-ERA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
             Municipal Environmental Research
             Laboratory
             Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/2-80-101
July 1980
           Research and Development
Evaluation of
19 On-Site Waste
Treatment Systems in
Southeastern
Kentucky

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional  grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
      1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological  Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic  Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

 This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
 NOLOGY series This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
 onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to  repair or prevent en-
 vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This worK
 provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
 of pollution sources to  meet  environmental quality standards.
  This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
  tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                             EPA-600/2-80-101
                                             July 1980
   EVALUATION OF 19 ON-SITE WASTE TREATMENT
       SYSTEMS IN SOUTHEASTERN KENTUCKY
                     by

               Jack L. Abney
 Parrott, Ely, and Hurt Consulting Engineers
       Lexington, Kentucky 40502     Iymeers
          Contract No.  CA-8-2575-A
              Project Officer

            Steven W. Hathaway
   f  t  Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental  Research Laboratory
         Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
        EF
   OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        CINCINNATI,  OHIO 45268

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER
recommendation for use.
                                       ii

-------
                         FOREWORD
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created
   ro            fTfe^^iffsfa Msr
components require a concentrated and Integrated attack on tte proMem

                                            -

                                - »».
                           Francis T. Mayo, Director
                           Municipal Environmental Research
                            Laboratory
                          iii

-------
                               ABSTRACT

     In 1970  many of the homes in rural  Southeastern Kentucky were lacking
adequate sanltSS^f abilities for the disposal of ^n ™t?*j^Jali™
soils,  steep slopes, and high groundwater  levels madea^ d^lculLSvPS
vide sanitary wastewater disposal systems  at a reasonable cost.  Forty to
sixty percent of the households had an™;VnC^S,mV« ?n ^is area in
1969   The median value of owner-occupied  housing units in this area in
1970 was undlr $7,000, compared to the national median value of $17,000.
The
                    Environmental Health Demonstration Prooect (AEHDP), funded
 tanks followed by horizontal sand filters, and septic tanks followed by
 soil absorption trenches.
      In  1978  the U.-S.  Environmental  Protection Agency awarded acon^t to
 Parrot?  Ely  and Hurt  of Lexington,  Kentucky to summarize the AEHDP  effort,
 rsrs^^^^
 where appropriate and feasible.
      This  report' provides a  summary of the design, i"stallatio?'p°P^m°n  and

 energy requirements, longevity, frequency of maintenance,  and  capital and
 operation/maintenance costs.
      This report -»is submitted in fulfillment of Contract No, CA-8-?575-A
                                ^^^
  were installed InS monitored between 1970 and 1973 under the sponsorship
  of the Appalachian Health Demonstration Project.
                                    IV

-------
                                   CONTENTS
 Foreword  .......
 Abstract	! ! ! !	 iii
 Figures	.'.'.'.'	• .iv
 Tables	!!!!!!	' '	V1
 Acknowledgments. . !  !	V1'i
                          	viii
    1.  Introduction	
    2.  Summary and Conclusions .'.'.'.'	'*.	J
    3.  Background of the Project .	2
    4.  System Descriptions	4
             General  descriptions  and status!  .'	'a
             Detailed  descriptions and costs.  .  .    	  o
                  Electric incinerating toilets  .  .'	q
                  Gas-fired  incinerating toilets.	10
                  Recycling  toilet systems	    	"  '  17
                  Extended aeration with sand  filtration'  '  '	?(
                  Septic tank  - open  sand filter systems!  !  "	rj
                  SSJir ^"^  " hoi:Jzontal sand filter systems!  !  !  !  !  '  35
   5.  System Compa^sons^  '. 5°]\ab^™ Wems	!  ! ;J?
            Site  requirements. ...	59
            Comparison of costs.  ...*!."	'  '	59
            Comparison of systems'performance! !!!!!!!!!!!"' 'II

References 	
Appendices	 .65
   A.  Service and repairs to systems	                            ,7
   B.  Soil description	      "	••-... .o/

-------
                                FIGURES
Number
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  6
  7
  8
  9
  10
  11
  12
  13
  14
  15
  16
  17
   18
Location of Prototype Systems 	
Electric Incinerating Toilet 	
Gas Incinerating Toilet   	 •  '
Aerobic Recycling System  	 •
Aeration Sewage Treatment Unit  	  ....
Open  Sand Filter	•	
Horizontal  Sand Filter	'•
System D-2	:	
System D-3  	
 System D-4	'
 Clogging Patterns in Horizontal  Sand Filter	   43
 Flow Control  Box  	
 System E-l  .  .  	
 Sidewall Absorption Trench  	
 V-Trench  	
 System E-2 	
 System E-4	•	
 System E-5 	
 7
11
13
18
24
25
36
38
39
40
 45
 47
 48
 50
 51
 52
 54
                                      VI

-------
                                  TABLES
  Number

   1


   2


   3


   4
  6


  7



  8



  9



 10



 11


 12


 13


 14



15
                                                          Pajge

  Summary of Current Status .  .                               0
                             	   o

  Performance Evaluation of Gas Incinerating Toilets  ...  16


  Annual  Maintenance Costs for Recycling Toilet .	  22


  Laboratory Analysis of Effluent from Extended
  Aeratnon and Open Sand Filter ....  _ "ae° _          3Q


  1978 Construction Cost Estimate for Septic
  Tank-Open Sand Filter	    peptic
                                     *****••••••  O£

 Analysis of Septic Tank-Sand Filter Effluent   ......  34



 Fil£ef Intern" °f SePtiC Tank-H°^ontal  Sand
                                     *****•«••••  OI


 Sa9nd8 FCme7s%°eVC°.St.S *r  ^}\ ^'Horizontal



                °f Septl'C Tank-Sot1 Absorption
                                                  	  55


                                C Tank-So11
                                                          56

Annual Life Cycle Costs for  ST-SA ...
                                  *********•••  OI

Performance of Absorption  Trenches                        CQ
                                  *	Ob

Site Requirements for  Human Waste Treatment Systems ...  60



                        costs *" A1 ter"at1«
                                       	62


                                     Treatment

                                                   	  64
                                  vii

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     The cooperation of the various homeowners  who participated  in  this  study
is gratefully acknowledged.
 gas-fired  incinerating toilet.
                                      viii

-------
                                   SECTION  1

                                 INTRODUCTION
 The need for improved  designs of  home sewage disposal systems is as areat
 in Appa achian  Kentucky  as  in most other mountainous areLshal ^soil's
 steep slopes and  high  groundwater levels are frequently encountered   Eauali
 1?60 nplH T!?1^ C0n^nts.  In Southeastern Kn?SSrcoSn«es!q40
 1969  P!hP  XtS   5 ho««eholds had annual incomes of less than $3000 in
 1969.   The  total  net assessed valuation of real, tangible and intanaihlP
 properties  averaged $2900 per capita in 1970.  The mldian value o? owner
 occupied housing  units in 1970 was less than $7000,. as compared with $17  000

 centos'.            S'  USS than 10% °f the P0P^™ Jed in urban$  '


 These  factors clearly demonstrated the need for alternative means for

 S&SEffi^
 project  lAhHDPJ was funded by the Appalachian Regional  Commission (ARn
 in September 1968, with sewage disposal  as one  of seJeraHrogrS! areas.
Although the first emphasis of the Project was  to  expand sewer systems
Since this report evaluates  actual  operating on-site systems in rural
Kentucky, the volume of waste generated by the resident! is hlShft IaH*
Therefore standard per capita waste volume was not used in reporiinq aclul
                                                      .

-------
                                 SECTION  2
                          SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS

The systems installed in the AEHDP on-site disposal  program in 1970 and
1971 wer1 ^signed as "blackwater" or human excrement waste treatment
systems  In all 19 cases studied, a simple outdoor privy had been in use
before the prototype system was installed.

in <;nmp rases the "prototype" system was discarded in less than 2 years,
tL o^door "rivy being preferred by the owners. Five of the incinerating
toilets and the two recycling systems had been removed or converted to
mrl conventional systems within 4 years. One of the gas incinerating
toilets had exploded while  in use.

The systems which utilized  a standard flush toilet and simple treatment
with discharge  to the soil  or surface stream were still operable in 1978.
E  aht  of  thell  systems  were in  active use, while 3 were at vacant  homes.
The two extendedyaeration systems had suffered breakdowns and were oper-
ating  anaerobically  in  1978.

Rnth small   semi-open,  sand filters and subsurface sand filters were oper-
atic  adequacy iS  1978 The  subsurface "horizontal"  sand fl  ters were
of n?n-coSventional  design  and  were operating without  a visible  effluent.

The four septic tank-soil absorption  systems which were still  in  use in
 1978 were performing adequately.  Even the system which had been  converted
 from a recycling system to  a septic  tank-soil  absorption  system  worked
 »Sl.  The latle? system was installed in a filled-in front yard  about  37
 nr (400 square feet) in area.

 The projected operating - maintenance costs for the  incinerating and recycl-
 ina svstlml were very high, ranging from $23 to $39 per month. The project-
 ed'total annual costs for  thesesystems In 1978 ^ VV^L^l'forT
 rineratina toilet, $541 for an electric incinerating toilet and $641 for a
 ^cycling toiet? Performance of these systems varied widely, ranging from
 ratios of "unacceptable"  to "very good" in 7 selected categories  The
 incnlrating units required unacceptably high energy consumption  for use
 bv thftarSet  population,  and  in general performed poorly. The recycling
 systems  appeared to require high levels of maintenance to achieve nuisance-
 Iree^eration. The primary advantage  of the recycling and incinerating
 systems  was the freedom  from soil requirements.

 The extended  aeration-open sand  filter (EA-OSF) systems operated  in the
 aeration mode  for about  7  years. Both  aerators  ceased operation in 1978,
 from  different causes   With proper repair, both could be put  into operation
         SnftSnk wa  operating  acceptably as a  two-compartment septic  tank

-------
 in  1978.  The  effluent  from the open  sand filter was very  high  in nitrate
 nitrogen, with levels ranging  from  220  to over  600 mg/L.   Fecal coliform
 counts were zero on two days and 700  per 100 ml'another day.  Other effluent
 parameters were acceptable for the  local conditions.  Projected costs for
 an  EA-OSF system in 1978 were  moderately high.  Annual 0 & M was about $180,
 while total annual costs were  estimated to equal $336.

 One septic tank-open sand filter (ST-OSF) system was operating but 'needed
 maintenance in 1978.  The house on  the other ST-OSF system was vacant, but
 the system had operated without any maintenance for 6 years.  The effluent
 from the ST-OSF system was acceptable for local conditions except for fecal
 coliform levels.  Fecal coliform counts ranged from 13,000 to 100,000 per
 100 ml.  Projected costs for a system in 1978 indicated an annual 0 & M of
 $24 and a total annual cost of $123.

 Two of the three septic tank-horizontal filters were operating successfully
 in  1978; the other system was  on a  house which had been vacant for less than
 a year.  Performance of these  systems was good.  No effluent had ever been
 detected from  these subsurface filters.  Based on measurements of ponding
 and rates of filter loadings,  the horizontal filters have a projected useful
 life of over 30 years.  These  filter systems have fairly unrestrictive site
 requirements and very low 0 & M costs.  Average annual  0 & M was projected
 at  $9, and total annual  costs were projected to equal  $107 for a family of
 three persons.

 Of  the 6 basic types of systems evaluated in this study,  the septic tank-
 soil absorption (ST-SA)  systems were found to have the lowest cost and highest
 level  of performance.   Where suitable soils are located or can be economically
 imported, ST-SA would  be the preferred system.   Study of the prototype
 systems and other experience has shown that with proper design and installa-
 tion,  many sites which would often be considered unsuitable for soil  absorp-
 tion can be utilized successfully.   The ST-SA systems  were projected  to have
an annual 0 & M cost of $9 and a total annual  cost of $63  for a family of
3 persons.

-------
                                 SECTION 3
                                BACKGROUND

Sixteen Southeastern Kentucky counties had fairly
environmental health improvements due to the formation of the
Env ronmental Health Demonstration Project (AEHDP) of the Kentucky State
Department of Health.  The Project encouraged innovation in upgrading en-
vironmental health services as a primary mission.

An early concept developed in the AEHDP was to develop a broad range of
system designs for home sewage disposal at existing homes.  More than 200,000
persons (80% of the population) in the AEHDP area used on-site disposal.
Little prospect was seen for conventional sewers in most areas.

The most common mode of on-site disposal was the outdoor privy.  Some were
merely wooden stalls perched over a  stream bed.  Others were bu It over
pits, but without benefits of insect screening and proper ventilation.   In
counties without a plumbing code, flush toilets  sometimes discharged directly
to a  streambank.  Some septic-tank effluent was  discharged to  the streams.
Where the  plumbing code was enforced, an  attempt was made to prov ide_ sub-
surf ace absorption of effluent.  However, the  code contained no provision
for slope,  groundwater levels,  soil  depth below  absorption surfaces or
other significant sot! factors.

A survey  of AEHDP County  Health Departments  in 1972/evealed that; nearly
2000  septic tank  and 50 extended aeration installation permits were  issued
annually.   Only two  of the Departments had  conducted any surveys  of  private
 sewage  disposal  systems.

 The Kentucky Plumbing Code requirements for septic tank - soil absorption
 system were minimal.  Tanks had to have a minimum capacity of  1 .89  m
 (500 gallons) and could  be located no nearer than 3.05 m (10 feet)  to
 property lines. or 15.2 m (50 feet) to wells or cisterns.  Absorption trenches
 were not to be closer than 6.1  m (20 feet) to a  building, 1.5 m (5  feet)
 to a property line and 21.4 m (70 feet) to a water supply well or cistern.
 Minimum absorption system area was 37.2 ^ (400  square feet),  provided in
 61 m (200 lineal feet) of trench 0.6 m (2 feet)  wide.  The combined Affect
 of these requirements dictated that  a nearly level area with dimensions of
 at least 18 m by 17 m (60 feet by 57 feet) was  required.  The lack of
 consideration of groundwater, soils  and geologic conditions contributed to
 a lack of success with subsurface absorption  in many areas.  No alternative
 systems were recognized by the Code.

 A local housing improvement project helped focus attention on the inade-
 quacies of  the Code.  This project,  known as  the Letcher-Knott-Leslie-Perry
  CLKLP) home repair  project, was conducted by  the Eastern Kentucky Housing
  Development Corporation  (EKHDC).  Grants of $500 were  obtained from the

                                      4

-------
 Social  and  Rehabilitation  Service  for eligible persons, and  loans of  up to
 $1,500  were obtained  from  Farmers  Home Administration.  The  LKLP project
 found that  over  60  percent of their clients  indicated bathroom facilities
 as  either first  or  second  priority for home  improvement.  Attempts to
 provide bathroom facilities were often frustrated by a lack  of suitable
 area or other  site  conditions needed for subsurface disposal under the code,
 as  interpreted by local inspectors.

 The EKHDC and  AEHDP personnel discussed these problems, and^AEHDP agreed to
 provide alternative systems designs, supervision of installations and funds
 for capital  expenditures on selected home sites.  The criteria for site
 selection included  the provision that the home site was not  suited for the
 system  specified  in the Plumbing Code.  The  homeowner was required to sign
 an agreement with AEHDP permitting access to the system for  testing over a
 two-year period.  He was also required to sign a release waiving the right
 to sue  the  AEHDP  in case of system failure.  Manpower and'equipment required
 for construction  was provided by the EKHDC.  Other personnel were provided
 by Operation Mainstream and the Concentrated Employment programs.

 While AEHDP  could propose  system designs, no authority had been delegated
 for internal approval of designs.  Each system was subjected to multiple
 reviews by  State  personnel in Frankfort.  The State Plumbing Program re-
 viewed  all  alternative designs and none could be installed without their
 approval.  Any design having a surface discharge also was reviewed by the
 Water Pollution Control program, which could disapprove any design.   Due to
 the shortage of qualified  personnel and the low priority of the individual
 systems, reviews  sometimes required months to complete.   The last design
 which was submitted, an evaporation-filtration mound, was unapproved at
 the termination of the AEHDP approximately 14 months after submittal.

 It was  decided early in the project to eliminate consideration of "gray
 water", those wastewaters generated from all  fixtures except the toilet.
 This automatically lessened the design problem in regards to volume, and
 concentrated efforts on the "black wastes", human feces  and urine.   While
 it was  recognized that gray water may contain residual  feces and urine
 (and associated pathogens), the decision was  made (on the basis of
 comparative health risk to the present unhealthful  conditions)  to deal
with black wastes only.

A literature review was conducted over a period of several  weeks.   The
 libraries at the University of Kentucky were  utilized in  this review.   No
 comprehensive bibliography for on-site disposal  was  available to the
 researchers.  The literature search and analysis permitted the  selection  of
 four areas for further investigation.   These  were:

         (1)  Reduction in volume;

         (2)  Reduction in organic  load;                     \

         (3)  Improved methods for  effluent absorption  in soil;

-------
         (4)  Proprietary or site-constructed treatment devices.

One staff member of AEHDP was assigned primary responsibility for the
prototype sewage disposal program.  During the course of the 5-year project
period, 3 individuals were assigned this responsibility at various times.
Other staff members contributed to design concepts and monitoring of
system performance.

While the potential existed for installation of 100 to 200 "prototype"
systems under various combinations of site conditions, the many constraints
placed on the program reduced this number to only 20.  These constraints
included the client eligibility requirements, the drawnout review process,
the reluctance of review agencies to approve innovative systems,  the changes
in AEHDP personnel, the lack of experience in assigned personnel, the
difficulties in coordination between EKHDC, AEHDP and other State programs,
and the low priority placed on this program by AEHDP and other State programs.

In this present (1978) evaluation study, the systems were visited in the
field for observation, testing and user interviews.  Available files retained
by former AEHDP personnel were reviewed and analyzed.  It was found that
records had been lost on one system, and that system could not be located.
Therefore only 19 systems have been evaluated.  The location of these 19
systems is shown on Figure 1.  The letter-number designation used in
Figure 1 correlates with Table 1.

-------
 o

-p

 QJ
 O)'
+J
 CO
 re!
 OJ
 O
 CO
 CO

 cu
 -p
 CO

 s?
 CO
 o
 CL

 CO
 U)
 4->
 CO


 §


 0)
 CO

 G
 o
 O
res
o
o
cu
s-
=3

-------























CO
2: >-
LU LU

CO Qi
>- ^3
CO OO
l LLJ
-
CO OO LU -
0 §
31
 O
-a -a -o -a E -a
E E E E fO E
ta to to to o to
JD JD -Q -Q lO -Q
eC < •<

,
a

f—^
.
o£ E s-
• tO -E O *r-

4-> •!- i— i—
S- 10 E -r- CQ
O> 3 OO TD 3
> S-
•i— cu s- to E s:
o; T- CD 3  E E
• i— to >, s- .E
>•)•!- CU O O O
i«£ 3 nr Q; cu "-3




.
s-
CQ
O i —
i — CU VO OJ i —
i — o i — •* oj t~~
>, s- >,oo >)
i^ 1— ^ =3 00 ^



_£_
tO ^> f
•i— cu ta
S- i — i — E •!-
10 CD -^ S- O E
.E 3 E CU -4J CD
O E T- .E i — i.
to ta s- co cu cu
M s: CQ •=£ :n --3
S-
CU CU CD
^s -t"-^ *l™~ *l~" _^~
S- +J i — i — U
CU S- O W  4->
CU CU C CU CU CU,






.1
cu

,
o
1 T 1^ 1 > t^j 1 ^
-4-> +-> CD CU CD CD

•r- O O O O O O
•tJ E E S- S- S- S-
fO "r^ Br~ "4-* -4-^ 4-* 4-*
S* O O (/) c/> (/)(/)
(U C C CU CD CU — 1 1— « Q o Q a
•n*
0
HH i — OJ OO sd- IT) lO

«a:


"TH3 TZJ
CU CD
•!-> E
S- 0
CD "O
> E
E lO
O -0
0 >
to cu
co S
CU CD





•
s-
CQ

Si





0?
0 S-
IO to
<— 3
CO CD
S-
cu
-E >-,
0 S-
4-> S-
CD CU
_J CL.








4J
CU
r— •

1 — fO lO

CJ5 ^3 CD
r~ C C
E 5- >-
•r— •!— »r-
r~ E E
0 Z3 ^3

O
(Sr-^OJ

CQ




CU

•r-
-M
o
•=C




r—

'cu

-a
"tO

•
3
o2S
CO





•
CD ^
t—
-0 -4->
-a s-
•r- O
s: u.



_£.
o
E
to
S-
JD
S-
3
CD
•r—
r—
to
CD
— '





^_
CD
4J -^
i — E
•i- tO S-
Lu CU





CU
>
•r-
O
=1






E
S-
3
•r—
NX

^>
E
CU



S-
0
LL.
•a
E
O
o
CD
oo





E
O
0
0
cu
•r~
r—
to
CD
— '







-a
E
to s-
a>
CD -t->
•r— T—
to 4-
E
i— E
 >
0 0
«c  O)
S- i—
ta i—
s: LU






CD
CO
0




to
to
q-
10 J=.
to to
to >
fO t—
00 =3
i.
OJ
+-^ ^*~
-4-) O
O -4->
E CD
s^X 	 t
s-
a>
f i^
CD i—
S- •«-> -i-
a> i— M-

i — <4- JE
•r- 0
U. E E
CD 
> E
•r- lO
4_3 (_)
O fO
•=c >







S-
JZ CD
a. E
cu s-
tO 3
o t-
>-D
s-
>> CD
S- C51
to O



CU S-
CU 0
S- U.
•a
to E
CU 0
CJ O
tO CD
s: oo





E
S- 0
CD -4->
Q. O
•r- O
CD
^^ *r~*
S- f~~
S- tO
CD CU
O 	 1
S- i.
CD CD

(— f—
•r- •!—


te" rc"
0 O
E E
CD CD
S- S-

o3 o?$

1— 1—
oo oo


oo «*




-a
E
•4-> O
E Li-
te
0 4->
IO O
> 2:



E
O
-P
C75
C S-
•r- CD
E E
E S-
CU 3
O- h-

o5^"
E r—
1C CU



S-
o
U-
-a
E
o
o
cu
oo





E
O
O
0
cu
•r™
r— •
CO
CD
— '


i_
CU

i— •
•i—
4- i-
cu

CD r—
Q-'i-
O M-

o?5 oa

|_ H-
oo oo


LO W3






CD CD
^ ^
O O
•=C =C
E
0
to
S
to
1
T3
S- S-
fO CU
O tO
:c cu
c~
S- CJ
CD
S- c/)
fO ^—
u_ s:



^.
CQ

to
OJ E
<* O
to
oo ta




•P
CD
E E
E CD
•r- T3
co :E
CD CU
•r~ *r™
i — i —
to to
CU CU
— 1 — 1


.E
O
E -C
CU O
r— S- E
•r- +J CD
O S-
OO • +->
O
o3 CD •
S_ >

E o?S o3
lO
O • •
•r- CO OO
•4-J
O-
cu • •
co i — oj

LU




CU -4J
> E
•r- lO
4-> 0
O fO
=£ >


S-
CD
^
IO
•(->
E •!-
ta .E
0,3
O to
s: o
*~3
1/5
CU •
>>co
ta >-




•
•a
^
• co
•a oj
dJ 5*"^
•^» y^X

^
CJ
cu
S- E
CU T-
O CD
•a Q.
E ta
CD i-
3 CD
CD
*i~" ^}
i— • S—
to s-
CU CD
— i a.


JC
o
E J=.
CD O
S- E
4-J CD
S-
• -4-5
o
CD •
S- >

o3 o3

"~i *~i
co oo


oo.^



-------
                                   SECTION  4

                             SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS
 GENERAL  DESCRIPTION  AND  STATUS                            j

 A  total  of  20  systems were  installed  in  the years  1970-1972  under  the
 supervision of AEHDP.  These  included 6  incinerating  toilets,  two  recycling
 systems,  two aeration-filtration  treatment systems, 6 septic tanks with
 sand  filtration  systems  and 4 septic-tanks with  soil  absorption systems.
 One of the  systems utilizing  a  septic-tank and sand filter could not be
 located  during this  study.  Table 1 contains a listing of the  systems with
 locations,  owners names  and current use  status.  Figure  1 shows locations
 on a  US  Series map.  Use status was determined in  April  arid May, 1978, and
 the following  brief  summary was current  as of that period.

 All of the  incinerating  toilets had been either  removed  or a flush toilet
 substituted.   User dissatisfaction with  both the gas  and electric models was
 high.  One  person was burned  and  required hospitalization when a gas toilet
 ignited  prematurely  in 1974.

 One of the  recycling toilet systems was  dismantled and was not functional.
 The aeration tank of the other was converted to a  septic tank and a soil
 absorption  system added.

 Three of the five septic tanks followed by sand filtration (ST-SF) were still
 in use and  had functioned satisfactorily.  Two ST-SF  systems appeared
 functional  but the houses were vacant.                    ;

All of the  septic tanks with soil  absorption (ST-SA)  systems appeared
 functional, with no surface seepage or malfunction being evident.   One of the
houses served by a ST-SA had been vacant since 1976.  The recycling system
which had been converted to a ST-SA system was functioning satisfactorily.
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS                           i

Electric Incinerating Toilets

Description of the Unit—
The "Incinolet" toilet was an electrically heated model  (No.  CFIV) manu-
factured by Research Products Manufacturing Company of Dallas,  Texas.   No
catalyst was installed as is now provided in current models of Incinolet
The units were rated at 2200 watts, 120 VAC.(Current models have ratings
of 2800 to 3650 watts.)  A manual  timer with a maximum 60 minute cycle was
installed.   These toilets were first marketed -in the late 60's.

-------
The basic configuration of this unit is retained in current models, although
timer and heater specifications have changed and a catalyst added.  Figure 2
illustrates the basic configuration used.

This toilet wa^s force-vented to the outside atmosphere by a cage-type blower
which ran simultaneously with the timer switch.  The use cycle was begun with
placement of a waxed paper bowl liner on the upper surface of the flushing
bowl.  After depositing waste, the user would push down on the foot pedal
which opened the bowl, release the pedal after the paper and waste dropped
into the lower chamber, and then turn the timer to begin the heating cycle.
The manufacturer's literature states that the unit may be used while in the
incinerating cycle, but the users in Kentucky were reluctant to do so.

Installation requirements were fairly simple.  The toilet was bolted to the
existing floor.  Electrical service was run from a separate fuse box and the
unit grounded by an individual ground wire.  A hole was cut in the adjacent
wall and a 4" diameter vent pipe was extended to an elevation above the
roof.  The dimensions of the unit were approximately 580 mm x 380 mm x 530 mm
(23 inches by 15 inches by 21 inches).

Construction Costs--
Initial costs for purchase of the toilet, installation, electrical service
and venting totaled about $600.  The toilet cost in 1970 was about $500.

Operating Costs--
Operating costs were primarily related to electrical consumption.  Waxed
paper bowl liners had a cost of approximately 0.2 cents each in 1970, or
about 40 cents per person per month.  At a rate of 1.5 cents per kilowatt-
hour, the electrical service cost totaled about $3.00 per month in a household
having 3 people.  Current manufacturer's literature states that one kilowatt-
hour of electricity is consumed per use cycle.  This would equal about 210
kilowatt-hours per person per month, if each resident did not use facilities
at other locations and used the unit 7 times per day.  Current electrical
rates of 4<£/KWH would produce costs of about $25 per month with full-time use
by three persons.

Maintenance Costs—
Maintenance was provided for these toilets by AEHDP until August, 1973.  One
unit was under AEHDP maintenance for a period of about 2% years.  The other
was  installed at a home for about 6 months, then removed and placed in a
landfill site office.  Records kept by AEHDP show that the electric toilets
required about 3 visits per year per unit for service and repairs.  Total
repair time was 3.5 hours per year, plus travel.  Parts costs were low,
consisting of new wiring and fuses.  Details of repairs are listed in
Appendix A.

Assuming one hour of travel per visit, a service rate of $10 per  hour and 20
miles of travel at 12<£ per mile, total annual maintenance costs would be
about $67.
                                     10

-------
                                                c
                                                o

                                                •Jj
                                                to


                                                en
                                                o
                                                o
                                                -p
                                                cu
                                                o
                                               •»->

                                                D)
                                                fO


                                                O)
                                                o




                                                o
                                                O)


                                               UJ



                                                 •

                                               CM



                                                S-
11

-------
Life-Cycle Costs—
The construction of and experience with electric toilets in this project would
indicate a probable useful life of about 7 years, assuming acceptable levels
of performance and daily use.  With an assumed present-day replacement cost
of $850, interest at 10% and a 7 year life, annualized capital  cost would
equal $174.  Added to annual operation of about $300 and annual  maintenance
costs of $67, total annual costs would equal $541.  Total  monthly costs would
equal about $45.

Performance of Electric Incinerating Toilets—
The performance of the electric toilets was inadequate.  -User complaints
centered on the unit not completely oxidizing the waste to "inert ash".
Users were forced to scrape partly burned feces from the incineration chamber.
Operating costs were also a source of complaint.

At one home, the user complained repeatedly about the operating cost and
finally had the unit removed after about 6 months.  The family reverted to
using their outdoor privy, which they had kept in place after the electric
toilet was installed.

The second Incinolet (A-2) was installed in January, 1971, at a home having
three residents.  It was ratained until early 1974,  a period of about three
years.  The users reported that wastes were only partly burned much of the
time.  Use during this period was only occasional, with the outdoor privy
being preferred.  This family did not complain about higher electric bills,
which probably were little affected, by the low rate of use.  A conventional
septic-tank with soil absorption of effluent was installed by the owner in
1974.  The owner reported no difficulty in obtaining the necessary permit.
The cost of the septic-tank system was $700.  When the flush toilet was
installed, the incinerator toilet was removed and stored in an outbuilding.
As of July, 1978, the owner had no plans for future use of the unit.

Gas-fired Incinerating Toilets

Gas-fired incinerating toilets were installed at four homes.  One was
Destroilet ModeT 52 P5B, and three were model L15B,  both manufactured by
LaMere Industries of Walworth, Wisconsin.  The manufacturer's representative
reported that similar toilets have been in service for as  long as 20 years.
LaMere Industries has reportedly sold 55,000 Destroilets in 41  countries.

Description of the Unit—
The Destroilet was slightly larger than a standard flush toilet bowl.  The
painted metal cabinet projected about 2% inches beyond the front of the
toilet seat and 5 inches to the rear of the>seat hinge.  A standard toilet
seat was fitted to the top of the metal cabinet.  The installed weight was
100 pounds.  Exhaust gases were vented through the r.ear of the cabinet by use
of an electrically powered blower.  Figure 3 shows the main features of the
Destroilet unit employed in the study.
                                      12

-------
   SEAT-
BURNER
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
                  SCHEMATIC SECTION
 TIMER SWITCH
-EXHAUST FAN


'IGNITER COIL
  Figure 3.  Schematic  diagram of gas incinerating toilet.
                          13

-------
The manufacturer reported the rated energy input to be 7320 watts (25,000
BTU per hour).  About 0.1 Kg. (0.20 Ib) of L.P. gas was the design consump-
tion for a typical 15 minute burn cycle.  The standard unit is rated for 60
cycles per 24 hours.  The unit was reported to be certified by the American
Gas Association.

The combustion chamber was constructed of cast iron in Model 52 and of steel
in Model L15B.  Ignition was accomplished by a spark plug, so no pilot flame
was necessary.  A sail switch was used to detect proper movement of air in
the exhaust pipe.

Operation of Gas-Fired Incinerating Toilet—
The unit was used in a manner similar to a flush toilet.  Wastes were deposit-
ed directly into the combustion chamber, with no paper liner being required.
After depositing waste,  the  user would close the cover and actuate the
combustion-timer mechanism.  The exhaust blower and burner operated simul-
taneously for the 12 to  16 minute burn cycle.  The blower would continue to
run for six to seven minutes after the flame shut-off; it was rated at
0.066,m3/s (140 CFM).

Installation of Gas-Fired  Incinerating Toilet--
Both gas and electrical  supplies were required for the Destroilet.  Modifi-
cations of the burner permitted the use of either natural or liquified
petroleum gas.  Floor space  equal to that required for a standard flush
toilet was adequate.  All AEHDP installations placed the unit at an outside
wall to permit convenient  installation of the exhaust pipe.

Installation consisted of  bolting the unit to the floor, providing gas and
electrical connections and installing the exhaust vent.   It was necessary
to carefully adjust the  air-fuel ratio for efficient combustion of the wet
wastes.  (The manufacturer reported that Destroilets are normally sold and
installed by LP gas dealers.)

Construction Costs--
Initial costs for purchase and installation  of the Destroilet were estimated
to equal $450 in  1971..  This did not include costs for room additions or
modifications.   In  1978, a local LP gas and  appliance dealer quoted a price
of $580 for the Destroilet plus $175 for venting.

Operating and Maintenance  Costs-- .
Operating and maintenance  costs were made up of  gas consumed,  labor for
maintenance,  and  repair  parts.  AEHDP  records  show an average  (per unit)
of 3.8  visits per year requiring a  total of  7  hours per year  in maintenance
and  repair time.  Travel time was not  included.  The annual cost  for parts
averaged $12  per  unit.   Typical maintenance  involved cleaning  the spark  plug,
adjusting spark gap and  adjusting the  air-fuel  ratio.   Repairs, included
correcting leaks  in gas  lines,  replacing timers  and replacing  blower motors.
 (See Appendix.)   Timers and motors were  the highest cost  item,  at  a cost  of
about $40 for both.  Two units  required timer  and motor  replacement within
the  two year  monitoring  period.
                                      14

-------
 There was a wide variation in the number of visits and hours  required for
 maintenance and repair.   One unit required three visits totaling  6.5 hours.
 The most troublesome unit required 15 visits totaling 24 man-hours.   The
 latter unit exploded while in use in 1974, after termination  of the  AEHDP
 program.

 In contrast to these experiences, the manufacturer reported that  units  should
 normally require only one service call  per year, for cleaning and lubrication.
 Such service was reported to be  so easy as to be performed  by the average
 homeowner.   Evaluation of maintenance records for the units installed by
 AEHDP indicates that maintenance requirements were considerably greater than
 those described by  the manufacturer.

 Average monthly operating costs  would consist mostly of gas purchase.   The
 manufacturer reports an  average  consumption of 0.09 Kg.  (0.20 Ibs.)  of  LP
 gas  per cycle.   About three  cycles are  needed to completely consume  feces.
 Assuming  an  average of 7 cycles  per day per user,  a three-person  family would
 consume about 1.9 Kg.  (4.2 Ibs.)  of LP  gas per day or 57  Kg.  (126 Ibs.)  per
 month.   LP  gas  was  priced at about $0.12 per liter (46<£  per gal.)  in  1978
 in  Kentucky.   The average operating cost per family would be  about $13.70 per
 month for gas  consumed.   Electrical  consumption  by the  blower would  equal
 about $1.50  per month  at a rate  of 4<£ per kwh.

 Total  annual  0  & M  costs  would include  labor for service calls  and repair
 parts.   If  labor is  charged  at a  rate of $10 per hour and the average travel
 distance  is  20  miles  at  12 cents  per  mile,  maintenance  labor would total  about
 $79  per year.   Added  to  the  operating cost of $182 and parts  cost  of  $12,
 total  costs  for annual operation  and  maintenance  of a  Destroilet would  equal
 $273,  based  on  AEHDP  experience.

 Life-Cycle  Costs
 The  construction and  function of  the  Destroilet  may indicate a  useful life of
 about 5 to  10 years,  assuming careful operation  and maintenance.   The exper-
 ience of  the AEHDP  program demonstrated  an  average  useful life  of  only  3 years.
 Since the combustion  chamber is guaranteed  for 5 years, this seems to be  a
 reasonable projection  of  useful life.

 At an  assumed replacement cost of  $580  (1978  data),  interest at 10% and a
 5-year periods the annualized capital cost would equal $153..  Adding the annual
 operating and maintenance cost of  $273 would  result  in an annual life-cycle
 cost  of $426.

 Performance  of  Gas-Fired  Incinerating Toilets-
 Many  of the users reported dissatisfaction with the performance of the
 Destroilet.  Actual  records of service calls are included in the Appendix.
A summary of user comments is presented in Table 2.

A potential cause of odor in the home was incomplete combustion of feces,
which may require three cycles for complete oxidation.  In one family there
was disagreement on the objectionability of odors.
                                      15

-------
Mechanical failures were associated with timers, fan motors and burners.   The
lack of local availability of parts caused excessive down time, requiring an
alternative means of human waste disposal.

The most common failure was in the ignition device, which utilized an
electrical spark.  One unit was removed by the owner due to repeated failure
of the ignition system.


        TABLE 2 - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF GAS INCINERATING TOILETS

Unit
A-3
A-4
A- 5
A-6

Poor
Igni-
tion
X
X
X
X
Incom-
plete
Combus-
tion
X

X
X

Mechan-
ical
Failure
X
X
X

Visi-
ble
Emis-
Odors sions
X X



Ex-
cess-
ive
Heat
X




Ex-
plo-
sion

X



Service
lYearsJL
3
4

2
 Unit  A-3  seemed  to  have  a  chronic  tendency  to  accumulate  solids as a  result
 of incomplete  combustion.   No  specific  cause for  this  condition was ever
 determined.  Only two  elderly  persons lived in the  home,  so overloading was
 ruled out as a possible  cause.   This unit also caused  objectionable odors
 in the home and  excessive  smoke  from the exhaust  stack.   After three  years of
 service,  this  unit  over-heated so  much  that the exterior  paint became dis-
 colored.

 In 1974,  the owner  of  unit A-3 contacted the manufacturer for advice  on
 repairs.   He reported  that the estimated repair charges were  $300  at  that
 time.  The owner decided to install a standard flush toilet and septic tank
 with  soil absorption field. The Destroilet was retained  after installation
 of the septic-tank  system and  was  being utilized  as a  low table in 1978.

 Unit  A-4 required more service calls  than any  other.   This unit received
 regular use by an elderly person who was confined to a wheelchair.  The
 records on type  of  service performed  are shown in Appendix A.  It  is  known
 that  the ignition system was adjusted several  times and  the blower motor was
 replaced.  A  total  of  15 service calls  were made  over  a  period of  about
 2.h years.

 Unit  A-4 exploded while in use in 1974. The  explosion caused burns on the
 user, who required hospitalization.   Apparently no one who had  been associated
 with  AEHDP was made aware of this accident  until  1978.  The  cause  of  the
 explosion is  unknown,  since the  toilet  was  removed and discarded  in 1974
 without examination or testing being  done.   G. Townley (Consultant, Norman,
                                      16

-------
 Oklahoma-personal  communication)  provided  the  following  information:

            "Explosions  previously experienced  with  the Destroilet
            were  due  to  incomplete combustion of  gas  when  the  unit
            cut off.   It is  my  understanding that this problem was
            eliminated on-site  by  drilling  holes  into the  cast iron
            firing  chamber and  later by  the manufacturer with  redesign."

 Unit A-5 was  installed  at two  separate  homes during  the  initial  study.
 Occupants of  the initial location requested removal  of the  unit  because
 they were dissatisfied  with the performance of the  unit.  Service records
 indicate repeated  problems with the ignition system.  The original burner was
 replaced by AEHDP  before finally  removing  the  Destroilet.   The unit was then
 installed in  a new location.   No  long-term evaluation was possible, since the
 owners died before the  current study was begun.   No  additional information
 concerning  the use or performance of this  Destroilet was available.

 Unit A-6 was  in service for only  two years.  One  member of  the family which
 used this unit indicated that  it  worked satisfactorily.  The  other stated
 that it often did  not burn wastes-completely.  In any case, the  unit was
 removed in  1972 because the ignition failed to operate reliably.  The family
 used an outdoor privy after removing the Destroilet.

 In summary, it is  apparent that these three units were not:reliable as a sole
 means for human waste disposal.   Since the proper operation of the incinera-
 tion process  is essential for  removing the wastes from the  home, any failure
 becomes intolerable.

 Total annual  costs are high, especially considering  that other household
wastes are omitted from the process.  This would discourage use by lower
 income families.

 Beyond the questions  of convenience and cost is the  factor of safety.   The
 degree of risk from explosions must be determined before any recommendations
can be made concerning gas-fired  incinerating toilets of this type.

Recycling Toilet Systems                                  i

 In a home where potable water is  in short supply, recycling  of wastewater
would be desirable.   Even in 1968, many possibilities existed for recycling.
Some recycling systems have recently been identified and evaluated by
M. Milne, (4)  R. Siegrist,  (5)  and others.

Direct recycling  systems are available as commercial units.   One which was
available in 1970 was the Uniroyal recycling  system.  Two homes  were  selected
for installation  of these systems.

Description  of the Unit--                                 ;
The Uniroyal Recycling Toilet system consisted  of an aerated digester, a
recycling pump,  a fractional horsepower air pump  and a  carbon filter.   Figure
4 illustrates these components.  The aerated  digester was developed  by

                                     17

-------
RECYCLING
PUMP AND
PRESSURE
TANK  115 VAC.-
                                                         STANDARD
                                                         FLUSH TOILET
COMPRESSOR
115 VAC.
            EFFLUENT RETURN  LINE
           FIBERGLASS  REINFORCED
           PLASTIC TANK 275 GAL.CAP
                NYLON  SACK  -
                 AIR  D'IFFUSER  HEAD
                  Figure 4.  Schematic of recycle  toilet system.
                                      18

-------
Carl Boester and Donald Bloodgood.

The digester consisted of a 1042 1 (275 gal.) fiberglass-reinforced plastic
(FRP) tank with a large nylon sack draped around an a'ir diffusion head.  This
sack created a central zone for aeration of incoming wastes.  The wastewater
would then flow through the mesh of the sack into an outer storage zone for
further oxidation before being recycled to the toilet.  Solids were retained
by the sack for digestion over an extended time period.

The recirculating pump was a standard 250 watt (1/3 hp.) water pump with an
air pressure tank and controls.  The air compressor was rated at 0.043 m3/min
(1.5 CFM) and was wired to run continuously.

A metal tank packed with activated carbon was installed between the recircu-
lation pump and the toilet.  This filter was designed to remove objectionable
color and odor.  The tank was about 1.2 meter's (4 ft.) in height and 230 mm
(9 in.) in diameter.  No backwashing system was provided.

The systems contained no provisions for overflow of wastes.  More recent
illustrations of this design show an optional overflow pipe and a high level
shut-off switch on the recirculating pump.  If the average adult produces
about 1.33 liters (0.35 gal.)  (7) of wastes per day, a total of 485 liters
(128 gal.) per user would accumulate annually in the system.  Since this
annual accumulation equals 47 percent of the maximum tank volume, removal
of excess material would be required several times per year.

Operation of the Recycling Toilet System—
Operation was as simple as flushing the toilet, for the user.  No adjustment
of any component was normally needed.  However, frequent maintenance by a
technician was required.  A mechanically - inclined homeowner could probably
perform all needed maintenance.  Since the air compressor ran continuously, a
lack of noise would serve as warning in case the compressor failed.  The
caVbon filter also contained a self-monitoring feature in that any clogging
would reduce the flow to the flush tank.

The operating sequence began with a 15 liter (4 gal.) toilet flush.  The
water from the toilet flowed by gravity to the central aeration chamber.
Larger soli'ds were retained in this central chamber, while the liquid portion
and finely divided solids were filtered through the nylon bag into the outer
chamber   The filtrate was retained in the outer chamber for an undefined
period and recycled by the water pump.  Where a carbon filter was used,
effluent was pumped through the filter before returning to the flush tank.

The aeration tank was initially charged with about 0.757 m3 (200 gal.) of
fresh water.  Excess water and sludge were to be removed when the tank became
full.  As an alternative, an overflow to a subsurface absorption trench could
be  utilized to avoid the necessity of frequent removal and truck hauling of
excess liquid.  Still, removal of accumulated sludge would be required on
a regular basis.
                                      19

-------
Installation Costs--
The purchase price of the aeration tank, aerator, carbon filter and water
pump was about $500 in 1970.  Other materials cost about $110.   Installation
labor for the treatment units totaled about 60 man-hours, including hand
excavation of the hole for the aeration tank.  At the locally prevailing rate
of $1.70 per hour for labor (1970), labor cost totaled $102.   Supervisory
time by AEHDP was not recorded, but required supervisory time is estimated
to be about 15 hours at $4.20 per hour,  or a total of $63.   These, costs
would indicate a total system installed cost of $775 in 1970.  Estimates for
1978 costs are listed in Table 14.

Operating Costs—
Electrical consumption and hauling of excess wastewater comprised the major
operating costs.  The compressor was rated at 125 watts per hour, whibh would
consume 3.2 x 10° J (90 KWH) per month.  The water pump operated intermittent-
ly as the toilet was flushed and pressure dropped in the pressure tank.  With
7 flushes per day, about 0.14 m3 (30 gal.) would be pumped per full-time
user-day, or 4.2 m3 (900 gal.) per user-month.  At $1.10 per million joules
(4<£/KWH), water pumping would cost less than $0.05 per month per user and
aeration would cost $3.60 per month.  Total operating cost for a family of
three would be about $3.75 per month at these rates, and would have been
about half as much in 1970-73.

Maintenance Costs -
Maintenance of the two recycling systems was curiously different, according
to available records.  One system (B-2) served three people and did not have
a carbon filter.  No maintenance calls were recorded for that system over a
period of about 18 months.

The other system (B-l) served only one elderly lady and had a carbon filter.
This system required 17 service calls involving 37 man-hours of time, not
including travel.  Although the filter seemed to have a chronic clogging
problem, only 4.5 hours of time were recorded for filter servicing.  The
air compressor and associated line required 13.5 hours of service, including
replacement of the compressor motor three times.

The diffuser head in the digestion tank became clogged and required servicing
three times; this required 4 man-hours for special service calls plus part
of another multi-purpose call.  The digester tank was pumped out once during
the two-year period.  In addition to the actual pumping costs, an AEHDP
staff member was on the site for 9 hours to clean the diffuser head,
chlorinate the system, fill the tank and repair the air line.  The recycling
pump was apparently trouble-free.

The cost of all maintenance items was not recorded.  A $24 cost was recorded
for one replacement of the air compressor.  The carbon filter was replaced
one time; the estimated cost for that is $150.  Pumping out the large tank
was estimated to cost $50.  (In 1976 the tank was cleaned on the initiative
of a septic-tank cleaning company; the charge for that service was an
exhorbitant $120.)  Maintenance man-hours could be estimated to cost $350,
                                     20

-------
and travel for the 17 visits would total about $41 at a rate of 20 miles per
visit and 12 cents per mile.  The total maintenance costs for the two year
period would be about $683 or $341.50 per year for system B-l.

No ready explanation was found for the lack of similar maintenance costs for
system B-2.  The lack of a carbon filter would have reduced the costs by
about $195 or $97.50 per year.  But this would have had no effect on the
remaining cost factors.  There was a significant difference in the cultural
level of the two families.  System B-l served a meticulous elderly woman in
a small town.  She used her telephone to call the AEHDP office whenever the
system appeared to malfunction.

In contrast, System B-2 served a family which was at the lowest socio-
economic level.  They lived near the end of a very steep unimproved road in
a rather remote setting.  They had no telephone.  The only complaint this
family made about the system was the cost of electricity to operate it.

These cultural differences may have affected the expectations of the users
about the recycling systems.  As long as the toilet flushed and the odor
was not objectionable, system B-2 was viewed as working satisfactorily.  But
the person using system B-l objected to discoloration of the flushing water
and even low levels of odor.  This very likely affected the frequency of
maintenance calls made to the systems.

Life Cycle Costs--
It is difficult to draw conslusions about life cycle costs from the two
systems described in this study.   Seemingly, one system was subject to
excessive service requirements while the other had no apparent need for
maintenance.   Estimates of waste accumulation show that a family of three
would produce about 1,455 liters (384 gal.) of excess waste per year.   This
material would probably need to be removed several'times per year, although
this need is not substantiated by available records.   For purposes of this
cost estimate, it is assumed that three pump-outs per year would be needed
at a cost of $30 each, or $90 per year.

Service calls are estimated to be required on a monthly basis.   Twelve calls
per year involving 1.5 man-hours per call  at'$10 per hour would total  $180;
travel costs for these calls would equal  $29 at 12 cents per mile and 20
miles per trip.   Parts are estimated to average $30 per year excluding the
carbon filter.   A local  water service company reported a cost of $30 to
service a typical  carbon-sand filter, hot including labor or travel.   Re-
placement of the carbon is anticipated to be required three times per year
for a total  of $90 in materials.   These maintenance cost projections are
listed in Table 3.
                                    21

-------
 TABLE 3 - 1978 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS PROJECTION-;  FQR  RECYCLING TOILET
Labor:  12 calls x 1.5 hrs/call x $10/hr
Travel:  12 trips x 20 miles x $.12/mile
Parts:
Carbon Replacement: 3 replacements x $30 ea.
Truck hauling of excess waste: $300 x 3 trips

Total Maintenance Cost
$180
  29
  30
  90
  90

$419
Average annual operating costs are primarily related to electrical consumption
which equals about 38.7 x 108J (1090 KHH).  At $1.10/10bJ (4<£/KWH) annual
operation would cost $44.  Therefore, the total operating and maintenance cost
is estimated to equal $463 per year or $38.60 per month.

Added to this would be the annualized capital cost.  The major mechanical
components of the recycling system would appear to have useful periods of
from 5 to 20 years.

Replacement costs and useful periods were estimated to be:

           air compressor, $100  in 5 years;
           water pump, $150 in 10 years;
           carbon filter, $350 in 10 years;                        i
           digestion tank, $600  in 20 years.

At an interest rate of 10 percent, the total annual capital cost would equal
$178.  When added to the annual  operation and maintenance cost of  $463,  a
life cycle cost of $641 per year is  indicated.

Performance of Recycling Toilet  Systems—
The two  units had quite different performance  characteristics, as  was alluded
to in the maintenance discussion.  No analysis of  recycled water was ever
conducted by  AEHDP.  One unit  had been  "cannibalized"  and the other had  been
converted to  a septic tank by  the end of the AEHDP's monitoring program.

Unit B-l had  been subject to odor and discoloration complaints.   The carbon
filter seemed to  clog and become anaerobic  after a few months.  This was
apparently the cause of  some of  the  odor complaints.   Odors also  became
objectionable because of compressor  failure and air diffuser  clogging.

After much effort to keep recycling  unit B-l operating,  AEHDP offered to
convert  the  aeration-digestion tank  to  a septic tank and to design a small
absorption field  for the small  front yard.   This work  was completed in  1973.

Unit B-2 had no  severe  operating problems prior to removal of the compressor.
The  recycled water was  high  in fine  suspended  solids and was  a medium brown
color.   The  odor was reported  to be  not objectionable  to the  users.  The users
did  complain repeatedly about  the  cost  of operation, which finally resulted
                                       22

-------
 in removal  of the compressor by AEHDP.   This compressor was then installed
 at unit B-l.

 When interviewed in 1978, the users of unit B-2 said they liked the recycling
 toilet and  would like to have it working again.  They were using an outdoor
 privy at that time.   They still  had an  inadequate supply of water,  which was
 a spring on the mountain above the house.   The seasonal  inadequacy  of the
 water supply  was one reason the AEHDP had  selected a recycling system for
 this location.

 With both units, there was an obvious potential hazard to health from the
 recycled wastewater.   Without disinfection,  disease organisms  could be
 present in  the  recycled water.   Since no sampling for pathogens or  indicator
 organisms was conducted,  the degree of  risk  is unknown.

 Extended Aeration With Sand Filtration

 Small  aerated tanks  have  been used for  many  years for treatment of  sewage
 from homes.   It has  been  proposed that  aeration would produce  effluent
 superior to that of  septic tanks.   Field studies of small  extended  aeration
 tanks  have  shown that this assumption is often not substantiated in actual
 installations   (7,8).  The AEHDP  selected  a  very simple  design  of aerated tank
 in an  attempt to obtain a system  with low  initial  cost and  reasonable
 reliability.  Recognizing the inherent  variability of aerated  effluent,  the
 Project used  slow sand filtration  to  polish  the effluent  prior  to discharge
 to the surface.

 Two  extended  aeration  with sand filtration (EA-SF)  systems were  installed  by
 AEHDP.   One served a  single  family and  one served  two  families.

 Description of  the Systems—
 The  locations of the  systems .shown  on Figure 1.
 serve  two families having  a  total  of  9  persons.
 a family of two  persons.
System C-l was designed to
System C-2 was designed for
System C-l was installed on a very steep site on the bank of the Middle Fork
of the Kentucky River, in Leslie County.  It consisted of a single aeration
tank having a liquid capacity of 885 gallons and an open sand filter with a
surface area of 80 square feet.  Figure 5 illustrates the .aeration tank.
Figure 6 depicts the sand filter used in C-2, and C-l was similar.  The
aeration compressor and diffuser were manufactured by Allenaire, Inc , of
Warren, Ohio, and carried the "Septi-care" brand label.   The compressor motor
was rated at 248 watts (1/3 hp) and required 115 volts,  60 cycle AC current.
Output was 453 rrrYday at 2.1 x 104 Pa(16,000 cfm @ 3 psi).   Available records
indicate that both systems utilized the same model of compressor, with
variable timer settings to provide the required volumes  of air.   The diffuser
arm was of one-inch diameter plastic pipe with 48 holes  of 2.3 mm (0 09 in )
diameter along the bottom side.
                                     23

-------
DIFFUSER
HEAD
     OUTLET
  AGGREGATE
  FILL
f
                        END VIEW
                       ACCESS
                       "PORTS
                             BAFFLE
         DIGESTION
         CHAMBER
                                              ALLENAIRE CYCLING
                                              AIR COMPRESSOR
                        WEATHER - PROOF
                        HOUSING
                          V'
                                                      .INLET
   NOTE =
                 SIDE VIEW
   CAPACITY-1060 GALLON
   COMPRESSOR iHP 1600
   C.FD. @3 P.S.I.

           Figure 5.  Extended aeration unit schematic diagram.
                               24

-------

j INLET






1 i
t


'^ .'•"-.*

i
'
?':>«>•>..

*v*-;?/^":-':* »*6 STONE •'.. r ,!*/ .•'•*"•:' ^C*:^^'
	 DISTRIBUTION PIK ^
4"' (.061m) WASHED SAND
x 	 *9 STONE


	 1

—
i i


V



OUTLET /-
1
         CROSS -SECTION
j p* 	 Dli.Ovim; 	 •"]
8'y(.02m)
+
	 	



—
i
1 1 i
li i
_,, 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 i

-




i
",

                                       §'  C2_44m)
           PLAN  VIEW
Figure 6.   Open sand filter diagram.
                25

-------
Sludge return in the tanks was by gravity; no mechanical or air lift
mechanisms were provided for either sludge or scum return.  The initial
installations omitted a separate weir or overflow tee.  Tees were added to
the outlet pipe by AEHDP after realizing the need for improved scum retention.

The estimated flow to this unit was 0.68 cubic meters per day (180 gpd).
Studies by Laak (6) would permit estimation of organic loading at 210 grams
(0.45 Ibs) of 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) per day.

The open sand filter in system C-l provided 7.4 square meters (80 sq. ft.)
of surface in a concrete block structure.  Because of shallow soils and other
site restrictions, both the aeration tank and filter were partially above
ground level .

The filter consisted of a 100 mm  (4 in.) layer of No. 9 stone in the bottom,
610 mm (24 in.) of washed river sand and about 305 mm (12 in.) of No. 6
stone on top.  Perforated bituminous fiberpipe 100 mm (4 in.) in diameter was
used for both distribution of aerated effluent and as underdrain for discharge
of filtrate.  No soil cover was used over the uppermost crushed rock, which
covered the  distribution pipe.  The soil cover was omitted for the purpose of
increasing oxygen availability to the sand surface.  At the estimated flow of
0.68 m3/day  (180 gpd) the surface of the filter would have an average loading
rate of .092 m3/m2 per day (2.25  gpd/ ft2).

The effluent from the filter discharged to the bank of the Kentucky River
(Middle Fork).

System C-2 served only two persons and was somewhat smaller than C-l,   It
was located  in a steep hollow in  eastern Leslie County.  The aeration tank
had a liquid capacity of 2.0 cubic meters (520 gal.) with an identical air
compressor and diffuser as system C-l.  A clock-timer was used to operate
the compressor in an adjustable on-off cycle.  The sand filter had a surface
area of 4.5  m2 (48 sq. ft.) and was constructed as shown in Figure 6.

Based on studies of water closet  wastes by Laak (6), the estimated loading
to this system was about 0.2 m3/day (50 gal/day) total liquid and 47 grams
(0.10 Ibs) per day of 5-day BOD.  Liquid loading to the filter surface would
be about 0.1 mS/m^day-l (1 gpd/ ft2).
Construction Costs —
Details of  construction  costs  for systems C-l and C-2 have been lost.  It is
known that  the  total  construction cost- for system C-l was $950 and for
system C-2  was  $665,  in  1970.  The  systems utilized ordinary construction
materials such  as concrete  blocks,  crushed dolomite, washed sand and perfor-
ated fiberpipe.  Only the aeration  compressors and diff users were proprietary
devices.  Updated construction costs  for a similar system of three person
capacity have been  estimated on  the basis of  local costs in the central
Kentucky area,  as shown  in  the following tabulation:                     i
                                      26

-------
                                AERATION UNIT

           Pre-cast Concrete Tank, 2.8m3 (750 Gal.)       $300

           Aeration Equipment, Installed                   250

           Piping, Installed                               150

                   Total Aeration Unit                    $700

                       OPEN SAND FILTER, 7m2 (75 Sq. Ft.)

           Crushed Rock, in place                         $ 50

           Sand, in place                          ~       170

           Concrete Block structure                        200
           Piping, in place

           Excavation

                   Total Filter Cost

           TOTAL SYSTEM COST, 1978 ESTIMATE
   130

  _40

  $590

$1,290
Operating Costs--
The extended aeration air compressor created the main operating cost in this
system.  The aerator is rated at 248 watts (1/3 hp) and operates on an inter-
mittent cycle.  With the timer set for 40 minutes on and 20 minutes off, the
compressor would consume 5.21 x 109J (1,447 KWH) per year.   At a 1978 rate of
4 cents per KWH, the annual electric power cost would be $58.

When compared to the incineration and recycling systems, water for flushing
may also be considered an operating cost.  Since both AEHDP installations
utilized private water supplies, no water treatment costs were involved.
Water pumping costs for flushing are estimated to equal less than 5 cents
per user-month, or $.60 per capita per year.   With municipal water service at
a rate of $1.50 per thousand gallons-($.40/m3), annual cost for flushing would
be about $14 per capita.

Assuming an individual water supply is used,  total annual operating costs for
a family of three would equal $60.

Maintenance Costs—
During the initial 2 years of operation, no regular maintenance was required
on the EA-SF systems.  The manufacturer recommended twice yearly maintenance
checks on the aeration equipment.  These maintenance checks would include
oiling the motor, checking air lines and diffuser and measuring sludge accumu-
lation.  Otis and Boyle determined that removal of sludge was necessary in

                                      27

-------
most extended aeration tanks on a schedule of 8 to 12 months.   (8)

No maintenance or repairs were done on the two EA-SF systems until early 1978.
Whether maintenance was actually needed before that time could not be positive-
ly determined.  Preventive maintenance possibly could have avoided the break-
down of the air compressor in system C-2.  This occured in March, 1978, when
a bearing locked and broke.  The present owner did not realize that the unit
required oiling.  It is not known whether the previous owner had oiled the
bearings.

In system C-2, no oiling had been done since the AEHDP terminated its activi-
ties in 1973.  The compressor was still running in May, 1978.   However, the
air supply line to the diffuser had separated at a fitting and no air was
entering the treatment tank.  The bituminous fiber influent pipe had also
broken, possibly from the heavy snows in January 1978.  The owner of this
system was blind and did not know about these breakdowns.

These observations would tend to support the recommendation for regular
maintenance checks.  Such checks should be done often enough to prevent
excessive periods of malfunction.  Weekly observations by the landowner would
be advisable.  More extensive inspections by a trained person should be done
at least once each three months.

The annual maintenance costs would be about $130 per year for aeration, as
shown in the following tabulation.


                    ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR AERATION

           Quarterly maintenance: 8 man-hours/year

           at $10 per hour plus travel

           of 80 miles at  $.12/mi=                       $ 89.60

           Sludge pumping  and hauling=                     40.00

           Annual Maintenance Cost                       $129.60

Maintenance  of  the sand  filters was limited to occasional weed  removal on
system  C-2 during the 8  years of opeation.  No other  maintenance  was  reported
by  the  owners.  Observations of the filters in 1978 revealed  no  formation of a
distinct clogging mat and  no ponding  of  effluent  on the  sand.  A  loamy
soil-like accumulation was evident in the  crushed  rock between  the  sand and
the distribution pipes.

An  accumulation of solids  in the distribution  pipes of system C-2 had clogged
some  of the  outlet holes.  Test flushing of the toilet permitted  observation
of  the  rate  of  flow  from the distribution  pipe into the  sand.   A single toilet
flush produced  a slow trickle  from two holes  in the distribution  pipe.
                                      28

-------
Approximately 25 minutesweate required for all flow from the single flush to
empty from the pipes and be absorbed by the sand.  Many annelids and arthro-
pods were observed living in the humus  filled rock of filter C-2.  It seemed
likely that these organisms assisted in maintaining the permeability of the
filter.  It should be noted that this system was located'in an area which was
surrounded by forest, and many of the arthropods were species which are common
in forest litter.

Although the sand did not appear to need immediate cleaning, the distribution
pipes were in need of removal of accumulated solids.  It appeared to be
possible to flush the solids back into the tank with the aid of a garden hose.
A tee fitting could be placed in the line to accomplish this task, and a
siphon breaker should be used on the garden hose to avoid accidental back-
siphonage.  There had been some erosion of soil onto the uphill side of filter
C-2.  This may have contributed to blockage of outlet holes in  the  distribution
pipe on that side of the filter.

Altogether, it appeared that maintenance of the filter would be limited to
flushing of distribution pipes about every 5 years and, perhaps, replacement
of crushed rock surrounding the distribution pipe after about 10 years.

Costs for these "maintenance" activities, if done by hired labor, are esti-
mated to be $20 for line flushing and $80 for replacement of the top layer of
crushed rock.  This would indicate a filter maintenance cost of $12 per year.

Adding the estimated operating costs of the system to these maintenance
costs gives a total annual 0 & M of $190 for aeration and $12 for the filter
or a combined total of $202 per year.  This is a projected cost for a family
of three persons.

Life Cycle Costs—                                        .
The basic structure of the tank and filter should have a useful life of about
30 years when made of concrete.  The aerator is estimated to have a life of
10 years with proper maintenance.  The sand and lower gravel fill may also be
assumed to have a life of 30 years.  Using these periods and an interest rate
of 10 percent, the annualized capital cost would be about $136 for a system
to serve 3 persons.  Adding this cost to the annual operation and maintenance
cost of $202 results in an annual life cycle cost of $338.

Performance of Extended Aeration - Sand Filtration Systems--
The performance of the EA-SF systems was not tested by AEHDP; only irregular
observations were made during the initial two years of operation.  The person
assigned to the monitoring of the systems stated that he was unable to collect
an effluent from either of the filters.

In 1978, three samples were collected and analyzed as part of this evaluation.
These were taken from a hole drilled in the invert of the effluent pipe on
system C-2.  Since system C-l was not operating during the 1978 evaluation
period, no tests were made of that system.
                                      29

-------
The results of the analyses are shown in Table 4.  These results are different
in many respects from typical sand filter effluents.  Most unusual are the
levels of nitrate nitrogen, which ranged from 220 to 655 mg/1.  These levels
are considerably higher than any reported in literature available to the
writer.  Laak (6) reported a Total KleTda&l Nitrogen (TKN) of 193 mg/1 for
water closet wastes.

It is possible that partial excavation of the rock and upper sand for purposes
of inspection affected the performance of the filter.   A moderately heavy
rain-fall occurred during the sampling period of May 5, and this may have in-
creased the rate of newly available nitrate movement through the filter.


                                   TABLE 4

 LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF FINAL -EFFLUENT FROM EXTENDED AERATION* & SAND FILTER
                                  SYSTEM C-2
        PARAMETER
                                         May 5
 DATE
May 11
June 22

5-Day BOD (mg/1)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1 as N)
Nitrate (mg/1 as N)
Total Phosphorus (mg/1 as P)
PH
Fecal Col i form (No. /1 00ml)
CONCENTRATION
21.0 5.0 20.0
24.0 1.0 21.0
27.8 16.7 4.9
655.0 220.0 220.0
10.0 6.2 9.8
8.0
0 0 700

*NOTE:  Aerator was not operating

The lack of fecal coliform on the tests of May 5 and 11 is also unusual for
such effluents.  Even the count of 700 per 100 ml reported for June 22 is
lower than expected from a filter receiving septic effluent.  Since the aerator
had not functioned since March of 1978, the filter influent had essentially
been anaerobic for about two months prior to these tests.

An estimate of overall reduction in 5-day BOD can be made by using Laak's
values for water closet wastewater (6).  If the local water closet waste
concentrations are similar to those studied by Laak, the estimated concentra-
tion of BOD would be about 310 mg/1.   This would equal a total reduction of
about 95 percent in the anaerobic tank and sand filter.
                                      30

-------
The original owners of this system are now deceased.  The new owners, a
family of four persons, expressed satisfaction with the performance of the
system.  Even wit'h the aerator disabled, no objectionable odors had been
noticed from the filter.

The owners of system C-l had also been satisfied with their system.  They did
not object to the electrical service costs required to operate the aerator.
They stated a desire to have the system repaired as soon as possible.

Septic Tank - Open Sand Filter Systems

Three homes were provided with septic tanks followed by conventional slow
sand filters.  The filters were constructed in the same manner as those used
with the aeration tanks.

Description of the Systems-
One of the Septic Tank-Open Sand Filter (ST-OSF) systems could not be located
in the field and no system description was found in the files.  Therefore,
no evaluation of that system was made.  The other two ST-OSF systems utilized
nearly identical components.  A 1.1 m3    (300-gal.) circular septic tank
constructed of welded steel was used.  The tanks were coated with factory-
applied bituminastic material.  After installation, all scratches were
painted with a cold process bituminastic material.

The sand filters were constructed in the manner described for the aeration
systems.  Figure 6 on page 42 illustrates the type of construction used.
Both filters had a surface area of 4.5 m2 (48 sq. ft.).  [Effluent was applied
to the filters by gravity flow through perforated bituminous fiber pipe
100 mm (4 in.) in diameter.

Both homes were located in areas of steep topography.  System D-l was located
near Sassafras in Knott County.  The home was occupied by two elderly persons
and was perched on the base of a mountain about 15 meters (50 feet) from
Sassafras Creek,  The yard of this home becomes saturated with groundwater in
the springtime, with many small springs and rivulets running off the mountain.

System D-5 served a single person and was located near Wooton in Leslie County.
It was in a narrow hollow with many large boulders around the house.  Soils
are shallow and stony.

The water supply at system D-l was a shallow well and hand pump.  Since no
funds were available for installing a pressurized water system, a hand pump
was installed next to the water closet tank.  The hand purnp was used to fill
the tank after each toilet flush.
Estimated flow for system D-l was 0.19 nr
D-5,  .09 m3/day  (24 gpd).
(50 gal.)  per day and for system
Details of construction costs for these two systems have been lost from the
files.  The total cost of system D-l was about $520.  It is assumed that
system D-5 would have had an equivalent cost.

                                      31

-------
Updating these costs for a three person family results in a total  system cost
of about $840, as shown in Table 5.  This includes a minimum-sized 2.8 m3
(750 gal.) precast septic tank and a sand filter of 7 nr (75 sq.  ft.).  The
cost estimate is shown in Table 5.                                       •
                                   TABLE 5
            1978 Construction Cost Estimate for ST-OSF System

                                                         $250
Septic Tank 2.8_m3 (750 gal.)
Sand Filter 7 nf (75 sq.  ft.)
  Crushed Rock
  Sand
  Concrete Block Structure
  Piping
  Excavation
Total Filter Cost

Total System Cost*
                                                           50
                                                          170
                                                          200
                                                          130
                                                           40
                                                         $840
            *Plus flush toilet and sewer

These estimates are based on use of a local septic tank contractor and
non-union labor.  For an equitable comparison with the "sewer!ess" toilets,
a cost of $120 should be added for the flush toilet and house sewer.  The
total system cost would then equal $960.

Operating Costs—
These systems have no true operating costs other than the cost of water for
toilet flushing.  In system D-l, the water was provided by a hand pump, and
therefore there were no operating costs.  System D-5 utilized a private water
supply with electric pump.  Costs for electricity to provide water for toilet
flushing were estimated to total less than $0.60 per capita per year, which
was the annual 'operating cost for D-5.

Maintenance Costs--
No maintenance had ever been required for system D-5.  The house was vacant
during the field survey, but the owner's son lived in the adjacent house
and provided information on the system.

System D-l required repair of the flush toilet in 1978, requiring about %
man-hour of time.  The outlet pipe from the filter was about 0.3 m (1 ft.)
above the Creek bed and the pipe had become covered with rocks and filled with
silt and sand over the years.  This material was removed in 1978, requiring
about one man-hour of effort.  Even though the pipe had been plugged for an
indeterminant period, the filter was not completely flooded in April of 1978.
The owner reported that he had replaced the hand pump leather in 1975.
                                     32

-------
These maintenance actions for system-D-l are estimated to -have required 2.5
man-hours of time over the seven year period of use.  Assuming a cost of $10
per hour for labor and travel of 40 miles at 12 cents per mile, total
maintenance labor would equal $29.80.  Parts are estimated to cost $2.00 for
the pump, so the total maintenance cost for the period would be $31.80, or
about $4.54 per year.

Projected maintenance costs would include removal of septage and cleaning the
filter and distribution pipes.  Clogging of some outlet holes was observed
upon excavating the filter.  This clogging was similar to that observed in
system C-2.  It seemed that cleaning of the pipes would be necessary before
many more months of use.  However, no standing water was observed in the
pipes during any of the field visits in 1978.  With no pressurized water
system.in; the home,these pipes would have to be cleaned manually by scraping.
An alternative to cleaning would be  replacement with new pipe at the same
time that the upper rock was replaced.

Based on these observations, pumping of septage and replacement of the. filter
distribution system would be projected to be needed on a frequency of once
in 7 years.  These costs are estimated to be $50 for pumping and $80 for
filter maintenance, or a total of $130.  This would equal $18.60 per year.

Adding these projected maintenance costs to the actual maintenance costs'
would give a total annual maintenance cost of about $23.00.

Life Cycle Costs--
Due to the susceptibility of metal tanks to corrosion, the life of such tanks
is estimated to be not more than 10  years.  At current estimated replacement
costs of $200 and an  interest rate of 10 percent, the annualized capital cost
for a 1.1 m3    (300  gal.) metal tank would equal $32.

An alternative in remote mountainous areas would be a fiberglass reinforced
plastic  (FRP) tank.   With an estimated life of 30 years and a current replace-
ment cost of $340, a  750 gallon FRP  tank would have an annualized capital
cost of  $36.  A precast concrete tank would have a  similar cost.

The main structure of the sand filter is estimated  to have a life of 30
years.   At a replacement cost of $590 and interest  at 10 percent, the
annualized capital cost would equal  $62.60.

The total  life cycle  cost for a ST-OSF system to treat water closet wastes
from a household of  three persons is summarized below.
             Annual  operation  and maintenance
             Annualized  capital  for  FRP  tank
             Annualized  capital  for  sand filter

             Total  annual  life cycle cost
$ 24.80
  36.00
  62.60

$123.40
                                      33

-------
Performance of Septic Tank-Open Sand Filter Systems—
Some aspects of performance have already been discussed in the sections on
operation and maintenance.  The owners of the two systems D-l and D-5 were
apparently satisfied with their systems.  No complaints on either system had
been recorded by AEHDP.

Some clogging of upper crushed rock and distribution pipe holes was observed
in the filter on system D-l.  This had not made a noticeable difference in
the functioning of the system.

Effluent samples were collected from system D-l on May 9 and 10 and on
June 22, 1978.  No records of sampling by AEHDP were found.  The results of
analysis of samples is listed in Table 6.

Most of these values are similar to other tests of sand filter effluents (9).
The suspended solids were unusually high, particularly on May 10.  The solids
contents are believed to be partially a result of accumulated silt washing
from the filter after cleaning of the outlet pipe.  This explanation appears
to correlate with the low nitrate nitrogen levels on May 9th and 10th.
                                  TABLE 6
      ANALYSIS OF SEPTIC TANK-SAND FILTER EFFLUENT FROM  SYSTEM D-l

                                            Date of Sample
Parameter
5-day BOD (Mg/1)
Total Suspended Solids (Mg/1)
Ammonia Nitrogen (Mg/1 as N)
Nitrate (Mg/1 as N)
Total Phosphorus (Mg/1 as P)
PH
Fecal Coliform (No. /100ml)
May 9
2
28
1.5
7.5
0.4
*
100,000
May 10
6
590
0.3
2
1.6
*
13,000
June 22
8
28
*
140
2.7
8
*

*Not Reported
Fecal coliform levels were higher than normal.  This is attributed to the
surcharged condition of the filter on May 9.  The outlet pipe was clogged
with silt, sand and rocks.  This caused water to back up in the filter to a
level which was about 200 mm (Sin.) below the distribution pipe.   In order
to collect samples, the blockage was removed and the filter permitted to
drain for about % hour before sampling was begun.
                                     34

-------
Except for the need for disinfection of the final effluent, the performance
of the systems using septic tanks with slow sand filters was adequate for
the local environment.

Septic Tank - Horizontal Sand Filter Systems

Three homes were provided with systems which utilized septic tanks and sub-
surface horizontal sand filters (ST-HFS).  The septic tanks were small
welded steel units.  The subsurface sand filters were a design that had been
developed by Abney (10) in 1968.  Two of these systems were still in use in
early 1978; the home on the third system was vacant.

Description of the Systems—
The septic tanks were coated metal tanks identical to those described in
section 5.  Capacities were 1.1 nr (300 gal.) for all systems.

The sand filters were constructed in an open trench which was approximately
0.33 m (3.5 ft.) deep and 0.23 m  (2.5 ft.) wide.  No underdrain pipe was
used in the filters; a bed of sand 300 mm (12 inches) deep in the bottom
served as an underdrain and horizontal filter.  Both horizontal and vertical
sand surfaces were actually used as .primary infiltration areas, but only
the vertical surfaces were used as design areas.  Figure 7 illustrates the
method of filter construction used.  A core of 10 mm (3/8 in.) crushed rock
was placed between vertical layers of sand, all resting on the bottom 300 mm
(12 in.) sand layer.  The rock core and upper sand were topped off with a
layer of 19 mm (3/4 in.) crushed rock (#6 stone) which surrounded the per-
forated distribution pipe.  Local soil was used as backfill to prevent
freezing of effluent.  Mortar sand was used as the filter medium.

At the terminus of the filter, a graded crushed rock fill was used to retain
the sand and to provide additional filtration.  The anticipated sequence of
operation in the filter was gravity flow through the distribution pipe out-
lets, the coarse rock, the medium rock and then the sand.  After reaching
the trench bottom, liquid would be absorbed by the soil until the percolative
capacity of the soil was exceeded.  The filtrate was then expected to move
horizontally through the sand to the end of the trench, where seepage to the
surface would occur.

A clogging mat as described by Winneberger (11)'was expected to develop at
the interface between the medium rock and the sand.  This clogging would
normally develop at the lower, horizontal surface and then, as ponding of
liquid increased, would progress up the vertical rock-sand interface.
Ideally, two equally sized filters would be alternated in use annually to
permit resting, which would result in partial oxidation of the clogging mat.

This sequence of operation did not occur in the filters examined in this
study.  The AEHDP was never able to collect any effluent from any of the
subsurface filters.  The two filters still in use in May, 1978, did not have
a visible effluent after 7 years of operation.  The owners stated that no
liquid was ever seen seeping from the ends of the filters.  This finding will
be discussed in the section on system performance.

                                     35

-------
                                                             ,G
                        CROSS- SECTION
Figure 7.  Cross-sectional  view of  horizontal buried sand  filter.
                             36

-------
At a design flow of 0.11 m3 per day per capita (30/gpcd), the design loading
rate on two filters was 15 liters per day/m2 (0.5 gpd/ft2), on the vertical
rock-sand interface.  The third filter was loaded at a theoretical rate of
52 l/d/m2 (1-25 gpd/ft2).  The original design parameters of 0.11 m3/d/cap
and 15 1/d/m2 would require a filter length of 6.1 m (20 ft.) per person,
preferably in two equally sized filters which would be used alternately.
The general specifications of each of the ST-HSF system are listed in
Table 7.

	TABLE 7	;	

        CHARACTERISTICS OF SEPTIC TANK-HORIZONTAL SAND FILTER SYSTEMS
System
D-2
D-3
D-4
Initial
Number
Of Persons
2
5
2
Sand Filter
Design Flow
I/da (qpd)
230 (60)
570 (150)
230 (60)
Volume of
Septic Tank
m3 (gal.)
1.1 (300)
1.1 (300)
1.1 (300)
Design Area
m2 (ft2)'
11 (120)
11 (120)
11 (120)
Primary
Filter
Length m(ft)
12 (40)
12 (40)
12 (40)

System D-2 was located on a terrace of the North Fork of the Kentucky River.
The house was located between a railroad track and the base of a mountain,
and the front yard had been used as a roadway for a coal storage area in
years past.  The system was installed in the front yard and the bottom of
the filter graded to drain into the railroad ditch.  Figure 8 illustrates the
general plan of the system.

System D-3 was located on a narrow bench above a road cut.  The house had
been constructed on the bench, which was made of broken sandstone and shale.
Large stones made excavation of the trench difficult.  Three adults and two
children occupied the house at the time the treatment system was constructed
in 1971.  In 1978, only two adults still lived in the house.  Figure 9
illustrates the general plan of this system.

System D-4 was located on a knob on the side of a mountain.  The small side
yard contained rocky soil which was excavated with pick and shovel for the
treatment system.  Figure 10 illustrates the general plan of this system.

Construction Costs—
The details of construction costs for these three ST-HSF systems were not
available.  It is known that the total cost was about $600 each.  Materials
used in the filter included a minimum of 5.61 m3 (7.33 cu. yd.) of washed
sand, 2.7 m3 (3.5 cu. yd.) of No. 9 stone, 1.9 m3 (3.5 cu. yd.) of No. *6
stone and 15 m (50 ft.) of 100 mm (4 in.) perforated pipe.  Total excavation
required for the filter was about 12 to 15 m3 (16 to 19 cu. yd.), not
including excavation for the septic tank or house sewer.

Updated construction costs for a system to treat water closet wastes from
three persons are shown in Table 8.  These costs are based on installation
by a local septic tank contractor using non-union labor.  Total system costs

                                     37

-------
SEPTIC TANK-
                                HOUSE
                         FLOW  CONTROL BOX
                       ALTERNATE HORIZONTAL/
                       SAND FILTERS       /
            RAILROAD-
      Figure 8.   Plan view of system D-2.
                     38

-------
                                                               N
I/
Ul
                                HOUSE
                                                         300 GALLON

                                                         SEPTIC TANK
  GRAVEL DRAIN
                      rH!
ORIZQNYAL SAND FILTERS-^


     "B"	"A" /
                                       EC
                          PERFORATED PIPE  SEWER PII»E-
       STEEP SLOPE
                                                       •ROAD DITCH
                             MACE'S  CREEK  ROAD
                  Figure 9.  Plan view of system D-3.
                                 39

-------
             HORIZONTAL  SAND
            "FILTER
                     FLOW-CONTROL
                                          HOUSE
                                SEPTIC TANK
DISCHARGE AREA
                 STEEP  SLOPE
               SECOND FORK  ROAD (DIRT)
        Figure 10.  Plan view of system D-4.
                       40

-------
would also include costs for installation of the flush, toilet and house
sewer, which may be estimated at $120.  So in a comparison with the incin-
erator or other sewerless toilets, the total cost would equal $980.

                                  TABLE 8
   1978 CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR SEPTIC TANK-HORIZONTAL SAND FILTER SYSTEM
Item

Septic Tank, 2.8 m3 (750 gal.)
Horizontal Sand Filter (in-place costs)
    Sand 8.4 m3 (11 CY)
    No. 9 stone 3.5 m3 (4.6 CY)
    No. 6 stone 2.7 m3 (3.5 CY)
    Perforated Pipe 20 m3 (70 L.F.)
    Excavation 20 m3 (26 CY)

    Total Filter Cost
    Total Treatment System Cost

    Toilet and Sewer Cost
    Total
Cost

$250

 260
  70
  50
 100
 130

$610
$860

$120
$980
Operating Costs--
The ST-HSF systems were simple gravity-operated systems with no significant
operating costs.  The cost for water to flush the toilet and carry wastes to
the septic tank is the sole operating cost.  This has been previously esti-
mated to cost less than $1.80 per year for electrical pump operation in an
individual water supply system serving three persons.

Maintenance Costs—                                       :
Maintenance costs would include septic tank sludge removal and any repairs.
None of these tanks had been pumped during the 7 year use period, and no
repairs or other service had been required to any of the treatment components.
If the sludge accumulation rate was equal to the 0.17 1 (.04 gal.) per
capita per day reported by Brandes (12), two of the tanks would have been
full in 1974.  Since investigation of sludge levels was not a part of this
study, only the lack of noticeable malfunction can be used to evaluate sep-
tic tank operation.  It would be normally recommended that tanks be cleaned
every 3 to 5 years as preventive maintenance.  It will be assumed that all
of these systems will be cleaned in 1978, at a cost of $50 each.  This would
equal an average annual maintenance cost of $7.14 per year.

Life Cycle Costs-
Based on measurements of ponding in two of the filters, the anticipated life
of the filters would be at least 30 years, and probably longer with good
management of septic solids.  If irreversible clogging should occur, the filter
could possibly be treated with hydrogen peroxide as. described by Harkin (13).
Use of hydrogen peroxide for such treatment is patented and is legally
available only from licensed operators.  The current licensor, Port-0-Let of
Jacksonville, Florida, reported a typical charge of $325 for systems of a
similar size.  (Personal Communication)
                                     41

-------
Assuming a maximum useful life of 30 years for the filters as constructed,
an interest rate of 10 percent and a 1978 construction cost of $610, the
annualized capital cost would equal $65 per year.  The metal septic tanks
are expected to have a useful life of 10 years and a replacement cost of
$200.  At an interest rate of 10%, these tanks would have an annualized
capital cost of $32.  A more durable but more costly fiberglass tank would
have an annualized capital cost of $36 per year.  Therefore, the 1978 annual-
ized capital cost for the entire treatment system would equal about $97 per
year.

To this must be added the average annual operating and maintenance costs,
which were projected to be about $10.  The 1978 annual life cycle costs
would then be $107 for a system serving three persons.

Performance of Septic Tank-Horizontal Sand Filter Systems—
As mentioned previously, these systems did not function in quite the mode of
operation which had been anticipated.  That is, no effluent was ever observed
from any of these horizontal filters.

In order to evaluate the function of the filter and determine the depth of
clogging in the sand, a special auger was made.  It consisted of a cylinder
of 4-inch thinwall conduit and a separate single-flight auger on a T-handle.

To use the auger, soil was excavated by post-hole digger to expose the
crushed rock fill in the trench.  The cylinder was then placed in the hole
with the auger inside.  The auger was turned to excavate the loose rock
and sand.  As material was withdrawn from the filter,  it was examined for
color and wetness and deposited in sequence for later replacement in the
hole.

This procedure was used in evaluating system D-3.  It was found that ponding
had occured in the first half of the system to a depth of 130 mm (5-in.)
above the lower rock-sand interface.  The lower part of the crushed rock
and the upper two to three inches of sand were covered with dark slime and
other anaerobic material.  The lower 200 to 250 mm (8 to 10 in.) of sand
was a normal brown color.  (See Figure 11 for an illustration of these
conditions.)  The soil in the bottom of the trench was very moist but no
water was standing in the lower sand.  This was particularly significant
in view of the fact that 21 mm (0.84 in.) of rain had fallen in the previous
48 hours at nearby Hyden, Kentucky.

The second trench in system D-3 had no evidence of ponded effluent.  This
condition would indicate that most of the effluent was being discharged to
the first trench, which was 6.1 m  (20 ft.) in length.  According to a sketch
from  the AEHDP, this system was not provided with a flow-control box, as
were  systems  D-2  and D-4.  If all of the effluent was being discharged to
the ponded area of  the first trench, this would equal a theoretical loading
rate  of 152 1/m2  per day  (3.75 gpd/ft2) in the earlier years and 61 1/m' per
day  (1.5 gpd/ft2) in more recent years, on the area of submerged sand.  These
                                     42

-------
                    STONE
                                 •»•
                                   5"d30mm) DEPTH OF
                                   J_ SATURATION
                                        -ZONE OF
                                        CLOGGING
Figure 11.   Clogging  pattern in horizontal sand filter.
                       43

-------
rates are probably in excess of the actual rates.  This opinion is supported
by the fact that one of the adults in this home prefers to use the outdoor
privy, which is still maintained.  He reportedly uses the flush toilet only
in bad weather.  In addition, studies by Laak (6) and others have shown that
average flows from water closets are less than 76 1/cd (20 gpcd) in most
homes, rather than the 114 1/d (30 gpcd) assumed by AEHDP personnel.

Using the more conservative flow data, estimated loading rates on the
inundated area of filter D-3 would range from 911/m2 per day (2.25 gpd/ft2)
in 1972, to 31 1/m2 per day (0.75 gpd/ft^) in 1978.

The terminal drain of system D-3 was excavated with shovels at two places.
No saturation of the soil was evident, although moisture contents were
fairly high.  Small holes were excavated below the level of the filter bottom
in an attempt to collect filtrate.  No free water collected in the holes
overnight.  No septic odor was present in the end of the filter.

The condition of system D-2 was checked by partial excavation with shovels.
Water levels in the parallel trenches were observed by driving perforated
steel pipes into the system and measuring depths of accumulated liquid.

A flow control box is utilized in system D-2 as well as in system D-4.  This
box is a simple concrete box with two outlets, one to each trench.  One of
the outlets is blocked with an upturned plastic elbow fitting.  The elbow
can be moved from one outlet to the. other in order to use the trenches
alternately.  This method of flow control was devised by Abney and incorpor-
ated in the septic tank regulations for Jackson County, Indiana, in 1967  (14).
The box is illustrated in Figure 12.

Because the elbow was still in place and  the owner stated that it had never
been moved, it would be assumed that all  of the flow for the past 7 years
had been going to the same trench.  This  conclusion was supported by the
observation of ponded water in the  trenches.  The trench in use had about 7
inches of water standing above the  level  of the lowest rock-sand interface,
while the other trench had no evidence of saturation.

The loading rate on  filter D-2 may  be estimated from the assumed design flow
and the observed depth of ponding.  On the submerged portion of vertical
sand surface  (design area), the loading rate would equal 104 I/ m2-day
(2.6 gpd/ft2)  in 1978.  A more conventional estimate would  include all
rock-sand interfacial area; this would provide a  loading rate of 52  l/m2-day
(1.3 gpd/ft2)  below  the observed depth of ponding.

System D-4 was not in use during the current investigation.  Visits by
AEHDP between  1971 and 1973 revealed no evidence  of effluent at the filter
terminus.   No  complaints about this system were  recorded by the AEHDP.  The
original owner used  this system  until her death  in  1977.  The property was
not occupied  in mid-1978.

It seems obvious that the horizontal sand filters had been  functioning in  the
manner of absorption trenches.  The percolative  capacities  of the stony soils

                                    44

-------
PIPE FROM TANK-
PIPE TO-
FIELD
RESTING
              ELBQW'CAF"
                       L
      _J^
           ^
OUTLET PIPE
   N USE
                                            v:
                                               CONCRETE LID
LVABLE ELL
      INLET
              PLAN VIEW
                                           CROSS SECTION
          Figure 12.  Flow control  box used in ST-HSF systems.
                                 OUTLET
                                  IN USE
                                 45

-------
in which the systems were installed were adequate for absorption of all
effluents applied.

System D-3 appeared to be the most heavily loaded of the three systems.   The
active trench in that system has a bottom area of about 4.65 m^ (50 sq.  ft.).
If the average flow in this system was 0.11 ir/day (30 gpd) in recent years,
the trench bottom would have been loaded at a rate of 24 I/day m^ (0.6 gpd/
sq. ft.), or about 25 mm/day (1 in./day).

No permeability tests of the soil in system D-3 were conducted, but observa-
tion of soil next to the trench revealed that the soil between the broken
stone had a sandy texture, with some silt and clay also present.  Evidently
the permeability of this material is moderately rapid.

Septic Tank-Soil Absorption Systems

Septic tanks followed by soil absorption trenches were installed at four
homes initially.  In addition, one recycling system was converted to a
septic tank-soil absorption system (ST-SA).  The location and current
status of these systems was listed in Table 1.

These systems were  installed at homes where the provisions of the plumbing
code could  not be met, but where the AEHDP staff believed that soil absorp-
tion systems could  be designed to fit the  site.  The basic materials used
were a metal septic tank, graded crushed rock and bituminous fiber pipe.  A
standard flush toilet was used with all of these systems.  Two geometries
of absorption trenches were installed.  One was rectangular  in cross-section,
with a  depth to width ratio of about  2:1.  The other type was V-shaped  in
cross-section.

Description of System E-l —
System  E-l  was located between U.S. Highway 421 and  the small home, which
was built  about  15  feet  from  a  rock cliff.  The material in wh*ch the
absorption  trenches were installed consisted of about two to three feet of
stony fill  over original soil.


A 1.9 m3 (500  gal)  steel  septic  tank  was  installed.   The effluent was
piped  to two absorption  trenches without the  use  of  a  distribution box  or
flow control  box.   The  general  plan of system E-l  is  shown in  Figure  13.

The absorption trenches  were  hand  excavated  to a  depth  of  0.9  m (3.ft)  and
a width of 0.46  m (1.5  ft).   Each  trench was  about 15  m (50 ft)  long.   The
 depth  of rock fill  below the  distribution pipe was 1.8 feet 0.56m,   Total
 useful  (bottom and sides) absorption  area in  this  system equaled 47  m
 (510 sq. ft.).   Only the sidewalls were considered as design area, and
 provided 33.4 m2 (360 ft.)  of area.   The cross section of  a typical  trench
 is shown in Figure 14.

 Two sizes of crushed rock were used in these trenches as well  as two other
 systems.  This was done to comply with recommendations published by  McGauhey

                                      46

-------
DRIVE
                          CLIFF
                          HOUSE
                      rO
                             500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK
                                  ABSORPTION TRENCHES
                       K
50'
              WHITE  PINES
                                                           =™**1.5'
                                                           I    T
                 Figure 13.  Plan view of system E-l
                               47

-------
t
8
I
2
" 4
A
>
<


2




4
I
H



2*






8fe






EARTH FILL

()


\







<$
<*&
4






4'


#

1


                                                  4" PERFORATED
                                                    TILE
                                                     STONE
                                                 -*57 STONE
Figure  14.  Cross-sectional view of sidewall absorption trench.
                           48

-------
 and  Winneburger (11),  for avoiding  the "shadow zone"  created by large stones
 in contact with soil  infiltration surfaces.   Later recommendations  by
 Winneberger called  for the use  of washed  sand rather  than  fine  gravel  for this
 purpose.   (Personal  Communication)                         '.

 The  water  closet waste flow to  system p-1  was estimated  to average  150 I/da
 (40  gpd) from  the two  adults.   This would  equal  a  loading  rate  of 3 l/m2-da
 (.08 gpd/sq. ft.) or  3.3  mm/da  (0.13  in/da),  on  the total  available infiltra-
 tion area.   Considering trench  bottom area alone,  this.flow would equal  a
 loading rate of 11  l/m2/da (0.27 gpd/sq.  ft.) or 11 mm/da  (0.43 in./da)

 Description  of System  E-2--                               i
 System E-2  incorporated a septic tank of  1.1  rr)3  (300  gal.)  capacity and  a
 single V-bottom absorption trench.  It was installed  in  an  abandoned road •
 bed  in the  upper end of a steep hollow.  The  "soil" was  stony fill  and
 colluvial  deposits.  Three adults occupied the home in 1971.  Figure 15  shows
 a typical  section  of  the absorption.trench,  and Figure  16  shows  the general
 plan.

 The  "V" shape  of the trench was conceived  as  a means  for reducing the  volume
 of graded  rock  fill in  comparison to  that  required  for the  standard  Kentucky
 code trench.   Excavation  was done with pick and  shovel.  The  two  sizes of
 rock placed  in  the  trench  required the use of plywood forms  to  achieve the
 desired result.

 The  "V" absorption  trench  provides a  total of about 1.5  sq. m (5  sq. ft.)
 of useful infiltration  surface per foot.   This is the sum total of the
 inclined sidewall and  narrow bottom,  all of which were about  1.2  m  (4  ft.)
 lower in elevation  than the outlet of the  septic tank.   The length of  this
 trench is about  24 m (80  ft.), which  would provide a total of 37  m2  (400  sq.
 ft.) of infiltration area.  These values should  be considered rough estimates,
 since installation of  this  system did not  involve precise measurements.  At
 an estimated flow of 0.23 m3/da (60 gpd),  the  infiltration surface would  have
 a loading rate of 6.1  1/m2  (0.15 gpd/ft2)  per  day or 6 mm/day (0.24  in./da).

 Description of System  E-4--
 System E-4 was similar to system E-2.   (System E-3 will  be discussed in the
 following section).   A 1.1 m3 (300 gal.) septic-tank and a single V bottom
 trench was used.  This system was installed about 30 m (100 ft) above.Highway
 28 on a steep slope in Perry County.  Two elderly persons occupied the home
 until 1976.  The home was vacant in 1978.

The  absorption trench was approximately 18 m  (60 ft.)  in length, which was
 the maximum possible on that lot.   This would provide  about 28 m2 (300 sq. ft.)
of infiltration surface.  The loading rate on the absorption trench  was esti-
mated to be 5.4 1/m^/da (0.13 gpd/sq.  ft.) or 5.4 mm/da  (0.21 in/da).  The
general  plan of this system is shown in Figure 17.

Description of System E-3--
System E-3 was  a special case and was  not. truly comparable to the other
                                     49

-------
Figure 15.  Cross-sectional view of V-trench.
                      50

-------
  I  *  1
    o
    -I
    o
                           HOUSE
                             TANK
  \
             -ABSORPTION  TRENCH
Figure 16.   Plan  view of system E-2.
              51

-------
                            HOUSE
                              — STEEP SLOPE-
S.R. 28
 Figure 17.  Plan view of system E-4.
                 52

-------
systems.  This system was designed by AEHDP, but private funds were used for
construction.  Unlike the other systems, the total wastewater flow (toilet,
bath, kitchen, etc.) was treated.

This home was owned by the Frontier Nursing Service (FNS) a private home
nursing organization.  FNS requested the assistance of AEHDP in solving the
wastewater disposal problem at this home.  The home was located on a terrace
above the North Fork of the Kentucky River, very close to a country road.
A space about 30.4 m (100 ft.) in width was available between the road and
the normal high water level of the river.  The soil in this area was sandy
loam alluvium.

A 1.9 m3  (500 gal.) steel septic tank was installed, and a system of alter-
nating absorption trenches was designed for the alluvial soil.  The trenches
were 0.3 m (1 ft.) in width and,0.9 m (3 ft.) in depth, with 0.6 m (2 ft.) of
13 mm (0.5 in) diameter washed stone placed below the distribution pipe.
Total trench length was 73 m  (240 ft.) which was divided among 5 short
trenches.  The design infiltration surface, the trench sidewalls below pipe
level, totaled 89 m* (960 ft2).  Total useful infiltration area, consisting
of bottom and sidewall, equaled  112 m2  (1200 sq. ft.).

The estimated average flow in system E-3 was 760 I/da (200 gpd) from the
four persons in the home.  Therefore, the design loading rate on the sidewall
infiltration surfaces was 8.42 l/m2/da  (0.21 gpd/sq. ft.).

Description of Modified Recycling System (E-5)--
System B-l was converted from an aerobic recycling system to a septic-tank
soil absorption system.  This was done because of chronic failure of the
original  system.  The conversion was completed in early 1973.  The available
space in  the front yard of this home was quite small, about 37 m2 (400. sq.
ft.).  The yard was filled in behind a retaining wall which was about l.lm
(3.5 ft.) high.

In order  to convert the aeration tank to a  septic tank, a fiberglass baffle
was placed across the center  of the tank and a plastic tee was placed on the
outlet for improved scum and  sludge retention.  The nylon sock and diffuser
were removed.

Small absorption trenches were dug by hand  in the front yard.  These trenches
were about 200 mn (8  in.) wide and 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) deep.  About 0.37 m  (1.2
ft.) of  crushed  rock fill was placed below  the 100 mm  (4 in.) perforated
distribution pipe.  The total trench length was about 38 m  (125 ft.), which
provided  about 35 m2  (375 sq. ft.) of total available infiltration surface.
The  trenches were spaced about 1 m  (3 ft.)  center to center.

Only one  elderly person lived in this small house.  The estimated water
closet  flow  was  95  I/da  (25 gpd).  Based on this  estimate,  the loading  rate
to  the  infiltration  surfaces  would be 2.7  1/nr/da  (-07 gpd/sq. ft.) or  3 mm
 (.11  in.) per  day.   This system  is shown in Figure  18.

A summary of the  ST-SA  system designs is presented  in Table 9.

                                      53

-------
N
GARAGE
HOUSE
                               ^ABSORB!ION TRENCHES^
                                    -WOOD  RETAINING WALL
                  ROAD
        Figure 18.  Plan view of modified  recycling system.
:SEPTIC
                                                               TANK
                                54

-------
      TABLE 9 - CHARACTERISTICS OF SEPTIC TANK-SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEMS

In.i.tial
Number Estimated
Of Flow
System Persons l/da(GPD)
E-l*
E-2f
E-3*
i-4*
E-5(B-1)*
2
3
4
2
1
150
190
760
150
95
(40) ,
(60)
(200)t
(40)
(25)
Vol. of
Septic
Tank
m3
1
1
1
1
1
.9
.1
.9
.1
.0
(Gal)
(500)
(300)
(500)
(300)
(275)
Total
Infiltration
Area
m2
47
37
112
28
35
(Sq. Ft.!
(510)
(400)
(1200)
(300)
(375)
Gross
Loading
Rates
) mm/ da
3.
6.
7.
5.
'
3
1
1
4
3
(in/da)
(.13)
(.24)
(.27)
(.21)
(.11)

*Sidewall absorption (Rectangular trench)   +T  ^  ,  ,     ,  , .
^V-Bottom trench                            *Total  household  flow

Construction Costs of ST-SA Systems-
Most of the records of construction costs of these five systems have been lost
from the files.

An early report by the AEHDP stated that the construction cost for system E-l
was about $700 in 1971.  This was the largest of the publicly-funded ST-SA
systems and probably represents the highest cost.  System E-3 was privately
funded, as was the conversion of system B-l.
Updated construction cost estimates
water closet wastes from a 3-person
Since no machines are available to
ing of such trenches was assumed.
for a volume of 230 I/da (60 cjpd)
gpd/ft^) on infiltration surfaces.
sisting of washed sand and crushed
14 and 15.
 for equivalent systems designed to treat
 household are presented in Table 10.
excavate V-bottomed trenches, hand finish-
These theoretical systems were designed
and a loading rate of 10 l/m2/da (0.25
 It is assumed that a graded fill con-
rock would be placed as shown in Figures
The total cost for a rectangular-(sidewall absorption) trench designed on the
stated criteria would be $170, as compared to $300 for a V-bottom trench.
With a 1.9 m3 (750 gal.) septic tank, the total costs would equal $420 for
the rectangular trench system and $550 for the V-bottom trench system.  The
difference in cost is due partly to the requirement for hand excavation and
partly to the greater volume of sand and rock in the V-trench.
                                     55

-------
For comparison to the sewerless systems, a cost of $120 must be added for
the flush toilet and sewer.  The total system costs in 1978 would then be
$540 for the rectangular trench system and $670 for the V-bottom system.

                                 TABLE 10
1978 CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES FOR SEPTIC TANK - SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEMS
SYSTEM
TYPE
                 ITEM
 COST
 SIDEWALL
 ABSORPTION
 (RECTANGULAR)
 TRENCH
Septic Tank, 1.9 m3 (750 gal.)
Absorption Trench, 14 m (47 LF)
Total Treatment System

Toilet and Sewer
Total
$250
 170
1420"
V-BOTTOM
TRENCH
Septic Tank, 1.9 m3 (750 gal.)
Absorption Trench, 20 m (64 LF)
Total Treatment System

Toilet and Sewer
Total
Operating and Maintenance Costs of ST-SA Systems--
Only costs for water to flush toilets have been identified as operating costs
in ST-SA systems.  As estimated previously, pumping 98 m3 (26,000 gal.) of
flush water would cost less than $2.00 per year for a family of three persons.

Maintenance costs would include removal of excess sludge and scum (septage),
and performance of any needed repairs.  Of these five systems, only one had
had septage removed from the tank during the 5 to 7 years of use.  It would
be considered good practice to remove septage on a schedule of about each
3 to 5 years.  It is assumed that these systems would require removal of
septage in 1978 at a cost of $50 each.  This would equal an average annual
maintenance cost of about $7 per year.

Adding the estimated operating and maintenance costs gives a total  annual
0 & M of $9 per year.

Life Cycle Costs of ST-SA Systems--
As with the other septic tank systems, an annualized capital cost of $36 is
used for FRP tanks.

The absorption trenches appear to have an indeterminant useful life at current
loading rates.  Most of the estimated rates are less than one-half those
recommended by Bouma (15) and Winneberger (11), which were based on formation
                                     56

-------
of an equilibrium clogging mat.  The projected useful life of these absorption
systems would therefore appear to be in excess of 30 years if piping materials
do not fail in a shorter time.  On the basis of a 30 year life, the annualized
capital cost for the rectangular narrow trench would be $18 and for the
V-bottom trench would be $32, at an interest rate of 10 percent. The total
annual life cycle costs for the two systems are listed in Table 11
           TABLE 11 - ANNUAL LIFE CYCLE COSTS FOR ST-SA SYSTEMS
                  FOR WATER CLOSET WASTES FROM 3 PERSONS
                                   Sidewall Absorption
                                  (Rectangular)  Trench
V-Trench
Annual Operation and Maintenance
Annual ized Capital -Septic Tank
Annualized Capital -Trench
Total
$ 9
36
18
$ 63
$ 9
36
32
; $ 77

Performance of ST-SA Systems--
The performance of all five of the ST-SA systems has been satisfactory.  No
maintenance other than septage removal had been required.  No evidence of
any surfacing of leachate was noticed by either the AEHDP, the owners or by
investigators in the spring of 1978.                       ;

Attempts were made to define the depth of ponding in the absorption trenches
in 1978.  This was done by locating the trenches with a steel probe and then
driving perforated steel pipes into the crushed rock to the bottom of the
trenches.  Water levels were measured in the pipes and compared to the
elevations of trench bottoms as determined by using the hand probe.

This procedure is not only limited in accuracy by physical soil-trench rela-
tionships, but also by the diurnal pattern of water use in a home.  All water
level readings made by use of the pipe and probe are estimated to be accurate
within 50 mm (2 in.).

System E-l was found to have liquid ponded to a depth of about 150 mm (6 in.)
in one trench and about 25 mm (1 in.) in the other.  System E-2 exhibited
ponding of about 200 mm (8 in.); this was particularly difficult to measure,
due to the shape pf the trench bottom.  System E-3 was not measured for
ponding because of the presence of 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft.) of stony fill
and crushed rock which had been placed over the absorption trenches; the
area was being used as a truck refueling and parking lot.  System E-4 was not
measured for ponding because the home had been vacant for two years.  System
E-5 was found to have ponding to maximum depths of about 130 mm (5 in.).
These findings are summarized in Table 12.
                                     57

-------


System
TABLE 12

Soil/
Medi a*
- PERFORMANCE

Percolation
Rate
OF ABSORPTION TRENCHES

Maximum
Loading Depth of
Rate Ponding


Ponded
Area as %
of Total
Min/cm (min/in) mm/da(in/da) mm (in.)
E-l
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
Stony Loam
Stony Loam
Sandy Loam
N/A
Colluvial Loam
3.5 (9)
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.3 (0.12) 150 (6)
6.1 (0.24) 200 (8)
7.1 (0.27) NA
5.4 (0.21) NA
3.0 (0.00) 135 (5)
40-50
40
NA
NA
50
*See Appendix for Soil Descriptions.

The Area Soil Scientist of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service performed
evaluations of soil morphology on the disposal sites in 1978.  His report
is contained in the Appendix.  He reported that he has modified some of his
previous recommendations on use of some soils as a result of the obvious
success of the demonstration systems.
                                      58

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                              SYSTEM COMPARISONS
 The seven types of treatment-disposal  systems are compared for site require-
 ments,  costs and performance in the following section.   These evaluations and
 comparisons  are based, on the characteristics of the systems as installed in
 the AEHDP area and do not necessarily  reflect the characteristics of more
 recent  modifications  of similar systems.

 SITE REQUIREMENTS

 Site requirements for systems include  the  general  requirements for the
 successful installation and  operation  of the particular  system.   The
 requirements related  to soils,  interior space,  exterior  space, power
 supplies, water supply and minimum  weather protection are  listed  in Table 13.

 The incinerating systems have the least complex site requirements,  since
 most waste is  discharged to  the atmosphere.   Residua.! material  is dry and
 can be  disposed as  solid waste.  Experience in  AEHDP would  indicate that
 densities of incinerating toilets would be limited -by the  potential  for
 creation  of  highly  objectionable odors.  The main site requirements  for
 electrically heated units are interior space equal  to a  flush  toilet and
 electrical power.   For gas-fired units, a  source of natural or bottled LP
 gas  is  also  required.   A suitable means for exterior discharge of combustion
 products  is  required  for both electrical and gas-fired units;.   Electrical
 components require  protection from  precipitation.

 The  flush water recycling system required  slightly more  interior  space for
 the  pump and filter,  plus about 2 m2 (20 ft2) of exterior space for  the
 aeration tank.   It  may  be feasible  to  install such tanks within the  house
 structure, such  as  a  basement or cellar.   This  has been  proposed  in  extreme
 northern climates.  Electrical power of 500  watts, 115v, 60 Hz was required.
 This  system  required  no water supply except  for an initial filling of about
 800  liters (200  gal.).   Protection  from freezing was required, and electrical
 components required protection from precipitation.  Control of noise from the
 aerator was needed.

The aeration tanks with open  sand filter for treatment and discharge of flush
water required  interior space for a flush  toilet plus about 9 m2  (100 sq. ft.)
for the aeration tank and filter.  Electrical power of 250 watts,  115v,  60 HZ
was required.  Water supply equal to 80 to 110 I/day (20 to 30 gpd) per per-
son was required for flushing the standard water closet.   Pressurized water
for filling the flush tank was optional but normally would be provided.   This
system would appear suitable for use with  water conserving designs of flush
toilets.  The piping in this system required protection  from freezing, and
the aerator required protection from precipitation.   No  problem from freezing

                                     59               ~

-------







co
2:
LU
1—
CO
CO

(__

LU
2^
1 „
5
LU
o;
I—
LU
«=c
3 CO
£2>-o
*^ o co
^ CO LU
oa.-0-
£ ^ CO

=3 c£
3C CD
u_
C£.
o
LU
CO
z:
LU
"C"
2i.
UJ
C£

g-
UJ
a;
LU
* .
CO









-ZL
O
1 — 1
ce: i—
LU CO
3C LU
LU D;
3 0.


>-
fV 1
LU O_
h- 0-
3 CO









,-yX
LU LU
3 0.
O >-
0- I—



eCCM
LU -P
c£. q—
CM
E










—
c







s:
u
V
co
i
O. E
•i- 0
O •!-
CU -P
S- (O
D- -P




O







O
•p—
J_
N -P
JC O
CU
O i—
ID LU

s-
0
r-
•P CD
LU

O CM
•i — i—
S— v"~g*
CU r-
t— t








CU
0



^
co
E

•P  -P
> O
O CU
i— LU


0


CM
r~~
^— ^
""^
""








CD
O



^
CD
.
^_>
Incinera
Gas
n
CD 1
E •!-
•r- Q. E
N -r- O
CU O •!—
cu cu -P
S- S- fO
LU Q- 4->
P"g
o -^
0°
CM i—
	 (O
O T-
O E
CO HH
•^-^



N
rn

0 0
s_

>• 0
o cu
i — LU

o
CM
r-^


LO
1 —
^-^
"^T









cu
0





n
CO
E
13 s-
>, cu
O -P
CU JO
CD 1
E -r-
•r- Q. E
N T- O
CU O •!—
CU CU -P"
S- S- (0
LU D_ -P


•O TD
•^-i Q-
r— CD
o o
CM- —





N
3:
o
O •!—

" -p
>• o
o cu
1 — 1 —
t— LU

o
0
CD


CM
*- — **

T~~f









cu
E
O

E
CD ^*^"-

4-* -P CU
•r- (O i —

-P O
E i— I—
O •«-
•r- LU .E
•P CO
ra T3 3
S- E i—
CU (O Lu
^^ ^5 **~-^
CD
E
N
CU
CU
LU


fO " — •
-o -o
^ O-
r— CD
0 O
CO U3
CM'—'







(O
E
O
•P
Q.
O

O
O
O1


CM
r"—
v — ^
"~^









O)
E
O
S-
0)

t 4-^
«•!- CU
-^ U_ i —
E •!-
(0-00
I— E I—
fC
o co ^r
•i— CO
•P E 3
Q. CU i—
CU Q-Lt
CD
E
N
CU
CU
Lu


fO ^"^
-o -a
^^ C-
p- CD
0 0
CO CD
CM 	







1 —
to
E
0
•I—
Q.
o

o
CM
^


CM
*~~
*" — '
1 [







^J
q-
co
t- 1


^— • ^
i ^
« CU
Ei — CU T-
fC (O -P O
I— -P r— 1—
E -r-
0 0 Lu _E
•i— N CO
•P •!— T3 3
Q. S- C r-
CU O rt5 Lu.
co 3: co- —
CD
E
N
a>
cu
S-
Lu


fO ' — •
T3 -a
•-^, Q-
r— CD
O O
CO ID
CM- —







(O
E
O
-P
Q.
0

o
o
CO


CM
•

^

CU
'I/)'-~-
cu
^j^* f)

• 2 ^_
<4- CO M^
!-=d- CU O
	 	 -t- CO
E ^^
to ^D
CM > E
,: -• 	 (O
t— 1

E E
O'—- O
^; -r- +-> -P
•> O -P CU -P
Jii E O-i — O
E CU S- •(- JQ
(O S- O O 1
I— h- CO I— >
-Q
O 3 
-------
in the open filters was reported.
effluent was required.
        A suitable point of discharge for treated
The septic tanks with open sand filters had requirements similar to the
EA-OSF systems except that no electrical power was required for the treatment
system.  Where a pressurized water system was used, then part of that
electrical power requirement would be used for filling the flush toilet.
Interior space for a flush toilet, exterior space of about 9 m2 (100 ft2) and
water supply of about 80 I/day (20 gpd) per person were required.

Septic tank-horizontal sand filter systems had basically the same site re-
quirements as the ST-OSF systems with the addition of a soil requirement.
Since this filter was about 1m (3 ft) in depth and soil was the supporting
material, this depth would be required.  It would seem to be possible to
construct such a filter with treated wood, concrete block, native stone or
other material as the supporting sidewall structure.  Soil, materials could
also be imported, compacted and then excavated.  But such alternatives
would increase the construction costs above those shown.

The septic tank-soil absorption systems had more stringent soil requirements
than the other systems.  The minimum requirement was about 37 m2 (400 ft2)
of suitable soil with 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft) of depth, depending on the
design of the absorption system.  The soil should have adequate permeability
for transport of the effluent and that portion of local precipitation which
infiltrates the soil.  The soil should contain clay and/or silt fractions
to provide removal of pathogenic organisms; coarse sand and gravel deposits
may not provide adequate treatment in all cases.  The colluvial deposits in
Eastern Kentucky seem to be suitable for use as effluent absorption media.
The ST-SA systems also require space for a flush toilet, protection from
freezing, and about 80 I/da (20 gpd) of flush water per person.  These systems
appear suitable for use with water-conserving designs of flush toilets.
COMPARISON OF COSTS

All costs in the comparison
costs were estimated based
assumed that all work would
tractors.  Where possible,
this was not possible with
air compressor.  Costs for
persons are listed in Table
interest rate of 10 percent
 have been adjusted to 1978 data.  Construction
on local costs in eastern Kentucky.  It was
 be performed by small local (non-union) con-
1978 prices for manufactured units were obtained;
the Uniroyal recycling system and the Allenaire
the various system types to serve a family of 3
 14.  Annual life-cycle costs were computed at an
The system with least capital and annual costs was the septic-tank with soil
absorption of effluent in a narrow trench.  This was due to both the low
capital cost and very low operating-maintenance cost.   At  $63 per year annual
life cycle cost, the ST-SA system cost only one-tenth  as much as the recycling
system.  This does not imply that recycling would necessarily always be 10
times as costly as a ST-SA system.  The greatest cost  for the recycling '•
system was the annual maintenance cost; this should be reducible by improved
system designs to about that shown for the EA-OSF systems, or $140 per year.
                                     61

-------








^""
^*s
o
ID
H-
LU LU
t— 1
1— •
et LU
o; oo
LU
1— z:
-
r- O Q CO
0 0
LU 03
co LU z: LU
CC 1— rf 00
1— OS =3
LU rj
•-3 :n z:
O CD
o; o; i— i
a. o oo
U_ LU
LU 0
CD OO
E:
as LU
CD r—
to oo
HH >-
C£. CO
«=C
Q. I—
S z:
O LU
LU
C£


























































































LU
—I O
:D LU (—
z: LU oo
z: t-i o
eC _J O-W-
LU >-
CD _J
<: :c s:
ari-
LU Z: o3
> 0
«c s: o-to-

LU
o
•z.
5£
_J LU
•< H-
z: i— i oo
z: — <
^ S
"-^ fV* U«
z: LU co
z: D. o
^C CD t^ 'O^'




-J
^^
i—
i — i
Q_
i^£
CJ

CO I—

en o















^"
LU
H-
co
>-
oo
•


i— vo
•* CM
LO •*



r— CO
CO ,CM









r-. r—
10 en












O CM
o oo
co i —













0 0
LO LO
oo r-.







r* ft
Ol O^
c c:
•^ r~~ »r™
-P ro -P
ro 0 ro
S- -i- S-
O) S_ Q)
E -P E
•r- 0 -r-
O CD O 01
E r— E ro
i— > LU i— i CD



i — CO CO r-. CO
«3- CO CM O <£>
VO CO i — i — ' .



O1 l>» CM LO LO
co r— r*^. r^.
• •
0 0







cr> CM CM i--. r-.
r- •* CM . .












•* O CM CM CM















CD O O O O
O  UD CO •*
CO CM O^ OS LO
r^ r—


E
CD
Sw **™^* ^"™*» £L ' r^**t
OJ-P EE-POE-P -O-P E-P
•PCD CU O CU OCO' E QJ O<1)
rOr— Q.-I— i — eST-r— o3rO r— c& JC -i— p—
S T- O -P -r- -P -r- OO •!- O -P -i-
O rOO JiirOO -^ O-^EQ-O
«.p e3S-+J ES--P Er-E-P :ECUS--P
Cn ^j rO-P rOrOO rOS-O
E.E Er— J= h- i— J= I— -P •!- .C I— (— CO J=
•I—CO O-r-CO T-CO E4->CO J3CO
r—3 T-LU3 OLU3 OOf03 O2)M- ra^aM- -1->T34- -PV--PM- -PS-r— M-
O ^^s. i- E "^^ f~^ E *^*» PS <-- p«i *NV^ <"> C^_ (p- *^^

-------
The second most economical system was a septic tank with horizontal sand
filter (ST-HSF), and the septic tank-open sand filter (ST-OSF) was a close
third.  At $107 per year, the ST-HSF was 70 percent ($44) more costly than
the ST-SA system.  The ST-OSF was only slightly higher at $123 per year.  If
the homeowner did his own filter cleaning, then the annual costs for the two
septic tank - filtration systems would be virtually equal.

The annual costs for the incinerating systems appear to be higher than most
lower-income families would be willing to pay, at the current prices of elec-
tricity and gas.  At monthly operation and maintenance costs of $31 for
electrical incineration and $23 for gas incineration, lower income families
could hardly afford these systems even with a 100 percent grant to cover
capital costs.

The aeration tank-open sand filter system had a moderately high annual cost.
The factors of high capital cost and high maintenance cost were primarily
responsible for this ranking.

COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE

The performance of the various systems has been ranked in Table 15 for the
factors of user acceptance, health protection, safety, energy conservation,
overall environmental impact, longevity and frequency of maintenance.  The
numerical rating system used ranges from "unacceptable"  (1) to "excellent"
(5).  These ratings cannot be added to derive an overall composite for each
system because the various factors are not equal in significance.

These rankings are based on the systems as installed in the AEHDP area.  The
effect of recent design improvements has not been considered in this ranking.
For instance, septic tanks made of fiberglass or concrete materials would
have raised the "longevity" rating for the systems which utilized septic
tanks.
                                      63

-------
   00
         o
         LU
   O I—
      CO

   o oo oo cc
   OO    LU LU
   HH (_(_(_
   cc •z. oo oo
LO «=c LU «=c - LU
                 O I—


                 LU I—I


                 o-s: LU
                 LU    O
                 CC Lu ZT
                 U. O e£
                    C3
                    2: >-
                    O I—
                 >- cc
                 CD LU
                 cc oo z:
                 LU z: o
                 z: o i—i
                 LU o i—
                   oo
   o cu

   P re

   LU
   I   ,t %

•=c o o
LU CC E
rc cu —
                      LU
                      o


                      S
                      cu
                   CC LU
                   LU O
                   oo o
                           OJ
                                                      oo
                                   CM
                                           CO
                                                      00
                                           CM
                                                     CM
                                                                10
                                                                              LO
                                                                                      LO
                          oo
                          oo
                                  00
                                                     CM
                                                                CM
                                                                                     IT)
                          CM
                                                                             LO
                  oo

                  oo
                                       S-
                                       a)
ncinerating

lectrical
                                               3 CU -i-

                                               ^"^9
                                                             
                                                         -a
                                                          E
                                                       oare^:
                                                         oow
                                                       -i^    3
                                                       c- r— r±

                                                       rereq-
+j
1-1

 ~
                                                                     reo
                                                                    1— W>
                                                                                     8"5
                                                                                    oooo
                                                                              cu



                                                                              QJ
                                                                              o
                                                                              X
                                                                              cu

                                                                              II

                                                                              uo
                                                                                              -a
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              o
                                                                                              CD
                                                                                            S-
                                                                                            cu
                                                                                           
-------
                                 REFERENCES
 1.   Comprehensive Water/Sewer Program, Kentucky River Area Development
     District, 1971.   HUD P-81.   Mayes, Suddereth and Etheredge, Inc.,
     Lexington, Kentucky.

 2.   Application for Health Services Project Grant, Kentucky State Department
     of Health; 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971  and 1972.

 3.   Kentucky State Plumbing Law, Regulation and Code (1966) Kentucky State
     Department of Health.

 4.   Milne, Murray.  Residential  Water Conservation Report No.  35, California
     Water Resources Center, University of California, Davis 95616, 1976.

 5.   Siegrist, Robert L.  "Methods for In-House Alteration of Wastewater
     Characteristics and Their Impacts on Onsite Wastewater Disposal  Practices."
     University of Wisconsin-Madison.  January, 1978.

 6.   Laak, Rein.  "Relative Strength of Undiluted Waste Materials Discharged
     in Households and the  Dilution Waters Used for Each."  In:   Manual of
     Grey Water Treatment Practice, Part II.  1975.  Monogram Industries,
     100 Wilshire Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, 90401.

 7.   Siegrist, Robert J.  and Neil J. Hutzler.   "Wastewater Treatment  Prior
     to Soil  Disposal."  Department of Civil and Environmental  Engineering,
     Small Scale Waste Management Project, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
     December 1977.

 8.   Otis, R.J. and William C. Boyle.  "Performance of Single Household
     Treatment Units."  Journal  of the Environmental Engineering Divisions,
     ASCE, EE1, pp 175-189.  February,  1976.

 9.   Sauer, David K., W.C.  Boyle, and R.J. Otis.  "Intermittent Sand  Filtration
     of Household Wastewater".  Journal of the Environmental Engineering
     Division, ASCE.  EE 4.   August, 1976.

10.   Abney, Jack L. On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems - Technical  Considerations
     and Recommended Design Approaches.  Appalachian Environmental Health
     Demonstration Project, Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and
     Environmental Protection.  June, 1973.
                                       65

-------
11.   Winneburger, J.T.  and P.M. McGauhey.  A Study of Methods of Preventing
     Failure of Septic Tank Percolation Systems.   SERL Report No.  65-17.  1965.
     Sanitary Engineering Research Lab., University of California, Berkeley.

12.   Brandes, Manek, "Effective Phosphorus Removal by Adding Alum to Septic
     Tank."  Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.   49,  p.  2285,  November
     1977.

13.   Harkin, J.M. and M.D. Jawson.  Clogging and Unclogging of Septic Seepage
     Beds.  Soil Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
     Wisconsin, 1977.

14.   Informative Guide and Requirements for Septic Tank Systems in Jackson
     County, Indiana.  March 27, 1967.  Jackson County Health Department,
     Seymour, Indiana.

15.   Bouma, Johannes.  "Unsaturated Flow During Soil Treatment of Septic  Tank
     Effluent."  Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE.
     EE6.  December, 1975.
                                       66

-------

























CM

01


t\
rv
LU
00
s:
LU

O


DC
CD

O
at.
\-
co
X 2:
HH LU
Q f—

LU >-
D- GO
O-
<: o
00
rv
l — i







O)
CO

M-

T3
O>
0
re

o.
CD
s-

A
O)

.,—
^

•a
cu
-a
o
S-
S-
o
o

•U
0)
O
re

Q_
ai
a:



o
o

r—











LO
oo




oo




i— oo



i— CM
1 1

«— *-a
cu E • d>
- -— --! — J • »|— J^/ ^*
CD 4- 1 CO E E
3 "O , -P .i£ E" " — CO re-r-
q-cu a> core s- oa> oo -<->4J
E O 3CO -r- OO S-> E
s- re re -1-3 r— re re 4-> i — ~o o
'!-a> r— -o s-r— Erea>o
18 r— O. re~a 4-> OQ. O> D. 	
OCU OJCO-POJO E
"O S— ** S— 3 OS— •4-^ 3
O)<=3 E-r- 'OE o33 Q.
•M « o re "a o& o
co» E«'I-Q. reaj-s- «
3 S— O *^" -4-^ CU OS— *^ CL) "O CD
•r-jo •i-o-i-s- ' •> recuE E co r—
-O-t-> •»-»•(-> E E r— -t-> re •!- E M-
re o T--I- en « re Q.I— -4-> +J re M-
E c s -i- s- t- cu-i-  i — J2
O." T- S-E E CUS-O
res- S-T-S- re "ECLO "D
end) S--^ re3 d) "OOEco " d)
E -i— re O.JD i— IT3 -Q ^ COr— i—
DTr- re d) Od)S-C-d)3 r—
3 •»-> Q-os s- d) -E re s- o re
i— • d) O •> O"Q--Q -I-5
Q.T3 jcs-E"re x: S-coE co
d)O re Or— O dlS-O)Od) E
J^O-»-> •> 1- • -i- D. 4-> CO'i-E O TD -r-
s-re-r- o -Md) -i- 3re-r- o-
rer—S T-E reS-' S 4- O-r— Q. E -^ «
Q-Q-co -Pre s- d) co M-d) E EE -^
cod) red) -E -i-s-s- 3 ore E
C£S- S-r— S-S-'i- E -O •!- Q. O4-> re
TO -i— o -i— o i — re •> re -P
cures- re-t-» M- "OS- T3d>d)
•p. -i— « reco 'dios- d) o"O"o
coo<=es res- -PI— re EO ECO-I-, > reo d>
3-1- o d>3cn re-r-recore o r— E r—
•r-j PE -P-P COCT) d)-Pd)CUD.E Q-E re
•arere d>o OJ'COE i— rei— s-co d) cuo cu
cCS-V- GOE QiS--i- CJS-CJQ-S- Qi DiO OO


, — > .^-^
O"O OT3O OO OCM f-~
•^f-d) OOd)C\J OO OCM LO
-fa9- -P -fa"* -P -fcq- • ...
re re o ^ o CD cr>
• E • E CM CM =3"
•P O -P O -P
CO "O CO T3 CO
1 I 1 -^^ f 1 i 1 x^^ 1 1 1







LO OO LOO LOOO
LO «?!• r— VO 1^ r— <^- CM
i— CM r— OO CM
~


r-.. LOCTi oor~- i— oo oo
i — r—



CM CM OO «=i- i— OO CM



OO ^C LO l£3i — CMi — CM
1 II II III
eSC. «=i 
-------
•a
 a>
 =3
 C
 O
o
 I

               a:
 CO
•»->


Q_
        trt     S-
        +->    -r-
        •r-     (O
        if)  S-  Q.
        •i-  O
               CO
           S-  E
           d)  O
           -Q  to
           E  S-
           3  a;
                                                      o
             CM
                     r—    CM

                     Q    Q
                          CM
                                  CO
                                                Q
                                        IO

                                        Q
                                                     CO
CM
 I
                                                                          CO
                                                                   CM
•vt"
 I
                                                         68

-------
                              SERVICE RECORDS
ELECTRIC INCINERATING TOILETS
A-l  C.  Huff - rewired for ground, wire & connectors
                rewired corroded leads to coil, design weakness
                complaint report
                delivered letter
                removed Incinolet
A-2 W.  Watts - visited on complaint                          ;
                wire loose
                fuse had been removed
GAS-FIRED  INCINERATING TOILETS
A-3   H. Smith - removed & cleaned  nozzle, adjusted spark plug
                air  fuel ratio
                complaint about short cycle, lengthened it
                reset  air fuel ratio, cleaned  burner  fan
                removed timer
                installed new timer,  adjusted  spark
                removed & replaced motor, adjusted spark plug
 A-4    A.  Ward  - reset  air fuel  ratio, cleaned  fan switch
                replaced  spark  plug wire
                complete  disassemble motor  bearings
                aligned  fan  in  housing
                aligned  fan  in  housing                        j
                 cleaned  burner
                 adjusted fan in housing
                 removed  motor,  bearings worn out
TIME
3.5
4.0
1.0
0.5
3.0
0.5
2.0
1.0

2.5
1.5
2.0
3.0
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.0
3.5
 1.5
 1.5
 0.5
 2.5
 2.0
                                       69

-------
 GAS-FIRED (con't)
TIME
 A-4  A.  Ward  -   installed  new motor                                   2.0
                 cleaned  burner,  adjusted air                          1.5
                 cleaned  burner                                        1.0
                 removed  motor &  fan to clean fan                      1.5
                 installed  motor  & fan                                 1.5
                 spark plug wire  faulty, cleaned burner                1.0
                 replaced spark plug wire                              1.0
 A-5a  K.  Callahan -  reset  air fuel ratio                              1.5
                 checked  gas,  switched tanks                           1.0
                 could not  get to fire                                 1.5
                 checked  all systems, unit would barely function       1.0
                 could not  getto fire, seemed to be out of fuel,
                 checked  spark plug                                    0.5
                 unit working  perfectly after regulator was adjusted   0.5
                new burner                                            1.5
                removed  unit                                          2.5
A-5b 6. Wilson- fixed gas leak                                        1.0
A-6  J.M. Blair - adjusted air fuel  ratio                             1.5
                 dismantled -unit, cleaned burner, fan & switch         3.0
                cleaned fan switch                                    2.0
B-l J. Gibson - new air compressor installed                          2,0
                trouble shooting problem with  filter                  1.5
                replaced carbon  filter,  increased  pump  pressure       2.5
                odors  and solids in  commode, cleaned.                  0.5
                dug up tank to check  on  air lines                      3.5

                                    70

-------
GAS-FIRED (con't)
B-l J. Gibson - removed compressor
                redug hole for tank (access)
                installed compressor, no air into tank, line plugged
                pumped tank, cleaned diffuser head
                chlorinated tank, filled with water, repaired air
                lines
                pumped chlorine solution, primed pump, refilled tank
                repaired air line in ground
                repaired air line under house
                installed compressor, unclogged diffuser head
                unclogged diffuser head
                took out compressor; motor burnt out
                replaced motor, rewired switch
 B-2  D.  Combs -  removed compressor, controls & pump
 AERATION  SYSTEMS
 C-l  W.  Caldwell -  broken commode  bowl, removed
                 replaced commode  bowl
                cleaned out valves in commode
 C-2  S.  Kilburn -water  seeping  out of ground  complaint
                 put "TEE"  baffle  on outlet
                 to plan ditch  for effluent
                 tank leaki.ng  complaint
                 pumped tank to repair it
                 dug around walls
                 painted part  dry, dipped  excess  water
                 finished  paint and  ditched  surface           ;
                                      71
TIME
1.5
1:0
1.5
4.5

4.5
4.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.5

0.5
2.5
1.0
1.0
3.5
1.0
0.5
4.5
4.0
3.5
4.0

-------
                              APPENDIX B

                           SOIL  DESCRIPTION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE	
P.O. Box 897, Hazard, Kentucky 41701

                                               August 16, 1978
Parrot, Ely & Hurt
Consulting Engineers, Inc.
620 Euclid Avenue
Lexington,, Kentucky 40502

    RE:  Soil Evaluation for Applachian Sewage Disposal Project

Soil evaluation studies were made on 6 of the 7 sites in Perry,  Letcher
and Leslie counties.  The access road to Mrs. Chester Lawson's home was
blocked by strip mining equipment.

All of the disposal systems were installed in disturbed soil material.
For all sites except Blackey and Ulvah the soil material is similar to
the Shelocta Series.  The sites at Blackey and Ulvah differ in having
mixed colluvial and alluvial material; however, they have similar physical
properties as far as sewage systems are concerned.

From a past hole size pit, I could not detect any evidence of failure,  nor
did I see any reasons to suspect they might fail.
Attachments
                                  72

-------
                                         SHELOCTA SERIES
The Shelocta series is a member of the fine-loamy, mixed, raesic family of Typic  Hapludults.
These soils have dark grayish brown silt  loam Ap horizons and yellowish brown  silty clay loam
distinct Bt horizons; coarse fragments, 3 to 15 inches  in size, are  common  throughout  the soi
Typifying Pedon;
Ap
          0- 10"
B21t  --   10-20"
 B22t --   20-32"
 B23t --   32-46"
      ..  46-54"
Shelocta silt loam - cultivated
(Colors are for moist soil.)

--Dark grayish brown ( 10YR 4/2) silt loam;  weak fine granu.lar structure;
friable; 5 percent coarse fragments; many roots; medium acid; clear smooth
boundary.  (7 to 11 inches thick)

--Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) heavy silt loam; weak medium subangular blocky
structure; friable; 10 percent coarse fragments; thin clay films on faces'
of peds and in pores; common roots; very strongly acid; gradual wavy
boundary.  (10 to 20 inches thick)

--Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silty clay loam; moderate medium subangular
blocky  structure; firm; 15 percent coarse fragments; thin continuous clay
films on peds; very strongly acid; clear wavy boundary.  <10 to 20 inches
thick)

--Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) silty clay loam; weak medium subangular•blocky
structure; firm, slightly.sticky, slightly plastic; 45 percent coarse
fragments; thin clay films on  peds and  lining pores; very strongly'.acid;
gradual wavy boundary.  (12 to 20 inches thick)

--Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silt  loam; coarse  fragments  coated by silts
comprise 40 to  60 percent of the volume; very strongly acid.  (8 to 50
inches  thick)                                             ',
 Type Location;  McCreary County, Kentucky;  along Rock Creek by gravel road,  2.5  miles south-
 west of hamlet of Bell Farm, Kentucky.

 Range in Characteristics;  Solum thickness ranges from 40 to 60 or more inches.   Depth to
 'hard rock ranges from 48 inches to more than 120 inches.   The argil lie portion has clay con-
 tent of 20 to -35 percent.  Coarse fragments are scattered through the soil in an irregular
 pattern.  They vary in size from 3 inches to 15 inches and comprise 5 to 35  percent of the
 solum and 30.to 70 percent of the- C horizon.  Reaction of the unlimed soil is strongly or
 very strongly acid.  The Ap horizon is brown or dark brown with hues mainly  of 10YR or 7.SYR,
 'values of 4 or 5 and chromas of 2 through 4; it is silt loam, or loam, or channery, shaly or
 •stony analogues.  The Al or-Ap horizons, 1 to 5 inches thick, have colors ranging from very
 ,dark grayish  brown (2.5Y 3/2) through brown (10YR 4/3); A2 horizons are grayish brown or pale
 brown; texture is similar to that of the Ap horizon.  The Bt horizons are mostly strong brown,
 yellowish brown or light olive brown in hues of 7.5YR, 10YR and 2.5Y with values of 4 or 5 and
 chromas of 4  through 8;  texture is silty clay  loam or silt loam; usually structure is weak or
 moderate, medium or coarse  subangular blocky; and consistence is firm or friable.  The B3
 horizon, where present,  has enough illuvial clay to qualify as part of the argillic horizon.
 The C horizon is yellowish  brown, grayish brown or  light olive brown; texture is channery or
 very channery with fines of silt  loam, silty clay loam, clay  loam, silty clay, or  loam;
 structure is  massive or  weak fine subangular blocky;  some pedons have mottles in shades of
 gray, brown,  or  red.

 Competing Series and Their  Differentiae;  The  Shelocta series is a member of a  large  family
 of which  the Aura, Bedington, Bucks, Butano, Chester, Elsinboro, Fairfax.-Frankstown, Gilpin,
 Glenelg,  Leek Kill, Manassas, Meadowville,  Murrill,  Nixon, Quakertown, Rayne, Shouns, and
   liteford  series have  B2t horizons with  textures of  silt  loam or silty clay  loam.  The Aura,
  Fairfax, Manassas, Nixon and Shouns  soils  have 5YR  or redder  hues  in  some or all  subhorizons
 sof the Bt horizon.   In addition,  the Aura  soils have thicker  sola;  the Fairfax  soils  have an
 Cupper solum in a silty mantle  and a  lower  solum in  residuum  from  schist  and gneiss;  the  Nixon
  soils have  formed  in stratified water-sorted cobbly and  gravelly deposits.: The Bedington
  soils have argillic  horizons with hues mostly  5YR or redder,  otherwise  they are close
                                               73

-------
Shelocta Series

competitors.  The Bucks, Elsinboro, Frankstown, Gilpin, Glenelg, .Leek Kill, Quakertown and
Whiteford soils have thinner sola.  In addition, the Bucks soils have argillie horizons with
hues mostly SYR or redder; the Elsinboro soils have lower 'sola with hues mostly SYR or redder;
:the Frankstown and Quakertown soils have thinner argillic horizons; the Gilpin soils are
shallower to bedrock; the Glenelg soils typically have 15 percent or more gravel in the solum;
the Leek Kill and Whiteford soils have 5YR or redder hues in some or all subhorizons of the Bt
horizon.  The Chester soils have argillic horizons which extend below 40 inches, some part of
which nearly always has hue of SYR.  The Meadowville soils have lower argillic horizon with
sandy clay  loam or sandy clay textures formed in unconforming materials.  The Murrill soils
typically contain 15 percent or more'channers in the upper solum and have a lower solum formed
in unconforming materials.  The Rayne soils have argillic horizons 20 to 30 inches thick that
terminate 30 to 40 inches below the surface of the soil.  The Hayfer and Muse scries are in
related families.  The Hayter soils have base saturation of less than 60 percent at a depth of
50 inches below the top.of the argillic horizon, and argillic horizons with clay loam, sandy
clay loam and  loam textures.  The Muse soils have 35 percent or more clay by weight in the
control section and 5YR hues in the lower part of the argillic'horizon.

Sotting;  Gently sloping to steep upland 'areas, footslopes and benches.  Slopes range from 5
to 60 percent and most are concave.  These soils are in areas with 42 to 54 inches average
annual precipitation and average annual temperatures range from 48 to 59°F.  Shelocta soils
have formed in the weathered product of colluvial material from acid shale, siiltstone, and
sandstone.

Principal Associated Soils;  Shelocta is the well drained member of a drainage sequence with
Ernest as the moderately drained member and Brinkerton as the somewhat poorly or poorly
drained.member.  Soils in surrounding uplands are the competing Gilpin and the Dekalb,
Muskingum,  Weikert and Wellston or Whitley series.  All of these have solums less than 40
inches thick.

Drainage and Permeability;  Well drained, medium to rapid surface runoff, medium internal
water movement, and moderate permeability.

Use and Vegetation;  About 50 percent of Shelocta soils are cleared and used for general crops
and pasture.  Wooded areas have mixed hardwoods - oaks, gum, maple, yellow poplar, cucumber,
and some pine and hemlock.

Distribution and Extent;  The plateau and mountain areas of Kentucky, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia and Tennessee.  The series is of  large extent.

Series Established;  Indiana County, Pennsylvania, 1.937.

Remarks;  These soils were classified as Gray Brown Podzolic soils in the 1938 classification
system.
                                            National Cooperative So'il Survey
                                                           USA
                                             74

-------
 . REPORT NO.

  EPA-600/2-80-101
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (f lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
2.
\. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
(Evaluation of  19  On-Site Waste  Treatment Systems  in
•Southeastern Kentucky
                              6. PERFORMING OFIGANIZATION CODE
 . AUTHOR(S)

     Jack L. Abney
 . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

 'arrott, Ely, and  Hurt  Consulting  Engineers
 520  Euclid Avenue
 Lexington, Kentucky   40502
|2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS     ~
 Municipal  Environmental  Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
 Dffice  of Research and  Development
 J.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Cincinnati,  Ohio 45268
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
                              3. RECIPIENT'S! ACCESSION«NO.
                              5. REPORT DATE         /
                                July 1980 (Issuing Date)
                              8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                              10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                  C611B
                              11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                  CA-8-2575A
                              13. TYPE OF RE;PORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                Final  2/78  - 9/79
                              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                                  EPA/600/14
3roject  Officer:  Steven  W.  Hathaway   (513)  684-7615	

Fhis report provides a  summary of the  design,  installation,  operation and  maintenance
performance  and costs  of nineteen prototype on-site systems originally  installed
in  iy/0-1972 by the Appalachian Environmental  Health Demonstration Project   These
systems  included electric and gas-fired  incinerating toilets,  recycling  toilets
Bxtended  aeration units followed by open  sand  filters, septic  tanks followed  by'
[lorizontal  sand filters,and  septic tanks  followed by soil  absorption trenches   Of
the 6 basic types of systems evaluated in  this study, the  septic tank soil  absorption
systems were found to have the lowest  cost and highest level of performance
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                 DESCRIPTORS
 |wage Disposal
  Sfic Tanks
   tege treatment
  fISTRIBUTION STATEMENT


  lease to Public
 , Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                              b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                On-site  sewage disposal
                Non-sewered area
                19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
                  Unclassified
                !0. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                  Unclassified
                                                                         c.  COSATI Field/Group
    138
21. NQ. OF PAGES
    83 •
                                                                         22. PRICE
                                            75
                                                            ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PH1NTINUOFFICE: 1980-657-165/0032

-------

-------

-------
                                                                                                          ;? o
                                                                                                          0>  -*»
                                                                                                              — "
                                                                                                           Q)  O
                                                                                                           ^' CD

                                                                                                           18
                                                                                                           0>

                                                                                                           C
                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                           CD
                                                                                                           8
T3
3s
 I
CT>
O
O

r\3

00
O
 I
"O CD ^
•88
- ="• o.
=•5 °
III
°-* »
o 5 =•
|»S
3 O -i
2 O CD
. < O
CD CD,
C"* 5'
QJ CD
i.5
_ O
§8
C -.
35
S|
CD O
QJ X
a m
0.0
o> ^*
»S
2 m
?fl
|||
3" O W
01 3- CD
^93
§8|
g?^
r* Q)
iiS
-t CD
CD C/l
•X »
C 0)
3 •<
?r o
O y
si
CD CO
Q, 0
Q. W
Q. O
"• 3
W 3"
_. CD
3 m
II
a
C
5 o>
T2 cr
5 2.

                                                                                                               CO
                                                                                                               TJ
                                                                                                               0)
                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                               01
                                                                                                               o
                                                                                                            03 =
                                                                                                            o 3.
                                                                                                            O IT

                                                                                                               Q

                                                                                                               01
                                                                                                               CO
                                                                                                               w


                                                                                                               Q)
m > •
-Deo
> 

CO o
co-<
en

-------