-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=
ICO O-r-CO T-CO E4->CO J3CO
r3 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 II
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 ii
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-
rerS 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 subangularblocky
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 LaboratoryCin.,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
------- |