POWTS TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP

February 3, 2005

PRESENT:	Rick Apfel, James Converse, Tom Gilbert, Duane Greuel, and Wayne Mink,
COMMERCE STAFF:	Mike Beckwith, Roman Kaminski, Harold Stanlick, and Duane Steiner
ABSENT:	Gary Kowalke
GUESTS:	Ben Berteau – Ring Ind. Group, David Kons – Kons Septic System, Pat Essie – Executive Dir. (WOWRA, WLWCA, WPCA), Dave Lenz – Infiltrator Systems, Inc., Brian McQuestion – WOWRA President, and Justin Volrath – Volrath Sales
MINUTE TAKER:	Audrey Fries

1. AGENDA REVIEW:

Rearrange the priorities – Duane G. recommended that 8 and 9 be discussed along with 3 and 4, especially 3. Rick suggested that 10 also be included in the discussion concurrently with 3, 4, 8 and 9. Agenda was rearranged as requested.

2. DIVISION UPDATES:

Roman shared the press release from the Governor’s office indicating the appointment of the new secretary for the department (Mary P. Burke). A breakdown of the group’s “official” makeup was shared (see attachment 1). The committee structure will be formalized to reflect code provisions. The process will include sending nomination letters to industry related organizations.

3. COMPARTMENT SIZE FOR MULTI-COMPARTMENT SEPTIC TANKS:

Background information: – With the increase in use of multi-compartment tanks, should the code have language to mandate a certain ratio between compartments, length to width ratio for compartments, or minimum size of the first compartment? Some of these compartments have a width that is greater than the travel distance by 3 times. The concern is the amount of treatment that will occur in the small compartment. What guidance does the committee have for product review?

Discussion: Rick shared the WOWRA response (see attachment 2). Wayne indicated that his group met on 1/11 and recommended that the first compartment should not be less than 1/2 of the total tank. Brian questioned failure of tanks – Commerce hasn’t done any study on the performance of different designs of two compartment septic tanks. Oregon had the most recent study, (Barbara Rich presented a paper at a recent NOWRA conference). Findings indicated the differences in performance weren’t significant. Jim has the various study results back at the office if others would like further information. Jim discussed another paper that recommends a 2/3:1/3 ratio for two compartment tanks, with a length to width ratio of 1:2. The paper does talk about use of filters. Not all tanks manufactured in WI currently meet the 2/3 and 1/3 recommendations. The push is to triple-compartment (two-compartment septic/one compartment dose) (see attachment 3). Jim shared a comparison of single vs. double compartment costs (see attachment 4). Jim, “Gut instinct” – surges into multi-compartment tank are less likely to flush solids out of a tank thus extending the life of the dispersal component. The costs do not incorporate setting the second tank. (Rick - $3 - $7/gallon includes cost of tank and setting) Rick – doesn’t feel that it is necessary to mandate multi-compartment tanks; Brian – Is it proper to mandate someone to spend more money up front or to allow them to save their money but have a system that may only last 10 – 15 years? Installers and Counties are currently recommending the multi-compartments so it shouldn’t be necessary to mandate. Wayne isn’t aware of a need to mandate sizing of the compartments. Most separate filter basins are used on replacement systems – retrofitted. Code looks at entire tank, not compartments when it comes to pumping the tank. Voluntary agreement to maintain certain ratios is preferred and that each organization needs to “sell” the advantages to their groups or to the form makers. If it is written into code, it will cost someone to try something new in the future. This is an education issue – educate manufacturers and installers in what is preferred.

Direction Given: Address through guidance as needed vs. rule. Encourage manufacturers to go with the recommended ratios, looking at designs individually, looking at the design of the entire system. Discretion is up product review.

4. BAFFLE LOCATIONS IN MULTI-COMPARTMENT SEPTIC TANKS:

Background information: Based on responses from 17 states: 16 of them required a baffle on the inlet and outlet of all tanks; 4 states require a baffle on the dividing wall (may be a hole located in the wall below the liquid level). The criteria used during product review are to require a baffle on the inlet and outlet of the tank, and a baffle on the outlet of the first compartment if the opening in the dividing wall is at liquid level. If the opening in the dividing wall is located at least 9” below the liquid level and not more than 2/3 of the liquid depth, then baffles are only required on the inlet and outlet of the tank. Does the committee agree?

Discussion: Rick – members prefer baffles not to be required except on the flow line on the outlet. (see attachment 2)

Direction given: The committee is comfortable with what Mike is currently doing. That is requiring a baffle on the inlet of the tank, outlet of the first compartment, and outlet of the tank. If a baffle is not located on the outlet of the first compartment, then the opening in the dividing wall must be located between 9 inches below the liquid level and a distance equal to 2/3 of the liquid depth. The area opening(s) must be at least the same as the area of the tank inlet.

5. VENTING SEPTIC TANKS:

Background information: A few people have requested to use the building vent as the means of complying with s. Comm 84.25 (5). However, they have not submitted any design information to support that adequate venting will occur. Should the code be changed to give further directions as to how to vent the tank?

Discussion: House vent creates a chimney effect when combined with a tank vent. One way to meet current code requirements is to put a vent on a dose tank. Another is to put the vent in the drain field. If the systems aren’t vented, the bacteria that collects is secreting acid as a byproduct directly onto the tank thus eroding the cement and adding to the corrosion caused by sulfuric acid. When using the building vents, it calls for upsizing of the pipes used. If using house vents, regulate the interior plumbers to place the vent at the high point of the house and to utilize long enough pipes. Possible code change to remove the vent requirement for the POWTS. This could require Type 2 or Type 5 Cement or an additive to create a cement similar to Type 2 and 5 with a 9 bag mix (800 lbs./yard) that will withstand the acid. David – if eliminating vents, perhaps still require the pipe for an observation pipe so that in the event the cement begins to deteriorate the cap can be switched out to a vent cap.

Odor filters where discussed and questions asked why they are not allowed to be installed in freezing areas. Mike stated that code requires a minimum 2” diameter vent, which would not be complied with during freezing weather. Members ask if it would be okay to use them in the summer. This would create a problem with enforcement, which is not acceptable by the department.

Direction given: Two possible Code Changes: Comm 84.25 - eliminate venting requirement for POWTS holding or treatment tanks. Plumbing (Comm 82) – Require vents through roofs to extend above the roof ridge. Mike will draft code change statements and send them to the Advisory Committee for any changes and then the Advisory Committee can submit the code change proposal(s) if they so desire.

6. USE OF GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ON THE SIDES AND TOP OF ALL DISPERSAL/TREATMENT CELLS INSTALLED IN FINE UNIFORM SANDS:

Background information: A few infiltration systems have been found with sand inside of the leaching chambers. This has occurred when the systems were installed in situ soils that consist of fine uniform sands. Some other states are requiring the installation of a filter fabric on such systems. Should we do the same, and if we do should we require the same on all types of infiltration systems?

Discussion: Infiltrator Systems, Inc., conducted tests to show that it is a soil/sand issue, not a material issue. Lab experiment conducted in a Plexiglas case (see attachment 4). Jim - hard to believe the clogging mat has formed on the edge and the flow will be obstructed. Rick/Duane G. – generally when digging in fine sands, the trench is naturally going to be dug at an angle and the resulting trench is larger than initially needed to compensate for the amount of sand that flows back in when being dug. Mike - Use of fabric, will result in lower downsizing credit because the calculations are based on Open sidewalls and bottom area. For other products, a fabric is provided for the top and the sides of the system to compensate for the sand. Mike – Chambers by Cultec require fabric because they have holes in the valleys of the ridge, the rating is affected by the application of the fabric which is intended for “sugar sands”. Jim – Does the fabric enhance the flow, or impede the flow? What percentage is based on sidewall vs. bottom walls? Mike – Does the committee want to require fabric on all products in fine uniform sands or is it necessary to require the fabric only on certain designs? Duane G. – If you only require the fabric in the fine sands, they will misreport the sands. Duane S. – If the fabric is added in fine uniform sands, there shouldn’t be a sizing issue. Ben B. and Dave L. – State of Virginia requires all manufacturers to provide a Letter of Credit to obtain Product Approval. Virginia then calculates how much the company needs to have on hand to cover any failures as well as a manufacturer’s warranty for 5-years.

Direction given: No support for requiring the installation of a filter fabric over sidewalls on all types of infiltration systems. Dave L. stated that a reduced rating would be acceptable when installing the Infiltrator Systems, Inc., old chamber models (Standard and High Cap) and using fabric. If the fabric is not used the rating will remain the same. For any other manufacturers their ratings and approvals remain the same unless they choose to add fabric. Mike will issue revised Product Approval Letters giving with EISA rating with and without the use of fabric on the chambers. The revised letters and reason for revision will be sent to the manufacturers.

7. METHODS OF DISPERSING WASTEWATER INTO A DISPERSAL/TREATMENT CELL WHEN THE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTS ARE: BOD₅ > 30 mg/L £ 220 mg/L, TSS > 30 mg/L £ 150 mg/L, and Fecal Coliform > 200 cfu/100 mL £ 10⁴ cfu/100 mL or £ 200 cfu/100 mL:

Background information: Two products have been submitted for review that request to be allowed to use gravity distribution for distribution of effluent having fecal coliform > 200 cfu/100 mL and BOD₅ and TSS > 30 mg/L. With this wastewater a bio-mat should be formed to help distribute the effluent. Would this be an acceptable alternative to the code language in s. Comm 83.44 (5)(a)(1)?

Would we look at it differently if the fecal coliform was £ 200 cfu/100 mg/L?

Discussion: Chlorination and UV units (BK2000 and UV Light Disinfection) and any other unit that reduces BOD₅ or TSS to below septic tank effluent range were discussed. The governing concern was protection of groundwater. What is the effluent quality coming out of the units in question: BOD= 60 –70 range, Fecal coliform = mean average 100 – 200, suspended solids = 30 – 40 range, 1 foot of soil credit, maintenance = 6 months; Who will perform the maintenance; Who puts the tablets in; Who does the enforcement; Brian – his organization is working on a tracking system which will be provided by industry free of charge to Commerce and the counties. Duane G. – Counties do not have the staff, the training, the resources to provide enforcement – when looking at sewage running into a ditch and a system that is behind in maintenance, you “attack” the sewage not the maintenance issue – priorities. The way the code is currently written if you meet any of the three (BOD₅, TSS or Fecal coliform) you need pressure distribution. Duane G. – There is a trend for the manufacturers to provide maintenance. The numbers are in place, but how do you keep the numbers in place? If manufacturers were to ensure maintenance then the counties could back the product. Justin – some of this could be addressed by a system alarm that would alert the owner when the chlorine needs replacing. Rick - Relying on something that you can’t control – you can’t control a bio-mat. Jim – opening the door to other less desirable forms of distribution. Where do you cut it off? How effective will it really be, especially in a sandy soil? Mike can provide the data provided by Justin in his Product submittal to the group for their review if they wish. Nobody requested the info.

Direction given: Leave the code as written – if any of the three parameters are met, pressure distribution is necessary. Mike will inform manufacturer who’s product is under review.

8. MAINTENANCE INTERVALS FOR SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT FILTERS:

Background information: Several calls have been received regarding effluent filters causing backup of the building sewer in one year or less. Should there be a maximum length of time permitted between the servicing of effluent filters? If there should be, what criteria would be used to determine the service interval? If not, should all effluent filters be required to have some sort of high liquid level alarm on them?

Discussion: Wayne – 90% of WI users do not use their filters right. Filter makers are receiving too much leeway. David Kons – pumping and cleaning is the ideal. Mandate short servicing intervals for gravity flow 4” filters to encourage everyone to use the larger filters. Justin Volrath - Flow areas of the openings rather than surface area should be the criteria used. Best practices cannot be mandated – Brian. Maintenance schedules may not solve the issue as each schedule is based on a set of parameters that may not be happening in the real world. Management Plans perhaps need to be looked at instead. Require an alarm on the effluent filter. WLWCA will submit documentation indicating their experience with gravity flow 4” filters. Contact manufacturers and receive their maintenance schedules for all filters not just small ones.

Direction given: David Kons will speak with WLWCA members and document their experiences and provide this information to Mike. Mike will obtain information regarding flow areas of the filters. Using the flow area information and input from the WLWCA, product approvals can be revised. If the revised product approval requires inspection, maintenance or servicing intervals of twelve months or less, evidence of this requirement will have to be recorded with the deed. POWTS TAC members felt this would drive the industry to utilize larger filters when the filters are installed in the most upstream treatment tank or compartment to avoid the notice on the deed requirement.

9. INTERVALS THAT TREATMENT TANKS MUST BE PUMPED:

Background information: This concern has been raised because some counties want to base the maintenance interval on the first compartment of a multi-compartment tank.

Discussion: Code states that the servicing frequency of an “anaerobic treatment tank” shall occur when the combined sludge and scum volume equals 1/3 of the tank volume. Minimum 3-year servicing may need to be addressed by the code council in order to prevent unnecessary pumping of the tank. Education is a better alternative as “Pumpers” are not in favor of longer servicing intervals. Until consumers are educated in how to treat a septic system or better filters are developed, the systems need frequent pumping due to an unbelievable amount of things clogging the system - David Kons

Direction given: Total tank capacity will be used to determine the maintenance interval.

10. LOCKING DEVICES ON TREATMENT TANK OPENINGS LARGER THAN EIGHT INCHES (8”) WHICH ARE LOCATED AT OR ABOVE GRADE:

Background information: NSF Standard 40 has the following wording regarding such openings. “Access ports shall be protected against unauthorized intrusions. Acceptable protective measures include, but not limited to:

- a padlock;

- a cover that can be removed only with specialized tools; or

- a cover having a minimum net weight of 29.5 kg (65 lb.).”

Should similar language be considered for a code change to s. Comm 84.25 (7)(h) and/or would compliance with NSF requirement be considered an acceptable alternative to s. Comm 84.25 (7)(h)?

Discussion: The best lock doesn’t prevent anything if it isn’t used. Wayne - WPCA prefers to make no changes at this time; however, if a change is to be made they recommend 100 lb. minimum (same as Minnesota).

Direction given: Leave as it currently stands – locks, chains, etc.

11. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION:

TABLE TO SIZE TANKS

Discussion: Additional discussion was held on a point listed in the WOWRA survey document that had not been listed on the meeting agenda. When Comm 83 was revised in 2000, a table listing tank capacities based on number of bedrooms was not included. There is some interest in having such a table in the code. Is a table necessary? And if so, where should it be located? There is information on tank sizing available on the S&B website. POWTS TAC members felt having a table or some type of guidance that was readily available would be preferable. It could be placed in a code appendix.

Direction given: Place a guidance document into the Comm 83 code appendix. This document could consist of a table.

HIGH GROUND WATER INSTALLATION

Discussion: Duane G. – Proposal for a component manual that would utilize a Multi-Flo pre-treatment component that discharges to a mound. What is different about this proposal is that there would be an open bottom vault installed along the downslope toe of a mound. The vault would contain floats that would “shut down” the pre-treatment component during times of seasonal high groundwater. Roman – warrants further review, manual will probably be similar in format to the Multi-Flo / drip manual. If and when the manual is submitted, it will be sent to POWTS TAC members for their review.

Additional Handouts: POWTS TAC list and applicable Comm 84 code section (attachment 1), WOWRA survey response (attachment 2), Rick; Wieser tank design (attachment 3), Wayne; single vs. double compartment costs (attachment 4), Jim; Packet of information from Infiltrator Co. Inc. (previously sent to group)

MEETING END:

2:25 PM