[Bhigdog]

Quote:

Frankly I make little distinction between primary treatment and none whatsoever.

Dave, you can spin faster than a small block Chevy on nitrous. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The Sewer plant in Jim Thorpe (nee Mauch Chunk) was built in 1964 as both a primary and secondary process plant.
BTW, the production water at Stroh's (nee Schaefer) then Pabst, Ice something or other, now Sam Adams is drawn from deep wells and further filtered and processed. The finished beer is pasteurized. Couldn't be more clean and sanitary to the point of being sterilized. It did taste like crap though. Perhaps that's why you were confused........Bob

[R W Burgess]

Quote:

Primary is filtering out the chunks by settlement only, hopefully (but not always) both the floaters and the sinkers.
Frankly I make little distinction between primary treatment and none whatsoever.

Well gee Dave, 98% of our 4 county Northern Neck area has "only" the primary systems you describe. They have worked fine since first used in the early 50's right after people upgraded from those drafty outhouses. [img]<>/eek.gif[/img]

Nothing like a snake in the outhouse to make you finish the business quicker. [img]<>/grin.gif[/img]

We still have shallow wells in our area too, but no one ever complained about the water quality or the taste. Actually the shallow well water tastes better than the deep well water in our parts. [img]<>/wink.gif[/img]

Wayne

[nearchoclatetown]

Bhigdog Bob,if you are aware of the legislation you are also aware of the percentage of "suspect" systems that promt the inspections. Our Tship has, to use round numbers for discussion, 20 % suspect systems, the threshold is 18% which kicks in the inspection. MY fix to our stupidvisors was fix the 2% worst systems in the worst areas to get under the 18% magic number so the whole Tship doesn't have to be punished and inspected. The first inspection would probably be easy, but the second or third would have new guidelines and pretty soon EVERYONE has a failed system. Pretty soon everyone would have a new $20,000 sandmound or worse yet a sewer bill. Every Tship, by the newly state mandated building codes, has the right to force citizens to fix known failed systems. Use the laws already in the books, don't create ne laws. I'm just hoping all of her outrageous ideas go away with her. She has cost the citizens of PA. hundreds of millions of $$.

[Dave@Moon]

Quote:

People are simply not as responsible as others imagine them to be.

Quote:

Our Tship has, to use round numbers for discussion, 20 % suspect systems,...

1 in 5, huh? Remind me not to buy any roadside produce when I come to Hershey next year. [img]<>/wink.gif[/img]

At least you guys have the Hershey Medical Center. Imagine having to trust the single-story hospitals most small towns have when your kid or your food gets a little too close to a "suspect system" (which is a nice euphemism for surface leakage of someone's sh.... Oops, forgot where I was. [img]<>/smirk.gif[/img] ).

[Bhigdog]

I really don't have a problem with inspections as long as they are not over zealous. Our township has a Sewage Officer and he seems rational.
The mandate for a mandatory 3 year pump out schedule is just plain rediculous. This is an example of environmental over zealousness run amok I was refering to............Bob

[nearchoclatetown]

QUALIFYER FOR DAVE MOON. "To use round numbers for discussion" As the meeting was several months ago I don't remember the exact percentage. Had I said 1% and 3% you would have challenged that too. The point was, which you missed it BTW, that it would be easier/cheaper for everyone concerned to fix the few known problem systems rather then make everyone go through expensive and needless pumping and inspection. You win again Dave, I'm done but so is Kathleen!! BTW, she should have never been confirmed because of the million dollar conflict of interest contract she signed for her husband's company. But Dumbacrats never seem concerned with details.

[Dave@Moon]

Quote:

The point was, which you missed it BTW, that it would be easier/cheaper for everyone concerned to fix the few known problem systems rather then make everyone go through expensive and needless pumping and inspection.

Of course. (And I didn't miss it.) And it would be cheaper and easier if all the murderers in the world would just turn them selves in, or at least let themselves be hunted down like animals to be placed on pikes outside town. Imagine the savings. No police. No justice system.

Also I'm not challenging anything. Just pointing out the thought processes that lead to different approaches.

It's not a liberal/conservative, environmentalist/real American, or Democrat/Republican thing (or world for that matter). It's a problem/pragmatism thing.

It used to be a problem/pragmatism world, too. [img]<>/frown.gif[/img]

[Dave@Moon]

Quote:

The mandate for a mandatory 3 year pump out schedule is just plain rediculous. This is an example of environmental over zealousness run amok I was refering to............Bob

I thought so!

Here's what the real proposed regulation actually says:

Quote:

Maintenance
Pump out of the septic tank every three years or whenever measurement reveals that the tank is
filled with solids in excess of 1/3 of the liquid depth of the tank or with scum in excess of 1/3 of
the liquid depth of the tank

BTW, the average septic tank is 1500 gallons. A three year cleanout schedule would be typical/recommended with such a tank serving a family of 5. ( Inspectapedia Building & Environment...evention Advice )

In all I've yet to hear of one single thing this woman has done in her tenure that's anything less than an excellent, reasoned approach to her job. It sounds like all her problems exist in the editorial section and on the AM dial of certain (shall we say) biased media outlets.

More problems from the land of incumbency (and pure partisan approaches). [img]<>/crazy.gif[/img]

[Bhigdog]

Gee Dave, Another wealth of partial information. You neglected to mention that the draft also calls for a visual inspection of the tank baffles, solid and scum levels. What this means is that every three years a septic system that shows no signs of malfunction must be uncovered and visually inspected. Of course once it's opened it might as well be pumped. In other words it's a defacto 3 year pump schedule. That's both arbitrary and onerous.

The inspectapedia you quote is basically a puff piece for paid home inspectors. Of course they are going to tout frequent inspections. BTW they quote a ball park price of $700 for opening and pumping a tank. No mention of the "inspection" fee. A tank BTW that in most cases would be functioning perfectly fine with no outward signs of malfunction.

Yet another case of invironmental excess and of "Figures don't lie but liars can figure".

[Dave@Moon]

Quote:

Inspection
Measurement of the sludge and scum depth in the septic tank as adequate to determine need for
and frequency of pumping, unless pumping every three years is determined to be appropriate as
the pumping frequency.
Inspection of the septic tank, inlet and outlet baffles, and solids retainer every three years for
structural integrity.

I used to do this for a living, remember.

Notice anything missing from this quote? Go through the rest of the 23 pages of proposed regulations I linked. If you follow the structure of the writing, whenever you see the word "inspection" you'll notice that who is doing the inspection is always specified. Usually it's the township "sewage enforcement officer" (SEO). Here no one is specified as the inspector.

Do you inspect your own tires? Brakes? (Oh, I forgot. In PA you have to pay someone else to do that. [img]<>/smirk.gif[/img] ) Do you have to replace them every time you/somebody looks at them? (Oh yeah, this PA again. [img]<>/smirk.gif[/img] [img]<>/smirk.gif[/img] )

What this simply means is that you're required to check and make sure your tank is still intact and functioning every three years, just in case it could be leaking/malfunctioning and the results aren't immediately visible on your property. Do you have any idea how many "septic" systems there are in PA that simply dump into mine voids, all of which outflow somewhere. Most SEO's in mined areas can name hundreds. That's just one of many practices that this section makes a direct responsibility of the owner.

You can also hire someone to do the inspection if your want, and of course the municipality has to option to oversee the process as it sees fit. The responsibility still lies with the owner.

While researching this I found at least one DEP Secretary press release admonishing honey dippers and other contractors for distributing misinformation about the regs for their own advantage. Apparently what most people are saying about these regs isn't what the regs say. Typical AM radio analysis.

This constant level of mistrust of fellow Americans just because they come from a different political party, and listening only to those who do the same, has to stop.