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: North Tiperary County Council

Water Services National Training Group

Funding providing by: 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