constraints that limit the installation of a traditional septic
        tank system. These systems are low pressure distribution systems,
        elevated sand mounds and constructed wetlands.      Following is a
        brief description of each of these systems.

        Low Pressure Distribution Systems

             A low pressure distribution system is designed to overcome
        some of the constraints which limit the use of traditional septic
        system. Specifically, low pressure distribution systems can work
        in rapidly permeable coastal sands, inland soils with high water
        tables and in situations where the area available for wastewater
        disposal is small relative to the space needed for a conventional
        absorption field. 14

             These systems are designed to maintain an even distribution of
        wastewater in the entire absorption field, optimize dosing and
        resting cycles and provide for maximum separation of the
        distribution lines above the water table and any restrictive soil
        layers. These systems can effectively utilize the treatment
        characteristics of the soil, reducing the travel distance of
        pollutants."

             A low pressure distribution system begins with a traditional
        septic tank. To this is added a dosing tank and pump. The pump
        evenly distributes wastewater through a series of perforated
        plastic pipes that replace the traditional absorption field. This
        allows for a more efficient distribution of the wastewater through
        the entire drainfield. This system also allows the drainfield to


             14 Peterson and Simpson, p. 61.

             "Peterson and Simpson, p. GO.

                                         8









       dry between dosings. In some applications a second septic tank is
       used to provide more settling room for solids. The drainfield may
       be the same size as that of the conventional septic tank/absorption
       field system, but regulations may permit a reduction of the
       drainfield size by up to 50 percent. 16

             These systems can cost twice as much as a traditional septic
       tank system to install.         Furthermore, there are periodic
       maintenance costs and energy costs which need to be paid on a
                      17
       regular basis.

             Evidence indicates that low pressure distribution systems are
       suitable for use in areas of rapidly permeable coastal sands, some
       inland soils with high water tables and some soils with restrictive
       horizons. However, it must be remembered that while these systems
       are effective in environmentally sensitive areas, they do have
       constraints that limit their application.     one report indicated
       that these systems do not always operate properly in areas with
       high water tables. This was due to ground water infiltrating the
       pump chamber. Simply stated, low pressure distribution systems are
       not a cure all for site problems, but can perform better than
       typical septic systems when properly designed.'8


                                     FIGURE I


                        LOW-PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM



              Septic Tank                     Perforated Plastic Pipe

                                          4C


                      Dosing Tank
                      with Pump



             Source: A Guide-to Sentic Systems and Alternatives, Virginia
             Water Resources Research Center.


             "Sevebeck and Kroehler, p. 27.

             17 Ibid.
                                      @c4













             "Peterson and Simpson, pp. 61-62.

                                         9











        Elevated Sand Mounds


              Another alternative is the elevated sand mound system. The
        elevated sand mound was developed to overcome several problems.
        These include high seasonal water tables, slow permeability of
        soils and shallow soil to bedrock.19

              The sand mound system includes a traditional septic tank, but
        a mound of sand is used to raise the level at which the wastewater
        .s disposed into.-the ground.       In addition, there is a pumping
        chamber, an effluent pump, high-water alarm, supply line,
        perforated distribution lines and a mound made of sand covered with
        soil.    The perforated pipe is placed in the sand mound.            The
        purpose of this mound is to increase the amount of soil available
        to treat the wastewater. A two chamber septic tank or two tanks
        placed in series are sometimes recommended to reduce solids that
        may clog the distribution pipes.20



                                        FIGURE 2


                                     MOUND SYSTEM




                      Perforated Pipe

                                                      Absorption Field
                                        Topsoil
              Inlet Pipe from                                   Vegetation
              Septic Tank             Sol-I Fill & Sand@'

                                                Plowed Surface, Original Grade
              Cross
              Section
              Diagram



              Source:  A Guide to Septic Systems and Alternatives, Vir     ginia
              Water Resources Research Center.



              19peterson and Simpson, p. 101.

               Sevebeck and Kroehler pp. 28-29.
                                        Topsoil       Absorptio,
                           m
                         ro
                       nLk @                                  _.,W
                                0\@S @O@ @i I I & S a n @d



                                           10








             The operating mechanism of a mound system requires periodic
        maintenance.  In addition, the mound itself must be keep free of
        traffic and free of deep-rooted plants. Costwise, the mound system
        can cost two to five times more than a conventional septic system.
                                                         21
        Plus there are annual maintenance costs to pay.

             Mound systems have had problems.          one evaluation in
        Pennsylvania found 5111 of the mounds malfunctioning. The causes
        were related to poor site selection, system design and construction
        techniques, including improper, but cheaper, sand. Improper site
        evaluation often leads to insufficient separation between seasonal
        high water tables and impervious soils. Failure to pump out the
        septic tank also contributed to failures. A later study indicates
        that systems that are adequatel@ sited, designed, constructed and
        maintained have fewer problems.

        Constructed Wetlands

             Constructed wetlands are yet another alternative sewage
        treatment system.    Constructed wetlands have been used in clay
        soils where percolation rates are very slow. In conjunction with
        sand mounds, constructed wetlands have been used in very wet soils.
        They have also been used where nitrogen contamination of ground and
        surface water was a concern due to their ability to denitrify
        wastewater. 23

             A constructed wetlands system begins with a typical septic
        tank. The septic tank removes coarse and heavy solids. To this is
        added one or more wetland "cells". Two cells are normally used in
        residential applications.   These cells are basically constructed
        areas that contain wetlands plants growing in a medium.

             Wastewater enters the f irst cell where it is distributed
        evenly across the width of the cell by a series of pipes and
        valves. This cell contains a plastic sheet liner on the sides and
        bottom which keeps the water from escaping. Wetland plants placed
        in gravel f ill the cell.    As the wastewater passes through the
        cell, suspended solids are filtered. Trace metals are absorbed by
        plants and organic material. organisms in the wetlands, along with
        the roots of the plants, use these organic materials and nutrients
        as food.   The plants provide the oxygen needed by the organism.
        Plant roots keep the rocks and soil loose so that water flows
        through them easily.




             21 Ibid.

             22 Peterson and Simpson, pp. 101 and 102.

             23 Peterson and Simpson, p. 190.

                                         11











                                    FIGURE 3


                               CONSTRUCTED WETLAND






           Arrows indicate wastewater flow direction
        2. Aquatic vegetation p!anted in gravel
        3. Swivel standpipes regulate water level
        4. Plant roots form a dense mat



                                         L tA
                            re
                    Y



















             Source: A Guide to Sentic Systems and Alternatives, Virginia
             Water Resources Research Center. (Revised)




             The wastewater then passes into the second cell. which also
        contains wetlands plants in a layer of sand. Sand is used in the
        second cell to retain moisture and to aid the plants during dry
        periods. Again the water is distributed through a series of pipes.
        This cell is unlined, allowing the water to flow into the ground
        below. (Note: Constructed wetlands can be built as described or
        with a point source discharge or as a combination point source and
        non-point source discharge system. Where the wetland is designed
        to be a point source system, the second cell is lined.) They can

                                        J')









        be inexpensive to build and when compared to other alternative
        systems, are relatively maintenance free. 24

             There are limitations to the use of constructed wetlands.
        They should be constructed away from major streams and springs to
        avoid potential flooding and to avoid high water tables and
        saturated soils.     The sites should also be flat or gently
        sloping. 25

        NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS

             The above discussion examined three types of alternative
        sewage treatment systems. while each has bee 'n used in Virginia and
        in other states, discussions with a variety of individuals
        indicates a general agreement that additional information is needed
        about these systems.    Specifically, more information is needed
        about how these systems function in the various so    il and water
        table conditions found in the coastal region of Virginia.

             In order to find out additional information about the
        operation of these systems in the coastal plain, it has been
        suggested that one or more of these systems be tested in this
        region. These tests would involve actually installing one or more
        of these systems in the ground and operating the system for a
        prescribed length of time while testing the quality of the water in
        or around the drainfield.    The purpose of the remainder of this
        paper is to discuss how such a test would be run and to examine the
        feasibility of funding such  a test.

        TESTING THE SYSTEMS

             Testing an alternative sewage treatment system would involve
        several steps.   These include the selection of the problem or
        limitation that needs to be overcome, the selection of a system to
        address this limitation, the selection of a site or sites to
        conduct this test and the design of the procedure to test the
        effectiveness of the system in dealing with the problem. Prior to
        doing any work, however, it would be imperative to meet with
        representatives of the Department of Health.      Their assistance
        would be necessary to obtain the necessary permits.             More


             24 General Design, Construction, and Operation Guidelines:
        Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Users
        Includincr Residences, TVA/WR/WQ-91/2, March 1991, Water Resources
        River Basin Operations Resource Development, Tennessee Valley
        Authority, (Chattanooga, Tennessee), pp. 1-17.

             Constructed Wetlands, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga,
        Tennessee. No date, no page number.

             'Peterson and Simpson, p. 191.

                                        13









         importantly, their guidance and assistance during the process would
         ensure that the results of the test would be useful to the
         Commonwealth.

               During the preparation of this report, the Department of
         Health showed much interest in the testing of one or more
         alternative systems. This interest is found both in the central
         office and from local environmental health managers. Unfortunately
         a lack of funding and staff has kept the Department from carrying
         out this research on its own.

         Condition to be Examined

               The first step in the test would be to determine what
         limitation or condition the test would attempt to address.
         Discussions with Health Department officials indicate that there
         are two problems that are normally encountered in attempting to
         install an on-site sewage treatment system in the coastal plain
         region.    By far the most often encountered problem is a high
         seasonal water table. Another problem is clay soils. These soils
         can experience problems due to shrinking and swelling during dry
         and wet periods. In addition, clay soils can have low perculation
         rates. It would seem appropriate that sites with these limitations
         be found and that systems to overcome these limitations be tested.

         Site Selection

               Once the specific limitations to be examined are selected, a
         site  would have to be chosen. Two options are available. A test
         could be conducted at an actual residence or at a site selected
         strictly for testing purposes.      It appears that an experimental
         site is preferable over an actual residence. First, this gives the
         testing agency more latitude to control input. Second, there is
         the possibility that the alternative system may not function
         properly. This would mean additional expense to   provide a properly
         functioning system for the homeowner, not to mention the
         inconvenience to the homeowner.

               It has been suggested that a campus at one of the area, s
         community colleges may be an appropriate site.       Such a location
         would have a source of wastewater input as well as provide an
         opportunity for around the clock surveillance and access.          The
         issue would be f inding a site at one of these colleges that has the
         desired limiting factors.

               Another alternative would be a site owned by a local
         government. This could be done in conjunction with a governmental
         facility or on a vacant piece of property. A vacant site would be
         preferable for the reasons stated above.




                                           14









              Yet another possibility is a parcel owned by a land developer
        that has not yet been developed.       This would demonstrate the
        potential for the use of a system in close proximity to actual or
        potential home sites.     This would also allow the developer to
        become involved in the test and may increase interest in one or
        more alternative systems in the development community.       This is
        important if these alternative systems are ever to be used in more
        than limited applications.

        System Selection.

              Once a site is selected, the specific type of system must be
        determined to meet the needs of the site and of the issues to be
        tested. As stated previously, each system has its strengths and
        weaknesses when dealing with the various factors that warrant the
        use of alternative systems.

              System selection will be influenced by the funds available to
        test the alternative systems. The costs of these systems vary.

              Finally, the type of system selected may be impacted by the
        amount of interest shown in the system. This report has discussed
        three types of systems, but there are several other types of
        alternatives available. As stated before, each has its supporters
        and detractors. It may be a particular system is selected first
        for'funding or other reasons. In that case, a site would need to
        be selected that provides the appropriate type of conditions for
        the selected system to attempt to overcome.

        Test Design

              The next step would be the actual design of the test. This
        includes decisions about   the length of the test, the number and
        depth of the monitoring    wells, how to provide influent to the
        system and the number and   timing of the test samples that will be
        collected. Following are   some broad guidelines that can be used to
        begin to think about this phase of the process.

              Ideally, there would be three phases to the test. The first
        step would be to examine ground water quality at the site before
        installation of a system. While this is not always done, due to
        funding   limitations,    obtaining   information   about    pre-test
        conditions is strongly recommended. The second phase would be the
        actual installation of the system. The final step is the actual
        operation and testing of the output of the system under simulated
        residential usage.

              In developing a testing procedure, it is important to remember
        that the State does not have specific standards for wastewater
        effluent with regard to its impact on ground water. Therefore, any
        testing should attempt to test the relative effectiveness of a
        system to treat wastewater.      In other words, the test should

                                         15









        compare the quality of water coming into the system (the influent)
        with the quality of water leaving the absorption field (the
        effluent). From this, conclusions can be drawn about the ability
        of a system to treat wastewater.

             Testing is usually done by taking water samples from a series
        of monitoring wells. While the exact number of wells varies based
        on the type of test being run, the topography of the- site and
        funding, it is recommended that at least two to four wells be dug.
        Many times these are very shallow wells, with a depth of
        approximately six feet. on occasion, wells eight to ten feet are
        professionally dug.

             The influent and effluent of the system is sampled for a
        variety of contaminants.      These are fecal coliform, ammonia,
        nitrates, nitrites, BOD (bio-chemical oxygen demand) , suspended
        solids, orthophosphate, pH and TKN (total kjeldahl nitrogen) .
        Again, it is important to determine exactly what you are trying to
        evaluate in order to determine what tests need to be run.

             Decisions also need to be made about the length of the testing
        period and the frequency of testing. While recommendations vary,
        it is important to take sufficient samples to properly test the
        performance of the system.      Ideally tests of pre-installation
        conditions should be run for a period of 3 to. 6 months to establish
        base data. Water samples should be taken at least every 2 weeks at
        the beginning of the testing period. It may be possible to reduce
        testing time to once per month if there is no variability in
        results.

             During the actual testing of effluent, it is necessary to test
        water samples every one or two weeks.       Again, if there is no
        variability in samples, it may be possible to reduce testing to
        once per month. If there is a considerable amount of variability
        during first the 18 months, additional sampling may be necessary.

             The actual period of testing should be a minimum of 18 months.
        Preferably, the test should be run for a longer period, with 36
        months being a preferred length.

             The important point to remember before developing any testing
        scheme is to be sure what the test is attempting to accomplish.
        Clear goals are needed regarding the purpose of the test. The main
        reason for testing any sewage treatment system is to determine the
        performance of the system. The principal issues that need to be
        examined are how effective is the system in treating the wastewater
        and/or how effective is the system in disposing of the wastewater.

        PROJECT COSTS


             The total cost of the project will be based upon three
        factors--the goals of the monitoring program, the type of system

                                         16









        being tested and the number and frequency of water samples that are
        taken for testing.    As stated previously, alternative treatment
       .systems can cost between $7,500 and $15,000.      Testing can cost
        $1,000 per month and more.      Therefore, a test of alternative
        systems could cost $50,000. This is a substantial amount of money.
        However, the results of this test would add greatly to the body of
        knowledge available about alternative systems.

        FUNDING THE PROJECT

             Funds for testing alternative sewage treatment systems in
        Virginia are almost non-existent. While the Department of Health
        wants and needs additional information about such systems, their
        resources are stretched to the limit.     Anyone contemplating any
        funding from that Department will find much enthusiasm, but little
        or no money.

             Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University does
        conduct tests similar to what is being proposed.         It may be
        possible to work with Virginia Tech to arrange full or partial
        funding for such a test.

             Funding   from   a   non-profit   organization   such   as   an
        environmentally and/or water quality focused organization may be
        possible. During the course of the investigation, one such agency
        was approached about funding such an activity. Unfortunately funds
        were not available. However, there are agencies that have a high
        level of interest in protecting water quality that may be of
        assistance. The Virginia Environmental Endowment may be one such
        agency.

             Another possible source o   f funding is the private sector.
        While there may be funds available, preliminary inquiries again
        turned up much enthusiasm for such a project, but limited funding
        possibilities.

             one area investigated was manufacturers of the equipment used
        to construct alternative systems.     It was discovered that these
        systems are essentially a collection of pumps, piping and other
        materials that are put together by the installer. There is no real
        alternative system "industry". The large, well funded corporations
        that fund experiments for other types of wastewater testing do not
        exist. Since most of these parts are made by small manufacturers
        and/or by companies that sell the parts for a variety of
        applications, there appears to be little interest or capital
        available from this sector.

             Another possibility is the home building industry. Developers
        are looking at ways to construct homes in a variety of locations.
        Some of these are without public sewer and are marginal when it
        comes to the installation of traditional septic tanks.       Funding
        from this source may be possible.

                                         17











         PROJECT PARTICIPATION

              While finding financial support for testing these alternative
         systems is very important, and will be difficult, there is another
         type of support that must be garnered. That is the support of the
         various agencies and groups that will contribute to public
         acceptance of alternative sewage treatment systems. The needs and
         concerns of these groups have to be addressed before and during the
         testing period.

              The Department of Health must be involved from the beginning.
         The Department continues to show great interest in testing
         alternative systems and, as the preparation of this report has
         shown, the Department is willing to help with efforts to expand the
         information available concerning these alternative systems.      Their
         involvement in any testing is vital.

              Another group that will need to be included in the testing
         process is the development community.     This includes developers,
         builders and realtors. These individuals must be given a chance to
         see how these alternative systems are installed and how they
         function.   It is important that this segment of the community
         understand and have confidence in alternative systems.        If they
         do, they will be more likely to support the use of these systems
         and recommend these systems to potential home owners.

              Local officials must also be involved in this process.         As
         with the development community, local elected and appointed
         officials must become comfortable with these alternative systems.
         If they are not, local governments are less likely to approve new
         developments that depend on these alternatives systems for sewage
         disposal.

              Finally, the individuals in the community that will be
         installing these systems in the years to come must see and
         understand these alternative systems.       These individuals must
         understand these systems and support them.      If they do not, the
         likelihood of local acceptance is reduced.

              Therefore, any testing program must be widely publicized.
         Efforts.must be made to involve the parties mentioned above. They
         should be involved from the beginning.             Furthermore, the
         installation process must include time for these groups to see how
         these system are actually constructed, from ground breaking to
         final completion.    These groups should also be involved in the
         testing phase. They need to understand why the testing is being
         conducted, what the results are and what these results mean.

              It may be appropriate to form a technical advisory committee
         with representatives from these various interest groups as part of
         the test procedure. This advisory committee could be involved-in
         decision making regarding the test. It could also help publicize

                                          18









         the results of the test. The more local people are involved and
         understand the strengths and limitations of these alternative
         systems, the more they are likely to support to use of these
         systems in they future.

         CONCLUSION


              This paper has examined the issue of alternative on-site
         sewage treatment systems. It has also examined the feasibility of
         testing one or more systems to find determine their suitability in
         the coastal plain region. Several conclusions can be drawn based
         on the information presented.

              1.   Septic tank/drainfield systems are, and will continue to
                   be, the system of choice for most people. This is due to
                   the low installation costs, low maintenance costs and
                   relative ease of operation.

              2.   Septic tanks are highly effective, but will not work in
                   every situation.

              3.   Alternative sewage treatment systems expand the options
                   available to land owners by permitting development on
                   sites where traditional septic systems cannot be located
                   or have failed.

              4.   of the variety of alternative systems exist, the types of
                   systems most commonly mentioned during the preparation of
                   this paper were low pressure distribution systems,
                   elevated sand mound and created wetlands.

              5.   While alternative systems have been tested before, there
                   is substantial interest in testing these systems further
                   to determine their effectiveness under varying conditions
                   in Virginia, especially in the coastal plain region.

              6.   Any testing of such systems should involve both the
                   Department of Health, local officials, land developers
                   and installers.

              7.   Public money for additional testing is in very short
                   supply and may not be availalbe. Private funds may be
                   available, but this is not certain.

              8.   Any effort to fund additional testing will require a
                   concerted effort to involve public regulators, local
                   governments, private installers, land developers and
                   realtors in the testing process.

              Hopefully this paper will stimulate interest in this activity.
         it is especially hoped that funding from one or more agencies or
         individuals can be arranged to carry on this vital research.

                                          19











                                    BIBLIOGRAPHY

         Alexander, Donald J., M.S., Calvin Jones, Paul Sandman, M.S. The
              Systematic Evaluation and Repair of Failing Drainf ields in the
              Coastal Zone Area of Virginia. Virginia Department of Health,
              Division of Onsite Sewage and Water Services, September 25,
              1992.


         Constructed Wetlands, Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga,
              Tennessee. n.d.


         General   Design     Construction,    and   Operation    Guidelines:
         Constructed Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Users
         Including Residences, TVA/WR/WQ-91/2, March 1991, Water Resources
         River Basin Oper@tions Resource Development, Tennessee Valley
         Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

         Peterson, Craig E. and Thomas W. Simpson.       Alternative On-site
              Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. Department of Crop
              and Soil Environmental Sciences and Virginia Cooperative
              Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
              Virginia   Polytechnic    Institute   and  State    University,
              Blacksburg, Virginia, 1992.

         Report of the Task Force on Septic Recrulations.      Institute for
              Environmental    Negotiations,    University    of    Virginia,
              Charlottesville, Virginia, July 1991.

         sevebeck, Kathryn 0. and Carolyn J. Kroehler. A Guide to Septic
              Systems and Alternatives. Virginia Water Resources Research
              Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
              Blacksburg, Virginia, 1992.

         Sewage Handling and Disposal Regulations.          Commonwealth of
              Virginia, State Board of Health, Virginia Department of
              Health, Richmond, Virginia, May 1989.

         Small Wastewater Systems:        Alternative Systems for Small
              Communities and Rural Areas.    U.S. Environmental Protection
              Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC,
              January 1980.













                                          20












                                  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

              The RRPDC would like to acknowledge the assistance it received
        in this investigation. Without this assistance, this study could
        not have been possible.

              The largest thank you goes to the Virginia Department of
        Health.     Specifically, assistance was rendered by Mr. Don
        Alexander, Mr. Roger Cooley, Mr. Dave Effert, Mr. Mike Campbell,
        Mr. Duke Price, 'and Mr. Lewis Walker.

              Assistance was also received from staff of the Virginia
        Polytechnic Institute and State University.      This assistance was
        provided by Mr. Jay Conta and Dr. Raymond B. Reneau, Jr.

              Assistance was also provided by several people from the
        private section.    This included Mr. Bob Mayer, M.S., P.E., Ms.
        Bambi Barnette, Home Builders Association of Richmond, Mr. Ted
        Baxter, Gentry Well Works, Mr. Harold Mathews, Mathews Soil
        Consultants, and Mr. Peter Books.
































                                          21





                                                                                                                                                                         OAA C[ASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY
                                                                                                                                                                                 11111111     1111111111111111 1@ 1111
                                                                                                                                                                        3 6668 14111652 7