Transcript Document

Water Services National Training Group
and
National Federation of Group Water Schemes
7th Annual Rural Water Services
Conference
18th September 2008
“Septic Tank Effluent Drainage System”
STEDS (Update)
Jim McGuire
Senior Engineer
North Tipperary County Council
Background
Project description
Current status
Experience /Identified Issues
Alternative wastewater treatment systems
for small rural communities
The Challenge:
Sustainability
Ease of Maintenance
Robust performance
Process performance
Low energy costs
Low operating costs
Approach
Literature search
Short list of options
Real life applications
Pilot Project
PROJECT TEAM
Treatment System:
Orenco, USA
Consulting Engineers:
Nicholas ODwyer &Partners
Contractor:
EPS, Mallow, Co. Cork
Client:
Funding providing by:
North Tiperary County Council
Water Services National Training Group
Department of Environment ,
Heritage and Local Government
STEDS Components
Fibreglass Tank in each Garden
Primary treatment in interceptor tanks
1000- or 1500-gallon tank per residence
70% removal of fats, oils, and greases
24-hour emergency storage
12-year pumpout with 95% confidence
Abuses stay in interceptor tank
Chemical sources easier to identify
Components, cont.
•
Pump vault
•
High-head effluent pump
•
Filter cartridge
•
Float assembly
•
Discharge assembly
Collection System
Shallow burial depth
Laid to contour of land
No minimum velocities
No oversized designs
Low operation and maintenance costs
Secondary Treatment
Packed bed filter
Engineered textile material
Complete, premanufactured
package
Operates in an unsaturated
condition (not submerged)
Uses filtration and
biological/chemical reduction
Advantages
Flexible in design
 Adaptable to varying site conditions
 Allows for phased development, modular
 Can be integrated into existing sewer infrastructure?
 Can be integrated into existing treatment system
Design includes storage/reserve in the event of power
outages or need to repair mainline break
Low-impact construction
 Minimal disruption to community
Advantages
Cost-effectiveness

Low initial costs?

No manholes

No pumping stations

Low operating costs

Low maintenance costs

Low and gradual repair/replacement costs
Benefits
May allow the construction of houses in areas where
standard sewers or septic tank systems cannot be
used
Has affordable installation costs and low maintenance
costs
Has little visual impact
Experience
1. Retrofit Challenge
•
No rain water can enter system
•
No ground water can enter system
Experience
2. Sampling Challenge
•
Low flows pose particular challenges
•
Various arrangements tried
Householders Play an
Important Role
Experience
3. Householders Role
•
No bleaches
•
No discharges from water softeners
•
No under sink macerators
•
Minimise phosphates in detergents
COSTS
29 Houses served
Cost outturn not finalised (€850,000
excl. VAT)
Includes range of non typical items
Non typical costs
Overseas manufacture / Shipping
Retrofit project
Reconfiguration of existing connections
Ground conditions
Telemetry/data capture
Sampling/monitoring
Additional connections
Additional single unit treatment system
Alternative wastewater treatment systems
for small rural communities
The Challenge:
Sustainability
Ease of Maintenance
Robust performance
Process performance
Low energy costs
Low operating costs
Conclusions
•
•
•
•
Retrofit/rainwater challenges overcome
Sampling challenges resolved
Operating procedures improved
Final judgement awaited
• Further Close monitoring
• Performance is positive
• Phosphates
End
Water Services National Training Group
and
National Federation of Group Water Schemes
7th Annual Rural Water Services
Conference
18th September 2008