DESIGN MANUAL

SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

FOR HOUSEHOLDS AND

SMALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

410 Capitol Avenue, MS #51SEW

P.O. Box 340308
Hartford, CT 06134 - 0308

July, 1998
 STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

DESIGN MANUAL
SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
FOR HOUSEHOLDS AND SMALL COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Scope and Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

PART I - GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES

CHAPTER

1. Domestic Sewage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Determining Design Sewage Flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. Site Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

4. Soil Identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 14

5. Percolation Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6. Determining Maximum Ground Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7. Ground Water Control Drains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8. House Sewers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

9. Septic Tanks and Grease Traps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

10. Dosing the Leaching System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

11. How Leaching Systems Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

12. How Products are Assigned an Effective Leaching Factor. . . . . . . 54

13. Leaching Systems in Soils with Slow Seepage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

14. Leaching Systems in Highly Permeable Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

15. Leaching Systems in Areas of Shallow Ledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

16. Leaching Systems in Hardpan Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

17. Leaching Systems in Select Fill Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

18. Submission of Engineering Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

19. Check List - Design Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

20. Repair Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

21. Model Guideline for Limited System Repairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

22. Home Buyer’s Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

PART II SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

23. Hydraulic Analysis - General Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

24. Methods of Estimating Soil Permeability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

25. Hydraulic Analysis - MLSS Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

26. Field Examination of Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

27. Identifying Sewage Pollution in Ground and Surface Waters. . . . . 139

28. Non-conventional Toilet Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

29. Holding Tanks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

30. Sewage Pumping Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

31. Distribution Boxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

32. Siphons and Dosing Chambers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..157

33. Subsurface Sand Filters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160

iii
 PART I

1. DOMESTIC SEWAGE

Subsurface sewage disposal systems designed in accordance with the requirements of Section 19-
13-B103 of the Public Health Code, the Technical Standards and the engineering practices
described in this manual are intended for the treatment and disposal of domestic sewage only.
Domestic sewage consists of wastes incidental to the occupancy of a residence or small commercial
building. It contains toilet wastes, laundry wastes, wash water, kitchen wastes and possibly wastes
from garbage grinders. It may also contain small amounts of potentially dangerous chemicals such
as paints and solvents which may be used in the home and which cannot practically be excluded
from the disposal system. Wastes from small restaurants and commercial laundries are also
considered as domestic sewage, although the composition is not typical, and therefore special
design may be required for a subsurface sewage disposal system which receives them.

Table 2-1 lists the pollutants of concern in domestic sewage, the per capita contribution and the
concentration range.

Table 2-1 - Pollutants in Domestic Sewage

Per Capita Contribution Concentration in

Pollutant (grams/day) Domestic Sewage
(mg/l)
Suspended Solids 35-50 200-290
Bio-chemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD5) 35-50 200-290
Total Nitrogen 6-17 35-100
Total Phosphorus 1-4 6-24
Grease & Oils 4-25 25-150
Coliform Bacteria - 106-108 /100ml

A sewage containing chemical or biological pollutants and concentrations significantly outside this
range, or which may contain non-biodegradable synthetic organics, carcinogens or biotoxins should
not be considered domestic sewage, since it may not be properly treated or disposed of by
subsurface sewage disposal systems designed to receive domestic sewage. These wastes must be
disposed of in accordance with standards established by the State Department of Environmental
Protection under permits issued by that agency. Following is a partial list of such wastes.

Industrial process wastes Photographic wastes

Liquid agricultural manure Slaughter house wastes
Food processing wastes Waste oils
Car wash wastes Waste from furniture stripping
Dry cleaning wastes Milk Wastes
In designing and constructing a subsurface sewage disposal system, even one intended only for
domestic sewage, it is necessary to know the various pollutants of concern in order to have an
understanding of the possible effects on ground and surface waters. Following is a brief discussion
of the various pollutants.

BIO-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)

Bio-chemical oxygen demand, commonly referred to as BOD, is a measure of the amount of bio-
degradable organic chemicals in the wastes. Sewage effluent contains a vast array of organic
chemicals which are biodegradable to varying degrees under various conditions. It is not practical
to measure them directly. Organic compounds are bio-degradable when common soil or water
bacteria can utilize them as a source of energy or “food”. When these chemicals are discharged
into ground or surface water, the bacteria will bio-chemically combine them with oxygen dissolved
in the water to produce bacterial cells. This reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water.
The amount of dissolved oxygen removed from the water is in direct proportion to the amount of
biodegradable organic chemicals present, and this is the way they are measured. The BOD5 test is
a measurement of how much dissolved oxygen is removed from aerated water inoculated with
bacteria, mixed with a sample of the sewage and held under standard conditions for a period of five
days. This measure is of great environmental significance because of the undesirable effects which
it can cause.

Ground water is said to be polluted when it contains potentially harmfully bacteria or bacteria
producing undesirable physical characteristics such as taste or odor. Removal or depletion of the
dissolved oxygen in the ground water also can produce undesirable chemical changes. Certain
minerals normally present in soils, such as iron and manganese, are chemically reduced to more
soluble forms and readily dissolved by oxygen deficient ground water. Rust colored deposits
occasionally are found in streams draining built-up areas containing many subsurface sewage
disposal systems crowded together in a small area. These deposits do not result directly from bio-
degradable organic chemicals in the water itself, but rather are due to the leaching of inorganic iron
caused by oxygen deficient ground water. The soluble iron in the water is oxidized upon contact
with the air producing the undesirable deposits.

A properly functioning septic tank will reduce the BOD in the effluent by about 25 to 30 percent.
Greater reductions occur when the septic tank is compartmentalized. Further reduction occurs as
the effluent comes in contact with bacterial growth in the leaching system and the aerated soil zone
above the ground water table. The amount of reduction depends on the volume of bacterial growth
in the leaching system, the manner in which the effluent is distributed throughout the system, the
availability of oxygen and the contact time. A large leaching system constructed in moderately
permeable soils and effectively dosed is quite efficient in reducing BOD, and is unlikely to cause
any significant ground water pollution. On the other hand, leaching systems constructed in highly
permeable soils, particularly where the ground water is shallow, may have an adverse affect on
ground water, since in this case the amount of bacterial growth in the leaching system would be
relatively small, distribution through the system might be quite irregular and movement of the
effluent through the soil would be rapid.

2
NITROGEN

Nitrogen in domestic sewage and sewage effluent exists in different chemical forms depending on
the degree of oxidation. Fresh sewage is high in organic nitrogen. This will first break down into
ammonia nitrogen. In the presence of oxygen, ammonia nitrogen is quite rapidly oxidized, first into
nitrite nitrogen (NO2) and subsequently into nitrate nitrogen (NO3). This oxidation process
primarily takes place near the infiltrative surface of the leaching system. Nitrate nitrogen is an
essential nutrient for the growth of plants and algae, and is an end product of any properly
functioning leaching system. Nitrates are not readily removed by filtration through soil, so that
ground water underlying a leaching system would receive a certain amount of nitrate
“fertilization”. Typically, septic systems remove approximately 30% of total nitrogen with the
remaining 70% being discharged to the ground water.

There are many other nitrogen sources in the environment which also will contribute nitrates to the
ground water, such as fertilizers, rotting vegetation and the atmosphere itself. For this reason, it is
usually not practical or necessary to try to design small subsurface sewage disposal systems for
nitrate removal. An exception to this might be in heavy developed lakeside property where nitrates
from subsurface sewage disposal systems could be a significant source of nitrate fertilization of the
lake water, which would cause undesirable algae blooms. Excessive nitrate levels in drinking
water wells could be a hazard to the health of infant children who consume the water regularly.
However, it is extremely unlikely that domestic subsurface sewage disposal systems could ever
produce hazardous nitrate levels in wells as long as the separating distances required by the Public
Health Code are provided.

PHOSPHATE
Phosphate in another nutrient which is essential for plant growth, but unlike nitrate, only a small
amount may be required to stimulate a considerable algae growth in surface water. Domestic
sewage contains small, but significant amounts of phosphates. Fortunately, research has shown
that phosphates in sewage combine readily with certain minerals normally present in soils, such as
iron and aluminum, to form insoluble deposits which are readily removed by filtration through only
a foot or two of soil. Since these minerals are generally abundant in Connecticut soils, it is
unlikely that properly designed subsurface sewage disposal systems would be a significant source
of phosphate pollution.

COLIFORM BACTERIA
Coliform bacteria are a type of bacteria which are indigenous to the intestinal tract of humans and
warm-blooded animals. Therefore, they are always present in sewage. While they are not
necessarily harmful themselves, the presence of coliform bacteria indicates that disease causing
pathogenic organisms might also be present. High concentrations of coliforms are found in the
septic tank effluent and throughout the leaching system. They are removed by filtration through
the soil and are rarely found to pass through more than three to five feet of unsaturated soil, or ten
to fifteen feet of saturated, naturally occurring soil. It has also been shown that the survival of this
bacteria seldom exceeds 10 days if confined to unsaturated soils. The principle factor determining
the survival of bacteria in soil is moisture. In view of this, the minimum separating distances
required by the Public Health Code between sewage disposal systems and wells or surface waters
may seem to be very conservative. However, these separating distances are mainly based on the
possibility of disease transmission by viruses in contaminated ground water.

3
Viruses are smaller than bacteria and are not as readily removed by filtration. Also, viruses are
better able to survive in harsh environments than coliform bacteria, and therefore require a much
longer time for natural die-off in ground water. Presently a 21 day minimum travel time is desired
for proper viral renovation.

The presence of even one coliform organism in ground water may be taken as an indicator of
possible sewage pollution. However, coliforms in surface waters do not necessarily indicate
sewage pollution, since sewage is not the only source of coliforms in the environment. A more
detailed discussion of coliform levels in surface waters may be found in Chapter 27 of this manual.

HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS
Domestic sewage must be considered to possibly contain some of the more hazardous chemicals
such as paints, solvents and chlorinated hydrocarbons. These chemicals are considered to be
hazardous because they will readily pass through a subsurface sewage disposal system and enter
the ground water. Many of them are known to be cancer producing agents, and even small
amounts of such chemicals in a water supply well could present a health hazard. Presumably, the
amount of such chemicals in domestic sewage would be extremely small on the average, but some
home activities as photographic development, furniture refinishing, metal working, arts and crafts
could result in significant amounts of hazardous chemicals being discharged carelessly into the
subsurface sewage disposal system. It is probably neither practical nor necessary to attempt to
exclude such chemicals from all sewage disposal systems. However, special consideration should
be given where domestic sewage systems are located within the drawdown area of a public water
supply well. It may be necessary to limit the number of subsurface sewage disposal systems in
such a location, in order to be assured that there will be sufficient dilution of these hazardous
chemicals before they enter the water supply. Homeowners within public water supply aquifer
areas should be educated about careless dumping of paints, solvents, etc., on the ground or into the
subsurface sewage disposal system, and commercial or home businesses which generate such
wastes may have to be restricted in these areas.

NON-TYPICAL DOMESTIC SEWAGE

Most domestic subsurface sewage disposal systems receive wastes from kitchens and laundries.
The kitchen waste may sometimes include garbage grinders. However, there are occasions when a
separate subsurface sewage disposal system is provided for this waste, or where the amount of
such wastes received is disproportionate to the overall sewage volume. An understanding of the
particular characteristics of each waste is necessary in order to properly design a modified
subsurface sewage disposal system.

Kitchen wastes are relatively high in grease, containing approximately five times the concentration
of domestic sewage. The wastes may also be quite warm due to the amount of hot water used in
machine dishwashing. This, together with the high detergent level in the waste, tends to keep the
grease in an emulsified condition so that it is not easily removed by floatation or settlement in the
septic tank. Grease removal is enhanced by mixing the kitchen wastes with cooler sewage such as
toilet wastes. For this reason, it is not advisable to construct separate systems for kitchen wastes.

Wastes from garbage grinders are extremely high in settleable solids, as would be expected.
However, they are also very high in grease, due to ground-up foods, and BOD resulting from
organic decomposition in the septic tank. Garbage grinders are not recommended for residential
systems served by subsurface sewage disposal systems. Increasing the size of the septic tank will
provide more storage volume for settleable solids, but it will not necessarily reduce the BOD of the

4
effluent unless the tank is pumped frequently. Experience has shown that pumping the septic tank
more frequently is more effective in preventing problems resulting from garbage grinders than by
increasing the tanks size itself.

Laundry wastes are normally low in nitrogen and high in phosphates. This has a tendency to retard
bacterial action in a septic tank which receives only this type of waste, but should have no adverse
affect when discharged to a septic tank which also receives toilet wastes. Laundry wastes also
contain cloth fibers called lint which bio-degrade very slowly. It also contains a surprisingly high
amounts of oils and coliform bacteria, presumably shed from the body on soiled clothes. Laundry
wastes can cause excessive clogging of soil by the formation of a mat formed from strained lint and
emulsified oils, and by inorganic phosphates. Some type of filtration system for lint removal ahead
of the septic tank is beneficial for commercial laundry systems. Outlet filters can also be utilized
to prevent lint and other fibrous material from entering the leaching field.

The backwash from swimming pool filters is quite high in settleable solids, but the solids
themselves are relatively stable. Pool filter backwash shall be directed to a dedicated leaching
system or on to the surface of the ground as provided by DEP’s General Permit for this type of
discharge. It is not advisable to discharge the backwash into the septic tank serving the building
since the hydraulic load created would have a tendency to wash solids from the tank into the
leaching fields..

2. DETERMINING DESIGN SEWAGE FLOW

5
The Public Health Code specifies design requirements for subsurface sewage disposal systems
serving residential buildings which are different from those serving non-residential buildings.
There are two practical reasons for this. Firstly, it is logical to relate the size of the sewage
disposal system to architectural features of the building served, wherever possible, since the system
is a permanent attachment to the building. This can conveniently be done by basing the size of the
sewage disposal system of a residential building on the number of bedrooms it contains. Secondly,
subsurface sewage disposal systems serving owner-occupied dwellings must be designed on a much
more conservative basis than those serving other buildings since it is almost impossible to condemn
such a dwelling because of a failing sewage disposal system which cannot be corrected. The
economic and social hardships presented by putting a family out of a home in which they have
invested their life savings are such that regulatory officials usually must resort to less satisfactory
abatement methods, such as holding tanks and reduced water use, which are objectionable to the
residents and difficult to enforce. Non-residential buildings present a different situation, of course.
A restaurant or other high water use facility may be converted to a retail store or low water use
facility, without any undue economic hardship. Also, there is more latitude for the use of water
reducing fixtures and water conservation. It probably also would be possible to condemn a non-
residential building within the legal and political structure if abatement is impossible by any other
means.

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

The size of the septic tank and leaching system serving a residential building is related to the
number of bedrooms, without consideration of the number of occupants or the water consumption.
The requirements in the Technical Standards may appear to be extremely conservative, considering
that the size of the average family has been decreasing and now consists of less than three persons,
and considering that studies have shown per capita water consumption to average approximately
50 gallons per day. On the other hand, it must be realized that sewage disposal requirements
cannot be based on average figures, since if this were done, one-half of all the systems would be
substandard and in danger of failing. A factor of safety of 1.5 is required to bring the confidence
level to over 90 percent, for the reasons previously described. Therefore, in water usage terms, the
design flow for each bedroom has been set at 150 gallons per day. This is based on two occupants.
each averaging 50 gallons per day, with a 1.5 safety factor applied. The 150 GPD per bedroom
usage factor would be utilized whenever performing hydraulic analysis calculations for residential
buildings. The leaching system sizing tables in the Technical Standards utilized this flow rate to
determine the effective leaching area per bedroom. No new residential building should be
constructed except on this basis of design.

REVIEWING THE HOUSE PLANS: The design of sewage disposal systems in repair situations
is relatively simple due to the fact that the number of bedrooms in an existing house can be
provided by the licensed installer, the design engineer or the property owner during the application
phase of the repair process. If there is a question, the sanitarian could request the property owner
to allow access to the dwelling in order to confirm the basis of design. This process becomes much
more complex with respect to proposed new home construction, particularly when permits are
requested and approved prior to the final determination of what the house may look like. For that
reason, it is essential that the basis of design be based on very detailed house plans and those plans
be incorporated as part of the sewage disposal review
process. In order to reduce the risk of any miscommunication, a copy of the house plans should be
signed off by the health department and forwarded to the town building official prior to issuance of
a building permit.

6
 DEFINITION OF A BEDROOM: Within today’s custom homes it is not uncommon to see
exercise rooms , sewing rooms, studies, offices, dens, family rooms and other similarly labeled
non-bedroom spaces shown on residential house plans. However, these same rooms can and are
used as bedrooms when a family grows or the house is sold to another family which has different
needs. To make sure the home is served by a sewage disposal system which is sized properly, the
system must be based on the potential number of bedrooms in the house.

There are certain standards by which a room can be deemed a potential bedroom. They provide:

1. A defined habitable space per Building Code requirements. The exception to

this statement would pertain to obvious future habitable space (such as the
unfinished second floor in a “cape” style home) which has the appropriate
structural shell but has not been “finished” to meet Building Code standards
for habitable space.
2. Privacy to the occupants.
3. Full bathroom facilities (containing either a bathtub or shower) which
are conveniently located to the bedroom served.
4. Entry from a common area, not through a room already deemed a bedroom.

Consideration should be given to the number of rooms in a new dwelling which may be used as
bedrooms, even though the builder may not intend to use them as such. This is particularly true for
homes built on speculation, since the builder has no control over who purchases the dwelling.
Generally, all rooms on the second floor of a two story house, except for the bathroom and
hallway, are considered bedrooms. Two bedrooms houses are allowed by the Public Health Code.
However, such buildings would be expected to be relatively small in total floor area.

A significant number of homes are being constructed with habitable space above a two or three car
garage. This space may be accessible from either the first or second floors or both. They are
typically labeled as second floor playrooms or bonus rooms, may be quite large in area and have
the potential to be a bedroom. Using the above criteria, this space should be deemed a bedroom
when access is from the second floor and a full bathroom is readily available. The same
designation would apply if access were provided from both the second and first floor. It would not
be designated a bedroom if the only way to gain access to this area above the garage were perhaps
from a first floor stairway when the first floor does not have a full bathroom facility, or access is
from the garage.

Some latitude can be applied to the above when dealing with large homes, consisting of more than
5 bedrooms. It would not be unusual for this type of home to have a truly functional library, an
exercise room, or a home office. However, before a bedroom designation can be made there should
be some architectural feature which would typically exclude it from being used as a bedroom (such
as, bookshelves around perimeter of library, sauna built into exercise room, etc.).

Rooms on the first floor of two story homes are generally easier to deal with. If rooms do not have
access to full bathroom facilities on the first floor or are constructed with large archways, or,
where entrance is through another room, they would not be deemed bedrooms.

Basement areas can be utilized for bedrooms in certain circumstances. Walk-out basements with
large windows, sliding glass or conventional doors could allow the area to be converted to a

7
bedroom in the future. The key to this situation is the availability of plumbing fixtures on this level
of the house. Plumbing plans should be examined at the time of initial construction to determine if
plumbing will be “roughed in” which would provide access for future bathroom facilities. If a full
bathroom (with a tub or shower) is shown on the plans then all rooms in the basement area shall be
considered bedrooms when they meet the aforementioned “potential bedroom” standards.

It is also a phenomenon of the 90’s that large homes are being built for “small” families. The two
person occupancy per bedroom used for design purposes is not realistic for many single family
homes that exceed four (4) bedrooms (there are just not a lot of families which consist of 10 or
more people). It is for that reason that a reduction in the sizing tables for leaching systems serving
single family homes is being considered for homes which exceed four (4) bedrooms.

WASTE DISTRIBUTION: There may be a situation where a residence will be served by more
than one subsurface sewage disposal system and the total sewage flow divided between the two
systems, in accordance with the sanitary fixtures which they serve. This is not very desirable from
the design standpoint since the characteristics of the wastes and the functioning of the sewage
disposal systems may be altered. The Public Health Code requires that the subsurface sewage
disposal system receiving the toilet wastes be large enough to meet the requirements for the entire
house, and the other system to be at least one-half the size required for the full house. This
requirement is based on the following normal distribution of sewage flow from a residence, with a
factor of safety.

Usage Per Cent of Total Flow

Toilets 40
Bath and Shower 30
Laundry 20
Kitchen 10

In most split systems, the toilet and bath water goes to one system and the kitchen and laundry to
the other, although occasionally only the laundry system is separated.

The volume of sewage flow from a residence will fluctuate considerably during the course of a day,
and from day to day. However, the peak discharge rate is not a critical factor in the design of a
residential sewage disposal system. Peak flows are unlikely to exceed 100 gallons per hour or 20
gallons a minute, and these should not interfere with the functioning of a properly designed septic
tank.

NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

Non-residential buildings are designed on the basis of the estimated 24 hour sewage flow. A list of
estimated flows for certain non-residential buildings is included in the Technical Standards. These
figures include a factor of safety. Non-residential buildings also may be designed on specific flow
figures obtained for the particular type of facility to be constructed. However, the design engineer
must include a factor of safety in this figure. For instance, water consumption figures may be
available for a chain of fast food restaurants or supermarkets which would be acceptable as a
design basis for similar facilities in Connecticut. In such a situation, an average flow figure for 3

8
to 5 such establishments maybe used with a factor of safety of 1.5 to 2.0. Lacking any specific
information, the flow figures in the Technical Standards should be used.

Unlike residential buildings, the peak flow for certain non-residential buildings may be a critical
design consideration. Buildings such as churches and athletic stadiums have extremely high one
day flows, but relatively low weekly average flows. In such a situation, the septic tank is normally
designed for the peak day flow, but the leaching system could be designed for an average flow over
a few days to a week providing there is sufficient storage volume in the leaching system to hold the
peak flows. Sewage would fill up the leaching system during the peak day and leach away into the
soil before the next peak. Leaching galleries or pits are usually used in order to provide sufficient
storage of peak flows. Some facilities such as parks and recreational camp grounds have very high
three day flow on certain week-ends, but lower flows during other times. The subsurface sewage
disposal system should be designed for these peak flow periods.

SEWAGE FLOW REDUCTION BY USE OF SPECIAL SANITARY FIXTURES

Subsurface sewage disposal systems serving new buildings normally should not be based on a low
design flow due to the use of sanitary fixtures which reduce the amount of water used. Such
sanitary fixtures do not always prove to be acceptable to the users, and they may subsequently be
replaced by conventional fixtures. This is difficult to prevent, particularly in residential buildings.
However, there are situations where the use of low flow sanitary fixtures is desirable in order to
abate an existing sewage overflow. The only reliable way to produce a significant volume
reduction is by the use of special toilets or toilet appurtenances. Tank inserts may be used which
reduce the volume of flushing water in the tank. Some toilets have adjustable flush controls which
allow either a large volume or a limited volume flush. Other types have a specially designed bowl
for a reduced flush volume. Connecticut has passed legislation which requires that all new toilets
discharge a maximum 1.6 gallons per flush. In general, these types of low water flush toilets will
reduce the volume of toilet wastes by 25 to 50 per cent and reduce the total sewage flow by 5 to 15
per cent produced from fixtures used in older homes. There are also available special toilets which
provide only a minimum bowl rinse, or which use vacuum or compressed air assisted flushing
water. In general, these toilets will use only about one gallon per flush and will reduce total
sewage volume by 20 to 30 per cent. There are also non discharging toilets which would reduce
the volume of sewage generated in a household by about 40 per cent. A more detailed discussion
of the various types of low water use toilets may be found in Part II of the manual.

Pressure reducing attachments on shower heads and sink faucets also will tend to reduce water
consumption. However, it is doubtful that it will produce much over 5 to 10 per cent reduction in
total sewage volume. The amount of water used for sanitary fixtures other than toilets is controlled
mainly by the habits of the users, not by the sanitary fixture itself. When the desire is strong
enough, it is possible to make extreme reductions in water consumption. This has occurred in
some cases, such as where a holding tank is used which must be pumped periodically at a
considerable expense. However, it is not advisable to rely on reducing sewage volume in this
manner.

3. SITE INVESTIGATION

The importance of the site investigation cannot be over-emphasized. A careless or incomplete site
investigation which fails to identify soil limitations, such as seasonal high ground water or

9
underlying ledge, is the cause of a high percentage of sewage disposal system failures. Certain
planning must be done even before going to the site, and the investigation itself must be sufficiently
thorough as to identify all the soil conditions which could affect sewage disposal. Reinvestigation
is expensive and time consuming, and therefore is unlikely to be done simply to obtain information
which was overlooked initially. If the investigation is done properly, immediately afterwards it
should be possible to make a general conclusion as to the suitability of the site for sewage disposal
purposes and specific recommendations for the design of the sewage disposal system. In certain
cases, additional investigation for maximum ground water levels may be necessary, but it should be
possible to develop a procedure and schedule for obtaining this information on the basis of the
original site investigation.

PREPARING FOR THE SITE INVESTIGATION

There is a considerable amount of information relative to land use and development which
sanitarians and engineers should review and be familiar with before making any site investigation.
First of all, the investigator should know the type and size of the building which is proposed for the
site. Obviously, large commercial buildings or apartments would require larger sewer disposal
systems than single family homes, and therefore the area of the site to be tested must be larger.
The investigator should also be familiar with local planning and zoning requirements. For
instance, if 100 foot setbacks are required from watercourses, it would be foolish to test any area
located within 100 feet of a stream. If the property to be tested is located within an approved
subdivision, it is probable that the site has been tested previously. These tests results should be
reviewed, if available, prior to the investigation, since they might be helpful in indicating the type
of soil conditions to look for. The availability of public water supply mains and public sewers
should also be checked prior to the investigation because these would have considerable bearing on
determining the suitability of the site and the location of the sewage disposal system. A water
supply well would not be necessary if the public water supply were available, and more of the lot
area could be used for sewage disposal purposes. If public water supply is not available, it would
mean that there may be wells on adjacent lots which must be located, either from review of health
department records prior to the investigation, or from inquiries made during the investigation.
Reserve area for enlargement of the leaching system will not be required if public sewers were
scheduled within five years, so that the area to be tested could be reduced. Also, it would be likely
that the sewage disposal system would be located between the proposed building and the street to
facilitate the future sewer connection. It also may be necessary to check information regarding the
location of high volume public water supply wells and public water supply reservoirs and
watersheds. Special design considerations may apply in these locations, and the investigator
should be aware of it before he goes on to the site.

Certain types of soil and geological information may be available on maps published by the U.S.
Government. Review of these maps will be helpful in indicating the type of soil conditions to
expect, but should not be used in place of a site investigation. The U.S. Geological Survey
publishes a series of topographic maps on a scale of 1:24,000 showing ground contours,
hydrographic features, such as streams, swamps, etc., streets and buildings. An effort should be
made to locate the site to be tested on these maps before making the investigation. If this is not
possible, the appropriate map should be taken along and the site located on the map in the field.
An experienced investigator can tell much about a site from its location in the general topography
of the area. The U.S.G.S. also publishes surficial geology maps which classify the soils overlying
bedrock on the basis of their geological formation. The classification is not detailed, but can be
helpful in identifying such features as flood plains, alluvial terraces and drumlins, which exhibit

10
certain characteristic soil conditions. The National Cooperative Soil Survey published by the Soil
Conservation Service, uses a more detailed soil mapping system. Soils are classified on the basis
of certain characteristics, such as texture, structure, color consistency and drainage. The maps
reflect soil profiles to a depth of about 5 feet. Therefore, they may be generally useful for
evaluating soils for subsurface sewage disposal purposes. However, they are not sufficiently
accurate to be used in place of a site investigation. Their main value is in indicating wetlands or
soils with a seasonally high ground water table, which must be carefully evaluated before any
sewage disposal system is designed. See the Chapter on “Soil Identification” for a more detailed
discussion of the use of the soil survey maps.

Certain arrangements should be made by the applicant or his representative for the scheduled time
of the investigation. Normally, a back hoe and operator, another person with a hand shovel and
about 40 gallons of water are required. It also would be desirable to have on hand several 10 foot
lengths of rigid plastic pipe which could be placed in the deep pits as monitoring wells for ground
water before backfilling. A plot plan must be provided. As a minimum, the plan must show
property lines accurately and indicate some landmarks which can be located easily in the field, such
as stone walls, fences, survey markers or numbered utility poles. Property lines should be flagged
or staked where suitable landmarks are lacking or are difficult to find, such as in proposed
subdivision lots located away from existing roads. It may be necessary to do some clearing of trees
and brush on the site to make it accessible to digging equipment. The owner, builder or engineer
must be available on the site at the time of the investigation, in order to answer any questions
which the investigator may have.

Engineers and developers should carefully consider testing needs prior to hiring a backhoe for site
testing. If deep leaching structures are contemplated, such as galleries or pits, conventional rubber
tired backhoes may have great difficulty in digging a deep enough test hole for evaluation. In such
cases, it may be economical to rent a large, track-mounted backhoe for rapid, definitive
exploration. Terrain and weather conditions may also dictate tracked equipment for efficient
testing.

DETERMINING WHEN TO MAKE THE SITE INVESTIGATION

In general, site investigations may be made at any time of the year. However, on some sites it may
not be possible to determine the maximum ground water level accurately unless the investigation is
made during the season when the ground water is high. The Public Health Code gives the director
of health the authority to require that the maximum ground water levels in areas of special concern
be determined by investigation made between February 1 and May 31, or at such other times as the
ground water is determined to be near its maximum level by the State Department of Public Health.
This does not mean that all testing for ground water must be done at this time, even for areas of
special concern. This frequently is unnecessary, and can present a hardship, both for the property
owner and for the local health department. There are many sites where the maximum ground water
level can be determined quite accurately by other methods, such as soil mottling. If there is general
agreement between the engineer and the sanitarian as to the maximum ground water level and the
design of the sewage disposal system, additional ground water investigation during the wet season
may not be required. This is more fully discussed in the chapter on "Determining the Maximum
Ground Water Level".

While the maximum ground water level almost always occurs sometime between February 1 and
May 31, there may be other times when the level is sufficiently high to allow a reasonably accurate

11
 determination to be made of the maximum level. The State Department of Public Health utilizes
monitoring information supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey which documents monthly ground
water levels in various locations throughout the state. When levels are found to be at or above
mean springtime elevations, the allowable testing period may be extended by the State Department
of Public Health. Variations in water levels in the U.S.G.S. wells are used as an indicator of the
general ground water levels within a town or region. The range of such variations may be quite
different from well to well, however, depending on the construction of the well and its geological
and topographic location. Water level readings in observation wells cannot be used to adjust
ground water level readings taken at other locations. For instance, the water level in an
observation well which seasonally rises and falls about three feet may be observed to be one foot
below its normal maximum. This does not mean that the maximum ground water level at another
location can be determined by adding one foot to the observed level at that location, since the
ground water level at that particular location may rise and fall seven feet during the year.

The real danger in making site investigations during a dry season is not the inability to determine
the maximum ground water level accurately, since this also can be done by additional investigation
or monitoring during a wetter season. Rather, it is the possibility that a seasonal ground water
condition may be completely overlooked. This probably is more likely to occur where the soils are
fairly well drained, than where the soils are poor and evidence of seasonal ground water is obvious.
For this reason, some town health departments do not allow site investigations to be made during
certain months of the year. Fortunately, experience has shown that 80 to 90 percent of the time
that an investigator had failed to identify a seasonal ground water condition was when the
investigation was made during the months of July, August or September. Therefore, there
probably is some basis for restricting site investigations during those months. However, there is
little justification for requiring all site investigation to be made only during the wet season, since a
trained and careful investigator should be able to make a valid assessment of ground water
conditions at most times of the year. A technique sometimes used in dry soil conditions in order to
enhance coloration and improve identification of mottles is to moisten the side of the test hole with
water from a spray bottle.

MAKING THE SITE INVESTIGATION

Before any test holes are dug, the investigator must determine the location of the property lines, the
probable building location and the location of existing wells on adjacent property. It should be
kept in mind that the sewage disposal system normally is located down slope from the building
served, in order to allow gravity flow without placing the leaching system too deep in the ground.
Some investigators make the mistake of testing the highest part of the property because it appears
to have the best soil. In fact, this would be the least likely area to be used for sewage disposal
purposes. The well, if required, should be located on the higher portion of the lot, uphill from the
sewage disposal system. However, the location of both well and sewage disposal system may
depend on the location of wells and sewage disposal systems on adjacent lots.

Once a likely location has been selected, the probable depth of the leaching system must be decided.
Leaching systems on a level lots are usually somewhat deeper than on sloping lots, and if it is
necessary to locate the sewage disposal system upgrade from the building, it could be quite deep. If
leaching pits or deep leaching galleries are used, the bottom of the leaching system could be up to
eight or ten feet deep. It also should be determined from the builder whether or not basement
fixtures will be used. Split level houses and raised ranch houses usually require deeper sewers,
since sanitary fixtures are on the lower floor. The builder should be questioned about this. It

12
should also be determined whether or not there will be any regrading done in the area of the building
and sewage disposal system, since this will affect the depth to which the soil must be tested.

MINIMUM NUMBER OF DEEP TEST AND PERCOLATION HOLES

A minimum of two or three deep test holes should be dug in the area of the proposed leaching
system to a depth of four feet below the probable bottom of the deepest leaching unit. Such holes
are normally at least seven feet deep and may be considerably deeper. At least one percolation test
should be conducted at the probable depth of the bottom of the primary and reserve leaching
system areas. A much greater number of deep pits and percolation tests should be made if there
are any significant variations in the soil characteristics, either in depth or from location to location,
or if shallow ledge rock is found. An effort should be made to lay out a series of test holes in a
grid arrangement where the sewage disposal system is large and will cover a considerable area,
since this would provide more meaningful information than randomly located holes. At each test
hole, the soil should be identified and the depth to ledge and ground water noted. When determining
the percolation rate for sizing purposes, the Technical Standards require that it be based on
representative test results. The number of percolation tests performed should be a function of the
consistency of the results. If the soil conditions throughout the primary system area (and the
reserve area if located directly downgrade of the proposed primary area) are consistent and the two
initial percolation tests resulted in rates that are within the same sizing category than there would
not be a need for further testing. However if the initial test results are not consistent then multiple
percolation tests would be required. Tests would be concluded when 3 out of 4 percolation tests (
75% or greater) resulted in rates which are within one sizing category.

The location of each deep test and percolation hole must be measured from a landmark and
recorded on the plot plan or in the field notes. To avoid confusion, a north orientation should be
determined or assumed in the field, and marked on the plot plan. The U.S.G.S. maps are helpful
for this purpose. This should be the responsibility of the engineer or surveyor, if one is involved in
the investigation. If the test holes indicate a probable seasonal high ground water condition, an.
effort should be made to obtain as much information as possible relative to existing and proposed
drainage improvements. Existing and proposed storm drains in the street should be noted because
they may be necessary if foundation or curtain drains are required. Note also should be made of
potential surface water drainage problems which might be caused by building or regrading, both on
the property being investigated and on the adjacent property. These should be addressed on the
sewage disposal plan before it is approved.

4. SOIL IDENTIFICATION

There are many ways that soils can be identified or classified. Geologists generally classify soils
according to how they were formed, using such terms as "alluvium" or "terrace deposits". Soil
scientists from the U.S. Conservation Service classify soils on the basis of the profile of the upper
few feet of soil. Soils that have profiles nearly the same are given series names, such as "Paxton"
or "Woodbridge". Civil engineers identify soils by describing their physical appearance, such as
"light brown medium sand with a trace of silt". It may be difficult to understand how the same soil
can be identified in three different ways. The fact is that soils do not exist in a limited number of

13
 distinct, uniform and consistent types. Rather, the variability of soils is infinite. They have been
identified and classified by scientists or engineers in different ways for different purposes.
Geological maps are used mainly to identify soil deposits for mining, aquifer development or large
scale construction. The SCS soil survey maps were developed for agricultural or land use planning
purposes, and the soil designations used by civil engineers are related to their use for construction
purposes.

The civil engineering method of describing soils is the most useful one for subsurface sewage
disposal purposes, since this is basically a construction activity. However, leaching systems
normally are constructed in naturally occurring soils, and therefore information obtained from other
sources, such as the soil survey maps, may also be quite pertinent. Satisfactory identification of a
soil depends mostly on the experience and thoroughness of the investigator. The system of
identification serves to record and transmit soil information in a clear and consistent manner so that
it may be used for certain purposes, in this case the design of subsurface sewage disposal systems.

EXAMINING SOILS

Soils in a test pit must be examined at close range and felt with the hand. Examining the soil after
it has been excavated can be misleading. For instance, hardpan often will have the appearance of
a sandy or silty loam when broken up. The degree of compaction of a soil layer is difficult to
determine unless the investigator enters the test pit and probes the sides of the pit with a stick or
shovel. This also is necessary in order to determine the exact level at which changes in soil
characteristics occur. These must be measured from a fixed reference point, normally the ground
surface, so that the elevation of the various soil layers can be calculated and the leaching system
elevation set properly relative to these layers. This cannot be over-emphasized, since a mistake of
six or twelve inches in the elevation of a leaching system relative to hardpan or groundwater could
cause the system to fail.

Coarse grained soils, such as sand and gravel, are readily identified by rubbing the soil between the
fingers. However, some care should be taken to note the size and shape of the grains. Flat grained
soils will compact easily and may cause trouble with leaching systems, particularly when used as
fill material. Sand and gravels to be used as fill should be examined as to the uniformity of the
particle sizes. If all of the particles are approximately the same size, it would be good for leaching
purposes, but if there is wide range of particle sizes, it would be poor for this purpose. It should be
noted that the term "well graded" is used to refer to a soil which has a wide range of particle sizes.
The term originated because this type of fill material was best suited to road construction. It
certainly would not be "well graded" for the purposes of sewage disposal.

Fine grained soils, such as silt, clay and even very fine sand, are difficult to differentiate either by
sight or feel. Almost all Connecticut soils contain silt, and determination of the approximate
amount of the silt in the soil is a critical consideration, since even small percentages of silt will
greatly reduce the ability of a soil to transmit water. The amount of silt in a sand or gravel may be
determined by placing a spoonful of the soil in a glass of water. The sand and gravel grains will
settle almost immediately, while the silt particles will still be in suspension after five or ten
minutes. Determination of the amount of silt in a loamy soil is more difficult. One way this can be
done is by observing how easily the soil surface is smeared by digging equipment or in the hand,
when moist. Soils with high silt content can be formed into a clod which can be handled without

14
breaking, and when dried and pulverized on the hand, will have a feeling like flour or talcum
powder. Some purer silts, lacking binders such as clay, will become elastic when saturated, and
water may be squeezed from them. Soils with high clay content are rare in Connecticut and there
normally is no need to differentiate them from silty soils. Where clays do occur, they usually are
prevalent throughout a general area. Experienced investigators normally are aware of this and may
take special care to identify and avoid these soils. A more detailed description of methods for field
identification of soils is included in Section II.

The soil color should be noted, since it is a good indicator of how well drained it is. Light
brownish, yellowish or reddish colors indicate that the soil is well drained and aerated. Bands or
mottles of brighter color should be noted, particularly if they are interspersed or underlain by
layers of grayish soil. This may indicate a seasonal or perched water table. Grayish or dark colors
indicate poorly drained soils.

The firmness of each soil layers should be noted. Some generally firm soil layers may have narrow
bands of looser, sandy soils which should not be overlooked. Similarly, some coarse grained soils
are extremely stratified, with thin layers of silt which may not be readily apparent. Ground water
seepage and soil dampness must also noted, and the level measured. Such seepage does not always
occur immediately, so that the test pits should be left open and reinspected after an hour or so. The
observed ground water table is normally recorded as the highest level at which seepage is noted.
The depth to the bottom of the pit must also be measured so that it is understood that there is no
information available on soil characteristics below that level. The presence of ledge rock or refusal
should be noted. Occasionally, it is difficult to determine whether refusal is caused by ledge or by
a large bolder. In such a case, another pit should be dug about ten to fifteen feet away. If refusal
is found in this pit also, it can be assumed that ledge is present. The ground will vibrate when a
boulder is struck or scraped by a backhoe. An experienced investigator or backhoe operator is
unlikely to mistake a boulder for ledge.

DESCRIBING SOILS

Each layer of soil with different physical characteristics, such as particle size, color or
compactness, should be described separately, and its boundary levels noted. Soils usually are
described as gravel, sands, silts or clays, depending on their dominant particle size, in accordance
with the following table:

Soil Type Particle Size Example# Sieve Size

(inches) (mm)
Gravel 3.0 - 0.19 76 - 4.75 Lemons to peas 3” - #4
Coarse Sand 0.19 -0.08 4.75 - 2.0 rock salt #4 - #10
Medium Sand 0.08 - 0.02 2.0 - 0.425 sugar #10 - #40
Fine Sand 0.02 - 0.003 0.425 - 0.075 powdered sugar #40 -#200
Silt .less than 0.003 0.075-0.002 talcum powder pass #200
Clay Smaller than 0.002 - pass #200

15
Most soils are a mixture of particle sizes, and therefore are described as a mixture of soil types,
such as "silty sand" or "fine sandy clay". A "silty sand" has the predominant characteristics of
sand, but contains a significant amount of silt. A "fine sandy clay" is essentially a clay, but
contains an identifiable amount of fine sand. A more sophisticated system for describing mixed
soils sometimes is used, as follows, although the accuracy of such a description must be suspect
unless a sieve analysis is made.

Descriptive Term Percentage Range

"And" More than 40%
"With" 30 to 40%
"Some" 20 to 30%
"Little" 10 to 20%
"Trace" Less than 10%

There are other terms used to describe soil which are more general but which can be useful if
properly used. "Loam" is frequently used to describe a mixture of loose sand, silt and clay. This
term is usually modified by describing the predominant soil type in the mixture, such as a "sandy
loam" or "silt loam". Another descriptive term commonly used is "hardpan". This refers to a soil
layer which is significantly more compact than the overlying soils layers. While the physical
characteristics of "hardpan" may vary somewhat, the term is useful in describing a silty, compact
soil layer commonly formed in glacial till soil. The term "top soil" needs no explanation, and is
meaningful when used in connection of leaching systems.

A soil identification may be as follows:

0 - 6 inches - top soil

6 - 30 inches - light brown medium sandy loam, some stones
30 - 48 inches - clean, medium sand. Mottling at 36 inches to 48 inches.
48 - 86+ inches - firm, silty sand. Groundwater at 54 inches.

USING THE SOIL SURVEY MAPS

Some mention should be made of the S.C.S. soil survey maps and their use in identifying soils for
subsurface sewage disposal purposes. These maps are useful, but are not sufficiently detailed to
eliminate the need to dig test pits. The soil maps indicate the predominant soil type within a
particular area, but that does not necessarily mean that all of the soil within that area is of the
designated type. There generally are small areas of other related soil types within any delineated
area. The amount varies, depending on the complexity of the soil pattern on the landscape and the
skill of the soil scientist who mapped the area. Soil scientists know this, and usually are willing to
gather more detailed information on a particular piece of property, if it would be helpful.
Information shown on soil maps generally is not precise enough for design purposes since it is
necessary to have a range of physical characteristics within each soil type. Soil maps are most
reliable in identifying seasonal ground water conditions, and find their greatest use for this
purpose. They are also quite reliable in identifying the existence of underlying layers of compact
soil. However, the depth to these layers and the degree of compaction may show some variation
within the same soil type. This could be critical in the design of a leaching system. It is generally
acknowledged that the maps are less reliable in identifying underlying ledge rock because of the
wide topographic variations of this material.

16
 5. PERCOLATION TESTING

The percolation rate is not a measure of any one physical property of a soil, but is generally related
to the rate at which a soil will disperse liquid by capillary uptake. When properly performed, the
percolation test provides a valid basis for determining the necessary amount of leaching area in a
subsurface sewage disposal system. Although there is a general relationship between the
percolation rate and the soil permeability, this relationship is not sufficient to indicate possible
hydraulic restraints in the surrounding soil layers. This can only be done by considering site-
related conditions, such as soil permeability, ground slope, size and configuration of the leaching
system, and depth to ground water, ledge or hardpan.

17
PERFORMING THE TEST

The Technical Standards state that when calculating the required leaching area, only representative
tests results in the area and at the depth of the proposed system be used. Care must be taken to
insure that only one soil layer is being tested at a time. Since the test is made in only the bottom 12
inches of the hole, frequently the top 1« to 2 feet of soil is stripped away by a back hoe to make the
test hole easier to observe and measure. The hole itself is hand dug with a shovel or post hole
digger. There should be no large stones or boulders on the bottom or side of the hole which could
give misleading results. A fixed reference point is established, usually consisting of a stick or nail
on the side of the hole or across the top. From this point, the depth to the top of the water in the
hole is measured at regular intervals and recorded. The time that the reading was made is also
recorded. The depth of the bottom of the test hole below ground surface must be recorded in order
to relate the percolation rate to the various layers of soil. Table 5-1 shows the way that the data is
tabulated from a typical percolation test.

TABLE 5-1 Calculation of Minimum Percolation Rate

Field Data Calculations

Reading Elapsed Drop (Inches) Percolation
Time (Inches) Time Rate
(Minutes) (Minutes/Inch)
9:45 AM 7
9:50 AM 10 1/2 5 3 1/2 = 3.5 5/3.5 = 1.4
9:55 AM 13 1/4 5 2 3/4 = 2.75 5/2.75 = 1.8
10:00 AM 15 1/4 5 2 5/2 = 2.5
10:05 AM 16 1/4 5 1 5/1 = 5.0
10:10 AM 16 3/4 5 1/2 = 0.5 5/0.5 = 10.0
10:15 AM 17 1/8 5 3/8 = 0.375 5/0.375 = 13.3
10:25 AM 17 3/4 10 5/8 = 0.63 10/0.63 = 15.7
10:35 AM 18 1/4 10 1/2 = 0.5 10/0.5 = 20.0
10:50 AM 19 15 3/4 = 0.75 15/0.75 = 20.0

The data to the left two columns must be recorded in the field, while the remainder of the data may
be calculated later. However, it is desirable to calculate the percolation rate while the tests are
being done in order to determine how long the readings should be made and whether additional tests
should be made at different locations or depths. The percolation rate is calculated as follows:

1. The drop in water level is found by subtracting the previous readings of the depth to
water from the current reading.

2. The elapsed time is found by subtracting the previous time reading from the current
reading.

3. The percolation rate is found by dividing the elapsed time by the drop in water level.

18
 Figure 5-1 shows graphically how the percolation rate in a typical test hole will decline as the test
proceeds, reaching a relatively uniform rate after 30 to 60 minutes. This relatively uniform rate is
taken to represent the minimum percolation rate referred to in the Public Health Code.

Perc. 10
DESIGN PERCOLATION
Rate 15
RATE 25 TO 30 MINS/IN.
20
(Mins/in.)
25

30

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Elapsed Time (Mins.)

Figure 5-1 - Percolation Test

TESTING INTERVALS: Due to the nature of the testing procedure, erratic fluctuations
sometimes occur when calculating percolation rates between timing intervals. This is mainly due
to errors in reading a ruler when the drop in water in the hole is relatively small because of the
combined effect of slow soils and a short time frame between readings. To reduce this effect it is
recommended that the time intervals between readings increase in proportion with the slowness of
the percolation rate. It is suggested the following table be utilized when performing a percolation
test:

TABLE 9-2 SUGGESTED TIME INTERVALS BETWEEN READINGS

INTERVAL PERCOLATION RATE SUGGESTED TIME INTERVAL

19
 Faster than 1.0 minute/inch Less than every 2 minutes
1.0 to 5.0 minutes/inch Every 2 to 5 minutes
5.1 to 10.0 minutes/inch Every 5 to 10 minutes
10.1 to 20.0 minutes/inch Every 10 to 15 minutes
20.1 to 30.0 minutes/inch Every 15 to 20 minutes
30.1 to 45.1 minutes/inch Every 20 to 30 minutes*
45.1 to 60.0 minutes /inch Every 30 minutes**

* Test expanded to approximately 1.5 hours ** Test expanded to approximately 2.0 hours

EFFECT OF FIELD CONDITIONS ON TEST RESULTS

As with most tests which are performed in place, the results of the percolation tests may be
affected by certain field conditions prevailing at the time of testing. The sanitarian or engineer
must be careful to look for conditions which might affect test results, and use judgment in
performing the test and evaluating the results. Of principal concern is the ground water level
relative to the test hole and the soil moisture content at the time of testing.

The percolation test must be done in unsaturated soil above the ground water table, since it is
greatly affected by capillary dispersal into the soil. Furthermore, when the bottom of the test hole
is close to the ground water table, the capillary water zone above the ground water table may
interfere with capillary dispersal from the test hole. Percolation tests may be misleadingly slow if
the test hole is located only a few inches above the water table, and it may show no percolation if
located partly below the ground water table. It is surprising how many times investigators fail to
look for ground water before making a percolation test, particularly in relatively tight soils or
during the spring of the year. Wherever possible, the bottom of the percolation test hole should be
located at least 18 inches above the observed ground water table. Where this is not practical, the
ground water level should be noted with the test results so that a proper evaluation of the test
results can be made when designing the leaching system.

Seasonal variations in soil moisture also will affect percolation test results. Percolation tests made
during the early spring, when soil moisture is high, will be somewhat slower than those made
during the late spring or fall, when the soil moisture is lower. However, the requirements for
leaching area in the Public Health Code are based on percolation tests made when the soil is only
slightly moist, and therefore there is no need to require that all percolation tests be done during the
early spring. Such a requirement could present a hardship to both builders and sanitarians.
Percolation tests made during the months of July, August and September, when the soils may be
very dry, can give erratic results. In some soils, the percolation rate results are somewhat faster
than normal, while in other soils the results are somewhat slower than would be expected. The
faster than normal results probably are due to silt shrinkage and cracking, and the relatively short
presoaking period specified in the Code. The slower than normal results may be due to entrapment
of air bubbles in dusty soils, which are not adequately purged by a short presoak period. The
elimination of percolation testing during the driest time would eliminate misleading results, but this
may create some hardship and additional expense. Most investigators have found it more practical,
and just as safe, to oversize leaching systems which are designed on the basis of percolation tests
made during the dry months of July, August and September. Experience has shown that the
variation in percolation test results obtained in dry and moist soils will not exceed one category in
the range of percolation rates shown in the tables for required leaching system capacity in the

20
Technical Standards. Therefore, most investigators and health departments have adopted the
policy of using a leaching system that is one category larger than required when the percolation
tests were done during an unusually dry period. For instance, if a minimum percolation rate of 1
inch in 7 minutes were obtained in August, the designer would use 675 square feet of leaching area
for a three bedroom house, rather than 495 square feet, to compensate for possible variation in
percolation test results due to soil dryness.

OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING TEST RESULTS

The condition of the soil interface in the percolation test hole can affect the results. Washing silt
into the hole when pouring the water or smearing the soil surface during digging may cause
artificially slow percolation test results. On the other hand, lining the hole with burlap or filling it
with stone may give an artificially fast percolation rate. In general, the percolation test holes
should be tested no differently than the excavation for a leaching system would be treated. The
depth of water in the test hole can have some effect on the readings. This effect is not significant,
however, as long as the water depth during the test is not over 12 inches or less than 4 inches. The
width of the test hole also has an effect, and it is important to follow the Code requirement that the
percolation test be made in a 6 to 12 inch diameter hole. Placing 100 gallons of water in the
bottom of a pit excavated by a back hoe and observing how quickly it seeps into the soil, is not a
meaningful test of any kind.

Percolation tests should be conducted at least 18” above actual groundwater levels. However,
there are circumstances whereby this may not be possible (water table is less than 30” below the
surface of the ground on the day the test is conducted). Under these conditions a percolation test
can be run knowing full well that the results will be somewhat slower than if the water table was
the proper distance below the percolation hole. The intent of the code is to prevent deeming a soil
impervious based on a percolation test which has been performed too close to the water table. In
such a case the area would have to be dewatered by installing a curtain drain or the test would have
to be postponed to a drier time of the year.

6. DETERMINING THE MAXIMUM GROUND WATER LEVEL

"Maximum ground water level" as used in the Public Health Code refers to a relatively static
ground water table which exists for one month or more during the wettest season of the year. It
does not refer to a short term "perched" water table, a capillary water zone, or a temporary
subsurface flooding condition which may occur following a heavy rainfall or snow melt. All of
these ground water conditions are significant, however, and must be recorded and taken into
account in designing the leaching system.

There are several reasons why it is not necessary to attempt to determine the absolute maximum
ground water level. Experience has shown that short periods of moderately high ground water are
unlikely to cause a leaching system to fail, as long as the system itself does not fill with water.
Furthermore, high ground water levels of short duration are difficult to detect, since they do not

21
last long enough to leave indications of high ground water, such as soil mottling or wetland
vegetation. Most importantly, a high ground water table which lasts for a month or more is very
likely to be caused by hydraulic limitations of the soil or topography, not by temporary conditions
of rainfall or flooding. Logically, leaching systems should be designed on these hydraulic
limitations rather than on something as unreliable as weather conditions prior to the time of the site
investigation.

The ground water table is the upper boundary of a continuous zone of saturated soil. The water
level in a pit or observation well will rise to the level of the ground water table over a period of
time. The ground water generally rises and falls with the ground surface, but normally is deepest
near the top of the slopes and shallowest near the bottom. Ground water flows from higher
elevation to lower elevation. Therefore, the direction of ground water flow can be determined by
the relative elevation of the ground water table at various locations. This can be important in
determining the location of water supply wells and ground water drains in relation to leaching
systems, particularly on relatively flat lots where the slope of the ground surface may not indicate
the direction of ground water flow. Changes in ground water depths at various locations or over a
period of time can also be used in calculating the soil permeability and the capability of the site to
disperse sewage effluent. Therefore, it is always advisable to record water levels at several
locations.

VARIATIONS IN GROUND WATER LEVELS

The level of the ground water table fluctuates seasonally, with the greatest fluctuation occurring in
the less permeable soils. Silts, clays and hardpan with minimum percolation rates poorer than 1
inch in 60 minutes will show no evidence of a ground water table during the driest months, but will
be completely saturated for a month of more during the wet season. For this reason, such soils are
considered unsuitable for leaching purposes. Year to year variations in rainfall will affect the
duration of the maximum ground water level, but appears to have little effect on the maximum
level, itself. In an extremely dry spring, the ground water may be at its maximum level for only a
week or two, while it may be at its maximum level for three months or more during an extremely
wet year.

In addition to seasonal fluctuations in the ground water table, heavy rainfall or snow melt can
cause short term subsurface flooding conditions which will raise the ground water table above its
normal maximum level. Such short term flooding should not last more than a few days to a week,
and will not adversely affect the functioning of a properly designed leaching system. Of course, the
ability of the leaching system to disperse liquid into the surrounding soil is reduced as the ground
water level in the soil rises. When the dispersal rate is less than the rate at which sewage is
discharged, effluent will accumulate in the leaching system. However, leaching systems designed
in accordance with Code requirements contain a relatively large volume of hollow spaces, either in
the stone or the hollow leaching structure, which normally would be sufficient to store any excess
volume of sewage accumulated during a period of high ground water not exceeding one month in
duration.

Flooding conditions become more serious when the ground water level rises above the level of the
bottom of the leaching system, since not only is the dispersal rate severely restricted, but the
storage capacity of the leaching system also is reduced. Sewer backup will occur when the ground
water level rises to the level of the distribution pipe in the leaching system. For this reason, the

22
Public Health Code requires that all leaching systems must be protected from flooding. Leaching
systems located in low areas are more subject to flooding by both ground and surface water than
those located on slopes. Such systems routinely should be kept higher above the probable
maximum ground water level. Leaching systems on flood plains must be elevated above normal
spring flooding levels. It is neither practical or necessary from the public health standpoint to
elevate such systems above any flood level occurring less frequently than every five or ten years.
Flooded leaching systems do not pollute ground or surface waters, since they are not functional
when flooded. They are an inconvenience to the property owner who cannot flush his toilet during
this time, but there is a question as to how much importance regulatory officials should assign such
a condition when it may occur for only a day or two, every five to ten years.

PERCHED GROUND WATER

Ground water is said to be "perched" when there is an underlying layer of slowly permeable soil
which restricts its downward movement. Water will accumulate on top of this layer and move
laterally in a downhill direction. Perched water tables are seasonal in nature, developing when the
rainfall exceeds the ability of the underlying soil to disperse it. The duration and severity of the
condition is quite variable, depending on the tributary drainage area, the ground slope, and the
relative permeability's of the upper and underlying soil layers. Most hardpan soils in Connecticut
would be expected to develop a perched water table under certain conditions. This may last only a
few hours following a heavy rainfall, or it could last for three months or more during the wet
season. With proper design, most perched ground water conditions can be controlled, and it may
not be necessary to keep leaching systems 18 inches above a perched water level. See the chapters
on "Ground Water Control Drains" and "Leaching Systems in Hardpan Soils". Perched ground
water, as indicated by high level seepage from the side of an observation pit, must not be
disregarded or overlooked during the site investigation. Unless controlled, perched water flowing
down from higher elevations usually will flood leaching systems constructed below the perched
water level, causing them to fail.

Soil dampness occasionally is noted above the static water table. This results from capillary
action, and is most apparent where the soil consists of a fairly uniform fine sand or silt. It is not
necessary to keep the bottom of the leaching system 18 inches above this capillary water zone.
However, leaching systems constructed close to or within the capillary zone will disperse liquid
more slowly than those constructed in dry soil. This can be compensated for if the design of the
leaching system is based on percolation tests made completely within the capillary zone, not in the
dry soil above it.

INDICATORS OF SEASONAL HIGH GROUND WATER

The best way to determine the maximum ground water level is to make the site investigation during
the spring of the year when ground water is high. This is not always practical, and it may be
unreasonable to require that all soils be tested during this time period. Whenever the site
investigation is made, the investigator must look for certain characteristics of soil and topography
which may indicate a seasonal high ground water level, or give an indication of the maximum level
to which ground water may rise during the wet season. On some sites, these indicators might be
conclusive enough to serve as a basis for designing the leaching system, while on other sites they
may be inconclusive, but would serve to indicate the need for reinvestigation or monitoring ground
water levels during the spring.

23
Soil mottling is one of the best indicators of seasonal ground water. Mottling consists of
contrasting patches of color in the soil, and may be either gray, orange or reddish. The variations
in color is caused by a chemical oxidation of certain minerals containing iron. Orange or reddish
mottles indicate oxidized iron and a relatively well aerated zone of soil. Gray mottling indicates
that poor soil aeration has kept the iron minerals in a chemically reduced state. Orange and reddish
mottling frequently is found in the capillary water zone just above the seasonal high ground water
level. Much of the ground water evaporation takes place in this zone, and it is probable that over a
period of years a certain amount of soluble iron is deposited at this point as the ground water
evaporates. A layers of relatively bright orange or reddish mottles separating an upper layer of tan
or brownish soil from an underlying grayish soil is a reliable indicator of the seasonal maximum
ground water level. However, investigators should not rely too heavily on indistinct or non-typical
soil mottling, or on the absence of soil mottling. Such indications are best interpreted by an
experienced soil scientist.

There are several situations where soil mottling or its absence can be misleading. Frequently,
stratified deposits of sand and gravel will show distinct orange or reddish mottling well above the
maximum ground water table. This appears to be caused by capillary retention and evaporation of
rainfall runoff in layers of fine grained soil, causing deposition of iron in these layers. Perched
water tables may also cause some mottling above the normal maximum ground water level. A
careful examination usually will reveal both reddish and grayish mottles where seasonal perching is
significant. Certain deposits of light colored silica or "beach" sand do not contain enough iron
bearing minerals to cause mottles. The absence of mottling in these deposits does not indicate that
there is no seasonal high ground water. Some Connecticut soils, particularly in the Central Valley,
are highly colored throughout, and mottles are extremely difficult to detect. Examination of these
soils for mottling is best left to experts.

Surface slopes and elevations, soil type, underlying ledge rock or hardpan, and general topography
also are indicators of possible high seasonal ground water. Wetland vegetation and shallow tree
roots indicate seasonally wet soil and a need to monitor ground water levels during the wet season.
Publications on wetland plants may be obtained from the State Department of Environmental
Protection.

MONITORING GROUND WATER LEVELS

Where the site investigation indicates a seasonal high ground water, but the probable maximum
level cannot be determined, an observation well should be constructed so that the ground water
level can be measured periodically during the wet season. Such monitoring should reveal the
normal maximum ground water level referred to in the Public Health Code, as well as any short
term subsurface flooding condition which may occur. Care should be taken to record the date as
well as the ground water level at each reading so that the duration of the high ground water level
and its relationship to season and rainfall can be established. This is extremely valuable
information when designing a leaching system in an area where seasonal ground water is severe.
Monitoring wells are also used in questionable areas to establish the effectiveness of ground water
intercepting drains.

DURATION OF MONITORING: Section 19-13-B103d.(e)(2) of the Public Health Code states

that the investigation for maximum ground water levels be made between February 1 and May 31

24
(designated wet season), or such other times when ground water is determined by the
Commissioner of Public Health to be near its maximum level. The interval was set over that long a
time frame because in Connecticut each year the median maximum peak for ground water is
usually reached within that particular period of time. Since no one can predict when ground water
will reach peak conditions within any one year, monitoring should be conducted throughout the
designated wet season interval. If while monitoring maximum peak ground water levels are
observed ( documented by the U.S. Geological Survey for the region of the state being observed )
monitoring may be discontinued prior to the end of the defined wet season. However if monitoring
commences following the start of the designated wet season (February 1) it will be at the applicants
risk. Monitoring during a partial wet season will only be valid if a median peak ground water level
is reached in the region during the actual monitoring period.

MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION: Monitoring wells are easily constructed by placing a

length of 4 inch diameter plastic sewer pipe upright in the deep observation pit before it is
backfilled. Solid pipe should be used rather than perforated pipe to prevent loose soil and silt from
collecting in the pipe. In particularly silty soils, it may also be necessary to place some stone or
filter fabric around the open end of the pipe before it is buried. It is not necessary to place stone or
gravel completely around the pipe, since the back fill is loosely compacted and readily transmits
water. However this technique may lead to erroneous results since the entire pit serves as the
groundwater collector, so that both perched and static groundwater are measured. Surface water
may also collect around the well, giving misleading results. The ground should be mounded up in
this area so that surface water does not puddle around the pipe.

A preferred method of installation would consist of digging a relatively small diameter hole ( 8-12
inches ) down to a depth which would be at least two (2) feet below the proposed leaching system.
Place stone or sharp sand on the bottom 3” of the hole; then place a solid or slotted 4” PVC pipe
upright in the hole. Once placed, the pipe should be surrounded by stone or sharp sand to within
6” of the surface of the ground. Soil should then be packed around the pipe making sure that it is
“mounded” above grade level to prevent surface water from entering the monitoring well. The
extension of the pipe above grade should not be such that it will hinder the actual monitoring
procedure (See Figure 6.1)

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS: In many cases it is not necessary to determine the exact
maximum ground water level in order to make a conclusion as to the suitability of the site for
building purposes. For instance, there are many sites which may have a moderately high seasonal
ground water table, but which are not severely limited by ground water conditions. In such a case,
the builder or engineer may agree to keep the elevation of the proposed building and sewer high so
that it would be possible to construct a shallow leaching system, using some fill if necessary, which
would be sufficiently above any likely maximum ground water level. The sewage disposal system
itself would not be installed until an accurate determination has been made of the maximum ground
water level by subsequent observations during the wet season. In the meantime, it might be
possible to approve preliminary plans for the sewage disposal system and issue the building permit
so that construction can start on the foundation or building. There also may be situations where
there is an underlying hardpan layer which could cause a seasonal perched water table. It may not
be possible to make an assessment of the severity of the perched water condition or the necessity of
a curtain drain to control it until additional investigation can be made during the wet season.
However, if the engineer or builder agrees to design the sewage disposal system with a curtain
drain, it may be possible to issue the necessary approvals and permits so that construction can
start. A final decision on whether or not to install the curtain drain could be delayed until further

25
investigation can be made during the wet season, as long as the building will not be occupied in the
meantime.

Cap

6”
4” Solid or
Slotted PVC
Pipe

Pea Stone Varies - 2’ Below

or Proposed Bottom of
Sharp System or,
Sand 2 ’ B e l o w M ottling or,
2’ Below Anticipated
M ax. Ground Water

3”

Figure 6.1 Ground Water Monitoring Well

7. GROUND WATER CONTROL DRAINS

In certain situations, ground water drains can be used to control a seasonal high ground water
condition. However, in other situations such drains may not be effective, and cannot be relied
upon. Therefore, when ground water is found, it is essential that a careful evaluation is made of
the soil and site conditions in an effort to determine the nature or cause of the ground water, the
type of control drain to use, and it s probable effectiveness, before designing any sewage disposal
system.

GROUND WATER INTERCEPTING DRAINS

Intercepting or "curtain" drains are reliable only for the control of perched water tables which
seasonally develop where there is a layer of relatively permeable soil underlain by a layer of

26
relatively impermeable soil or ledge. During wet periods, the ground water will be retained upon
the relatively impermeable layer, saturating the looser soil above it. This is particularly severe on
hillsides or low areas where there will be an accumulation of ground water flowing down from
higher elevations. Where there is sufficient slope, the perched ground water can be intercepted by
drains on the uphill side of the leaching system. In order to be effective, the drain must be
constructed deep enough to penetrate into the relatively impermeable underlying layer of soil and
completely intercept the ground water moving on top of it. Generally, the bottom of the
intercepting drain should penetrate a minimum 24 inches into this underlying soil layer to assure
that the perched ground water condition will be encountered. The stone or gravel in the drain
should extend at least 18 to 24 inches above the top of the relatively impermeable soil layer to
effectively collect the water moving on top of that layer. Figure 7-1 shows how a typical
intercepting drain functions.

GROUND WATER DRAINS IN PERMEABLE SOILS

Ground water control drains constructed in permeable soils function differently from intercepting
drains, and are far less reliable. In this situation, the ground water table is continuous since ground
water easily can move under the drain. The construction of the drain produces a drawdown in the
level of the ground water table at the drain location, as shown in Figure 7-2. In permeable soil, the
drain must be quite deep in order to draw the ground water table down sufficiently over a wide
enough area to allow the construction of a conventional leaching system. This is even more of a
problem on slopes because the distance of the drawdown area in the downslope direction is
relatively small. For this reason, intercepting drains on slopes are generally ineffective when the
underlying soil is permeable. See Figure 7-3.

Perched Water Table

Ground Water Intercepting Drain

Permeable Soil
O
O

Relatively
Impermeable
Soils

27
 Figure 7-1 - Ground Water Intercepting Drain

O
O
O

Ground Water Table

O
Permeable Soil Thoughout

Figure 7-2 - Ground Water Drain In Permeable Soil

Ground Water Drain

Ground Water Table

Permeable Soil Thoughout O

Figure 7-3 - Ground Water Drain on Permeable Slope

28
Ground water control drains usually are effective where the ground is relatively level and the soil is
highly permeable, because the area of the drawdown is quite large. However, there is a danger of
collecting insufficiently treated sewage effluent, since the ground water movement is from the area
of the leaching system toward the drain, and sewage may not be adequately filtered by the highly
permeable soil. In this situation, leaching systems usually are elevated in fill above the observed
ground water level, but occasionally shallow ground water drains also are installed for the purpose
of controlling subsurface flooding conditions. Figure 7-4 shows an elevated leaching system
protected from flooding by shallow ground water drains.

Common Fill Select Fill Material Common Fill

Shallow Drain o o o
Shallow Drain

Ground Water Level During Flooding

o o

Permeable Soil

Normal Maximum Ground Water Level

Figure 7-4 - Shallow Drains To Control Flooding

LOCATION OF GROUND WATER DRAINS

The Public Health Code requires a minimum separating distance of 25 feet between a subsurface
sewage disposal system and a ground water drain located up-gradient of the system, and a
minimum separating distance of 50 feet when the drain is located down-gradient. The term
"gradient" refers to the hydraulic movement of the ground water table before the drain and leaching
system are installed. In most cases, the ground water gradient may be assumed to be consistent
with the slope of the ground surface, but in questionable cases the ground water gradient should be
determined by observation pits. Evidently, the ground water gradient may change after installation
of the drain and leaching system. Experience has shown that ground water intercepting drains
which are properly designed for controlling perched ground water are unlikely to collect sewage
effluent as long as they are located 25 feet from the leaching system. However, ground water
drains in relatively level areas of permeable soil may act as collection drains for sewage effluent,
and should be carefully evaluated. In such cases, a hydraulic analysis should be made of the
direction and rate of ground water movement after construction of the drain and leaching system,
or the separating distance should be increased to 50 feet. Ground water intercepting drains should
be located no farther than 25 feet away from leaching systems wherever possible, since experience
has shown that such drains often are unreliable in controlling severe seasonal ground water or short
term ground water flooding if located much greater than 25 feet from the leaching system. Any
part of a ground water drain which must pass within 25 feet of a leaching system, or within 50 feet
in a down gradient direction, must be constructed of tight pipe with no stone or gravel backfill.

DRAIN CONSTRUCTION

29
The construction detail of the drain itself may vary depending on soil and ground water conditions.
Collection pipe must be surrounded by carefully specified stone or gravel in order to effectively
collect water without becoming clogged with silt. A fairly uniform « inch stone or screen gravel
has been found effective. Larger stones may become clogged. Stone clogging can be eliminated by
wrapping the stone with filter fabric of an appropriate mesh size. Unspecified bank run sand and
gravel should not be used, since this often will not have the required permeability. Stone or gravel
graded to engineer's specifications for drainage purposes would be satisfactory. Slotted or porous
wall collection pipe with washed sand or gravel backfill have been used successfully where the
flow of intercepting groundwater is not great. In any case, the collection pipe should be raised 6 to
12 inches above the bottom of the trench to prevent silt from settling in the pipe. The collection
pipe should be set with perforations downward, so that any silt settling in the pipe will be washed
out.

In areas where separation distances are critical, an “egg crate” plastic fin and corrugated plastic
pipe enveloped in a non-woven filter fabric (Eljen Drainage System) can be used to produce a
ground water collection system which is relatively narrow in cross-section. However, this type of
system should not be installed without a technical analysis of filter fabric pore sizes relative to the
grain sizes of the soils the drain is being installed into, the iron content of the ground water and
bacteriological slime which may buildup on the fabric’s surface.

Where there is relatively little difference in elevation between the ground water intercepting drain
and the leaching system, it may be advisable to line the downslope face of the intercepting drain
trench with an impervious polyethylene plastic sheet, such as is used for agricultural purposes.
This reduces the possibility of sewage effluent flowing toward the drain and increases the drains
effectiveness. Such impervious barriers also are used when a footing, foundation or other
collection drain is located somewhat less than 25 feet from a leaching system, or less than 50 feet
in a downhill direction.

The depth of stone or gravel in a ground water drain should be sufficient to intercept all of the
layers of soil which carry ground water, and in some cases should extend to near ground surface.
The top of the stone should be covered with a filter fabric to prevent silt or mud from entering. No
impervious soil should be used for backfill purposes.

MONITORING GROUND WATER CONTROL DRAINS

Normally, it can be assumed that a properly designed and constructed intercepting drain will
correct a seasonal perched ground water condition, and it would not be necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of the drain before installing the leaching system. However, there are some situations
where the underlying soil layer is somewhat permeable, and the seasonal ground water is due to
both perched ground water and the rising ground water table itself. There may be other situations
where the seasonal ground water is extremely severe due to topographic location, or where it is
necessary to install a leaching system below the seasonal ground water table. In all of these
situations, a properly designed ground water drain probably will lower the seasonal ground water
level, but it is difficult to know exactly how much. There are methods of calculating how much a
ground water drain will lower the water table, but such methods are frequently unreliable since
they depend on limited testing and certain assumptions. Unlike similar calculations made relative
to leaching systems, there is no margin of safety in most of these methods of analysis. A more
reliable and practical method of evaluating the effectiveness of a ground water drain is to construct

30
a drain at the proper location and depth, and monitor the ground water level in the area of the
leaching system through the wet season (See Chapter 6 on Determining Maximum Ground Water
Levels). Although this may cause some delay in construction schedules, it is a relatively simple
procedure, and gives extremely reliable results. Normally it is not necessary to complete the
ground water drain, since an open ditch will function just as effectively. Monitoring wells are
usually placed in a grid 25 and 50 feet below the drain (at least to a distance which will be at the
lowest extension of the proposed leaching system) and approximately 25 feet above the drain. The
results from monitoring a grid arrangement of wells in the above configuration will determine the
effectiveness of the installed drain. The wells above the drain will monitor preconditions, while the
lower wells will establish how much the water table rebounds as the distance increases from the
drain.

PROTECTING THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FROM GROUND WATER

INFILTRATION

Excessive amounts of ground water can be collected in house sewers, manholes, septic tanks and
sewage pumping chambers which are installed in areas where the maximum ground water table is
high. This collected water can hydraulically overload the leaching system and cause it to fail, even
when the leaching system itself is located in an area where the ground water table is not high. This
potential is frequently overlooked, particularly in the design of large systems where the leaching
system is located some distance from the septic tank and collection system. Pumping chambers
usually are located in low areas or are quite deep in the ground, and frequently are below the water
table. Leakage of ground water into these chambers is likely to occur in this situation because the
liquid level inside the pumping chamber is frequently low. Leakage into septic tanks is less likely
because it will occur only when the ground water level is higher than the tank outlet. Both septic
tanks and pumping chambers are generally precast units which are made up of several sections
assembled in the field. It is important that the joints between the sections are made water tight with
bituminous seal. Knock-out holes where sewers enter must be tightly sealed. Many precast tanks
are constructed with small drain holes located in the bottom so that rain water will not collect in
them while they are stored outside. These holes must be sealed when the tanks are installed. All
such units must be sealed and tested for leakage after installation according to engineers and
manufacturers specifications if they are to be located in high ground water areas. Sewers should
be air tested for leakage when they are constructed in high ground water areas, or if the total sewer
length exceeds 200 or 300 feet. Manholes on sewers, septic tanks and pumping chambers should
be raised to prevent surface water from entering. If they are located under a road or parking lot
and cannot be raised, bolted manhole covers with rubber gaskets should be used.

It should be noted that sealing tanks against ground water infiltration is done differently than
sealing tanks against leakage of sewage from the tank. Generally, the tanks must be sealed from
the outside, rather than the inside, so that this must be done before the tanks are backfilled. It is
not easily accomplished, and sometimes a clay backfill is used to reduce the water pressure on the
tank. As a last resort in repair situations, a curtain drain can be used to lower the water table
around the tank.

31
 8. HOUSE SEWERS

The term “house sewer” refers to sewers located between the building served and the septic tank..
These sewers carry raw sewage and require special design to prevent settling of solids and clogging
of the pipe. These sewers must be particularly tight and strong to assure that there will be no
leakage of sewage which could enter the basement of the dwelling or the foundation drain and
present a health hazard. The section of sewer extending from the foundation wall to the septic tank
may be subjected to greater stresses than a public sewer buried in the street, and for this reason
must be constructed of extra heavy cast iron pipe or a pipe with equal structural strength. This
sewer is rigidly supported at the foundation wall and at the septic tank, but frequently is laid in
poorly compacted backfill between these points. Excavations around the building foundation and
septic tank frequently become a disposal pit for scrap lumber, stone and other construction debris.
Little care and no inspection generally is given to the backfilling of these excavations, so that
subsequent settlement may be great, causing the sewer to bend and separate. Even if the pipe does
not leak, a low point in the line can allow sewage to collect and freeze in the winter, or cause
blocking and sewage backups.

Table 2 in the Technical Standards lists types of sewer pipe which have adequate structural
strength and tightness to be accepted for house sewers within 25 feet of the building served. All of
these pipes are relatively expensive, but since only 15 to 25 feet of pipe would be required, the
savings which would result from using a lighter weight pipe would not be worth the risk involved.
The State Building Code does allow lighter weight pipe to be used in the building, however, some
difficulty can be encountered where it is necessary to make a transition from one type of pipe to
another immediately outside the foundation wall. Special transition fittings with rubber

32
 compression gaskets should be used in these instances. However, in some cases it may be
necessary to use rubber sleeves with steel straps to make the transition joint. If a tight joint (see
Table 2 in the Technical Standards) is not provided, additional sleeving with heavy duty pipe
should be provided whenever such a joint is encountered. In some older homes, the house sewer
may pass through the foundation wall within 25 feet of the well. Special construction is required
when it is necessary to replace such a line. Generally, all pipe joints within 25 feet of the well
should also be sleeved in heavy duty pipe to provide extra protection, or the pipe should be laid in a
vault which is accessible for inspection, so that any leakage can be detected and the sewer repaired
before the well becomes polluted.

House sewers are designed for open channel flow, both to assure adequate velocity for carrying
settleable solids and to allow positive venting of gases. It should be noted that in an properly
installed subsurface sewage disposal system, gases are vented from the leaching system and septic
tank through the house sewer and out the roof vent on the uppermost end of the waste line. All
sanitary fixtures attached to the line must be trapped to prevent gases and odors from escaping
within the building. Such an arrangement increases air circulation in the soil around the leaching
system and promotes BOD reduction. However, occasionally there are odor problems resulting
from a poorly located roof vent, usually connected to a large disposal system which receives a
strong waste. In such a case, the odor problem usually can be eliminated relatively easily by
placing an elbow on the inlet to the septic tank or by capping the top of the inlet “T”, so as to trap
the gases before they go out the roof vent. In these cases a separate vent pipe should be installed at
the tank or from the leaching system. The vent piping then could be directed up a tree or similar
structure which is located away from the building served.

House sewers should be kept as high as possible in order to allow a shallow leaching system to be
constructed, if necessary. The house sewer drains dry in use, so that there is no need to provide a
minimum cover of soil over the pipe to prevent freezing. Sanitary fixtures located in the basement
should be avoided, particularly on relatively level lots. Some towns have gone as far as prohibiting
the construction of split level houses or raised ranch houses in certain subdivisions where the ground
water is high, because these type of houses generally have the sanitary fixtures located on the lower
level. Washing machines have discharges capable of lifting wastes about 5 to 7 feet above the
washer level, so that it is not necessary to keep the sewer low to serve such equipment. However,
the connection to the sewer should have a check valve or manual shut-off on the washer discharge
line where the machine is located below sewer level. Toilet systems are available which will grind
and lift waste discharges, and these should be considered for basement usage.

House sewers carry raw sewage containing solids which will readily settle and may cause blockages
at changes in direction and slope. Changes in direction exceeding 45° particularly should be
avoided since sewer routing equipment may not go around such sharp bends. It is also
recommended that whenever there are more than one change of direction on a house sewer line that
cleanouts extending to grade be provided at every second bend. Occasionally, distribution boxes are
installed on the house sewer for the purposes of dividing sewage between two sewage disposal
systems, or to reduce flow velocity ahead of the septic tank. Invariably, these cause settling of
solids and clogging. Special non-clogging design is required for all structures or manholes on the
sewer ahead of the septic tank. In general, a continuous pipe or channel must be provided with
smooth changes of direction and no corners or projections. The best way to divide raw sewage is
by means of a “T” with a relatively high approach velocity or slope. “Y’s” or “D-boxes” will clog
or partly clog, creating an unequal division of flow. Reduction of flow velocity is best accomplished

33
by flattening the slope of the sewer ahead of the septic tank, rather than by constructing a special
structure or manhole.

9. SEPTIC TANKS AND GREASE TRAPS

A properly functioning septic tank serves three main purposes.

1. It removes most of the settleable solids.

2. It produces an effluent of relatively uniform physical, chemical and biological

quality from a raw sewage with widely fluctuating characteristics.

3. It produces some reduction in pollutant levels in the effluent.

The removal of settleable solids is important in protecting the leaching system from excessive
sludge and slime build-up and possible clogging. A relatively uniform effluent promotes the
development of a stable biological slime in the leaching system which is important in protecting
against groundwater pollution. The septic tank will reduce influent BOD levels by about 25 to 30
percent. Most of this reduction is due to the venting of certain gases, such as methane. Solid
organic particles are removed by settlement, and a certain amount of soluble organic chemicals are
removed by the formation of bacterial cells within the tank. However, no significant BOD
reduction results from this without regular removal of the accumulated sludge. A relatively stable
biological system soon is established in a septic tank in which most of the organic solids are
converted to soluble organic chemicals and gases. This chemical decomposition results in a
relatively slow build-up of sludge in the tank, most of which is biologically stable in the absence of
oxygen. The septic tank will produce about 10 percent reduction in nitrogen and 30 percent
reduction of phosphate in the effluent, mostly by combining these chemicals in the relatively stable
biological sludge. The proper venting of gases is very important in the efficient functioning of a

34
septic tank. An excessive buildup of scum or grease may interfere with this, and it is important
that large volumes of grease not be discharged into the septic tank. There must always be space
between the scum layer and the top of the tank. The inlet baffle should be open at the top to allow
venting. Where a two compartment tank is used, the baffle wall between the first and second
compartments must be open at the top, for the same reason.

The efficiency of the septic tank as a settling unit is reduced when the velocity of the liquid moving
through the tank is increased. This may be caused by a tank which is too small or too shallow due
to an excessive depth of sludge in the bottom. The lack of a proper inlet baffle will tend to allow
liquid entering the tank to short-circuit across the surface of the tank, particularly if the liquid is
warm and consequently less dense than the liquid in the tank. The settling efficiency of a septic
tank can be greatly improved by constructing the tank with two compartments. This results from
both further reduction of velocity currents within the tank and from reduction in gas information in
the second compartment. Gas bubbles formed within decomposing sludge layer will cause solids to
float and possibly go out the outlet. In a two compartment tank, practically all of the sludge
digestion and gas formation takes place in the first compartment.

SEPTIC TANK CONSTRUCTION

All concrete septic tanks utilized in the State of Connecticut shall conform to ASTM C-1227-95
standards by July 1, 2000.

Presently, most septic tanks are constructed of precast concrete sections which are assembled in the
field. Such precast tanks come in sizes up to 30,000 gallons. Larger capacities also may be
obtained by installing two tanks in series. The outlet of the first tank is joined to the inlet of the
second tank. Normally this is done with pipe baffles extending to approximately mid-depth of each
tank. In this way, the tanks may be considered equivalent to one large two compartment tank. The
first tank in series should be twice the capacity of the second tank in order to be consistent with the
requirement that 2/3 of the total volume of a two compartment tank be in the first compartment. It
should be noted that many precast tanks with a capacity of 2,000 gallons or greater are not
fabricated as two compartment tanks. In this case, it will be necessary to specify that a baffle wall
be constructed in the field. This is relatively easy to do with concrete block. The normal precast
concrete tank is not designed to withstand heavy loads on top of it. For this reason, it should be
specified that the tank be reinforced for H-20 wheel loading if located under a driveway or parking
lot.

Metal, fiberglass or polyethylene plastic septic tanks are also acceptable, providing they are
equivalent to a two compartment concrete tank in size, dimensional requirements and strength.
Such tanks are relatively expensive. They normally are used in locations which are inaccessible to
the heavy truck which is necessary to carry the concrete tank. Plastic tanks can be hand-carried to
inaccessible locations. However, such tanks should not be used in areas of high ground water
because they are light weight and tend to float, particularly when the liquid level is low during
cleaning.

Septic tanks are constructed with the inlet three inches higher than the outlet in order to assure that
the liquid level will not rise up into the house sewer. If this occurs, solids could be deposited in the
sewer, causing clogging. Installers must take care that precast tanks are not reversed during
installation, and that all tanks are set as level as possible.

35
SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE

Septic tanks should be inspected at intervals of no more than every two years to determine the rate
of scum and sludge accumulation. If inspection programs are not carried out, a pumpout
frequently of once every three to five years is reasonable. Once the characteristic sludge
accumulation rate is known, inspection frequently can be adjusted accordingly. The tank should be
cleaned whenever the thickness of the scum layer is two inches or more, or the sludge level is
within 12 inches of the bottom of the outlet baffle.

Scum can be measured with a stick to which a weighted flap has been hinged or with any device
that can be used to feel the bottom of the scum mat. The stick is forced through the mat, the
hinged flap falls into a horizontal position, and the stick is raised until the resistance from the
bottom of the scum is felt. A long stick rapped with rough, white toweling and lowered to the
bottom of the tank will show the depth of sludge and the liquid level of the tank. After several
minutes, the sludge layer can be distinguished by sludge particles clinging to the toweling.

Following is a list of considerations pertaining to septic tank operation and maintenance.

1. Climbing into septic tanks can be dangerous, as the tanks are full of toxic gases,
such as, hydrogen sulfide. Do not enter a septic tank without a proper air supply
or safety rope tied around the chest or waist.

2. The manhole, not the inspection opening, should be used for pumping so as to
minimize the risk of harm to the inlet and outlet baffles. Inlet and outlet baffles
should be inspected for damage or clogging whenever the septic tank is cleaned.
It is particularly important that missing or damaged outlet baffles are replaced
promptly, since floating solids can be carried into the leaching system, clogging
it and requiring expensive repairs.

3. It is not necessary to leave solids in the septic tank as an aid in starting digestion.

4. When pumped, the septic tank need not be disinfected, washed or scrubbed.

5. Chemical or biological additives should not be added to a septic tank. They are
unnecessary and probably ineffective. Furthermore, certain chemical additives
such as chlorinated hydrocarbons may be carcinogenic and cause groundwater or
well pollution if added to the septic tank. Ordinary amounts of bleaches, lye,
caustics, soaps, detergents and approved drain cleaners will not harm the
operation of the septic tank.

6. Materials not readily decomposed, such as sanitary napkins, coffee grounds,

cooking fats, bones, wet-strength towels, disposable diapers, facial tissues,
cigarette butts, etc., should not be flushed into a septic tank. They will not
degrade in the tank and can clog the inlet or outlet.

GREASE TRAPS

Grease traps, although similar in appearance to septic tanks, are intended as pretreatment units for
kitchen wastes only, before discharge to conventional septic tanks. In a large restaurant or

36
 cafeteria, the sewer serving the dishwasher, pot sink, floor drains and food preparation sinks and
equipment should be separated from the toilet wastes inside the building and connected to a grease
trap located outside the building. The grease trap is deeply baffled and is sized to allow food
particles to settle and floating grease to rise to the top of the unit. Some studies suggest that grease
traps are capable of removing up to 60% of oil and grease and 50-80% of the BOD and TSS.
Grease traps are not intended for decomposition of the accumulated solids, and should therefore be
cleaned frequently, about every one or two months. To facilitate this, cleanout manholes on grease
traps should be extended to grade. Grease traps will not remove emulsified grease from the kitchen
wastes. Kitchen waste may contain considerable amounts of emulsified grease where dishwashers
are connected to the system discharging large amounts of hot water and detergent. Some removal
of emulsified grease may be produced in the septic tank where the kitchen waste is cooled by
mixing with toilet waste and comes in contact with solid particles and gas bubbles produced by
biological decomposition.

It may not be practical to use outside grease traps in large office buildings or schools where the
cafeteria is connected into the main sewer system. Also, it may not be feasible to install an outside
grease trap on an existing restaurant. In such cases, small, inside grease traps located in the kitchen
may be used. These units should be cleaned once or twice a week. This frequently is not done,
since the traps would have to be cleaned by kitchen workers, who find the job objectionable.

10. DOSING THE LEACHING SYSTEM

Incomplete utilization of the leaching system is an important but often overlooked factor in
subsurface sewage disposal system failure. The most common example is sloping leaching
trenches constructed on a hillside, where all the sewage effluent collects at the lowest point in the
system and breaks out on the ground surface, while the higher portions of the system receive little
or no effluent and are still completely functional. The primary objective in laying out the dosing
arrangement of any leaching system is to assure that all portions of the leaching system are utilized
before failure can occur. An equal or uniform application of sewage effluent throughout the
leaching system is also considered to be desirable, but it is questionable how important the
distribution arrangement is in achieving this. The growth of slime layers on the infiltrative surfaces
appear to be the most important factor in producing a relatively uniform usage of the leaching area.
Perforated distribution pipe in trenches, and hollow chambers in pits and galleries mainly serve to
assure that excessive slime growth will not clog portions of the leaching system and prevent
effluent from reaching other portions.

There are three techniques which can be used to assure that all portions of the leaching area are
utilized before failure can occur. These are:

1. Intermittent dosing or flooding of the leaching system,

2. Keeping the leaching units level and interconnecting them, and
3. Serial distribution with high level overflow connections from higher
leaching units to lower leaching units.

These techniques may be used separately or in combination. The decision as to which type of
dosing arrangement to use depends on the type of leaching unit, the size of the leaching system and
the slope of the ground surface in the area where the system is located.

37
INTERMITTENT DOSING

Intermittent dosing is necessary where there is a system of leaching trenches containing a large
amount of perforated or open-joint distribution pipe. Intermittent dosing causes sewage effluent to
be carried farther along the perforated pipe, preventing excessive loading on the inlet ends of the
leaching system which could cause heavy slime growth and premature soil clogging. It allows an
increase in the length of leaching trench which can be effectively used. There is also some
advantage in using intermittent dosing where it is necessary to divide effluent equally to a number
of separate leaching units, either trenches, pits, or galleries. Intermittent dosing will flood, or at
least raise the liquid level in the distribution box sufficiently to assure that the volume of effluent
discharged through each outlet in the box will be more or less equal. If intermittent dosing is not
used, the liquid level in the distribution box in a small sewage disposal system will rarely rise more
than 1/4 inches above the outlet inverts, and there could be extreme variations in the volume of
effluent discharged through the various outlets if the inverts are not set exactly at the same
elevation (see Table 10-1).

Table 10-1 Discharge Rate and Theoretical Head Developed in Distribution Box for Various
Household Plumbing Fixtures.

Discharge Rate Head Developed in Dist. Box (inches)

Fixture (gpm) 3-Outlet D-box Single Outlet Serial D-box
Wash basin- 0.75 1/8 1/4
water running

Kitchen sink- 1.50 3/16 3/8

dishwasher rinse

Shower 3.50 1/4 1/2

Washing Machine 10.0 1/2 7/8

Bathtub Draining 15.0 5/8 1 1/8

In deciding whether or not to use intermittent dosing, some consideration also must be given to the
difference in elevation which could be prudently provided between the septic tank and the leaching
system. The most inexpensive and reliable method of dosing is by means of a siphon chamber or
the Rissy Floating Outlet Distribution Chamber. However, these devices require a hydraulic head
in order to function, so that a minimum elevation difference of 21 to 24 inches must be provided
between the chamber inlet and outlet, depending on the diameter of the siphon. Where the ground
is relatively flat, this might result in the leaching system being constructed too deep. Problems
which could result from high ground water and underlying ledge or hardpan may outweigh any
advantages produced by intermittent dosing in this situation. Sewage pumps can be used for
intermittent dosing where siphons are not feasible. However, they are relatively expensive to install

38
and operate, and some provision must be made to eliminate inconvenience and possible health
hazards which could result from pump or power failure. For these reasons, intermittent dosing of
smaller leaching systems normally is considered only where siphons can be used.

Another perceived advantage of intermittent dosing is the "rest period" which a leaching system
receives between doses. There may be some marginal benefit where the period between doses is
long enough for the leaching system to drain completely and allow air to reach the slime layers. But
in most cases, this is of questionable value, since variation in water usage throughout the day and
night provides a substantial rest period for a properly designed leaching system to drain
completely. Past design practice occasionally had called for separate leaching systems dosed by
alternating siphons, in order to provide a longer rest period between doses. This is no longer an
acceptable design practice since it reduced the assurance that all portions of the leaching system
would be utilized before failure occurred. When one siphon became inoperative due to clogging or
leakage, all of the effluent was directed to the leaching system served by the functional siphon,
resulting in overload and premature failure. The design of siphons and sewage pumping systems is
more fully discussed in Section II of this manual.

LEVEL LEACHING SYSTEMS

The type of leaching system which provides the greatest assurance that all portions of the system
will be utilized before failure occurs is a system in which all of the leaching units are of the same
type, are constructed at the same elevation, and are interconnected as fully as possible. The
leaching units in such systems may consist of trenches, pits or galleries. All level leaching systems
have two features in common. (1) Each leaching unit has appropriately the same effective leaching
area and is dosed with approximately the same volume of effluent from a central distribution box.
(2) The leaching units also are connected to one another by a separate pipe or trench with acts as a
relief line, allowing effluent from overloaded leaching units to flow to underloaded ones before
failure occurs.

In trench and gallery systems, the relief line is normally located at the end of the trench or gallery
farthest from the inlet. Trench systems are usually connected by an equalizing trench consisting of
perforated pipe laid in a stone filled trench, rather than a solid pipe relief line (Figure 10-1). The
equalizing trench is counted as part of the required leaching area. An equalizing trench is much
more effective in preventing overloading than a solid pipe, since effluent can flow through the stone
to other trenches before severe overloading occurs.

39
 40’ 9’ 9’

18” High X 36” Wide Trenches

EFFECTIVE LEACHING AREA

40 FT X 3 X 3 = 360 SF
6 FT X 3 X 2 = 36 SF
396 SF

Figure 10-1 Level Leaching Trenches

Leaching pits are normally interconnected to one or more other pits on the same elevation by solid
pipe connections at mid-depth (Figure 10-2). Connections near the pit bottom are difficult to
construct and may become clogged with sludge or dirt. High level connections are not desirable for
pits on the same elevation because a pit must be full and near the point of failure before relief
occurs. In level leaching systems, it is also desirable that the central distribution box be located
near the leaching units and sufficiently deep so that it is below the elevation of the ground surface
over the leaching unit. This would allow the distribution box itself to act as a relief line, since
effluent would backup into the box and be redistributed between the functioning leaching units
before breaking out on the ground surface.

40
 Figure 10 -2 - Pits at Same Elevation - Connection at Mid-Depth
Effective Area = Pit Depth Utilized X Pit Diameter X π

Level leaching systems should be used where the ground surface in the area of the leaching system
is generally flat. They may also be used on sloping areas where there is a sufficiently deep strata
of good soil to allow the bottom of the deepest leaching unit to be kept the required elevation above
underlying ledge, hardpan and groundwater. As a rule of thumb, level leaching systems should be
considered wherever the slope of the ground surface across the area of the leaching system is less
than two feet. If leaching trenches were used in such a situation, the deepest trench on the upslope
side could be three to four feet below grade, which would not be excessive. The shallowest trench
on the downslope side would then be one to three feet deep, and could be constructed partially in
fill, if necessary.

SERIAL LEACHING SYSTEMS

In a serial leaching system, the individual leaching units are set on different elevations, and each
unit is connected by a high level overflow pipe to the next lower unit. Effluent is directed to the
highest leaching unit. When this unit becomes filled and is functioning at its maximum capacity,
any additional effluent will overflow to the next lower unit, and subsequently to others in series.
No failure will occur until all leaching units are fully utilized (Figure 10-3). This is the only
practical design for small leaching systems constructed on sloping ground where it is necessary to
have the leaching units on different elevations. Experience has shown that many leaching systems
installed on slopes fail because sewage effluent is not equally divided between the various leaching
units. Some units receive an excessive amount which causes overload and failure. This is usually

41
due to a carelessly installed distribution box, in which the outlets are not level. Serial systems are
not likely to fail even if installed in somewhat careless fashion since effluent will overflow to lower
leaching units before breaking out on the ground surface.

Inlet

High Level Overflow Distribution Box

High Level Overflow

Inlet
Sloping Ground Surface
O

O
Two Feet or More

Figure 10-3 - Serial Leaching Trenches

In serial leaching trenches, the upper trenches are flooded above the flow line of their distribution
pipes. This is commonly done by means of a distribution box which has been configured so that
the outlet opening of the overflow pipe is set one to two inches above the trench piping. Another
method is the use a normal distribution box where all the outlets are set at the same elevation, but
the overflow outlet is raised by means of a weir which is constructed and set in the field at the
desired overflow level. Often, an elbow or perforated plastic cap is used for the overflow weir
because the overflow level can be easily adjusted by rotating it on the outlet pipe. Figure 10-4
shows typical overflows for serial distribution trenches. The higher the overflow level is set above
the trench distribution pipe, the more fully the trench is utilized before overflow occurs. However,
care must be taken that the trench is not filled so high that break-out occurs at a low point on the
ground surface over the trench. Normally, serial distribution trenches are constructed with at least
twelve inches of cover to guard against this possibility. The overflow can be located at any point
in the trench, since the trench is constructed level. It is usually at one end or the other so that it can

42
 be more easily located. There is no particular limit on the length of serial trenches, since there is
no attempt to equalize trench loading. Excessively long trenches become more difficult to
construct level, and overflows should be provided at least every seventy-five feet in order to
prevent possible effluent break-out at low points along the trench. Intermittent dosing normally is
not used with serial trenches because the upper trenches are usually filled with effluent, and a
sudden surge of additional effluent could cause break-out. The excavation between trenches
containing the overflow pipes must be backfilled with compacted soil, not stone, so that effluent
does not pass through the stone to the lower trenches before the upper ones are full.

Free Fall Overflow to

Inlet Inlet
Next Trench

O
Overflow to
Next trench O
To Trenches 45° or 30°
PVC Bend
Rotate to desired
Overflow Via Elevation
Overflow Distribution PVC Bend
Box

Inlet OR

O
Flow Regulating Inserts

Overflow Via
Flow Regulators

HIGH LEVEL OVERFLOW DISTRIBUTION BOXES

Figure 10-4

Leaching pits and galleries also may be arranged for serial distribution, as shown in Figure 10-5.
In such systems, the overflow is through an outlet pipe placed near the top of the hollow structure.
Overflow of effluent from the upper pits or galleries occurs less frequently than in trenches because
of the relatively large storage volume in these units. For this reason, no more than two such units
normally are arranged in series.

43
 Center To Center Spacing Equal To
4 Times Diameter of Hollow Structures

Filter Fabric

1” Stone

Pit
Depth Pit
Depth

Hollow Structure
10’ Diameter Max.
12” Min., 24” Max. Pit Diameter

Figure 10-5 Pits at Different Elevations - High Level Overflow

No More Than Two Pits in Series

COMBINATIONS OF LEVEL AND SERIAL LEACHING SYSTEMS

The difference in the loading rate on the various leaching units in a serial leaching system is quite
large, the higher units receiving much more effluent than the lower ones in series. This has caused
some concern about the functional life expectancy of such systems. For this reason, most serial
leaching systems are arranged in such a manner as to avoid placing more than three or four
leaching units in series. As long as this design practice is followed, there appears to be no
detectable reduction in the functional life expectancy of a serial leaching system. Of course, there
are many leaching systems which require more than three leaching units in order to provide the
necessary leaching area. In such a case, it will still be possible to avoid having more than three
units in series if several leaching units can be constructed on the same elevation and can be
interconnected as a single level leaching system. One way of doing this is to spread out a number
of leaching units on the same elevation along the slope. Figure 10-6 shows how this may be done
using trenches or pits. Other arrangements can be used where it is not possible to spread along the
hillside due to space limitations.

44
 75’ Trench 75’ Trench

High Level Overflow

75’ Trench 75’ Trench

High Level Overflow High Level Overflow

Mid-Depth Mid-Depth

Mid-Depth Mid-Depth

Figure 10-6 - Combination Level and Serial Distribution

If the slope is moderate, and there is no shallow underlying ledge, hardpan or ground water, it may
be possible to keep one or more rows of leaching units on the same elevation, even though they
may be located in a downhill direction from one another. Figure 10-7 shows such an arrangement
of trenches. Note that trenches on the same elevation are connected with equalizing trenches. Such
an arrangement has only one high level overflow, and constitutes an arrangement of two level
leaching systems in series. Where the slope is relatively steep, or where it is underlying shallow
ledge, hardpan or ground water which prevents a leaching system from being constructed too
deeply below grade, an opposite arrangement may be used. That is, two separate serial distribution

45
systems may be constructed down hill from one another, each feed from a dosing distribution box
which splits the effluent volume approximately equally among the two systems. In such an
arrangement, the dosing distribution box is able to perform that function by storing sewage in a
tray which flips over when approximately 1.5 gallons of sewage is collected.. Once empty, the
tray’s counterweight returns it to the horizontal position for the next cycle. The box should be set
on a firm base but it is not critical that each outlet pipe be set at the exact elevation of the other
since the rush of the sewage leaving the storage tray will negate any small difference in outlet
elevations. See Section II for a discussion on D-box design and construction.

A
Distribution Box - Both Outlets Level

Distribution Box - High Level Overflow

Distribution Box - Both Outlets Level

Moderate Slope

O O

O O

Figure 10-7 - Two Level Trench Systems in Series

46
 11. HOW LEACHING SYSTEMS FUNCTION

A properly functioning leaching system should disperse sewage effluent into the surrounding
naturally occurring soil without breaking out on the ground surface or backing up during periods of
heavy use or under adverse weather conditions. Such a system also should not cause an
unacceptable level of ground water pollution. In order to accomplish these objectives, a leaching
system must be designed with three separate functions in mind.

1. The system must provide sufficient infiltrative surface to prevent excessive

clogging by the biological slime which forms on the soil interface.

2. The system must be surrounded by an area of soil with sufficient hydraulic

capacity to disperse the liquid volume without becoming saturated.

3. The system must contain sufficient hollow spaces within the stone or leaching
structure to allow sewage to be stored during periods of heavy use, or when
rainfall or subsurface flooding reduces the ability of the system to disperse
liquid.

Enlarging a leaching system will enhance all of these functions, assuming it is not constructed in
saturated or impermeable soil. However, it is more proper to consider the effect of the soil, site
conditions and system design on each of these functions separately when designing the leaching
system.

PREVENTING CLOGGING OF THE SOIL INFILTRATIVE SURFACE

A layer of biological slime is formed on the interface between the soil and the leaching surface of
the particular type of leaching unit being utilized (such as the stone in a leaching trench or gallery;
filter fabric used in products like the Contactor, etc.; or the soil itself utilized in stoneless plastic
leaching trenches). This soil infiltrative surface results from bacterial and biological particles
being collected on the soil surface, and from the growth of certain organisms within the slime layer
itself. The thickness of the slime layer mainly is related to the sewage application rate, being
thicker for more heavily loaded systems. The growth of the slime layer reduces the rate at which
sewage passes into the soil. In so doing, it causes sewage effluent to be distributed over more
infiltrative surface, thereby equalizing the distribution of sewage effluent throughout the leaching
system. This, together with the reduction of BOD which occurs when the sewage effluent is
filtered through the slime layer, is extremely important in preventing ground water pollution.
Eventually, most of the active infiltrative surface will be covered by a slime layer of more or less
uniform thickness, and the rate of which the sewage effluent passes through the layer will stabilize.
This stabilized infiltration rate is sometimes called the “long term acceptance rate” of the soil.

The minimum leaching area requirements of the Public Health Code are related to the expected
long term acceptance rate of the infiltrative surface within the leaching system, as indicated by
percolation testing. The relationship between the percolation test results and the expected long
term acceptance rate has been established empirically through observation and experience by many
agencies over a long period of years. The effective leaching credits assigned to each type of
leaching product in the Technical Standards of the Code have taken this relationship into account
(a more detailed discussion of effective leaching credits is presented in Chapter 12). Therefore, in

47
theory, no matter what type of leaching product is utilized, in order to provide the minimum square
footage of effective leaching area required for any system, the daily discharge volume should be the
same. The only exception to the above statement pertains to leaching pits, where only the side area
is counted as effective, not the bottom. This discrepancy is due more to the variability of pit
construction and an attempt to ease the mathematical calculation process then to any scientific
reason. In fact, both the bottom and sides of leaching pits constitute active infiltrative surfaces the
same as all other leaching products. The decision as to what type of product to use should be
based on the soil conditions present in and around the proposed leaching area (deep pits should not
be used in areas of high ground water, etc.) and economic factors. In general, the adequacy of the
Code requirements for leaching area are well proven. Engineers, Sanitarians and Installers can be
assured that leaching systems for household and small commercial subsurface sewage disposal
systems based on the Public Health Code requirements will not fail due to excessive clogging of the
leaching systems.

Periodically, the slime layer on the infiltrative surface will become unstable and a “breakthrough”
of sewage effluent will occur. Such breakthroughs are more frequent in the more permeable soils
where the biological particles are more easily detached and washed into the larger voids in the soil.
Fluctuating liquid levels and loading rates accelerate slime deterioration and breakthrough. In fact,
many leaching systems in highly permeable sand and gravel have functioned satisfactory for many
years at loading rates well in excess of the theoretical long term acceptance rate. This is probably
because instability of the slime layer allows frequent breakthroughs of sewage effluent. Engineers
sometimes take advantage of this by using deep leaching systems in permeable fill where the area
available for leaching purposes is severely limited.

DISPERSING LIQUID INTO THE SURROUNDING SOIL

After sewage effluent passes through the slime-covered soil infiltrative surface, it must be
dispersed into the surrounding soil. In a properly functioning leaching system, this is accomplished
in two ways: (a) by hydraulic flow through the voids in the soil, and (b) by capillary dispersal
and evaporation. Hydraulic flow is the predominant mechanism of dispersal in the coarser grained
soils, while capillary dispersal is important for the finer grained soils. Most leaching systems are
constructed in moderately permeable, well graded soils where hydraulic flow and capillary
dispersal occur simultaneously. An understanding of the mechanisms of dispersal can help
engineers, sanitarians and installers in designing and constructing leaching systems for maximum
dispersal into the surrounding soil.

In a properly functioning sewage disposal system, liquid flowing from the leaching system to the
ground water table will not saturate the soil under the system because the liquid will pass through
the slime-covered soil infiltrative surface at a slower rate than it will pass through the soil behind
it. However, it will cause a slight elevation of the ground water table under the system as the liquid
is added to the ground water in this area, or will cause a “mounding” of liquid on underlying
impermeable layers of ledge or hardpan. (See Figure 11-1) In the worst case, the mound of
saturated soil could rise to the level of the leaching system, causing it to fail. Therefore, a
conservative estimate of a hydraulic capacity of this soil surrounding a leaching system can be
obtained by assuming a certain saturated flow pattern from the leaching system, and calculating the
rate at which liquid would flow through the saturated soil. This sometimes is called the “hydraulic
conductivity” of the surrounding soil. It depends on the soil permeability, the cross-sectional area
of saturated flow, and the slope of the hydraulic gradient. Increasing any one of these factors will
increase the hydraulic conductivity. On the other hand, if any one of these factors is severely

48
limited, the hydraulic conductivity is also severely limited. Therefore, leaching systems can fail
because of hydraulic limitations of the surrounding soil, such as flat slope or shallow underlying
hardpan or ledge. This type of failure has nothing to do with clogging of the leaching area, and
enlargement of the leaching system may not prevent such failure. This subject will be discussed in
more detail in Chapter 13 - Hydraulic Capacity of Underlying Soils and Minimum Leaching
System Spread.

Ground Surface

Liquid
Bio-Mat
Level
Infiltrative
Surface

Zone of
Unsaturated Mound of
Seepage Saturated
Soil

Saturated Permeable Soil

Ground Surface
Liquid Level

Bio-Mat
Zone of Infiltrative
Unsaturated Surface
Seepage

Mound of
Saturated Soil

Impermeable Soil
(hardpan)
Flow

Figure 11-1 - Effluent Mounding

Where site conditions are particularly severe, the Public Health Code states that a study may be
required of the capacity of the surrounding natural soil to absorb or disperse the expected volume
of sewage effluent without overflow or breakout. The method of making such hydraulic analyses
are discussed in Part II. The key to proper analysis depends on a correct determination of the type
of flow pattern by which the sewage effluent is dispersed into the surrounding soil. This depends
on whether or not there are impermeable “boundaries” which restrict downward flow. Where there
is an underlying boundary layer of hardpan or ledge, the cross-sectional area of saturated flow can
be increased by spreading the leaching system as much as possible along the hillside, perpendicular
to the slope of the hydraulic grade. Figure 11-2 shows how this can be done. The slope of the

49
hydraulic grade can be increased by elevating the leaching system as shown in Figure 11-3.
Engineers, sanitarians and installers should take this into account when repairing systems which
are located in areas where there may be hydraulic limitations.

75’ Long
Trenches

3’ o
o

2’
75’ Area of Sat.
Flow
Flow
Cross-Sectional Area
of Saturated Flow Impermeable Hardpan
= 75’ X 2’ = 150 SF

75’ Long Trenches

4’

1’ 150’

Flow
Cross-Sectional Area of Saturated Flow=
150’ X 1’ = 150 SF

Figure 11-2 Spreading Trenches to Reduce Effluent Mounding

50
 Ground Surface

Slope of Hydraulic O
Gradient = 3/25

3’

25’ Impervious Hardpan

or Ledge

Finished Grade

O Fill

Original Grade

Slope of Hydraulic
Gradient = 6/25 6’

25’ Impervious Hardpan

or Ledge

Figure 11-3- Elevating Trenches to Increase Hydraulic Gradient

Water readily adheres to the surface of most naturally occurring minerals. In moderately
permeable soils, capillary attraction tends to hold water in the smaller void spaces, preventing them
from draining. This creates a zone of moist, unsaturated soil around a leaching system in which air
circulating through the larger voids will evaporate water from the smaller voids and disperse it to
the atmosphere as water vapor. See Figure 11-4. This process is continuous as long as the soil is
unsaturated, and results in a significant dispersal of liquid from leaching systems constructed in
moderately permeable soils. The amount of liquid dispersed depends primarily on the size and
uniformity of the soil particles, their mineral composition, and the atmospheric evaporation rate.
Most leaching systems constructed in fine grained soils function primarily by capillary dispersal
and evaporation during the drier months. Capillary dispersal will slow or stop when rainfall,
frost or snow cover prevents atmospheric evaporation. However, such periods rarely exceed a few
weeks or a month in Connecticut, even during the winter and spring seasons. Capillary dispersal
and evaporation becomes less important as soils become saturated because the capillary area under
and around the leaching system is reduced and air circulation is impeded. While some evaporation
occurs when capillary dispersal moves liquid upward toward the more permeable shallow soil

51
layers, this is relatively minor compared to the hydraulic flow under saturated conditions. For this
reason, it is inadvisable to depend on capillary dispersal and evaporation in slowly permeable soils
which tend to become seasonally saturated. Capillary dispersal and evaporation is maximized in
leaching systems consisting of shallow, narrow leaching trenches. Leaching systems constructed in
a relatively uniform very fine sand or silt loam have the greatest capillary dispersal and
evaporation. Engineers sometimes specify this material for covering leaching systems in marginal
locations.

Ground Surface

O
Air
Moisture

Ground Water
Table
Moderately Permeable Soil

Ground Surface

Air More Permeable

Air O Soil
Capillary
Moisture
Area of Saturated Flow

Slowly Permeable Soil

Figure 11-4 - Capillary Dispersal and Evaporation

STORING LIQUID WITHIN THE LEACHING SYSTEM

There are times when rainfall or poor soil evaporation will reduce capillary dispersal into the
surrounding soil. Seasonally high ground water levels reduce the hydraulic gradient and the
hydraulic conductivity of the surrounding soil. Excess sewage effluent will accumulate in the
leaching system when the rate of dispersal is reduced below the rate at which sewage is discharged
to the system. Accumulation can also result from unusually high sewage discharge from the
building served. All leaching systems must have sufficient void space within the stone or leaching
structure to store excess sewage effluent during this time, until it can be satisfactorily dispersed
into the surrounding soil. Leaching systems designed in accordance with the Public Health Code

52
requirements should have sufficient storage within the system to provide for all normally occurring
variations in soil dispersal rate or sewage flow. Hollow structured plastic leaching products,
leaching galleries or pits provide considerable storage under the above adverse conditions, but are
normally only suitable for relatively permeable soils.

12. HOW PRODUCTS ARE ASSIGNED AN EFFECTIVE LEACHING FACTOR

53
 For many years the only types of leaching systems installed in Connecticut consisted of trenches,
galleries, pits and beds (beds are now prohibited by Code). Over the past few years many new
products have been introduced utilizing different materials and configurations in order to apply
sewage into the soil. In order to provide a fair and consistent means of assigning effective leaching
credits to these various products an empirical formula was developed by the State Department of
Public Health (in conjunction with their Code Advisory Committee).

DEVELOPING THE FORMULA

In developing the formula, basic assumptions were made based on the performance characteristics
of the most widely used leaching system in Connecticut at the time, the three (3) foot wide leaching
trench. Over the years this type of system has been installed using “sizing tables” which have been
modified (upward) as experience and data accumulated. To a point were today a leaching trench
system, installed per Code requirements, will perform satisfactorily for a substantial period of time.
Due to the vast amount of historical information available, it was decided that the three (3) foot
leaching trench would be the standard by which all other leaching products would be judged.

As stated in the previous chapter, a leaching system must provide sufficient infiltrative surface to
prevent excessive clogging by the biological slime which forms on the soil interface. Studies have
been performed which actually determined the long-term acceptance rates (LTAR) of sewage
passing through this biological mat. Typically, they range from 0.3 to 0.8 gallons per square foot
per day. The rate is at the low end of the scale when the permeability of the soil is slow and at the
high end when the permeability of the soil is fast.

An analysis of the present sizing tables in the Technical Standards will illustrate that the typical
stone/soil leaching trench corresponds to the following LTAR values:

STONE/SOIL INTERFACE LTAR RATE

Percolation Rate 0-10.0 Min./Inch = 0.55 GAL/SF/DAY

10.1-20 = 0.40
20.1-30 = 0.36
30.1-45 = 0.30
45.1-60 = 0.27

The basis of the above Table is predicated on the leaching system being fully utilized at the design
rate for the system ( 150 gallons/bedroom/day ) and sized per the representative percolation rate of
the soils in which it will be installed. It therefore can be concluded that if the water usage from the
building does not exceed its daily design rate and the LTAR is not slower than the above levels
(caused by slower than anticipated percolation rates or a stronger quality septage inadvertently
leaves the septic tank), the leaching system should be able to release the daily discharge indefinitely.

Also working in the system’s favor is the fact that water usage on average should be lower than
these “peak” design rates and that the LTARs being utilized are somewhat slower than typically

54
found in the above cited studies (if the actual LTARs are faster then the system would be able to
discharge a greater volume than the design rate).

All of the above analysis is based on standard stone/soil interfaces. However the “new technology”
products are made of different materials and are configured in numerous ways in order to
“maximize” infiltrative surfaces. In discussing these variables with the Code Advisory Committee,
it was decided that each type of infiltrative surface would be assigned its own Interface Factor ( IF
). These factors would be based on our judgment on how the LTAR would be affected by the
different means of sewage application. The highest rating was assigned to “direct soil” application
(open bottom area beneath galleries and plastic leaching products); a reduced rating was given to
“filter fabric/direct soil” application: followed by the standard “stone/soil” application; ending with
the lowest rating given to systems which are backfilled with “native material” or when “stone is
wrapped with filter fabric”.

In developing a formula to determine an Effective Leaching Unit (ELU) credit for each indivual
product approved for leaching system use, the three (3) foot wide leaching trench, at 3.0 SF/LF,
was used as the standard, knowing full well that the actual “wetted area” of sewage application
was five (5) SF/LF (three SF/LF of bottom and one SF/LF for each side of the trench). To assign
ELUs to any other type of product the total wetted area provided by the product for each type of
interface would have to be determined. This is due to the fact that some leaching products consist
of more than one type of interface ( example: galleries consist of both “direct soil” and “stone/soil”
interfaces ). Once each interface’s wetted area ( per linear foot ) is determined it is a straight
mathematical procedure to apply the interface factor to each and then multiply the total by a
constant to determine the product’s ELU.

ADVANTAGES AND CONCERNS

The advantages of utilizing the ELU method for crediting new products are as follows:

1. The speed in which a new product can be assigned an ELU factor.

2. The consistency in which each product is reviewed and credited. This

eliminates all appearance of unfairness relative to crediting different leaching
products.

3. The product manufacturers, knowing the basis of the formula, can design
products which maximize their products infiltrative surfaces and hence
increase their product’s ELU factor.

4. If in the future it is determined that a “Interface Factor ” is not

representative of its actual LTAR, the factor can be adjusted and the ELUs
of all of the products utilizing that type of infiltrative surface can be
recalculated.

It is important to keep in mind that the ELU of any particular product was and is based on the
configuration of the product at the time of review by the Department of Public Health. Any
physical change to the product must be reviewed by the Department and reassigned a new ELU.
At that time a new name or model number would have to be designated by the manufacturer to

55
distinguish the new product from the old. Any misuse of product ELUs could lead to premature
failure of the leaching system.

13. LEACHING SYSTEMS IN SOILS WITH SLOW SEEPAGE

Leaching systems in soils with a minimum percolation rate slower than 1 inch in 30 minutes
require special design in order to avoid possible problems. Both the investigation and the detailed
plan of the system must be made by a qualified professional engineer. Experience has shown that

56
with proper design and construction, subsurface sewage disposal is possible in soils with minimum
percolation rates of 1 inch in 30 to 60 minutes, assuming that there is no ground or surface water
draining into the area from a higher elevation. Such drainage must be excluded from the area of
the leaching system by ground water intercepting drains and surface swales. Soils with minimum
percolation rates slower than 1 inch in 60 minutes are considered impervious and unsuitable for
leaching purposes because they are likely to become saturated for a month or longer during the
wettest season of the year.

NARROW LEACHING TRENCH SYSTEMS

Shallow leaching trenches, 18 to 24 inches wide, are the preferred type of leaching system in soils
with slow seepage. Such systems take maximum advantage of lateral seepage into the more
permeable layers in the upper few feet of soil, and promote capillary dispersal and evaporation.
Four (4) foot wide trenches should not be used since the majority of their effective leaching is
through the bottom. When systems are located in slow soils, it is important that the loamy subsoil
not be stripped from the area of the leaching system because this usually is more permeable than
the underlying soil. Care should be taken to only remove the vegetative growth on the top surface
and not compact the loamy subsoil with heavy equipment during construction in order to maintain
the larger soil voids through which air may circulate and evaporate moisture. Rainfall will tend to
saturate soils with slow seepage. Therefore, it is important that the ground surface over the
leaching system is sloped to drain rapidly.

ALTERNATELY USED LEACHING SYSTEMS

In some cases on existing lots it is necessary to repair leaching systems in soils which will become
saturated by a continuous application of sewage effluent during the wet season. Where space is
available, this may be done successfully by constructing two separate leaching systems, each large
enough to dispose of the entire sewage flow under favorable seasonal conditions. During the wet
season, the leaching systems are alternated in use, with one system “resting” while the other
receives the entire effluent flow. The systems are watched closely and switched over manually by
means of a gate or valve in a diversion box when the system in use appears to be almost saturated.
Alternation intervals are usually 1 to 3 weeks during the wetter season and 3 to 4 months during
the drier season. The relatively frequent alternation during the wetter season makes maximum use
of the storage capacity in both the leaching system and in the surrounding soil. The relatively
longer rest periods during the drier season allow the slime layer in the leaching system to dry and
shrink, partially restoring the infiltrative capacity which had been reduced by clogging while the
system was saturated. Figure 13-1 shows a typical alternately used leaching system.

57
 Septic Tank

Diversion Box

Fully Sized Leaching System Fully Sized Leaching System

Inlet

Outlet Outlet

Board or Baffle
Hand Alternated

DIVERSION BOX DETAIL

Figure 13-1 - Alternating Leaching System

SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Subsurface irrigation systems are systems of distribution pipe buried just below ground surface for
the disposal of partially stabilized sewage effluent. Such systems are not included in the Technical
Standards of the Public Health Code, and require special approval of state and local health
departments. Trench construction details vary, but they are normally very shallow and narrow,
frequently only 12 inches wide and 12 to 18 inches deep. A relatively long length of distribution
pipe is necessary to produce maximum liquid dispersal and to provide the storage volume which is
lacking in the trench. Application rates are normally less than 1.0 gallons per lineal foot per day.
Slotted or filter fabric wrapped plastic pipe laid in a washed sand or gravel backfill may be used,
or perforated plastic pipe laid in pea stone. In any case, the sewage effluent must be partially
stabilized before being applied to the leaching system in order to reduce clogging around the
distribution pipe. Normally a subsurface sand filter is used for this purpose. Subsurface irrigation
systems generally are constructed in high, well-drained areas which are not subject to seasonally
high ground water, or are surrounded by shallow swales or ditches which prevent ground and
surface water from saturating the upper soil layer. Figure 13-2 shows a typical subsurface
irrigation system.

58
 Pump or Siphon

Subsurface Sand
Filter
A

Shallow Ditch

Original Grade
Finished Grade
Pitched to Drain

Shallow Ditch o o o o o o

Slotted, Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe

Laid in Washed Gravel Backfill

Section A-A

Figure 13-2 - Subsurface Irrigation System

SUPPLEMENTING OR REPLACING IMPERVIOUS SOIL

Occasionally it is necessary to repair or enlarge a leaching system in a location where the available
area is limited and the existing soil has a minimum percolation rate slower than 1 inch in 60
minutes. In such a case, it is not advisable to attempt to construct a leaching system directly in the
existing impervious soil. Instead, the leaching system should be constructed in an area of fill
placed on top of or within the existing soil in such a manner as to allow liquid to pass through the
fill into the surrounding soil with a minimum of seepage to ground surface. The most important
considerations in the design of such systems is to provide the greatest possible interface area
between the fill and the surrounding impervious soil, and to distribute the sewage effluent

59
throughout the fill in such a manner as to prevent it from collecting at one point and breaking out
to the surface. The amount of interface area between the stone in the leaching system and the fill is
less critical because failure is unlikely to occur due to clogging at that point. Where grades permit,
the leaching system should be constructed in a low mound of fill over a generally level area of
existing soil. The base of the mound should be as large as possible to provide for extremely slow
seepage of sewage effluent into the underlying soil, and to allow development of a mound of
saturation within the fill. Generally a minimum lateral separating distance of 25 feet is provided
between the leaching system and the toe of the fill to reduce the possibility of breakout. In critical
cases, the basal area of the mound may be designed on the results of hydraulic analysis of the
underlying soil. See the section on “Leaching Systems In Fill” for further discussion.

EFFLUENT DISTRIBUTION IN SOILS WITH SLOW SEEPAGE

Leaching systems in soils with slow seepage have a tendency to become seasonally saturated, so
that special care must be taken in design and construction to assure that no part of the leaching
system is overloaded to the extent that effluent comes to ground surface during the wet season. In
level areas, all leaching units should be level and interconnected as much as possible. Serial
distribution or a combination of serial and level leaching systems should be used on slopes.
Leaching systems of narrow trenches require proportionately greater trench length, and intermittent
dosing may be necessary even for household and small commercial systems under 2000 gallons per
day in size. The discharge volume usually is limited by the available storage within the leaching
system during adverse seasonal conditions, and frequently it must be adjusted after installation.
Pumps are often used for dosing because the discharge volume can be easily adjusted by changing
the pump control level switches. Pressure dosing through small diameter pipe is sometimes used
because effective distribution can be produced with a relatively small discharge volume.

14. LEACHING SYSTEMS IN HIGHLY PERMEABLE SOILS

60
Soils with a minimum percolation rate faster than 1 inch a minute are considered to be highly
permeable. Leaching systems in such soils require special design consideration in order to assure
that they will not pollute wells, and ground and surface waters. In general, a determination should
be made of the direction and rate of ground water movement, and a review should be made of the
adequacy of the lateral separating distances between the leaching system and down-gradient wells
or watercourses. If necessary, separating distances should be increased, or the design of the
leaching system modified to reduce possible pollution. It is not advisable to attempt to alter the
permeability of the soil by excavating and replacing it with less permeable fill or by mixing silt or
loam with the existing soil. Attempts to do this in the past have been consistently unsuccessful due
to poor construction techniques and lack of proper control.

PREVENTING WELL POLLUTION

The Public Health Code requires that the minimum separating distance between a subsurface
sewage disposal system and a water supply well be doubled where the soil percolation rate is faster
than 1 inch per minute and ledge is located less than eight (8) feet from the bottom of the proposed
leaching system. Most wells serving households and small commercial buildings have a
withdrawal rate of less than 10 gallons per minute, therefore a minimum separating distance of 150
feet would be required only where the soil is highly permeable and ledge is less than eight feet from
the bottom of the leaching system.. The intent is to discourage the use of individual wells and
sewage disposal systems in areas of highly permeable soil and shallow ledge rock. If such areas
are to be developed, the public water supply or a community well should be used. See the section
on “Leaching Systems In Areas of Shallow Ledge Rock” for further discussion on this subject.
Wells in highly permeable soils have rapid recharge rates which result in relatively shallow
drawdown and quick recovery. For this reason, movement toward such wells is not as rapid as
might be expected. Time of travel from the leaching system to the well is related mainly to the
amount of water withdrawn from the well over a period of time, rather than to the pumping rate.
As long as the well does not receive heavy use, there is ample time for bacterial die-off. The rate
of movement increases where the aquifer is shallow and underlain by impervious soil or bedrock.
Fortunately, shallow, high yield wells are rare in Connecticut, and are usually only used for public
water supplies which are regulated by the State Department of Health Services. The Public Health
Code classifies the drawdown area of a public water supply well with a withdrawal rate in excess
of 50 gallons per minute as an area of special concern. A special study of possible detrimental
affect of the sewage disposal system on ground water quality may be required in such areas. The
Code also requires that all wells drilled into rock be cased and sealed where overlying soil is less
than 20 feet deep.

Both experience and hydraulic calculations have shown that leaching systems serving household
and small commercial buildings with a sewage flow of 5000 gallons per day or less will not cause
well pollution even in the most permeable soil as long as three precautions are observed.

1. The volume of water removed from the adjacent well should not exceed 5000
gallons per day.

2. The adjacent well should be properly cased and sealed into consolidated rock
where ledge rock is less than 20 feet below ground surface.

3. The domestic sewage should contain no unusual amount of hazardous chemicals.

61
Improperly cased and sealed wells located in areas of shallow ledge rock can become polluted even
by small sewage disposal systems, however. The potential for pollution is greater if the overlying
soil is highly permeable, of course, although the basic problem is poor well construction.

PREVENTING GROUND WATER POLLUTION

Ground water may become polluted by biodegradable organic chemicals where the soil is highly
permeable, the ground water is relatively high, and the volume of sewage discharged is large.
However, experience has shown that an unacceptable level of pollution is unlikely to occur unless
the volume of sewage discharged exceeds 2000 gallons per acre over an area of about 5 acres or
more. Where this situation does occur, design engineers should consider pretreatment of the
sewage by aeration systems or subsurface sand filters before discharge to the ground by
conventional or modified leaching systems. Elevating leaching systems as much as possible above
the ground water will reduce the potential for pollution where the soil is highly permeable. Deep
leaching pits or galleries should not be used in such soils unless the ground water is very deep.
Providing larger leaching systems is of questionable value, since distribution of sewage effluent
throughout the leaching system is extremely difficult where the soil is highly permeable.
Intermittent dosing would be beneficial, however, to distribute effluent more evenly through the
leaching system. Pressure distribution leaching systems built up in fill have been effective in
preventing pollution in areas of highly permeable soil and high ground water

PREVENTING SURFACE WATER POLLUTION

Pollution of surface waters by bacteria, oxygen-depleting organic chemicals or phosphates from

household or small commercial subsurface sewage disposal systems is extremely unlikely even in
the most permeable soils, as long as the minimum separating distances in the Public Health Code
are observed. However, nitrate enrichment of surface waters from such leaching systems could be
a problem since the nitrate level in the sewage effluent would not be reduced significantly by
percolation though highly permeable soil. Generally, nitrate levels in surface waters must be
controlled by limiting the volume of sewage effluent discharged into a given area of soil, thereby
assuring adequate dilution by rainfall and mixing with groundwater. The nitrate level in sewage
effluent discharged to the groundwater from a single family home located on a 1 acre building lot
in Connecticut should be about 3 milligrams per liter when diluted by the average annual rainfall
infiltrating into the soil on the lot. This is well below the drinking water standard of 10 milligrams
per liter. Therefore, no adverse affect would be anticipated on surface water quality from housing
developments with 1 acre or even ½ acre building lot requirements.

A possible exception might be lake front developments, where even low levels of nitrates could
contribute to accelerated eutrophication. Such situations must be studied on a watershed basis, and
is clearly beyond the control of an engineer designing a single subsurface sewage disposal system.
There are certain things that a design engineer can do in such a situation, however. Leaching
systems on lakefront lots could be located as far from the lake as possible, even if pumping is
required. The increased distance from the lake would assure adequate mixing of sewage effluent
with the groundwater before entering the lake. The ground surface could be graded or terraced to
promote infiltration of rainfall rather than runoff, thereby enhancing dilution. In particularly
critical situations, non-discharging toilet systems could be used. These could reduce the nitrate
contribution from a dwelling by as much as 80%. Garbage grinders should not be used since they
significantly increase nitrate levels in the sewage effluent. Where necessary, special subsurface

62
sewage disposal systems can be designed for nitrogen removal. These are described in Section II
of the manual, “Denitrification Systems”.

RECOMMENDED SIZING WHEN SYSTEM IS PLACED IN UNIFORM VERY FINE

SANDS

Across the country, there have been a disturbing number of leaching systems which have
experienced overloading, where the only common link as to the cause was the type of soil the
systems were installed. All of the systems were installed in a highly permeable uniform very fine
sand (a soil where the majority by percentage of the particle size is smaller than 0.15 mm - passing
the #100 sieve). The theory is that the bio-mat which develops on the soil interface is thicker and
less permeable than coarser soils. Therefore more wetted surface should be provided by a leaching
system when installed in this type of soil condition (whether as a fill material or naturally
occurring). Hence, it is recommended that a percolation rate no faster than 10.1-20 minutes/inch
be utilized for sizing purposes.

15. LEACHING SYSTEMS IN AREAS OF SHALLOW LEDGE ROCK

63
As commonly used, “ledge rock” refers to the continuous bedrock underlying the soil layers. In
Connecticut, ledge rock is quite variable in elevation and slope, and it generally forms an
impervious barrier to the movement of ground water and sewage effluent. The upper surface of the
ledge rock frequently is deeply contoured, forming hollows and ravines which collect percolating
ground water and direct it into a channeled flow over the surface of the ledge rock. This can cause
a rapid rise in the ground water level following a heavy rainfall which will interfere with the
functioning of a leaching system. Sewage overflow can occur if the leaching system is not
sufficiently above the underlying ledge rock.

Drainage channels on the ledge rock surface often contain granular soil or broken rock fragments
which are considerably more permeable than the overlying soil. Sewage effluent “streamlining”
through these drainage channels on top of ledge can move for a considerable distance before being
adequately treated by filtration or dilution. This can cause well pollution where wells are not
properly cased and sealed into the rock, or where the rock is fissured, allowing pollutants to enter
the aquifer.

DETERMINING LEDGE ROCK ELEVATIONS

The design of the leaching system in an area of shallow ledge rock depends on the contour and
slope of the underlying ledge, the size of the upslope drainage area, and the depth of the soil
overlying the ledge, both under the leaching system and in a downslope direction. For this reason,
it is extremely important that a sufficient number of observation pits or probes for ledge rock be
made where ledge rock is found at a depth of 7 feet or less. For a household system, the depth to
ledge rock should be determined at three or four locations within the area of the proposed leaching
system, and at one or more locations downslope from the system. A greater number of pits would
be required for larger systems or where ledge outcroppings are noted adjacent to the proposed
system. It may also be advisable to dig an observation pit at the proposed location of the septic
tank, in order to avoid possible installation problems. The location of ledge outcroppings should
be noted.

Ledge rock depth normally is measured from ground surface. Such depth readings are often quite
variable, however, since both the ground surface and the underlying ledge rock usually slope. In
order to avoid confusion in designing the leaching system, the ground surface elevation should be
determined at each test pit location by measuring from a bench mark. The ledge rock elevation and
slope can then be calculated, and the location and elevation of the leaching system determined.
Using this approach, it will frequently be found that ledge rock shows a relatively consistent
profile, even when the depth readings are erratic.

REQUIRED DEPTH OF SOIL ABOVE LEDGE ROCK

Technical Standard VIII requires that the bottoms of leaching systems be kept a minimum of 4 feet
above ledge rock, but some judgment is necessary in using this standard. The basic consideration
should be the likelihood of the underlying ledge rock interfering with dispersal of ground water and
sewage effluent. Experience has shown that underlying ledge rock is unlikely to interfere with the
functioning of a leaching system as long as the bottom of the leaching system is elevated 4 feet
above the ledge rock surface. However, a small projection of ledge rock under a leaching system is
unlikely to cause failure if it rises closer than 4 feet from the bottom of the system, particularly if
the ledge is sloped so that ground water and sewage effluent will move out of the area. On the

64
other hand, an elevation greater than 4 feet may be required if the ledge forms a basin or ravine
which causes a buildup of ground or surface water during wet periods.

Where there is less than 6 to 7 feet of existing soil over ledge rock, the placement of fill would be
necessary in order to construct a leaching trench system with the trench bottoms 4 feet above ledge.
Such a method of construction would present no unusual difficulty as long as there is at least 4 to 5
feet of soil above ledge rock, since the bottom of the leaching trenches essentially would be
constructed in existing soil. However, construction becomes more critical if there is less than 4
feet of existing soil above underlying ledge. In this situation, the entire leaching system must be
constructed in fill, and the nature and compaction of the fill must be carefully evaluated before the
leaching system can be designed. For this reason, Section 19-13-B103e(a) of the Public Health
Code prohibits the issuance of sewage disposal approvals or permits where there is less than 4 feet
of existing soil over ledge rock. It should be understood, however, that this does not mean that no
sewage disposal system could ever be built at this location. It only means that the necessary fill
must be placed, compacted and tested before the final sewage disposal plan is approved and a
building permit issued. This puts the responsibility for making the site improvements entirely on
the property owner or builder, and tends to discourage the installation of sewage disposal systems
in areas with less than 4 feet of naturally occurring soil over ledge rock. It also encourages owners
and builders to test their properties more thoroughly in order to find a location for the sewage
disposal system where ledge rock is sufficiently deep to avoid the need for filling before a permit
can be obtained. Many planning and zoning commissions use the requirement of 4 feet of existing
soil over ledge rock as a standard for approving building lots. All of this is beneficial in avoiding
potential sewage disposal problems in shallow ledge rock areas.

The depth of soil overlying the ledge rock downslope from the leaching system also must be
considered. In general, a more or less continuous layer of at least 2 feet of soil would be necessary
on top of the ledge rock to assure adequate dispersal of sewage effluent. A greater depth of soil
would be necessary if significant amounts of ground or surface water drain through the area, or if
the ledge rock is relatively level. Where there is less than 2 feet of soil over ledge down grade of a
proposed leaching area, it may be necessary to make a hydraulic analysis to determine whether or
not sewage effluent will break out prematurely. See Section II for further information on hydraulic
analysis. There should be no ledge outcroppings within 50 feet downslope of the leaching system,
and no springs within 75 feet downslope.

PREVENTING WELL POLLUTION

Well pollution is frequently a problem in areas of shallow ledge rock, particularly where there are a
number of building lots involved, each served by an on-site sewage disposal system and water
supply well. In larger subdivisions, some lots normally are located downhill from others, and the
wells on these lots may be downhill from the sewage disposal systems. Sewage effluent moving
through permeable channels on top of ledge may travel quite a distance and enter wells which have
been improperly cased or sealed into consolidated rock. Some ledge rock is fissured, and sealing of
the wells may be difficult. Proper well construction should prevent pollution, but unfortunately
experience has shown that where there are large number of wells involved, some are always likely
to be improperly sealed and subject to pollution. The surest way to prevent well pollution in areas
of shallow ledge rock is to extend public water supply mains to the area, or to construct a
community well to serve the subdivision. Such a well could be kept at a high elevation and remote
from on-site sewage disposal systems. In general, all subdivisions containing 25 or more lots

65
located in an area with underlying ledge rock less than 7 feet deep should be served by a public or
community water supply.

Well pollution also has occurred when shallow ledge rock is excavated by blasting to construct
roads, sewer lines or subsurface sewage disposal systems. Blasting can open fissures in the ledge
and rupture the well casing or seal. Public water supply systems are essential if any rock blasting
is to be done in an area of shallow ledge rock and on-site sewage disposal systems.

OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

The construction of ground water intercepting drains in areas of shallow ledge rock is difficult and
in many cases they are not effective in controlling subsurface flooding. On top of ledge rock,
ground water tends to “streamline” through depressions or channels in the rock surface, or through
fissures in the ledge rock itself. It is extremely difficult to intercept this flow of water effectively
without excavating into the rock. Even if the ground water were intercepted, it may not be possible
to discharge the drain by gravity without rock excavation (see Figure 15-1). For these reasons,
ground water intercepting drains must be considered unreliable on shallow ledge rock, and
generally should not be used. Ground water flow usually is found only in certain locations on top
of ledge, and it is better to avoid using those areas for leaching systems.

In some shallow ledge rock areas there may be only limited areas, or “pockets”, where the
overlying soil is sufficiently deep to be considered for leaching purposes. In such a situation, it
may be advisable to divide the leaching system into two or more separate systems, rather than to
attempt to put all of the sewage effluent into an area of soil with a limited dispersal capacity. This
is particularly important for larger leaching systems, which generally should not be constructed
over shallow ledge rock unless the leaching system can be spread over a large area.

NON-TYPICAL LEDGE ROCK

Occasionally a soft, partly decomposed rock layer will be found which easily can be excavated by
a backhoe, but which appears to be part of the continuous bedrock. This material is considered to
be non-typical ledge rock, inasmuch as it does not present a barrier to the movement of water. In
fact, a percolation test made in this material would probably show a moderately good percolation
rate. However, in this case, the water moves through small, continuous pores in a solid matrix,
rather than through larger, non-continuous voids, as in a soil. While water moves rapidly, sewage
effluent will tend to clog the small pores. Because of this, leaching systems should not be
constructed directly in decomposed rock. Recommended design practice calls for the bottoms of
leaching systems to be constructed at least 2 feet above such non-typical rock, or if necessary, a
portion of the decomposed rock may be removed and replaced with 2 feet of sand for filtration
purposes. The decomposed rock is usually underlain with consolidated rock, and the leaching
system must be at least 4 feet above this layer.

66
 Curtain Drain

Septic Tank
House

Ground Water

Plan View

Ground Surface
Curtain Drain

Ledge Rock
Collection
Pipe

Ground Water Passing

Under Curtain Drain

Figure 15-1 - Profile Through Curtain Drain

Sometimes, layers of loose, fractured rock will be found on top of consolidated ledge. Unlike the
decomposed rock, the fissures are large and do not provide filtration of sewage effluent. Leaching
system normally should be kept 4 feet above the top of the fractured layers, and no attempt should
be made to remove the loose rock. This is particularly important when there are water supply
wells in the area which would be difficult to seal into fractured rock.

67
 16. LEACHING SYSTEMS IN HARDPAN SOILS

“Hardpan”, as commonly used, refers to any naturally occurring layer of hard, densely compacted
soil. In Connecticut, such hardpans generally are formed on glacial tills and are located on upland
areas where they frequently are found at a depth of 4 feet or less. Hardpans vary in composition,
but they always have relatively little void space, low permeability, and slow percolation rates. The
minimum percolation rate will vary from 20 minutes per inch to virtual imperviousness, depending
on the particle gradation and the degree of compaction. Hardpan in Connecticut normally contains
a high percentage of silt which tends to fill the voids between the larger soil particles. This is why
even a hardpan with a large amount of sand or gravel will be quite compact and have relatively low
permeability.

Sewage system failures are common in hardpan soil areas. In most cases, these are related to
failure to properly evaluate the minimum percolation rate, the restrictive effect of underlying
hardpan, or seasonal perched water. Often the percolation test hole penetrates only a few inches
into the hardpan layer. When tested with a 12 inch depth of water, a fairly good percolation rate
may be obtained due to lateral seepage into layers of good soil on top of the hardpan. The leaching
system subsequently may be constructed deeper into the underlying hardpan and may fail due to
poor seepage or groundwater flowing on top of the hardpan layer.

Failure also can occur because of the inability of the leaching system to adequately disperse
sewage effluent into the surrounding soil due to the restriction presented by the underlying hardpan
layer. This can occur even with proper testing and construction and effective control of perched
groundwater. Possible dispersal limitations in hardpan soils can be evaluated by permeability
testing and hydraulic analysis. However, it probably is not practical or necessary to require this
procedure for all sewage disposal systems in such soils. The design guidelines in this section have
been developed through many years of experience with small residential sewage disposal systems
installed in hardpan soils. It is based on selective percolation testing of both the underlying
hardpan and the looser upper soil layers, and on careful placement of the leaching system relative
to the restrictive hardpan layer. It should be cautioned that while these design principles are well
proven for small sewage disposal systems, they may not be adequate for effluent discharges
exceeding 1,000 gallons per day, or for areas where the soil layers overlying the hardpan has a
minimum percolation rate poorer than 20 minutes per inch. In these situations, permeability testing
and hydraulic analysis is advisable. It also should be noted that hardpan layers at depths greater
than 5 feet below ground surface normally need not be considered for small sewage disposal
systems, since experience has shown that they are unlikely to significantly restrict dispersal of
small volumes of effluent.

TESTING HARDPAN SOILS

The key to proper design of small leaching systems in hardpan soils is making a proper evaluation
of the minimum percolation rate of the underlying hardpan layer and the overlying looser soil, and
accurately measuring the depth to the top of the hardpan layer. It is important that the percolation
tests be made entirely within the hardpan layer wherever hardpan is found at a depth of less than 5
feet, in order to determine the characteristics of the hardpan only. This would mean that the
bottom of the test hole must penetrate at least 12 inches into hardpan, so that the water will contact
only the hardpan soil itself. If the hardpan layer is found to have a minimum percolation rate
slower than 30 minutes per inch, another percolation test should be made in the looser soil layers
above the hardpan.

68
Extended presoaking normally is not necessary in order to obtain the minimum percolation rate of a
hardpan, since most hardpans in Connecticut contain very little swelling clay.

MODERATELY RESTRICTIVE HARDPAN

Hardpan with a minimum percolation rate of 20 to 30 minutes per inch is considered to be

moderately restrictive. A leaching system constructed with all or part of the stone-soil interface
within the hardpan layer itself should function properly provided:

a) The size of the leaching system is based on percolation tests made completely
within the hardpan layer, not partially in the looser upper soils, and

b) A ground water control drain is provided which will control both perched water
on top of the hardpan layer and the seasonal high groundwater table in the
hardpan layer itself.

Figure 16-1 shows the cross section of a typical leaching trench system constructed partly in
moderately restrictive hardpan. Note that the percolation test was made at a sufficient depth to
properly measure the minimum percolation rate in the hardpan, and this was used to determine the
required amount of leaching area. Also note that the ground water control drain penetrates deeply
into the hardpan layer in order to draw down the seasonal high ground water table in that layers,
and that the stone in the drain is extended to near ground surface to intercept ground water
perched on top of the hardpan.

Deep Ground
Water Intercrptor Drain
Permeable Upper
Perched Soil
Ground Water Percolation Test Entirely Within
Hardpan Layer : 20 Mins./ Inch

O
O
O
Moderately Restrictive

Hardpan Leaching System Sized

O
For 20 Min./ Inch

Figure 16-1 - Moderately Restrictive Hardpan

SEVERELY RESTRICTIVE HARDPAN

Hardpan with a minimum percolation rate of 30 to 60 minutes per inch is considered to be severely
restrictive. Because of its low capacity to transmit water, the hardpan probably will become
saturated during the wet season, even though a ground water control drain is used. For this reason,
no part of the stone-soil interface in a leaching system should be constructed directly in the hardpan

69
layer. Instead, the bottom of the leaching system should be raised above the top of the hardpan. It
may not be necessary to keep the leaching system 18 inches above the hardpan layer (as long as a
curtain drain is provided) because the hardpan would be saturated only for short periods of time,
and it is unlikely that there would be significant effluent mounding on top it. Normally, the
bottoms of leaching systems should be kept 12 inches above the top surface of severely restrictive
hardpan, with a greater elevations being used where the hardpan surface is more level. Of course,
an intercepting drain would be necessary to control perched ground water which would collect on
top of the hardpan layer, but in this case, the drain would not have to penetrate deeply into the
hardpan because no attempt is made to lower the ground water level in the hardpan itself.

Determining the required size and configuration of the leaching system in this case shall be based on
the percolation rate of the upper permeable subsoil above the hardpan and the minimum spread of the
system determined by MLSS criteria.

Figure 16-2 shows the cross section of a typical leaching trench system constructed above severely
restrictive hardpan. Note that separate percolation test were made in both the hardpan and in the more
permeable upper soil layer. The size of the leaching system is based on a minimum percolation rate of
10 minutes per inch. In order to keep the underlying soils from becoming saturated due to the daily
discharge from the leaching system, the system must be spread to meet MLSS criteria. Also note that
the placement of some fill is necessary in order to construct a leaching system sufficiently above the
hardpan layer. Refer to the section on "Leaching System In Fill" for information on how this should
be done.

* Leaching System Sized Per

Percolation Rate of Upper Soils;
MLSS based on Depth to Restrictive
Ground Water Percolation Test Results Layer and Percolation Rate of Upper Layer.
Interceptor Drain Between 30-60 Mins/Inch
Percolation Tests Results
Less than 20 Min/Inch
Upper Soil 10’ Min. Native Soil or
Layer o Sandy Loam Fill
o
o
o
Severely Restrictive Depth to
Hard Pan Layer Restrictive Layer
Separation
12” Above Hardpan

Figure 16-2 - Severely Restrictive Hardpan

IMPERVIOUS HARDPAN

70
Hardpan with a minimum percolation rate poorer than 60 minutes per inch is considered to be
impervious. Leaching systems must be raised well above such an impervious layer since it is likely
that a mound of saturated soil will develop on top of this barrier when sewage effluent is applied.
Where possible, the bottom of the leaching system should be kept 18 inches above impervious
hardpan to allow a zone of unsaturated soil between the leaching system and the effluent mound for
effluent renovation. While the leaching system can be constructed in fill, if necessary, to keep it
sufficiently above the impervious hardpan, the depth and permeability of the surrounding soil
overlying the hardpan is critical since all of the effluent must be dispersed laterally through these soil
layers. If the depth or permeability of the overlying soil is insufficient, or if the hardpan is too flat to
allow adequate hydraulic gradient, sewage effluent may surface. It may be necessary to make a
hydraulic analysis of the capacity of the surrounding soil to disperse the expected volume of sewage
effluent in marginal situations or where the volume of effluent is large. (See section II for information
on hydraulic analysis.) However, experience has shown that small leaching systems, such as for
single family residences, can be installed successfully over imperious hardpan as long as there is at
least a 24 inch depth of overlying surrounding soil with a minimum percolation rate of 20 minutes per
inch or better. Perched ground water on top of the hardpan must be controlled, of course, and this
may be difficult in extremely level areas.

In general, the leaching system shall be sized, as with Severely Restrictive Hardpan mentioned above,
based on the percolation rate of the upper permeable soils. Hydraulic concerns shall be addressed by
applying MLSS criteria and spreading the system out enough to avoid saturating the underlying soils
from the system’s daily discharge.

Figure 16-3 shows the cross section of a typical leaching trench system constructed above impervious
hardpan. It is evident that construction becomes critical when the hardpan layer is less

* Leaching System Sized Per

Percolation Rate of Upper Soils;
MLSS based on Depth to Restrictive
Layer and Percolation Rate of Upper Layer.
Percolation Test Results
Slower than 60 Mins/Inch Select Fill
Ground Water Material
Interceptor Drain Percolation Tests Results
Less than 30 Min/Inch
10’ Min. Native Soil or
Sandy Loam Fill
o
Upper Soil
o
Layer o

o
ImperviousHard Depth to
Pan Layer Restrictive Layer
Separation
18” Above Hardpan

Figure 16-3 - Impervious Hardpan

71
than 30 inches below ground surface because part of the leaching system must be constructed in fill.
Special care must be taken to follow the recommended design and construction practice in this manual
to avoid possible problems.

A question frequently asked as to why leaching system must be kept 4 feet above ledge rock, but only
18 inches above impervious hardpan. The reason for this is that channeled flow seldom occurs on top
of hardpan layers. The surface of the hardpan normally is smooth, without depressions to collect and
transmit effluent. Also, there rarely are layers of highly permeable soil on top of the hardpan, as there
frequently are on top of ledge, so that movement over the hardpan in relatively slow, allowing effluent
renovation.

CONTROL OF PERCHED GROUND WATER

There is almost always perched ground water flowing on top of hardpan during the wet season or
after periods of heavy rainfalls. This ground water will collect in leaching systems which penetrate
into the hardpan layer, particularly on hillsides where the ground water will flow down from higher
elevations. Particularly severe ground water conditions can be expected on top of hardpan with a
minimum percolation rate slower than 30 minutes per inch, or where there is an extensive uphill
drainage area. Uphill curtain drains should be used wherever possible to alleviate this condition. Such
drains normally are effective when they are constructed deep enough to penetrate 24 inches into the
hardpan layer and are backfilled with stone extending 18 to 24 inches above the top of the hardpan
layer to intercept perched ground water.

72
 17. LEACHING SYSTEMS IN SELECT FILL MATERIAL

The Public Health Code allows the approval of leaching systems in fill providing two conditions are
met:

1. The soil conditions in the area of the proposed leaching system are not
unsuitable for sewage disposal purposes as described in Section
19-13-B103e(a)(3) at the time that the system is approved.

2. The surrounding naturally occurring soil can adequately absorb or disperse

the expected volume of sewage effluent without overflow, breakout, or
detrimental effect on ground or surface water.

There is nothing in the Code to prohibit the placement of fill over any soil, suitable or unsuitable,
although in many cases approvals for filling must be obtained from the local planning and zoning or
wetland agencies. Certain sites with soil conditions which are unsuitable for sewage disposal may
be made suitable by filling. However, other sites, such as those consisting of exposed ledge rock,
cannot be made suitable by filling because sewage effluent eventually would pass through the fill
and seep to ground surface. Therefore, any filling done where soil conditions are unsuitable is done
entirely at the risk of the owner or builder. Ultimately, the acceptability of the site will depend on
the results of tests made after the fill has been placed and compacted. In some cases, a special study
will be required of the capacity of the surrounding naturally occurring soil to absorb or disperse
sewage effluent before any approval is given. Because of these uncertainties, owners and builders
are strongly urged to have a qualified professional engineer study the feasibility and cost of the
necessary site improvements before placing any fill where soil conditions are classified as
unsuitable for sewage disposal.

There are several situations where the placement of fill in the area of the leaching system is
necessary or desirable to assure that it will function properly. One such situation is where the soil is
permeable, but has a high ground water table which cannot be lowered by an intercepting drain
because the area is low or flat. Filling allows the system to be raised sufficiently above the observed
maximum ground water level. In other cases, there may be a layer of suitable soil underlain by
shallow hardpan or ledge rock. Placement of fill would allow the leaching system to be constructed
sufficiently above this material so that it will not interfere with the proper functioning of the
system.

TYPE OF FILL MATERIAL, PLACEMENT AND INSPECTION

A clean, granular sand and gravel fill should be used in the area of leaching systems. The fill should
contain no more than 5% fines, and preferably no more than 2%. Fines are clay and silt sized
particles which pass the #200 sieve. Even a small amount of these particles will severely reduce the
ability of the fill to transmit water, particularly when compacted. It has been determined that a
significant number of leaching systems installed in select fill fail because the material brought to the
site did not meet the above standard. In order to reduce the risk of fill related failures it is
recommended that the following guidelines be adhered to:

1. “Select fill” shall be comprised of clean sand and gravel, free from organic matter
and deleterious substances. Mixtures and layers of different classes of soil

73
 should not be used. The fill material should not contain any material larger
than three (3) inches. A sieve analysis should be performed on a representative
sample of the fill. Up to 45% by weight of the fill sample may be retained on the #4
sieve. The material that passes the #4 sieve is then dried and reweighed and the sieve
analysis started. The sieve analysis must demonstrate that the material meets each of the
following specifications:

SIEVE SIZE EFFECTIVE PARTICLE % THAT MUST

SIZE PASS SIEVE

Coarse Sands #4 - #10 ± 4.75 mm - 2.0 mm #4 100%

Medium Sands #10-# 40 ± 2.0 mm - 0.425 mm #10 0% - 100%
Fine Sands #40-100 ± 0.425 mm - 0.15 mm #40 0% - 50%
Very Fine Sands #100-#200 ± 0.15 mm - 0.075 mm #100 0% - 20%
Silts and Clays #200 < 0.075 mm #200 0% - 5%

2. The contractor should meet with the engineer and sanitarian on the site to review
procedures, and to agree on the fill material to be used. Inspection and testing of
the fill material may be necessary unless an approved commercial sand or gravel
bank is to be used which can supply material which will meet the above criteria.
The location of the area to be filled should be marked by the engineer at this time
and approved by the sanitarian.

3. The area should be cleared and rough graded. All stumps and large boulders should
be removed. If necessary, top soil should be stripped and the area plowed or
scarified. Prior to placement of the fill, the bottom surface of the excavation shall
be scarified. Fill material should be stockpiled at the edge of the excavation until a
suitable base of select material has been spread over the entire exposed area. Fill
should not be placed during periods of heavy rains, snow storms or freezing
temperatures. If water is present at the bottom of the excavation following a period
of rain, the excavation shall be dewatered as necessary and rescarified. The
excavation for and placement of “select fill” shall extend a minimum of five (5)
feet laterally in all directions beyond the outer perimeter of the leaching system
and to a depth to make contact with naturally occurring pervious material.

4. The engineer should inspect the prepared site and set grade stakes before “select
fill” is placed. The sanitarian also should be notified, in case he wishes to make an
inspection.

5. “Select fill” should be placed on the edge of the site and spread over the prepared
area with a bulldozer. No trucks should run over the fill until 12 inches of fill has
been placed. The remainder of the fill should be placed in layers 8 to 12 inches
deep and compacted by normal bulldozing or other construction equipment. Filling
and compaction should be discontinued during rain storms and for 24 hours
thereafter. All fill should be placed and compacted before any of the
leaching system is installed.

74
 6. If there is any question as to the characteristics of the fill material being placed, a
minimum of one representative sample (made up of a composite taken from
numerous locations in the fill section) may be taken from the in-place fill for a
system serving a single family residence. The sample should be tested for
compliance with the grain size distribution noted in Item 1, above. For larger
systems, one sample may be taken for each day the filling operation is conducted.

7. The sanitarian should be informed when filling is complete and before the
construction of the leaching system has started. The sanitarian should inspect any
fill over 30 inches in depth. Observation pits should be dug when there is any
question as to the nature or depth of the fill, and percolation tests shall be
conducted whenever the entire leaching structure (bottom and sides) will be
situated within the fill package or when it appears that the fill may not be suitable.
If it appears that the fill may not be sufficiently compacted, an engineering
compaction test may be required. Inspection of the upper surface of fill can be
misleading, particularly if the fill is clean and has not recently been compacted.
The top few inches of a clean and or gravel fill, lacking binding material, may
appear loose and insufficiently compacted. However, digging a few inches into the
fill will usually show adequate density in the underlying material.

10’ Native Soil - No Stone Native soil or Common

Larger than 1” Fill - No stumps or Bouldersd
5’

o o o

Top Soil Top Soil

Clean, Bank-Run Sand and Gravel Meeting

above Specification for Sieve Analysis

Figure 17-1 Filling on Flat Lots

The reason clean bank-run sand or gravel makes the best fill for leaching systems is because its
permeability is not greatly reduced by compaction. This is not true for most soils. Loamy soils,
containing a well graded mixture of sand, silt and clay, may have a permeability in the desired range
when found in their naturally compacted state. However, they can be easily compacted by standard
construction equipment, and their permeability can be reduced to an unacceptable level. On the other
hand, it is relatively difficult to compact a clean mixture of sand and gravel by more than 5% to 10%,
and even when compacted to over 90% of optimum density, it has a sufficient permeability for

75
leaching purposes. Native soil normally should not be used for fill in the area of the leaching system
itself. However, a reasonably workable native soil could be used for cover over a leaching system or
for forming the fill embankment outside the leaching area, as shown in Figure 17-1.

SIZE OF THE LEACHING SYSTEM

The required size of a leaching system constructed totally in fill in the past was determined by the
percolation rate of the underlying soil, not that of the fill. In most cases, select fill is more permeable
than the underlying soil, even when adequately compacted. Therefore basing the size of the leaching
system on percolation tests conducted in the fill would theoretically be adequate to disperse the
expected sewage from the leaching system. However, predicting the quality and resulting percolation
rates of select fill prior to its placement is very difficult due to the number of variables associated
with the filling operation. Therefore sanitarians are very skeptical of basing the size of a proposed
leaching system on fill material that has not been placed and tested. It is for that reason that the
Technical Standards allows a maximum size reduction based on a percolation rate of 30 minutes per
inch when the underlying naturally occurring soils are slower than 30 minutes per inch. For example,
a four bedroom house is proposed on a lot which has percolation rates in the naturally occurring soils
which are slower than 30 minutes per inch. If the design engineer proposes a leaching system which
will be installed totally in “select fill”, he may size the system utilizing a 21-30 minute percolation
rate. This would result in a minimum 200 sq. ft. reduction (1,200 sq.ft. requirement down to 1,000
sq. ft.) in system size.

It should be noted, however, that the use of select fill and the ability to downsize the leaching system
does not change the hydraulic conditions below the system and the need for adequate dispersal of the
sewage discharge. Minimum Leaching System Spread shall be applied using the percolation rate of
the underlying slow naturally occurring soil when determining the Percolation Factor (PF) when
calculating the required spread of the system.

It should be realized that compacted fill may not always be as permeable as expected, and in some
cases it may be less permeable than the underlying soil. Therefore, a percolation test may be required
in the fill wherever the active infiltration surface of the leaching system is entirely within the fill.
Occasionally, on existing lots under repair conditions, it is found that the minimum percolation rate in
the fill does not meet design requirements, and there is insufficient area of fill to enlarge the leaching
system. It may be too costly or impractical to replace the entire fill section. In such a situation, deep
leaching trenches penetrating into the better underlying soil could be used. If necessary, select sand
fill could be placed in the bottom of the deep trenches so that the stone in the leaching system would
be sufficiently above ground water. The additional storage and infiltrative surface provided by the
side area of the deep trenches should adequately compensate for the poor percolation of the fill. See
Figure 17-2.

Another possible way of circumventing the poor fill situation would be to provide “Tee-Wicks” of
select fill material in which to place new leaching units. This configuration has the dual advantage of
providing access to the more permeable suitable soils below the leaching system and a sidewall
interface with absorptive capabilities. See Figure 17-3 for an illustration of a “Tee-Wick”
installation. NOTE: Access should be into soil conditions where groundwater will not interfere with
the downward movement of effluent into the natural soils.

76
 Original Top Soil
Unsuitable Fill Material

o o o

Underlying
Permeable Select Fill
Soil
> 18”

Figure 17-2 - Leaching System In Unsuitable Fill

Select Fill
Material
Leaching Units

2’

o
Unsuitable o
Fill Material

Unsuitable
Fill Material

TEE-WICK

Original Topsoil Layer

Figure 17-3 - Tee-Wick Installation

FILLING ON HILLSIDES

There are many situations where placement of a shallow depth of fill on a hillside can be used to raise
the area of the leaching system so as to utilize a layer of good soil overlying relatively poor hardpan
or shallow ledge rock. In such a case, the bottom of the leaching system should be located in the
original soil wherever possible, not in the fill, otherwise sewage effluent may flow through poorly
compacted fill on top of the original soil, and break out below the filled area.

The selection of fill to be used on hillsides also is important. Extremely permeable materials should be
avoided, since this would facilitate downhill seepage, and is unnecessary as long as the size of the

77
leaching system is based on tests made in the underlying soil. Native soil, taken from the site,
frequently is used where the depth of fill is 18 inches or less, since the active part of the leaching
system is mostly in the underlying, original soil, and the leaching characteristics of the fill is less
important. A clean bank-run sand and gravel fill also may be used on slopes providing it is carefully
compacted before the trenches are dug. The fill should extend 15 to 20 feet downhill beyond the
lowest trench and should be smoothly sloped to the original grade.

Special precautions are required where a leaching system on a slope must be constructed entirely in
fill due to unusual soil conditions, such as very shallow ledge rock or hardpan. Clean, bank-run sand
and gravel must be used to allow thorough compaction and to assure proper permeability. The fill
should be mechanically compacted and carefully inspected. The original soil should be contour
plowed or scarified to form a rough interface between the fill and underlying soil, which will retard
downhill movement of effluent. A denser soil usually is used for the fill embankment downhill from
the leaching system. Clay or hardpan are difficult to work with, however, and should not be used for
this purpose. A loamy, easily compacted native soil is recommended. It is extremely important that
the downslope fill be free of large boulders, stumps and other debris which could create channels
through which sewage effluent might surface. Refer back to Figures 16-1, 16-2 and 16-3 for typical
leaching systems in fill on slopes.

The construction of level leaching trenches on terraces made by cutting and filling on slopes should
be avoided. Cuts on slopes frequently intercept ground water which will flood leaching systems
constructed in these areas. Even if a ground water intercepting drain is used, the soil in cut areas may
be dense hardpan, unsuitable for leaching purposes. Figure 17-4 shows an unsatisfactory construction
practice which often leads to sewage problems.

Top Soil

Permeable Original Grade

Subsoil

Perched Ground
Water Cut

Hardpan o o o Fill

Flooded Trenches

Figure 17-4 - Cut and Fill on Slope

FILL SYSTEMS IN LEVEL AREAS

Frequently low, level areas having a high ground water level are underlain with permeable soil.
Generally, it is not possible to lower the ground water level by ground water control drains. In such a

78
situation, leaching systems may be installed in fill raised sufficiently above the anticipated maximum
water level. In some areas, leaching systems in permeable, alluvial soil may be subject to seasonal
flooding if they are not raised in fill.

When a leaching system is constructed in fill placed over a level area of permeable soil, there is little
tendency for sewage effluent to move laterally. Therefore, there is no particular limitation on the
depth of fill, and leaching systems have been installed successfully in mounds of fill up to 5 feet deep.
However, whenever the bottom of the leaching area will not be in original soil, clean, bank-run sand
or gravel fill should be used. Methods of placement and compaction also are critical for fill over 3
feet deep. Relatively impermeable sites or organic layers may be found overlying permeable alluvial
soils. These must be stripped before filling. However, stripping of silt layers over 4 feet deep to reach
permeable underlying soil may not be practical because of construction difficulty. Such excavations
often fill with water and washed-in silt which clogs the soil. The excavations must be pumped
continuously while digging to remove silt before it can settle. The water level may rise when the silt
layer is removed. Therefore, it is very important to make an accurate determination of the maximum
ground water level by the use of monitoring pipes where there is permeable soil overlain with a thick
layer of silt.

Often it is difficult to determine whether or not a saturated soil layer is suitable for leaching purposes.
It is not possible to make a percolation test in this situation, but other tests may be used. The soil
permeability may be determined by a bailing test or a tube sample. A sieve analysis also may be used
to obtain a rough idea of soil suitability in a questionable case. No leaching system should be
constructed in fill unless it can be determined by some method that the underlying soil is suitable.

The top of the fill embankment should have a slight slope to shed surface water. When the bottom of
the leaching system is above the surrounding ground surface, the fill should be extended 10 feet
beyond any part of the leaching system. Beyond that point, the fill may be sloped on a one on two
slope to existing grade. Figure 17-5 shows a typical leaching system in fill over level, permeable soil.
Note that topsoil and silt have been removed to expose the permeable underlying soil before filling.
The fill is pitched to shed water, and surface runoff from uphill areas has been diverted around the fill
by a berm or swale.

FILL COMPACTION

Generally, all sand or gravel fill should be mechanically compacted at the time that it is placed. Clean
sand and gravel is readily compacted by the methods described above, and is unlikely to become
over-compacted. Compaction tests seldom are necessary as long as this material is spread in layers
during placement. Where there is a question, a modified optimum density test (ASTM D1557,
Method C) may be required. A compaction of 90 to 95% of optimum usually is used as a standard for
clean sand and gravel since it can be readily obtained and such material still is sufficiently permeable
for leaching purposes at this density. Another important reason for mechanically compacting sand and
gravel fill when it is placed is to prevent the possibility of silt migration, which can occur when this
material is loosely placed and subjected to rainfall during or after placement. In its natural state, silt
particles have been retained in the smaller void spaces in the sand and gravel and do not move.
However, they become loosened when the soil is disturbed during excavation and handling. If the fill
is loosely placed, rainfall will cause the small silt particles to migrate, possibly forming layers within
the fill or clogging the leaching system itself.

79
 Leaching System Perc. Test in Fill
Surface Swale to Designed for 10 10 Min./In. or 10’ Min.
Divert Runoff Min./In. Better

o o 2
1
Silty Layer Clean Bank-Run Sand or Gravel Fill Silty Layer

Silty Layer Stripped to

Expose Permeable Soil Permeable Underlying Layer
Perc Test - 10
Min./In.

Figure 17-5 - Soil Replacement Filling

Uneven mechanical compaction and subsequent settling can be a problem in deep fills. This
frequently occurs when trucks or earth moving equipment heavily compact the embankment slope on
a deep fill, but neglect the center portion of the fill. When sewage is applied to the leaching system,
the center of the filled area may settle forming a "dish" or basin which retains rainfall. This can flood
the leaching system and cause failure. The problem can be prevented by over filling the center
portion, forming a crown which compensates for possible settlement.

Loamy soils may not have sufficient permeability if mechanically compacted to 90% of optimum
density. Therefore, native soils or loamy fill should not be compacted in the same manner as sand and
gravel, unless they are to be used only for covering the leaching system. Instead, they should be
allowed to compact naturally over a period of 3 to 6 months, preferably during a wet season. Rainfall
and settlement will compact these soils to about 85% of optimum density, which is about the same as
the density of the root zone in most naturally occurring soils. Depending on the composition of the
fill, the permeability should remain within the acceptable range.

OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Freshly placed fill is easily eroded. Therefore, erosion control measures should be taken as soon as
final grading is completed. Uphill drainage should be intercepted and diverted by means of a berm
or swale. The fill should be protected with mulch or tobacco netting if it is too late in the season to
establish a grass cover before winter.

Placement and compaction of clean sand and gravel fill on steep slopes is difficult because of the
looseness of this material. In such a situation, some contractors will first form an embankment on the
downhill side, either by cutting into the existing soil or by placing large boulders, top soil and stumps
in the area. This is said to hold the fill in place. Such practices are extremely dangerous, since a
channel of loosely compacted or permeable material can be formed which allows sewage effluent to

80
break out at the lower end of the fill. See Figure 17-6. Sanitarians and engineers should make sure
that this is not done.

Select Fill Material

O Sewage
Moderately Permeable Breakouts
Subsoil

Underlying
Hardpan

Boulders, Stumps
and Debris

Figure 17-6 - “Keyed-In” Cut In Downslope Subsoil

Sometimes a leaching system is constructed in a filled area at the base of a hillside because the fill is
less obtrusive is such a location. Unfortunately, such areas are the location of seasonal springs.
Ground water may rise into the fill and cause the leaching system to fail. Ground water levels should
be carefully monitored during the wet season before any fill is placed at the base of a hillside. If
ground water is found at ground surface during this time, there is the possibility that it may rise up
into any fill placed at this location and the area should be avoided.

81
 18 . SUBMISSION 0F ENGINEERING PLANS

Section 19-13-B103 of the Public Health Code requires preparation and submission of detailed
engineering designed plans for sewage disposal systems proposed in areas of special concern and for
all large sewage disposal systems with design flows of 2000 gallons per day or greater. Areas of
special concern are defined in Section 19-13-B103d(e) of the Code. Plans for the design of sewage
disposal systems in these areas or for large sewage disposal systems must be prepared by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Connecticut. Engineers typically become involved in
the design process prior to or shortly after soil testing on the subject property revealed a limiting
condition. A property owner may employ a professional engineer on his own, but no property owner
should be encouraged by a director of health or sanitarian to engage the services of such an engineer,
if in his opinion, the property is unsuitable for sewage disposal purposes. It should be realized that
subsurface sewage disposal may not be feasible on properties where impervious soil, seasonally high
ground water, or extremely shallow soil coverage over bed rock exists.

It is essential the design engineer or staff engineers working under his direction personally inspect the
property, observe and review soil test data with the sanitarian prior to designing a sewage disposal
system. Basic design concepts agreed upon by the engineer and sanitarian avoid unnecessary delays
in the review and approval process and limit the number of revisions required. The engineer should
consider comments and recommendations listed on backside of the soil test data form which has been
prepared or confirmed by the director of health or sanitarian. The engineer’s submission must include
a report of the findings of his investigation, design calculation, a general statement as to the suitability
of the site for sewage disposal purposes, the particular advantages of the design proposed, and a
detailed plan for construction of the sewage disposal system. The Public Health Code lists major
items such as existing and proposed contours and elevations, property lines, building locations, water
courses, ground and surface water drains and other essential information which must be shown on the
plan. Some engineers have developed informational checklists which cover the broad range of
essential information typically shown on plans. Included at the end of this section is a checklist of
standard items which should be considered as part of a well prepared engineering plan. The purpose
for preparation of the engineering report and detail plan is to identify site limitations and clearly
demonstrate how the engineer proposed to overcome the limiting conditions. With design of sewage
disposal systems serving individual residences, it is possible to include the engineering report in the
cover letter by briefly defining site limitations and explaining proposed solutions.

Upon completion of the report and design plan, the engineer must sign and seal each of the copies
submitted to the local and state health departments for review. The Public Health Code requires
plans be submitted to the local health departments for their review. Design plans for small sewage
disposal systems and residential properties in areas of special concern may be reviewed and approved
by local sanitarians authorized to provide this service by the Commissioner of Public Health. Local
health department staff may forward design plans together with comments to the Commissioner of
Public Health for review by his/her staff. No plan should be submitted directly by the applicant or
engineer to the Commissioner unless specifically requested by the local director of health.

In order to assure a satisfactory installation in accordance with Code requirements, it is essential the
design plan be complete and cover all items of concern to the sanitarian and installer. Construction
notes, sequence of construction and site preparation, mechanical and electrical specifications for small
pump lift stations and erosion and sedimentation controls are often included on plan. Detached pages
of soil test data, construction notes or instructions to installers are often misplaced and are not as
effective as the same information described on plans.

82
Before the engineer begins actual layout of the proposed building and sewage disposal facilities, he
must have an accurate plot plan of the property with existing contours. Use of existing topographic
maps available from various town and federal agencies may be acceptable if field observations
confirm the contour data. For sewage disposal purposes, it is most important that accurate contours
be developed only within the proposed building and sewage disposal areas. Field contours of an
entire two (2) acre building lot would represent an unnecessary expense when only a small percentage
of the property is being developed. Significant changes in slopes or other irregularities in remote
areas of the lot may be identified by note on plans.

19. CHECK LIST - DESIGN PLANS

83
1. Original signature and seal of design engineer on each copy of plans (Blue print of seal and
signature is unacceptable)

2. Plan drawn to scale; 1" = 20' or 30' for residential lots; 1" = 40' or 50' for large projects
such as schools, shopping centers. "Key" or location maps may be inserted on large
residential, industrial or commercial properties with proper scale addressing building and
sewage disposal areas only

3. Mailing address of engineer

4. Lot size with dimensions of property lines

5. Lot numbers or assessors map block and lot identification

6. Legend to identify various indicators of stone walls, test pits, wells, hay bales etc.

7 Existing contours in building and leaching areas (including 25-50’ downgrade)

8. Proposed contours showing fill extensions, cuts, walls

9. Cross sections through leaching area indicating elevations of system, ledge, curtain drain,
ground water etc.

10. Building sewer line to septic tank

11. Septic tank location

12. Pump chamber location, chamber cross section showing manhole, float controls, discharge
volume

13. Effluent distribution piping, “D” boxes

14. Leaching system layout (trenches, pits, or galleries) with dimensions on center

15. Invert elevations at foundation wall, inlet and outlet of septic tank, inlets and outlets at
distribution boxes and at all leaching systems (including bottom elevations of galleries)

16. Stable bench mark adjacent to proposed building and sewage disposal system. Installer
should not be required to transfer bench marks when considerable differences (more than
10' to 15') exist between the bench mark and leaching area. If the bench mark is disturbed
prior to construction, the engineer should set another one for construction purposes.

17 North arrow (may be true, magnetic or assumed, note on plan)

18. Number of bedrooms or basis of design including proposed use of building. Example: light
manufacturing, 30 employees @ 25 GPD = 750 GPD

19. Required leaching area by Code. Example: 4 bedroom home, 15 min/inch perc = 900
sq.ft. Required Minimum Leaching System Spread, including criteria.

84
20. Written description of leaching system proposed indicating effective area provided.
Example: 3 rows of leaching trench, 75' long, 3.0’ wide = 675 sq.ft.

21. Soil test data shown on plan including deep test hole soil descriptions and all time and
measurement readings of the percolation test

22. Test hole locations, including perc test holes. Show all tests

23. Dimension leaching system lengths, distances from tank to building, system to building,
system to walls, embankments, drains etc. Do not rely on installer to accurately scale
critical dimensions off the plan.

24. Well location with protective radius. Recommend increasing minimum 75' distance for
private residential well where possible to provide increased protection. Locate well to
avoid condemnation of suitable leaching areas on adjacent properties.

25. Locate wells, septic systems and other potential sources of pollution on adjacent
properties. If none exist, note on plan.

26. Show building footing drain discharges (90% of homes have foundation/footing drains),
storm drains in roads, streams, brooks, drainage swales, swamps, ponds or other
watercourses

27. Identify ledge rock outcrops, wet surface areas, old bury holes, filled-in foundations, etc.

28. Show existing structures on same lot

29. Locate public water lines in road and show water service line to building

30. Locate human habitations on adjacent lots

31. Show detail of leaching system proposed

32. Show detail of curtain drain

33. Indicate driveway location

34. Provide detail specifications for materials to be used such as fill, force main piping, pump
model and manufacturer, H-20 wheel loading for pits or galleries under pavement, curtain
drain backfill, manhole frames and covers and other non-typical items required for design

35. Identify reserve leaching area by layout of a leaching system of acceptable size

36. Revision dates

37. Indicate location of buried oil tanks (must be 75' from private wells)

85
 20. REPAIR PROCEDURES

The Public Health Code requires that all repairs to existing sewage disposal systems must be made in
accordance with the requirements in the Technical Standards, unless a special exception is granted.
This does not mean that every part of an existing sewage disposal system must be brought up to
present standards whenever a repair is made. Rather, it means that all new construction must meet the
minimum standards. However, it is the policy of the State Department of Public Health and most
local health departments that whenever a repair is made, the deficient part of the system which
appears to have caused the failure should be enlarged or replaced in accordance with minimum Code
standards. For instance, if it is determined that the probable cause of failure is insufficient leaching
area, the leaching system should be enlarged to the minimum size required by the Code, but a
somewhat undersized septic tank need not be replaced.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS

The sanitarian or local regulatory official must assume the primary technical responsibility for repairs
to existing sewage disposal systems, for several reasons.

1. The local health department probably was involved in installing the original
system, and may have information regarding soils and system design.

2. The local health department is responsible for protecting public health and for
causing abatement of potential health hazards as soon as possible.

3. The local director of health may be required to grant certain exceptions to the Code
requirements in order to correct the sewage problem.

4. Local regulatory officials are in the best position to weigh possible economic
hardships or legal complications which might impede or delay abatement.

For the above reasons, the Public Health Code does not require an engineer's plan for repair of
existing subsurface sewage disposal systems in areas of special concern. Generally, engineers are
reluctant to design any repair other than installation of a complete new sewage disposal system
meeting all Code requirements. This may mean additional and perhaps unnecessary costs, which may
make abatement more difficult to achieve. However, the Code does allow the director of health to
require an engineer 's plan wherever he feels that the technical complexities of the repair are beyond
the capabilities of the local health department or installer.

Orders, if issued, should require the owner to "abate the sewage overflow", rather than make some
specific repair, such as "install 150 feet of leaching trenches". The method of repair should be
proposed by the owner or his representative, such as an installer or engineer. The local director of
health must approve the proposal, but he is not responsible for originating it. The local health
department also may accept a program for repair where there is uncertainty or disagreement as to
how much must be done to effectively abate a sewage problem, or where economic hardship is
involved. For instance, a system failure may appear to be due to a combination of high seasonal
ground water and poor soil. In this case, the owner may be allowed to install a ground water control
drain first, to see if this will correct the failure. If the problem continues, the leaching system would
then have to be expanded or replaced.

86
INVESTIGATING SEWAGE PROBLEMS

Whenever a sewage problem is reported, the local health department should investigate. First, a
preliminary, fact-finding investigation should be made, and the occupants of the premises
interviewed. An effort should be made to determine the nature of the problem, if one exists, the
probable cause, the apparent deficiencies of the sewage disposal system, and what might be done
to correct the problem. The following questions might be asked.

1. When did the problem occur? When was the system installed? - (A system
which functioned properly for ten to fifteen years usually indicates that the soil
in the area is satisfactory)

2. Does the problem primarily occur during the spring? - (Seasonal high ground
water is likely)

3 How many occupants or users of the system are there? Are roof leaders, cellar
drains, water softeners or swimming pool filters connected to the system? -
(System may be loaded beyond its design capacity)

4. When was the septic tank pumped? - (There may be solids clogging the leaching
system)

5. Is effluent breaking out at one point only? - (This may be due to broken pipe,
poor distribution or insufficient cover)

6. Does the curtain drain discharge during the wet season? - If not, it may be
clogged with silt)

7. Does the overflow or backup only occur after heavy rainfall? - (System may be
subject to flooding)

8. Does the overflow or backup only occur during heavy use? - (System may have
insufficient storage capacity)

As much information as possible should be obtained on the system size, location and depth. If this
is not available from health department records, it might be obtained from the owner or installer.
The sewer inside the basement might give an indication of system location and depth. The location
of nearby wells, drains, property lines, etc. should be obtained at the time of the initial
investigation. All information should be recorded and sketched with dimensions, where possible.
The investigator should go to the property with a hand shovel and an auger or crowbar, so that a
cursory exploration could be made for system location, depth and soil conditions.

Depending on the findings of the preliminary investigation, more extensive investigation and soil
testing may be required. This usually will involve digging deep observation pits, and possibly
digging up and examining part of the existing system. Percolation tests normally should be
required whenever the leaching system will be replaced or enlarged (This requirement can be

87
waived if prior testing has been performed in the area of the proposed repair and its accuracy can
be verified). This investigation should be made with the owner and his representative, either an
installer or engineer, so that an agreement may be reached at that time as to how to proceed with
repair of the system. The investigation should be thorough enough to settle any questions as to
what portions of the existing system may be utilized, and what must be replaced. Any possible
exceptions to Code requirements should be discussed at this time, before proceeding with the
repair.

CODE EXCEPTIONS

The Public Health Code allows the director of health to make exceptions to most of the requirements
of the Code and Technical Standards for repairs of existing sewage disposal systems. However, there
are certain exceptions which the local health department cannot make. Instead, a special exception
must be obtained from the State Department of Public Health for the following.

1. Reduction in the minimum separating distance between a water supply well and a
sewage disposal system.
2. Construction of a sewage disposal system serving more than one building.
3. Construction of a sewage disposal system not located on the same lot as the
building served.

In order to obtain an exception from any Code requirement, either from the local director of health or
the State Department of Public Health, an exact description of the requested exception must be
submitted. This may be in the form of a plan or sketch, or a verbal description, depending on the
situation. No exception can be allowed unless it has been determined that the repair cannot be made
in compliance with the Code requirements, and that it is unlikely that a nuisance or public health
hazard will occur if the exception is granted. All exceptions must be noted on the repair permit and
ultimately on the “Permit to Discharge”.

PERMIT TO DISCHARGE FOR REPAIRS

In some cases, repairs can be made only by allowing major exceptions to the Code requirements. In a
case where the exceptions are sufficiently great to raise a question as to the suitability of the system
for certain uses, it would be advisable to state this on the “Permit to Discharge”. For instance, it
might be stated that the system is adequate for seasonal use only or is not sized for laundry wastes,
etc.. Or it might be stated that the system was approved for use by the present occupants, and may
not be adequate for more than four persons. In critical cases, it might be advisable to make note in
the town land records of properties where use is limited due to shortcomings of the sewage disposal
system. Since the status of a particular system can change depending on the occupancy of the
building, the actions taken to correct the deficiencies and/or the availability of sanitary sewers, it is
not advisable to actually state the system’s shortcomings. It is recommended that a generic statement
be made which will provide a warning to prospective buyers regarding the condition of the septic
system on the property.

AN EXAMPLE OF A LAND RECORD NOTATION:

All interested parties should contact the Town’s Health Department for information
regarding the current status of the subsurface sewage disposal system serving this

88
 property.

By agreement with the local building official, structural or plumbing modifications may be required
which will reduce the amount of sewage generated. These can be useful in repairing sewage disposal
systems on small lots where previous attempts to repair the system have been unsuccessful.
Limitations may be imposed on occupancy of a residence by restricting the number of bedrooms.
However, where this is done, it generally is necessary to make architectural modifications, such as
removing walls and reducing the number of rooms., to provide some reasonable assurance that the
actual occupancy will conform to that permitted. Water use may be limited by requiring low water
volume sanitary fixtures. These are described in the Section on "Determining Design Sewage
Flows". As with repair permits carrying major exceptions, it may be advisable to make note of
properties with occupancy or use limitations in the town land records by use of the aforementioned
notation.

RENOVATING CLOGGED LEACHING SYSTEMS

In certain situations, it may be cost effective to attempt to restore some of the infiltration capacity of
an existing leaching system which has failed due to clogging of the distribution pipe, stone or
surrounding soil. This may be practical where it has been determined that the existing leaching
system has failed due to overloading or where faulty septic tank construction or maintenance has
allowed sewage solids and grease to accumulate within the leaching system. On the other hand, it may
be useless to renovate a leaching system which has failed due to high ground water or unsuitable soil.
Typically, renovation is done in conjunction with enlargement or replacement of the failed leaching
system since it usually is inadequate. In general, no renovation can be expected to restore the full
infiltrative capacity of the original leaching system. However, even partial restoration may be
desirable in order to obtain additional leaching capacity, particularly where area for expansion is
limited.

REMOVAL OF CLOGGED STONE AND SOIL

Slime-clogged stone from leaching systems must be removed and replaced with clean stone. It cannot
be cleaned and reused. For this reason, it probably is not practical to attempt to renovate clogged
leaching trenches, pits or beds in this manner. However, it may be cost effective for systems
consisting of precast leaching gallery units. Before any construction is started, the septic tank and
galleries must be pumped dry. Incoming sewage must be pumped from the septic tank during
construction so as to maintain dry conditions. Deep galleries (4 ft. deep) can be renovated fairly
easily in place by removing the stone and clogged soil with a backhoe. The excavation thus formed
around the gallery is refilled with clean stone and the system is put back into service. Shallow
galleries normally are removed, cleaned and replaced back in the enlarged excavation after the
clogged stone and soil has been removed. Sometimes a small bulldozer is used for this trench
cleaning. The leaching capacity of shallow gallery systems can be restored almost completely in this
manner, since both bottom and side infiltrative surfaces are cleaned.

TREATMENT WITH OTHER CHEMICALS

89
Chemicals other than hydrogen peroxide should not be used for treating clogged leaching systems
since their potentially harmful effects would more than cancel out any temporary beneficial effect
that may be produced.

Strong acid or alkali drain cleaners are available. These may effectively open clogged house
sewers but can be harmful when used ahead of a septic tank and leaching system. Acid has an
extremely corrosive effect on concrete and may damage septic tanks, sewers and distribution
boxes. Alkali is less damaging to concrete and most household drain cleaners contain such
caustic chemicals. However, both acids and alkalis will liquefy the grease which comprises the
scum layer in a septic tank and coats the inside of house sewers. This liquefied grease can be
carried into the leaching system where it will further clog the soil. Strong acids and alkalis also
will disrupt sludge digestion. Alkali may produce excessive gas formation which will carry
accumulated sludge from the septic tank into the leaching system. High concentrations of acids or
caustic chemicals may even adversely affect the permeability of the soil itself by destroying its
structural characteristics.

Some drain cleaners contain hazardous chemicals which can pollute ground waters.
Chlorobenzene is one such chemical which was widely used in sewage treatment because of its
ability to prevent grease clogging. This has been found to be a cancer causing agent which
constitutes a very serious threat to ground water when applied to a leaching system. Almost all
such organic grease solvents are in the same category.

Certain soil conditioning chemicals are available which are said to increase the soil percolation
rate and therefore restore the capacity of clogged leaching systems. This is highly unlikely. Such
chemicals may have some marginal benefit when applied to clean or dry soils in such a manner as
to coat the individual soil particles. However, they are of no value when applied to clogged,
flooded or saturated soils surrounding failing leaching systems.

One chemical, copper sulfate has been used to destroy tree roots which are growing into sewers or
leaching systems. Copper sulfate has recently been designated by DEP to be a groundwater
contaminate and therefore it should not be utilized without DEP approval.

SELF-RENOVATION BY "RESTING"

The infiltrative capacity of most clogged leaching systems can be partially restored by taking them
out of service for a year or more. This lets the system dry and allows some aerobic decomposition of
the accumulated organic solids to take place. The degree of self-renovation is closely related to the
soil characteristics and the period of resting. Clogged leaching systems in sands and gravels will
regain their original infiltrative capacity almost completely if allowed to rest for about one year.
Systems in clays or silts may never recover more than 25% of their original infiltrative capacity no
matter how long they are rested. This probably is because of chemical changes which have occurred
in the soil structure itself. Self-renovation is greatly hastened if the system is dewatered by pumping
when taken out of service. Leaching systems which have been clogged by grease are extremely slow
to recover and in many such cases self-renovation may not be a practical consideration. In all cases,
self-renovation of clogged leaching systems by resting should be looked upon as a way of providing
future system capacity rather than a method of abating an existing problem because of the long
resting period which is required.

CLOGGED DISTRIBUTION PIPE

90
Surprisingly, leaching system clogging does not always occur at the soil infiltrative surface. In some
cases, clogging may occur in the perforated distribution pipe or in the stone surrounding the pipe.
This usually is associated with high strength laundry or kitchen wastes containing lint or grease which
forms filamentous accumulations on pipe and stone surfaces. Sometimes clogging occurs as a result
of backwash from water softeners. Such a clogged leaching system may be renovated by removing
the clogged perforated pipe and stone, and relaying new pipe with open joints and a few inches of
clean, coarse stone (1 1/2 to 2 inches) placed over the existing stone. The addition of intermittent
dosing facilities may also be helpful.

AIR PENETRATION SYSTEMS

A process, presently marketed by the Terra-Lift Company, which utilizes a long, narrow probe and
pneumatic hammer to penetrate soils to depths of three to six feet (depending on the depth of the
leaching system). Very small polystyrene pellets are forced into the soil by compressed air at a
controllable rate, fracturing the soil, and creating a network of fissures and cracks. The operation is
repeated every four feet (depending on the soil conditions) around each of the leaching field trenches.
This process, relatively new to on-site sewage disposal systems, has been used since 1992 as a means
of rejuvenating leaching systems. Because of this relatively short time frame, there is no data on the
long-term effectiveness of this process. The process should only be utilized where the soil conditions
surrounding the existing system are deemed suitable per the Technical Standards.

21. MODEL GUIDELINE FOR LIMITED SYSTEM REPAIRS

91
The Public Health Code requires that all repairs to existing sewage disposal systems be pursuant to
the requirements of Section 19-13-B103 and Technical Standards of the code. It is, therefore,
standard practice that whenever an old (exceeding 20 years) existing leaching system fails, a new
leaching system is installed which meets all code requirements, including size. Exceptions to the code
are only granted when necessary. This policy should be the basis of enforcement at the local health
department level. However, sanitarians are sometimes asked to allow the installation of “undersized”
systems if the property owner anticipates that sanitary sewers will be available in the near future or,
there is a determination that the existing system is located in suitable soil conditions and still
possesses the ability to disperse a significant amount of the building’s daily sewage discharge. How
to handle these requests in a fair and consistent manner is not specifically addressed in the code.
When a failure occurs and a health hazard exists, abatement of that health hazard is the prime
objective of the repair. Therefore before any decision can be made as to the exceptions which can be
granted, it is imperative that the cause of the failure be determined. Once the investigation is
completed (many times soil and percolation testing will be required) conclusions can be reached as to
what corrective action is necessary. In some cases, a “full” repair may not be deemed necessary.

SUGGESTED GENERAL GUIDELINES

1. The code requires the repair of subsurface sewage disposal systems be pursuant to
code requirements.

2. Unless code exceptions are necessary due to existing site conditions, all portions of
the repair installation shall be installed per code requirements.

3. Elements of the existing system not affected by the repair installation can remain,
even if not up to current code requirements (example: old single compartment
septic tanks do not have to be replaced [unless defective in some way] at the time of
repair).

4. To be consistent, all repairs shall be treated in the same manner. Issues, such as
indefinite sewer availability or, financial hardship of the property owner, should
not be the factors that determine the extent of repairs for a failing system.

5. The minimum repair parameters shall be based on technical data established during
the repair investigation process. If an existing “failed” leaching system is situated
within soil conditions which are deemed to be unfavorable for continued operation,
or the system can not be salvaged, then that system shall be abandoned and the
replacement system “sized” per code requirements. If the soil conditions are
acceptable, the leaching system is the proper distance above maximum ground
water and ledge and the failure is attributed to leaching field clogging then a
limited enlargement to the original system can be allowed. In that case, the
enlargement does not necessarily have to constitute an entirely new system, even
though the majority of such repairs are total system replacements. If a limited
enlargement is requested by the property owner the procedures listed in the next
section of this chapter should be followed.

92
 6. Limited or partial repairs can be allowed as long as the conditions of such an
approval are documented and recorded in health department files and the property
owner places a notation on the town land records (see Note 6 under Procedures).

PROCEDURES

1. All property owners needing septic repairs should be given information relative to
the availability of sanitary sewers in their area. When sewer connections will be
available to the property owner (construction contracts have been signed and a
definite schedule has been established by the town’s Water Pollution Control
Authority) within twelve (12) months, a “partial” system repair could be
approved by the local health department. Availability further out than twelve (12)
months shall require the repair of the septic system be per standard procedures. In
cases where a “partial” repair was installed the health department approval shall
expire twelve (12) months after issuance. If sewers are available, the property
owner should be required to connect within a reasonable length of time. If for
some reason sewers are not available within the allotted twelve (12) months then
the health department will reevaluate the approval for an additional specified time.

2. If the existing system has to be abandoned then the repair shall be sized per code (if
site conditions permit). Sewer availability (unless less than twelve [12] months as
noted above) and financial hardship should not be considered.

3. If after thorough analysis, the existing system is determined to be functional but

inadequate (accurate documentation, such as, soil test information and “as-built”
drawings, should be available to establish suitability for continued use) then a
limited enlargement to repair that system can be approved. The size of the
enlargement shall be determined on a case by case basis. The minimum size
of the limited system enlargement should be based on adding enough leaching
area to bring the existing system up to current code requirements or, on adding
enough leaching area to satisfy present water usage needs of the home. The
amount added shall be at least the larger of the above two calculations.

4. Systems approved for a limited enlargement should be analyzed to determine if

they provide adequate extra storage capacity to lower the risk of overloading due to
peak usages.

5. Any property owner requesting a limited enlargement to their system should be

required to document the request in writing, indicating actual water usage data or
occupancy levels of the home, that they are aware the repair does not provide for an
entirely new code complying leaching system and that if this repair does not handle
their needs, a fully sized system will be installed. This letter should be notarized.

6. Prior to final approval of the limited enlargement, the health department should
require the property owner to place a Land Record Notation as suggested in
Chapter 20.

93
7. After approval and installation of a limited enlargement, a Permit to Discharge
should be forwarded to the property owner which sets a limit on the amount of
sewage which can be introduced into the new portion of the leaching system. The
water usage limit shall be in proportion relative to the actual enlargement versus a
“full” system installation.

8. A copy of the Permit to Discharge should be filed with the Department of Public
Health.

94
 22. HOME BUYERS GUIDE

What a Purchaser Should Know Before Buying

A Home Served by a Septic System

I. PURPOSE

Frequently prospective buyers of a single family home have many questions regarding the septic
system serving the dwelling: What does the existing septic system consist of? Is it working
properly? How long will it last? If it fails, how much will a replacement system cost?

In order to help buyers obtain information which address these concerns, we have put together this
Fact Sheet to guide them in making informed decisions regarding the potential problems and costs
associated with a property's septic system.

II. OVERVIEW

The purpose of a home's subsurface sewage disposal system (septic system) is to dispose of the
waste water generated by the occupants in such a manner that the soils on the property can
disperse it without causing an adverse effect on groundwater and in turn on public health and the
environment. To accomplish this a system consists of the following elements: (1) A sewer line,
which connects the home's plumbing to the septic tank; (2) A septic tank, which allows for the
settling of solids and provides the initial treatment of the sewage. This is where waste material is
broken down by bacterial action. A properly functioning septic tank will reduce pollutant levels
and produce an effluent of fairly uniform quality. This is accomplished by providing inlet and
outlet baffles to reduce the velocity of liquid moving through the tank. New tanks (installed since
January, 1991) consist of two compartments in order to do an even more effective job of obtaining
the above objective; (3) A distribution system which directs the flow of effluent from the septic
tank to the drainage system in such a manner to insure full utilization of the system. Most systems
are "gravity" systems, meaning the flow runs through piping and distribution boxes without the
assistance of any mechanical device, such as a pump or siphon; (4) A drainage (leaching) system,
which disperses the sewage effluent into the surrounding natural soils. There are many types of
drainage systems. The specific type utilized on a particular property is usually dependent on the
soil conditions which exist on the site. Most residential installations utilize stone-filled leaching
trenches, but galleries, pits and beds have historically been used.

For a drainage system to function properly it must:

1. Provide enough application area. The application area is the amount of surface area of
soil provided by the particular drainage system (sides and bottom area of leaching units)
where sewage effluent is applied (referred to as "wetted" area). The amount of application
area needed for a given house depends on the characteristics of the soils on the property
and the daily flows (in gallons) generated from the house. The anticipated flow from a
house is usual predicated on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling.

2. Be surrounded by natural soil conditions which will be able to dissipate and disperse the
septic tank effluent discharge without becoming over saturated.

95
 3. Provide enough capacity to store effluent during periods of unusually heavy use or when
rainfall or subsurface flooding reduces the ability of the system to disperse the liquid.
Note: Curtain drains/groundwater interceptor drains are sometimes installed upgrade of
the drainage system to minimize high groundwater conditions.

It is important to realize that, once a system has been installed, only one of the above factors can
be controlled by the homeowner. The homeowner can control how much water is actually being
discharged to the system. Since each system has a set maximum capacity, it behooves the
homeowner not to exceed that amount.

If a system starts to experience difficulties, what are some of the common symptoms?

1. Plumbing fixtures may exhibit difficulty in releasing its contents (slow draining, bubbling,
backups, etc.). This condition may be system related but it could also indicate just a clog in
the interior piping or sewer line. You should have the interior piping checked before
proceeding with an investigation of the sewage disposal system.

2. Large volume discharges (such as, washing machines, dishwashers and bathtubs) cause either
a backup, as noted above, or, an overflow of sewage above the septic tank or leaching field.
This condition is usually at its worst during and/or directly following a heavy rain event.

3. Foul septic odors in storm drainage piping, catch basins, footing drain piping or curtain drain
discharges may indicate that sewage from your or an adjacent property is entering these
groundwater systems.

III - SOURCES OF INFORMATION

What can a prospective purchaser of a home do to gather as much information as possible relative
to the present condition and possible future expenses associated with the existing septic system?
Here are a few suggestions:

1. Obtain Information from the Present Property Owner

a. Ask for any drawings regarding the actual location (an "as-built" drawing) of the
existing septic system. Another source would be the town’s health department (see
Paragraph 3, below).

b. Ask for the records regarding maintenance of the system; Has the septic tank been
pumped at a frequency of at least 3 to 5 years?; What pumping contractor was used?;
If the system contains a pump, how often has it been maintained?; If major repairs
have been made, when and to what extent?

c. Ask about the past performance of the system. Have any of the symptoms described
in Section II manifested during the life of the system?
2. Do a Site Inspection of the Property

96
 a. Once the location of the septic tank and drainage fields are known, walk over the entire
area and observe whether there is evidence of a sewage overflow condition. Greener
grass in the drainage area may not necessarily indicate a system problem. If, however,
the area is completely saturated and odorous you should be very concerned. It most
likely indicates an active failure.

b. Try to get a sense of how natural conditions are effecting the capacity of the property
to disperse water. Is the sewage disposal area located in a depression which would
have a tendency to collect run-off of rain water? Is the lot flat? Is there a watercourse
or wetland (swamp) near the drainage system and is the system virtually at the same
elevation? Are there steep slopes and/or ledge outcrops which reduce the available
area for leaching purposes? All of the above factors could indicate that the existing
system will experience difficulty or, that there may not be much additional area
suitable for sewage disposal on the lot if needed in the future.

3. Go to Town Health Department to Review Property's File

a. Ask the town sanitarian to review the file with you. Is there enough information in it
for him/her to give you an opinion on how the existing system and/or lot meets present
health code requirements?

b. Your goal is to confirm and supplement information received from the property owner.

c. Obtain guidelines concerning the proper maintenance of a subsurface sewage disposal

system.

d. If you are contemplating an addition to the home or plan on renovating an unfinished

basement, discuss the possibilities with the sanitarian and determine the procedures
you would have to follow to accomplish your plans. In some cases, it will not be
possible to "enlarge" an existing home.

e. Ask about the general neighborhood, the frequency of repairs, ability to install proper
size repair systems, average life of systems in the areas, etc.

4. Obtain Additional Information from Outside Sources

a. Presently, many home sales are contingent upon a home inspection. Depending on
whether or not the present owner of the property will permit it, opening up and
examining key elements of an existing sewage disposal system is the most reliable
means to determine the present condition of the system. Examining the inside of the
septic tank(s) and distribution boxes may indicate that the system is experiencing
difficulties in dispersing the volume of sewage generated by the home. If access to the
existing system is not available, home inspectors sometimes use other methods in
which to ascertain the status of an existing system. Unfortunately some of the people
performing these tests do not have a complete understanding of how a system
functions. Therefore, the conclusions reached from these tests can be misleading. For
example, testing a system in the summer months may indicate a functioning system,
when in fact that same system may be under groundwater in the Spring and unable to
function properly.

97
Three common tests performed during home inspections are as follows:

1) The Dye-Test is used to trace the movement of septic tank effluent into the
leaching system. The theory is that if the dye "surfaces" to the ground or
appears in a brook or catch basin the system is in trouble. Although this is
indeed true, the opposite result does not necessarily mean the system is
functioning or will function properly in the future. In order for the dye to
appear it must flow through the septic tank and leaching fields prior to
arriving at the breakout point. This usually would take a large amount of
water and sufficient time to occur, and most home inspections do not last
long enough to fulfill this requirement. This type of test would only detect
grossly failed systems (ones which have a direct discharge of sewage to the
environment).

2) The Probe-Test is a procedure whereby the inspector attempts to locate the

"key" elements of the system (septic tank and drainage fields) and determine if
they are experiencing overflow conditions (meaning the septic tank and fields
are flooded). This test is basically inaccurate since it only takes a single
"snapshot" of the condition of the system. It may be a "good" day for the
system (very little water was used by the homeowner that day; the house may
have been empty for some time; it may be the middle of the summer when
soil conditions are at their best) and a judgment is being made with very
little long-term information.

3) The Flooding Test (sometimes referred to as a "push test") is actually the process
of discharging a substantial quantity of water into the existing septic system to
simulate a typical "peak" usage of water by a family. The purpose of the test is to
expose those systems which no longer have the capability to disperse "peak" flows
and, therefore, may not be adequate to satisfy the needs of the prospective buyers.
After a certain amount of water is "flushed" down sinks, tubs and toilets, the
inspector examines the leaching area to observe any signs of an "overflow" condition.
If an "overflow" is noted, the conclusion reached by the inspector is that the system is
not functioning properly. It should be noted,
however, that "passing" the test does not necessarily mean that the system is
working properly. This type of test is conducted by many inspectors, who feel it
would be a disservice to their clients not to obtain information on the present
status of an existing system. We, however, have concerns that unless this test
is performed in a responsible, site specific manner, it could cause harm to the
existing system or lead to erroneous conclusions. If this test is conducted, we
suggest the following items be considered before conclusions are reached:

1. The present occupancy of the home.

2. The possible water usage of the occupants within the last 24 hours
prior to conducting the tests.

3. Soil conditions in the leaching area, such as, the degree of saturation
due to groundwater levels, rain fall events or time of year.

98
 4. That the application of water to the system (by running water through
the plumbing fixtures) be performed in a slow, uniform manner to
prevent a "slug" of water from entering the septic tank and disturbing
the contents.

5. That the procedure limit the amount of water utilized for the test based
on the information listed above, but should not exceed 50 gallons
per bedroom in a fully occupied ( two people per bedroom) home.

To repeat, the above testing is meant to discover obvious malfunctioning

septic systems. None of the above tests can lead to a guarantee that the
existing sewage disposal system for a home will continue to work properly
in the future.

b. Use the Soil Conservation Service County Maps (through the town sanitarian) to try to
identify the type of soil most likely present on the site in order to predict the feasibility
of future repairs to the existing leaching system.

c. Talk to neighbors about the general performance of septic systems in the area and
specifically the system on the property you're interested in. However, this is suggested
only for those "comfortable" in approaching this subject with "strangers" and with the
realization that the information gathered may not be totally factorial for various
reasons (devaluation of their own property; not wanting to "spoil" the sale of a friendly
neighbor, etc.).

d. Hire your own consultant, either a professional engineer, who specializes in septic
system designs or, a licensed septic system installer, who performs a great deal of
work in the particular town. They can give you advise as to the conditions of the soils
and septic systems in the area and what might be expected (especially pertaining to
costs) if you did have problems with the existing system.

e. Obtain water meter readings (if the home is serviced by a municipal water supply) to
determine what the present occupants of the home are utilizing. Then compare those
results with what your family is presently using. If your family is using significantly
more water than the former occupants you may be asking for trouble if the sewage
system is "undersized" to today's standards.

IV. FINAL OBJECTIVE

It is our opinion that when buying an existing home, especially one which is old and does not have
a sewage disposal system which meets today's standards, the fundamental question which should be
answered is: If the existing system fails, how will we repair it and how much will those repairs
cost? If accurate soil test data is not available through the local health department, the only sure
way of answering this question is to actually perform all the deep hole testing and percolation tests
required by code. As you can understand, most sellers would take a dim view of prospective
buyers wanting to tear up their property to perform these tests. Therefore, the more information a
buyer can obtain, the better able he or she will be to judge the adequacy of the existing system and
what will most likely be required to repair the system, when needed. In that way, the buyer will not

99
be caught unaware when that day arrives, since it was part of the financial assessment establishing
the value of the property at the time of purchase.

PART II

100
 23. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Hydraulic analysis simply consists of applying basic hydraulic laws to the flow of sewage effluent
through soil. However, there are certain differences between the way that leaching systems are
assumed to function by hydraulic analysis and the way that they actually do function. For instance,
hydraulic analysis assumes a constant and continuous flow of sewage effluent through saturated soil.
It is known that, under normal conditions, sewage effluent is dispersed into the soil surrounding
leaching systems in an unsaturated and discontinuous flow. Depending on seasonal conditions,
effluent may be dispersed by atmospheric evaporation or may accumulate within the leaching system
or surrounding soil. However, the continuous, saturated flow conditions assumed for hydraulic
analysis probably will occur before a leaching system fails. A mound of saturated soil will form
under the leaching system where the hydraulic capacity of the surrounding soil is limited. This will
rise to surround the leaching system as failure approaches. In this situation, the leaching system itself
will be continuously filled with sewage effluent causing fluctuating sewage discharges from the
building served to be equalized into a steady flow into the soil. Where the soil surrounding a leaching
system is poor or where there is high ground water, flat slopes or underlying ledge or hardpan,
hydraulic analysis is a useful tool for estimating the maximum capacity of the leaching system to
disperse effluent into the surrounding soil without breakout.

Using Hydraulic Analysis For Small Leaching Systems - In general, hydraulic analysis should not be
used for the design or regulation of household or other small sewage disposal systems with a capacity
of 1,000 gallons or less where the site is generally favorable for leaching purposes. Conformance to
the requirements of the Public Health Code and the general design principles outlined in Part I of this
manual should assure a satisfactory system. Hydraulic analysis becomes important where the
capacity of the surrounding soil is limited. Reference should be made to the section on “Hydraulic
Analysis - Examples” before requiring any hydraulic analysis beyond what is called for under
Minimum Leaching System Spread (MLSS) criteria.

Hydraulic analysis may be required for either of two separate purposes. The most common purpose is
to indicate the nature and probable magnitude of the hydraulic limitations on a particular site so that
the leaching system can be designed to overcome those limitations. When hydraulic analysis is used
for design purposes, the accepted practice is to make an analysis based on existing site conditions,
maximum ground water levels and conservative sewage flow estimates. This results in a conservative
leaching system design, which is what is desired.

Hydraulic analysis also may be used as a regulatory basis for rejection of proposed subsurface
sewage disposal systems in extremely limited or unfavorable locations. Hydraulic analysis may
depend heavily on certain specific assumptions or approximations which must be made for each
particular site. Therefore, the reliability of the analysis depends on the validity and accuracy of the
assumptions and, ultimately, on the experience and judgment of the investigator. As might be
expected, disagreements are common when hydraulic analysis is used for regulatory purposes. For
this reason, a formal hydraulic analysis, other than the MLSS calculation, should rarely be necessary
if all other requirements of the Public Health Code are met.

In general, no leaching system should be approved on the basis of favorable hydraulic analysis unless
it also meets Code requirements.

101
When hydraulic analysis is used for regulatory purposes, certain adjustments normally are made to
allow for site improvements such as ground water intercepting drains, filling and grading to promote
rainfall runoff. The beneficial effects these improvements have on the hydraulic conditions in the area
of the proposed leaching system may be applied to the analysis and approval process.

Darcy's Law - The flow of sewage effluent and ground water through soils may be analyzed by using
a basic hydraulic formula referred to as "Darcy's Law". This formula assumes a constant and
continuous gravity flow through unconfined "channels" or areas of saturated soil. In its simplest
form, Darcy's Law states that the velocity of a liquid moving through an unconfined channel under
gravity conditions is proportional to the loss of hydraulic head per unit length of flow path, or:

V = K X (H1 - H2 / L)

Where:

V = Velocity of flow

K = Coefficient of permeability

H1-H2= Loss of hydraulic head

L = Length of flow channel

Darcy's Law generally is used in a modified form for hydraulic analysis of sewage and shallow
ground water flow. In this analysis, the main concern is the volume of water which will flow through
an area of saturated soil in a given period of time. This sometimes is called the hydraulic
conductivity of the soil. The equation is usually written:

Q =KiA

Where:

Q = The hydraulic conductivity or saturated flow rate, usually expressed

in cubic feet per day.
K = The coefficient of permeability of the soil through which the saturated
flow takes place. This is usually expressed in feet per day.
i = The slope of the hydraulic grade. When used in hydraulic analysis of
sewage or shallow ground water flow, only the horizontal length of the
flow channel normally is considered since the flow channel usually
follows the ground surface and is relatively flat. Therefore, i normally
is expressed as a dimensionless fraction or decimal representing a vertical
drop divided by a horizontal distance.
A = The cross sectional area of saturated flow, usually expressed in square feet.
It is evident from the form of this equation that if either the permeability, the slope of the hydraulic
grade or the cross sectional area of saturated flow is limited, the hydraulic conductivity of the soil is
likewise limited.

102
Determining Soil Permeability - The coefficient of permeability, or simply the permeability of the soil,
is a measure of how easily liquid passes through a particular soil. This depends on such things as the
distribution of the particle sizes in the soil and their shape and geometrical arrangement. The
permeability of naturally occurring soils can be quite variable due to stratification of different particle
sizes, varying degrees of compaction and the existence of naturally occurring drainage channels
formed by percolating ground water. It is not unusual for the permeability to vary by a factor of
1,000 in small samples taken from various soil layers at different locations or depths on the same site.
There also may be considerable difference between the horizontal and vertical permeability in the
same soil at the same location and depth. Horizontal permeabilities usually are much greater than
vertical permeabilities due to the effect of layering, particle orientation and natural drainage channels.
Because of this variability, considerable judgment must be used in determining the permeability of
naturally occurring soils.

While the permeability is a definite physical property of a soil, it should be understood that the overall
permeability of any site or any portion of the naturally occurring soil on the site can only be
estimated. It cannot be measured directly. Estimates of site permeability can be based on four
general types of measurements or observations.

1. Estimates based on ground water observations made on the site.

2. Estimates based on in-place testing on the site.
3. Estimates based on testing of soil samples.
4. Estimates based on soil identification and reference to available data.

The most appropriate method for estimating the permeability depends mainly on the soil and site
conditions. The season or time of year also is an important consideration since most field tests or
observations depend on ground water being present. In many cases, the most reliable method of
estimating the overall site permeability for sewage disposal purposes is by observations of ground
water levels on the site. This is particularly true where shallow or stratified soil layers are involved.
In-place pit bailing tests are quite reliable and may be used for estimating the permeability of deep
soil layers. Estimating overall site permeability on the basis of sample testing or soil identification
requires considerable experience and judgment on the part of the investigator. However, this may be
done in the absence of seasonal ground water and the field procedures are quite simple.

Wherever possible, the permeability should be estimated by more than one method. If the estimates
are fairly close, it can be assumed that no errors of judgment have been made in selecting or
performing the test and that the estimated permeability is valid for hydraulic analysis. Refer to the
Section 25 titled “Methods of Estimating Soil Permeability” for a detailed discussion of the various
procedures for estimating soil permeability. Only those procedures which are recommended for the
particular conditions existing on the site should be used. Particular attention should be given to the
special precautions which should be taken when using each method.

Determining The Hydraulic Grade - The slope of the hydraulic grade depends on the direction and
slope of the flow channel. Where layers of compact hardpan or ledge underlie a leaching system,
sewage effluent flows in a generally horizontal direction following the ground surface. In this case,
the slope of the hydraulic grade is equal to the difference in elevation of the underlying impervious
layer at two observation pits, divided by the distance between the pits. If only horizontal distances
are considered and minor variations in depth of underlying impervious layer are disregarded, the slope
of the hydraulic grade may be taken to be equal to the slope of the ground surface (refer to Figure
23-1).

103
 Test Pit No. 1, Elev. = 108
Hardpan at 3.5 ft.
Perched Ground Water at 3 ft.

150 ft.

Ground Surface
Test Pit No. 2, Elev. = 105
Hardpan at 4.0 ft.
Perched Ground Water at 3 ft. Flow

Perched Ground Water

Flow

UNDERLYING HARDPAN

i = Slope of Ground Surface

= 108 - 105 = 0.02
150

Figure 23-1

Horizontal flow also may be assumed to exist in slowly permeable soils even though underlying
impervious boundary layers are not apparent. In this case, the slope of the hydraulic grade may be
taken to be equal to the difference in the ground water elevation at two observation pits divided by the
distance between the pits (refer to Figure 23-2). If variations in depth to the ground water table are
minor, the slope of the hydraulic grade also may be taken to be equal to the slope of the ground's
surface.

104
 Test Pit No. 1, Elev. = 95
Firm Silty Loam
Ground Water at 6.0 Ft.
Test Pit No. 2, Elev. = 87
Firm Silty Loam
Ground Water at 4.0 ft.

200 ft.

Ground Surface

Ground Water Table

Slowly Permeable Soil

i = (95-6) - (87-4) = 0.03

200

Figure 23-2

A mound of saturated soil will form under the leaching system where there are hydraulic constraints
in the surrounding soil. This mound of saturated soil constitutes part of the effluent flow channel and
its formation increases the slope of the hydraulic grade of the flow channel. Therefore, it is evident
that constructing a leaching system in fill above the surrounding ground surface will increase the
slope of the hydraulic grade and enhance the ability of the system to disperse effluent into the
surrounding soil. Increasing the slope of the hydraulic grade in this manner normally is not
considered when using hydraulic analysis to design a leaching system because such systems should be
designed on conservative assumptions. However, when hydraulic analysis is used for regulatory
purposes, it is reasonable to allow certain minor adjustments to be made in the hydraulic grade of the
leaching system by elevating it in fill. Where leaching systems are located over underlying
impervious layers, it may be assumed that the upper end of the hydraulic grade is at the bottom of the
proposed leaching system but not higher than the original grade. The lower end can be assumed to be
the elevation of the impervious layer at a distance 50 feet downslope. The 50 foot distance represents
the normal maximum horizontal extent of the saturation mound, as indicated by field experience (refer
to Figure 23-3)*. Similarly, where there is no underlying boundary layer, the lower end of the
hydraulic grade may be assumed to be at the elevation of the ground water table 50 feet downslope
from the leaching system.

105
 Proposed Elev. of
Curtain Drain Upslope Trench Bottom = 97.0

Test Pit, Elev. = 95.0

Hardpan @ 3.0 ft. Topsoil
or Max. Ground Water

50 ft. O
O
Select
Fill
Maximum Permeable Soil
Extent of Original Grade
Saturated Soil
Mound

Impervious Hardpan

Assumed Cross-Sectional i = 97 - (95 -3) = 0.10

Area of Saturated Flow 50

Figure 23-3

*The exact horizontal extent of the saturation mound depends on the rate at which potential energy
(system elevation) is converted into kinetic energy (flow velocity). This in turn depends on the soil
permeability, with the more permeable soils having less extensive mounding.

In level areas, the saturation mound extends out in all directions from the leaching system and the
lower end of the hydraulic grade may be assumed to be at the elevation of the ground water table 25
feet from the leaching system (refer to Figure 23-4).

Determining The Cross-Sectional Area Of Saturated Flow - Where flow is in a generally horizontal
direction due to underlying impervious layers, slowly permeable soil or high ground water, the
cross-sectional area of saturated flow is measured in a vertical direction. The maximum
cross-sectional area available to disperse sewage effluent on a hillside is equal to the depth of
unsaturated soil downslope from the leaching system. Saturated flow will occur in all directions
where the ground is level.

106
 Test Pit Elev. = 90.0
Ground Water @ 2.0 ft.

Elevation of
25 ft. Trench Bottom = 91.0

10 ft. Original Grade

Assumed Max. Elevation 90.0
Extent of Saturated
Soil Mound O O
Original Grade Select Fill

2 ft. Slowly Permeable Soil

Ground Water Table
Assumed Cross-Sectional
Area of Saturated Flow
i = 90.0 - (90.0-2.0) = 0.08
25

Figure 23-4

The cross-sectional area of unsaturated soil downslope from a leaching system can be increased by
spreading the system perpendicular to the direction of the slope. Assuming that the volume of effluent
to be dispersed remains constant, the depth of the area of saturated flow is reduced. (Refer back to
Figure 11-2)

It is evident that where horizontal flow occurs, the depth of unsaturated soil available for effluent
dispersal may be increased by spreading fill over the naturally occurring soil surrounding the leaching
system. This would enhance effluent dispersal and prevent breakout within the filled area. This
concept is routinely employed in the repair of sewage disposal systems which failed due to hydraulic
overloading. However, breakout still may occur from the naturally occurring soil at the toe of the fill,
particularly when located on a slope For this reason, leaching systems normally should not be
designed in this manner. Even though it is possible to calculate the combined permeability of both
original soils and fill placed on the lot, it is extremely important to realize that wherever the fill
material ends, the underlying original soil has to have sufficient capacity to absorb and disperse
projected flows. Bleed out of partially treated effluent is unacceptable. Sewage disposal systems
which depend upon filtration and detention in fill material prior to discharging at the surface of the
ground, water course or subsurface drain cannot be approved by local health departments (refer to
Figure 23-5).

107
 15 ft.
50 ft.
O

Select Fill

Extended Select
Fill
Original Ground Surface
Plowed or Scarified

Impervious Hardpan

Cross-Sectional Area
of Saturated Flow

Figure 23-5

Where there is a deep layer of permeable soil underlying a leaching system, sewage effluent will flow
downward. Such downward flow is impeded where the underlying permeable soil is saturated and
horizontal flow may be assumed where the saturated underlying soil is only moderately permeable.
However, where the underlying soil is quite permeable (percolation rate of 5 minutes per inch or
faster), downward flow still will occur. This is particularly true for small sewage disposal systems
where the effluent flow volume is small relative to the storage volume of the permeable soil
underlying the system. Such soils may be considered to be unconfined aquifers and downward flow
into the aquifer may be assumed. It would be a mistake to assume that no flow occurs simply
because the ground water table is level. Hydraulic limitations are slight where these soil conditions
exist and hydraulic analysis normally is not necessary (refer to Figure 23-6).

Determining The Required Hydraulic Conductivity - The naturally occurring soil surrounding
leaching systems should be capable of hydraulically dispersing the entire volume of sewage effluent
discharged into it on a continuous basis. Ideally, it also should be capable of dispersing any ground
water flowing into the area of the leaching system from higher elevation, as well as any rain falling in
the immediate area of the system. In theory, any hydraulic analysis of the surrounding soil should
take into count all of these sources of flow. However, for small leaching systems, it has been found to
be much more realistic to design the systems with such site improvements as ground water
intercepting drains or fill which will eliminate or mitigate the effects of seasonal ground water or
rainfall accumulations. The justification for this is more fully explained in Section 25.

108
 200 ft.

Leaching System Installed Original

o o o in Select Fill Ground Pond or
Elev. 100.0
Stream
Saturated Soil Mound
Level Ground Water Table 95.0

Permeable Soils - Perc. Rate 5 min./inch or Faster

Effluent Flow Channels

Maximum i = 100.0 - 95.0 = 0.025

200

Figure 23-6

In practice, hydraulic analyses made for the design of small leaching systems consider only the
hydraulic conductivity in the surrounding soil necessary to disperse the expected daily volume of
sewage effluent discharged to the system. For single family dwellings, a figure of 150 gallons per
bedroom per day should be used. Other daily usages from non-residential type buildings should be
based on figures contained in Table No. 4 in the Technical Standards Section of the Public Health
Code or on more detailed flow estimates provided by the design engineer.

Designing For Seasonal Rainfall Accumulation And Ground Water Movement - In Connecticut,
rainfall accumulates at an average rate of about 0.01 cubic feet per day for each square foot of
ground surface during the months of November through April. This is primarily because atmospheric
evaporation is very low during this period. The primary goal is designing the system so that it will
not be adversely affected by temporary or seasonal rainfall accumulation. This can be assured for
small leaching systems by following the design recommendations in Part I of this manual. The
bottom of the leaching system should be kept at least 18 inches above the maximum ground water
level and at least 18 inches above any impervious soil layer. This assures a depth of at least 30 inches
of unsaturated soil surrounding the leaching system (not counting the topsoil layer). Typically, a
substantial portion of this soil consists of fill. Assuming a drainable porosity of 0.2, this surrounding
soil would contain about 0.5 cubic feet of available storage per square foot of ground surface. This
would be sufficient to store all rainfall received for a period of about 50 days during the wet season,
even if all of it infiltrates into the soil. Actually, the percentage of rainfall runoff during this season
can be quite substantial, particularly during the winter months when the ground is frozen. Runoff can
be further enhanced by proper leaching system design. Normally, the finished ground surface over the
system is sloped 5 to 10% and is loamed, grassed and kept mowed to promote runoff. The width of
small leaching systems usually does not exceed 25 feet, allowing surface runoff to be effectively

109
diverted from the area of the system. Because of these considerations, seasonal accumulation of
rainfall may be disregarded in hydraulic analysis of a small leaching systems on sloped lots where
curtain drains can be installed up gradient from the system.

Ground water movement from higher elevation into the area of the leaching system can hydraulically
overload the surrounding soil causing the system to fail. However, experience has shown that this is
unlikely to be a significant problem for a small leaching system except where there is a shallow
underlying layer of impervious soil or ledge. In this situation, most of the seasonal rainfall
accumulation moves from higher elevation on top of the impervious layer. Such perched ground
water can be effectively intercepted by a properly designed and constructed curtain drain and diverted
from the area of the leaching system. Ground water movement through the underlying impervious
layer is minimal. In most such cases, the intercepting drain can be assumed to be 100% effective and
perched ground water moving into the area from higher elevation can be disregarded in the hydraulic
analysis.

Where there is no underlying impervious layer or where the slope of the ground surface is relatively
flat, curtain drains may be ineffective. Leaching systems usually are constructed in fill in such
situations and curtain drains may not be used or may be used only as an extra safeguard. In these
situations, the maximum ground water in the area of the leaching system must be carefully determined
by field observation during the wet season. Once the maximum ground water level has been
determined, an analysis may be made to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the unsaturated soil
layers above this maximum level since only this soil would be available for dispersal of sewage
effluent. If such design procedures are followed, it should not be necessary to provide for dispersal of
seasonal ground water in most hydraulic analyses made for small leaching systems.

24. METHODS OF ESTIMATING SOIL PERMEABILITY

110
The following methods of estimating soil permeability are recommended for use in connection with
hydraulic analysis of small subsurface sewage disposal systems receiving less than 2,000 gallons of
sewage per day. Other methods are not recommended for this particular use, for various reasons.
For instance, disturbed, recompacted tube samples are widely used for permeability tests in
connection with construction of dams, etc. However, they could produce questionable results for
naturally occurring soil other than clean sand or gravel because the permeability in naturally
occurring soils depends to a large extent on particle orientation and arrangement and on naturally
formed drainage channels which are disturbed by recompaction. Block samples are of little value
since normally they can only be collected from layers of compact soil which should be avoided for
sewage disposal purposes Observations of falling ground water levels following rainfall can be used
to estimate the permeability of saturated soil layers. However, this is practical only where the soil is
quite permeable. Hydraulic analysis should not be necessary for the design of small sewage disposal
systems in such soils. Wherever possible, soil permeability should be estimated by two or more
methods for confirmation purposes. Site conditions should be considered when selecting the methods
to be used.

NOTE: In all of the following methods of determining the soil permeability (K), it is assumed that we
are evaluating a one foot slice of soil to determine the area of saturated flow (A), therefore, A=
1 ft. x d

Method A - Observation of Perched Ground Water During The Spring

Site Conditions - This method is most reliable for estimating the permeability of a sloping layer of
relatively loose, well draining soil (minimum percolation rate of 10 minutes per inch or better)
underlain by compact hardpan or ledge. In this situation there is a relatively large seasonal flow of
ground water through a relatively small flow channel formed by the looser upper soil layer. The
cross-sectional area of the flow channel is proportional to the depth of the perched watertable above
the underlying impervious boundary layer and the slope of the hydraulic grade is approximately the
same as the ground slope. Therefore, if the volume of ground water flowing through the upper soil
layer can be estimated, the permeability of the layer can be calculated using Darcy's Law.

Procedure - Field procedures are extremely quick and simple, but judgment must be used in deciding
when and where to make ground water observations. Observations should only be made during the
early spring after all frost is out of the ground. April probably is the most favorable month since, at
this time of the year, the upper soil layers are damp, atmospheric evaporation is at a minimum and
rainfall runoff is usually low. The observation pits should be dug in an area where the slope is
smoothly contoured. Swales, gullies or depressions should be avoided since these will cause a
concentration of ground water flow which will result in inaccurate permeability calculations.

Several observation pits should be dug in the area and, at each location, the depth of the perched
water on top of the underlying impervious layer should be carefully measured. The average slope of
the ground surface in the area also should be measured using a tripod or hand-held level. The
drainage area must be determined either by measurements in the field or from a USGS topographic
map. If the observation pits have been properly located on a smoothly contoured slope, the drainage
area may be measured in profile from the pits upslope to the high point of land perpendicular to the
ground contours.

111
Permeability Calculation - During this time of year in Connecticut, the amount of perched ground
water flowing through the looser upper soil layers is roughly equal to the average rate at which
rainfall is collected on the upslope drainage area minus a factor of 50% to account for surface runoff.
Therefore, a rate of 0.005 cubic feet per day for each square foot of upslope drainage area will be
utilized.

K = Q = 0.005 X w
iA SXd
Where:

K = Soil permeability, in feet per day.

w = Upslope drainage area, in square feet. (Length x 1 foot wide slice)
S = Average ground slope (drop, in feet/horizontal distance, in feet)
d = Depth of perched water table, in feet.

Example: (refer to Figure 24-1) - It is found that during April, a perched water table averaging about
2 feet in depth exists in the loose soil on top of an underlying layer of impervious hardpan
(percolation rate poorer than 60 minutes per inch). The ground in this area slopes about 5 feet in 100
feet, and the drainage area extends about 500 feet upslope from the location of the observation pits.
Therefore:

K = 0.005 X 500 = 25 ft./day

0.05 X 2

High Point of Watershed

Ground Surface -
Avg. Slope = 0.05

Test Pit Dug During

Maximum Ground 500 ft.
Water Conditions

Perched Ground
Water 2 ft. Above
Hardpan Layer

Permeable Soil
(Min. Perc. < 10 Min./In.)

2 ft. Hardpan Layer

(Min. Perc. > 60 Min/In)

Figure 24-1
Special Precautions - This method of estimating the permeability should not be used for soils with
percolation rates poorer than 20 minutes per inch. Such soils drain slowly and the ground water level
will be more closely related to rainfall occurrences than to perched ground water flow. In any case,

112
observations should not be made for 3 to 5 days following a rainfall. The effect of rainfall can be
eliminated by making a series of ground water observations over a period of time in an observation
well or standpipe and determining the normal minimum perched ground water depth during this
period.

This method should not be used in level areas or where the upslope drainage area cannot be defined.
It should not be used in deep, uniform soil where perched water tables do not occur.

Method B - Observation Of Differences In Ground Water Level

Site Conditions - This method is most reliable for moderate to slowly permeable soils (minimum
percolation rate of 10 to 60 minutes per inch) on sloping areas underlain by impervious ledge or
hardpan. This method also may be used where no underlying impervious layer is apparent, as long as
the soil is slowly permeable (percolation rate slower than 20 min./inch) to the bottom of the
observation pit. In these situations, the movement of ground water through the upper soil is slow and
during the wet season, accumulating rainfall will cause a measurable rise in the water table in the
downslope direction. The rise in the water table and the slope of the hydraulic grade can be
determined by making ground water observations at two locations, one downslope from the other.
The accumulation of rainfall during the spring of the year is proportional to the increased drainage
area between the observation pits. Therefore, the soil permeability may be calculated from Darcy's
Law:

Procedure - Ground water observations should be made during the spring when atmospheric
evaporation is minimal. Rainfall during this period will greatly affect the ground water level but both
observation pits will be affected equally. The permeability calculation results should be unchanged.

Two observation pits should be dug on a smoothly contoured slope, one about 100 to 200 feet directly
downslope from the other. The depth to ground water and any underlying impervious layer should be
carefully measured. The difference in ground water elevation between the observation pits should be
determined, preferably by use of a tripod level. The distance between the pits should be measured.

Permeability Calculations - During this time of year in Connecticut, rainfall accumulates in slowly
draining soil at a rate roughly equal to 0.005 cubic feet for every square foot of upslope drainage
area. Therefore, from Darcy's Law:

K = Q = 0.005 X D
iA iXd

Where:

D = Distance between observation pits, in feet.

i = Slope of hydraulic grade (difference in elevation/D)
d = Difference in depth of saturated flow, in feet.

113
 Test Pit No. 1
Dug During Spring
Ledge @ 4 ft.
Ground Water @ 3.5 ft.

Test Pit No. 2

Dug During Spring
Ledge @ 4 ft.
200 ft.
Ground Water @ 1.5 ft.
Moderately Permeable Soil
Ground Surface Min. Perc. 10 - 20 Min/In
Avg. Slope = 0.06

6”

Impervious Ledge
30”

Figure 24-2

Example 1: (refer to Figure 24-2) - An observation pit is dug 100 feet upslope from a proposed
leaching system, and another is dug 100 feet downslope from the system. At both locations, ledge is
noted at a depth of 4 feet During the spring, a 6 inch depth of ground water is noted on top of ledge
in the upper pit, and a 30 inch depth of ground water is noted on top of ledge in the lower pit. The
slope of the ground and ledge surface averages about 6%. Therefore:

K = 0.005 X D = 0.005 X 200 = 8.33 ft./day

i X d 0.06 X 2

Special Precautions: This method of estimating soil permeability should not be used in level areas or
where the depth to the impervious layer is inconsistent.

Example 2: (refer to Figure 24-3) - A slope is underlain with firm, silty loam having a minimum
percolation rate of about 30 minutes per inch. During the spring of the year, ground water was found
at a depth of 6 feet below ground surface in an observation pit near the top of the slope and at a depth
of 2 feet below ground surface at another pit located 150 feet downslope. The difference in ground
elevation between the pits was 15 feet.

In this case, the increase in the depth of ground water may be assumed to be equal to the decrease in
the depth to the ground water surface. Therefore:

114
 K = 0.005 X D = 0.005 X 150 = 2.6 ft./day
iXd (15-4/150) X 4

150 ft.

Ground Surface 6 ft.

15 ft. Hydraulic Grade
i = 15+2-6
150

2 ft.

Slowly Permeable Soil

Minimum Perc. 30-60 Min/In

Figure 24-3

Special Precautions: - This method of estimating soil permeability should not be used in level areas or
where the direction of ground water flow is not apparent.

Method C - Pit Bailing Tests

Site Conditions - This method is reliable for estimating the permeability of relatively level layers
of loose to firm soil (percolation rates of 60 minutes per inch or better) underlain with compact
hardpan or ledge. This method also may be used where no underlying impervious layer is
apparent as long as the soil is slowly permeable (percolation rate slower than 20 minutes per
inch) to the bottom of the observation pit and basically uniform throughout. This in-place test is
the most reliable method for estimating soil permeability where the ground water table is level and
the direction of ground water flow is not apparent.

Procedure - The test can be performed at any time of the year. However, the ground water table
must be within 8 to 10 feet of ground surface. A deep observation pit should be dug and the
depth to any impervious underlying layer measured. Where the soil is slowly permeable and no
impervious layer is noted, a boundary layer may be assumed at the bottom of the pit. The
permeability will be slightly overestimated by this procedure. There are two ways to perform the
test. The first involves measuring the rate of water level rise in the pit when it is first dug. This
is best suited to relatively firm soil which allows the pit to fill slowly without collapsing. Where

115
the soil is loose, the pit may be dug and allowed to fill. When the water level in the pit has
stabilized, normally after 24 hours, it is lowered by pumping and the rate at which it refills is
measured. In either case, the static ground water level in the surrounding soil must be measured
before or after performing the test.

The rate at which the water rises in the pit should be recorded in a manner similar to that used in
recording percolation test results, except that in this case water is entering the pit rather than
leaving. Unlike percolation test holes, the sides of the pit may slope. Therefore, the volume of
water entering during any interval may not be directly proportional to the difference in liquid
level. For this reason, the area of the water surface in the pit also should be measured at the same
time that its depth from a reference point is measured so that the change in volume can be
calculated.

Permeability Calculation - The permeability of the saturated soil layer may be computed from the
following equation which is derived from Darcy's Law:

K = ln R / r Q = 642 Q
H2 - h2 H2 - h2

Where:
K = Soil permeability, in feet per day.
Q = Rate of water in flow, in cubic feet per minute.
H = Static depth of water in the surrounding soil above the underlying impervious
layer, in feet. Where there is no impervious layer, H may be taken as
equal to the static depth of water in the pit before or after testing.
h = Average depth of water in the test pit above the underlying impervious layer
during the bailing test, in feet, or above the bottom of the pit if there is no
impervious layer.

642 = ln R/r X 1440 Min = 1.4 X 1440 = 642, an assumed constant

Day 3.14
Test Hole

Ground Surface

2 ft.
Surface Area Stabilized G.W. Level Before Pumping
of Water 2’ X 8’ 1 ft. G.W. Level 25 Min. After Pumping
1 ft.
G.W. Level Immediately After Pumping
7 ft. Surface Area
of Water 2’ X 7’

Permeable Soil

Impervious Soil or Ledge

Figure 24-4

116
Example 1: (refer to Figure 24-4) - A 5 foot deep bailing test pit is dug in a level layer of moderately
loose soil underlain with ledge at a depth of 7 feet. The static water table in the surrounding soil is
observed to be at a depth of 2 feet. The test pit is allowed to fill with ground water. The next day,
the water level in the pit is lowered 2 feet by pumping, and the water surface in the pit is measured.
The water surface rises 1 foot in 25 minutes. The water surface area is measured again, and the
following data recorded.

Time Depth to Water Area of Water Volume

(mins.) Surface (ft.) Surface (sq.ft.) (cu.ft) Q
(cu.ft./min.)
0 4 2 X 7 = 14 - -
25 3 2 X 8 = 16 (14+16)/2 = 15 15/25 =
0.6

H = 7 - 2 = 5 ft.

h = 7 - 4+3 = 3.5 ft.

2

K = 642 Q = 642 X 0.6 = 30 ft./day

H2-h2 (5)2-(3.5)2

Area of Water Surface

Constant During Test Ground Surface

2 ft.

Stabilized G.W. Level 24 Hrs. Later

Slowly Permeable
Hardpan, Minimum G.W. Level at 2:00 P.M.
Perc. 30-60 Min/In 54”
G.W. Level at Start of Test, 10:00 A.M.
32” 16”

Figure 24-5

Example 2: (refer to Figure 24-5) - An 8 foot deep observation pit is dug in a level area. The soil is
observed to consist of hardpan below a depth of 2 feet. Ground water starts to seep into the bottom
of the pit. The sides of the pit are then made vertical above the water surface by the backhoe. The
water surface is measured to be 2 feet wide and 10 feet long.

117
At 10:00 am, the pit is measured to contain a 16-inch depth of water. At 2:00 pm, the depth of water
in the pit is 32 inches. The following day, the water level in the pit stabilizes at a depth of 54 inches.
Therefore:

Volume = 32-16 X (10 x 2) = 26.7 cu. ft.

12

Q = 26.7 = 0.1 cu. ft./min.

4 x 60

H = 54/12 = 4.5 ft.

h = 16 + 32 X 1/2 = 2 ft.

K = 642 Q = 642 x 0.1 = 3.9 ft./day

H -h = (4.5)2 -(2)2
2 2

Special Precautions - Pit bailing tests may give misleading results where there are several layers of
soil carrying ground water, particularly if the permeabilities are quite different. Often, there is
perched ground water moving through relatively permeable soil on top of firm underlying soil. The
intercepted perched water fills the test pit relatively quickly and the overall permeability as calculated
from the test will be relatively high. A careless investigator may attribute this permeability to the
firm underlying soil layer. Any hydraulic analysis based on this assumption would be very
misleading. The permeability of soil layers carrying perched ground water should be evaluated
separately by shallower pit bailing tests. The permeability of the firm underlying soil should be
determined by a pit bailing test made at a time when there is no perched water.

Method D - Undisturbed Tube Samples

Site Conditions - This method is most reliable for estimating the permeability of uncemented loamy
soils containing little gravel. Such soils generally are relatively soft and cohesive, and undisturbed
soil samples may be collected by forcing a sharpedged, thin-walled tube into the soil. However, such
a sampling technique is not suitable for loose sands or gravels which will not stay in the tube or for
most hardpan soils which will crack or crumble from the excessive force required to insert the tube.
The permeability of undisturbed tube samples may be determined quite accurately by measuring the
amount of water which will pass through the sample in a measured period of time under known
hydraulic conditions.

Procedure - Field procedures are quite simple. Sharp-edged, thin-walled tubes about 6 to 12 inches
long and 1 to 3 inches in diameter should be used. In practice, 1 and 1/4 to 1 and 1/5 inch diameter,
plated sink drain tubes usually are used. The inside of the tube should be greased to assure that the
soil sample will be sealed to the sampling tube. The tube should be pushed smoothly into the soil . It
should not be driven, since this is likely to cause cracking. A 3 to 6 inch long sample should be taken.
The depth and orientation (horizontal or vertical) of the sample should be carefully recorded. This
could greatly affect the permeability because such samples are so small. The samples could be tested
in the field if appropriate apparatus is available. However, in most cases, they are taken to an office
or shop for testing. The tubes containing the soil sample should be placed upright on a bed of sand
for transporting.

118
Undisturbed soil samples must be tested in the same tube in which they are collected. They are
placed upright in a shallow pan on a bed of clean, uniform sand. A standardized material, called
Ottawa Testing Sand, is available for this purpose. A 1/2 inch depth of testing sand also should be
placed on the surface of the sample. The sample and testing sand should be saturated with water until
the shallow pan overflows and the water level remains above the surface of the sample. De-aerated
water must be used. This is water which has been heated and then cooled to remove dissolved air.
Water should continue to be applied until it appears that all entrapped air bubbles have been removed
and there is a constant flow rate through the tube.

Permeability Calculation - The permeability may be calculated by either of two methods.

Upper Water Surface Allowed

To Fall After Filling

Permeameter Tube
(Greased)

Thin Sand Layer K = ( H1 - H2 ) X L

or Porous Cloth H1 t X ( H1 + H2 )
to Prevent Erosion 2
H2

Soil Sample L

Pan

Ottawa Testing Sand

Falling Head Permeability Test

Figure 24-6

In the failing-head method, the permeability is calculated by measuring the rate at which the water
level above the sample surface falls (refer to Figure 24-6). The following equation is used:

K = (H1 - H2)__
t X H1 + H2
2
Where:

119
 H1 = Hydraulic head at start of test, in inches.
H2 = Hydraulic head at end of test, in inches.
L = Length of sample, in inches.
t = Elapsed time, in minutes.
K = Sample permeability, in inches/min. This can be converted to feet
per day by multiplying the result by 120.
conversion: inches X 1 ft. X 1440 minutes = 120
minute 12 inches day

Example 1: A 6 inch long undisturbed soil sample is collected in a 11/2 inch diameter tube. After
thorough saturation, the water level above the surface of the sample is measured to fall 3 inches in 12
minutes. Therefore:

H1 = 11 inches L = 6 inches

H2 = 8 inches t = 12 minutes

(H1 - H2) L = (11-8) X 6 = 0.16 inches/minute

K = t X H1 + H2 12 X 11 + 8
2 2

K = 120 X 0.16 = 19 ft./day

Upper Water Surface

Kept at Constant Elevation Q

H K = Q
H/L X A

L
Q

Constant Head Permeability Test

Figure 24-7

120
In the constant head method, the water surface is kept constant by adding water from a reservoir with
an adjustable discharge. The permeability is calculated by measuring the amount of water which
overflows from the receiving pan during a given time (refer to Figure 24-7). The following equation
is used:

K = Q
H x A
L

Where:

Q = Rate of flow, in cubic inches/min.

H = Hydraulic head, in inches.
L = Length of sample, in inches.
A = Cross section area of sample in square inches.
K = Sample permeability, in inches/min. This can be converted to feet per day by
multiplying by 120.

Example 2: (refer to Figure 24-7) - A 4 inch long undisturbed soil sample is collected in a 1 1/2 inch
diameter tube. After saturation in a permeameter with a constant head of 12 inches, water is found to
flow through the sample at a rate of 0.75 cubic inches in 10 minutes. Therefore:

H = 12 inches Q = 0.75/10 = 0.075 cu. inches/min.

A = π r2 = (3.14) (1.5/2)2 = 1.77 sq. inches

K = Q = 0.075 = 0.014 inches/min.

H x A 12 (1.77)
L 4

K = 0.014 X 120 = 1.7 ft./day

Method E - Soil Identification

Site Conditions - This method should only be used for confirming estimates of soil permeability which
have been made using other methods. A thorough knowledge of soils and the techniques of examining
them is required. This method is best applied to soil layers which are relatively uniform and typical.

Procedure - An effort should be made to identify the particle sizes, their distribution and the degree of
compaction. This may be done subjectively since available references for permeability values are not
sufficiently exact to justify a more sophisticated examination. The soil should be examined closely at
several depths and locations to obtain a true identification.

Permeability Determination - Once the soil has been identified, a number of technical references may
be used to select an approximate permeability value. However, the most valid reference should be

121
ones own experience in obtaining permeability values in similar soils by pit bailing tests or tests on
undisturbed tube samples. A careful and experienced investigator should be able to estimate soil
permeability within an order of magnitude (factor of 10).

The following tables may be used for relating identified soil types to their permeability values. It
should be clearly understood that these relationships are approximate and may be subject to
identification error.

Other references, such as the US Soil Conservation Service soil surveys, also may be used. The
permeability ranges have been determined by testing typical block samples of each identified soil type
at various depths. While not exact, these permeabilities must be considered quite reliable. It would
be advisable to identify the soil type by field examination rather than by map reference.

TABLE 24-1 - Uniform Soils

HORIZONTAL PERMEABILITY
SOIL IDENTIFICATION FEET PER DAY

Coarse Sand 100 - 1,000+

Medium Sand 50 - 500
Fine Sand 20 -100
Very Fine Sand 0.1 - 10
Silt 0.0001 - 0.1

TABLE 24-2 - Mixed Soils

HORIZONTAL PERMEABILITY
SOIL IDENTIFICATION FEET PER DAY

LOOSE FIRM

Mixed Sand and Gravel 100 - 1,000+ 10 - 100

Silty Sand and Gravel 10 - 1,000 0.1 - 10
Mixed (medium) Loam 1 - 10 0.1 - 1
Sandy Loam 10 - 100 1 - 10
Silty Loam 1 - 10 0.01 - 1

Weathered Clay Loam 0.1 - 10

Mixtures of Sand and Silt 0.1 - 100
Sandy or Gravelly Clay 0.001 - 0.1
Hardpan 0.01 - 5
Weathered or Sandy Hardpan 1 - 20
Swamp Muck (Organic Loam and Silt) 0.1 - 10

25. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS - MINIMUM LEACHING SYSTEM SPREAD

122
Minimum Leaching System Spread (MLSS) criteria should be applied to all leaching system designs
in order to address the hydraulic concerns associated with the particular site. A more in-depth
analysis would be required if MLSS is not satisfied. MLSS calculations are applied where site
limitations will likely impact the ability of the surrounding naturally occurring soils from absorbing
and dispersing the expected daily discharge from a septic system. Leaching systems shall be
configured in such a manner that the total expected daily discharge will be applied fairly uniformly
over the entire length of the system so that overloading does not occur in “multi-stacked” areas.
Whenever a leaching system contains more than one trench or row on a sloping lot it is recom-mended
that each such trench or row be the required length per MLSS criteria. However when unequal length
“stacking” is necessary due to site limitations, there are ways to analyze the impact of such
“stacking”.

MLSS ANALYSIS OF UNIFORMLY STACKED SYSTEMS

As an example, if a four bedroom house is being built on a site with maximum ground water at 24
inches, a slope of 5 percent and a percolation rate of 25 minutes per inch, the required minimums
would be: (see Appendix A of Technical Standards for MLSS criteria):

Size of Leaching System per Code: 1,000 sq. ft.

MLSS = ( HF - 34 X FF -2.0 X PF -2.0 ) = 136 feet

DESIGN OPTIONS

Single Row: In order to provide 1,000 sq. ft. of leaching area and 136 feet of system
spread a leaching product would have to provide a minimum 7.35 sq.ft. (1,000/136) of
effective area per lineal foot. Utilizing a 30 inch high gallery at 7.4 sf/lf would result in the
following system configuration:

2 trenches X 68’ long X 7.4 SF/LF = 1,006 SF

(NOTE: one trench would be 72’ and the other 64’ due to concrete gallies being 8’ long)

Two Rows: If two rows are utilized a product would have to provide a minimum 3.68 sq. ft.
( 1,000 sq. ft. / 2 rows / 136 ft. ) of effective area per lineal foot. Fourteen (14) inch Bio-
Diffusers or twelve (12) inch Standard Sidewinders provide 3.7 sf/lf of effective area.
Utilizing these products would result in the following system configuration:

123
 4 trenches X 68’ long X 3.7 SF/LF = 1,006 SF

Three Rows: A three row system would require a product which would provide a minimum
of 2.45 sq. ft. (1,000 sq. ft. / 3 rows / 136 ft. ) of effective area per lineal foot. Standard 30 inch
wide trenches providing 2.7 sf/lf or 12 inch Contactor 75’s providing
2.6 sf/lf could be used. The system configuration would be as follows:

6 trenches X 68’ long X 2.6 SF/LF = 1,060 SF

MLSS ANALYSIS OF NON-UNIFORMLY STACKED SYSTEMS

Occasionally, site conditions make it necessary for engineers to configure systems which are not all
the same length meeting MLSS criteria. Whenever unequal “stacking” occurs an analysis of the
impact such a configuration will have on the underlying naturally occurring soils will be necessary to
assure that hydraulic overloading does not occur. An example of how to perform such an analysis
follows:

Unequal Stacked Rows: From the previous example, a plan is designed/submitted utilizing
12” high leaching galleries ( 5.9 sf/lf ) in the following configuration:

A B C

50’ 22’

64’ 50’

124
 It should be obvious that hydraulic overloading is not critical in Sections “A” and “C” of
this design. Section “B” has stacking of two segments each 50 feet long. A simple
mathematical analysis can be performed to determine if the percentage of leaching system
which is stacked exceeds the required hydraulic window for that section. In other words, will
the underlying soils beneath that section of the system be able to accept the percentage of daily flow
which will be generated by the amount of leaching system within the section?

To determine if hydraulic overloading will occur in a particular hydraulic window the

following analysis should be performed:

1. Draw section line ( perpendicular to natural contour lines ) at the end of the
leaching rows wherever the number of rows change within a hydraulic window (see
example at bottom of page 127 ).

2. Determine the minimum spread required for the design using MLSS criteria.

In this case MLSS = 34 X 2.0 X 2.0 = 136 ft.

3. Divide the cumulative length of system within the section which has the most
“stacked” elements ( Section B: 50 + 50 = 100 ft. ) by the total length of system
provided ( Total: 64 + 50 + 50 + 22 = 186 ft. )

Section Utilization = 100/186 = 54% Utilization

This indicates that 54% of the anticipated sewage flow will be within Section
“B”’s hydraulic window when the discharge from the home is at daily design
rates (full utilization).

4. Divide the length of spread provided in the hydraulic section of concern (Section
“B” = 50 ft) by the minimum spread required for the entire system using MLSS
criteria (Item #2, above - MLSS = 136 ft).

Hydraulic Capacity = 50/136 = 37% Capacity

Note: Only use MLSS criteria, not actual length of system if length provided
exceeds MLSS criteria.

5. If the percentage of Section Utilization exceeds the percentage of Hydraulic

Capacity then hydraulic overloading will likely occur within this section of the
system and, therefore, the design does not meet code requirements for hydraulic
reasons.

Section Utilization = 54% Hydraulic Capacity = 37%

Design should be rejected

This type of analysis should be performed whenever a “stacked” system configuration is of concern.
The risk of hydraulic overloading will be greatest where unequal “stacking” occurs, therefore, it is
important to understand the benefit of uniform application.

125
OTHER MLSS ISSUES

PIGGY-BACK SYSTEMS

The relative placement of adjacent leaching systems is important since hydraulic overloading can
occur when too much effluent from multiple systems discharge into the same hydraulic window. This
is especially relevant when subdivisions are being created. Before individual lot line are established
an analysis of the impact a proposed leaching system would have on an adjacent property’s leaching
area most be conducted. To determine the impact of the two systems, MLSS criteria should be
utilized based on the total number of bedrooms for both houses. Where soil characteristics or
percolation rates differ system to system, the down gradient system’s conditions should take
precedence.

There comes a point when the distance between “piggy-back” systems are far enough that the upper
system will not adversely affect the performance of the downslope system. Although there is no
definitive way of calculating this distance in exact terms, a separation distance of fifty (50) feet has
been recommended by the Department of Public Health. Due to the natural tendency for sewage to
dissipate once it leaves a leaching system, the impact on a downgrade leaching system located at least
50 feet from an upgrade system will be minimal. Under these conditions each system can be analyzed
independently.

HYDRAULIC RESERVE

The Technical Standards to the code clearly requires MLSS to be applied to the primary leaching
area only. It is desirable to provide additional hydraulic relief to facilitate future expansion of a
residence, commercial or industrial building. If additional hydraulic capacity is provided either by
installing the primary system wider than the required MLSS spread or if this capacity is clearly
shown in the reserve area on design plans, approval of future building use changes or enlargements
are more likely. If no additional hydraulic reserve is provided, property owners may not be allowed
an addition which includes increasing the total number of bedrooms to the house, unless site specific
hydraulic analysis is performed by a professional engineer to demonstrate suitability.

HYDRAULIC GRADIENT

When calculating MLSS, the determination of the hydraulic gradient can be influenced by the
boundary conditions the reviewer uses when establishing the percentage of grade in the leaching area.
In order to establish a more uniform standard for determining the hydraulic gradient, the
measurements should begin near the upper most primary leaching trench and extend a distance of 25
to 50 feet below the lowest proposed leaching trench.

DEPTH TO RESTRICTIVE LAYER

The soil conditions near the lowest leaching trench are most critical when analyzing hydraulic
capacity. Therefore, in most cases use the depths to restrictive layer in this area when calculating
MLSS. Even though soil depths within the leaching area may be somewhat different, the down
gradient receiving soil layer actually governs the total quantity of sewage that will be absorbed and
dispersed.

126
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS - IN-DEPTH METHODS

Whenever conditions are unusually severe or where the volume of sewage effluent to be dispersed is
large and MLSS criteria is exceeded a more formal investigation of hydraulic capacities would be
required. The methods used for hydraulic analysis depend on the nature of the site limitations and the
intended purpose of the analysis. The effects of site modifications (placement of fill material)
normally are not considered when designing new subsurface sewage disposal systems.

Special notice should be made of the recommended applications for each particular method of
hydraulic analysis outlined in the following sections. Hydraulic analysis should not be required for
subsurface sewage disposal systems with a design flow of 1000 gallons per day or less except in the
specific situations described.

APPLICATION I - DETERMINING LENGTH OF LEACHING SYSTEM APPLICATION ON

SLOPES UNDERLAIN BY SHALLOW LAYERS OF IMPERVIOUS SOIL OR LEDGE.

In this situation, the cross-sectional area of the surrounding soil is severely restricted by the shallow,
underlying boundary layer. The object of the hydraulic analysis is to determine to what extent the
leaching system must be spread out parallel with the contours in order to provide sufficient
cross-sectional area of soil downslope for effluent dispersal.

Recommended Application This method of hydraulic analysis is recommended for the design of
leaching systems located on slopes where:

1. The surrounding naturally occurring soil is underlain by an impervious layer at a

depth of less than 2 feet or

2. The area has been filled and the underlying naturally occurring soils have less than
18” of unsaturated peameable conditions.

3. The capacity of the leaching system is over 1000 gallons per day and the
surrounding naturally occurring soil is underlain by impervious soil or ledge at a
depth of 4 feet or less.

Procedure

1. Estimate the permeability of the upper naturally occurring soil by two or more of
the methods described in Section 24.

2. Determine the average depth of the underlying impervious layer by digging

observation pits at several locations in the area of the proposed leaching system and
in an downslope direction.

3. Determine the slope of the underlying impervious layer. If the depth to the
impervious layer varies by no more than a foot, the slope of the impervious layer
may be taken to be equal to the ground slope.

127
 4. Calculate the distance that the leaching system must be spread out perpendicular to
the direction of the slope in order to provide sufficient cross-sectional area of soil
downslope for effluent dispersal. Use Darcy's Law, as follows:

Q = KiA Where A is the cross sectional area of the original soil down
gradient from the system. A (area) = depth (d) X Length

Q = Ki (d X L)

L= Q .
Kid

Where:

L = Length that the leaching system must be spread out perpendicular to the slope,
in feet.
Q = Volume of sewage effluent to be dispersed, in cubic feet per day.
K = Soil permeability, in feet per day.
i = Slope of the ground surface or underlying impervious layer.
d = Average depth of subsoil above the impervious layer, in feet.

Note that after the permeability of the soil, the slope of ground surface (or hydraulic gradient) and the
depth of permeable soil available has been determined, the only variables left are the length of system
spread and the volume of sewage to be discharged. Examples 1-3 address typical situations which can
be used to determine minimum length (L) of system applications on critical properties.

Examples 4-6 cover situations which help us determine the total amount of water (Q) a particular
parcel can safely handle and the limited options available.

Example 1 The leaching system for a two-bedroom single family house is to be located on a
large lot underlain with hardpan at a depth of 18 to 22 inches. A 20-inch deep
percolation test produced a rate of 15 minutes per inch. The hardpan has a minimum
percolation rate poorer than 60 minutes per inch. The permeability of the upper soil
layer is estimated to be about 4 feet per day, and the slope of the ground surface is
about 5%. Therefore: System design based upon 15 min/inch perc rate, 500 sq.ft.
effective area required;

Q = 150 gal/bedroom X 2 bedrooms = 300 G.P.D.; convert to cubic feet 300 = 40 ft3/day
7.5

Q = 40 cu. ft./day K = 4 ft./day i = 0.05

d = (18 + 22) = 20 in. = 1.67 ft.

2

L= 40 = 120 feet
4 X 0.05 X 1.67

128
 122’ of 20” Recharger 180 (4.1 SF/LF) 1,000 Gallon
122’ X4.1 SF/LF = 500 SF Provided Septic Tank
500 SF of Area Required

61’ 61’

25’

10’
5’ Common
Fill
O
Select
Effluent Fill
Mound Common O
Curtain
Fill 18” Min.
Drain

Impervious
Permeable
Soils Hardpan

Figure 25-1 - Trenches Spread On Slope Over Impervious Hardpan

See Figure 25-1 for an acceptable leaching system design for this location. Note that the leaching
trenches will be constructed in fill so that the trench bottoms will be at least 18 inches above the
hardpan layer. 504 square feet of leaching area will be provided, with a curtain drain to intercept
perched ground water will be installed.

Example 2 The leaching system for a two-bedroom single-family home will be constructed on a
large, sloping lot underlain with impervious hardpan at a depth of 3 feet. The
overlying soil consists of silty loam with a minimum percolation rate of 30 minutes
per inch. The permeability of the overlying soil is estimated to be about 2 foot per
day, and the ground slope is about 8%. Therefore:

L = Q = 40 = 167 feet
Kid 1 X 0.08 X 3.0

129
 Septic Tank

6 TRENCHES, 56’ LONG, 30” WIDE = 6 X 56 X 2.7 = 907 SQ.FT.

SERIAL DISTRIBUTION
25 ft.

2’
7 ft.
2’ Select Fill
10 ft.
O Effluent Mound

O O
8% Slope Select Fill 18”
Curtain
Drain
Slowly Permeable IMPERVIOUS
Upper Soil HARDPAN

Figure 25-2 - Trenches In Slowly Permeable Soil Spread On Slope

See Figure 25-2 for an acceptable leaching system design for this situation. Note that 565 square
feet of leaching trenches will be used, constructed with the invert elevations approximately at original
ground surface. A curtain drain will be installed.

Example 3 The leaching system for a small restaurant with a design flow of 1,500 gallons per
day will be installed in a sloping area underlain by ledge at a depth of 4 to 5 feet.
The soil on top of the ledge consists of sandy loam with a minimum percolation rate
of 5 minutes per inch, and an estimated permeability of about 10 feet per day The
ledge drops about 4 feet in a distance of 100 feet. No ground water was noted on top
of the ledge even during the wet season. Therefore:

Q = 1,500/7.5 = 200 cu. ft./day

L = Q = 200 = 125 feet

Kid 10 X 0.04 X 4

Code requires 1,500 GPD = 1,875 sq. ft. of area

0.8 (application rate)

130
Design Proposal: 4 rows of 30 inch galleries, each row is 64 feet long. Total effective
leaching area provided: 4 rows X 64’ long X 7.4 sf/lf = 1,894 sq.ft.
which exceeds the 1,875 sq. ft. required.

64’ 64’

High Level Overflow 15

15’
Top Soil
10’

Select 4’
Fill

Effluent
Mound Ledge Rock

Permeable
Soil

Figure 25-3 - Galleries Spread On Slope Over Ledge Rock

See Figure 25-3 for an acceptable design for this location. Note that leaching galleries are used,
constructed in fill over the original soil. The size of the leaching system is based on the requirements
of the Public Health Code. No curtain drain is installed. However, the relatively substantial depth of
surrounding soil and fill should be sufficient to store and disperse any seasonal rainfall accumulation.

APPLICATION II - DETERMINING THE MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC CAPACITY SOILS

Quite frequently, engineers and health department staff must be able to calculate or estimate the
hydraulic capacity of any given site to determine if proposed development is feasible for particular
soil conditions. This is particularly important for construction of large sewage disposal system or on
sites where the soils are marginal for leaching purposes. Central sewage disposal systems which
concentrate discharges in one or more limited areas may also warrant close evaluation. Proper use of
Darcy's Law can be a useful tool in determining whether proposed development exceeds the soils
ability to disperse projected sewage flows or whether the scope of development should be scaled down
within a safe range to assure health and environmental protection.

131
The following is a few examples of situations which local health departments have typically had to
analyze:

Example 4 - Feasibility of Proposed Subdivision

A local developer wishes to subdivide a 10.5-acre parcel into 7 lots in accordance with existing
zoning requirements. The property has 1,300 foot frontage along an existing town road and slopes
gently away from the road toward a wetland near the rear property line. The developer would like
approval for 6 lots, each approximately 180 ft. in width by 340 ft. in depth. Considering minimum
zoning setback of 50 ft., average house width of 30 feet and the required 25 feet set back from
building footing drains, a series of deep test pits were excavated approximately 125 feet from the
front property lines to evaluate soil, water and ledge conditions.

Evaluation of the soils confirms the presence of Paxton soils, S.C.S. classification of PbB with
approximately 8% slope. Subdivision plans submitted to the health department for review and
comment show a series of 4-bedroom homes, all with wells located in the front yards and rear yard
leaching areas spread out 100 feet parallel to the contours. Due to the compact till observed 32
inches below grade, it is reasonable to assume each system will be placed in select fill (once top soil is
removed) and a curtain drain installed upgrade to intercept ground water. Percolation rates were
found to be between 31 to 45 minutes per inch. The Planning and Zoning Commission wants to know
if this subdivision should be approved. Without requiring extensive permeability testing or ground
water monitoring, how can Darcy's Law and available sources of information be used to assist you in
preparing a response?

First, MLSS calculations can be very useful in the initial configuration of the subdivision lots. The
spread required by MLSS can be “blocked” out on each lot to indicate the necessary size and spread
of a typical leaching system. In this example the spread required for the system would equal:

MLSS = HF X FF X PF = 26 X 2.0 X 3.0 = 156 feet

Therefore, if each of the proposed lots provided the required amount of primary and reserve leaching
areas and were spread a minimum of 156 feet along ground contours the lots could be approved.

A further analysis to confirm the above results would employee direct use of Darcy’s Law:

GIVEN: (1) 4 bedroom houses x 150 gal/room = 600 GPD/7.5 = 80 cubic feet/day
(2) Paxton soils in SCS book have permeability’s which range as follows
0-8” 0.6-2.0 inches/hr = 1.2-4.0 ft/day
8"-32" 0.6-2.0 inches/hr = 1.2-4.0 ft/day
32"-60" 0.06-0.2 inches/hr = .12-0.4 ft/day
(3) Width of system application 180’ lot - 10' each property line - +160 ft
(4) Gradient = 8% or .08
(6) Depth of permeable soil = 32"

ASSUME: (1) K = average of SCS range 1.2 + 4.0 = 5.2/2 = 2.6 ft/day
(2) Curtain drain will cut off all inflow from up slope watershed
(3) L = 160’ parallel to contours
Solve for Q, the quantity of water each lot can handle:

132
 Q = KiA = Ki(L x d)
Q = 2.6 X 0.08 X (160 x 32/12)
Q = 88.8 cubic feet

With the potential for generation of 80 cubic feet of sewage and capacity to handle over 88 cubic
feet, it is evident that the lot can support a system for a 4 bedroom home, both in terms of MLSS
criteria and Darcy’s Law.

However, if the developer wanted to increase the number of lots on the subdivision by reducing the
width of the property (relative to the contours), hydraulic constraints would quickly become evident.
If the width of the lots were reduced to 150 feet across (meaning the maximum amount of system
spread would be reduced to 130 feet) then the required spread of 156 feet determined by MLSS would
not be available. The developer would than have to reduce the number of bedrooms allowed for each
home to three (3) in order to meet MLSS requirements:

MLSS = HF X FF PF = 26 X 1.5 X 3.0 = 117 feet

Under Darcy’s Law:

A three (3) bedroom home will generate:

Q = 150 GPD X 3 Bedrooms / 7.5 gallons per cu.ft. = 60 cu.ft.

The proposed lot will support:

Q = KiA = Ki (L X d) = 2.6 X 0.08 X (130 X 2.66) = 71.9 cu ft.

Therefore, a three (3) bedroom home would be acceptable.

It is reasonable to recommend that development of the proposed subdivision of 3 or 4 bedroom homes

will be dependent on the proposed width of the lots. If the above MLSS type analysis indicates that a
lot can not meet requirements of Public Health Code Section 19-13-B103e.(a)(4.), which specifically
prohibits the issuance of permits on any property where the surrounding naturally occurring soil
cannot adequately absorb or disperse the expected volume of sewage effluent without overflow,
breakout or detrimental effect on ground or surface water , approval of that subdivision lot should not
be granted. It would be advisable to discuss your comments with the design engineer prior to
preparing a response to local commissions to determine if additional tests should be made to confirm
soil permeability’s and method of analysis which may alter the status of the lot..

Example 5 - The Motel/Restaurant Proposal

A local business man owns a 1.8 acre parcel at the intersection of two busy state highways. He would
like to construct a two story 30 room motel and a 50 seat restaurant on this parcel which is 280' wide
by 280 feet in depth. The view from the highway shows the land sloping from the left to the right at
approximately 12% grade. In order to meet all zoning requirements, preliminary site plans designate a
leaching area in the rear right corner approximately 190 feet wide (parallel with contours) by 70 feet
in depth. Soil tests reveal the presence of Charlton soils, SCS classification CfC with a restrictive
compact soil noted 4.5 feet below existing grade. Can this site handle the proposed development?

133
GIVEN: (1) 30 room motel @ 100 gal/room = 3000 GPD
50 seat restaurant x 3 turnovers x 10 gal = 1500 GPD
Total 4500 GPD/7.5 = 600 cubic ft.
(2) Charlton soils in SCS book have permeabilities which range as follows:
0-6" - 0.6-6.0 inches/hr = 1.2-12 ft/day
6-26" - 0.6-6.0 inches/hr = 1.2-12 ft/day
26-60" - 0.6-6.0 inches/hr = 1.2-12 ft/day

(3) Percolation Rate = 4 minutes/inch

(4) Width of application area 190 feet
(5) Gradient s 12% = .12
(6) Depth of permeable soil = 4.5 ft. to restrictive layer, no groundwater
observed or anticipated
(7) Tube samples (minimum of 6 tubes) confirm average K values of 6.2 ft/day.

Determine whether this site can handle projected flows:

Utilizing MLSS Criteria:

MLSS = HF X FF X PF = 14 X 4500/300 X 1.0 = 210 feet of spread required.

Utilizing Darcy’s Law:

This analysis will be based on the actual permeabilities from the tube samples
and the actual length of application (190’) available on this site.

Q = KiA = Ki (LXd)
Q = 6.2 x .12 x 190 x 4.5
Q = 636 cubic feet/day
Q = 636 cu.ft./day X 7.48 gal./cu.ft. = 4,757 gallons per day can be
discharged into the naturally occurring soils without becoming
completely saturated.

As this example illustrates, the MLSS calculations may be more restrictive in some cases, especially
when dealing with fast soils, than Darcy’s Law. MLSS indicated that 210 feet of spread would be
required in order to adequately disperse the 4,500 gallons of daily discharge. Since the site can
provide only 190 feet of spread, MLSS would deem it unacceptable for the proposed usage.
However, when a more in-depth hydraulic analysis was performed, utilizing actual permeabilities and
Darcy’s Law, it was found that the 190 feet of actual spread available would be sufficient for the
proposed usage.

Special Note: The placement of the system in terms of elevation should be of concern in the above
example, since the hydraulic mound created beneath a fully utilized system will likely saturate almost
all of the underlying naturally occurring soils. Therefore it would be detrimental to the performance
of the system if the system was placed into the natural soils and become flooded whenever the system
is used at peak flow. Therefore, designing a leaching system 18” above maximum ground water (the
minimum separation required by code) may not be appropriate when the system does not have extra
hydraulic relief built in (significantly more spread than what is required by MLSS or Darcy’s Law).

134
Consideration for “reserve hydraulic capacity” must also be considered when designing a leaching
system. For the primary system adding “spread” to a system increases the safety factor for proper
performance of the system by providing additional hydraulic window (access to additional
unsaturated soils beneath the system) to accept those “above peak” discharges which may occur from
time to time (during house parties or temporary increases in house occupancy). Another reason for
providing extra hydraulic capacity, especially for the reserve area, is to allow the owners of the home
or building to increase usages in the future. Under present health codes, house additions can be
approved when the lot the building is located on can support a septic system, based on the ultimate
configuration of the building, which will meet all health code requirements (including MLSS). If the
total number of bedrooms or design flow increases, no approval may be given for a building addition,
unless hydraulic capacity (MLSS/Darcy’s Law) is established.

Example 6 - The Flat Wet Lot

A local developer wishes to build a 4 bedroom home on the last remaining lot in an old residential
subdivision. Soil testing during the wet spring months confirms the presence of ground water 18
inches below grade during the wet season monitoring. The lot is essentially level and the soil profile
agrees with local mapping as described in the SCS soil survey as Ludlow silt loam. There is no slope
available to allow curtain drain installation and, even if possible, there is the concern for back flow of
ground water from the system area to the drain. The builder's engineer is recommending installation
of a large trench system constructed in fill with trench bottoms set at existing grade. The percolation
rate determined during testing in July produced a rate of 35 min/inch in a hole that was 18 inches
deep. Can this lot handle the projected sewage flows?

GIVEN: (1) 4-bedroom house x 150-gal/bedroom = 600 GPD = 80 cubic feet

(2) Ludlow soils in SCS book have permeabilities which range as follows
0-8" 0.6-2.0 inches/hr = 1.2-4.0 ft/day
8-30" 0.6-2.0 inches/hr = 1.2-4.0 ft/day
30-60" 0.2 inches/hr = 0.4 ft/day
(3) System design is a level mound, 2.0 ft of select sand and gravel
,: fill with 4 rows, 75' long, 3' wide standard trench, 6 end connecting
trenches. The fill extends 15 feet beyond the entire trench system prior
to sloping 2 ft vertical/1 ft horizontal back to original grade. Plans
specify placement of select sandy fill only 5 feet beyond the proposed
leaching trenches. Dimensions of the select fill mound are 85' long x 40'
wide.

(4) The gradient is assumed to be the difference between the trench bottom
set at grade and the ground water level (18") divided by 25 feet
(assumed extension of saturated mound) i = 1.5/25 = .06

(5) Depth of permeable naturally occurring soil at base of select fill = 1.5 ft

ASSUME: (1) K = average of SCS range 1.2 + 4.0/2 = 2.6 ft/day

(2) A (application area) = length of application to both sides of system plus
connected ends = (75’ + 75’ + 30’ + 30’) X 1.5’ depth = 315 sq.ft.

135
 Utilizing MLSS Criteria

MLSS = HF X FF X PF = 42 X 2.0 X 3.0 = 252 feet required

Provided = 75’ + 75’ + 30’ + 30’ = 210 feet provided

75’

30’ 30’

75’

sewage flow away from system

Figure 25-4 - Flat Lot System with Radial Flow

Utilizing Darcy’s Law

Q = KiA
Q = 2.6 x .06 x 315
Q = 49.1 cubic ft/day

As you can see, the calculations indicate a 4 bedroom home could not be approved if the assumptions
made above were shown to be correct. Field testing to accurately determine permeability would be
warranted if the builder wanted to pursue the 4 bedroom home approval. Further analysis of the
above example brings out a key element of MLSS versus Darcy’s Law, namely there are going to be
situations where MLSS criteria will be met when a Darcy’s Law analysis fails. If the above builder

decides to reduce the number of bedrooms in the proposed house to three (3) the MLSS equation will
change to:

MLSS = 42 X 1.5 X 3.0 = 189 feet required < 210 feet provided

136
 (This assumes the size of the system will not be reduced to a 3 bedroom)

Therefore, approved by MLSS

However, Darcy’s Law indicates only 49.1 cu. ft. (368 gallons) of flow can be absorbed daily, which
is below the design rate for a three (3) bedroom home of 60 cu. ft. (450 gallons).

Under the current Technical Standards the three (3) bedroom home would be approved for the above
example even though Darcy’s Law did not confirm result. The factor tables used for MLSS have this
anomaly built in since the empirical data of years of existing leaching systems performing adequately
does not warrant spreading the systems out any further.

It should be noted that if the ends of the above level leaching system where not tied in then the 60 feet
of “side” lengths (30 feet to each side) could not be granted.

26. FIELD EXAMINATION OF SOILS

Soil Feeling and Appearance

Class Dry Soil Moist Soil

Sand Loose, single grains which Squeezed in the hand, it forms

feel gritty. Squeezed in the a cast which crumbles when
hand, the soil mass falls touched. Does not form a rib-

137
 apart when the bon between thumb and fore-
pressure is released. finger.

Sandy Loam Aggregates easily crushed; Forms a cast which bears

very faint velvety feeling careful handling without
initially but with continued breaking. Does not form a
rubbing the gritty feeling ribbon between thumb and
of sand soon dominates. forefinger.

Loam Aggregates are crushed under Cast can be handled quite

moderate pressure; clods can freely without breaking.
be quite firm. When pulverized, Very slight tendency to ribbon
loam has velvety feel that be- between thumb and forefinger.
comes gritty with continued Rubbed surface is rough.
rubbing. Casts bear careful is rough.
handling.

Silt Loam Aggregates are firm but may be Cast can be freely handled with-
crushed under moderate pressure. out breaking. Slight tendency
Clods are firm to hard. Smooth, to ribbon between thumb and
hard. Smooth, flour-like feel dom- forefinger. Rubbed surface has a
inates when soil is pulverized. broken or rippled appearance.

Clay Loam Very firm aggregates and hard Cast can bear much handling
clods that strongly resist crush- without breaking. Pinched bet-
ing by hand. When pulverized, ween the thumb and forefinger,
the soil takes on a somewhat it forms a ribbon whose surface
gritty feeling due to the harsh- tends to feel slightly gritty when
ness of the very small aggre- dampened and ribbed. Soil is
gates which persist. plastic, sticky and puddles easily.

Clay Aggregates are hard; clods Casts can bear considerable

are extremely hard and handling without breaking.
strongly resist crushing by Forms a flexible ribbon
hand. When pulverized, it between thumb and forefinger
has a grit-like texture due and retains its plasticity
to the harshness of numerous when elongated. Rubbed
very small aggregates which surface has a very smooth,
persist. satin feeling. Sticky when
wet and easily puddled.

27. IDENTIFYING SEWAGE POLLUTION IN GROUND AND SURFACE WATERS

Local health departments frequently receive complaints of alleged ground or surface water pollution
by subsurface sewage disposal systems. Investigation often will reveal direct sewage discharges or
overflowing sewage disposal systems in the area. But in some cases, no sources of pollution are
evident and the occurrence of pollution is questionable. Such cases are difficult to resolve to the
satisfaction of the complainant and may require laboratory testing of water samples or dye testing of
suspected pollution sources. In general, however, sampling of ground and surface water should be

138
avoided in the absence of some indication of possible sewage pollution and no sample should be
collected until as much information as possible is obtained relative to potential sources of pollution. If
samples are collected, care must be used not to request laboratory tests which are costly and
unnecessary. Judgment is necessary in interpreting the laboratory results and in general, no tests
should be required unless the results can be properly interpreted by the collector. It also is necessary
to have an understanding of the techniques on limitations of dye testing before any such program is
undertaken.

IDENTIFYING SEWAGE POLLUTION IN WELLS

The sanitary quality of ground water is of concern mainly in connection of possible pollution of wells
or springs. Sewage pollution in wells can be identified fairly conclusively by laboratory analysis,
since ground water should contain little or no bacteria or organic chemicals. Wells may be suspected
of being polluted if the water shows objectionable taste, odor or physical appearance, or if there is a
history of illness which may be water related. In such a situation a water sample should be collected
for complete physical, chemical and bacterial analysis. There also may be wells where the sanitary
quality of the water is suspect because the separating distance from a nearby sewage disposal system
does not meet Code requirements. As long as there is no physical indication of pollution or history of
illness, samples should be collected for bacterial examination only. Wells polluted by sewage would
be expected to contain coliform bacteria well in excess of 2 per 100 ml as measured by the membrane
filter test. Nitrogen constituents also are likely to be high. Nitrate nitrogen would probably exceed
1.0 mg/1, although this in itself may not indicate sewage since there are other sources of nitrates in
ground water such as fertilizers. Any significant amount of nitrite nitrogen (0.01 mg/1 or greater)
may indicate more direct sewage pollution because nitrites are rapidly oxidized to nitrates by
percolation through soil. Organic (albuminoid) nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen are constituents of
fresh sewage and should only be found in highly polluted wells. However, they may also be due to
the presence of other organic matter such as leaves, insects, dirt or debris which has somehow entered
the well. Except for coastal areas, ground waters in Connecticut are generally low in chloride
content. Therefore, chloride levels exceeding about 15 mg/1 may also indicate sewage pollution. It
should be noted that wells and springs producing water of good overall sanitary quality may
occasionally contain low levels of coliform bacteria. This probably results from chance
contamination by surface water draining into the well aquifer, or by contamination in the storage or
piping system. Disinfection and resampling should produce good bacterial results. Repeated
bacterial contamination without confirming chemical pollution or nearby sources of sewage pollution
probably indicates that the well is poorly sealed or protected.

IDENTIFYING GROUND WATER POLLUTION

Other than where wells are concerned, the effect of subsurface sewage disposal systems on ground
water is rarely a public health concern. It can be assumed that the ground water table in the
immediate area of such a system is polluted to some extent. Such a level of pollution is acceptable
from the standpoint of public health and this is the reason for the separating distances required by the
Public Health Code. Unacceptable ground water pollution occurs when the dissolved oxygen which is
normally present in ground water is depleted by high levels of organic pollutants. When this occurs,
the physical and chemical characteristics of the ground water can change significantly. The ground
water can become odorous if sulfates, which may be present in the waste or in the soil, are chemically
reduced to hydrogen sulfite. Iron, which is common in Connecticut soils, probably will be dissolved
by the oxygen deficient ground water and may be deposited as an orange sludge where polluted
ground water leaches to the surface. Blackish sludge deposits may also occur in some areas due to

139
manganese leaching. Ground water pollution can be greatly aggravated by the action of certain
bacteria which can thrive in ground water which is rich in iron or manganese and organic nutrients,
and is deficient in dissolved oxygen.

Subsurface sewage disposal systems which have been properly designed and installed in accordance
with the Code requirements should not cause an unacceptable level of ground water pollution. Most
cases of ground water pollution are caused by the burial of large volumes of organic material, such as
municipal refuse, demolition material, agricultural waste or swamp muck. However, an unusually
large subsurface sewage disposal system installed in an area of highly permeable soil may cause
ground water pollution, particularly if the ground water table is high. The same may occur from
smaller systems if Code requirements are not followed. It should be noted that ground water pollution
from sewage is more likely to occur in permeable soils than in poor soils and sewage disposal system
failure or overflow is rare in such situations.

Often there is little that can be done to correct an existing ground water pollution problem since it is
not possible to change soil conditions or to reduce the volume of sewage discharged to the ground
water. The main thing that the investigator should do is to determine whether observed nuisance
conditions result from ground water pollution or from direct sewage discharge from unknown sources.
This can only be determined by sanitary survey, including dye testing if necessary. Other potential
sources of ground water pollution, such as sanitary land fills, etc., should not be over looked when
making the survey. Depending on the findings, conclusions can be made as to the public health
significance and possible long range solutions. This may include such things as extension of public
sewers or public water supply mains, rezoning, or ground or surface water drainage projects which
would alleviate the nuisance conditions.

IDENTIFYING SEWAGE POLLUTION IN SURFACE WATERS

It is difficult to identify sewage pollution in surface waters by laboratory analysis because of the great
variations in naturally occurring levels of both bacteria and organic chemicals in such waters. In
some cases, there may be relatively high levels of the type of bacterial or chemical pollutants which
are normally found in sewage, without any sewage actually being present. In other cases, sewage
may be entering surface waters without producing unusually high pollutant levels because of high
dilution. For these reasons, a program of sanitary survey, supplemented by dye testing if necessary,
should be used where surface water pollution is suspected. Water samples should only be used to
confirm or supplement sanitary survey information, although samples are frequently collected to
satisfy public demand for information about the sanitary quality of a particular body of surface water.

If samples are collected from a surface water, only bacterial analysis should be requested.
Information should be provided as to the expected bacterial quality of the water since this will
determine the testing methods and sample dilution’s used in the laboratory. Chemical testing is not
recommended because there is little if any relationship between chemical constituents and sanitary
quality in most surface waters.

The standard test for bacterial quality of surface water is the total coliform determination. The test is
based on determination of the quantity of a particular type of bacteria in a given volume of water
samples. Since this type of bacteria is naturally found in the intestinal tract of humans and warm
blooded animals, its presence in water is taken as being indicative of the presence of sewage in the
water and the quantity of the organism present is taken as being indicative of the degree of sewage
pollution. Unfortunately this is not entirely true because naturally occurring coliform organisms are

140
also found to be present in varying amounts in all surface waters. Coliform organisms are found in
soils, muds and decaying vegetation. Large numbers of such organisms are discharged by animals
and surface runoff from pastures normally is high in coliforms. There are other bacterial tests which
are possibly more valid indicators of sanitary quality. The most important of these is the fecal
coliform test which is a modified total coliform test. In this modified test, a new medium is utilized
and an elevated incubation temperature is used to distinguish the fecal coliforms from the total
coliforms. While this technique may offer some advantages, it is subject to the same general criticism
as the total coliform test. A disadvantage of this test is that the uninformed public has a tendency to
conclude that the presence of any fecal coliforms indicates human sewage pollution which may not be
the case. In general, fecal coliform tests are not recommended except in certain situations where the
total coliform test appears to be giving misleading high results. In such situations, both tests are run
on the samples and if the fecal coliform content is much lower than the total coliform content, it is
assumed that the bacteria are not due to sewage.

EFFECT OF RUNOFF ON BACTERIAL QUALITY OF SURFACE WATERS

The Connecticut Department of Health Services, in cooperation with various local health
departments, has done extensive monitoring of surface waters. This monitoring has shown a very
distinct relationship between the bacterial quality as indicated by the total coliform content and the
amount of surface water runoff at the time of sample collection. Experience has shown naturally high
coliform contents in streams, ponds and even small lakes after a rainfall, even where there is no
known source of sewage pollution on the watershed. Such elevated counts are concluded to be due to
naturally occurring coliforms and are not a true indication of pollution. Water washing over the
surface of the ground after a rainfall will pick up naturally occurring coliforms and carry them into
streams, rivers and lakes. For this reason, the total coliform content of a surface water will reflect the
amount of surface runoff in it as well as the degree of sewage pollution. Therefore, the total coliform
content of a running stream or river will always be higher than that of a large pond or lake since the
percentage of surface wash is higher, particularly after a rain when the runoff is high. Coliform
organisms will naturally tie out with time in clear water with low organic content. This characteristic
also contributes to the lower coliform levels in large ponds and lakes where the storage time of the
surface water runoff is great.

Experience in Connecticut has shown that inland lakes with relatively clean watersheds should show
coliform counts under 200 per 100 ml. On the other hand, the coliform content in a running stream is
rarely under this figure and a coliform content of 1000 per 100 ml or less is considered an indication
of good sanitary quality, suitable for bathing purposes. The same streams may show counts of up to
10,000 coliforms per 100 ml following a heavy rain due to coliforms from natural sources without
indicating sewage pollution. Counts of over 10,000 per 100 ml indicate probable sewage pollution.
It is evident, therefore, that considerable judgment must be used when interpreting the results of
bacterial samples collected from surface waters. Water samples should not be collected after a heavy
rain- or when the water is noted to be turbid due to heavy runoff. Sanitary quality judgment should be
made only after review of the results of the number of samples taken over a period of time under
various conditions, together with a sanitary survey of the watershed for possible sources of pollution.
when a number of tests results are available, the median figure should be used as the determining
value rather than the average, which may be distorted by a few high sample results. Samples should
be collected by dipping under the water surface where the water is sufficiently deep so that no mud or
silt will be stirred up and collected in the sample bottle.

DYE TESTING

141
Dye testing of sewage collection and disposal systems may be done for any of the following purposes.

1. To find the source of an obvious sewage discharge when it is not apparent.

2. To establish evidence of sewage overflow or discharge in preparation for legal action.

3. To locate illegal sewage connections to storm sewers.

4. To determine if a subsurface sewage disposal system periodically overflows to ground

surface or leaks into a ground or surface water drain.

5. To determine if a water discharge contains sewage.

The water soluble dyes used for these purposes are detectable in very dilute solution. Therefore, the
dye is relatively easy to see in water discharges, catch basins, streams and pools of standing water.
Most of these dyes are adsorbed to some degree by various minerals in the soil. For this reason, dye
may be removed by percolation through even a few feet of soil and is reliable only as an indicator of
more or less direct pollution. Failure to recover dye in a well or ground water does not necessarily
indicate that there is no sewage pollution.

Fluorescein dye is normally used for testing subsurface sewage disposal systems since it is less
readily absorbed by soils than most other dyes. It is usually used in the form of a sodium salt
called uranine, a reddish powder rapidly soluble in water. Normally, a tablespoon of this powder
is placed in the toilet bowl and flushed into the sewage disposal system in question. The dye will
not stain sanitary fixtures but must be handled carefully to avoid spilling since even a few crystals
will stain clothes, floors and furniture. When diluted, fluorescein has a greenish-yellow color
which is fluorescent under ultraviolet light. Fluorescein can be detected in dilute concentrations
invisible to the naked eye by means of a laboratory fluorometer. It also can be measured in dilute
concentrations in the laboratory by acid extraction techniques.

Rhodamine dyes also may be used as sewage tracers. These come in liquid solution, are also
fluorescent, and are available in several colors. The more widely used dyes of this type are
Rhodamine B which is red, and Sulpho Rhodamine Pink B which has a brilliant pink color.
Rhodamine dyes are generally more stable in sunlight than fluorescent and, for this reason, they
are frequently used for streamflow measurement. They are more readily absorbed by soil than
fluorescent and therefore are less suitable for testing subsurface sewage disposal systems. The
variety of available colors allows several such systems to be tested at the same time, thereby
expediting dye testing programs involving a large number of systems.

When dye testing a subsurface sewage disposal system, it should be understood that the dye may not
immediately show up at the suspected point of discharge. The sewage may first pass through a
septic tank or leaching system which will delay the appearance of the dye for one or two days.
Therefore it is necessary to periodically reinspect such systems over several days after using the dye
before it can be concluded that the system is functioning properly. Dyes are generally unaffected by
chemicals normally found in domestic sewage with the possible exception of chlorine bleach. Before
using dye, a brief inspection should be made of the plumbing system. It may be found that there is
more than one waste line leaving the building. In such a case, each system should be tested

142
separately with dye Frequently basement washing machines are discharged into cellar trains and
can easily be overlooked when dye testing for pollution sources.

28. NON-CONVENTIONAL TOILET SYSTEMS

From time to time, local or state officials are requested to review various proposals for the installation
of non-conventional toilet systems. Technical Standard IX describes several types of non-discharging
toilet systems which are acceptable for certain uses. Public Health Code regulation 19-13-B103f
describes the conditions under which these systems may be approved. In all cases, approval must be
granted by the local director of health before such systems can be used and in some cases approval
also is necessary from the State Department of Public Health. This section of the Public Health Code
also allows the State Department of Public Health to grant an exception to allow one of these toilet
systems or another type not specifically included in the Technical Standards to be used in a particular

143
instance upon a determination that the system will provide for proper disposal and treatment of toilet
wastes or gray water.

Non-conventional toilet systems are most commonly used in the repair of failing subsurface sewage
disposal systems on marginal lots where it is necessary to reduce the volume of sewage discharge to
the leaching system in order to allow it to function properly. Most regulatory officials are reluctant to
approve non-conventional toilet systems for other purposes because acceptance of such toilets by the
public is generally poor. High operating costs, increased maintenance and objectionable aesthetic
conditions are common with most non-conventional toilet systems. Many users will desire to convert
to conventional water carriage flush toilets after a period of time. For this reason, application for
approval of nonconventional toilet systems should come from the property owner and individual who
will use the system, not from the builder or developer. Application for installation of a
non-conventional toilet system in no way eliminates the need to test the lot as to its suitability for
subsurface sewage disposal since a gray water disposal system will be necessary in almost all cases.
Property owners should seek the advice of an experienced engineer or installer, as well as the local
Sanitarian, before making any final decision on using a non-conventional toilet system. If a
non-conventional toilet system is approved on a lot which is unsuitable for sewage disposal from
conventional flush toilets, this fact should be noted on the permit. It would also be desirable to record
this on town land records to alert prospective buyers as to limitations on toilet and sewage disposal
systems.

Table 28-1 provides a brief description and summary of pertinent information concerning many of the
toilet and treatment systems discussed. Selection of a nonconventional toilet system depends on the
desires reduction in sewage volume, the availability of utilities such as water and electricity and the
expected usage. It should be kept in mint that all residential buildings and most non-residential
buildings will generate liquid wastes from sinks, tubs, showers etc. which will require a conventional
subsurface sewage disposal system.

LOW VOLUME FLUSH TOILETS

Specially designed or modified toilet fixtures which use a reduced volume of water for flushing
purposes are the type of non-conventional toilet systems which are most acceptable to the user and
are the most widely used. Devices are available which can be used to modify conventional water
closets and reduce flush volume. Such devices generally are inexpensive and can be installed by the
homeowner. In general, no approvals are required from health or building officials for making such
modifications. Tank inserts reduce the volume of flush water stores in the tank while utilizing the
same flush valve. New valves can be installed in most existing tanks which will allow the flush to be
regulated for larger or smaller volume, depending on what is required. Such modifications of
existing toilets may reduce the volume of toilet wastes by up to 50%. Specially designed gravity
operated toilets also are available which will reduce waste volume even more. Most of these use a
high velocity discharge from an elevated storage tank to clear wastes from a hydraulically modified
toilet bowl with a relatively small volume of water. Such special toilets use 1 to 2 gallons per flush
and are similar in appearance and operation to conventional toilets. However, more frequent
cleaning of the bowl may be required. Installation may be made by a plumber and little modification
to the existing house plumbing is required.

COMPRESSED AIR/VACUUM TOILETS

144
Toilet systems which utilize compressed air or vacuum provide greater reduction in effluent flows
generated. Some systems use as little as 1 pint per flush and provide acceptable bowl evacuation.
Because of the high initial cost involved with installation of air pressure or vacuum systems, their
use is usually restricted to commercial or manufacturing facilities which can incorporate the cost of
installation and maintenance as part of their operational budget. Portable toilet facilities which
utilize compressed air or vacuum have been leased by the State Department of Environmental
Protection for use in state parks. Their function was deemed adequate for the required short period
of service and they may be well suited for mass gatherings or public events. However, electrical
service must be available.

COMPOSTING TOILETS

Composting toilets have no liquid discharge of any kind. There is a small volume of composted
solid material which must be periodically removed. This waste is likely to contain pathogenic
organisms and should be disposed of by burial or land filling. Large volume composting units
allow a relatively long time period for the composting action. There is little regulation of moisture
or temperature within the unit and composting action may be slow or irregular. They may be used
where water or electricity is not available, but an electrical ventilation fan is desirable to control
odors and reduce moisture buildup within the unit. Installation of a large composting toilet within
an existing house may require removal of exterior or interior walls in order to accommodate the
large chamber. Excessive liquid accumulation has been a problem where large composting
chambers are located outside or in an unheated basement or enclosure. Heat assisted composting
toilets are equipped with electrical heating units and ventilation fans which may be regulated to
provide optimum conditions for composting action. The relatively small size of the units allows
them to be placed within existing rooms. However, experience has shown that most users are
unable to properly regulate the composting action. Compost dehydration and odor is common in
such small composting units. Most manufacturers recommend that heat assisted compost toilets
not be used for more than 2 or 3 persons on a continuous basis.

Successful operation of both large capacity and heat assisted composting toilets is closely related
to the habits of the users and their care and understanding of the composting process. Moisture
must be controlled by adding solid material or regulating ventilation or temperature. Changes in
these conditions or in patterns of use may cause problems. Insect breeding or mold growth can
create nuisances. Composting toilets are allowed in Connecticut only for abatement purposes, for
replacing existing privies, or for new buildings on lots which have been tested and found to be
satisfactory for a conventional subsurface sewage disposal system.

INCINERATION TOILETS

Incineration toilets also have no liquid discharge. They are rarely used in residential buildings but
may be installed to provide toilet facilities in lightly used non-residential buildings such as
warehouses or electric substations, where no water supply is available. Incineration toilets require
electrical power to operate a blower, and electricity, gas or oil to generate the temperature required
for combustion. Installation and operating costs are relatively high and their use has been declining in
recent years. Odors may be a problem in built-up locations, particularly with the electric burning
units which require a longer period of time to reach proper combustion temperatures. It also may be

145
difficult to keep the toilet bowl clean since there is no rinse action. Incineration toilets are not suitable
for public toilets or for any kind of heavy use because of the burning time required between uses.

CHEMICAL FLUSH TOILETS

Chemical flush toilets do not discharge to a subsurface sewage disposal system. Instead, the
chemical solution used for flushing purposes is recycled. Most such toilets use a water solution
containing deodorizing chemicals which may be hazardous if discharged to the ground waters. This
liquid must be periodically removed and disposed of off-site. Chemical flush toilets cannot be located
within residential buildings or human habitations, except with special approval by the State
Department of Public Health. This is mainly to assure adequate venting of chemical odors and to
facilitate periodic removal of the chemical solution. Chemical flush toilets normally are located in
freestanding toilet buildings or vehicles. The chemical flushing solution is stored in a holding tank
within the toilet building or vehicle. Spent solution may be periodically discharged to a larger holding
tank located nearby. It should not be discharged into a leaching system.

An oil recycling flush toilet system is somewhat different, inasmuch as the chemical used for flushing
purposes does not have to be periodically removed. An odorless mineral oil is used for flushing and
transporting waste to a sealed separation tank. The mineral oil floats to the top of the tank, is
separated and recycled. The solid and liquid wastes remain in the bottom of the separation tank and
must be periodically removed. This waste is biodegradable, but it is extremely concentrated and may
be contaminated with oil. It should be taken to a septage disposal area rather than discharged to a
subsurface sewage disposal system. This type of chemical flush toilet can be located within a human
habitation with approval by the State Department of Public Health. However, installation and
operation costs are extremely high since a completely separate plumbing system is required. All
recycling toilets probably are practical only for commercial buildings or separate toilet buildings.

TREATMENT AND RECYCLING TOILET SYSTEMS

Some technologically advanced systems are available which can treat and recycle water-flushed toilet
wastes without the addition of chemicals. Toilet wastes are pumped to a series of packaged treatment
modules which aerate, filter and disinfect the waste prior to recycling. No toxic chemicals are added
since treatment is largely by a biological means. Solids are broken up, digested and recirculated.
Only a small volume of liquid is periodically withdrawn from the close system and replaced with
water. Such complete treatment and recycling toilet systems are very expensive to install and operate
and probably only suitable for commercial buildings where operating costs can be included as part of
the normal cost of doing business. Treatment facilities should be placed in a separate room if they are
located within a human habitation. Special approval may be granted by the State Department of
Public Health for treatment and recycling toilet systems. However, site conditions would have to be
unusual for such a system to be considered. Engineers' plans would be required.

TABLE 28-1 - NON-CONVENTIONAL TOILET SYSTEMS

Operation and Total Flow
Generic Type Description Considerations Maintenance Reduction %

Toilet with Displacement devices Device must be Post-installation 4-8

Tank Inserts placed into storage compatible with and periodic
tank of conventional existing toilet inspections to
toilets to reduce and not interfere insure proper

146
 volume but not height with flush positioning.
of stored water. mechanism.
Varieties: Plastic Installation by
bottles, flexible owner.
panels, drums or
plastic bags.

Dual Flush Devices made for use Device must be Post-installation 6-15
Toilets with conventional compatible with and periodic
flush toilets; enable existing toilet inspections to insure
user to select from and not interfere proper positioning
two or more flush with flush and functioning.
volumes based on mechanism.
solid or liquid waste Installation by
materials. owner.
Varieties: Many

Water-Saving Variation of conven- Interchangeable Essentially the 6-10

Toilets tional flush toilet with conventional same as for a
fixtures; similar in fixture. conventional unit.
appearance and Requires presuriz-
operation. Redesgned ed water supply.
flushing rim and
priming jet to initiate
siphon flush in smaller
trapway with less water.
Varieties: Many manu-
facturers but units similar.

Washdown- Flushing uses only Rough-in for unit Similar to con- 21-27
Flush water, but sub- may be non- ventional toilet,
stantially less standard. but more frequent
due to washdown Drain line slope cleaning possible.
flush. and lateral run
Varieties: Few restrictions.
Requires pressuriz-
ed water supply.
Operation and Total Flow
Generic Type Description Considerations Maintenance Reduction %

Pressurized Specially designed Compatible with Similar to con- 14-18

Tank toilet tank to most any con- ventional toilet
pressurize air ventional toilet fixture.
contained in toilet unit.
tank. Upon flushing, Increased noise
the compressed air level.
propels water into Water supply
bowl at increased pressure of 35
velocity. to 120 psi.

147
 Varieties: Few

Compressed Similar in appearance Interchangeable Periodic main- 30

Air-Assisted and user operation to with rough-in for tenance of compressed
Flush conventional toilet; conventional air source.
Toilets specially designed fixture. Power use - 0.002KwH
to utilize compressed Requires source per use.
air to aid in flush- of compressed
ing. air; bottled or
Varieties: Few air compressor.,
need power source.

Vacuum- Similar in appearance Application Periodic main- 30

Assisted and user operation largely for multi- tenance of vacuum
Flush to conventional toilet; unit toilet pump.
specially designed installations. Power use - 0.002KwH
fixture is connected Above floor, rear per use.
to vacuum system discharge.
which assists a small Drain pipe may
volume of water in be horizontal or
flushing. inclined.
Varieties: Several Requires vacuum pump.
Requires power source.

Black Water Similar in appearance Application Periodic main- 40

Treatment and user operation to largely for tenance of all
& Recycling conventional toilet; multi-unit toilet treatment units
waste water aerated, installations. including pumps
filtered, disinfected Requires separate and compressor by
and returned for use closed loop plumb- skilled technicians.
in flushing. ing, room for
Varieties: Few treatment com-
ponents.
Uses air compressor,
pumps, filter and
disinfection units.
Requires power source.
Operation and Total Flow
Generic Type Description Considerations Maintenance Reduction %

Gray Water Similar in appearance Application for Periodic main- 40

Treatment and user operation to single family tenance of filter,
& Recycling conventional toilet; residential. pump and disinfection
wastes from sinks, Requires separate units.
showers and tubs are closed loop plumb-
filtered, disinfected ing.
and returned for use Requires use of
in flushing. filter, pump and
disinfection units.

148
 Requires power source.

29 HOLDING TANKS

A holding tank is a large, watertight tank which receives and stores liquid wastes from a building.
The tank is pumped periodically and the waste removed for disposal off the site by a licensed septage
hauler. Pumping such a tank can be quite expensive and for this reason, holding tanks normally
should be considered only as an interim measure until a permanent method of disposal is available.
This is particularly true for residential buildings where per capita water consumption and related
pumping costs are high. Holding tanks may be used as an interim measure while public sewers are
under construction or where a building is scheduled to be abandoned in the near future. Interim
holding tanks for residential buildings probably are not cost effective if the period of use exceeds
twelve months, although non residential holding tanks may be used for longer periods.

149
There are also situations where the long term use of a holding tank may be considered. A holding
tank may be used to abate an existing sewage problem at a private residence where there is no other
alternative. However, it is extremely important that water usage be reduced as much as possible by
the installation of non-discharging toilet systems, removal of laundry facilities and use of water
saving sanitary fixtures. Failure to do this will result in high pumping costs and may cause the owner
to install an illegal overflow or discharge. Water usage is more easily reduced at a seasonal cottage
and holding tanks are more practical for abatement situations. There are certain commercial and
industrial buildings such as warehouses, garages and equipment buildings for which installation and
operation of a holding tank would represent a relatively small part of the overall operational cost of
such a facility and therefore may be a feasible alternative. Holding tanks are not normally approved
for new construction projects.

The holding tank should have sufficient liquid storage capacity to hold the volume of sewage expected
to be discharged from the building over the period of a week or more. Holding tanks should never be
designed to be pumped when full. Instead, the schedule of pumping should be such that the tanks are
pumped when about half full. For instance, if a holding tank is large enough to store one weeks
sewage flow, the tank should be pumped about every three days on a regular schedule. Such an
arrangement anticipates that there will be occasions when the scheduled pumping will be delayed due
to reasons beyond the control of the pumper such as equipment breakdown, illness or adverse
weather. There should be a liquid level indicator or alarm which would readily indicate when the
holding tank has reached the level at which it should be pumped. This would tell the owner of the
building that there is a potential for overflow and allow him to contact the pumper before this occurs.
Sometimes two holding tanks are used in series with a high level alarm sounding when the first tank is
full.

Holding tanks should be located in secure areas which are not available to the general public.
Holding tanks must have easily removal manholes extended to grade, which could represent a safety
hazard. Holding tanks should be considered potential sources of pollution and should be located so as
to provide the minimum required separating distances for subsurface sewage disposal systems in the
Public Health Code. In some situations it may be necessary to reduce the required minimum
separating distance in order to abate a sewage problem. If this is allowed, particular care must be
given to sealing and testing the holding tank for leakage and the ground surface around the tank
should be paved and graded to carry possible overflow away from wells, watercourses and residences.

No holding tank should be installed without approval of both the State Department of Public Health
and the local director of health. The owner of the facility must agree to enter into a contract with a
licensed subsurface sewage disposal system cleaner for the regular pumping of the tank. The owner
of the facility may be required to furnish the health department a copy of a written contract with
such a cleaner. The cleaner must specify the final disposal area for the waste removed from the
holding tank. If the volume of waste is large, a letter of acceptance may be required from the
operator of the disposal area. The pumping of the holding tank and disposal of the waste should be
periodically inspected by the local health department.
.

150
 30. SEWAGE PUMPING STATIONS

Sewage pump stations are sometimes necessary to make use of leaching areas located at higher
elevations than the building served or for dosing large leaching systems when use of a siphon is not
feasible. The sewage pump station consists of a concrete or polyethylene pump chamber, electrical
controls, high level alarms and associated piping. For most installations, liquid discharged from the
septic tank enters into the pump chamber and is stored until the liquid reaches the pump activation
level. The pumps then activate and force sewage through a small diameter pressure pipe to the
leaching system.

Section Vl of the Technical Standards specifically requires intermittent dosing through use of siphons
or pumps for large leaching systems with a design flow of 2,000 gallons per day and greater where
the total length of distribution pipe is 600 feet or more. If the property is relatively level or the

151
building sewer exits the foundation wall at depths which prevent use of a dosing siphon, a pump lift
station may be required. For large sewage disposal systems, dual alternating pumps must be
provided. For small sewage disposal systems with design flows less than 2,000 gallons per day,
either duplicate alternating pumps or a single pump with emergency storage volume in the pump
chamber must be provided. Household pump chambers are usually 1,000 gallon septic tanks which
are converted for use as a pump station. High level indicators or alarms and extension of access
manholes to grade are required for all pump lift stations.

When used as dosing mechanisms, pump controls should be set to discharge at least 50% of the
volume of distribution pipes, or 3 to 5 discharges per day for large leaching gallery systems. When
designing systems with flows 2,000 GPD or greater and more than 600 linear feet of distribution pipe,
each discharge should be directed to a large distribution box with multiple outlets at the same
elevation to assure equal dosing of all parts of the leaching system. Small residential or commercial
pump lift stations may be set to discharge 2 or 3 times per day. It is essential that the chambers and
pumps be properly sized to achieve the intended goal of dosing or elevating the effluent in such a
manner to promote long effective life of the pump station. The specification of a pump capable of
discharging 150 gallons per minute at the desired head would not be satisfactory for a small chamber
sized to discharge 100 gallons per cycle. The pump would start and stop within less than 1 minute,
shortening pump life and using energy inefficiently. Use of a pump capable of discharging 30 gallons
per minute also would be unacceptable if placed in a pump chamber with a design dose rate of 2,100
gallons per cycle. Such a small pump would run for periods in excess of 70 minutes and not provide
the rapid discharge of effluent required to effectively dose a large leaching system.

A common error in the design of sewage disposal systems utilizing pump lift stations is to overlook
the importance of pump station location with respect to existing grade. Ground water infiltration into
pump chambers placed below seasonal high ground water level may cause failure of the leaching
system. Every effort must be made to locate the septic tank and pump chamber in areas not subject to
seasonally high ground water or at elevations above the ground water table. It may be necessary to
locate the septic tank and pump chamber farther from the building on the downhill side even though
the length of force main is increased.

Most pump chambers are constructed of precast concrete or polyethylene. Installation of the
lightweight plastic tanks may be critical where ground water problems exist. All pump chambers
must be constructed watertight (this requires that the tank’s bottom weep hole be properly sealed
during installation) and designed to prevent floatation during high ground water periods. Submersible
pumps are used for a large majority of pump stations. These pumps are activated by mercury float
switches or diaphragm pressure switches attached to the pump. See Figure 30-1 for a cross sectional
view of a typical pump station. Pumps should be located under the access manhole to facilitate
inspection and repair. Installation of a union or other means to permit pump removal is essential. A
check valve and gate value are typically installed after the union to prevent back flow. These elements
should also be situated beneath the access manhole for ease of maintenance. The force main usually
remains full of liquid and must be placed in a trench at least to 4 feet below grade to prevent freezing.
Draining of the force main back to the pump chamber through a small diameter hole located after the
check valve may be necessary to prevent freezing for shallow installations. If a “weep hole” is
provided for the force main then it is important to raise the distribution box feeding the highest
component of the leaching system to prevent a backflow from the system. Because of the corrosive
nature of effluent discharged from the septic tank, use of PVC or polyethylene piping, valuing and
fixtures is recommended whenever possible. Where dual alternating pumps discharge through a
single force main, separate check or gate valves must be provided on each pump discharge line to

152
 facilitate removal of one pump while keeping the second pump operational. Sharp bends in the force
main should be avoided whenever possible. Use of thrust blocks may be required when directional
changes in the force main are necessary. Wiring leads and float control wires are normally attached
to a vertical pump rail with plastic connectors rather than free hanging. Enough extra wiring will be
needed to allow the pump and piping assembly to be freely lifted out of the chamber and riser for
servicing. The lift chain should be made of a non-corrosive material, such as, plastic or nylon. The
electrical connections and assembly shall be installed by a licensed electrician under proper permits.

SEALED
MANHOLE

PUMP
LIFT
CHAIN
CHECK VALVE
TO
POWER SUPPLY GATE VALVE
CONTROL BOX 2’ DIA.

.
PUMP RAIL
2”-3” FORCE
4” INLET
WEEP MAIN
HOLE TO LEACHING
STAND-BY PUMP
SYSTEM
ON AND OR UNION
ALARM
WATERPROOF
JOINTS
PUMP ON

PUMP
PUMP WITH LEGS
PUMP OFF OR SET ON 8”
CONCRETE BLOCK

Figure 30-1 - Effluent Pump Chamber

In some repair situations or for new buildings containing a single basement fixture, use of an internal
grinder sewage pump may be acceptable. These small self-contained pump lift stations are enclosed
in a 30 to 50 gallon container and are installed inside the foundation below the cellar floor. Raw
sewage entering the pump chamber is ground up and discharged to the septic tank in relatively small
doses. Use of these units may be acceptable where first and second story plumbing fixtures can be
directed to the septic tank by gravity and flow from basement fixtures is limited. The pumped
discharge of a large volume of sewage to the septic tank is undesirable because it may cause sludge to
be washed out of the tank into the leaching system.

Large sewage pump lift stations usually are controlled by a series of 3 or 4 mercury float switches
which activate the pumps depending upon flow conditions. The lowest float turns the pump off when
the discharge cycle is completed. The second float activates the lead pump and in the case of duplicate
alternating pumps, cycles the electrical control to switch the standby pump to lead position. A third
float is installed to activate the standby pump during periods of peak flows. In that case, discharge
piping must be sized to handle flows from both pumps. The fourth float is a high level alarm which

153
activates audible or visible alarms located at the station or maintenance facility. The alarm should also
be set to be activated if the pumps fail to alternate. Small residential pump lift stations usually contain
2 or 3 float control switches to regulate the off, on and high level alarm functions. Electrical
connections should not be made within the pump chamber in order to prevent problems associated with
corrosion. The connections may be placed in a waterproof electrical box located above ground or
inside the building. The alarms and pump power supply must be connected to different electrical
circuits. All electrical work associated with pump station installation must be done in accordance with
the State Building Codes and requires a separate electrical permit.

31. DISTRIBUTION BOXES

The use of distribution boxes has many advantages in assuring proper utilization of leaching systems
of all sizes and design. Foremost of these is the precision with which effluent flow volume can be
regulated to the various leaching units. Experience has shown that "T's" or 'Y's" are difficult to set
and adjust to proper elevation during construction, and cannot be relied upon to regulate the flow of
sewage throughout the network of effluent distribution pipe in the leaching system. On the other
hand, distribution boxes can be set easily and firmly to exact elevation and provide central locations
from which the effluent flow to several separate leaching units can be controlled. Furthermore,
distribution boxes are readily accessible and relatively easy to find with accurate as-built plans. If a
sewage problem arises, it is possible to inspect the boxes and determine which of the various leaching
units are functioning properly and which are not. Effluent flow can then be redirected to the

154
functional units by adjusting the elevations of the box outlets or by plugging the outlets to the failing
units. This is easily done without damage to any part of the leaching system itself.

In practice, distribution boxes should be used at all distribution system junctions where effluent is
directed to any leaching unit on a different elevation, or to more than two units on the same elevation.
"T's" or 'Y's" should only be used for splitting effluent to no more than two trenches on the same
elevation with ends connected.

TYPES OF DISTRIBUTION BOXES

There are three separate types of distribution boxes; splitter boxes (both equal or proportional), high
level overflow boxes, and adjustable outlet boxes, which can serve both purposes.

Splitter boxes normally have a single, high level opening which serves as an inlet, and several
openings on a lower level which serve as outlets. Preferably, the outlets should be set somewhat
above the bottom of the box to provide a "sump" which will prevent entering sewage from flowing
directly above the bottom of the box towards the nearest outlet. When a splitter box is set level,
approximately the same portion of the incoming flow should flow out of each outlet and subsequently
to each leaching unit connected to it. Small splitter boxes normally are used only for leaching
systems where all of the leaching units are on the same elevation, or where it is desired to split flow
equally between separate leaching systems. Large splitter boxes normally are used in conjunction
with intermittent dosing of a large number of leaching units by pumps or siphons. Sewage effluent
enters the boxes at a high rate and raises the liquid level in the box well above the outlets, assuring
equal distribution. The inlet to such boxes should be baffled or the flow directed downward to
prevent short-circuiting through the box.

Splitter boxes also may be used to divide effluent proportionately to leaching systems of different
capacity by connecting a various number of outlets to the different leaching systems. For instance,
two outlets of a three outlet splitter box could be connected to a larger leaching system and one outlet
to a smaller leaching system in approximate proportion to their respective capacities. The difficulties
with this division of flow are centered around the extremely critical task of setting all outlets at the
exact same elevation and the prevention of box movement by frost action or construction activities.

High level overflow boxes are used for serial distribution to leaching units constructed on different
elevations. The simplest form of high level overflow box consists of a standard distribution box
which has been reversed so that the high opening serves as the overflow to the next lower leaching
unit. One of the lower openings is used as an inlet and the other low openings are outlets to the
higher leaching units. One undesirable feature of using a reversed distribution box is that the inlet
and trench distribution piping are always submerged when operating at the overflow level thus
making system analysis and investigation more difficult. Some boxes, specifically designed for
serial distribution, have openings on three levels; a high level inlet, a mid-level overflow to the next
lower leaching unit and low level outlets to the leaching units. Serial distribution boxes also may be
made in the field by constructing a mid-level overflow on the outlet from a standard box which is
connected to the next lower leaching unit. In this process, the outlet level is raised by installing an
elbow or by capping the outlet with a flow regulating insert. Refer to Figure 10-4, page 43.

Adjustable outlet boxes are constructed by extending the outlet pipes into the box and placing
elbows on the pipes. The elbows can be rotated to conveniently set each outlet to the desired level.
Caps with holes cut on one side can be used where the box is too small for elbows. Adjustable

155
outlet boxes frequently are used as splitter boxes to divide effluent equally among leaching systems
at different levels because of the fine adjustment which is possible after installation and during use.
They also may be used as high level overflows for serial trenches because it allows adjustment of
the liquid level in the trenches for maximum utilization of the surrounding soil without breakout.

Another type of distribution box which provides 1.5 gallon doses to four outlets set at the same
elevation has been in use throughout the state. It is referred to as a dosing distribution box and can
be used for both level and serial leaching systems.

INSTALLING DISTRIBUTION BOXES

Distribution boxes should be set as level as possible, particularly splitter boxes which must have all
outlets on the exact same elevation. In general, all splitter boxes should be set on 12 to 18 inches of
broken stone. The stone allows the box to be adjusted easily during installation. It also assures
that there will be no wet soil in contact with the bottom of the box which could freeze, expand and
tilt the box. It generally is unnecessary to place splitter boxes on slabs or poured footings. Such
construction could cause more problems than it would solve. High level overflow boxes normally
are set right into the stone filled leaching trenches.

All splitter box outlets should be checked for level after installation. This usually is done by means
of a tripod level or by filling the box with water to the outlet level. Larger distribution boxes,
containing six or more outlets, should be provided with a manhole or opening to grade which would
facilitate inspection and cleaning. It is important that all distribution box knockout holes be sealed
with concrete around the entering pipes so that effluent will not escape.

32. SIPHONS AND DOSING CHAMBERS

Dosing siphons, installed in specially constructed siphon chambers, are one means for providing
intermittent dosing where sufficient elevation (3 to 4 feet) between the septic tank and leaching system
exists. The siphon unit is a nonmechanical plumbing arrangement consisting of inverted 'U" piping,
bell dome and dome vent piping. The siphon, when properly installed in its chamber, provides for the
storage of liquid effluent from the septic tank and automatic discharge of a preset quantity depending
upon the size of siphon chamber and construction of the siphon. Discharge of large quantities of
liquid effluent to a leaching system, referred to as intermittent dosing, is required in Section VI of the
Technical Standards for all large subsurface sewage disposal systems with design flows of 2000
gallons per day or greater where the total length of distribution pipe is 600 feet or greater. The
primary function of the dosing chamber is to fully distribute liquid throughout leaching systems
containing significant lengths of distribution pipe. Typically, effluent is directed to a large
distribution box with multiple outlets which may then discharge to smaller distribution boxes at
various locations and elevations throughout the large leaching system. Failure to use some form of
dosing mechanism with large leaching systems could easily result in disproportionate division of
effluent and premature failure caused by overloading.

156
Figure 32-1 illustrates a cross sectional view of a dosing siphon. In order to begin operation of the
siphon, the inverted 'U" piping (trap) must be filled with water. Effluent entering the chamber flows
around and under the siphon dome until the water level in the chamber rises to the elevation of dome
vent piping, trapping the air under the dome. Additional liquid entering the chamber begins to
compress the trapped air. When the water level in the chamber reaches the prescribed height, air
pressure under the dome becomes greater than the liquid head in the trap and the air forces the liquid
out of the trap. With this air-lock broken, the liquid in the chamber flows by gravity through the trap
until the water level is lowered to the bottom of the dome. At this time, air entering the dome vent
piping breaks the siphon effect but retains sufficient liquid in the trap to create a seal. As can be seen
from the diagram, liquid entering the siphon chamber is generally 2 to 3 feet below the outlet piping.
For this reason, siphon chambers are only used where sufficient elevation difference between the
septic tank and leaching system exist. A high level overflow pipe within the siphon chamber is
required to provide emergency gravity flow.

Dosing siphons must be routinely inspected and maintained in order to assure proper function. The
chamber should be inspected on an annual basis and routine pumping of the chamber is necessary to
eliminate a sludge build-up, since the domes are placed only 3 inches above the floor of the precast
concrete chamber. Corrosion of the dome or vent piping will cause the siphon to malfunction and
revert to trickle gravity flow. Inspection of the siphon should indicate a fluctuating water level which
rises above the vent piping. Access manholes extended to grade are required for all siphon chambers
with design flows of 2000 gallons per day or greater. For leaching trench systems, Technical
Standard VI requires chambers to be sized to discharge at least 50% of the volume of distribution
pipes. For large leaching gallery systems, the siphon should be sized to discharge approximately 1/5
to 1/3 of the design flow each discharge cycle. The siphon units are typically manufactured of PVC
or cast iron and steel piping and must be installed plumb in the siphon chamber. Design plans which
indicate use of a dosing chamber utilizing a siphon should include the size and manufacturers
identification number of the siphon unit and the detail of the siphon chamber. The internal length and
width of the siphon chamber multiplied by the effective
drawdown of the siphon will determine cubic feet of discharge per cycle. Conversion to gallons per
cycle may be achieved by multiplying the cubic feet quantity by 7.5.

HIGH LEVEL
OVERFLOW

HIGH WATER LEVEL

2”

BELL

D
J 4”

B
LOW WATER
H
LEVEL K

C E S
A
TRAP MUST BE CAST IN
G
PLACE IN FLOOR OF F
SIPHON CHAMBER
L
157
 3”, 4”, 5”, 6”, 8” Standard Design Single Sewage Siphons

Figure 32-1 - Siphon Chamber

Approximate Dimensions in Inches and Average Weights in Pounds

Diameter of Siphon A 3 3 4 4 5 6 8
Drawing Depth D 13 15 14 17 23 30 35
Diameter of Discharge Head C 4 4 4 4 6 8 10
Diameter of Bell B 10 10 12 12 15 19 24
Invert Below Floor E 4.25 4.25 5.5 5.5 7.5 10 12
Depth of Trap F 13 13 14.25 14.25 23 30.25 36.5
Width of Trap G 10 10 12 12 14 16 22.5
Height Above Floor H 7.25 9.25 8.75 11.75 9.5 11 13.5
Invert to Discharge = D+E+K J 20.25 22.25 22.25 25.5 33.5 44 52
Bottom of BeLl to Floor K 3 3 3 3 3 4 5
Center of Trap to End of Discharge EU L 8.65 8.65 11.75 11.75 15.5 17.5 23.5
Diameter of Carrier S 4 4 4-6 4-6 6-8 8-10 12-15
Average Discharge Rate G.P.M. - 72 76 157 165 328 474 950
Maximum Discharge Rate G.P.M. - 96 104 213 227 422 604 1210
Minimum Discharge Rate G.P.M. - 48 48 102 102 234 340 690
Shipping Weight in Pounds -- 60 70 110 120 190 300 500

The use of dosing siphons is not restricted to large sewage disposal systems and, on occasions, are
included in designs of residential sewage disposal systems. On lots where slow seeping soil requires
installation of narrow trenches which may exceed over 500 lineal foot in length, a siphon may be
helpful in distributing effluent uniformly. The inlet piping to the siphon chamber must be located a
minimum of 3 inches above the high level overflow.

FLOUTING OUTLET (FLOUT) DOSING CHAMBER

The FLOUT dosing chamber has been approved by the Department of Public Health as a substitute
for a conventional siphon chamber. The FLOUT consists of a waterproof PVC weighted box with
one or more discharge hoses connected to discharge pipes set low in a large concrete distribution box.
The flexible hose connecting the discharge pipes to the PVC box act as a tether which allows the box
to pivot at the outlet pipes. As effluent enters the chamber, the plastic box begins to float and rises to
a predetermined height until the liquid level reaches a large diameter hole at the top of the PVC box.
As the box begins to fill with effluent and subsequently sinks, the total volume accumulated in the
chamber quickly discharges to the leaching system. The flexible hoses connecting the discharge pipes
to the water proof box are the only moving parts.

158
 33. SUBSURFACE SAND FILTERS

In the design of small subsurface sewage disposal systems, buried sand filters may be used to
produce a partially stabilized effluent for application to subsurface irrigation systems or
evaporation-transpiration mounds. They also may be used for oxidizing septic tank effluent before it
is applied to denitrification contact beds. In a conventional subsurface sand filter, septic tank effluent
is distributed through a system of perforated pipe and stone over the surface of a buried sand bed.
The septic sewage is filtered and oxidized as it passes through the sand bed. Effluent is collected
below the sand bed and is discharged to a conventional or modified leaching system. In most
subsurface sand filters, effluent is applied intermittently by pumps or siphons to produce a relatively
uniform biological growth in the filter and a better stabilized effluent. Modified subsurface sand
filters may be designed for higher filtration rates, sometimes with provisions for effluent recirculation.
Occasionally such filters are used for final filtration of aerated sewage effluent. High rate subsurface
sand filters usually are placed in buried concrete tanks or structures with access openings to the sand
surface which allow cleaning if excessive clogging occurs.

CONVENTIONAL SUBSURFACE SAND FILTERS

Figure 33-1 shows the construction of a conventional subsurface sand filter, as typically designed for
use with small subsurface sewage disposal systems. Septic tank effluent is discharged to the filter
intermittently by means of a siphon or dosing chamber. The chamber usually is sufficiently large so
that it does not discharge more than once or twice daily. The surge produced when the siphon
discharges tends to surcharge the distribution pipe of small subsurface sand filters. For this reason,

159
small filters frequently are designed with 6 inch diameter distribution pipe which will accommodate a
larger liquid volume. Locating distribution boxes in the center of the filter and connecting the ends of
the distribution pipe also are helpful in preventing siphon discharging. Perforated distribution pipe are
laid 4 to 6 feet on centers in a continuous, 10 to 16 inch deep layer of 1/2 to 1 inch broken stone. The
top of the stone layer is protected with filter fabric to prevent dirt and silt from being washed down
onto the sand surface.

The filter bed itself consists of 24 to 30 inches of carefully selected sand. The sand must be relatively
coarse and extremely uniform so that it will not become clogged by the buildup of fine inorganic
particles which are the end product of biological decomposition. The sand should have an effective
size of between 0.4 and 0.6 millimeters and a uniformity coefficient of 3.5 or less. The effective size
is the sieve size which allows 10% of the grains to pass. The uniformity coefficient is the ratio of the
sieve size which passes 60% of the sand to that which passes 10% of the sand. It is highly unlikely
that any bankrun sand will meet this specification, no matter how good it may appear. Filter sands
normally are screened and washed to meet gradation requirements. Subsurface sand filters receiving
septic tank effluent usually are designed for a loading rate of about 1 gallon of effluent per day for
each square foot of bed surface. Such a loading rate will allow aerobic conditions to be maintained
throughout most of the filter, particularly when effluent is intermittently applied. This promotes the
growth of nitrifying organisms and higher forms of protozoan which are able to reduce the BOD in
the filter effluent to less than 5 milligrams per liter, and to oxidize over 80% of the nitrogen to the
nitrate form. The suspended solid content of subsurface sand filter effluent normally is less than 5
milligrams per liter and the dissolved oxygen exceeds 50% of saturation.

Filter effluent is collected in a layer of 1/2 to 1-inch stone underlying the sand bed and is carried away
by perforated collection type. It is important that the top of the stone layer is covered with

160
 SIPHON OR
PUMP
PERFORATED DIST.
SAND BED, 20’ x 20’ =
PIPE 5’ ON CENTERS
400 SQ. FT.

LARGE DISTRIBUTION
TO LEACHING PERFORATED COLLECTION
BOX FOR SURGE
SYSTEM PIPE 5’ ON CENTERS
CHAMBER

FILTER FABRIC

12”

SELECT FILTER SAND - EFFECTIVE SIZE 0.4 - 0.6 MM

UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT 3.5 OR LESS
24” - 30”

FILTER FABRIC

12”

Figure 33-1 Subsurface Sand Filter

161
filter fabric to prevent the filter sand from being washed away. Normally, the collection pipe is
vented to ground surface to promote air circulation and help maintain aerobic conditions in the sand
bed.

MODIFIED SUBSURFACE SAND FILTERS

Figure 33-2 shows a modified subsurface sand filter as might be used with a small subsurface sewage
disposal system. The entire sand bed is placed within a concrete structure. No system of distribution
pipe is used to apply sewage to the filter. Instead, sewage is applied freely to the uncovered surface
of the sand. Higher loading rates are possible because the sand surface can be cleaned through access
openings in the concrete cover. This structure is vented to the atmosphere and aerobic conditions are
maintained either by recirculating filter effluent or by applying aerated sewage effluent from a small
packaged aeration unit.

The gradation and depth of the sand bed is comparable to that of a conventional subsurface sand
filter, but the loading rate usually is considerably higher. Loadings of 2 to 10 gallons per day per
square foot of filter surface may be used. This may produce a clogging mat on the sand surface
which must be periodically removed. High hydraulic loadings may produce saturated flow conditions
through the filter and consequently lowered rates of BOD removal and effluent nitrification. This can
be overcome by recirculating the filter effluent by means of a pump. Recirculation rates are adjusted
as required, with a recirculation ratio of about 4 volumes of recirculated filter effluent for each
volume of applied sewage being about average.

Hatch Doors or Removable Cover

Inlet
Splash
Sand Surface
Plate Concrete
Tank
8’ X 10’ =
24” - 30” Select Filter Sand
80 sq.ft.
Filter Fabric Surface Area
. . . . . . . . . . . . . PEA STONE . . . . .
. . 1/2” - 1” Stone

Outlet

Figure 33-2 High Rate Subsurface Sand Filter

162
The effluent collection system in high rate sand filters must be carefully designed to handle the high
flow rate without losing sand. Generally, several layers of graded stone are used, ranging from 1-inch
stone to 1/4-inch pea stone. Figure 33-3 shows a recirculating subsurface sand filter. Such a system
is designed with a collection and recirculation tank containing a float controlled pump. This tank
receives both incoming unfiltered sewage and recirculated filter effluent which is mixed and
intermittently pumped to the filter. An adjustable diversion box is located on the filter effluent return
line. From this box, a portion of the flow is returned for recirculation and a portion is discharged to
the leaching system. Recirculating subsurface sand filters are generally unsuitable for household or
small subsurface sewage disposal systems because of high installation and operating costs and
maintenance requirements.

Recirculation Line

High Rate
From Septic Pump Subsurface To Leaching
Tank Chamber Sand Filter System

Diversion Box

Force
Main
From Septic Sand Filter
Tank
Pump
To Leaching
System
Gravity Recirculation Adjustable
Valves

Figure 33-3 Recirculating Sand Filter

163