Pressure mound system: Septic Installers - Mike Schwartz, P.E.

857 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
857
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thanks, etc. Today’s talk focuses on a couple of water issues currently playing out in Michigan. But first, I’d like to take you back to your seventh grade science class.
  • Pressure mound system: Septic Installers - Mike Schwartz, P.E.

    1. 1. PRESSURE MOUNDSYSTEM TIMED DOSEMichael A. Schwartz, P.E.mschwartz@preinnewhof.com
    2. 2. Changing Regulations New Kalamazoo County Sanitary Code  Kalamazoo County Health & Community Services  New in December 2007  Restrictions now include properties:  Where a public sewer is available to the property.  Where the proposed location of a septic tank would render the septic tank inaccessible for cleaning or inspection purposes.  Where the property to be served by the onsite sewage treatment system is too small to allow for proper isolation distances between the onsite sewage treatment system which includes the replacement area and any existing or proposed water wells, or surface waters.
    3. 3. Changing Regulations New Kalamazoo County Sanitary Code  Restrictions now include properties:  Where the property lacks sufficient drainage area and/or replacement area.  Where the property’s high groundwater and/or mottling is 24 inches or less of the natural ground surface elevation for installation of an onsite sewage treatment system on new construction sites.  Where the property’s stabilized percolation rate exceeds 60 minutes per inch.  Where the Department determines that the property’s soil classification and/or physical conditions are unsatisfactory for the treatment of sewage effluent.
    4. 4. Changing Regulations New Kalamazoo County Sanitary Code  Restrictions now include properties:  Where conditions exist upon the property, or may occur upon the property, which may endanger the public health or the environment.  Where the proposed site is subject to flooding and/or is included within the 100-year flood plain.
    5. 5. Changing Regulations Appeals Board  Engineered Alternative System required  Not every site has the space and porous soil needed to support a septic system. If an alternative system is required it will be:  More Costly  Ongoing Maintenance  Yearly Inspections  Engineered System
    6. 6. Denial of Permits: The Big 3  Lack of Land Area  Poor Soils  Seasonal High Water Table (<24”)
    7. 7. Denial of Permits: The Big 3 Lack of Land Area  Potential Problems:  Treatment (strength of waste)  Hydraulic Issue (drain field size)  Both
    8. 8. Denial of Permits: The Big 3 Poor Soils  Percolation: Soils drain too fast  Problem: treatment leaving the septic tank  Solution: treatment system in conjunction with septic tank  Example: Re-Circulating Sand Filter
    9. 9. Sample Design Sand Filter Advantex Treatment System Re-Circulating Sand Filter
    10. 10. Denial of Permits: The Big 3 Poor Soils  Percolation: Soils drain too fast  Problem: treatment leaving the septic tank  Solution: treatment system in conjunction with septic tank  Example: Re-Circulating Sand Filter  Percolation: Soils drain too slow  Problem: Hydraulic disposal of effluent leaving septic tank  Treatment: System to reduce particles to soils would be beneficial  Solution: Larger drain field
    11. 11. Denial of Permits: The Big 3 Seasonal High Water Table (<24”)  Potential Problems:  Treatment (strength of waste)  Hydraulic Issue (drain field size)  Both  Must get oxygen into the treatment system (drain field)  Solution: Mound System
    12. 12. Sample Design Mound Mound System for High Water Table
    13. 13. Denial of Permits: The Big 3 Seasonal High Water Table (<24”)  Potential Problems  Must get oxygen into the treatment system (drain field)  Solution: Mound System  “Pump and Dump”  4” Laterals – Gravity Feed  Pressure Distribution  Small Laterals – Pressurized  “Pump & Dump”  Timed Dose
    14. 14. This is what we want to avoid!
    15. 15. COOPER TOWNSHIPCase Study #1
    16. 16. Case Study: Cooper Township 1st One Built, 2nd One Permitted Issue for Denial Water Table within 24” of Ground Surface Suitable Soils Solution: Pressure Distribution Mound with Timed Dose
    17. 17. COOPER TOWNSHIPPre-Construction
    18. 18. Beginning construction of the house. Theseptic tanks and pump chamber will be set onthe existing ground and the proposed gradewill be built around the system.
    19. 19. Another view of where the system will beconstructed, immediately in front of the house.The bottom of the basement is basically at theelevation of the existing ground.
    20. 20. Area in front of the house where the base ofthe mound (absorption system) will beinstalled upon.
    21. 21. COOPER TOWNSHIPConstruction
    22. 22. The site has been rough graded (areaaround building is filled). Contractor isexcavating to install the septic tank.
    23. 23. Contractor installed the septic tank. Pipesticking out is the discharge to the pumpchamber.
    24. 24. Contractor is on the septictank and the installed pumpchamber is on the right.
    25. 25. The force main from the pump chamberto the new drain field. Note since thesystem is a pumped system it is veryflexible in the configuration and fieldinstallation. The piping will go around thetanks to avoid and other utility conflicts.
    26. 26. Continuation of the forcemain. Pumpchamber is on the left and the septic tankis on the right.
    27. 27. 2NS sand fill for the soil absorption system. This is the layer the stone will be placedupon.
    28. 28. Looking at the 100’ long drainfield.Standing at approximately where theheader pipe will be installed.
    29. 29. Rough grading around the drainfield priorto placing the stone.
    30. 30. Very rough grading above tanks
    31. 31. Header pipe on top of the newly installedstone.
    32. 32. Looking at the 100’ pressure distributionlaterals within the new drainbed. Pipeabout half way down is the observationport.
    33. 33. Looking at the 100’ pressure distribution laterals within the new drainbed.Pipe about half way down is the observation port. The orifice shield areremoved from the up-holes to testing of the system. There is a down-hole inbetween each of the up-holes.
    34. 34. Looking at the 100’ pressure distribution laterals within thenew drainbed. Pipe about half way down is the observationport. The orifice shield are removed from the up-holes totesting of the system. There is a down-hole in between each ofthe up-holes.
    35. 35. Contractor waiting for the pump chamberto fill with water to test the system.
    36. 36. Pump is activated and “squirt” test is performed.
    37. 37. Health Department personnel verifying squirt test.
    38. 38. Orifice shield place back over the up-holes.
    39. 39. Contractor installing the fabric prior to covering the system.
    40. 40. Contractor installed fabric prior to coveringthe system and placing final fill over thesystem
    41. 41. Contractor placing final cover over system
    42. 42. Contractor placing final cover over system
    43. 43. Existing site behind the new mound. Pipe is the downspout fromthe roof that is directed away from the system.
    44. 44. Contractor placing final cover over system
    45. 45. Inside the new control panel
    46. 46. COOPER TOWNSHIPPost-Construction
    47. 47. Post-Construction
    48. 48. Post-Construction
    49. 49. What did we learn? Pre-Construction meetings can answer a lot of questions. The system can perform (squirt test) as the math and calculations show should occur. Pump Systems are very flexible in design and configuration. Multiple arrangement of float configurations are possible (2 floats, 3 floats, 4 floats). Health Department is there to help and to make sure it will be a “good” system.
    50. 50. ALAMO TOWNSHIPCase Study #2
    51. 51. Case Study: Alamo Township 1st One Permitted, 2nd One Built Issue for Denial Water Table within 24” of Ground Surface Suitable Soils Solution: Pressure Distribution Mound with Timed Dose
    52. 52. Case Study: Alamo Township
    53. 53. Case Study: Alamo Township
    54. 54. Mound prior to seeding.
    55. 55. Squirt test being performed. No one waspresent during construction, so thecontractor had to dig and expose the firstand last orifice to perform a squirt test.
    56. 56. Squirt Test being performed.
    57. 57. Rough grades around thetanks (septic tank andpump chamber). The openlid is the pump chamber.
    58. 58. Looking inside the riser of the pump chamber.
    59. 59. Some final site photos a few weeks after new system was installed.
    60. 60. Some final site photos a few weeks after new system was installed.
    61. 61. What did we learn? Contractor – have a preconstruction meeting Contractor – Follow what the KCHSD permitted for the system Contractor – Follow what is specified (soils) per the codes and drawings If Not – you will start over It will cost the Contractor $$$
    62. 62. THANK YOU.DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? Mike Schwartz, P.E. mschwartz@preinnewhof.com (269) 372-1158

    ×